GEORGETOWN, Maine — Amid local complaints that State Treasurer Bruce Poliquin inappropriately enrolled 10 acres of his Georgetown property in a land use program to receive a lower tax rate, town officials say singling the state official out would be unfair.

In total, there are 10 properties in Georgetown enrolled in the state’s Tree Growth program. Statewide, there are around 11 million acres and over 20,000 separate lots in the program, according to David Ledoux, director of the Maine Revenue Service’s property tax division.

The program allows enrolled lots to have property tax assessments based on the productivity value of the forest rather than the fair market value of the land.

In general, especially for valuable coastal property, the program allows forested land to be placed into a lower property tax bracket, based on the wood type of the lot, if that land is managed for commercial tree harvests.

At a meeting Thursday night, Georgetown resident Myrick “Rick” Freeman called Poliquin’s enrollment in the program “abuse,” based on deed restrictions on Poliquin’s property that prohibit commercial timber harvesting.

Those deed restrictions from the Nature Conservancy existed on the property before Poliquin’s purchase in 2001, specifying that “trees may be thinned only for purposes of view, and the environment shall be completely protected at all times from the excessive cutting of trees.”

Kate Dempsey, a senior policy adviser with the Nature Conservancy, said Thursday that there have been no violations of that agreement.

“He’s not cutting down trees,” Dempsey said. “We walk the land each year and there are no violations to his deed.”

That information, for activists from the nonprofit group Maine’s Majority and for Freeman, raises an apparent contradiction.

“If he knew about the [deed restriction] — and he must have — he knew that he could not harvest trees,” Freeman told the Georgetown Board of Selectmen on Thursday night, “yet he did apply for the Tree Growth program.”

But full-scale logging operations are not required by the program — in fact, no timber harvesting is required at all, according to Ledoux.

By law, qualifying land could include any forested land over 10 acres on which “forest products that have commercial value” are harvested or could be harvested.

In a Maine Revenue Service bulletin on the tax law, those forest products are identified as: “logs, pulpwood, veneer, bolt wood, wood chips, stud wood, poles, pilings, biomass, fuel wood, Christmas trees, maple syrup, nursery products used for ornamental purposes, wreaths, bough material or cones or other seed products.”

And that list is not all-inclusive, Ledoux said.

As for production, Ledoux said there is no requirement or minimum that a given Tree Growth area meet any level of production in terms of raw materials or dollars.

“There’s nothing in the rules that says you have to harvest a certain amount of trees,” Ledoux said. “It comes down to the management plan done with the forester to manage productivity.”

Typically, Ledoux said, the plans for lots included in the program do not involve full-scale commercial timber harvests.

“Most Tree Growth parcels are owned by individuals and not those that you would consider in the wood business,” Ledoux said.

Management plans, Ledoux said, can also be tailored not only to a variety of forest products but also to future harvests.

If, for instance, a wood lot over 10 acres were to be used to produce maple syrup, Ledoux said, the management plan reviewed by a professional forester would be geared toward the sustainable production of that resource but would not necessarily include plans to harvest that resource.

While Nature Conservancy officials confirmed that Poliquin has not been cutting trees on his property, the specific details of the tree growth management plan on the property are unknown.

Ledoux said those documents are considered private by the Maine Forest Service.

Those documents became a political issue on Feb. 2 when state Sen. Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, requested a copy of that plan from the Maine Forest Service.

Since these allegations and others related to a beach club Poliquin owns in Phippsburg emerged, the state official has been silent.

Poliquin did not respond to requests for comment made Thursday to his home and mobile number.

In an investigation into Poliquin’s enrollment in the program, the activist group Maine’s Majority alleges that the move reduced the taxable value of the treasurer’s property by over $1 million, sheltering an estimated $5,000 in property taxes to the town.

Maine’s Majority spokeswoman Matthea Daughtry said Thursday night in Georgetown that the value was calculated by comparing tax returns from 2004 — before Poliquin enrolled his property in the Tree Growth program — to years after Poliquin enrolled in the program.

