Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Equine Industry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont equine industry urges change to current use tax definition to preserve farms and open land
Summary
Representatives of the Vermont Horse Council and equine farmers told the Senate agriculture committee that current state definitions exclude many horse operations from current use tax benefits and urged lawmakers to expand the statute to include boarding, training and other equine activities.
Heidi Krantz, former president of the Vermont Horse Council and chair of its Equine Industry Committee, told the Senate Committee on Agriculture on Feb. 20 that many equine businesses are excluded from Vermont’s current use tax program because they do not fit the statute’s current definition of agriculture. "Equine businesses are essentially a value added agricultural entity," Krantz said, arguing that the management and care of horses is the agricultural activity that enables boarding, instruction, sales and other income.
The request centered on changing the definitions in 32 V.S.A. §§3750–3777 so that operations where at least half of gross income derives from horse-related activities and that manage land for pastures and hay would qualify for the same tax treatment as other farms. Mindy Hinsdale, a seventh-generation Vermonter and longtime horse farmer who operated Steeple Ridge Farm for 35 years, described paying higher property taxes after converting dairy barns to horse facilities: "But as soon as the cows walked out of the barn and the horses walked in, we were taxed at a higher rate," she said.
Why it matters: Witnesses said inclusion in current use helps keep working agricultural land open and supports rural economies. Krantz cited a Center for Rural Studies brief using the 2022 USDA Agricultural Census showing that 48% of Vermont equine operations are on properties up to 49 acres and 71% are on parcels up to 180 acres, and she said many equine farms depend on pasture and hay land and on purchasing hay when they lack acreage.
Committee members discussed fiscal implications and next steps. Senators noted expanding current use would create a revenue gap that requires fiscal study; witnesses said a 2013 joint fiscal analysis exists and urged the committee to update that work. Krantz and Hinsdale said they have shared a memorandum from Vermont Law School summarizing at least a dozen statutory definitions of farming and arguing that equine activities can meet statutory farming definitions in other contexts (for example, 10 V.S.A. §6001), but that current use (32 V.S.A. §§3750–3777) remains more restrictive.
Hinsdale described operational realities she said are poorly understood by some town listers and assessors: outdoor riding rings, pastures, farm roads and turnout spaces sometimes are being removed from enrolled acreage when assessed, which can drop a farm below acreage thresholds. She also explained why breeding-only criteria do not reflect the business model of most horse farms: training, boarding, lessons and events commonly supply a majority of farm income and are integral to animal care and financial viability.
Witnesses pointed the committee to an emerging House bill based on their testimony (identified in the hearing as H.273) and asked the Senate committee to review that draft. Committee members signaled willingness to examine prior fiscal work and the recent data from the Center for Rural Studies; one senator offered to help pursue the monetary estimate needed to evaluate the revenue impact.
The hearing did not include any formal votes. The presenters provided documents for the record, including the Vermont Law School memorandum and the Center for Rural Studies brief, and answered senators' questions about acreage, revenue impacts and specific language changes.
