Skip to main content

Testimony to Senate Finance Committee Regarding Flood Bill, H.397, 5/21/25

May 28, 2025
the words "Municipal Emergency Debt"

Testimony to the Senate Finance Committee 
Regarding Flood-Related Municipal Financing (H.397)
Samantha Sheehan, Municipal Policy and Advocacy Specialist, VLCT
May 21, 2025
 

July 10, 2024 Municipal Flood Damages
  • Examples of outstanding emergency debt pending FEMA reimbursement:​

    • Lyndon: $15M (2x the town budget)​

    • Moretown: $8.25M​

    • Middlesex: $7M (3x the town budget)​

    • Cavendish $1.6M​

    • Barnet: $1.5M​

    • Bridgewater: $3M (2x the town budget)​

  • Of the municipal entities impacted by the 2024 floods, ​one third (1/3) make up 91% of the total estimated damages. ​

  • Two thirds (2/3) of the municipalities impacted were also ​impacted in July 2023, and 64% of those are towns with a population less than 2000.​
     

Section 10: Unassigned Fund Balance

We recommend action to allow municipalities to employ the prudent fiscal practice of providing for unassigned fund balance within the municipal general fund budget. ​

Establishing an Unassigned Fund Balance would:

  • assist in cash flow management

  • stabilize the tax rate

  • improve emergency response

  • significantly strengthen municipalities' financial resiliency in the case of unexpected negative economic trends ​

  • improve grant readiness by making flexible monies available 

  • improve the municipality's borrowing position, saving taxpayers money on the cost of municipal debt.​
     

Section 7: Emergency Borrowing

VLCT and the Vermont Bond Bank request a new authority to borrow for up to a five-year repayment period in the case of an all-hazards event.  ​

  • Vermont municipalities have become increasingly familiar with complex and extensive processes required to access emergency funding and FEMA Public Assistance. ​

  • In the wake of flooding and major weather events, municipalities cannot wait to rebuild vital town infrastructure or to restore municipal services.​

  • State law substantially limits the authority of local legislative bodies to acquire funding for emergency response as they can only take on debt for up to one year without a town vote.​
     

Section 8: Denominations; Payments; Interest; Level Debt Service  

To improve predictability for municipalities and for taxpayers, VLCT and the Vermont Bond Bank request a change to allow for flexibility in bond repayments to include level debt option. Members of the Vermont School Board Association and Superintendents Associations have also expressed support for this change.​

  • Current statute requires municipal loans to be level principal.

  • Debt payments for level principle borrowings start high and decrease yearly as the cost of interest goes down. ​

  • Municipalities should have the option to structure level debt or level principle. ​

  • This is more within the norms of government borrowing nationally.​
     

Annual Debt Service Payments – Level Principal

 

Annual Debt Service Payments – Level Debt

 

Section 11: Local Option Taxes Change to 75/25
VLCT Supports an amended withholding ratio of 80/20
  • Through FY25, 34 municipalities have acted to adopt LOT and five municipalities approved one or more LOT at their 2025 Town Meeting.
  • Currently, all 34 LOT communities established this taxing authority through a charter process and most have obligated these revenues to support a range of local initiatives.
  • There is a long history of legislative actions to revise the LOT program.
    • Act 60 of 1997 authorized LOT for a limited time at 60/40.
    • Various Acts extended the sunset and modified criteria for municipalities.
    • Act 215 of 2005 established the current 70/30 split of LOT revenues between municipalities and the PILOT Special Fund and removed the sunset. 
    • In the 2024 Miscellaneous Tax bill, non-chartered municipalities were granted the authority to adopt LOT.
       

75/25 Maintains an Excessive Surplus

Assuming FY26 PILOT Fund Appropriations will be $14.542 million ($12.2 for PILOT payments). The FY24 end-of year surplus is $10.3 million. The FY25 end-of-year surplus is projected to be over $14 million.

Projected FY26 PILOT Surplus$14,200,000 Projected FY26 PILOT Surplus$14,200,000
Minus FY26 Appropriations$14,542,000 Minus FY26 Appropriations$14,542,000
Plus 75/25 state revenue share$14,000,000 

Plus 80/20 state revenue share

$11,200,000

Future PILOT Surplus retained

$13,568,000

 

Future PILOT Surplus retained

$10,858,000

 

80/20 LOT Formula is Sustainable

A $10.8 million surplus provides a 3- to 5-year ramp for LOT revenues to catch up to expenses for statutory obligations for the PILOT Special Fund.

  • 80/20 would create a ~$3.3M delta between revenues and expenses in FY26.
  • Prior to the law change for LOT eligibility, the State's share of LOT revenues increased by approximately $6 million between FY21 and FY24.
  • A substantial favorable change in the LOT formula is likely to encourage more towns to consider adding LOT.
  • The factors driving increasing LOT revenues include:
    • All towns are now eligible to create a new LOT by town vote
    • Wayfair Decision = online retail sales
    • Cannabis sales
    • The proliferation of short-term rentals
    • General growth in consumption tax receipts, up over 40% post-pandemic