VT Lawmakers Rework Act 73 Tax Overhaul

admin
VT Lawmakers Rework Act 73 Tax Overhaul

When most Vermonters hear “Act 73,” they think one thing: school district consolidation.

That’s the headline piece. Act 73, passed last year, set in motion a plan to redraw and potentially consolidate school district boundaries as part of a broader education finance overhaul.

But buried inside Act 73 is another major structural change — one that hasn’t gotten much public attention — involving how Vermont values property for taxation.

That’s where “RADS” come in.

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

What Is a RAD?

RAD stands for Regional Assessment District.

Right now, each Vermont town handles its own property assessments. Towns hire appraisers, schedule reappraisals on their own timelines, and run their own local appeal boards. When assessments drift too far from market value, the state can step in.

Under Act 73, that town-by-town system would eventually be replaced by larger, multi-town regional assessment districts.

Instead of 247 municipalities running separate valuation systems, towns would be grouped into regions. Those regions would:

  • Conduct reappraisals together on a coordinated cycle
  • Share appraisal contracts
  • Use regional appeal boards instead of local Boards of Civil Authority
  • Move toward more uniform property valuation statewide

Why does that matter?

Because property values determine education tax rates. If valuations are inconsistent or delayed in some towns, the burden shifts unevenly. Act 73’s authors argue that regionalization would reduce volatility, improve professional consistency, and stabilize the education tax base.

So Act 73 is not just about redrawing school districts. It also restructures the machinery that feeds the statewide education funding formula.

What Happened This Week?

At the Feb. 26 meeting of the House Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers revisited the RAD portion of Act 73.

They are not eliminating it.

But they are rewriting it.

Legislative counsel told the committee that the current draft repeals the original Act 73 statutory language governing regional assessment districts and transition provisions and replaces it with new language.

That raised eyebrows. But the explanation offered was structural, not political.

Rather than stacking amendments on top of Act 73’s original text, lawmakers are choosing to repeal and re-enact the RAD sections in cleaner form. The stated goal is to avoid legal confusion and reduce the risk of constitutional challenges, particularly around delegation of authority.

Tightening Legislative Control

One of the central issues involves who draws the boundaries for these new regional assessment districts.

Earlier drafts allowed the Department of Taxes to establish RAD boundaries based on statutory criteria. That approach raised non-delegation concerns — meaning the Legislature may have been giving too much power to the executive branch.

The revised language would instead require the Commissioner of Taxes to propose regional boundaries aligned with school district lines, but the General Assembly would formally enact those boundaries in statute.

In other words, the Legislature keeps the final say.

That change slows the process but strengthens its legal footing.

Slowing the Timeline

The committee is also extending key deadlines by roughly two years.

Under Act 73, the Director of Property Valuation and Review would have been barred from ordering new standalone municipal reappraisals after a certain date. Towns would also have been restricted from entering new independent reappraisal contracts.

The revised draft pushes those cutoff dates to Jan. 1, 2028.

The Department of Taxes requested additional time. Lawmakers described the approach as a phased transition rather than an abrupt shift. Existing municipal systems will continue operating longer before mandatory regional coordination begins.

The first coordinated reappraisal within a regional district would allow voluntary participation among member towns. After that initial cycle, participation becomes mandatory for subsequent reappraisals.

Appeals Will Change

Act 73 also restructures the appeals process.

Instead of property valuation appeals being heard by each town’s Board of Civil Authority, appeals within a RAD would go to a regional board. Further appeals would go to the Commissioner of Taxes and be heard by a designated hearing officer.

The Department of Taxes is requesting an additional hearing officer position beginning in fiscal year 2027 to prepare for that shift.

The Big Condition: School District Boundaries

Here is the part that ties everything back to consolidation.

The RAD system is contingent on school district boundary reform.

Under the draft reviewed this week, the regional assessment district framework would take full effect Jan. 1, 2031 — but only if the General Assembly enacts new school district boundaries by July 1, 2027.

If that does not happen, the RAD provisions become ineffective.

That means property tax regionalization is directly linked to whether lawmakers follow through on school district consolidation.

The two reforms rise or fall together.

Grand List Date Shift

The committee also advanced a conforming change to move the municipal grand list date from April 1 to Jan. 1, effective in 2031. Lawmakers described this as aligning timelines and giving assessors more time to resolve appeals before tax rates are finalized.

This technical shift supports the broader restructuring envisioned under Act 73.

