[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6107090,"mediaKeyId","2779029-117ea3f9e8e75a897f88d2ab078ae521","parentId",2779029,"title","Ways & Means committee reports H.493 favorable after high-level FY26 budget briefing","audioSeconds",794,"startMs",1000,"endMs",795000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2779029-117ea3f9e8e75a897f88d2ab078ae521&start=1&end=795","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2779029-117ea3f9e8e75a897f88d2ab078ae521/thumbnail_1000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6107090/Vermont/Ways-Means-committee-reports-H493-favorable-after-high-level-FY26-budget-briefing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6107090-b50412aa77c9abb3a43d02fec1b98fa1/orig.mp4?Expires=1775589246&Signature=OySvHVKaZWIPJhaRPVPxbRmVq5As5R91Z-bIDrPl8SC6et1o5U~jYckvGfKnUMNsoTL26L1NvPG6Hl1KkecgtU1XNx0-1pWQcqIFJ42IByrjcapAJBUu6l9hwtalx5JEH8Bo3Ei-cn-F7HIfbYAsTDFpeTwm7BfPxvTtsn5VjyuBxyOvBLrHx1Mp-SeYdYV3z7eOLx2z5MD929QW6GxLh3lZnN2bIHyrsHRK5KOkXfpBMMv3O9l717gsG08NIIoAf~ynC2Rty8mE~onSTjLrFkdPgma2VmKbnUqq~cwYdScxsv6lrUaPg9IzMFItlpl2nrXzRsoz6eP4idQyHu3SsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-03-26T08:47:31Z","article","Ways & Means met March 25 and voted to find H.493 — the House appropriations measure for fiscal year 2026 — favorable to the full House after a Joint Fiscal Office briefing and committee discussion.

The nut graf: The committee’s action advances the legislature’s FY26 spending plan after the Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) walked members through high-level revenue and transfer estimates and noted a number of carry‑forwards and transfers. Several members said they were uncomfortable voting without more time to review line‑by‑line appropriations, but moved to report the bill so it can proceed to floor consideration and further amendment.

Emily Byrne and Chris Roehm of JFO summarized the financing underlying H.493. Byrne said the House Appropriations Committee’s FY26 plan is “built on the official consensus revenue forecast that was adopted in January of $2,400,000,000.” She and Roehm added JFO’s accounting of direct applications and transfers into the general fund — about $108,000,000 — produces roughly $2.5 billion in general‑fund resources for appropriations and transfers, and that the budget relies on roughly $136,000,000 in carry‑forward funds from FY2025.

Roehm walked members through several program‑level items included in H.493 that relate to Ways & Means jurisdiction. He pointed to a one‑time appropriation for the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program administered by the Office of the State Treasurer; the language in the bill lists that appropriation at $140,000 as introduced, and committee discussion recorded a corrected amount of $148,000 for the program. Roehm also described technical tax language aligning state treatment of joint returns to federal practice, and said provisions from prior committee work — including language around pilot voluntary buyout programs and clean‑water surcharge sunsets — carried into the larger appropriations bill.

Multiple committee members said the briefing was brief and left them uneasy about approving such a large, complex measure without more time to examine details. “I’m a little uncomfortable with a vote that says, yeah, we approved the budget when we don’t have the details,” one member said during discussion, noting the committee had only received a high‑level overview. Other members replied that the Appropriations Committee had already spent extended time vetting the bill and that the pieces Ways & Means had requested remained in the package.

Representative Kimball moved to find H.493 favorable; the clerk called the roll and the committee reported the bill out on a 10–0–1 tally. The roll call recorded the following yes votes: Representative Branson; Representative Burkhart; Representative Celtas; Representative Polcom; Representative Kimball; Representative Maslin; Representative Odey; Representative Bogazak; Representative Canfield; and Representative Kornheiser. One member did not record a vote on the roll call. The committee’s clerk announced, “we have [a] tax law committee, 10 0 1.”

What happens next: H.493 is now on the committee’s calendar for further consideration on the floor and will appear in the calendar addendum described by JFO staff. Committee members and staff said they expect additional documents — detailed line‑item spreadsheets and a JFO highlight document summarizing major changes — to be circulated to members later the same day or the next.

