[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6309946,"mediaKeyId","2406822-ec94ff9b36f4496a45b16262f5d8f40f","parentId",2406822,"title","Lawmakers told Vermont’s universal school meals are reaching more students and costing less than early estimates","audioSeconds",2354,"startMs",21000,"endMs",2375000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2406822-ec94ff9b36f4496a45b16262f5d8f40f&start=21&end=2375","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2406822-ec94ff9b36f4496a45b16262f5d8f40f/thumbnail_21000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6309946/Vermont/Lawmakers-told-Vermonts-universal-school-meals-are-reaching-more-students-and-costing-less-than-early-estimates","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309946-daad1aa7c6021a3f7e7d69e7a0bbddaa/orig.mp4?Expires=1775087480&Signature=Uq~WhFCeuZX3fKzwptjXOKekwv8PG5PiksjofKfDZKlBgseIykNNQ-lmbaOiyHRR5gJxzO5Z3CwXxNNiq3cBwzfuiSt8m-9lV9CoQaogodC~uIUVMe9q9KCjDKu979-lnddHqbV5WO90XC6t3DSaPzecqQ3qPdGENQr~~0rRjuT2qjCzSZKipfmKVYlsvDJGNDj5LjPiUrvMZh0JirJz0gHQqSMgjHZxJExbr-0kCvmbT61gwmBwkEDmW7qZTdXTfoR4K-CwvTApT-s8FMIt~9KiafYOUfWNzlNDtg8kef1iGubkKHJXWku6p34fZxFgfIb7Mo6OhOebDrH2hrWxPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-26T18:34:39Z","article","Representative David Durfee of Shaftesbury, chair of the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry Committee, told the Ways & Means Committee that Vermont’s Universal School Meals program is “working as we hoped it would work in terms of, feeding more students, more children,” and that the program is helping farmers and families with affordability issues.

The program — enacted statewide after pandemic-era and subsequent state legislation — remains in Title 16 and is funded as categorical aid from the statewide Education Fund. Durfee and Joint Fiscal Office staff said the current FY26 top-line estimate for the state share of Universal School Meals is about $18,500,000, down from a $29,000,000 estimate made when the program was first adopted.

“The good news … is it’s not actually 18.5 (million) in terms of savings that the state would realize,” Durfee said, describing three factors that reduce any net state savings if the program were repealed: increased local administrative costs to run a pricing program, unpaid meal charges districts would absorb, and federal dollars that flow only when districts operate programs that meet federal eligibility rules.

Joint Fiscal Office analyst Julia Richter summarized the mechanics for the committee and stressed that she was providing nonpartisan analysis, not policy recommendations. Richter said the statewide categorical aid is included in the Education Fund outlook and that repealing the statutory universal aid would not automatically remove the costs from the system — it would shift how those costs show up in district budgets and the statewide fund.

JFO and Agency of Education figures presented to the committee included: the FY26 state categorical aid estimate of $18,500,000; an estimated $16,900,000 in additional federal reimbursements tied to universal provision; roughly $3,800,000 in summer-meal program funding that could be affected; an AOE/USDA estimate of about $100,000 in administrative savings per school food authority under a universal program (about $5,500,000 in aggregate using the AOE per-district math cited); and a separate estimate of roughly $1,500,000 in bad-debt exposure statewide if districts return to pricing and collections increase administrative burden.

Richter noted one reason the state’s net cost has fallen since the first budget estimate is higher identification of eligible students for federal reimbursements through Medicaid direct certification, which reduces the state supplemental obligation.

Committee members asked about uptake and whether all students take meals. Durfee and Richter said uptake increased substantially — “over a million” additional breakfasts and lunches collectively were served in the years since universal provision began — but that universal availability does not mean every student takes a meal.

Durfee and JFO officials repeatedly told Ways & Means that the fiscal effect of repealing the statutory universal aid depends on local district choices: one bound is every district returns to a pricing program (shifting administrative and bad-debt costs into district budgets and thus into the Education Fund); the other bound is every district maintains universal meals on its own budget (leaving the aggregate cost in the Education Fund but shifting it from a categorical line to local spending lines). Richter warned that many districts are completing FY26 budgets now and have assumed the statutory aid would continue, raising questions about budget reopeners, reserve use, or alternative local choices if the law changed.

The committee did not vote on the issue. Durfee and JFO staff said they will continue to provide fiscal detail as requested and that agency experts such as Rosie Krueger, state director of Child Nutrition Programs at the Agency of Education, can provide operational detail and confirmation of specific cost estimates.

