Act 250 Update: Continued Progress, but Execution Risks Are Becoming Clearer

Act 250 Update: Continued Progress, but Execution Risks Are Becoming Clearer

This week’s testimony before the Senate Natural Resources Committee showed continued progress on working toward technical corrections to Act 181, the Act 250 reform adopted in 2024. But it also made clear that execution, not intent, is now the central challenge. Act 181 set an ambitious direction, encouraging housing in planned growth areas while protecting critical natural resources. Whether it succeeds will depend on whether the implementation phase delivers clarity, consistency, and confidence.

Regional planning commissions reported steady movement on Tier 1B mapping, with five commissions having submitted plans and three already receiving feedback from the Land Use Review Board. State level review of regional future land use maps is an important step. At the same time, RPCs were clear that evolving guidance and iterative feedback from the board are creating uncertainty. Regions that submitted early may be held to different standards than those submitting later, not because policy changed, but because interpretation is still developing. That inequity matters, especially when communities are being asked to make long-term planning decisions.

Tier 1B remains one of the most promising elements of Act 181. Eligibility is expected to cover roughly two to three percent of Vermont’s land area, a meaningful expansion from the approximately 0.3 percent previously eligible for downtown and village center incentives but still likely insufficient to meet the state’s housing needs. Tier 1B allows up to 50 housing units without Act 250 review in mapped growth areas. The intent is clear: give communities a real tool to support housing. The risk is that uncertainty in mapping, review standards, or timing undermines that goal.

Housing targets developed by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Community Development further reinforced that Vermont’s challenge is not hitting a precise unit count, but unlocking the housing market and building momentum. That requires signaling, through policy and implementation, that Vermont is open to housing in the places it has planned for growth.

Tier 3 remains the most concerning element of implementation. The Land Use Review Board described draft mapping and rulemaking focused on habitat connectors and other sensitive areas. While the board emphasized that Tier 3 is intended to be limited in scope and to avoid overlap with existing regulations, even board members acknowledged that many Vermonters do not yet understand how Tier 3 will work or whether it will apply to them. That lack of clarity is not a minor issue. It directly affects landowners, municipalities, and housing developers trying to make decisions now.

The board has asked for additional time to refine Tier 3 maps, narrow affected areas, and conduct outreach, including extending effective dates for Tier 3, the road rule, and Criterion 8C to December 31, 2027.

Tier 1A implementation raised similar red flags. Requiring municipalities to assume responsibility for administering existing Act 250 permits is a real deterrent for communities that might otherwise opt in. Testimony clarified that permits would transition gradually as they are amended, but without clear statutory guardrails, uncertainty remains. Communities need assurance that participation will not come with unmanageable administrative risk.

The Senate Natural Resources Committee appears to recognize these risks. Discussion around S.325 has focused on technical corrections that improve clarity, align timelines, and reduce unintended barriers to housing, rather than reopening last year’s policy debate.

From the Vermont Chamber’s perspective, the path forward is clear. Act 181 can work, but only if implementation prioritizes predictability, consistency, and momentum. That means clear standards from the Land Use Review Board, fair treatment of early and late adopters, realistic timelines, and a permitting system that supports housing in growth areas rather than slowing it through uncertainty.

The Vermont Chamber will continue to advocate for these corrections. It is the difference between a reform that delivers housing and economic vitality, and one that stalls under the weight of its own complexity.

