wahington state horse owners please read, threat to horse facilities

[Tuffytown]

The Washington State Department of Revenue is considering rule changes that could keep horse boarding, training, and riding farms from qualifying as Farm and Agricultural land under the Open Space Taxation Act. Since 1968 Agricultural property kept rural and maintained for pasture and boarding qualifies as commercial agricultural.

The state is threatening to rescind this designation which would result in greatly increased taxation for the horse properties. At a time when all costs of horse ownership are going up and stables are disappearing this is yet another nail in the coffin for horse ownership and rural lifestyle.

The current state law defines "farm products" as "livestock, including breeding, grazing and recreational equine use." The Dept. revenue is decreeing that breeding AND grazing both must occur. Great let's put a condition on horse usage that encourages creating more horses at a time when they are being abandoned and starved in great numbers due to the already increased cost of ownership.

As a small boarding barn owner this is a cost that I cannot absorb and must pass on to my boarders in addition to the increases already incurred with hay, grain, fuel costs.

The result of this will be the loss of more horse boarding facilities being sold for development , loss of rural open space and increased boarding costs.

Please visit for more information, links and petitions.

www.savewashingtonhorsefarms.org/ (http://www.savewashingtonhorsefarms.org/)

(thank you to Sandra Possin for her editorial in the Seattle PI for this information)

[Prieta]

:mad: Grrr! These dolts do not have a good understanding of just how vital horse industry to this state of Washington. Because of them and other avid groups, many parks were set aside and saved. WA people pride themselves in being more green than the others; yet this law is being discussed! :no:

[Seal Harbor]

We aren't going to be the Evergreen state for very long - we will be the Paved Over State.

[greysandbays]

It's going to be pretty hard to justify keeping a "farm products" designation for oversize pets.

As I recall, there were many people warning of the dangers of not having The Powers That Be considering horses to be "livestock", but they were poo-pooed and dismissed as not knowing what they were talking about; anybody could see that it was better for EVERYBODY for horses to be protected as "pets". Well, this sort of thing was what they were talking about.

And really, why should recreational riding not pay it's fair share of taxes along with everybody else? If you have downhill skiing in your state, I bet those facilities don't qualify as "comercial ag".

[7HL]

It's going to be pretty hard to justify keeping a "farm products" designation for oversize pets.

As I recall, there were many people warning of the dangers of not having The Powers That Be considering horses to be "livestock", but they were poo-pooed and dismissed as not knowing what they were talking about; anybody could see that it was better for EVERYBODY for horses to be protected as "pets". Well, this sort of thing was what they were talking about.

And really, why should recreational riding not pay it's fair share of taxes along with everybody else? If you have downhill skiing in your state, I bet those facilities don't qualify as "comercial ag".


GREAT POST!!!! Worth remembering and repeating!

[caffeinated]

As I recall, there were many people warning of the dangers of not having The Powers That Be considering horses to be "livestock", but they were poo-pooed and dismissed as not knowing what they were talking about; anybody could see that it was better for EVERYBODY for horses to be protected as "pets". Well, this sort of thing was what they were talking about.

I seem to remember that too.

In any case, I hope WA horse owners are organized in fighting this. I found a WA state horse council webpage but it had no information on it except some phone numbers. Now's the time to get organized.

[Tuffytown]

It's going to be pretty hard to justify keeping a "farm products" designation for oversize pets.

As I recall, there were many people warning of the dangers of not having The Powers That Be considering horses to be "livestock", but they were poo-pooed and dismissed as not knowing what they were talking about; anybody could see that it was better for EVERYBODY for horses to be protected as "pets". Well, this sort of thing was what they were talking about.

And really, why should recreational riding not pay it's fair share of taxes along with everybody else? If you have downhill skiing in your state, I bet those facilities don't qualify as "comercial ag".

Ok , so I increase board to cover this clients won't be happy. Part of the proposal is to demand back taxes for the difference for a 7 year period. I don't think I can absorb or charge them that $20,000 bill for the states arbitrary decision to change the definition in a law that has been in affect for 40 years. Part of the reasoning was to maintain low impact rural use. This obliterates that and encourages sale for development. I am surrounded by thousands of acres of property owned by a large corporation that gets a larger exemption for forestry designation and they make billions off of it.

