[{"_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",6102392,"mediaKeyId","2804804-aaf5be546766180101a11d08d2080447","parentId",2804804,"title","Officials show how foundation formula and district maps change winners and losers in school funding model","audioSeconds",1813,"startMs",2748000,"endMs",4561000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2804804-aaf5be546766180101a11d08d2080447&start=2748&end=4561","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2804804-aaf5be546766180101a11d08d2080447/thumbnail_2748000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6102392/Vermont/Officials-show-how-foundation-formula-and-district-maps-change-winners-and-losers-in-school-funding-model","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102392-f35274226574930a5eb63d42ea153575/orig.mp4?Expires=1775556870&Signature=iUlAj0e6RpkO0yPSHXPpFJlv6e89KONau2fLKI7XQx5pGIO9Bd8UG1Vvn8TUJrWuoXCMYBhBfUmiwmGLy6UtGoxM08s28kCrSeGNxxer3r0fsini0bJbK9h4IUCVjVbA45dpdpGvOdCD~Jh85Uzf7es3LySinOakEatYGW~g6BOuf7OIpN9U~Itf7HTuurwVBwlgnlgVQ8eT0qrzh2dQggJVLnPJlETQg3k50cGTzFKfKtF78qeCKsZz5izO2~lWi6IXIuPfWPHENhnPnm2BOHtq3wCuz5TyZurNluhvpAY~B3satNsRGV2lAqNYmh-b8gNk4Pl88JAo18tRk8QJ-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-03-28T06:08:39.563Z","article","State education analysts told the Senate Finance Committee on Jan. 27 that the administration’s proposed foundation amount and the way school districts are configured can produce materially different distributional outcomes for education funding.

“Using all of the same underlying information, the same FY '25 spending, the same foundation amount, and the same state or pupil counts and weights, we see that there are relative differences, distinct in the current law and distinct in Bongard’s [map],” a presentation to the committee summarized.

Why it matters: The committee is weighing a large policy change — moving to a statewide foundation formula and possibly reducing the number of districts and supervisory unions. The combination of what the foundation covers and how students are grouped determines which districts gain or lose relative resources.

Presenters walked the committee through maps of supervisory districts and supervisory unions proposed by Senator Bongard’s office and associated demographic and spending models. They compared FY 2025 education spending to the administration’s proposed foundation amount while holding pupil counts and weights constant. The presenters showed that, under the proposed foundation and Bongard’s configurations, “none of these 10 or 11 districts would have a higher sum education spending compared to the foundation amount and all would have a relative decrease,” whereas under current law some smaller districts could show both large increases and large decreases.

Committee members focused on three policy questions: whether the foundation permits local spending above the foundation amount; how above‑foundation spending would be raised and equalized across districts; and where the model’s projected savings would come from.

On above‑foundation spending, analysts described two broad approaches: a state equalization mechanism (similar to a statewide guarantee or education fund match) or a recapture/recirculation mechanism where wealthy districts contribute a portion of locally raised money to a shared pool. The current draft discussed at the meeting includes an “excess spending” mechanism that benchmarks districts to the lowest grand list per pupil and applies an assessment on excess local revenue.

Senators repeatedly pressed for clarity about the sources and scale of any projected savings. One senator said, “I’m not comfortable at this point saying we’re going to save a lot of money,” noting the administration had not yet identified which positions and dollar lines would be eliminated to reach the proposed foundation amount. Analysts said they were modeling FY25 spending versus the proposed foundation but did not control for unspecified programmatic reductions the administration might assume in future years.

Lawmakers also emphasized the need to get the foundation formula and district configuration right before adopting structural change. If the foundation is insufficient or district lines are poorly drawn, they warned, the state could harm education outcomes or face legal challenges.