Clarifying details captured at the briefing include JFO’s figures: the January consensus general‑fund revenue forecast of $2,400,000,000; roughly $108,000,000 in direct applications/transfers into the general fund; approximately $136,000,000 in carry‑forward from FY2025; a transfer package that includes about $77,200,000 to the education fund and roughly $163,000,000 to the debt service fund; and roughly $10,000,000 held on the bottom line for anticipated H.91 (human services/housing) conversations. JFO staff noted the appropriation for VITA appeared in committee language at $140,000 but was identified during the meeting as $148,000 in the budget document.

Speakers listed in the committee record who contributed to the discussion were Emily Byrne (Joint Fiscal Office), Chris Roehm (Joint Fiscal Office), Representative Kimball (mover), and multiple committee members who participated in the roll call. The committee did not adopt any technical amendments during the meeting; members emphasized they expect to consider and potentially amend the bill further at the floor stage.

Source evidence: JFO’s remarks and the committee roll call were discussed on the committee record March 25, 2025.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Ways and Means - 2025-03-25 -1:30PM","oneSentenceSummary","Ways & Means met March 25 and voted to find H.493 — the House fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill — favorable to the full House after a Joint Fiscal Office briefing and brief committee discussion.","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},6107086,"Committee reviews bill to move municipal reappraisals to state‑organized regional districts and create regional property valuation boards",5603,1344000,6947000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2779029-117ea3f9e8e75a897f88d2ab078ae521&start=1344&end=6947","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2779029-117ea3f9e8e75a897f88d2ab078ae521/thumbnail_1344000.jpg","/articles/6107086/Vermont/Committee-reviews-bill-to-move-municipal-reappraisals-to-stateorganized-regional-districts-and-create-regional-property-valuation-boards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6107086-731e6813d073b2f06694f25b34a79158/orig.mp4?Expires=1775589246&Signature=MUUySggH~58d0YZVxS7AdE9Vj5jUbGyI6IYPyFuO-LexAbmO2JE16y3IBMSeJr989r-1kdor2AozrHkiXaeUcjj3XJHEDbVNPyOpLuqUUF-p8TgXKCE6iUoi8A-EdLiJwMy~jeHGD1mnh25rWo6I18J4eFvDl6O5CYPo8rmmYT09SYPz33OxAnpC3rBSpeWk9xUyMEQGka5gHhJEA6zOWVy6u36ce4Eeq~norlH2VPEsWdYrjGOX-cvdjAYd4J0W19FcyaV7Kee5s47ij-fw6Og2aIijPwjbsTYPFQSXgMpRfMUi5Z5Aa~RLZf3JaUK5o~LGlM0-YYY8i9pPUHH9ew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative counsel returned to Ways & Means March 25 with an updated draft that would move much of Vermont’s reappraisal and appeals work from municipal listers and local boards to a state‑organized, regional structure managed by the Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR).

The nut graf: The draft creates regional assessment districts (RADs) and regional property valuation boards (RPVBs) to standardize reappraisals and appeals, shifts some grand‑list deadlines (notably a January 1 grand‑list date), and proposes a new tax‑classification approach for parcels. Counsel and members flagged implementation details — staffing, board size, training, legal support for municipalities, funding and transition timing — to be resolved with the Department of Taxes and stakeholders.

What the bill would change: Legislative counsel described five principal reforms in draft 3.4. PVR would take primary responsibility for conducting full reappraisals, organized on a regional basis aligned with 12 RADs. The appeals path would change: after local grievances the next level of appeal would be to a regional property valuation board (the draft replaces the existing regional Board of Civil Authority structure and creates a new regional appeals entity). PVR would hold rule‑making authority to adopt standards for contracting, data collection, inspections and technology, and would be required to provide training and technical support to municipalities and to the new RPVBs.

Counsel also proposed new timing and transition provisions. The grand‑list snapshot date would move from April 1 to January 1, and transition language in the draft anticipates no new reappraisal orders after 2027 and a systemwide changeover by 2030; counsel described those dates as subject to change and said the Department of Taxes would report back on conforming adjustments in January 2026.

On roles and staffing: The bill directs the PVR director to set standards and to assign a district adviser to each RAD, but counsel said the legal responsibility and rulemaking authority would rest with the director rather than the adviser. Counsel flagged language that would allow the director to contract with outside appraisal firms and to order municipal listers or assessors to modify grand lists to meet PVR requirements. Counsel told the committee the director “shall provide legal assistance to municipality when defending [a] valuation on appeal that was made for a reappraisal order” — a provision new to this draft intended to address municipalities’ concerns about defending values generated by state‑led reappraisals.

