Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Value Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill H.273 would lower farmer income threshold, add equines to use‑value eligibility and cut land‑use change tax penalty
Summary
Committee review of H.273 would change definitions and eligibility in the state's use‑value program: reduce the farmer income threshold from 50% to 25%, allow raising/management of equines to qualify, lower the land‑use change tax penalty from 10% to 6%, and create a higher tax rate for enrolled land that is posted against hunting and fishing.
A bill under review would amend the state's current‑use (use‑value) program to expand which land and people qualify for a lower property tax rate and to reduce the penalty charged when enrolled land is converted to other uses.
Mike, a staff member, told the committee that H.273 changes two core definitions: who counts as a "farmer" and what counts as "agricultural land." "We need to look at what the definition of agricultural land is," he said, then summarized current rules requiring use for hay, cultivated crops, pasture, livestock, fruit trees or maple production and the existing income tests and acreage thresholds.
The bill would lower the minimum share of an individual's income that must come from farming from 50% to 25% and add a new path so that someone who "earns at least 25% of the farmer's income from the raising, feeding, or management of equine" can qualify as a farmer for program purposes, according to Mike. He said H.273 also would allow smaller parcels that meet existing income formulas to remain eligible and would preserve a presumption that land owned or leased by a farmer is used for agricultural purposes.
Why it matters: lowering the income test and explicitly including equine operations would expand eligibility for the program and could reduce state and local tax receipts.
Committee discussion also focused on taxes and posting. Mike told members H.273 would reduce the land‑use change tax penalty from 10% of full fair market value to 6%. "This is clearly revenue. It's a fiscal bill," he said, and committee members asked the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) to analyze the revenue impact and whether the change would encourage more owners to withdraw land from enrollment.
The bill would also require a new tax treatment for enrolled land that is "posted" against hunting, fishing, or trapping. As written, the current‑use advisory board would recommend to the Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) that posted enrolled parcels pay an extra rate equal to 25% of the difference between a parcel's use value and its grand list value. Committee members and staff discussed how posting is documented: signs must meet Department of Fish & Wildlife design standards, be spaced about 400 feet apart along property borders, be filed annually with the town clerk, and in some states be placed about 3.5 to 4 feet off the ground, attendees said.
Discussion, not decisions: committee members asked JFO for a fiscal note and requested follow up from PVR on technical criteria; no committee vote or formal direction to amend text was recorded in the transcript.
Additional context: witnesses noted the patchwork of differing statutory definitions across programs, the interaction between accessory building thresholds (commonly 51% in other statutes) and the 75% processing threshold currently used in this provision, and the practical effect that rental arrangements can have on eligibility when a landowner rents acres to a qualified producer.
The committee asked staff to request a fiscal analysis and to invite PVR and other interested parties, including town clerks, to provide technical comment at a later meeting. The bill remained under committee review at the close of this discussion.