At Thursday’s meeting in Georgetown, Freeman asked the three-member board of selectmen if there might be any way to recover that estimated property tax loss to the town.

“There are options for rectifying that, but it’s not a simple process or an easy issue,” said chairman Geoffrey Birdsall.

At the state level, a bill recently proposed by Senate President Kevin Raye, R-Perry, calls for an annual random survey of properties in the Tree

Growth program to check for compliance. Another bill presented by Rep. Gary Knight, R-Livemore Falls, would allow local assessors to levy a $100 administrative penalty on landowners for not filing a forest management plan within certain deadlines.

For property that is withdrawn from the program voluntarily or for not complying with the law, there are penalties assessed on the land unless it fits parameters for one of the state’s two other land use tax programs for either farm land or open space.

Knight’s proposal would also make easier the transfer of property between those programs, according to the bill summary, by removing a 15,000-acre cap on land enrolled in the state’s Farm Land or Open Space tax law program.

Locally, Birdsall said the wave of attention on the Tree Growth program “has indicated that it might behoove the town to evaluate all of the lots that are currently in the Tree Growth program to see if compliance is occurring.”

Selectwoman Dolores Pinette agreed.

“To be fair and consistent, we need to check them all,” Pinette said.

Selectman Bill Plummer said he was on the board in 2004 when Poliquin’s property was enrolled in the Tree Growth program, though he said he had no specific recollection of Poliquin’s application and did not know about the deed restrictions prohibiting tree harvesting on the property.

Birdsall said the board would discuss the matter, which was not included on Thursday’s agenda, at a coming meeting.

“He could very well be on the up and up,” Plummer said, “but we don’t know.”

“We’ll find out though,” Birdsall said.

To see more from The Times Record, visit timesrecord.com.

To view Poliquin’s deed, click here.

Join the Conversation

73 Comments

  1. A) “By law, qualifying land could include any forested land over 10 acres on which “forest products that have commercial value” are harvested or could be harvested.” 

    B) “Poliquin’s enrollment in the program “abuse,” based on deed restrictions on Poliquin’s property that prohibit commercial timber harvesting.
    Those deed restrictions from the Nature Conservancy existed on the property before Poliquin’s purchase in 2001, specifying that “trees may be thinned only for purposes of view, and the environment shall be completely protected at all times from the excessive cutting of trees.”

    Busted !!!! 

    The timber can’t be harvested. Period.

    1. however, he has special exemptions based on his friendship with his political buddies. They all look out for each other and will change whatever rule impacts themselves.
      Its a wonderful state we live in.

        1. Yes indeed where you are allowed to carry a weapon against all laws, (a felony hands down) because you have friends in high places. Much like selling high power weapons to the Mexican drug cartels and giving them millions of tax payer dollars as good measure is all ok as long as you are connected at the highest level huh?

      1. No one has changed the rules for his benefit.  He is using the tree growth program to manage his land in a way to reduce his taxes the same way thousands of others do.

    2. What part of “But full-scale logging operations are not required by the program — in fact, no timber harvesting is required at all, according to Ledoux,” don’t you understand?

      The only ones busted here are you and others on here who still think this is an issue because of your lack of reading comprehension skills/perpetual vendetta against someone who is taking on some of liberalism’s sacred cows.

      Give it up already!

        1. None…due to the phrasing in the agreement specifying that “trees may be thinned only for purposes of view, and the environment shall be completely protected at all times from the excessive cutting of trees.”

          “May be thinned” sounds an awful lot like “could be havested.” 

          Where’s the language that explicitly prohibits the cutting of any trees? 