On governance and board size: Each RPVB would contain one representative appointed by each member municipality and be supported administratively by PVR. Members questioned the practicality of boards that could contain dozens of representatives in some RADs (for example, Essex + Orleans combined includes dozens of towns), and several suggested that PVR should be able to provide rules allowing boards to subdivide or appoint smaller panels for hearings. Kirby (Legislative Council), who presented the draft, said the bill purposefully leaves many structural details to PVR’s rulemaking authority and to a stakeholder working group the draft requires PVR to convene.

On funding and municipal dollars: The draft preserves municipal per‑parcel fees used to pay for grand‑list maintenance and related work, and includes a minimum annual payment (the draft cites a $10,000 minimum for municipalities with few parcels). Counsel said municipalities will no longer be required to pay for master reappraisals and that PVR would take on those costs; funds currently held by towns for reappraisal remain available to municipalities for grand‑list maintenance and other appraisal‑related duties. Counsel noted some municipalities currently collect per‑parcel fees that do not cover the cost of reappraisals and that state funding would be required to implement the new model.

On appeals and process: The draft moves appeals that now go to local BCAs into the new regional structure, keeps grievances and initial municipal review unchanged, and retains a path to court in limited circumstances where the commissioner of taxes and PVR director jointly determine court is necessary. The draft includes updated oaths, timelines tied to the January 1 grand‑list date, and a description of standardized hearing procedures to be adopted by PVR.

On classification: Later in the meeting counsel presented companion draft language that would require each grand list parcel be assigned one of a set of tax classifications — for example, affordable housing; resort (parcels owned by a ski‑facility operator and used for resort purposes); apartment (parcel with landlord certificate on file); residential A (single‑family or similar with equalized value under $1,000,000); residential B (value $1,000,000 or more); commercial; industrial; undeveloped; and public use (tax‑exempt). Counsel explained the classification rules are intentionally broad, rely on existing tax paperwork where possible (homestead declarations, landlord certificates, current‑use records), and follow a prioritized “waterfall” so a parcel that qualifies for affordable housing would be classified as such even if it also has commercial features. Counsel acknowledged mixed‑use and the need to refine definitions and said PVR could provide implementation guidance.

Questions and concerns raised: Committee members pressed on practicalities — whether PVR has capacity for statewide rulemaking and execution, how large RPVBs would conduct hearings, how PVR would engage municipal listers and assessors, how per‑parcel fees would be used, and how disputes about classification would be appealed. Some members also raised potential equity and rural‑capacity concerns (for example, small counties or remote towns that lack assessor resources). Counsel and members agreed those points should be worked through with PVR, the League of Cities and Towns, and other stakeholders; counsel said the draft contains reporting dates and a stakeholder working group to collect that feedback.

What’s next: Counsel said PVR would be asked to return with follow‑up recommendations, and the draft includes a January 2026 reporting requirement for the Department of Taxes on conforming changes and implementation planning. Committee members signaled they will bring additional questions for PVR and for municipal stakeholders at future hearings.

Source evidence: Draft 3.4 language and counsel’s walkthrough were presented on the committee record March 25; members and counsel discussed specific provisions for RADs, RPVBs, appeals, per‑parcel fees and tax classifications.","Legislative counsel presented draft language March 25 that would move reappraisals from town listers to a Division of Property Valuation and Review‑managed regional system, create regional property valuation boards for appeals, change grand‑list dates and add a new parcel classification scheme.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6107080,"Legislative counsel outlines education finance draft: foundation formula, educational opportunity payment, excess‑spending reserve",2602,6004000,8606000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2779029-117ea3f9e8e75a897f88d2ab078ae521&start=6004&end=8606","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2779029-117ea3f9e8e75a897f88d2ab078ae521/thumbnail_6004000.jpg","/articles/6107080/Vermont/Legislative-counsel-outlines-education-finance-draft-foundation-formula-educational-opportunity-payment-excessspending-reserve","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6107080-7233d00535180390620d4bbb1267da72/orig.mp4?Expires=1775589246&Signature=o1zsHXXJ-X1kPXXkvv5YJjYTKu374jNvnJdksQ4yg4zrg-LE0075XxeJbK~s09grxesyfNQSCAoy8lmvi2uK5gWmYqIfGzuI3KENp1euCwAAs8fAQx4l1N8XEFfSgkqTwiQe8KZJ0Jeasrm6L9Fx44xHp3jlZ-PTpYns0k2rM2BuIUsKFoJnefuYEhCoFen9ePkax6TF0jvVm-zw4rV8pd11USD2hfkFbkhpF8CbDe7DjBrupIsZOxYYJVJE2Rzacy5KBxX41oJoba7l2rFwE2oJNfDVKfbJfFQ4JZbF4uA1sGwaEbj2qPS~bpSaAkHOkB6-hl5vOrAC0NscZa7YQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative Council returned to Ways & Means March 25 with draft language to move Vermont’s school finance toward a foundation formula. Counsel said the draft is intended to be a minimal, technical framework that will accommodate further policy choices by the Education Committee.

