Education Reform is Everything, Everywhere, All At Once

Education Reform is Everything, Everywhere, All At Once

Education reform is dominating the agenda at the State House, yet there is still no single clear path forward. As crossover nears, lawmakers are being asked to make foundational decisions about cost, quality, governance, equity, and workforce readiness simultaneously. The pressure to act is colliding with unresolved tradeoffs.

Education spending has become the central policy arena where affordability, opportunity, and long-term economic competitiveness intersect.

Cost and Quality Are Inseparable

Education spending remains the largest driver of property tax pressure, creating real affordability challenges for households and employers. Yet lawmakers are clear: cost control alone cannot be the goal. Reform must protect educational quality, expand opportunity, and deliver equitable outcomes statewide.

Affordability without quality is unsustainable. Quality without fiscal discipline is unattainable.

Act 73 established a foundation-style funding system and statewide property tax framework intended to better align spending with student needs. But many critical implementation decisions remain unsettled. Yield setting, cost allocation, and fiscal modeling assumptions are still under debate as school budget deadlines approach.

Without clarity, communities and employers cannot reliably anticipate property tax impacts, reinforcing broader concerns about fiscal predictability.

Governance and Rural Realities

Governance and redistricting have emerged as some of the most visible and contentious elements of reform. The House Education Committee continues reviewing consolidation models, with cautious support from statewide education organizations for smaller districts than originally proposed. That support remains conditional and focused on minimizing disruption for students and families.

Debate continues over how to structure superintendent oversight and define consolidation metrics. Should it be driven by student population, number of schools, principals, or a blended formula? These questions play out differently in rural and urban communities, where geography, transportation, and staffing capacity vary widely.

For many rural communities, governance reform is not just structural, it is about identity, access, and operational feasibility.

Equity, Choice, and Tuitioning Towns

Equity considerations run through nearly every aspect of the debate. Lawmakers continue to examine the role of independent schools, eligibility standards, and the future of tuitioning towns.

For tuitioning communities, the issue is continuity and access. For the broader system, it is fairness, consistency, and cost exposure. Rural areas emphasize transportation and limited capacity, while more densely populated communities focus on scale and administrative burden.

Durable reform must recognize Vermont’s geographic diversity and avoid one-size-fits-all solutions that create unintended inequities.

Career and Technical Education and Workforce Alignment

Career and technical education remains central to the conversation. Act 73 anticipated additional work to incorporate CTE into the foundation formula, recognizing its role in workforce readiness and economic mobility.

Workforce alignment is not peripheral, it is foundational to Vermont’s long-term competitiveness.

A sweeping proposal would significantly restructure CTE governance and funding through a new statewide education service agency model. Supporters argue it could expand access and better align programs with workforce demand. Legislators have raised unresolved questions about transportation, regional voice, accountability, staffing, administrative costs, and funding flow.

The core question is whether centralization would increase efficiency and consistency, or distance programs from local workforce needs and community partnerships.

Fiscal Uncertainty and Pressure

Fiscal uncertainty has been especially visible in House Ways and Means. Updated school budget data, yield setting, and cost drivers remain under review. Briefings from the Joint Fiscal Office reinforce that unsettled district boundaries, unresolved labor costs, and regional variation limit the reliability of current modeling.

Lawmakers have expressed frustration about evaluating proposals without clear evidence of how they will affect both property taxes and student outcomes, even as expectations for near-term affordability relief rise.

Delivering immediate tax stabilization while redesigning the system presents a significant structural challenge.

The Broader Economic Context

This debate is unfolding against a broader economic backdrop. The Vermont Futures Project Economic Action Plan and Vermont Competitiveness Dashboard consistently highlight workforce shortages, demographic decline, cost of living pressures, and tax burden.

Education policy directly shapes workforce development, employer confidence, and long-term growth.

A system that is unaffordable is not sustainable. A system focused narrowly on cost without protecting quality and equity will fail students and weaken Vermont’s long-term economic prospects.

What Happens Next

As crossover approaches, committees are advancing major proposals on governance, funding, equity, and workforce alignment, but many difficult questions remain unresolved.

Education reform will remain the center of gravity at the State House throughout this biennium. The decisions made in the coming weeks will shape school governance, property tax bills, student opportunity, workforce readiness, and Vermont’s long-term competitiveness.

The Vermont Chamber will continue engaging with a focus on affordability, predictability, workforce alignment, and data-informed outcomes that support both students and Vermont employers.

CONNECT WITH OUR EDUCATION EXPERT

Megan Sullivan

Vice President of Government Affairs

Economic Development, Fiscal Policy, Healthcare, Housing, Land Use/Permitting, Technology

RECENT NEWS

Senate Begins Coordinated Work on Act 250 Reform Implementation

Senate Begins Coordinated Work on Act 250 Reform Implementation

Senators have begun a coordinated review of how Vermont’s Act 250 land use transformation is going after major reforms were adopted in 2024 through Act 181. Act 250 has been a cornerstone of land use and development policy in Vermont for decades, and reform represented a significant shift in how housing and other growth-related developments are permitted. As one of the most consequential land use reforms in recent years, implementation will play a critical role in determining whether the law achieves its intended balance between environmental stewardship and housing production.

Act 181 was designed to encourage housing production in planned growth areas while maintaining protections for critical natural resources. As the law moves from paper into practice, the Legislature is hearing from stakeholders about early implementation challenges and questions about transition timing, consistency, and clarity. This implementation phase is where legislative intent meets on-the-ground reality, and where predictability and administrative clarity become essential for communities and businesses alike.

