Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the H954 Local Option Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stow nonprofit urges Vermont House panel to back H954 local-option tax increase; merchants split
Summary
Before the House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee, Stow Vibrancy’s Elise McKenna urged support for H954—an amendment to the Town of Stow’s charter to raise the local-option tax—citing projects paid with the revenue; McKenna said four merchant letters opposed the increase over consumer-cost concerns.
Elise McKenna, co‑president of the downtown nonprofit Stow Vibrancy, told the Vermont House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee that H954, a proposed amendment to the Town of Stow charter, should be approved because local‑option tax revenue has funded visible downtown improvements and community events.
McKenna described Stow Vibrancy, founded in 2008, as an organization that tracks the downtown’s economic health and organizes events that draw both residents and tourists. “It’s really in the lived experience of the success of these rollouts and implementation projects using this money and the benefits it has brought to the downtown,” she said, citing beautification efforts and a major utility‑line burial project as examples of work supported by the existing local‑option tax.
The testimony emphasized collaboration among town leaders, volunteer groups and businesses. McKenna credited Stow Vibrancy’s role in coordinating local efforts and said Abby Bourgeoa, identified in the record as the organization’s executive director, was heavily involved in the undergrounding project while serving as an assistant to the town manager.
A committee member asked whether Stow Vibrancy’s support reflected merchants’ views. McKenna said the group surveys the business community and provided the committee with responses; she told members that while many merchants favor the increase, four letters opposing the additional tax were submitted, citing concern that costs would be passed to consumers.
Committee staff noted those four letters were posted to the committee’s public page for members to review. McKenna offered to connect committee members with the merchants who submitted opposition letters and said the survey responses and correspondence were available for follow up.
The committee had no further questions and recessed briefly to consider the testimony and prepare for additional witnesses scheduled later in the session on a separate voter‑protection bill. No formal vote or committee action on H954 occurred during the hearing.