The nut graf: The draft replaces the current ‘‘education spending’’ bucket with an educational opportunity payment (EOP) computed by a base amount (per‑pupil cost factor) multiplied by a district’s weighted long‑term membership. The bill also establishes a capped ‘‘excess spending’’ mechanism for local spending above the EOP, a reserve to hold any penalty revenue, and a school construction aid special fund to receive remaining reserve balances.

What counsel outlined: John Gray (Office of Legislative Council) said the proposal separates the statewide funding calculation (the EOP) from local decisions about spending above that foundation. “The secretary of education shall determine each school district’s EOP by multiplying the school district’s weighted long term membership by the base amount,” Gray said, restating the draft’s core mechanism.

The draft treats weights (for pupil characteristics) and the base amount as the technical plugs in the finance formula; it contemplates a five‑year review to test whether weights and the base remain appropriate. Counsel described the ‘‘cost‑factor’’ approach as a way to base the initial foundation on current costs and leave open a future shift toward an evidence‑based formula once governance and delivery changes are in place.

On local spending: The draft defines ‘‘excess spending’’ as the amount a district approves above its EOP for which no other revenue source exists. The draft caps district excess spending at 10 percent of the district’s EOP, and it requires that revenue raised locally for that excess be sent to the Education Fund; the bill would then return the voted excess to the originating district and reserve any penalty amount that resulted from the tax‑rate calculation. The committee discussed a reserve mechanism so the state could correct shortfalls caused by mathematical or timing issues and to direct any remaining reserve funds toward a school construction aid special fund.

Counsel briefly described other draft changes: updates to titles 16 and 32 to remove references to per‑pupil education spending in favor of the EOP and to adjust payment timelines (the existing September/December/April schedule would be retained for EOP and excess‑spending distributions). The draft also removes provisions that penalize districts for slower budget adoption under the prior system because, counsel said, budgets operate differently under a foundation formula.

Questions and next steps: Members asked for detail on weight definitions (grade bands, poverty measures, special education, transportation) and how the draft treats tuitioning towns, charter or interstate districts, and school construction debt. Gray and other counsel said many of those specifics remain to be decided by the Education Committee, and the draft is intended to provide the finance framework while policy work continues. Counsel flagged that the draft interacts with other education policy bills and that the committee should coordinate with JFO and subject‑matter witnesses (including Professor Colby and JFO analysts) on underlying cost studies and evidence for weights.

What to expect: Counsel said stakeholder testimony will continue and JFO and subject experts will provide technical briefings on weights, the base amount, transition timing, and school construction funding options. Committee members asked staff to produce scenarios and numeric examples to illustrate how the draft would affect district budgets and tax rates.

Source evidence: John Gray and Legislative Council briefed the committee March 25; the draft references a cost‑factor base, weighted membership, EOP computation, a 5‑year weight check, a 10% cap on excess spending and creation of an excess‑spending reserve and a school construction aid special fund.","Legislative Council presented draft language to create a foundation formula-based education finance system with a cost‑factor base, an educational opportunity payment (EOP), routine weight reviews, an excess‑spending construct with a capped local add‑on and a reserve for penalty funds to protect against calculation errors.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Ways & Means committee reports H.493 favorable after high-level FY26 budget briefing

Committee reviews bill to move municipal reappraisals to state‑organized regional districts and create regional property valuation boards

Legislative counsel outlines education finance draft: foundation formula, educational opportunity payment, excess‑spending reserve