This conversation started with a joint hearing of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee and the Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee, where lawmakers heard from the Vermont Chamber as well as planners, municipal leaders, and conservation advocates on how the new system is working and where adjustments may be needed. A second hearing followed that allowed committees to dig deeper into specific areas such as the opt-in of communities into growth areas that will be exempted from Act 250.

In response to input, the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee has drafted language that would make targeted, technical updates to address some of the challenges in S.325. This bill approaches corrections by focusing on fine-tuning implementation to match legislative intent and avoid unintended consequences.

The Vermont Chamber has testified three times as part of this process, reflecting its long-standing role as an engaged stakeholder and collaborator in shaping workable policy solutions. Testimony has centered on ensuring that time is taken to get things right which in turn does not inadvertently slow housing production or introduce unnecessary complexity.

As the Legislature continues its review, the Vermont Chamber has encouraged lawmakers to focus on several priority issues:

  • Maintaining temporary Act 250 housing exemptions while municipalities and regional planning commissions complete the planning and mapping work required under the new law.
  • Providing additional time before new Act 250 triggers take effect, including provisions related to Tier 3 areas and the Road Rule, to allow for technical refinement and stakeholder engagement.
  • Clarifying how Act 250 review applies when a project affects a specific natural resource, so projects are evaluated only on the criteria needed to protect that resource, rather than undergoing a full review by default.
  • Shifting responsibility away from municipalities for administering existing Act 250 permits in Tier 1A areas to ensure that isn’t a barrier for communities that could have Tier 1A.
  • Studying how to address appeals of municipal zoning decisions in growth areas, with the goal of reducing duplicative or non-material appeals while preserving legitimate environmental and community oversight.

Together, these refinements are aimed at strengthening predictability in Vermont’s permitting landscape while upholding environmental protections and supporting needed housing development.

The discussion now underway reflects a recognition among lawmakers and stakeholders that large-scale reforms succeed or fail on implementation. Act 181 intentionally shifted significant work into the transition period and technical clarification, and adjustments are not unreasonable as the new system is phased in.

The Vermont Chamber will continue engaging with lawmakers and stakeholders as this work unfolds. Practical refinements that balance environmental protection with critical housing production and economic vitality will be critical to Vermont’s long-term affordability and competitiveness.

CONNECT WITH OUR LAND USE EXPERT

Megan Sullivan

Vice President of Government Affairs

Economic Development, Fiscal Policy, Healthcare, Housing, Land Use/Permitting, Technology

RECENT NEWS

Issue Updates from the State House | Week of February 10, 2026

Issue Updates from the State House

Week of February 10, 2026

A weekly snapshot of key legislative activity impacting Vermont’s business community. 

Retail Delivery Fee: The House Transportation committee introduced H.863, a bill that would impose a fee of $0.30 on all retail deliveries. The proposal would raise burdensome and costly new administrative and compliance requirements on Vermont businesses that operate direct-to- consumer services.

Local Option Gas Tax: The Senate Transportation Committee reviewed language allowing municipalities to impose an additional 1 percent local option tax on sales, meals and rooms, or alcohol, with much of the revenue retained by the state for the Transportation Fund. While a long term transportation funding solution is needed, this approach could raise costs for businesses in the visitor economy without resolving the underlying structural challenges.

Tax Credit Opt Out: The House Ways and Means committee discussed opting out of a $1,700 federal tax credit for contributions to scholarship organizations that help pay education expenses for elementary and secondary students. Choosing to forgo this no-cost federal incentive could shut the door on an additional funding mechanism for Vermont’s education system

Income Tax Brackets: The House Ways and Means committee introduced H.732, a bill that would add new income tax brackets at the $200,000 and $400,000 income levels to generate additional revenue for the education fund. Reliance on additional and volatile income taxes to address structural spending problems will not address the underlying affordability crisis facing Vermont, the third most taxed state in the nation.

Tax Classifications: The House Ways and Means Committee continued work on expanding property tax classifications from two to three categories, including discussion of defining employer-provided housing as a nonmonetary employment benefit and limiting property attestation forms to properties with fewer than five dwellings. The committee chair signaled that additional testimony will be taken next week as lawmakers continue to evaluate the structure and potential impacts of the proposal.

Budget Adjustment: The Senate advanced H.790, the budget adjustment bill that makes midyear changes to the FY ’26 state budget. The committee largely concurred with the House proposal to carry surplus funds into the FY ’27 budget for potential use in a property tax buydown once the broader budget outlook takes shape. The bill now moves to the House Floor for further consideration.

Cannabis Event Permitting: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committee reviewed S.278, a bill that would authorize general event permits for cannabis sales, with limited hours, access-controlled spaces, licensed entity applications, and municipal approval requirements similar to alcohol event permits. With significant implications for venues statewide, careful consideration will be needed before advancing this broad expansion of cannabis use.

Public Safety: The House and Senate Judiciary Committees held a joint hearing on the Chittenden County Accessibility Court pilot, launched in response to record case backlogs. The pilot has resolved over 700 pending cases and will continue at a scaled-back level, with testimony also noting that long-term success in reducing court volume will depend in part on addressing underlying housing instability.

