Issue Updates from the State House | Week of March 9, 2026

Issue Updates from the State House

Week of March 9, 2026

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

  • Career and Technical Education (CTE): The Senate Education Committee unanimously advanced S.313, a bill outlining legislative intent to establish governance models, expand access to CTE programs, align graduation credits, and integrate adult education. As the bill moves to the Senate floor, continued collaboration and attention to implementation details will be essential to turn these goals into practical outcomes.
  • Act 250: The Senate Natural Resources committee unanimously advanced S.325, a bill that would make amendments to 2024’s Act 181 and allow more time to make technical corrections to the Act including moving interim exemptions to 2030, delaying the road rule until 2030, and delaying the implementation of tier 3 until July 2028. The bill now moves to the Senate Appropriations for further consideration.
  • Event Ticketing: The House advanced H.512, a legislation aimed at curbing excessive resale of event tickets and strengthening consumer protections for venues using online ticketing platforms. The bill now moves to the Senate for further consideration.
  • Sister State Program: The House Appropriations committee unanimously advanced H.674, a bill that would remove the repeal of the Ireland Trade Commission and establish a process for establishing additional Vermont Sister States, strengthening Vermont’s international engagement and to fostering mutually beneficial relationships with governments outside the United States. The bill now moves to the House Floor.
  • School Budgets: The House Ways and Means Committee heard updated school budget statistics following Town Meeting week, showing that 36 of the 102 passed school budgets increased by more than 6 percent. Changes in federal funding, rising healthcare costs, and overall price increases continue to highlight the structural spending pressures facing Vermont’s education system.
  • Relocating Revenue: The House Ways and Means Committee continues to weigh options to address funding shortfalls in both the Education and Transportation Funds. A proposal would shift a portion of the Vehicle Purchase and Use Tax to the Transportation Fund while moving part of the Sales and Use Tax to the Education Fund to maintain level funding during the transition, helping stabilize transportation revenue as broader education spending reforms remain necessary.
  • Primary Care: The Senate Health and Welfare Committee unanimously advanced S.197, a bill aimed at increasing the use of primary care to reduce strain on hospital systems. This step toward long-term healthcare cost containment now moves to the Senate floor.
  • Reference Based Pricing: The Senate Health and Welfare unanimously advanced S.190, a bill continuing momentum towards health care cost containment efforts by increasing price transparency and moving the Green Mountain Care Board closer to implementation of reference-based pricing. The bill now moves to the Senate Floor.
  • Housing Solutions: The House Ways and Means committee advanced H.775, legislation aimed at promoting more efficient housing development and creating accountability for municipal housing targets. The bill now moves to the House Appropriations Committee for further consideration.
  • Parental and Family Medical Leave: The House General and Housing committee reviewed but declined to advance H.459, which have would have prohibited the concurrent use of Workers Compensation and Parental and Family Medical Leave. By not advancing the bill before the crossover deadline, the committee preserved existing policies that support job protection timelines, return-to-work planning, and staffing predictability for employers.
  • Water Connections: The Senate advanced S.212, a bill aimed at streamlining the wastewater connections permitting process and enhancing coordination of municipal and state-level permitting systems. This measure would help reduce timelines and increase the efficiency of new development projects and now moves to the House.
  • Economic Development: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committee unanimously advanced S.327, a bill that invests in further funds for the downtown center tax credit, business support services and studies, removes the VEGI sunset, and establishes task forces to study potential for a new culinary institute and an interstate highway alternative to Route 22A. The Vermont Chamber is named in both task forces, and the bill now moves to the Senate floor.
  • Event Permitting: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee unanimously advanced S.278, a bill that would establish cannabis event permits modeled after alcohol event permits, allow retailers to sell higher quantities, and repeal integrated license provisions. The bill now moves to the Senate Floor.
  • Building Energy Code: The House Energy and Digital Infrastructure committee advanced on a 6-3 vote H.718, a bill that would create structural updates to Vermont’s residential building standards framework for residences with fewer than three dwelling units. The bill now moves to the House Appropriations Committee for further consideration.
  • Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE): The Senate Natural Resources and Energy committee unanimously advanced S.138, a bill that would expand Vermont’s PACE program to commercial and industrial buildings, allowing businesses to finance efficiency, renewable, and resilience improvements through long-term, fixed-rate property assessments. The bill now moves to the Senate Floor.
  • Tax Classification: The House Ways and Means committee continued work on expanding property tax classifications from two to three categories. Final edits and a vote are expected by the end of next week.
  • Education Misses the Mark: With the policy crossover deadline now past, House and Senate Education committees failed to advance meaningful education reform on the timeline established in Act 73 last year. Despite having nine legislative weeks to act following a taxpayer- funded summer task force, the committees will now seek special permission to continue work beyond the deadline as pressure mounts to address rising education costs and system reform.
  • Education Spending: The Senate Finance Committee on a 5-2 vote advanced S.220. The bill would limit how much school districts can increase per-pupil education spending in FY2028 and FY2029 by establishing an allowable growth rate tied to prior year spending, an approach intended to slow education cost growth and reduce the number of districts triggering the excess spending penalty. The bill now moves to the Senate Floor.
  • Housing Availability: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs committee on a unanimously advanced S.328, a bill that would fund important housing programs and study legal measures needed to require common interest communities to allow long term rentals, operation of family child care homes, and the building of accessory dwelling units on a homeowner’s property. The bill now moves to the Senate Floor.
  • Noncompete: The House recommitted H.205, a bill broadly prohibiting non-compete agreements with limited exceptions, back to the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee. While the language could still reappear in other labor-related legislation later this session, the move represents a significant setback for the bill brought on by disparate treatment of business and educational settings.
  • Franchises: The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee voted to unanimously advance H.733, a bill requiring businesses filing with the Secretary of State to indicate if the business is operating as a franchisee or franchisor. If voted out of committee, the bill will move to the House Floor.
  • Healthcare: The House Health Care committee on a 8-3 vote advanced H.585. The bill retains the allowance of Association Health Plans in 2028 if Federal law changes but adds a study due in 2027 on potential impacts to the Qualified Health Plans. These plans could be an important option for businesses and entrepreneurs struggling with high costs and limited options. The bill now moves to the House Floor.
  • Private Equity in Healthcare: The House Health Care committee is expected to vote later today on H.583, a bill regulating private equity in healthcare related private businesses. While the bill has improved since introduction, the Senate will need to consider the highly problematic provisions that persist relating to regulation and reporting requirements for privately owned businesses. The bill will move to the House Floor if advanced.

