Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Current Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Steve Collier says bill would let farmers who donate food qualify for current-use tax treatment
Summary
An Agency of Agriculture official told the Senate Finance Committee the bill would let donated farm products count like sales for current-use eligibility, aiming to keep farmland active and encourage donations; members pressed for data, documentation safeguards and discussed fiscal trade-offs.
Steve Collier of the Agency of Agriculture told the Senate Finance Committee that S.323 would treat donated farm food the same as sold food for several programs, including current-use tax treatment and accessory farm business calculations.
Collier, presenting the bill’s money-related sections, said the first three sections restore a municipal-zoning exemption for farming, section four addresses accessory on‑farm businesses, and sections five and six modify current-use rules so donations can count toward thresholds now measured by sales. “We continue to lose farmland,” Collier said, arguing the change would incentivize active agricultural use and increased local food production.
The bill would allow a landowner who grows and gives away food to qualify under current-use rules in the same manner as a seller, Collier said. He acknowledged the department lacks a precise count of landowners who currently donate but do not appear in program records; he did cite roughly 6,500 farms in Vermont measured by a low $1,000 threshold. Committee members repeatedly pressed for estimates on how many additional parcels might enroll if donations counted.
Committee members raised concerns that the change might enable non‑farm hobbyists to enroll small parcels and shift property‑tax burdens. One lawmaker warned that a landowner could clear land, grow produce, and donate enough to meet the $2,000 threshold that is one route to current‑use, saying the result could affect local property taxes. Collier responded that current-use eligibility and acreage tests remain in place and that the bill does not change the program’s operational criteria: “I don’t think this bill changes any of that analysis because you could already do that,” he said.
The bill includes implementation safeguards. Collier said Legislative Council and the tax department recommended language requiring documentation — receipts or records — to substantiate donations rather than allowing self‑certification.
Other technical changes and money items were also discussed. Section 10 would require first‑time pesticide certification test takers to pay the $25 testing fee (previously charged only on retakes) to reduce no‑shows at limited testing slots. Sections 11–16 reorganize seed registration and labeling rules without fee changes (current registrant fees are shown in the bill text as $85 per registrant and $10 per ton). Collier also said the bill formalizes a registration path for hemp processors and products; because federal oversight shifted in 2022, the state has paused hemp fees and the fiscal outcome depends on market developments.
The committee did not vote on S.323 during the hearing. Staff and members requested follow‑up on documentation language, precise threshold mechanics (acreage and sales/donation counts), and any available data on landowners who currently donate food but do not appear in program records.
The committee paused S.323 testimony to take up other bills and to reconvene later with a tax drafter and additional witnesses to clarify current‑use application and thresholds.
