QUESTIONS1. Does land enrolled in conservation programs achieve the goals of CAUV similar to farmland? (Preservation of farmland and agricultural industry, reduction in development pressure, etc.)

2. Should the Ohio Department of Taxation be able to limit which conservation programs qualify for the CAUV program without having direct authority by law to do so? Does this represent the use of agency expertise or mission creep?

3. Given the plain language of the statute, should all conservation programs be eligible for inclusion in the CAUV program?

4. Should the law be changed? Are there some conservation programs that should qualify for CAUV and others that should not? If so, what are the criteria of conservation programs that should qualify for CAUV?

5. If land enrolled in conservation programs is not eligible for CAUV, should conservation lands previously enrolled in CAUV still be charged the three-year recoupment?

6. Should lands enrolled in any state conservation programs also be automatically eligible for CAUV treatment, like federal conservation program lands are under the plain language of the statute?

7. Should there be a separate program which reduces property taxation for lands used solely for conservation?