CONNECT WITH OUR TEAM

Megan Sullivan

she/her

Vice President of Government Affairs

802-522-6316

RECENT NEWS

Investment Income Tax Debate Raises Larger Questions About Vermont’s Fiscal Strategy

Investment Income Tax Debate Raises Larger Questions About Vermont’s Fiscal Strategy

As Vermont lawmakers grapple with rising property taxes and growing pressure on the Education Fund, a new proposal to tax investment income is emerging as one potential source of revenue.

The concept surfaced this week during several hours of discussion in the Senate Finance Committee as lawmakers explored amendments to S.282 that would apply a surcharge to certain types of investment earnings in Vermont. The proposal mirrors a structure used at the federal level and would apply to income already reported on federal tax returns.

The conversation reflects a familiar pattern in Montpelier this time of year. As budget pressures mount and property tax projections continue to draw attention, lawmakers are looking across the tax code for potential sources of revenue to help stabilize the state’s finances.

Supporters of the idea argue that raising new revenue from investment income could help offset property tax pressures tied to education funding.

At the same time, the discussion highlights a broader fiscal question facing the state. Are Vermont’s affordability challenges primarily a revenue issue, or are they driven by the underlying growth in public spending?

What the Proposal Signals

While the proposal itself may evolve or ultimately stall, the debate reflects a growing effort by some policymakers to look toward new revenue sources to help address Vermont’s fiscal pressures.

Roughly 12,000 Vermonters currently pay the federal tax on investment income that serves as the model for the proposal. Revenue from those taxpayers is highly concentrated among higher income households, meaning policies built around investment income often rely on a relatively small number of taxpayers.

