Lawmakers debate school funding formulas, property tax one‑time funds and data‑privacy amendments in three committee meetings

Legislative committees on May 29 reviewed fiscal changes to school funding and property tax relief, considered amendments to a data‑privacy bill affecting data brokers and education technology vendors, and confirmed an appointment to the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank.

Ways & Means

The House Ways & Means Committee examined language tied to H.95 and H.955 and reviewed fiscal assumptions carried in the conference committee report and supporting fiscal notes. Committee staff described technical corrections, a transfer to the Department of Taxes, and multiple education spending adjustments that were carried forward from the House.

Members discussed a $150,576 transfer described as a tip overpayment to the city of Barre and an inflation adjustment to the special education census grant. The committee reviewed proposed amendments to the excess spending adjustment in sections six and seven of the bill. Under current law, the excess spending threshold is calculated using the FY25 average per‑pupil spending increased by inflation and multiplied by 118%; spending above that threshold is subject to double taxation except for certain excluded block payments. The conference report would amend that calculation for FY28.

The committee reviewed the fiscal construct for using one‑time general fund resources to reduce property tax bills. One presentation contrasted two approaches: a Senate construct using $100,900,000 of one‑time general fund in FY27 to uniformly lower property tax bills, and a House construct applying half of $104,900,000 of one‑time general fund to tax relief in one year and reserving the other half for the following year. The $4,000,000 difference between $104,900,000 and $100,900,000 was attributed to a one‑time expansion of the renter credit in FY27.

Panel members discussed exemptions to the excess spending adjustment tied to voter‑approved principal and interest payments on bonds. Current law exempts bonds approved prior to July 1, 2024; the committee of conference report would extend that temporal condition to bonds approved prior to July 1, 2026. Data from the Bond Bank were cited showing 11 school districts would be eligible for the exclusion, estimated at approximately $11,600,000 in annual debt service, though committee staff noted that in FY27 all but one of those districts sit below the excess spending threshold.

Officials reviewed spreadsheet modeling showing alternative threshold calculations. One model used 118% as the multiplier for FY27 calculations and identified eight districts over the threshold at a combined amount below $4,300,000 under that scenario. Committee discussion referenced other percentage figures used in different calculations, including 114.2% and 115.5%, and a base amount cited as $15,033 tied to prior enactments.

Committee members discussed timing and practical effects on school district budgeting cycles, noting that districts build budgets in late summer and fall, receive excess spending threshold communications in the fall, and often vote budgets on town meeting day. Members also discussed how district use of reserves and rising costs such as health care — described as increases “seven plus percentage points a year” in one segment — can affect per‑pupil spending and whether districts reach the excess spending threshold. Staff cautioned that the presented spreadsheets were not forward projections of long‑term weighted pupil counts or future thresholds but were intended to show sensitivity to alternative percentage calculations.

The committee referenced Act 73 and H.955 in the context of the education opportunity payment, small and sparse by necessity small school grants, and school protection aid, noting outstanding policy choices will determine future categorical aid and distribution.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Commerce & Economic Development

The House Commerce & Economic Development Committee reviewed Senate amendments to S.71 and compared the Senate proposal with the House language concerning data brokers, consumer data rights, and education technology (EdTech) vendor filings.

Committee discussion noted the Senate removed or altered deletion authority for data brokers that had been present in the House language and struck a subsection described as the deletion authority. Penalties mentioned in the House language were said to remain unchanged. The Senate proposal also revised the definition of “publicly available information” in chapter 62 and removed subsection elements tied to the House’s approach to deletion authority.

Under the EdTech filing language, vendors must supply the name of their provider, a link to their privacy policy, the name of each school with a paid contract, and a description of each product or a URL providing that information. The Senate added an “or” allowing a single URL in lieu of separate product descriptions for providers with multiple products. The filings also must include attestation that products meet state and federal privacy laws.

Members discussed exemptions for data brokers and how S.71 grants consumer rights — including access, deletion, and opt‑out rights for sensitive data where the broker is not exempt and qualifies as a controller — while noting differences between S.71 and related bills. The committee reviewed amendments that removed large portions tied to deletion authority and reworked requirements for a consumer rights webpage the Secretary of State must provide, including links to deletion webpages where applicable.

Committee staff described the Senate amendment package as consisting of multiple instances of changes, including at least one substantive change to the definition of publicly available information and other instances affecting authority and mandated filings. The committee also discussed that certain noncontroversial elements of the publicly available information definition were retained in one chamber’s proposal but not in the other.

Finance

The Senate Finance Committee considered reappointments and appointments to boards. The committee confirmed the reappointment of Debbie Winters of Swanton to be a member of the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank. Senators recorded an aye vote and completed related appointment business; additional appointment timing references to terms beginning July 1 were noted in the record.

Conclusion

The report covers three May 29 committee meetings: House Ways & Means on fiscal and school funding provisions tied to H.95 and H.955 and references to Act 73; House Commerce & Economic Development on Senate amendments to S.71 addressing data‑broker deletion authority, consumer data rights and EdTech filing requirements; and Senate Finance on appointments to the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank. Each committee reviewed fiscal impacts, statutory definitions, exemptions and filing or reporting mandates as reflected in the meeting records.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

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!