Economic Development: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committee continued review of S.327, emphasizing the need to improve communication of business resources and clarify Vermont’s branding initiatives. As discussion continues around requiring an administrative report before establishing a Business Development Task Force, it remains important to consider the strong impact a task force working in tandem with this report could have on creating accessible and competitive economic environments.

Alcohol: The House Government Operations and Military Affairs committee continued testimony on an omnibus alcohol bill, hearing overwhelming support from the alcohol industry on improvements the bill would make to distribution allowances, services in farmers markets, consumption levels permitted in tasting rooms and retail shops, and permitting and hours of service for off-site tasting events.

Health Care Recruitment: The Senate Health and Welfare committee reviewed S.142, a bill creating a pathway to licensure for internationally trained medical professionals. With strong stakeholder support, the proposal would help address workforce shortages and strengthen Vermont’s ability to attract and retain skilled healthcare providers.

Health Care: The Senate Health and Welfare committee continued work on S.190, a bill that would put outsourced hospital services under the Green Mountain Care Board’s budget-setting authority and require hospitals to compare their posted pricing to Medicare in preparation of reference-based pricing. These changes aim to continue momentum of cost containment efforts.

Vermont Housing Improvement Program (VHIP): The House General and Housing committee reviewed the VHIP program, which helps property owners bring vacant or code-deficient housing back online in an affordable manner. Without a base funding allocation as requested by the Administration, the future of one of the state’s most effective housing development programs remains uncertain

Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) Budget: The House Commerce and Economic Development and House Appropriations committees heard testimony on ACCD’s budget proposal, including much-needed funding for the Manufactured Home Improvement Program, International Business Development Office, and a request for base funding to VHIP. No additional funding was requested by the Department of Tourism and Marketing or for economic development programs though investments in both of these areas have returns that help grow the economy.

Net Metering: The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee reviewed H.717, a bill that would cap or eliminate the negative adjustor for net-metered energy. If enacted, the proposal could shift additional costs onto non-net-metered ratepayers and disrupt the Public Utility Commission’s established process for regularly updating adjustors based on competitive market prices.

Plastics Prohibitions: The Senate Natural Resources and Energy committee continued testimony on S.247, a bill that would prohibit advanced recycling and chemical conversion technologies and restrict certain materials used in medical equipment. These provisions could add cost pressures to an already strained healthcare system and place the state out of alignment with others pursuing innovative waste management solutions.

Noncompete: The House Commerce and Economic Development continued work on H.205, bill that would ban non-competes and restricts an employer’s use of retention incentive agreements. The bill continues to take shape into a more workable proposal, with legislators including flexibility, reflecting testimony from impacted employers, and continuing work to remove any unintended consequences.

 

CONNECT WITH OUR TEAM

Megan Sullivan

she/her

Vice President of Government Affairs

802-522-6316

RECENT NEWS

Politics Over Process: Vermont Voices Left Out of the Data Privacy Debate

Politics Over Process: Vermont Voices Left Out of the Data Privacy Debate

A joint data privacy hearing was billed as an opportunity for legislators to deepen their understanding of digital privacy systems. Instead, it highlighted a concerning dynamic in the legislative process, one that framed business as the problem while excluding local perspectives that are central to Vermont’s economy.

The hearing, convened by a member of the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee and attended by members of that and the Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee, featured testimony from a narrow and interconnected set of national privacy advocates. Despite being described as an educational session, the hearing did not include testimony from any Vermont based businesses, nonprofits, healthcare providers, or financial institutions. These are the very organizations responsible for implementing and complying with any changes to state law.

National experts play an important role in policy discussions and bring valuable insight from across jurisdictions. However, education requires exposure to competing viewpoints, real-world implementation experience, and an honest discussion of tradeoffs. That balance is especially important in complex areas like data privacy, where policy design has real operational, legal, and economic consequences. Those elements were largely absent from this hearing.

Instead, testimony repeatedly portrayed businesses as inherently untrustworthy and incapable of responsible data stewardship without aggressive regulatory and litigious driven intervention. Several speakers argued that companies could not be relied upon to protect personal information and that sweeping restrictions and enforcement mechanisms were necessary to prevent harm. Concerns about compliance costs and operational burden were minimized or dismissed, even as legislators raised questions about the impact on small businesses in a rural state like Vermont.

The imbalance was further underscored by what was missing from the discussion. There are respected academics who study how comprehensive privacy laws are functioning in other states and who raise concerns about the economic consequences of a growing and inconsistent patchwork of state-by-state privacy regimes. There are also national experts with deep experience in sectors already governed by extensive data privacy laws, including healthcare and financial services, who could provide insight into how strong enforceable privacy protections operate in practice. None of these perspectives were included.

Vermont business organizations have consistently supported strong, comprehensive data privacy protections. Support has been expressed for the balanced bipartisan data privacy bill that passed the Vermont Senate unanimously last year and, because Vermont operates on a biennium, remains under consideration this session. That legislation would provide Vermonters with robust consumer protections while remaining workable for employers, nonprofits, healthcare providers, and financial institutions operating in a digital economy.

At a time when Vermont continues to face affordability pressures, workforce shortages, and challenges building economic momentum, process matters. Policy development is most effective when it includes the people and organizations responsible for implementation alongside national expertise. A hearing dominated by a single advocacy perspective does not meet that standard.

Vermont stakeholders remain engaged and prepared to participate in a more balanced and inclusive process. Strong data privacy policy will succeed only if it reflects a full range of perspectives and builds on the bipartisan work already before the Legislature.