Because investment earnings fluctuate with financial markets and economic cycles, taxes tied heavily to this income can produce more volatile revenue streams than traditional sources such as income or sales taxes.

A Larger Affordability Question

The central issue raised during the hearing was whether new revenue alone can address the affordability challenges Vermonters are experiencing.

Property taxes are rising largely because education spending has continued to grow faster than available revenue sources. Without addressing the underlying cost trajectory of the education system itself, new taxes primarily change where funding comes from rather than addressing the structural pressures within the system.

In that sense, a tax on investment income could generate additional revenue for the Education Fund, but it would not directly change the spending trends that are driving property tax increases.

Why Business Leaders Are Watching

The proposal also intersects with the structure of Vermont’s economy.

Many Vermont companies operate as pass through businesses such as LLCs, partnerships, and S corporations. In these structures, business profits are reported on the owner’s personal income tax return. Taxes applied at the individual level therefore influence the after-tax income that business owners use for reinvestment, hiring, and expansion.

For that reason, proposals affecting investment income often draw attention from the business community and investors evaluating Vermont’s long term economic climate.

The discussion in committee also underscored the importance of evaluating tax policy changes through multiple perspectives. Policies that affect investment income intersect with entrepreneurship, business ownership, and long-term capital investment in Vermont’s economy.

The Conversation Ahead

Even if the proposal itself does not advance this year, the discussion surrounding S.282 highlights a broader debate that is likely to continue.

Improving affordability in Vermont will ultimately require addressing both sides of the fiscal equation. Policymakers will need to manage spending growth while also supporting the economic conditions that expand the state’s tax base over time.

The balance between those priorities, fiscal sustainability and economic competitiveness, will likely remain central to Vermont’s policy discussions in the months ahead.

CONNECT WITH OUR TAX EXPERT

Amy Spear

President

Fiscal Policy, Taxation, Tourism and Hospitality, Workforce Development

RECENT NEWS

Federal Tax Conformity Bill Advances with Expanded R&D Incentives for Vermont Businesses

Federal Tax Conformity Bill Advances with Expanded R&D Incentives for Vermont Businesses

The House Ways and Means Committee has advanced a miscellaneous tax bill updating Vermont’s conformity with federal tax law and making several targeted changes to the state’s tax code.

While many provisions are technical, the decisions in this bill will influence how Vermont businesses calculate taxable income, deduct certain expenses, access tax incentives, and ultimately decide where to invest in research, development, and innovation.

Because Vermont does not automatically conform to federal tax law, the Legislature periodically reviews changes made by Congress and decides which provisions to adopt at the state level. Following the passage of H.R.1 last summer, lawmakers are now determining how those federal tax changes should apply within Vermont’s tax system — and where the state will take a different policy approach.

Why it matters: For businesses making investment decisions, these conformity updates can matter as much as changes to tax rates. The structure of deductions, credits, and cost recovery rules influences where companies choose to invest in equipment, research, and workforce expansion.

What This Means for Vermont Businesses

Federal conformity decisions shape how businesses calculate taxable income and how certain investments are treated under Vermont’s tax code.

Many provisions in this bill affect how companies recover the cost of investments such as equipment purchases, research and development, and financing. These rules influence how businesses plan capital investments, evaluate new projects, and forecast future tax liability.

Several federal provisions that expand deductions for operating expenses will flow through to Vermont, while lawmakers chose not to adopt certain federal tax preferences tied to investment income and international taxation.

For Vermont businesses, the practical result is straightforward: some federal tax changes will apply automatically to Vermont returns, while others will require separate state adjustments.

Research and Development Policy

Research and development policy is one of the most closely watched business provisions in the bill.

In recent years, federal tax rules changed how companies deduct research expenses, requiring many businesses to spread those deductions over five years rather than deducting them immediately.

Recent federal legislation restored immediate deductibility for smaller businesses. The House Ways and Means Committee advanced the following conformity choices:

  • Small businesses, as defined under federal law (those with average annual receipts under roughly $31 million), will be able to fully deduct research expenses.
  • Larger businesses will continue to amortize those expenses over five years for Vermont tax purposes.

