Action unlikely.

Action unlikely

Action unlikely.

• Transitions to place-based jurisdiction,
• Creates interim exemptions until the new jurisdictional regime is in place,
• Creates new Act 250 criteria around forest fragmentation and a road rule, and
• Increases the property transfer tax on second homes.

The bill transitions Act 250 to place-based jurisdiction instead of the traditional size-based jurisdiction by creating three tiers of jurisdiction, with Act 250 jurisdiction most intense in Tier 3 and non-existent in Tier 1a. This looks like the following;

• Tier 1
  • Tier 1a – 20 to 50 municipalities could fit into this tier and leave Act 250 altogether, though they would need to incorporate that criteria into their municipal zoning.
  • Tier 1b – most municipalities could fit into this for their core, so long as they do not opt-out. This tier would exempt housing development under 50 units on less than 10 acres.

• Establishes exemptions for any development in Tier 1A areas and in Tier 1B areas up to 49 units of housing, including those part of a mixed-use development, and exemptions for hotels or motels converted to permanently affordable housing.

• Tier 3 – consists of “critical resource areas” where any activity within will more than likely trigger Act 250 jurisdiction and would, by some estimates, cover about 18% of the state’s land mass.
• Tier 2 – is essentially anything we have not described yet, which will closely resemble the existing Act 250 program.
  • The bill adds a “road rule” that triggers Act 250 if a road is more than 800 feet.
  • New criteria exists in the bill for “forest fragmentation.”

H.687 does include interim exemptions until July 2027 (if vetoed, this early date will be a contributing factor and if signed, will need advocacy to push it back the sunset to make the exemptions useful) to accommodate the time it will take to stand up the new tiers, however, it is scaled back from what was offered in S.311. The interim Act 250 thresholds for triggers are pushed to:

• Has no permits for housing within downtowns.
• 75 or fewer units in new town centers, growth centers, and neighborhood development areas in the areas with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws and sewer, water, or appropriate soils
• 50 units within a quarter-mile along transit corridors or census-designated urbanized areas with 50,000 residents.
• These are contingent on not being in floodplains or river corridors.
• No permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements to convert a commercial structure to 29 or fewer housing units.

None of the units built under these interim guidelines count towards triggering Act 250 threshold.

• Unfortunately, property taxes will increase by 13.8% on average as Vermont’s per-pupil education spending climbs to the highest in the country despite our student population continually shrinking.
• The Legislature taxed Software as a Service with the state’s 6% sales tax and levied a 3% surcharge on short-term rentals to raise more revenue for the bloated education fund.
  • The Legislature found $25 million in General Fund surplus to help buy down the tax rates, as well as some surplus held from the previous biennium; without this surplus and the new revenues, the property tax rate increases might have exceeded 18%.
• The bill does not contain cost-containment measures beyond some changes to excess spending thresholds, and instead will study the issue.

The business community has been deeply involved on your behalf throughout this process,

• organizing a policy proposal from the business community that soon after was implemented,
• testifying on various economic factors at the root of the education finance system
• pushing for further action to prevent future tax hikes .

The end result of business advocate’s work is reflected in the yield bill:

• Act 127’s 5% cap was scrapped early in the session, which helped put downward pressure on budgets, as one-third were voted down on town meeting week, and multiple budgets had repeated no votes in the month after.
• The final yield bill contains a cloud tax, however, advocates worked to ensure that Infrastructure as a Service and Platform as a Service will not be taxed. We will continue to work with the Tax Department through implementation to exclude business inputs from the tax regime.
• Advocates pushed back on the House version of the legislation that would have taxed businesses and renters/landlords at a higher rate of 18%, with the final legislation having the same rate for homestead and non-homestead ratepayers.

Report: https://education.vermont.gov/sites/aoe/files/documents/edu-legislative-report-school-construction-aid-taskforce-2024.pdf

Wetlands shall be regulated and managed to produce a net gain of wetlands acreage. 2:1 ratio.

Changes dam ownership to strict liability.

S.253 requires the working group to also develop plans and recommendations for a potential transition to a comprehensive program for the RBES and CBES (Commercial Building Energy Codes) at the Divisions of Fire Safety, and consider whether or not the State should adopt a statewide building code. There is no appropriation in the bill for the DPS led working group, and as such it is set expire July 1, 2024. The intent is for the legislature to find funding in the future to extend the committee.

The bill also changes mandatory code update requirements. Currently, the state’s RBES code follows International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) that comes out every three years. State statute requires the DPS to follow suit. S.253 gives DPS discretion in updating the codes by amending statute from “shall update,” to “may update.” The state’s building and developer community have long sought this language change, arguing that energy codes without the framework of underlying residential building code are doomed to fail.

Senate Natural Resources Committee Act 250 bill. Was a placeholder. Gives the committee some framework for discussion until the get the bill from Senate Economic Development Committee.