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 17, 2026

Issue Updates from the State House

Week of February 17, 2026

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

  • Commerce Budget Letter: The House Commerce and Economic Development committee reviewed annual budget requests from statewide agencies and economic development organizations in preparation for sending their annual budget request letter to the House Appropriations committee. Continued focus on investing in economic development tools and programs that will move Vermont toward greater economic growth and competition remains vital for correcting structural issues facing the Vermont economy.
  • Vermont Adjutant General: Deputy Adjutant General Henry Harder was elected as the new Adjutant General of the Vermont National Guard by a Caucus of the Whole. He succeeds retiring 2025 Citizen of the Year Adjutant General Knight, who served eight years in the role and built meaningful relationships and trust between the Vermont National Guard, the legislators, and the broader public. The Vermont Chamber extends its gratitude to General Knight for his dedicated leadership and for 43 years of distinguished service to our nation.
  • Health Care Costs: The Senate Health and Welfare Committee heard testimony from the Green Mountain Care Board, which is advocating that hospital savings be targeted to specifically reduce costs for those in the state’s qualified health plans. The consequences could be significant for employers in the self-insured and large group market, the latter of which already saw an average 15% increase this year.
  • Budget Adjustment: The House took up H.790, , the budget adjustment bill that makes midyear changes to the FY ’26 state budget. The House and Senate Appropriations committees will now meet for a committee of conference to find compromise between the House and Senate versions of the bill.
  • Housing Construction: The House General and Housing committee continued discussions on H.775, refining provisions that would direct the Treasurer’s office to support financing for off-site modular homes and authorize the Vermont Housing Finance Agency authority to assist in funding long-term care facilities construction. These initiatives could promote more efficient housing development and strengthen access to residential healthcare services.
  • Housing Development: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committee continued work on S.328, reviewing funding incentives for high-density housing built with union labor and a provision prohibiting common interest communities from banning long-term rentals. While expanding rental markets is a meaningful step toward increasing housing supply, a union incentive could exclude smaller businesses and rural areas with lower union representation.
  • Career and Technical Education (CTE): The Senate Education committee continued review of S.313, discussing governance models, expanded access, aligned graduation credits, and integration of adult education programs. A collaborative approach between legislators, CTEs and the Administration will be essential to modernizing CTE and strengthening its role in Vermont’s education and workforce development.
  • Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy: The Vermont Chamber gave testimony to the Senate Finance committee on S.138, a bill proposing to expand the PACE program to include commercial and industrial buildings. The PACE program expansion would allow business owners to finance energy improvements and repay the cost over time through a special assessment on their property tax bill.
  • Redistricting: The House and Senate Education committees continued discussion on potential redistricting of Vermont’s education system. With regional models, voluntary merging, and draft map proposals all still under debate after seven weeks of work, substantive proposals and decisions must soon be made to continue on the path toward education reform and cost-saving measures.
  • Efficiency Standards: The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee continued work on H.718, making significant progress toward a balanced, incremental approach to establishing reliable and predictable residential building code standards. The bill now includes safe harbor language to protect builders and preempt liability arising from the Governor’s Executive Order allowing use of 2020 Residential Building Energy Standards.
  • Cannabis Event Permits: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs and the House Government Operations and Military Affairs committees heard testimony in a joint hearing on S.278, which proposes significant changes to cannabis laws, including a pilot program for cannabis events licenses modeled after alcohol events permits. As work continues, potential insurance and liability burdens for venues where cannabis consumption may be allowed must be considered.
  • Miscellaneous Tax Bill: The House Ways and Means Committee continued work on a committee bill making targeted administrative and policy updates to Vermont’s tax laws. The draft includes several provisions employers should be aware of: repeal of the denial of credits for taxes paid in another state by S corporations, which restores more equitable treatment for pass-through businesses; an increase in the Down Payment Assistance Program credit cap to reflect rising housing costs and support workforce housing access; and an increase in the estate tax filing threshold, which may reduce tax exposure for family-owned businesses and succession planning. Additional technical updates address property transfer tax, current use administration, and grand list timelines. This bill is expected to serve as the primary vehicle for potential federal tax conformity updates this session. Those conformity provisions are not yet included, and it remains unclear where they will ultimately land. The Vermont Chamber continues to advocate for thoughtful conformity to support business investment, modernization, and long-term competitiveness.
  • Net Metering: The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure continued work on H.716, a bill revising net metering credits. After stakeholder input and language review, the committee removed a harmful clause that would have capped the negative adjustor for net-metered energy, avoiding potential cost shifts onto non-net-metered ratepayers.
  • Economic Development: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs continued work on S.327, eliminating the Business Development Task Force and assigning further responsibilities to the Agency of Commerce and Economic Development. While efficiency and continued focus on developing economic competitiveness remain priorities, continued stakeholder engagement will be vital for ensuring a thorough review of challenges and opportunities facing Vermont businesses.
  • Tax Classifications: The House Ways and Means Committee continued work on expanding property tax classifications from two to three categories. Discussion included categorizing short- term rentals in apartment buildings, misclassification penalties, and potential impacts of seasonal workforce housing being included in the same tax classification as second homes and short-term rentals, creating a potential barrier for visiting workers.
  • Liquor Liability: The Vermont Chamber testified before the House Government Operations and Military Affairs Committee in support of repealing the mandatory liquor liability insurance requirement. Removing this mandate would eliminate a significant cost burden for businesses while preserving existing accountability standards.
  • Streamlined Housing Development: The Senate Natural Resources and Energy and Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committees reviewed persistent bottlenecks to housing development, focusing on infrastructure, zoning, and permitting delays. Legislators continue consideration of advancing legislation around pre-approved housing designs, an initiative that could cut build times, reduce permitting delays, and slash housing costs if implemented.
  • Convention Center Feasibility: The Vermont Chamber is serving on a statewide task force evaluating the feasibility of a convention center and performance venue in Vermont, and in this week’s meeting examined potential governance and funding models used for building and maintenance. While public-private partnerships and other funding mechanisms were discussed, evidence pointed to additional burdens of state or local funding being necessary for any project to pencil out. Email us to learn more.
  • US Supreme Court Tariff Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down sweeping tariffs set by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ruling they exceeded constitutional authority. While the decision did not directly address refunds for businesses that paid the tariffs, further guidance or mechanisms for potential reimbursement may emerge.
  • Senate Pro-Tempore Retirement: Senate Pro Tempore Phil Baruth announced on the Senate floor that he will retire at the end of the session and will not endorse a successor. With significant time remaining in the session, the announcement is likely to spark early leadership positioning and introduce new dynamics into the legislative process.

