Businesses, farmers and resorts urge Ways & Means to drop or narrow proposed property-tax classifications

Multiple business and land-conservation witnesses told the House Ways & Means Committee that the classification scheme now under discussion — which would split non-homestead property into several distinct rate classes — risks unpredictability, administrative cost and unfair outcomes for small operators.

Brian Maggiano, vice president of the Vermont Lodging Association and owner-operator of an independent inn, said the lodging sector fears added volatility. "The uncertainty creates a big piece of anxiety or a big case of anxiety for anybody, especially as a small operator," he said, adding that many inns and B&Bs operate on narrow margins and rely on stable tax treatment to plan.

Why it matters: Committee language would create defined non-homestead classes (for example, commercial, industrial, resort) and let the Legislature set different rates by class. Witnesses said splitting the tax base into many segments will introduce revenue volatility, increase compliance costs and invite annual lobbying over who gets rate relief.

Representatives of the ski and resort industry made similar points. Lindsay Delaurier, president of Bolton Valley Resort, said Vermont's 24 ski areas are not a homogeneous group and that singling them out for distinct tax treatment would punish small, family-run resorts. "We believe that resorts and ski areas should not be singled out and taxed differently than other businesses," she said.

Industry and business groups expressed three recurring concerns: that expanding classifications will narrow and fragment the tax base, that administrative systems (including municipal grand‑list software and assessor resources) are not ready to implement the changes, and that the change will produce winners and losers and not necessarily improve affordability.

The Vermont Chamber and the Lake Champlain Chamber each urged caution. Amy Spear, president of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, told the committee: "We cannot support the current proposal as it is written," and recommended postponing or scaling back any expansion of classifications until a comprehensive review of revenue, administrative costs and economic impacts is complete.

Land-conservation and working-lands stakeholders also raised detailed concerns about how farm, forest and conserved parcels would be categorized. Polly Major said organizations including the Vermont Land Trust and partners in a "Forest Partnership" asked for clearer definitions and to remain engaged through multiplier-setting and implementation. She flagged particular ambiguity for conserved farms, hayfields, sugarhouses and parcels with mixed recreational or timber uses.

Real-estate and local-government stakeholders warned implementation would require substantial data work. Peter Tucker of the Vermont Association of Realtors asked how the state would maintain consistent classification across thousands of parcels, how change-of-use would be tracked, and how disparities in municipal lister capacity would be handled.

Many witnesses offered alternatives: keep the current homestead / non-homestead framework; consolidate proposed categories into a simpler commercial grouping; or delay new rate-power changes until after a study and a careful implementation timetable. Austin Davis of the Lake Champlain Chamber recommended a uniform rate without classifications, arguing that broader bases reduce distortions and maintain stability.

Ending: Committee members said they would receive updated draft language and that staff would seek to provide numbers and analyses for votes planned next week. Several witnesses urged that any change be accompanied by a funded implementation plan, multipliers and technical assistance for towns and listers.