After the Legislature’s winter recess, Vermont lawmakers returned to Montpelier this week and began resetting the policy table. Over the first 48 hours of committee meetings, the tone was less about dramatic votes and more about positioning: reviewing unfinished work from last session, surfacing early pressure points, and laying the groundwork for debates that will define the coming months.
Across committees, four issue areas clearly dominated early conversations: education infrastructure, healthcare costs and mental health capacity, energy and climate policy implementation, and natural resources and land-use regulation. While little was finalized, the hearings offered a clear look at what legislators are preparing to grapple with—and where conflict is likely to emerge.
Education: School Buildings, Act 73, and the Cost of Delay
Education committees wasted little time revisiting a problem that has quietly grown for decades: Vermont’s aging school buildings and the absence of a robust statewide construction aid program.
Testimony to the Senate and House Education Committees focused heavily on the physical condition of school infrastructure, much of which dates back to the major building wave of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Witnesses described a predictable but expensive lifecycle: buildings that received only limited upgrades in the 1990s are now reaching the end of their functional life, while years of deferred maintenance have compounded costs.
Representatives from the Vermont Bond Bank and school design professionals emphasized that construction inflation has made delay increasingly expensive, arguing that postponing projects often costs districts more than acting earlier. While debt service currently represents a relatively small share of statewide education spending, they warned that failing buildings will eventually force districts into emergency repairs or replacement—often at the worst possible time.
That conversation ties directly to Act 73, passed last session, which created a new state school construction aid framework. Committees reviewed the law’s timeline and mechanics, noting that while advisory and planning bodies are already active, most of the program’s core provisions do not take effect until July 1, 2026. In the meantime, lawmakers are left with a key unresolved question: what behavior is the aid program meant to incentivize?
Several witnesses made clear that construction aid is not just about funding—it is a policy lever. Whether the state intends to encourage consolidation, regional cooperation, modernization, or “newer and fewer” schools remains an open question. Without that clarity, the aid program risks becoming another funding stream without a coherent strategy behind it.
That uncertainty surfaced sharply during discussion of the School District Redistricting Task Force, which Act 73 charged with producing up to three statewide district maps. Committee members pressed task force participants on why no maps were formally adopted in the final report. Task force members responded that mapping exercises were conducted, but that the group did not vote to endorse them—citing time constraints, data limitations, and lack of consensus.
The exchange underscored a recurring theme: lawmakers passed a major structural education law, but key pieces of its implementation—and political will—remain unsettled.
Health: Rising Medicaid Costs and Mental Health Bottlenecks
Healthcare discussions this week were dominated by cost dynamics, not coverage expansion.
The Department of Vermont Health Access (DVHA) told House Human Services members that Medicaid enrollment has declined, but per-member costs have risen sharply, driving a significant upward adjustment in the state’s budget outlook. Officials described the change as a “catch-up” to real claims experience rather than a one-time anomaly, pointing to similar trends in other states.
The message was blunt: fewer people are enrolled, but those who remain are generally sicker, older, or require more intensive services. That dynamic, combined with pharmacy costs and federally dictated Medicare Part D “clawback” calculations, is placing sustained pressure on the state budget.
Committee members also questioned operational costs, including renewed spending on leased office space as agencies return to in-person work. DVHA officials acknowledged morale challenges associated with the transition, adding another layer to workforce and cost concerns.
Mental health capacity emerged as a separate but related issue. Lawmakers reviewed proposals aimed at addressing emergency room boarding, where individuals in psychiatric crisis wait for extended periods due to limited placement options and procedural bottlenecks.
One bill concept would expand the pool of professionals authorized to initiate early steps in the involuntary commitment process, with the goal of reducing delays that keep patients in ERs ill-equipped for psychiatric care. The proposal does not change commitment standards but seeks to unclog a system that lawmakers described as both inefficient and harmful to patients.
In addition, the committee discussed increased oversight of psychotropic medication use among Medicaid-enrolled youth, framed as a transparency and accountability measure rather than a prohibition. Together, the conversations signal a renewed focus on cost containment, process reform, and mental health system capacity rather than sweeping new health mandates.
🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁
Energy: Climate Law Still Looms, but the Focus Is Framing
Energy policy discussions this week were less explosive than in past sessions, but no less consequential.
The Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee heard from the Energy Action Network, which presented data on energy use, emissions trends, and affordability. Speakers emphasized that Vermont already has a statutory climate framework under the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and an existing climate action plan, shifting the debate away from whether a plan exists and toward what legislative actions—if any—are needed to implement it.
Committee members acknowledged the tension between long-term climate targets and near-term economic realities, particularly affordability and grid capacity. While no proposals were introduced to repeal or soften the GWSA’s enforcement mechanisms during these hearings, the conversation made clear that lawmakers are revisiting how aggressively to move from planning to policy.
For now, the emphasis was on metrics, data, and framing, rather than mandates—suggesting that larger fights over energy costs and compliance may come later in the session.
Natural Resources and Land Use: Act 250, Act 181, and the Appeals Question
The most charged testimony of the week came during a joint hearing of the House Environment Committee and the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee, where the Land Use Review Board (LURB) briefed lawmakers on the implementation of Act 181, Vermont’s major overhaul of Act 250.
LURB officials outlined the process for reviewing regional plans and future land use maps, describing their role as ensuring statutory compliance rather than drawing local boundaries. They emphasized early “pre-application” reviews intended to flag issues before plans are formally adopted, stating that the goal is to avoid rejecting plans after the fact.
But legislators quickly pressed on the appeals process—particularly the fact that appeals of LURB decisions go directly to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Rep. Mike Tagliavia raised immediate concerns about access and cost. While acknowledging efforts to streamline the process, he warned that Supreme Court appeals carry significant expense and time burdens.
“I like what I was hearing about streamlining,” he said, “and then I heard the appeals going to the Supreme Court, and I immediately thought expense and time.”
Tagliavia went further, questioning whether low appeal rates reflect satisfaction with decisions—or whether people are simply priced out of challenging them.
“Of the one to three percent that were appealed,” he asked, “how many of those that didn’t go further possibly didn’t go there because of the expense and the time?”
LURB representatives responded with appeal statistics but did not quantify how many potential appellants might be deterred by cost or complexity. When asked about timelines, they acknowledged that Supreme Court proceedings are outside their control and did not provide an average duration.
The exchange highlighted an unresolved tension at the heart of Act 181: balancing efficiency and statewide standards with accessibility and local trust.
Other lawmakers raised concerns about rural land designations, warning that labeling private land as “rural conservation” without easements or compensation could have real consequences for property owners, regardless of whether such maps are described as advisory.
What Comes Next
These first two days back in Montpelier did not deliver headline-grabbing votes, but they offered a clear preview of what’s ahead.
Education committees are confronting the long-delayed cost of school infrastructure and the unfinished work of Act 73. Health committees are bracing for sustained Medicaid cost growth and mental health system strain. Energy lawmakers are re-engaging with climate law implementation, even as affordability concerns linger. And land-use policy—particularly Act 181—has already exposed fault lines over authority, appeals, and property rights.
For Vermonters, the message is straightforward: the Legislature is back, the machinery is moving, and the most consequential debates of the session are already taking shape—whether quietly or not.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram
#fyivt #vtleg #vermontpolitics #montpelier
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