Ending: The committee asked staff for additional detail on the administration’s assumptions about workforce reductions and other savings, the mechanics of the excess‑spending assessment, and comparative modeling across alternative district configurations. No formal committee votes were taken on the foundation or district maps at this meeting.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Finance - 2025-03-27 - 2:30PM","oneSentenceSummary","State education analysts told the Senate Finance Committee on Jan. 27 that the administration’s proposed foundation amount and the way school districts are configured can produce materially different distributional outcomes for education funding.","taxTitle","Finance, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",38150,"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},6102396,"Senate Finance staff outline complexity of taxing second homes, reappraisals",2210,173000,2383000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2804804-aaf5be546766180101a11d08d2080447&start=173&end=2383","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2804804-aaf5be546766180101a11d08d2080447/thumbnail_173000.jpg","/articles/6102396/Vermont/Senate-Finance-staff-outline-complexity-of-taxing-second-homes-reappraisals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102396-91d30f3298c851f67e334e61d04caabd/orig.mp4?Expires=1775556870&Signature=HWtZPjDBuQYb~1YN1mdCl4AbHGYgvQHEZGar4nEe96Dcd4NwscRD~xyDJ0XkNKPbYWLr~zIsGU09eKxSTbQp1mBovmvsI3vRa6X1kIFLZBFugBuxFRPsShYJMjx4bnfPmGGwbaFc43ydr5TbsltchceGTvOTOZWXQbFvxZ6juWtsbWrN8XoZ18FXCWbP44PgX1T~OljGybjhYdReA6Qsg~aSBpGL8gWZYFJdYMf83auK-dZXcEbpTvqb3AKBSBeoKNzTJaI84m5yxPu9GdW9vSjgQudE2Ho5hSuC23Sooa9o6SzSmImntOP-XriD0ZVFGlXb~F4rIin-9vrAhG9oxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jill Remick, director of Property Evaluation and Review at the tax department, told the Senate Finance Committee on Jan. 27 that proposals to change statewide property tax administration — including reappraisals and new classifications for non‑homestead property — raise complex technical and administrative questions.

“There's a few things floating around. We were asked to come in today to touch base with you all on some of the components that related to statewide property tax administration, such as reappraisal and classification of properties,” Remick said.

Why it matters: Lawmakers are considering bills that would break the current two‑part tax classification (homestead and non‑homestead) into multiple non‑homestead categories and add a possible second‑home tax. Those changes would affect assessment practice, appeals, the grand list, town workload and who pays what locally.

Remick and department staff framed the issue around three technical tasks required to implement any new classification: a strong legal definition (ownership, use or highest‑and‑best use), a system to identify properties (self‑attestation by owners versus local determination), and rules to handle mixed‑use parcels.

The department noted that municipalities currently classify property for valuation under a 15‑category structure used by local listers and assessors for equalization. Remick said those categories reflect the parcel’s highest and best use and feed the state equalization study, but “that has nothing to do with the tax rates that people are charged. There's homestead and there's non homestead.”

Committee members repeatedly returned to practical questions. Some asked whether second‑home rules would rely on self‑attestation (a homestead declaration is filed annually now), what counts as a four‑season dwelling, and how to treat camps, seasonal roads and owners who split time between states.

“One of the key components is identification. Is it through a self attestation made by the owner or through the determination of the taxing jurisdiction?” Remick said. She and lawmakers noted existing gaps: many non‑homestead owners do not regularly interact with Vermont tax filing systems, and older residents who qualify for homestead status sometimes fail to file declarations and therefore are taxed at higher non‑homestead rates.

Officials discussed options that would use occupancy thresholds (for example, a dwelling occupied fewer than 50% of the year could be treated as a second home) and default higher tax rates to motivate correct attestation. Remick and committee members emphasized enforcement limits: much of the tax system relies on attestation and later audits rather than continuous occupancy monitoring.

The committee also discussed the policy goals that could justify a second‑home tax: raising revenue from out‑of‑state owners, or using tax incentives to encourage underused housing to become long‑term rentals. One lawmaker framed the policy tradeoff bluntly: “If it is to tax what in many cases are people who do live out of state and who are wealthier than the average Vermonter then that's one thing. If it's to increase our housing stock or availability that's another thing. If it's both then you're going to do a balancing.”

Department staff flagged practical enforcement questions that would fall on towns and listers if classification is made local: who would survey usage, how much time assessors would spend, and whether town staff would be compensated for additional work. They also warned that corporate ownership and mixed‑use parcels complicate owner‑based counts (for example, apartments and commercially owned residences).

Committee members asked for additional data and clearer policy statements before endorsing structural changes. Remick said the department can provide technical input but stressed the need to decide the policy objective first.

Ending: The committee did not take formal action on classification or second‑home proposals during this meeting. Staff agreed to follow up with more information on owner‑reported data, current grand‑list ownership codes and options for identification and enforcement.