[Seal Harbor]

We have horse racing in this state. Not all TB farms are breeding farms there are many lay up facilities, and training centers. The farm my horse boards at is full of young race horses right now getting their start. I would think that industry alone would be interested in not seeing this go through.

Breeding farms don't come under this legislation, however the foals will now be considered something different once sold? To be kept where when the boarding farms are taxed out of existence? To do what, since the recreational aspect would then have been taxed out of existence?

[greysandbays]

Ok , so I increase board to cover this clients won't be happy. Part of the proposal is to demand back taxes for the difference for a 7 year period. I don't think I can absorb or charge them that $20,000 bill for the states arbitrary decision to change the definition in a law that has been in affect for 40 years. Part of the reasoning was to maintain low impact rural use. This obliterates that and encourages sale for development. I am surrounded by thousands of acres of property owned by a large corporation that gets a larger exemption for forestry designation and they make billions off of it.

Horses aren't hardly "low impact" rural use in a boarding stable setting. There is major excavation and earth removal/addition to build barns, arenas, etc. There is constant traffic coming and going. There is a lot of chemical useage -- fly sprays, grooming products, wormers, medications, etc. If there is a wash rack, there is a HUGE water usage. The acres/horses ratio is often much denser than ideal.

And that's just the effect the horses have directly on site. There's a whole 'nother impact of all the resources it takes to grow, harvest, and transport the feed and bedding products required to keep them in the style in which their owners have become accustomed -- and for nothing more than "recreation".

However, going back seven years can't possibly be consitutional. That would be like making everybody that paid sales tax at a previous lower rate several years before a sales tax hike pay the new rate on purchases made back when the old rate was still in effect. OTOH, I put nothing past big-government nanny-states...

[Tuffytown]

Many of these operations have been in existance for decades so the impact of construction is long past. Some have dense horse populations on small acreage but many are like me, 10 horses on 16 acres or even less density. I worked hard with the local conservation district to improve my facilities to reduce any tainted runoff, control mud and optimize pasture quality with minimal chemicals. I think if you compare the impact of that to putting 8 or more houses on the property, the grading, excavation and construction activities and ultimate paving and vehicle trips would be quite a bit greater that passive grazing and a couple boarders coming out every couple of days. The building lot coverage and impervious surface area (which is what is of great concern to local SEPA regulations) would be at least quadrupled.

[poltroon]

A lot of the reason horses are considered agriculture is in fact the open space that is created. This is valuable, and as you state, it's not really a good idea to encourage people to breed unless that makes sense as its own business proposition. Layups and retirees, in particular, are an excellent, low impact use of the land.

Start writing your letters to the editor, and make sure that EVERY horseperson in Washington knows - every horse publication, flyers in every tack shop, etc.

[ToiRider]

I agree that the law needs to be fought on its merits. In the meantime, I would buy a cow and have it bred so that you comply with the letter of the law. You can run cows and horses in the same pasture. The cows will eat grasses and weeds that the horses won't touch.

[stryder]

My understanding of this issue is that the law (RCW) and Washington Administrative Code were changed in the early 1990s to what they are today. The agricultural products definition requires breeding and sale. Period. It is what it says. However, in the past some county assessors have used some leeway in interpreting it, and have allowed boarding as an agricultural use. However, with King County digging deep for every possible penny, government realizes it will be sued if it doesn't fairly and accurately collect the taxes that the law provides. There is a seven-year look-back period.

I know that some stables owners have hired lawyers. This is a waste of money, as this is not a legal problem, it's a political problem. They should be hiring a lobbyist.

A political argument can be made that not including boarding will force stables to close and be sold to developers, which will further diminish open space. There are several other arguments to be made, too.

But please, King County is NOT changing the law to force out stables. I've seen the inflammatory and inaccurate information being circulated.

I've verified my facts with people in contact with the Department of Revenue and legislative staffs, and have reviewed the RCWs and WACs in question. The legislative fix would need to be retroactive, to take care of the look-back period.

[Tuffytown]

The issue is not totally about King County enforcement. It is also about the state dissallowing the other county's assessors that leeway in interpretation and forcing implementation statewide. Much of the boarding that has been forced out of King county is now in Snohomish and there are alot of boarding facilities that operate under this designation.