Ending: Committee members said they expected additional follow-up and more detailed numbers from JFO and AOE; no formal action or votes were taken on the universal-meals statute at the Ways & Means hearing recorded in these remarks.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Ways and Means 2025-02-26 1:35PM","oneSentenceSummary","Representative David Durfee of Shaftesbury, chair of the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry Committee, told the Ways & Means Committee that Vermont’s Universal School Meals program is “working as we hoped it would work in terms of, feeding more students, more children,” and that the program is helping farmers and families with affordability issues.","taxTitle","Ways & Means, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35157,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6309941,"Ways & Means reviews H135 changes to nicotine product tax language to cover synthetic nicotine and new smokeless products",520,2531000,3051000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2406822-ec94ff9b36f4496a45b16262f5d8f40f&start=2531&end=3051","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2406822-ec94ff9b36f4496a45b16262f5d8f40f/thumbnail_2531000.jpg","/articles/6309941/Vermont/Ways-Means-reviews-H135-changes-to-nicotine-product-tax-language-to-cover-synthetic-nicotine-and-new-smokeless-products","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309941-92fe22531d38a52b8479c32f194e60c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1775087480&Signature=Y~8e2gnNlfa7qe6FVHrDCTQ8Zbc-kTzTkoiTVW5yMFP7nDfhxt~~bZo0eK8c-vX3oan8H06O9lf-omMKJisibl4YGbPjRRy7SRyYj5ZhdvhHqXjbaoJbuv4X2q01~ZfIDrDcxVETh3f2szKgrLTi9a6MQfekcJ5qNSs2UnG21pQdIZYbMAog3yqvZ2nY3vZZFnR4IPHFfjMI3xQX7zgf4gk0RWt7oL4qx8kOgCrkpGKOsakbD~LMGSyS98M5m-fJRb7zs0XAibXouIgjiYmswZsBwDOtQT2AkjXAtVZGZMg2YuHhW4faV4DmyrxMrlGCPShZkS7G3D~f0P7p6GydbQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Abby Shepherd, executive policy advisor at the Department of Taxes, told the Ways & Means Committee that H135 would amend definitions in the tobacco-products tax statute to capture changing products on the market, including nicotine pouches and synthetically derived nicotine.

Shepherd said the department’s concern is administrative clarity rather than making a policy judgment about taxation. “Our intent is really to make it clear so that we know how to actually administer the tax,” she told the committee.

Department staff said Vermont’s current statutory language creates a presumption of taxability, but recent litigation in other states showed manufacturers could challenge tax applicability on narrow definitional grounds. Shepherd described the proposed changes as a fix to reduce the risk of litigation and to avoid a technical definitional loophole where manufacturers might slightly alter a product to shift it out of a taxed category.

Committee members asked technical questions about which statutory category would apply to novel products (the bill’s language distinguishes “new smokeless tobacco” with weight- or package-based taxes from a catchall “other tobacco products” category). Shepherd said most small-package nicotine pouches would be taxed under the new-smokeless category and noted a common per-package tax of about $3.08 on the small packages; if a product does not meet the specific moisture-content or single-dose criteria, it could be taxed under the broader catchall.

Shepherd provided revenue trends to illustrate the policy stakes: tax receipts attributed to new-smokeless tobacco rose sharply from roughly $170,000 in fiscal 2018 to about $2,340,000 in fiscal 2024 — an almost 13-fold increase — while the number of wholesale filers remained roughly stable. Department staff said the tax is generally collected at wholesale; a retailer only remits the tax if they are holding untaxed product.

Committee members asked about public-health inputs; Shepherd said the Department of Health declined to testify and recommended that the committee invite relevant health or attorney-general staff for technical questions about carcinogenicity or regulatory jurisdiction. Members also asked about companion technical provisions in the same bill: a proposed clarification to make Vermont filing status follow federal filing status in most cases, with a narrow commissioner discretion for nonresident-spouse situations.

The committee did not take a vote on H135 at the hearing. Department staff said they would share written revenue data and the committee indicated it planned further review and potentially more testimony from public-health or legal experts.

Ending: The Ways & Means Committee asked staff to provide written revenue detail and signaled it would consider additional testimony; no formal action was recorded in the segment of the hearing captured here.","Abby Shepherd, executive policy advisor at the Vermont Department of Taxes, told the Ways & Means Committee that H135 would clarify statutory definitions so nicotine pouches and synthetically derived nicotine remain clearly taxable under the state’s tobacco-products tax.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lawmakers told Vermont’s universal school meals are reaching more students and costing less than early estimates

Ways & Means reviews H135 changes to nicotine product tax language to cover synthetic nicotine and new smokeless products