CONNECT WITH OUR DATA PRIVACY EXPERT

Megan Sullivan

Vice President of Government Affairs

Economic Development, Fiscal Policy, Healthcare, Housing, Land Use/Permitting, Technology

RECENT NEWS

Federal Tax Policy, Vermont Choices, and the Opportunity to Support Vermont Businesses

Federal Tax Policy, Vermont Choices, and the Opportunity to Support Vermont Businesses

Lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee confronted a reality that Vermont businesses are already living with. Federal tax changes and trade disruptions are creating uncertainty that businesses cannot control, while Vermont’s selective conformity framework puts state policymakers in a position to either reduce that strain or add to it. As federal pressures build, the conformity debate this session is less about following Washington and more about how Vermont chooses to support its own economy.

Federal tax changes are rarely neutral for states. Vermont does not conform automatically to the federal tax code. Changes that affect the calculation of federal taxable income generally flow through unless the state explicitly decouples, while provisions that occur below the line or are structured differently often require affirmative legislative action. As a result, conformity decisions are not passive. They are deliberate policy choices that shape whether Vermont’s tax system reflects current economic conditions or introduces added cost and complexity for employers already navigating uncertainty.

In periods of stability, these decisions matter. In periods of disruption, they matter more.

What Federal Conformity Means for Vermont Businesses

To ground the discussion in real world application, the Committee heard detailed testimony from Mike Hackett, Partner and Tax Practice Leader at Gallagher Flynn and Company. Hackett walked lawmakers through how key provisions of H.R. 1 operate across business types and why conformity decisions have tangible consequences for Vermont employers.

He emphasized that when Vermont decouples from federal tax treatment, the impact is not abstract. It shows up as additional calculations, higher professional fees, and increased compliance complexity for businesses simply trying to follow the law. In an already challenging operating environment, that added friction can influence whether businesses invest, expand, or delay decisions.

From there, the testimony focused on several provisions with broad relevance across Vermont’s economy.

Research and Experimental Expenditures

One of the most significant provisions discussed was the restoration of current deductibility for domestic research and development expenses. Hackett explained that prior capitalization requirements created a disconnect between taxable income and actual business economics, forcing companies to pay tax on income they never truly realized.

These impacts extend well beyond traditional research-intensive industries. Vermont employers rely on R&D spending for process improvements, engineering, compliance driven innovation, and product development across manufacturing, construction, software, and research driven fields. Allowing these costs to be deducted when incurred improves cash flow and supports reinvestment at a time when margins are under pressure.

Business Interest Deductions

H.R. 1 also restores the calculation of interest deduction limits to a framework used prior to 2022. Vermont has historically conformed to this approach. Hackett noted that decoupling here would be a meaningful departure for the state, immediately limiting businesses’ ability to deduct ordinary financing costs while also requiring separate state and federal calculations.

In an environment of higher interest rates and rising capital costs, interest deductibility directly affects access to capital and the feasibility of investment across sectors. Maintaining alignment here helps avoid layering additional cost and complexity onto routine business financing decisions.

Expensing of Depreciable Business Assets

Updates to federal expensing limits, particularly under Section 179, reflect inflation and rising equipment costs. Vermont already conforms to these rules. Hackett cautioned that failing to update conformity would leave outdated thresholds in place while prices continue to rise, requiring businesses to track separate depreciation systems without changing behavior in a productive way.

Enhanced expensing provisions support investment in the physical backbone of Vermont’s economy, including manufacturing equipment, construction machinery, agricultural assets, technology systems, and hospitality infrastructure.

An Unintended Small Business Consequence

Hackett also highlighted a technical but important issue affecting small businesses that amended federal returns related to prior R&D capitalization rules. Without state action, some Vermont businesses could permanently lose the ability to deduct legitimate expenses for Vermont tax purposes. Those dollars were spent, but the deductions disappear under current state law.

This outcome was never intended by federal policy and disproportionately affects small employers managing tight cash flow, underscoring how technical conformity decisions can have very real consequences.

Conformity as a Vermont Decision

What emerged clearly from the hearing is that conformity is not an endorsement of federal policy. It is a Vermont decision about how much friction the state is willing to layer onto businesses already absorbing external shocks.

When federal actions introduce volatility, state policy choices can either amplify that uncertainty or help stabilize operations. In this context, conforming to key federal provisions can reduce compliance costs, improve predictability, and support continued investment in Vermont’s economy.

The Bottom Line

This week’s testimony underscored that Vermont’s tax decisions this session will be shaped less by ideology and more by whether the state uses the tools it controls to respond to forces it does not.

Federal policy may be driving uncertainty, but Vermont has choices. Conformity decisions that prioritize predictability, simplicity, and investment give businesses the clarity they need to navigate disruption and continue contributing to Vermont’s economy.

The Vermont Chamber will continue to engage lawmakers with data-informed analysis and real-world context to ensure tax policy supports affordability, predictability, and long-term economic resilience for businesses across the state.

CONNECT WITH OUR TAX EXPERT

Amy Spear

President

Fiscal Policy, Taxation, Tourism and Hospitality, Workforce Development

RECENT NEWS

Issue Updates from the State House | Week of February 3, 2026

Issue Updates from the State House

Week of February 3, 2026

A weekly snapshot of key legislative activity impacting Vermont’s business community. 

