Lawmakers hear testimony to include equine businesses in Vermont current-use program (H.273)

Members of the House Committee on Agriculture heard testimony on H.273, a bill that would expand Vermont’s current-use (use-value appraisal) program to recognize a broader set of equine farming activities, during a committee Zoom session. Advocates from the equine industry presented survey data, economic-impact figures and personal examples to argue the change would help preserve open land and keep equine businesses viable.

The bill matters, proponents said, because equine operations contribute tourism and in‑state spending, manage large parcels of open land, and face tax and regulatory barriers that have contributed to recent business closures. Testimony combined industry survey results, a 2019 economic-impact study and a small follow-up phone survey of equine business owners to illustrate the scale and trends.

Heidi (presenter) summarized the industry evidence, citing a 2019 economic-impact study that estimated about $37 million in visitor spending tied to horse events and roughly $46 million in in‑state spending by horse owners; the study also reported an estimated $1.3 million annually in tax revenue connected to equine activity and an average equine operation maintaining 61 acres of open land. Heidi said a recent phone survey of 45 equine businesses showed a higher average acreage—about 86 acres—and that the sampled operations together own nearly 4,000 acres. She said 16% of respondents listed boarding, training or riding as their primary function, 17% reported enrollment in some land‑preservation program, and 29% reported that some portion of their land was enrolled in current use.

Katie Waterman, a Ferrisburg farm owner who operates a boarding and training business, described a tax dispute after she installed a 200-by-82-foot canvas-over-steel indoor arena bought from ClearSpan. Katie said the company had described the arena as non‑taxable; after a town appraisal she said her property tax jumped from roughly $3,500 to about $12,500 (her testimony cited an earlier higher figure before successful grievance adjustments). "This isn't just my story. It's everyone in equine industry in Vermont right now," Katie said, describing long hours, labor shortages and recent monthly losses of $3,000–$5,000 that threaten some farms' survival.

Mindy Hinsdale of the Vermont Horse Council Equine Industry Committee urged the committee to pass H.273 and refine its definitions. She recommended three changes: strike the statute's cross‑reference to Internal Revenue Service regulation 1.175‑3 (which ties the definition of a farmer to earning 50% or more of household income from farming); explicitly list allowable equine income sources—boarding, lessons, training, leasing, sales and similar ag‑adjacent activities—so hobbyists are not included; and ensure the statute counts only income generated by Vermont‑based equine farming businesses. "We are interested in helping the hardworking equine farmer who is a full time farmer, not the backyard horse hobbyist," Hinsdale said.

Witnesses and presenters cautioned that survey figures can overlap: the Center for Rural Studies survey referenced in testimony reported 700 responses representing about 2,334 operations (roughly 27% of an estimated 8,500 equine‑related operations), but Heidi cautioned the 47% of respondents who said they would be interested in enrolling if the law changed may include operations already enrolled in current use under other categories. Heidi also flagged confusion over whether certain farm buildings—especially indoor arenas—qualify as agricultural structures for property‑tax purposes; in the phone survey the 45 respondents identified about 155 buildings (barns, run-in shelters, hay storage, indoor arenas) that might affect tax calculations, and several owners reported receiving unexpected tax bills for structures they had been told would be treated as agricultural.

Committee members asked clarifying questions. Representative Brecken asked whether the 2019 survey separated horse owners from horse businesses; Heidi said it did not. Representative Bazzle asked about submission of written testimony; Katie confirmed she had filed written remarks for the record. Testimony presenters offered to submit follow‑up questions and more specific language to legislative counsel to help narrow definitions and to develop a more accurate fiscal estimate if the bill advances.

The committee did not take a vote on H.273 during the session and indicated it would return to "current use" discussion at a later point. Testimony and written materials from the presenters will remain in the record for further review.