[galwaybay]

Didn't you get the memo about sharing/spreading the wealth? how dare horse people think they are entitled to special tax breaks... after all aren't equestrian sports considered elitist? Shoot in VA the memo was " the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it" - courtesy of one Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). So as Martha Stewart said - "suck it up" its for the good of everyone don't you know...

Enough political babble I for one hate to see anyone lose their farmland and hate to see rolling countryside become bulldozed over for the sake of generic townhouse communities... Fight the fight Washington and my best wishes to you and hope you will not see your tax structured changed or altered

[7HL]

A lot of the reason horses are considered agriculture is in fact the open space that is created.

I disagree.

Horses don't create open space they occupy open space. They are a place holder. Big issue here, in PA is manure management. The recreational horse owner, small boarding facilities wanted to be excluded from the requirements that most agricultural facilities, farms have to abide by, a certified manure management plan. Another attempt by some horses owners to have it both ways.

Some small facilities, have taken the approach of trying to avoid taxes by calling themselves a "rescue". They take in horses from various sources and say they are rescuing them from slaughter. Slaughter the real reason horses are not regarded by some as livestock. The rescues then attempt to "adopt" the horses out, of course with a fee to cover their costs.

My point in it all is with taxes breaks come "rules". If you don't meet the requirements or follow the rules, you loose the breaks.

So if the rule is: "The agricultural products definition requires breeding and sale. Period." Then follow the rule, or get the legislature to change the rule, law

[Chall]

Can you get chickens, breed them and sell the eggs? Would that count as agricultural use?

[Jeff Wolf]

Wow.:eek:

I hope New Mexico never gets like this. Here, if the land is zoned agricultural, you can do pretty much whatever you want with it, agriculturally speaking. You can raise crops, horses, cows, etc. Some counties or townships may, by state law, prohibit certain activities (for example, here in our township we cannot raise pigs unless certain conditions are met), but if you just want a lot of acres with some horses or cows on it, knock yourself out. Breed them (or not), rescue them (or not), or just raise them and enjoy them. Up to you.:)

Of course, NM is the 5th largest state in terms of area, but 48th, I think, in population, so it isn't like anyone's looking to optimize income from what land there is that's in use. We'll just keep overcharging the tourists! :lol:

[7HL]

There are too many loop holes in lots of tax codes. With the economy being what it is governments, local, state and federal are going to look to close them.

Here's an article about the abuse of agricultural and farmland tax abuse.



Not only farmers reap farm tax breaks

Two state laws designed to stop sprawl and preserve farmland have become tools for developers and residential landowners to legally escape millions of dollars in property taxes, a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review survey of Allegheny County records has found.
The Trib's analysis of 1,834 properties designated as farmland by county assessors, combined with 696 recipients of Clean & Green property tax write-offs, reveals that nearly a quarter of the county's agricultural parcels are owned by developers, real estate agents, mines or construction companies who collectively saved $5.6 million in county, municipal and school property taxes last year after receiving the special agricultural discounts.





http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_202878.html

[Guilherme]

Taxes should be used to raise revenue. Period.

They should not be used to promote agriculture, low cost housing, industrial development, etc. As soon as tax policy moves to "promotion" or "discouragement" of some activity the lobbiests for the various interests will enter the arena, dollars will flow (legally and illegally) to decision makers, and corruption will flourish (and this is true at the local, state, or national level).

I benefit from our state's Green Belt program. I quality as both agricultural and forest. This saves me a very large sum in property taxes. But I would surrender it gladly if taxation became a revenue only program because I know that I'd likely pay less if all the OTHER tax favored interests paid IAW exising state law.

The examples of devopers "warehousing land" and timber companies reaping benefits just clearly demonstrates the "unintended consquences" of industry specific tax breaks and "social engineering by tax code."

If you want to close the loopholes, close them all. Or leave it be and let the political process work its "magic."

G.

[wendy]

many places don't let you be considered a farm for tax purposes just because you have some recreational horses. People get around it all sorts of ways- raise and sell a little hay or other crop, keep a few chickens, etc.

[Equine Obsession]

If one were to board a mare in foal, or with a foal by her side, even though the facilities weren't primarily used for the purpose of breeding, would that be passable?

And how often would animals have to breed in order to qualify? Can it be other animals on the property like another poster's example of chickens?

