Lawmakers won't override veto
Toolbox
By LOUIS PORTER Vermont Press Bureau - Published: June 2, 2010
MONTPELIER – Lawmakers won't return to the Statehouse to try and override Gov. James Douglas' veto of a bill passed by the Legislature modifying the current use program.
Given that the measure was among the last controversial pieces of legislation awaiting the governor's signature, that almost certainly means the legislative biennium (two-year session) is over.
However, if Douglas vetoes another bill it would still technically be possible for legislators to return to Montpelier for a veto override next week, the date lawmakers had set for any potential override votes.
Douglas said the changes to the current use program, which is designed to tax enrolled property based on its use as farm or forestland not its development potential, were unfair to landowners. Supporters of the bill, which included a broad coalition including the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, said the program as it is now structured could allow developers to "park" their land in current use, saving tax money before removing it from the program and developing it with little penalty.
Versions of the legislation, which changes the penalty structure for those who pull their land from the program, passed the House and Senate by fairly significant margins. The House passed one version by 104-34 while the Senate approved the amended version of the measure by a 20-9 vote.
But legislative leaders decided that rather than take on a divisive and expensive veto fight, lawmakers would take up the measure again next year when there will be a new governor.
"Rather than bring the Legislature back at taxpayer expense we thought we would make this a top priority in the next legislative session" Speaker of the House Shap Smith said. "I would expect that most of the components of the bill would be considered next year."
Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin said that he and Smith did not want to mar a session marked by collaboration with the administration on matters like the state budget and the unemployment trust fund fix with a last veto fight.
"We are going to defer to the governor on this one for the time being," said Shumlin, who is running to replace Douglas in the state's top job. "After all of his years of service to Vermont, our parting gift to the governor is this little bill."
When he vetoed the bill Douglas said he did so because it "imposes additional taxes and burdensome bureaucracy on the owners of our state's farm and forest land" at a time when they were already struggling because of the economic situation the state is in. Administration officials said Tuesday they welcomed the Democratic legislators' decision not to contest the veto.
There was a fairly fundamental difference in opinion between those who supported the bill and those who joined Douglas in opposing the bill, including the Vermont Forest Products Association, who did not believe there is a significant problem of developers putting land temporarily into the program. However, Jonathan Wood, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, said he hopes both sides will be able to come back to talk in a broader way about the goals of the current use program and improvements to it.
"I think it is a wise decision. I don't think a lot would have been gained" by a veto override showdown, Wood said. "This is a divisive issue. It would be better to take a fresh look at it."
That difference of opinion on whether there is a problem with the program can be bridged by having a wider discussion about its merits and potential changes.
"A lot of the folks who were pushing for change fundamentally support the program. We share that, so that is a starting place for working out the other differences we had," he said. "We might come up with some practical ideas, and fair ideas."
In addition to changing the penalty structure for those pulling land from the program the bill, if it had become law, would have imposed a one-time $128 fee on each landowner in the current use program. It would also have moved towards computerizing records of land in the program, in which roughly 15,000 landowners participate.
The veto of the bill, however, leaves a $1.6 million hole in the state budget. According to Douglas' veto message, that amount will be made up either in next year's budget adjustment bill – the annual mid-year tweak of the state spending plan – or in increased state revenue.
Shumlin and Smith said they planned on waiting until the Legislature reconvenes next year to address that gap.
"When we looked at the cost to the taxpayers in tough fiscal times (of returning to try and override the veto) and the fact that we can fix this in January we decided to fix it in January," Shumlin said.
Smith said he was sorry to see Douglas veto the bill.
"I was disappointed in the governor's reaction. It seemed to me the coalition (supporting the bill) recognized that Vermonters have real concerns about whether the current system is being used to subsidize development," he said. "We were disappointed the governor was unwilling to work to resolve the concerns of Vermonters."
Smith said leaders in the House, where a veto override would likely be tougher, did not formally count votes to see if they would get the two-thirds of those present necessary for a veto override, always a difficult thing to do. Last year, lawmakers were successful in their attempts to override vetoes by Douglas of the state budget and a bill legalizing same sex marriages.
"We have been successful in our attempts to date," Smith said. "I had no reason to think we would not be successful again."
6