A bill for the sea
What does shell fishermen tax break mean for coastal communities?
A potential tax break for Connecticut’s shell fishermen sailed through the state Senate last week, though the effort quickly raised questions about the potential loss of revenue to communities along the coast.
The bill proposed by state Sen. Christine Cohen, DGuilford, would allow shellfish beds beneath Long Island Sound to be taxed similarly to other farmland under a decades-old state law providing more favorable property tax assessments to farmers.
The bill would also expand the Department of Agriculture’s shellfish restoration program along stateowned shellfish beds and would change the makeup of the Connecticut Seafood Development Council to specifically include members of the shellfish, commercial marine fish, lobster and seaweed aquaculture industries.
Cohen, who is co-chair of the Environment Committee, said in a news release that Connecticut’s shellfish industry generates more than $30 million in annual sales and employs roughly 300 people.
“Besides the obvious economic benefits to this legislation, there are terrific environmental advantages to this sustainable and green industry,” Cohen’s statement said. “From stabilizing and improving sediments to
helping to clean our waters and protect from erosion, aquaculture serves a critical function to our underwater ecosystem.”
A fiscal summary prepared for the bill did not estimate the size of the potential tax break, though it noted that any revenue impacts would not occur until fiscal year 2023.
The unanimous support for the bill in the Senate quickly gave way to questions raised by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities about an amendment recently added to the bill, which included the proposed tax break.
Randy Collins, a lobbyist for the group, said his concern was with language allowing waterfront property owned by shellstock shippers and aquaculture operators to be assessed lower rates. Because of the waterfront value of those properties, Collins said the impact to municipal revenues could be significant.
According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, there are more than 60 shellfish shipping and packing companies in Connecticut, with the most located in Norwalk, Stratford, Guilford, Branford and Stonington.
“As of now, we are opposed to the bill,” Collins said, adding that the group will ask the House to delay consideration of the bill until a more detailed fiscal assessment can be conducted.
Stonington Assessor Jennifer Lineweaver said her office already treats underwater beds where oysters and other shellfish are grown as farmland and she was concerned about extending that treatment to property used by shippers and other wholesalers on land.
“Typically, the majority of this farming happens in the water, so I’m curious what is the actual intent of the bill,” Lineweaver said.
Cohen’s office did not respond to requests for comment last week.
In addition to commercial shellfish operations, the bill received support from the Connecticut Farm Bureau, the Audubon Society and the state Department of Agriculture, according to testimony submitted to the General Assembly.
Farm Bureau Executive Director Joan Nichols touted the bill to Hearst Connecticut Media as the bureau’s “baby” and said shell fishermen are unfairly excluded under the state’s definition of farmland for the purposes of tax assessment.
That definition includes traditional farmland as well as forestland and other open spaces, Nichols said. Commercial lobster fishermen also benefit from the law under a provision for “maritime heritage land,” Nichols said, even though they do not cultivate their own lobsters.
“No offense to our lobstermen, but our shell fishermen are actually farming,” Nichols said.
One commercial operator, Mystic Oysters, told lawmakers the tax assessment for one of its shellfish beds in Mumford Cove near Groton jumped from $30 an acre to over $400 an acre in one year.
“We would like to be able to continue and expand our work. However, the capricious increases of tax assessments on our shellfish beds create unforeseen expenses that we have to either pay out, or spend precious time grieving in order to return to a fair assessment of our underwater farms,” the
company said in a letter of support for the bill.
Only one member of the Environment Committee opposed the bill during a February vote, which sent the bill to the General Assembly. State Rep. David Michel, D-Stamford, said last week that his concerns dealt
with the potential environment impact of expanding shellfish beds in the Sound and he wanted to see further studies done on the legislation.
“We tend to do things fast and then they have impacts that are not calculated,” Michel said.