  • Redistricting Map: After a year of contentious debate over the future of Vermont’s education system, the House Education Committee chair released a proposed redistricting map to move the conversation from theory to a more tangible framework for discussion. Framed explicitly as a starting point, the map sets the stage for stakeholder feedback and upcoming testimony, with key questions around governance, cost pressures, local control, and implementation.
  • Omnibus Housing Bill: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committee continued review of S.328, working to ensure that town housing goals continue to integrate with statewide development targets and continuing to develop an off-site housing construction pilot program that could make it easier to create new housing statewide
  • Rural Housing: The House General and Housing Committee continued work on H.775, a multifaceted housing production bill focused on incentivizing small-scale rural development by unlocking new financing tools and reducing barriers for small developers. Committee discussion explored the proposal of an off-site housing construction accelerator pilot program that could lead to more efficient, timely, and consistent home creation.
  • Land Use Permitting: The House Environment committee introduced H.805, a bill that would allow Agency of Natural Resources-certified engineers to help streamline wetland and stormwater permitting for projects with minor impacts. Modeled after existing wastewater exemptions, the proposal could improve permitting efficiency.
  • Omnibus Alcohol Bill: The House Government Operations and Military Affairs committee combined four alcohol-related bills into a single omnibus alcohol bill that would improve operations for alcohol suppliers by increasing distribution allowances, allowing services in farmers markets, increasing consumption permitted in tasting rooms and retail shops, and improving permitting and hours of service for off-site tasting events.
  • Vermont Employment Growth Initiative (VEGI): The Senate Finance and Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committees continued review of S.225 and S.327, which would remove the sunset of the VEGI program and preserve access to this key economic development tool.
  • Outdoor Recreation Day: On Outdoor Recreation Day, committees heard testimony on the outdoor recreation industry’s $2.1 billion contribution to Vermont’s GDP and its support of over 16,000 jobs.
  • Health Care: The House Health Care committee continued testimony on H.585, a bill proposing broad reforms to health insurance structures, including the permitting of association health care plans to provide additional choices for employers and self-employed Vermonters. Continued introduction of tools like these remains critical to stabilizing Vermont’s volatile insurance markets and improving affordability for ratepayers.
  • Prescription Drugs: The House Health Care committee received updates on legislation passed last session to cap prices on certain prescription drugs to make health care more affordable. The committee also discussed strategies to pool purchasing power and reduce drug costs to help curb systemically high healthcare expenses.  
  • Budget Adjustment: The Senate Appropriations committee reviewed H.790, the House-passed budget adjustment bill, which makes midyear changes to the FY ’26 state budget. The committee concurred with the House proposal to carry surplus funds into the FY ’27 budget for potential use in a property tax buydown once the broader budget outlook takes shape.
  • Education Spending: The Senate Finance committee continued work on S.220, a bill that would align education spending growth with inflation while implementation of education reform takes shape. While recent compromises in the bill allow for more flexibility in extreme circumstances, it remains unclear if the bill will move beyond this committee as debate continues.
  • Rodenticides: The House Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry committee reviewed H.758, a bill that would completely ban the use of rodenticides outside lengthy and narrow waiver procedures for applicators in cases of agricultural, environmental, or public health emergencies. Such a ban could significantly affect facilities management, food safety, and operational costs for businesses across sectors, particularly those in food service, hospitality, and manufacturing.
  • Tax Classifications: The House Ways and Means committee continued work on the expansion of property tax classifications from two to three, determining property taxation will be based on percentage of property use within in each category. Significant challenges remain, including the verification of property use attestations, administration and collection of forms, and the cost of implementation.
  • Leave Policy (H.459): House General and Housing Committee discussed a policy proposal to stop workers’ compensation leave from running concurrently with Parental and Family Leave. Committee members raised concerns about employer costs, particularly for smaller or benefit-rich employers, and questioned whether the bill was overly burdensome. The committee agreed to have the bill drafted with an employer size threshold for further discussion.
  • Flexible Working Arrangements: The Vermont Chamber of Commerce testified before the Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committee on S.230, a bill that would shift the onus to employers to prove that flexible working arrangements are unworkable. Vermont has one of the most extensive flexible working arrangement laws in the country and this is a solution in search of a problem.
  • Non-Compete: The House Commerce and Economic Development committee continued work on H.205, a bill that would broadly ban non-competes and restricts an employer’s use of retention incentive agreements. The bill continues to be shaped into a more workable proposal.
  • Franchises: The House Commerce and Economic Development committee continued work on H.733, a bill that would significantly expand state regulation of business-to-business franchise relationships by limiting termination and renewal rights and imposing mandatory inventory repurchase and transfer requirements. The proposal raises serious concerns about government intrusion into private contracts, added compliance costs, and potential impacts on franchise investment and expansion in Vermont.
  • Mediators: The House General and Housing committees advanced H.548, a bill that would create a new state position offering mediation services to both public and private sector businesses and their employees’ collective bargaining units. The bill now moves to the House Floor for consideration
  • Career Technical Education (CTE): The Senate Education committee heard testimony on risks of applying broad reform to a diverse system of CTE centers while also considering the complexities of creating real solutions to the problems facing CTE centers. Ensuring CTE centers are properly funded, accessible to students, and integrated with broader education reform remains vital for developing Vermont’s future workforce.
  • Event Ticketing: The House Commerce and Economic Development committee continued testimony on H.512, a bill aimed at curbing resale of event tickets to improve event attendance and strengthen protections for venues using online ticketing platforms. Questions remain around potential impacts on face-value reselling platforms and possible exceptions for venue-reseller partnerships
  • Purchase and Use: The House Ways and Means Committee reviewed the Governor’s proposal to shift the remaining one-third of vehicle purchase and use tax revenue from the Education Fund to the Transportation Fund over the next three years. This transition is important to meet federal match and road maintenance requirements.
  • Meals and Rooms: The Senate Finance Committee reviewed S.286, a bill proposing a 2 percent increase to the rooms and meals tax and further raising costs for businesses in the visitor economy. During review, the committee chair emphasized that significant testimony from impacted industries will be needed.