Earlier concepts considered would have permanently disallowed the deduction of research expenses at the state level. That proposal raised significant concerns among innovation-driven employers.

The final structure reflects extensive collaboration among the House Ways and Means Committee, the Administration, tax professionals, and the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. Chair Kornheiser noted during the committee’s discussion the Vermont Chamber’s role in helping shape the R&D framework and bringing business expertise into the policy development process.

Major Expansion of Vermont’s R&D Tax Credit

The bill also significantly expands Vermont’s existing research and development tax credit.

Currently, Vermont’s credit equals 27 percent of the federal R&D credit for qualifying research conducted in the state.

The bill increases that rate to 75 percent of the federal credit and raises the annual statewide cap from $3 million to $5 million.

The takeaway: If enacted, this would represent one of the largest expansions of Vermont’s research incentive in recent years.

Other Federal Tax Changes Vermont Will Adopt

Several federal changes affecting business taxation will flow through to Vermont under the bill.

  • More generous expensing of business equipment: Federal law increased the amount businesses can immediately expense for depreciable assets from $1 million to $2.5 million. Vermont will conform to this change, allowing businesses to recover equipment costs more quickly.
  • Expanded business interest deductions: Federal law increased the allowable deduction for business interest from 30 percent to 50 percent of adjusted taxable income. Vermont will conform to this provision, allowing businesses with significant borrowing to deduct a larger share of interest expenses.
  • Changes to controlled foreign corporation reporting rules: Federal adjustments to pro rata share rules will flow through to Vermont, affecting companies that hold interests in certain foreign corporations.
  • Updates to corporate charitable deduction limits: Federal law changed how corporations calculate deductions for charitable contributions. Vermont will conform to those changes as well.
  • Federal expansion of the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit will also flow through to Vermont’s corresponding state credit.

Where Vermont Chose a Different Path

In several areas, the Committee chose not to adopt new federal tax preferences.

These include:

  • Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS): Federal law expanded the exclusion for capital gains on certain startup investments. Vermont will not conform to that change, meaning those gains remain taxable at the state level.
  • Section 250 international income deductions: The bill decouples Vermont from federal deductions related to certain international income earned by multinational corporations. This provision represents one of the largest revenue components in the bill.
  • Special depreciation for certain production facilities: Federal law created a new bonus depreciation provision for some manufacturing property. Vermont will not adopt that provision and will instead continue requiring the property to be depreciated over time.

The Bottom Line

Federal conformity bills often receive limited attention because many provisions are technical.

However, the choices made in these updates can significantly influence how Vermont businesses calculate taxable income and how the state structures economic incentives.

This year’s bill reflects a mix of policy decisions: adopting several federal changes that expand business deductions, declining to follow others that would reduce state revenue, and significantly expanding Vermont’s research and development tax credit.

The Vermont Chamber will continue working with policymakers to ensure Vermont’s tax system supports a competitive, predictable environment for the businesses that drive Vermont’s economy.

