In addition to the WCC budget, the town each year votes on an article
to allocate money to the Conservation Reserve Fund. The fund was
established to purchase (usually leveraged by other state, federal and
private funds) land determined to be uniquely important to the
character of the town.
To date the reserve fund has been used to help conserve Blueberry Lake
and the adjoining Gove lands, Alderborgh/Roe adjacent to the Kingsbury
Bridge, Kingsbury Farm, and the Belanger parcel abutting Riverside
Park.
EARLY YEARS
In its early years, the Blueberry Lake Reserve Fund was annually
supported by the voters with as much as $100,000. With Blueberry Lake
in public hands the fund is now called the Conservation Reserve Fund.
For the past couple of years the request has been more modest ($25,000
to $20,000) but has been rejected twice by a narrow majority over the
last five Town Meetings.
Maybe it's the times; maybe the burning issues of Blueberry Lake and open farmland seem settled and behind us.
This year the Warren Conservation Commission is once again asking the
voters to set aside $20,000 for the Conservation Reserve Fund.
"A lot of people are feeling strained by the economy. Why are you still requesting $20,000?" one town official asked.
"We believe this is a conservative request," one commissioner
responded. The need is much greater. Fifty or one hundred thousand
dollars could effectively be used. The problem is that Warren, like the
rest of the state, and indeed the world, is experiencing wildlife
population declines across many species. There are a variety of reasons
for this: climate change, pollution, the spread of exotic invasive
species, and habitat destruction are the most important.
"Here in the Mad River Valley the single greatest threat to
biodiversity is forest fragmentation and the loss of connections or
corridors between blocks of core wildlife habitat. To this end, the
Conservation Commission has begun an ambitious project to safeguard the
town's biologic diversity while providing for economic growth. Our
future prosperity is tied to both development opportunity and the
vitality of our natural heritage," said commission member George
Schenk.
"In a balanced pursuit of the economy and the ecology, the WCC believes
that sensitive wildlife habitats and corridors will come on the market
which will require a timely response to conserve, and that if not
conserved could jeopardize the success and viability of important or
keystone species. The loss of keystone species can cause a cascading
effect resulting in the degradation of entire bioregions," he continued.
AT WHAT COST?
Conservation at what cost?
It is often asked what effect conserved land has on the tax rate.
There are numerous misconceptions regarding the out-of-pocket costs
incurred by taxpayers when land is placed under a conservation
easement. Here are some of the more prevalent myths and the facts that
dispel them.
MYTH: The tax rate will increase significantly as additional land is put into conservation in the town.
FACT: The shift in tax rate is generally less than most people assume.
First, most conserved properties are already enrolled in current use.
Since land in current use is taxed based on the "use value," which is
lower than the conserved value, the tax bill paid does not change and
therefore there is no change in the town's overall tax roll.
When land is put into conservation, sometimes the assessed value is
lowered due to the restriction of property rights. This does reduce the
grand list in a town. However, the school tax rate (usually more than
two-thirds of a property's total tax bill) is not affected by
increasing or decreasing the town's grand list. Any tax shift that
affects all taxpayers in a town resulting from the reduced assessments
on conserved land is limited to the municipal portion of the tax
bill.
Changes in the municipal tax rate resulting from conserving land in a
rural Vermont town are generally very small. For instance, in a town
with a $92 million grand list and $450,000 municipal budget, removing
$500,000 from the grand list for conservation easements would only
increase the municipal tax rate by three-tenths of a cent. Again, the
school tax rate would not change.
Furthermore, land owned and conserved by the state of Vermont or the
United States Forest Service can actually reduce taxes since there is
usually a payment in lieu of taxes made to the town.
MYTH: Placing land into conservation reduces the amount of land
available for development, which leads to a smaller tax base and thus
higher tax bills.
FACT: Developed land requires more in municipal services than conserved
land. In Vermont, on average, tax bills are lower in towns with the
highest proportion of conserved land. Such towns tend to be more rural
and therefore demand fewer municipal services.
JUST ONE FACTOR
The tax impacts of conservation are just one factor to consider when
discussing the benefits of conserving natural resources in a community.
Land conservation efforts focus on land that will be best suited
towards long-term agricultural use, wildlife habitat, forestry or
recreation. By protecting these types of land, the town can leave more
suitable land that is closer to villages or zoned for more intensive
residential or commercial development available for future growth.
In 2010, the cost per Warren homestead to appropriate $20,000 to the
Conservation Reserve Fund will be approximately $3 per $100,000
valuation. So, if one's homestead valuation is $300,000, the total
increase to that homestead's municipal tax bill will be approximately
$9.
"For less than $10, Warren residents can fund conservation efforts
aimed at providing better access to locally grown food, expanded
recreation trails, conservation of essential wildlife habitat, and the
assurance that we can continue to balance growth with the protection of
our town's rural and scenic character," commissioner members explained.
(For more information, see the Vermont Land Trust publications
"Property Tax Implications of Conservation" and "Land Conservation and
Property Taxes in Vermont.")
It seems counterintuitive, but towns in Vermont that have relatively
more conserved land have, on average, lower real estate taxes than
towns with less conserved land. This is due to the fact that developed
land requires more town services primarily in roads and schools. In
addition, studies suggest that adjoining or nearby conserved land
increases private property values and quality-of-life factors. Looked
at this way, conservation is good for both our economy and our quality
of life.
We are at a turning point. The decisions we make now about how we grow
our economy and how we conserve the nature we belong to will determine
the character of our lives and the opportunities for our children. We
invest in our roads because we see them as integral to our commerce. We
invest in our schools because our children represent our greatest
legacy and hope. As these are true, so is it true that our investment
in nature is truly an investment in our economy and a society that is
whole and at peace with itself.
For these reasons, the Warren Conservation Commission respectfully asks
the voters of Warren to support the Conservation Reserve Fund request
at this year's Town Meeting.