Where Act 73 Stands

As of Feb. 26:

  • Regional Assessment Districts remain part of Act 73.
  • The statutory language governing them is being repealed and rewritten for clarity and legal durability.
  • Implementation deadlines are being extended.
  • Appeals are being centralized regionally.
  • The entire framework remains contingent on school district boundary reform by mid-2027.

Act 73 began as a school district consolidation bill. It is now clear that it is also a structural overhaul of Vermont’s property tax valuation system.

The consolidation debate may dominate headlines, but the machinery underneath — how property is assessed and how education taxes are calculated — is quietly being rebuilt as well.

And for now, that rebuild is still very much alive.

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

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

#fyivt #Act73 #VTpolitics #EducationTax

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!

admin Avatar
admin

One response to “VT Lawmakers Rework Act 73 Tax Overhaul”

  1. H. Jay Eshelman Avatar
    H. Jay Eshelman

    As predicted so many times earlier, the administration and legislature, try as they will, can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear. All they can do is postpone the inevitable chaos of their one-size-fits-all system. One-size-fits-all doesn’t work for educating our kids and it won’t work for financial management either. Again, this outcome is inevitable.

    However, there is one universal governance structure that will work. It’s been proven to work here in Vermont for more than 100 years. It’s called School Choice Tuitioning. And the only reason the administration and legislature continue to ignore it (barely ever mentioning it in fact) is because it puts control of education and its funding where it ought to be – in the hands of parents.

    Not only is ‘Tuitioning’ less expensive, it improves student outcomes and encourages people to live in the communities that have it. Its benefits are (pardon the pun) a no-brainer.

    The only reasoning we hear against Vermont’s Tuitioning governance is the false dichotomy of allowing public taxpayer money to go to independent schools.

    Why shouldn’t money go to independent schools, even religious schools? The process doesn’t offend the 1st Amendment ‘Establishment Clause’ of the U. S. Constitution. In fact, Tuitioning accommodates the 1st Amendment far better than does the monopolized public-school governance. The courts have confirmed the constitutionality of School Choice on several occasions over the years. And already public-school districts send kids to independent schools all of the time as it is… especially those kids requiring special needs.

    Again, enabling School Choice Tuitioning for all Vermont parents solves every problem the current education system is creating. Not to mention that School Choice eliminates politics from the discussion.

    Why does the legislature and the administration cling to their straws? It’s all about control of the money. Period! It’s the classic case of ‘regulatory capture’. If anyone has been reading FYIVT’s articles, they can see that everything these politicians do is aimed at enhancing their revenue.

    What do voters have to lose at this point? The public education system can’t get any more complicated, expensive and dysfunctional. We’re paying upwards of $30 thousand per student and half of Vermont’s graduates can’t read, write or do arithmetic to minimum grade levels.

    The State of Vermont is clearly breaching its contract with its taxpayers.

    What are the terms of Vermont’s contractual obligation to educate its children? Is the contract satisfied when fewer than half of Vermont’s public high school graduates meet minimal proficiency in reading, writing, math and science?

    Brigham v. State, (1997)
    “The State’s duty… is to provide, through public education, for the development of an educated citizenry capable of participating fully in a democratic society and competing successfully in the economy.”

    Campaign for Vermont v. State, (2019)
    “The purpose of public education under the Vermont Constitution is to create literate, educated, and participatory citizens who can contribute to the civic and economic life of the State.”

    Property and other taxes, ostensibly raised to fund the voluntary exchange between voters and the State, to provide an education as defined above, are blatantly failing to teach all children the three Rs, never mind our children’s failure to understand science and civics, or to teach all of its children to be ‘capable of participating fully in a democratic society and competing successfully in the economy’.

    Is the State’s failure to educate more than half of Vermont’s graduates not a breach of the terms expressed in the State’s contract with its citizens and taxpayers?

    Vermont Constitution: Article 9.
    “….. previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose for which it is to be raised ought to appear evident to the Legislature to be of more service to community than the money would be if not collected.”

    This Article 9 analysis is never reported… yet another breach by the State of its contractual requirements with voters and taxpayers.

    Conclusion: If we can correct this one glaring example of incompetence and/or fraud with School Choice, all of the other misfeasance and malfeasance in the State will begin to be corrected too, because the people will actually become “…participatory citizens who can contribute to the civic and economic life of the State.”

    Just enable Vermont’s existing School Choice Tuitioning governance for all Vermont parents. It’s that simple.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to H. Jay EshelmanCancel reply

Signup Newsletter

By signing up, you agree to the our terms and our Privacy Policy agreement.

RSS icon Subscribe to RSS

Make a Difference!

Contact FYIVT


    Latest Posts

    Latest Comments

    Archives