","Tax department officials told the Senate Finance Committee that splitting non‑homestead property into multiple tax classes or taxing second homes raises thorny questions about definitions, identification, mixed use and enforcement; committee members pressed for clarity on goals, equity and administrative burden.",{"_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},6102388,"Panel and PEPC executive seek longer TIF sunset, biennial reporting; committee substitutes amendment 2.1",1415,4726000,6141000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2804804-aaf5be546766180101a11d08d2080447&start=4726&end=6141","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2804804-aaf5be546766180101a11d08d2080447/thumbnail_4726000.jpg","/articles/6102388/Vermont/Panel-and-PEPC-executive-seek-longer-TIF-sunset-biennial-reporting-committee-substitutes-amendment-21","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102388-10f35a47108103cf1b56fb40c18beb0e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775556870&Signature=KIOSJrDQXhEOiRCzfEVZ8hcDHQXN~uofPWck4IovP1DMmca2YPCe3ru1xydsXdvWT4bnJFzT15UlOIk23uPRBT67-d3D~poXF5mASk6WryVQme27brpc5cZgeCQMgMELgmrL4NdT3hqYI6d7h7stvS1pXkiIDtxbAbo-jsKErln72wItnfOn-gCDfCtug5L4lT2mR1FiCGTaJGsB8TNPCHE4r0FoZKph7N0p5vKwMV1v5GNV~86UNl-ItVq7QshLiLfs1GPmhMmm~vi7IHoUj3pYrgfFjsO3ESb~vVUxwvQM5wDlhnlFgRLJs5XYWwNqAS3v6qPlqrebXbyA0IIv2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jessica Hartley, introduced to the committee as the executive director of “Pepsi” in the transcript, told senators that the stamp of realistic project timelines argues for a longer sunset and delayed final evaluation for the pilot TIF‑style program under consideration in S.127.

“The creation of the TIF District only provides for the infrastructure. We don't have that would need to go in the ground before any private development is ever gonna be created that would generate increment to start paying back,” Hartley said, and she urged extending the application window so the legislature can see several years of housing outcomes before a final evaluation.

Why it matters: The bill would authorize a pilot or modified tax increment financing mechanism. Committee members and the program office debated appropriate sunset and reporting dates so the legislature could evaluate whether TIF‑style projects produce the housing types and affordability outcomes the bill aims to encourage.

Hartley recommended extending the sunset to allow final evaluation after about 10 years. Legislative counsel suggested a drafting approach that keeps the chapter on the books but limits the date by which applications can be submitted to Dec. 31, 2035, and requires an evaluation report to the Legislature on or before Jan. 15, 2035 — effectively giving the Legislature a session‑start report in the final year before application cutoff.

John Grenady of the Office of Legislative Council explained that the amendment language posted as version 2.1 would impose the application deadline and align the final check‑in to the legislative session preceding expiration. He also noted that the bill already contains an April 1 annual reporting requirement and that the amendment would add a line to those annual reports calling out housing production and the Act 250 permitting stage for projects.

Committee members and witnesses discussed practical timing constraints: municipalities provide grand list data tied to a March deadline; compiling municipal and tax data commonly leads to April 1 reports. Staff agreed to attempt a January 15 biennial reporting cadence for session use but cautioned about data availability.

At the meeting’s close, Senator Richardson moved to substitute the earlier draft with amendment version 2.1. The clerk recorded a roll‑call vote: Chinnick — yes; Brock — yes; Gulick — yes; Beck — yes; Verdi — yes; Meadows — yes; Cummings — yes. The motion to substitute amendment 2.1 carried 7‑0.

Ending: The committee voted to advance the substitute amendment (version 2.1) and adjourned. Staff said they would post a clean copy of the substituted amendment for formal use upstairs in the legislative process.

","The committee heard from PEPC executive director Jessica Hartley and legislative staff about extending a proposed TIF‑type program sunset and aligning reporting timelines; the committee agreed to substitute amendment version 2.1 to set application cutoff and reporting dates and voted to move the amendment forward 7‑0.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Officials show how foundation formula and district maps change winners and losers in school funding model

Senate Finance staff outline complexity of taxing second homes, reappraisals

Panel and PEPC executive seek longer TIF sunset, biennial reporting; committee substitutes amendment 2.1