          And you’re asking about MY break with reality?   Wow…

          1. I’mregret getting into the mix ….but… as I understand you are trying to burn a candle from two ends. One agreement supper-cedes the latter… again I apologize… 

        2. No this is about a witch hunt to find something that Liberals can stick onto the LePage administration because they have nothing to run on.  They can’t run on any current or past accomplishments because they have none.  They can’t run on the compromised budget they shown last night they are not only the party of NO, but also showing what everyone who has a clue has known for decades they are the party of Welfare.  Now they are trying to keep Bruce (Poliquin)  in the news anyway they can.  They are trying to hurt this  good man’s image and reputation.  The Democrats claim they care about us.  They haven’t shown they care for the Maine People period.  It’s about them trying to be in power and regain control in Augusta.

          1. The Democrats are the ones who want to change the subject by focusing on this nonsense.  They don’t want to do the jobs that those in their districts put them in their to do.
            They are waisting our time and money if they want to go to Augusta to just so they can  complain , obstruct and find new reasons to attack good people who care about Maine and it’s economy.

          2. They also want to hound Polequin out of office in another manufactured scandal, and they want to exploit a manufactured scandal to stampede people into changing the tree growth law to increase property taxes, especially on those demonized as “The Rich” in a fit of envy and resentment.

          3. We tried.  We poured water on poloquin.   he didn’t melt.  We weighed him, and it’s not the same as a duck.  Therefore, not a witch.  Just a politician.

      1. BUT he still has to follow HIS  plan …. since no one can see the plan, apparently, we just don’t know IF  he is  following the plan.  His plan MIGHT include harvesting the trees…we don’t know.

          1. It allows it to be thinned for ” the view” not for sale. 
            Are you going to build a house, first, so you can cut your woodlot ? 

    3. They restrict “commercial” harvesting, not harvesting. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge in forestry knows that there is by and large no ten acre lot worth commercial harvesting unless it is a pure stand of timber logs and is clear cut. Try finding a commercial woods operation to come selectively cut a truckload of marketable timber from your ten acre postage stamp lot? In the above cited case, “excessive cutting is not allowed”, last time I checked a selective cut overseen by a licensed forester is not classified as excessive cutting. Excessive cutting is leaving behind ten acres of slash.All should do themselves a favor and give up on the political witch hunt which is all this article and the accompanying critical posts are, once again nothing more and nothing less.

      I might add that I suspect those whining on here the loudest are likely the same folks that see no issue with Fast and Furious and Solyndra at the Federal level right?

      1. What does  “trees may be thinned only for purposes of view” mean to ” Anyone with an ounce of knowledge in forestry “,  Russ ?

      2. That is not correct.  People in this program have their land cut in sensible proportions.  They do not have to clear cut the lot.

        The tree growth program concerns how the land is managed, not what you do for a living or what profit you make on the trees.

    4. The tree growth program does not require logging or logging to any specified degree.  His deed does not prohibit it, it prohibits “excessive cutting”.  There is nothing in the deed that restricts him from using trees he cuts in accordance with the purpose of his forestry management plan.  The deed restrictions address how the land is managed, it does not control his state of mind or purpose or what he does with trees that are cut or allowed to continue growing. The deed does not prevent him from selling trees he cuts. The Nature Conservancy does not own his trees.

  2. “‘He could very well be on the up and up,” Plummer said, ‘but we don’t know.’”

    When you don’t know you don’t make statements like “could be” on the “up and up”.  This entire affair has been a manufactured scandal smearing Poliquin with no evidence.

    Read the hit pieces based on the activist group’s press releases and you quickly see that the “crime” he is being accused of is being a wealthy owner not paying more taxes, which is being promoted to stoke envy and resentment as part of the “occupy everything” campaign.  The activists are trying to smear and hound Poliquin out of office and create an hysterical stampede to impose “progressive” property taxes.  The tree growth ‘current use’ tax assessment program does not discriminate against coastal  owners, wealthy or not, nor should it.  Land in tree growth does not cost the town anything for schools and other such ‘services’ no matter much less the taxes are. Yet the smear campaign is falsely accusing Poliquin of making “others” pay his alleged “fair share” — which does not exist — in their ugly campaign to drum up a false resentment.

