Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Freeze topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gelbetti’s two‑year property‑tax freeze amendment to H.933 draws concern; committee straw poll unfavorable
Summary
Representative Gelbetti presented an amendment to H.933 that would freeze homeowners’ property tax bills for two years; committee members raised concerns that the proposal would shift costs to the general fund and education budgets, and an informal straw poll found it unfavorable, 9–3.
Representative Gelbetti told the House committee on March 27 that she had revised her proposal into a two‑year freeze on the actual property tax bill as an amendment to H.933, legislation addressing miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to tax law. "I cut it down to a two‑year freeze and it's a freeze on the actual tax bill itself," Gelbetti said as she introduced the amendment.
Gelbetti and committee members discussed carve‑outs and administrative handling for properties that are developed or downgraded during the freeze, emphasizing the amendment would not freeze tax rates but the bill paid by a homeowner. Gelbetti said the measure was intended to give Vermonters short‑term certainty while broader education reforms move through the legislative process.
Members repeatedly raised the central fiscal question: where would the revenue come from if property‑tax bills were capped? Gelbetti acknowledged that, as written, any overages schools would experience under a cap would be covered from the general fund. Committee members pressed whether the general fund could absorb the difference and whether other revenue sources used to fund education would be changed.
A member who voiced support framed the amendment as a political signal responding to steep recent increases: "I'm going to support this just because... looking more recently at that 40% increase in the property taxes over the last number of years," the member said, adding concern for aging Vermonters who own significant property. Gelbetti and others warned that if the general fund were tapped for the difference, difficult budget choices or cuts to programs could follow; Gelbetti noted the state population figure of 633,000 while discussing affordability pressures.
The committee also discussed policy alternatives, including lowering or removing income sensitivity in the property‑tax system, and observers warned that caps alone can create distortions — a "balloon" effect — when they expire. Gelbetti recounted emotional floor exchanges about services for blind and deaf Vermonters and said some services (the transcript references Austin School in Brattleboro) have been picked up by the general fund in recent sessions.
A committee member noted a Senate proposal, S.220, with a similar stated intent but a different mechanism; Gelbetti said the committee planned to review that bill next week. After discussion, the chair called a straw poll on Gelbetti’s amendment; the committee recorded an informal result finding the amendment unfavorable, reported in the hearing as 9–3. Gelbetti thanked the committee and indicated she would continue work on related education legislation over the coming weeks.
The hearing did not result in a binding committee vote on the amendment; the transcript records only the informal straw poll. Committee members said they would continue to consider how any cap or freeze would interact with education funding and the general fund, and to review parallel proposals from the Senate.