CONNECT WITH OUR TEAM

Megan Sullivan

she/her

Vice President of Government Affairs

802-522-6316

RECENT NEWS

Workforce Regulations: Momentum, Headwinds, and Legislative Outlook

Workforce Regulations: Momentum, Headwinds, and Legislative Outlook

As lawmakers consider new workforce mandates this session, Vermont employers are facing a challenging economic context. Vermont ranks last in the nation for economic momentum and seventh for regulatory burden on the Vermont Competitiveness Dashboard. That broader picture aligns with what employers told the Vermont Chamber in our Business Climate Survey, where regulation consistently ranks among the top concerns.

Against that backdrop, the Vermont Chamber has been actively engaged at the State House this session, testifying on multiple workforce bills. Three proposals in particular highlight where legislation is gaining momentum, where policy and procedural complexity are creating headwinds, and where a proposal appears unlikely to advance this session.

Noncompete Agreements

  • What the bill proposes
    The noncompete legislation would broadly prohibit noncompete agreements, while allowing limited, tightly defined exceptions. These include certain business transactions, severance agreements, and a narrow category of exempt employees, with guardrails around income thresholds, advance notice, and reasonableness standards related to time, geography, and scope.
  • Vermont Chamber position
    The Vermont Chamber has emphasized that any statutory changes should align closely with existing Vermont case law, which already evaluates noncompete agreements using a reasonableness standard. In testimony this week, we noted that outside of health care, it is fair to ask what specific Vermont problem is being addressed beyond what current law already covers. At the same time, the Vermont Chamber has remained engaged throughout the process to help shape language that provides clarity and predictability, reflects how courts have historically evaluated these agreements, and results in an outcome that stakeholders across sectors can live with.
  • Legislative Outlook: Gaining Momentum

This has been a longstanding priority for the committee, significant time has been invested, and the bill reflects a negotiated outcome shaped by stakeholder input. It is one of the more likely workforce bills to move this session.

Workers’ Compensation and Family and Medical Leave

  • What the bill proposes
    The proposal would prohibit certain employers from counting workers’ compensation leave for a work-related injury or illness toward Vermont’s family and medical leave requirements, effectively requiring these leave systems to run sequentially rather than concurrently.
  • Vermont Chamber position
    The Vermont Chamber’s testimony emphasized that workers’ compensation and family and medical leave serve different purposes and currently work together in a coordinated way. Workers’ compensation provides wage replacement and medical coverage, while family and medical leave provides job protection. Changing how these systems interact has real consequences for both employers and injured workers, particularly around job protection during recovery, return to work planning, and staffing predictability. Testimony made clear that this issue is far more complex than initially anticipated and warrants careful evaluation.
  • Legislative Outlook: Facing Headwinds With only eight working days before crossover, multiple competing committee priorities, and significant technical and legal complexity involved, advancing this proposal meaningfully this session would be challenging.

Flexible Work Arrangements

  • What the bill proposes
    The flexible work arrangements proposal would substantially change existing law by expanding the types of requests covered and shifting from a right-to-request framework toward a presumption that requests should be granted. It would narrow the circumstances under which an employer could deny a request, require more detailed written justifications for denial, shorten response timelines, and increase documentation and recordkeeping requirements.
  • Vermont Chamber position
    The Vermont Chamber provided the only testimony on this proposal. Vermont already has one of the most comprehensive flexible working arrangements statutes in the country, and available enforcement data show very few employee complaints since the law took effect. From the Vermont Chamber’s perspective, the proposal did not identify a clear problem or evidence that the existing framework is failing employees, making it a solution in search of a problem.
  • Legislative Outlook: Unlikely to Advance

The flexible work provision has been removed from the bill that is advancing and sent to the Government Operations Committee, significantly reducing the likelihood of action this session.

What happens next

The legislative session is far from over, and nothing is final until the gavel falls. Committee priorities can shift quickly, amendments can reappear, and issues that cool off one week can heat up the next. These classifications reflect the best read of where these workforce proposals stand today, based on testimony, committee focus, and the time remaining in the session. The Vermont Chamber will continue to stay engaged, track changes closely, and represent Vermont employers as these and other workforce issues evolve in the weeks ahead.

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

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