    1. I like your argument. My kids don’t cost the school system anything. I don’t have any, but I still pay as if I did. Oh, and if someone gets accused of shoplifting, and there is a story about it with their picture in the paper, is that a “smear campaign”?

      1. When did being legally enrolled in a program with no laws being broken equal shoplifting a clear breaking of an existing law? Pretty clueless analogy at best!

        1. If he was caught shoplifting, those laws would  probably come “under scrutiny”. Also, the options you offered mcmaineacjam were uncalled for. Some of us actually know what that means. Also, I have one tree on my property and I would promise not to cut it for the same percentage tax reduction. Should I enroll in the program or just $%^&?

          1. There are clear guidelines to the program and I’m pretty sure I understand them as I own a 110 acre woodlot, have a forester and have been in the program for 20 + years!
            The problem on this as is the case on many boards is that 95% of the posts are clueless whining political rants, nothing more and certainly nothing less! Afterall it’s too much to ask posters to actually read up and study the issue completely before going into a politically motivated tirade.

          2. A lot of people have been misled, some of them willingly, by articles from a campaign intended to mislead.

      2. Whether or not it is a smear campaign depends on what it in fact is, including how the articles are written and the motives.  A single story on a crime is a story on a crime.  A series of articles written in an inflammatory manner and spread by a political attack activist group to discredit a political enemy is a smear campaign.

    2. He knew he could not harvest timber. He voluntarily entered a State program designed for the harvesting of timber. He comitted fraud. I am not an activist. I am not histerical. I have seen the overhead pictures of his estate. It is not remotely a working forest. I do agree, he is a wealthy landowner accused of not paying taxes. I am not sure though why you do not think that is a crime.

      1. The program places restrictions on the allowable amount of timber harvested, it does not mandate that you harvest any. Either study the issue and understand what you are talking about or STFU.

      2. He voluntarily entered a State program designed for the harvesting of timber.

        That’s just the pretext for the law, which is really designed to keep non-wealthy Mainers from being taxed off their land. At first glance, Poliquin seems to be within both the letter and the spirit of the law as it’s actually meant.

        1. The program does not require “harvesting of timber”.  How much and when, if at all, depends on the goals and actions in the management plan.  It was designed for both small landowners and large corporations (which are not the kind of non-wealthy Mainers you seem to have in mind).  The program does not discriminate against landowners depending on where there land is, how much money they have, or how big there land is (as long as at least 10 acres).  In particular it was not designed as the progressive property tax that the left wants or to punish the people the left wants to punish and smear for not paying higher taxes.

      3. His land does not have to look like what you think of as a “working forest”.   The tree growth program does not require the harvesting of timber in any ten year management period, or at all for some purposes.   It depends on what his management plan is. 

        His deed does not prevent him from harvesting any trees.

        Legally arranging one’s affairs to pay less taxes is not a crime for anyone and does not become a crime for being wealthy.

          1. You tell me to educate myself because you got NOTHING.

            I am educated and I say you are exaggerating about any voter fraud.

            HOW MANY CONVICTIONS HAVE THERE BEEN?

  3. “those documents are considered private by the Maine Forest Service”

    Mr. Poliquin  is  receiving a property tax break and we really do not know what he is doing to justify it – someone needs to explain that to me. This is a big mess not only for Mr. Poliquin but all owners who participate in the tree growth program. If we are allowing property tax reductions we should heed President Reagan’s l advice “trust but verify”.

    1. The details of the management plan is not relevant to recognizing that the land is in tree growth and being taxed accordingly for that ‘current-use’ assessment.

      There is no more justification for publicizing his management plan than there is for anyone to be forced to publicize the deductions he claims on his income tax return.

  4. This program has been in effect for years–available to individual owners at least since 1970.
    This seems to be just another way for the D’s to try to destroy the credibility of a conservative who is working hard to save money for Maine’s taxpayers. 