 

CONNECT WITH OUR TEAM

Megan Sullivan

she/her

Vice President of Government Affairs

802-522-6316

RECENT NEWS

Issue Updates from the State House | Week of January 27, 2026

Issue Updates from the State House

Week of January 27, 2026

A weekly snapshot of key legislative activity impacting Vermont’s business community. 

  • Omnibus Housing Bill Advances: The Senate Economic Development Committee advanced a comprehensive housing bill that takes important steps to increase housing supply by strengthening municipal housing planning requirements and modernizing zoning to allow more duplexes and small multi-unit homes where infrastructure exists. As the bill moves forward, the Chamber will focus on ensuring that new labor incentives, rent regulations, and added requirements do not unintentionally drive-up construction costs or slow the pace of housing production needed for Vermont’s workforce.
  • Rural Housing: The House General and Housing Committee reviewed H.775, a multifaceted housing production bill focused on incentivizing small-scale rural development by unlocking new financing tools and reducing barriers for small developers. Committee discussion explored governance and financing mechanics, accessibility considerations, and how these tools could support housing production across rural communities.
  • Recycling and Material Innovation Ban (S.247): The Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee reviewed provisions of S.247 that would prohibit advanced recycling and chemical conversion technologies, effectively closing the door on emerging recycling innovation and related investment in Vermont. This type of blanket ban sends an anti-business signal that puts Vermont out of step with states pursuing circular economy solutions and modern waste management strategies.
  • Health Care Supply Impacts (S.247): Separate sections of S.247 also include restrictions on materials used in medical tubing and solution containers that could increase costs and limit supply options for health care providers. These changes risk adding pressure to an already strained health care system, with downstream cost impacts for employers and patients.
  • Land Use and Housing: The Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee held multiple hearings this week to understand the state of the housing discussion and its intersection with land use, including updates on mapping, Act 181, and the community housing investment program.
  • Budget Adjustment: The House advanced H.790, a bill making adjustments to the FY ’26 budget. While the Governor proposed using surplus funds to immediately buy down projected property tax increases, the House version would carry the funds into the FY ’27 budget for potential use in a buydown or for other priorities. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
  • Yield Bill: The House Ways and Means Committee reviewed projected FY ’27 property tax rates but will wait to set rates until school budgets are finalized. With a funding gap exceeding $100 million, a combination of buydowns and rate increases is expected, directly impacting employers and affecting economic predictability as runaway costs continue.
  • Alcohol: House Government Operations committee took testimony on H.672, H.655, H.647, and a committee bill, a flight of alcohol-related legislation that would expand permissions for sale, total distribution, and number of establishments allowed in the alcoholic beverages industry. These changes could streamline the sale and distribution of alcohol for licensees.
  • District Consolidation: The House Education committee continued reviewing school district consolidation as a strategy to reduce education costs. Despite earlier legislative goals to adopt a new district map by the end of the month, delays indicate a continued lag in policy committees to adopt key cost-saving measures.
  • Mileage-Based User Fee: The Senate Transportation committee continued testimony on implementation of a mileage-based user fee for electric vehicles, putting forward a system that would charge EV owners based on odometer readings. While this change would help recoup some revenue for the flagging Transportation Fund, additional action will be needed to ensure Vermont’s roads remain adequately funded and maintained.
  • Dental Workforce Development: The House Government Operations and Military Affairs committee heard testimony on H.588,  a bill that would create a temporary license for visiting dental students. This licensure update could help expand Vermont’s dental workforce by making it easier for students to practice, certify, and remain in the state.
  • Tax Classifications: The House Ways and Means committee continued work on the expansion of property tax classifications from two to three. Many challenges still need to be addressed, including the verification of property use attestation forms, administration and collection of forms, and the cost of implementation. Dwelling and employee housing definitions also remain in flux.
  • Career Technical Education (CTE): The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committee reviewed S.313, a bill outlining goals to align CTE with workforce needs, expand access, reduce barriers, and better integrate CTE courses with graduation requirements. While the bill marks a strong start to CTE reform discussions, continued focus is needed to ensure students have the opportunity build skills necessary to meet the needs of Vermont employers.
  • Event Ticketing: The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee reviewed an updated version of H.512, a bill aimed at curbing the resale of event tickets. If advanced, the bill could improve event attendance and strengthen protections for venues using online ticketing platforms.
  • Energy Codes: The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure Committee continued testimony on H.718, a bill that would push enforcement of existing residential and commercial building energy codes, require new disclosures and training for contractors, and allow municipalities to enforce energy codes alongside the state. If advanced, this bill could add regulatory layers and administrative complexity, a move that directly conflicts with the urgent housing crisis.
  • Flexible Working Arrangements: The House General and Housing Committee introduced H.726, a bill that would require employers to grant employee requests for flexible working arrangements, shifting the onus to businesses to prove these arrangements would not work.
  • Non-Compete: The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee took up testimony on H.205, a bill that would broadly ban non-competes and restricts an employer’s use of retention incentive agreements. While some improvements have been made as a result of the Non-Compete Agreements Study Committee report released this past fall, additional changes are needed to make the bill balanced and workable.
  • Franchise Agreements: The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee reviewed H.733, a bill that would significantly expand state regulation of business-to-business franchise relationships by limiting termination and renewal rights and imposing mandatory inventory repurchase and transfer requirements. The proposal raises serious concerns about government intrusion into private contracts, added compliance costs, and potential impacts on franchise investment and expansion in Vermont.

