Friday, January 30, 2026 – 1:18PM
Vermont lawmakers worked through a full slate of Friday-morning committee hearings in both chambers, with major time spent on (1) Act 250 / land-use jurisdiction and rulemaking, (2) public health authority and immunization policy, and (3) education governance changes tied to Act 73. The day’s committee docket also touched housing tax-credit projects, municipal permitting delegation, and several business and judiciary bills queued for review.
Senate Natural Resources & Energy: permitting delegation, enforcement, and S.13 (posted land / hunting)
The Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee’s most detailed work centered on state permitting structure and enforcement mechanics, including how the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) would administer a general permit framework, what can be delegated to municipalities, and what documentation must be submitted to the state after local approvals. One recurring theme was standardization: delegated municipalities would be required to incorporate the state general permit requirements rather than apply their own separate standards, and delegation would be conditioned on technical review capacity and other requirements set by the Secretary.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
The committee also dug into penalty and enforcement pathways across agencies. Legislative counsel walked members through tradeoffs between relying on default penalties (including Department of Health general penalties described as $50–$100 in some contexts) versus explicitly tying violations to the Consumer Protection Act framework, which would enable Attorney General enforcement and potentially private actions.
On S.13, the committee discussed land posting rules connected to Vermont’s constitutional and statutory framework for hunting on private land. The bill description presented in committee was to change posting frequency from annual to once every five years, and to require seller disclosure at property transfer when land is posted. Discussion referenced the legal distinction between general “no trespassing” posting and posting against hunting/fishing/trapping, noting the constitutional overlay and statutory definitions of when land is “enclosed” for these purposes.
Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs: Act 250 maps, Tier 3, the “road rule,” and S.25 / S.11
Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs continued committee-level oversight of the Act 250 modernization rollout under Act 181 and related statutes, with witnesses describing how pending rules and mapping could expand Act 250 jurisdiction across large portions of the state depending on where Tier 1/2/3 areas land.
A key request discussed was a delay of the Tier 3 “road rule” effective date, described as currently scheduled to take effect in July, with witnesses asking lawmakers to push implementation out a year to allow more time for municipal planning, public participation, and legislative oversight between adoption and enforcement.
The hearing also focused on the Land Use Review Board’s (LERB) ongoing work defining “development” for Tier 3 jurisdiction, with draft-rule examples cited such as improvements exceeding 200 square feet or more than 50 feet from an existing structure—examples offered included sheds, garages, accessory dwelling units, and decks, as well as new wastewater and drinking water systems (wells and septics).
S.25 surfaced in the context of opt-in/opt-out dynamics and participation rates for eligible communities. One witness described most towns in certain eligible areas opting in, with an example of approximately 85% opt-in across three counties discussed as an early indicator (while noting the process was still “premature” because towns were waiting to see maps before final actions).
S.11 was referenced in testimony describing how communities and property owners could be placed into jurisdictional categories that determine whether Act 250 applies, and the practical concern that mapping and rulemaking steps may not be synchronized.
Separate testimony included cost and equity framing around permitting and development barriers, including examples citing average household income (one example: Rutland County around $60,000) and claims about Act 250 permit exemptions potentially reducing costs (one figure cited: about $50,000 in avoided permit fees in a referenced context).
Senate Health & Welfare: H.5, immunization schedule authority, insurance coverage, and informed consent law
The Senate Health & Welfare Committee heard detailed walkthroughs on H.5 (referred to in testimony as H.545 in places), framed as a response to rapidly changing federal immunization guidance and the operational question of how Vermont maintains vaccine access when federal recommendations shift.
Witnesses described the bill’s core structural change as decoupling Vermont’s “recommended immunization” references from the CDC schedule and shifting authority to the Vermont Department of Health to develop state recommendations. The bill discussion included (1) how the commissioner would periodically issue immunization recommendations (age, dosing, schedule), (2) how purchasing decisions for recommended immunizations would be made under Vermont’s program, and (3) how a sunset structure would revert many changes after six years, with effective dates extending into 2031 for some provisions.
Insurance and access issues were emphasized repeatedly: witnesses stated the intent was to preserve no-cost coverage for recommended immunizations (no copay/coinsurance/deductible) even as the definition of “recommended” shifts from a CDC-linked reference to a Vermont-issued standard. The committee also reviewed how pharmacist/pharmacy tech administration authority and reimbursement language currently tied to CDC recommendations would be rewritten to align with Vermont’s definitions
The hearing also referenced S.12 and S.1909 in the context of informed consent and vaccine information disclosure requirements, with testimony pointing to existing informed-consent obligations for providers and the legal framework governing disclosure of risks and provider liability.
House Education: H.640 (student voting members on school boards) and Act 73 context
The House Education Committee took testimony on H.640, a proposal that would require student members on school district boards, including voting student members under the bill’s structure. Student testimony described current models where student representatives participate but have nonbinding votes (one student described being called for roll call and motions but having “0% weight” under current practice).
The bill discussion was framed against ongoing education restructuring debates connected to Act 73, with proponents arguing that students should have formal roles as those changes are implemented. Committee discussion included the statutory mechanics (Title 16 school board provisions), including language described as “notwithstanding” existing membership statutes and requiring boards to include student members.
House Ways & Means and other House committees: taxes, commerce bills, and judiciary items queued
House Ways & Means met Friday morning with agenda themes flagged around taxes, education funding, mandates, and spending, though the most detailed bill-specific testimony in the file was concentrated in other committees.
House Commerce & Economic Development had multiple bills anchored for discussion or processing, including S.88, S.313, S.277, H.583, and H.775.
House Judiciary flagged review activity connected to S.26, S.13, and H.5, intersecting with the same broader themes seen in the Senate: enforcement structures, mandates, and rights-adjacent statutory frameworks.
What to watch next
By midday Friday, the committee record shows continued movement on state authority design (who decides, who enforces, what gets delegated), especially in land-use regulation and public health. On the education side, H.640 adds to the session’s governance churn by proposing statutory voting roles for students as Act 73-era changes continue to land in districts.
Bills and acts mentioned today included S.13, S.25, S.11, H.5, H.640, S.12, S.1909, S.64, S.21, S.88, S.313, S.277, H.583, H.775, S.26, S.60, and S.450, along with Acts 181, 73, 21, 34, and 180.
FYIVTBOT | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram
#fyivt #vtleg #goldendome #vermontpolitics
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Subscribe to RSS
Leave a Reply