May 18: Bills In Conference Committees, 802 Homes Design Survey, Latest LOT Language at Risk

The Senate rejected the House amendment to S.325, an act relating to regional planning and Act 250 Tier jurisdiction (as we reported last week), and the bill will soon be headed to conference committee. The members of the S.325 conference committee will be:  

The office of legislative counsel has created this side-by-side comparison of S.325 as passed by the House and Senate.  

We expect the major points of conflict to include the floor amendments made by each chamber, the House’s proposed Joint Legislative Environmental Oversight Committee, and the dates for extending the interim Act 250 exemptions. Governor Phil Scott has called for the extensions to go to 2030 (which is included in Senate’s version) and is likely to object to a new oversight committee.  

Given the incredible level of public engagement around Act 181, this bill is an absolute must pass for lawmakers, and the threat of a veto will loom large in conference committee deliberations. Sensible Act 181 reform remains a top priority for VLCT; we will watch and engage the conference debate closely. VLCT’s objectives will be to: 

After crossover week, there were three major housing bills of the session: H.757, an act relating to manufactured homes and limited equity cooperatives; H.775, an act relating to creating tools for housing production; https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2026/H.757and S.328, an act relating to housing and common interest communities.  

As part of the Vermont Homes for All Initiative, the Vermont Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) is working with a team of consultants to create a series of ten home designs that can be built quickly and affordably all over Vermont through off-site and traditional on-site building methods. Variations of existing home types found throughout Vermont's historic communities have been selected to meet a wide range of housing needs, such as supporting aging in place, being appropriate for smaller households, and workforce housing. While several of the home designs have fully accessible units, elements of Universal Design have been incorporated in all designs to create safe, functional housing for all. 

See this DHCD webpage for more detailed information and a survey you can take to help inform the program. At the end of the project, the 802 Homes Catalog will include construction drawings for each of the ten home designs, which will be free for all Vermont developers to streamline the permitting and construction process. 

Three Vermont municipalities are participating in an ongoing 802 Homes PILOT initiative. Essex Junction, Hartford, and Manchester are working to identify eligible sites, co-develop and test the home designs within the community, streamline development review processes, secure administrative approvals for the home catalog, and expand access to development opportunities for would-be housing developers. 

Earlier this session, bills H.602 and S.267 were introduced and carried the administration's proposal to adopt the 802 Homes catalogue statewide and require that municipalities accept the included housing designs as permitted – meaning that a municipality could not undertake discretionary review at the DRB if a zoning applicant met the other minimum requirements of bylaw (e.g., setbacks, lot size, floor area ratio, parking) and was using one of the 802 Homes designs.  

This proposal was not taken up in any committee. However, S.325 carries a provision that would create a summer study to continue exploring the 802 Homes program and other “by right” housing, model code, and administrative permitting concepts that could limit or eliminate the discretionary review of housing and the associated appeals in Vermont. The study language in S.325 directs DHCD to consult with VLCT and other stakeholders and report on:  

On Friday, May 15, the House Transportation Committee, in a unanimous straw poll, chose not to concur with the Senate’s proposed amendments made to H.944. The most significant difference between the House and Senate versions of H.944 is the roll out and implementation of the new Mileage-based User Fee (MBUF). 

In its simplest form, the MBUF is designed to collect a road usage fee for the use of electric vehicles (EVs)  – to help pay for Vermont’s roads and bridges in a way that is more on par with the fuel tax paid by users of gas and diesel vehicles. A MBUF plan developed by Vtrans and UVM has been in the works for years. The House and Senate have made different choices in how the program will be rolled out next year and if and when other high fuel efficiency vehicles, such as gas/electric hybrids, will be added to the program. 

Other differences in approach include using some transportation infrastructure bonds for next year’s paving budget and sending more of the Vehicle Purchase and Use Tax back to the transportation fund as the Governor proposed. We expect the Transportation Committee of Conference to schedule meetings this week, hopefully reach agreement, and wrap up their work for the year. It’s important to note that the Senate’s one-time appropriation of $3 million from the PILOT Special Fund to provide additional grants through the general State Aid to Town Highways program was removed from the transportation bill, but was added to H.951(the appropriations bill), so we will be tracking it in the H.951 Committee of Conference.    

Late last week both the H.951 (appropriations) and H.933 (miscellaneous tax) Committees of Conference held brief meetings to start working through their differences.  

In less than 30 minutes, H.951 conferees agreed on more than 30 budget items. None of the items discussed and agreed to were of much concern to municipalities. This was a good start, but we need to stay vigilant and remind the committee that VLCT opposes the $3.41 million in base appropriation from the PILOT special fund for the state’s share of reappraisal and grand list expenses (item B.139 in the budget) and VLCT supports the Senate’s one-time appropriation of $3 million from the PILOT Special Fund to provide additional grants through the general State Aid to Town Highways program pursuant to 19 V.S.A. § 306(a) (Sec. B.1100). The Conference Committee is expected to meet several times this week, perhaps reaching agreement and sending the budget on to the Governor.       