CONNECT WITH OUR TEAM

Megan Sullivan

she/her

Vice President of Government Affairs

802-522-6316

RECENT NEWS

Senate Lawmakers Focus on Economic Development Tools and Strategy

Senate Lawmakers Focus on Economic Development Tools and Strategy

The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee began work on an economic development bill this week that closely reflects priorities outlined in the Vermont Futures Project’s Economic Action Plan and aligns with the Vermont Chamber’s call for strategic, data-informed action to strengthen the state’s economy.

The committee bill proposes the creation of a Business Development Task Force, charged with identifying how Vermont can better support and enable business growth at all levels. In tandem, the Department of Economic Development (DED) and the Department of Tourism and Marketing (VDTM) are directed to review existing economic development tools at the state, regional, and national level, and to report to the task force how they are marketed to Vermont businesses. Not only could this review lead to a strengthening of opportunities for employers, but it also represents a substantive starting point for the task force to build on toward advancing much needed economic growth in Vermont. 

This proposed task force would include representatives from the Vermont Chamber and the Vermont Futures Project, pairing the Chamber’s statewide business leadership and policy engagement with the Futures Project’s data and research expertise to inform a coordinated economic development strategy. Over the course of its tenure, the task force could build on previous statewide studies and reports, including the Economic Action Plan, emphasizing regional coordination, modernized tools, and a strong workforce pipeline as key drivers of economic development. Ultimately, the task force would recommend future steps to improve access to capital, strengthen programs, and develop new tools that support long-term economic growth.

While Vermont faces ongoing economic headwinds, this effort shows that meaningful, bipartisan action is possible. As the Vermont Futures Project Competitiveness Dashboard notes, Vermont ranks last in the US for economic momentum. Businesses continue to feel the strain of an unstable economy. A focused, statewide approach to economic development is no longer optional.

Importantly, the bill doesn’t stop at the task force. It also:

  • Expands the Downtown Village Center Tax Credit Program, providing valuable funding for downtown revitalization.
  • Allocates funding to the Vermont Law and Graduate School’s business law center, providing businesses with expert legal aid.
  • Recommends additional funding for brownfield remediation, allowing continued housing redevelopment.
  • Repeals the sunset of the Vermont Employment Growth Initiative, preserving a cornerstone economic development tool.

At a time when other committees have prioritized employer mandates and regulatory expansions, the Vermont Chamber is enthusiastic about supporting the Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee’s strategic, thoughtful, and pragmatic progress.

CONNECT WITH OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EXPERT

Megan Sullivan

Vice President of Government Affairs

Economic Development, Fiscal Policy, Healthcare, Housing, Land Use/Permitting, Technology

RECENT NEWS

Construction, Not Obstruction: What Vermont’s Economy Needs Next

Construction, Not Obstruction: What Vermont’s Economy Needs Next

This year’s Vermont Economic Conference reinforced a clear throughline. Vermont’s economic future is not constrained by a lack of potential. It is shaped by the choices that either expand capacity or deepen constraint.

The keynote message from Jack Crivici-Kramer captured that reality succinctly. Vermont needs construction, not obstruction. That applies not only to housing and infrastructure, but also to policy design, where clarity, speed, and predictability determine whether investment happens here or elsewhere.

Vermont’s economy is not failing, but it is operating with very little margin for error. Housing supply, workforce availability, and affordability pressures are not abstract challenges. They are the conditions within which every legislative decision now operates.

When capacity is constrained, policy choices carry greater weight. Costs compound faster. Tradeoffs become sharper. Assumptions that might hold in a growing economy break down quickly in an economy that is not adding people or housing at scale.

The Vermont Chamber remains bullish on Vermont’s future. The question before policymakers is whether the decisions made now strengthen affordability, competitiveness, and long-term economic resilience, or compound the pressures employers are already navigating.

Where Capacity Constraints Meet Fiscal Policy

These constraints are already shaping the Legislature’s most consequential fiscal debates this session, particularly around education finance and property taxes.

Earlier this week, Vermont Chamber President Amy Spear testified before the Senate Finance Committee on S.220, which establishes allowable growth in education spending. The testimony emphasized a reality familiar to Vermont employers: when revenues are uncertain and costs rise, growth must be managed.

Despite years of reform discussions, Vermont is facing another projected average education property tax increase of nearly 12 percent for fiscal year 2026, following more than 40 percent growth over the past five years. That trajectory is disconnected from wage growth, household income trends, and business revenue growth, reflecting cost drift rather than sustainable growth.