  5. “Those documents became a political issue on Feb. 2 when state Sen. Troy Jackson, D-Allagash, requested a copy of that plan from the Maine Forest Service”

    How about an investigation of Sen Jackson to determine how much of his time is spent on being a Senator (what he’s theoretically paid for) versus how much of his time is spent engaging in politics and personal vendettas? There are plenty of checks and balances — and agencies charged with enforcing the tree growth program. I don’t think Sen Jackson is one of them.

    1. I was waiting for somebody from the right to start screaming to shoot the messenger. I marvel at how, when a story embarrasses the right winger political bosses, the reaction always includes some form of “shoot the messenger”. This can include charges of political bias in the media (“biased liberal media”), smears on the person involved (“an investigation of Sen Jackson”), and other such diversions.

      How about instead, they answer the charges with information. If Poliquin answered the questions instead of hiding, maybe this story wouldn’t continue.

      1. For one thing I wasn’t screaming.

        This is not an embarassment to Poliquin. I read the story carefully. I am familiar with tree growth requirements and might even be willing to concede there could be a technicality here. So report it to the proper authorities and let them do what they do. I don’t see any questions for Poliquin in this. Accusations are not questions.

        My point was senators are not paid to be tree growth fraud investigators. As for “smearing” Senator Jackson, my point was if he can appoint himself tree growth investigator, I can appoint myself “are you doing the job you are paid to do?” investigator.”

        Poliquin has fiscal responsibility as State Treasurer and he’s actually taking it seriously. There are a number of agencies and people who are being embarassed as they well should be.

        If it’s about answering questions, how about one for Senator Jackson… what specifically has he done to reduce runaway spending in the state and pass a budget?

  6. Why is this self-entitled shyster still hanging around…is he so arrogant that he believes he still has a future in Maine politics ? 

    1. ok,   ACCORDING  to your theory,  then christmas tree farmer’s aren’t allowed to collect from farmland and open space?   it should be considered as tree growth?    If that is the case,  how is it that christmas tree farmer’s 1. have the choice ,   and 2. not tree harvester’? It’s either one or the other?  But according to your plan, it’s based upon cutting,  a tree is a tree,  it’s not a potato, it’s not corn…..it’s a tree. I know of certain christmas tree farmer’s who are father and son, one claims one credit and the other claims tree growth, though they own the land separately, their business is together??? Figure that one out. And I don’t consider our Treasurer as one of either, he’s not harvesting, nor is he cutting. He’s not re-planting for forestation, nor does he offer any such plans. He’s going to sell it, and he want’s the tax credit while he owns it. Both of these laws active intention is to preserve, not to take advantage of of land.

      You may comment on re-plantation habits,   but regular paper and softwood industries do the same.    It’s not as black and white as you critically point it out to be,   there are gray areas in the law.   And the Attorney General TOLD him “don’t do this anymore”    and what does he do?

      Not only is there a question on the appropriateness of his tax deduction,   now it becomes his inability to listen to the state’s attorney general.   That makes it our business.

        1. If the land is still in the program and not converted to something else she must have a forest management plan or she would have been thrown out.  But she has announced why she does not qualify because her avowed management purpose is to prevent commercial use by flipping the land to the National Park Service by 2016 to enforce wilderness.

      1. Yeah Quimby is trying to claim the same tax relief that Bruce is getting so she can try to convince paper mills and towns in Maine to support her plan for a Park.  But it is being rejected by nearly everyone.  She would fit in well with the Minority Party in Augusta both are bent on destroying Maine’s economy , quality of life, beauty, and image.

    1. Polygraph tests are like 20th-century witchcraft.  Why don’t they both take one and then we can know for sure if it’s a liberal witch hunt or a conservative witch hunt.

      The truth will set us all free. 

  7. Fraud appears to be the issue. Will it neverend?

    I am always in awe to watch these government officers commit fraud.  And put ordinary people in jail for the same offense. 

    All of the government needs to be cut in half. Government workers are  mostly welfare recipients. 

     Poliquinn received a hell of a welfare package.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *