Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee hears S.327: proposes $1 million boost to downtown tax credit, removes Veggie sunset
Summary
The committee reviewed S.327, which would raise the Vermont downtown and village center tax-credit cap from $3 million to $4 million annually and strike the statutory sunset on the Veggie refundable tax-credit program; staff said more fiscal detail is needed before a vote.
The Senate Finance Committee reviewed S.327 on economic development, focusing on two provisions that affect the committee's jurisdiction: increasing the downtown and village center tax-credit ceiling and striking the program sunset for the "Veggie" refundable tax-credit program.
Rick Seagle of the Office of Legislative Council told members the bill’s section two would "increase[] the number ... from 3 million annually ... to 4 million," a $1 million annual rise. Seagle said the program is typically fully allocated each year and that credits are mostly bought by financial institutions; banks (and some insurers) purchase the credits to defer or reduce tax liabilities, with cash then used for downtown redevelopment projects.
On section nine, Seagle said the committee amendment would remove the statute that set a sunset for the Veggie program, effectively allowing the program to continue "indefinitely" unless later changed. Staff emphasized Veggie awards are paid after participants meet performance requirements rather than up front; the program applies a "but-for" test so credits are refundable only after applicants demonstrate the specified hiring or capital-investment outcomes.
Committee members pressed staff for fiscal information. Seagle and committee members referenced a 2023 figure of roughly $2.2 million in incentives paid under the Veggie program and noted that some statutory language includes an initial-award cap (staff cited a 15‑million figure in the statute’s end language). Members requested the fiscal note and asked for program managers (including the program manager identified in committee materials) and JFO to appear so the committee can assess unmet demand before taking action.
No motion or vote was taken; members arranged to hear additional testimony and fiscal analysis before deciding whether to move the bill to the floor or refer it to appropriations.