H.933 conferees meet briefly and House Ways and Means committee members highlighted areas of disagreement or concerns with the Senate’s changes to H.933. Legislative Counsel walked the conferees through the differences between the Senate- and House-passed versions of H.933. House Ways and Means Chair Emilie Kornheiser expressed her concerns with Section 50, which the Senate added and allows municipalities to keep five percent more local option tax revenue in fiscal years with at least $18 million surplus in the PILOT Special Fund. She asked that the Department of Taxes be available to testify at the next Conference Committee meeting, at 4PM on May 19, to address concerns they have apparently raised to her.   

As a reminder, VLCT and the 51 LOT municipalities fought hard to include Section 50. which amends 24 V.S.A. § 138(d)(1) to state “provided that an additional five percent of the taxes collected shall be paid on a quarterly basis to the municipality in which they were collected in fiscal years that, at the close of the immediately preceding fiscal year, the Commissioner of Taxes determined that the balance of the PILOT Special Fund was in excess of $18,000,000.00 at that time”.  

To help ensure that Section 50 stays in H.933, LOT municipalities should contact the Governor’s office and tell him and the Tax Department to support this commonsense change that allows municipalities to keep and use more of the local tax money they raise instead of sending it to Montpelier to continue to grow an already healthy surplus fund.  

LOT municipalities should also contact the H.933 conferees (at the emails below) and tell them you support Section 50 and the 5% increase of Local Option Tax to be retained by municipalities.  

Rep. Emilie Kornheiser,  ekornheiser@leg.state.vt.us 
Rep. William Canfield, wcanfield@leg.state.vt.us 
Rep. Charles Kimbell, ckimbell@leg.state.vt.us 
Sen. Ann Cummings, acummings@leg.state.vt.us 
Sen. Ruth Hardy, rhardy@leg.state.vt.us 
Sen. Christopher Mattos, cmattos@leg.state.vt.us 

Language from H.556 to clarify that elected or appointed municipal officials are not “employees” under the statute was added by the House to S.230, the Senate’s Labor Bill. Late last week the Senate voted to concur with the proposed House amendment, and the bill is expected to be signed by the governor. VLCT and the Vermont Clerks and Treasurers Association have advocated for this change for several years. 

Under current law, municipal officers are not exempted from minimum wage. This is a problem because the vast majority of elected and appointed municipal officials in Vermont are volunteers, and generally their compensation is established by the authority of voters at the annual meeting during the adoption of the budget. State law is also in conflict with federal law, which allows the exemption.  

The changes would: 

This update is courtesy of Karen Horn for the Green Mountain Water and Environment Association (GMWEA), a VLCT Associate Member.  

S.212, the bill allowing for delegation of technical review of potable water supply and wastewater system connections, is still on the House Calendar and will be taken up this week. While the core components of S.212 are not in dispute, several amendments have been proposed. The majority of the House Environment Committee voted to oppose them, but the outcome on the House floor is less certain, and leadership typically wants a clear sense of the vote before bringing the bill forward. 

As voted by the House Environment Committee, S.212 would require the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to adopt a general permit for potable water supply and wastewater system connections that require a permit. The bill would also allow ANR to delegate authority to conduct technical reviews of projects that include both municipal potable water supply and wastewater connections.  

One proposed amendment, offered by Representative Greer, would direct ANR to reconvene the Technical Advisory Committee and require it to review the authority under state statute and rule that allows isolation distances for potable water supplies and wastewater systems to extend onto neighboring property. The committee would also examine how isolation distances can limit the use of or encumber neighboring property, as well as whether those distances should continue to be allowed to extend onto neighboring property. 

A second proposed amendment, offered by Representative Olson, would amend the potable water supply and wastewater (indirect discharge) programs to encourage housing construction and foster economic development while also protecting human health and the environment. The proposal is comprehensive and would also revise the circumstances under which permits for potable water supplies would need to be amended or systems would need to be redesigned. It would specify water supply, subdivision, and wastewater system programs with design flows of less than 1,000 gallons per day for which ANR could adopt general permits, and it would establish minimum isolation distances of 75 feet between all components of a wastewater system and a potable water supply unless site-specific conditions warrant a greater distance. 

A third amendment, offered by Representatives Tagliavia, Greer, and Lipsky, would address situations in which a permit for a potable water supply or wastewater system is obtained and the permittee builds, but ANR later determines that the supply or system is located in a previously unmapped or un-delineated Class II wetland.

So far in the 2026 session, 50 bills have been passed by both the Senate and the House, two have been vetoed by Governor Phil Scott, and 24 have been signed into law.  

The Governor vetoed S.218, an act relating to reducing chloride contamination of State waters (which we reported on last week) and S.183, an act relating to home improvement and land improvement fraud.  

Here are some of the bills that have been passed and signed into law that relate to municipal interests:  

With work in the State House in its final stage of this session, the most important key to our success is your input and participation in VLCT’s advocacy work. Our next Advocacy Chat will be the Legislative Session Wrap-Up on a date to be determined. Stay tuned for details.