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 24, 2026

Issue Updates from the State House

Week of February 24, 2026

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

  • Commerce Budget: The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee finalized its annual budget letter to Appropriations, outlining funding priorities across housing, workforce, and economic development. Key requests include continued support for VHIP, workforce training through Advance Vermont, the International Business Office, and expanded Downtown and Village Tax Credits to spur redevelopment. Several proposals include one-time funding components, particularly within housing, workforce, rural technical assistance, and economic development initiatives.
  • Housing: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee continued work on S.328, adding accessory dwelling units to the list of uses that must be permitted under homeowners association bylaws and reviewing the bill’s broader budget implications. As housing affordability and economic growth remain closely tied to population trends, securing and sustaining funding for these initiatives will be critical as budget negotiations advance.
  • Housing Solutions: The House General and Housing Committee advanced H.775, legislation aimed at promoting more efficient housing development and strengthening access to residential health care services. The bill now moves to the House Ways and Means Committee for further consideration.
  • Yield: The House Ways and Means Committee continues to weigh how much one-time funding to use to buy down this year’s property tax increase and whether relief will be split evenly between homestead and non-homestead properties. The Vermont Chamber is advocating for fiscal responsibility and equitable treatment to avoid shifting long-term burdens onto employers.
  • Liquor Liability Insurance: The House Government Operations Committee heard testimony on language that would repeal the mandatory liquor liability insurance requirement. The proposal responds to ongoing instability in the national casualty insurance market, which has driven significant premium volatility in Vermont’s small and concentrated hospitality sector. Repeal would maintain existing civil liability and regulatory safeguards while restoring regulatory proportionality during a period of market disruption.
  • Event Ticketing: The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee advanced H.512, legislation aimed at curbing excessive resale of event tickets and strengthening consumer protections for venues using online ticketing platforms. The bill now moves to the House Floor for further consideration.
  • Culinary Institute Study: The Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee continued work on S.327, adding a study to explore the creation of a culinary institute in Vermont. The Vermont Chamber is a named stakeholder. The proposal aligns with broader efforts to expand workforce pipelines and support long-term talent development in the restaurant and hospitality industries.
  • Career and Technical Education (CTE): The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee reviewed draft legislation to reform Vermont’s CTE system in coordination with broader education changes. While timelines, funding, and governance structures remain in development, expanded access and improved alignment with graduation credits signal progress toward strengthening Vermont’s future workforce pipeline.
  • Family Leave: The House General and Housing Committee continued testimony on H.459, which would prohibit certain employers from counting workers’ compensation leave toward Vermont’s family and medical leave requirements. The change would require these leave systems to run sequentially rather than concurrently. Adjusting how these programs interact carries implications for job protection timelines, return-to-work planning, and staffing predictability for employers.
  • Health Care: The House Health Care Committee continued work on H.585, which proposes reforms to Vermont’s insurance structure, including allowing association health plans to provide additional coverage options for employers and self-employed Vermonters. Lawmakers are evaluating whether expanded plan flexibility could help stabilize markets and address affordability pressures.
  • Private Equity: The House Health Care Committee reviewed an updated version of H.583, which would establish a new statutory framework governing acquisitions and changes of control involving health care entities, including transactions with private equity firms. The revised bill adds additional layers of oversight, raising concerns about limiting potential solutions to Vermont’s health care challenges and increasing uncertainty for privately owned providers.
  • Land Use: The Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee continued review of S.325, a bill proposing targeted updates to land use and permitting policy. The proposal would extend certain Act 250 exemption sunsets to 2030 in order to support housing development and maintain momentum on broader permitting reform timelines. The committee will continue collaborative discussions in the weeks ahead on this significant housing and development initiative.
  • Current Use: The House Environment Committee began discussion of H.70, which would include land enrolled in the Use Value Appraisal Program within the statutory definition of conserved land for purposes of the state’s conserved land inventory. The proposal could help Vermont advance its conservation goals while recognizing the importance of balanced, smart growth.
  • Rodenticides: The Vermont Chamber testified before the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee on H.758, which would broadly ban the use of anticoagulant rodenticides commonly used by food manufacturers, restaurants, and other food-related facilities to prevent rodent infestations. The bill is expected to be amended to replace the proposed ban with a study on rodenticide alternatives.
  • Swipe Fees: The Senate Finance Committee reviewed S.135, which would prohibit credit card fees on the tax and gratuity portions of transactions and require retailers to accept cash for purchases under $500. The proposal has drawn renewed attention following a recent ruling in Illinois, though the committee signaled it will wait for further legal clarity before advancing the bill.
  • Bottle Bill: The House Environment Committee advanced H.915, proposing changes to Vermont’s beverage container redemption program. A similar version was vetoed in a prior session, and concerns remain regarding potential cost increases for the beverage industry. Significant revisions are expected as the bill moves forward.
  • Education: The House and Senate Education Committees continued discussions on education reform and district mapping, weighing mandatory consolidation against more limited voluntary models. As crossover approaches, advancing durable reform will require difficult, and potentially unpopular, decisions to ensure long-term quality, operational efficiency, and cost sustainability within Vermont’s education system.