[Sandra6500]

I'm the one that wrote the article in the Seattle PI, and am pleasantly surprised with the response I've received for it. The more this info gets spread the better.

I would encourage everyone who is able to head down to Olympia on Nov 13th for the meeting. After my article was published I did hear from the director of the DOR and will speak with her and some other folks again later next week.

One issue that was "news to them" or so they claim is that this is also affecting people that have had farm plans approved. I know of a few barns personally that have spent a lot of money putting certain measures into place (drainage, fenced off areas that are not used as pasture/turnout, manure management, etc) that are now being affected by this as well. Perhaps the state/county really was unaware of this, but regardless its important that these issues are being brought forward.

If there are barn owners that fall under the above scenario I would love to hear from you as well. I got involved with this as my current barn owner is very much affected by this and by having my "contibuted essay" published I seem to have gotten the attention of some folks in Olympia. I would love to have more specific examples to give them when I speak to them next.

Sandra Possin- sandra_possin@hotmail.com

[galwaybay]

Taxes should be used to raise revenue. Period.

They should not be used to promote agriculture, low cost housing, industrial development, etc. As soon as tax policy moves to "promotion" or "discouragement" of some activity the lobbiests for the various interests will enter the arena, dollars will flow (legally and illegally) to decision makers, and corruption will flourish (and this is true at the local, state, or national level).

I benefit from our state's Green Belt program. I quality as both agricultural and forest. This saves me a very large sum in property taxes. But I would surrender it gladly if taxation became a revenue only program because I know that I'd likely pay less if all the OTHER tax favored interests paid IAW exising state law.

The examples of devopers "warehousing land" and timber companies reaping benefits just clearly demonstrates the "unintended consquences" of industry specific tax breaks and "social engineering by tax code."

If you want to close the loopholes, close them all. Or leave it be and let the political process work its "magic."

G.
I disagree w/ comment about not using taxes to promote agriculture - please think of the farmers - think of a farmer who has had their land in their family for generations and the old inheritance/death tax comes along and they are forced to sell off part of their land - to developers - to pay off their mortgage. I recently heard a story about the taxes and laws applied to the farming community shortly after the Depression. Seems the Govt levied taxes, rules and regs on farmers as to how much they could grow for how much $$ - so basically a wheat farmer could only grow so much wheat for some much profit to keep the cost of bread & wheat products down. Well one particulary farmer overgrew his wheat crop, ag dept slammed him w/ a fine which he couldn't pay so the Gov't confiscated his land to levy the fine. Great system eh.

I would venture to say there is a lot more to it than just taxing equines - it's about the government trying to figure out a way to increase funding w/o increasing taxes which no one wants to do. Since horses are no longer needed as in plowing/cart and are for pleasure why not tax them.

Isn't the American Horse Council a lobby group in DC /

[stryder]

Can you get chickens, breed them and sell the eggs? Would that count as agricultural use?

You'd need a lot of chickens...

Washington provides for two scenarios: One is for land at least 20 contiguous acres, and the other is for five acres up to 20 acres. There's a complex forumula for determining the revenue required for the 5-up-to-20 acre farms.

[Sandra6500]

The revenue required is actually pretty minimal. The problem is the requirement that in order to qualify the "product" had to be produced in the past not just going forward. Barn owners reporting income from only boarding isn't cutting it.

[carolprudm]

Pumpkin patch in the manure pile?
Cashmere goats?

[poltroon]

The revenue required is actually pretty minimal. The problem is the requirement that in order to qualify the "product" had to be produced in the past not just going forward. Barn owners reporting income from only boarding isn't cutting it.

This might be able to be fought politically as a separate point, since if people's understanding of the tax situation has changed, it could be devastating to do the look-back.

Otherwise, start looking at a cow and calf, sheep, chickens, even a christmas tree or firewood plantation.

[appychick59]

Umm, there is an online petition available now.;)

[caffeinated]

Umm, there is an online petition available now.;)

Online petitions are next to useless, in most cases. If you want to be heard, they need a real paper petition with verifiable signatures and addresses, and those in the affected area need to attend meetings, and flood the appropriate offices with real letters and telephone calls.

Internet petitions are hard to verify (easy to sign twice, people who aren't constituents can sign, etc)- they're popular because you don't have to actually get off your duff and DO anything, but in the end real letters are far more effective.