Revenue volatility compounds the challenge. Corporate income tax collections continue to fluctuate, increasing reliance on property taxes as a fiscal backstop. Those costs do not stop at the tax bill. They flow through rents, housing costs, goods and services, and consumer prices, amplifying affordability pressures across the economy.

While not comprehensive reform, S.220 introduces interim fiscal discipline by establishing guardrails to slow cost escalation, stabilize the spending baseline, and preserve options for longer-term solutions.

Property Tax Classification: Implementation Update

At the same time, the House Ways and Means Committee continues work on Act 73 implementation, reviewing language that establishes three property tax classifications: homestead, nonhomestead residential, and nonhomestead nonresidential. All parcels will be assigned to one or more categories.

Under the draft framework, nonhomestead residential primarily includes second homes, seasonal homes, and short-term rentals. Long-term rentals, workforce housing, and larger multifamily properties are classified as nonhomestead nonresidential, alongside business and industrial property. Mixed-use properties will be proportionally classified based on use, requiring additional parcel-level data collection and reporting.

While this language does not change education tax rates, it sets the structure that will guide how future fiscal pressures are distributed.

From Conference Takeaways to Legislative Action

The Vermont Economic Conference reinforced a message that applies directly to the work underway this session. Vermont needs construction, not obstruction. That principle matters as much in fiscal policy and tax design as it does in housing and infrastructure.

Building durable systems requires intentional policy design, coordinated sequencing, and an understanding of how decisions interact across education finance, revenue structure, and affordability. When implementation details are treated as secondary, instability follows. When they are addressed deliberately, they can strengthen confidence and expand capacity over time.

As the legislative session advances, the Vermont Chamber’s government affairs team remains focused on ensuring these issues are addressed as part of a connected strategy rather than in isolation. That means advocating for policies that expand capacity, reinforce fiscal discipline, thoughtfully hone regulation, and improve predictability for employers and communities statewide.

CONNECT WITH OUR TAX EXPERT

Amy Spear

President

Fiscal Policy, Taxation, Tourism and Hospitality, Workforce Development

RECENT NEWS

House Health Care Debate Puts Employer Costs Back in Focus

House Health Care Debate Puts Employer Costs Back in Focus

The House Health Care Committee took up the Scott Administration’s health care reform proposal, H.585, with testimony revealing sharp skepticism from lawmakers and high stakes for employers and self-employed Vermonters navigating rising costs and limited options.

The Vermont Chamber was at the table to elevate how these policy decisions affect employers’ ability to offer coverage, compete for workers, and manage costs in a market that continues to narrow. As reflected in the 2025 Vermont Business Climate Survey, health care affordability remains one of the most significant challenges facing Vermont businesses.

Employer Impacts Frame the Vermont Chamber’s Testimony

Testimony emphasized that Vermont’s health insurance market remains constrained, with limited choice and persistent cost pressure leaving employers little flexibility at renewal. Businesses are already making difficult decisions about benefit offerings, wage growth, and expansion as premiums continue to rise.

At the same time, the Vermont Chamber acknowledged the monumental work the Legislature undertook last year to address health care costs and system sustainability. Those reforms laid important groundwork, but testimony stressed that employers are still feeling acute pressure today — underscoring the need to continue exploring additional tools that could expand choice and slow cost growth.

Association Health Plans and Other Tools Under Scrutiny

Much of the committee’s attention centered on the association health plan provisions of H.585. The Vermont Chamber highlighted Vermont’s past experience with fully insured, well-regulated association health plans, noting that limited participation did not destabilize the market but did provide additional choice for employers and self-employed Vermonters.

The committee also heard divided testimony on other elements of the Administration’s proposal, including limited age rating flexibility, site-neutral billing, and the potential pursuit of a federal reinsurance waiver. These provisions prompted a wide range of questions about market impacts, equity, and system stability, and the Vermont Chamber continues to evaluate how they may affect employers.

Committee Pushback and Administration Response

The House Health Care Committee expressed significant skepticism toward several components of H.585, raising concerns about unintended consequences and market disruption. As discussion grew increasingly dismissive of exploring alternative approaches, the Administration underscored the urgency of the moment.

Department of Financial Regulation Commissioner Kaj Sampson pointed to decades of data showing the path is unsustainable. He warned that declining to consider different options amounts to accepting a system that is not working:

“The data that’s really driving us, where we’ve been in the last 40 years and where we are today, shows us that we are not on a sustainable path… failure to entertain these different options or other options… is an acknowledgment that the path we’re on is acceptable and it simply is not.”

From the Vermont Chamber’s perspective, narrowing the range of policy tools, whether related to plan choice, payment reform, or market participation, risks reinforcing a system that continues to deliver high costs and limited options for employers and workers.

What Comes Next

As the House Health Care Committee continues its work on H.585, the Vermont Chamber will remain focused on advocating for policies that build on last year’s reforms while addressing the affordability pressures that face employers and the state’s large population of sole proprietors.

The Vermont Chamber encourages employers and self-employed Vermonters to share how health care costs and coverage availability are affecting their businesses. Employer experiences remain critical as lawmakers decide which tools — if any — to move forward. If you have a story to tell, contact us at msullivan@vtchamber.com.

CONNECT WITH OUR HEALTH CARE EXPERT

Megan Sullivan

Vice President of Government Affairs

Economic Development, Fiscal Policy, Healthcare, Housing, Land Use/Permitting, Technology

RECENT NEWS