CONNECT WITH OUR TEAM

Megan Sullivan

she/her

Vice President of Government Affairs

802-522-6316

RECENT NEWS

Federal Tax Policy, Vermont Choices, and the Structure of R&D Policy

Federal Tax Policy, Vermont Choices, and the Structure of R&D Policy

The House Ways and Means Committee is considering changes to how Vermont defines taxable income for businesses that invest in research and development. Vermont companies spend millions of dollars each year on R&D across advanced manufacturing, software, biotechnology, and applied research. The tax treatment of those investments directly influences capital allocation, hiring decisions, and long-term competitiveness.

The proposal contains two interdependent components that must be evaluated together. In combination, these changes could materially shape Vermont’s innovation climate, affecting how growth-stage and capital-intensive firms evaluate future investment in the state.

What the Bill Does

The draft legislation makes two significant changes.

First, it adds back federal Section 174 deductions for research and experimental expenses. That means Vermont would not allow businesses to deduct their R&D expenses when calculating state taxable income.

Unlike other areas of the tax code, such as bonus depreciation, the draft does not restore those expenses through state level amortization. As written, R&D costs would not be deductible for Vermont tax purposes.

Second, the bill increases Vermont’s R&D tax credit from 27 percent to 75 percent of the federal R&D credit. That is a substantial increase and would make Vermont’s credit one of the most generous in the country.

These two provisions must be understood together.

What This Means in Practice

There are two primary ways states can treat R&D spending.

One approach is deductibility. Businesses subtract their R&D expenses from taxable income, just like wages, rent, or other operating costs.

Another approach is relying more heavily on tax credits, which apply only to businesses that calculate and qualify for the federal R&D credit and have sufficient tax liability to use it.

Under the existing draft, Vermont would move away from deductibility and rely more heavily on the expanded credit.

For Businesses That Claim the Federal R&D Credit

Businesses that calculate and claim the federal R&D credit would see a larger Vermont credit under the proposed 75 percent rate.

However, because the deduction would no longer be allowed, the total state tax benefit may be smaller than under a system that includes both deductibility and a credit. The outcome depends on each firm’s cost structure and federal credit calculation.

For Businesses That Incur R&D Expenses but Do Not Claim the Credit

Not all businesses that invest in R&D claim the federal credit. Some may not meet the qualification thresholds. Others may not calculate it due to complexity or cost.

Under the draft language, those businesses would lose deductibility of R&D expenses and would not receive the benefit of the credit increase. For those firms, the proposal would result in higher Vermont taxable income.

For Early Stage and Growing Firms

Firms in a loss position or early growth stage often rely on deductions to build net operating losses that can offset future income.

If R&D expenses are permanently disallowed for Vermont purposes, those costs would not be recoverable at the state level, which may affect long term planning and investment decisions.

Timing Versus Permanence

A key distinction in this debate is whether Vermont intends to delay deductibility or eliminate it.

If Vermont required R&D expenses to be amortized over several years, businesses would still recover their costs over time. That is a timing adjustment.

Under the existing draft, there is no amortization restoration. As written, the policy would permanently disallow deduction of R&D expenses at the state level.

That structural difference has meaningful economic implications.

Where the Opportunity and the Risk Sit

The increase to a 75 percent R&D credit is significant. If structured correctly, it could position Vermont as a strong competitor for innovation-based investment.

The risk lies in how the deduction and credit interact. If the credit expansion is paired with preserved cost recovery, the proposal could strengthen Vermont’s competitiveness while maintaining revenue balance. If deductibility is permanently removed, the policy becomes more uneven. Some firms would benefit from the higher credit. Others would see a durable increase in state taxable income.

The Bottom Line

This proposal is not simply about increasing a tax credit. It is about how Vermont defines taxable income for businesses that invest in research and development. Understanding whether the policy preserves deductibility or permanently eliminates it is essential to evaluating its impact.

The Vermont Chamber will continue to work with lawmakers to ensure that tax policy advances affordability, predictability, and long-term competitiveness while avoiding unintended consequences for the businesses that power Vermont’s economy.

CONNECT WITH OUR TAX EXPERT

Amy Spear

President

Fiscal Policy, Taxation, Tourism and Hospitality, Workforce Development

RECENT NEWS

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

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

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