Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Current Use Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmers urge fixes to Vermont current use rules after surprise tax bills
Summary
Farmers told the Senate Agriculture Committee that confusing current use enrollment and notification procedures led to unexpected tax assessments—one farmer said a missed filing over a new barn cost his operation about $31,000—and urged automatic enrollment triggers and clearer notices to prevent similar losses.
Chair (speaker 1) told the Senate Agriculture Committee on March 10 that members would hear from farmers who said they had been harmed by how the state handles current use enrollment for farm buildings.
Wright Chaput, who identified himself as owner of Chaput Family Farms, testified that his farm built a large barn beginning June 24 and completed by December 5. Chaput said the new structure was treated differently on the property rolls and that he received a notice of a higher assessment, increasing his tax bill by roughly $31,000. "Your slip up cost us $31,000," Chaput told the committee, recounting a meeting with the town assessor in which he said the assessor acknowledged he had not notified Chaput that a separate application was required.
Chaput said his appeal to the current use program was rejected because the program concluded he had not filed the necessary application by the statutory deadline. He told the committee the sequence of mailings, changed assessors, and the program's procedural 'trip wires' made compliance difficult for busy farmers.
Dal Thompson, a consulting forester who said he manages current use enrollments for many farms, told the committee the problem is common. Thompson asked the committee to create a clearer, state‑level trigger and notification system so that new agricultural buildings are flagged and owners are given time to enroll. "There's really good procedure about how to enroll land," Thompson said, and added that similar notice procedures could be used for new buildings so owners have 30 days to file required paperwork.
Mark (first name provided), a farmer and estate executor, described a separate case in which a legal name change on inherited parcels resulted in removal from current use. He said his lawyer's encrypted email notice initially looked like spam, he could not reach the tax department by phone for extended periods, and the situation at one point exposed the farm to about $45,000 in liability before it was restored to current use.
Richard Nelson, a dairy farmer, told the committee that missed notices across multiple towns had cost his family about $19,000 and urged simplification. Nelson said the state should reduce annual paperwork burdens and keep agricultural buildings enrolled unless a clear transfer or sale occurs that triggers notification.
Members and witnesses discussed concrete fixes. Suggestions included automatically triggering enrollment or a state notification when a construction permit is issued or when an assessor first records a new structure; simplifying rules so all buildings demonstrably used for agriculture are enrolled under an agricultural umbrella; and creating a clearer grievance or appeal process and better phone and email responsiveness from the tax or current use offices.
Committee members did not take formal action at the hearing, but Chair (speaker 1) said the testimony had added important detail and pledged to convene tax officials, agency staff, land trust representatives, and other stakeholders to work on procedural and statutory changes after crossover.
The committee scheduled additional work on the subject and invited affected farmers and agency representatives to return for further clarification and possible remedies.
