Vermont property taxes are increasing this year, but not by much. Here's why
Property taxes in Vermont are set to increase an average of 1.1% in fiscal year 2026, down from the 5.9% increase the Department of Taxes projected in December 2024 and significantly lower than fiscal year 2025's unprecedented 14% jump.
Lawmakers bought down property tax increases for fiscal year 2026 using a one-time $77.2 million allocation from the general fund, a strategy Gov. Phil Scott proposed at the beginning of the legislative session in January. Scott, who originally wanted a zero percent increase or even a property tax decrease, signed the new property tax bill into law on May 20.
Scott reiterated that the buydown should be a one-time approach to providing tax relief and reminded lawmakers of their promise to reform the education property tax system.
'After last year's significant property tax increase, we knew it was important to provide Vermonters tax relief," Scott said in a press release. "But I want to be clear, buying down rates year after year isn't good fiscal management and we should only view this as a bridge to the real education transformation our system needs."
The legislature's next step, Scott said, is to pass an education transformation bill that creates a more sustainable, affordable and equitable funding structure before the legislative session adjourns. The education transformation bill in question, H.454, is currently in the senate and, if passed, will once again need the approval of the house due to the many edits senators made to the original legislation.
Vermont's skyrocketing property taxes, which critics say has made living in Vermont more difficult each year, are widely believed to be the reason Democrats and Progressives lost their supermajority in both chambers in November. All parties agreed to make working on the property tax crisis their top priority this session. Additionally, school districts helped to lower property tax increases for FY26 by making significant budget cuts, Scott reported in December.
Megan Stewart is a government accountability reporter for the Burlington Free Press. Contact her at mstewartyounger@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Burlington Free Press: How much Vermont's property taxes will increase this year
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Power bills in California have jumped nearly 50% in four years. Democrats think they have solutions
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers this week advanced several efforts aimed at reining in utility profits and slashing electricity bills as part of their agenda to tackle the sky-high costs of living. The proposals would make sweeping changes to how utilities fund expensive infrastructure projects like putting power lines underground to guard against wildfires. They also would add more oversight around wildfire mitigation spending and put new requirements on utility requests to increase rates. Supporters said the goal is to make the big investor-owned utilities start sharing some of the costs to fight wildfires and build new transmission infrastructure. 'This is not a set of modest tweaks that will make minor improvements at the edges of a problem without offending anyone,' said Democratic State Sen. Josh Becker, the bill's author. 'This is a big deal.' One of the bills is part of the state Senate's package to address affordability amid growing concern about the high costs of everything from gas to groceries. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order last year urging lawmakers to do something to address skyrocketing electricity rates, which rose 47% on average for residential customers between 2019 and 2023, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office. But Republicans, who are in the minority in both chambers, say Democrats are not meaningfully addressing high prices. They did not support the energy reform bills, saying it wouldn't lower costs, and they unsuccessfully tried to force a vote on a proposal to limit utilities from raising power rates above the rate of inflation. Utility rate increases in recent years have been approved by state regulators in part to help investor-owned utilities bury power lines aimed at stopping wildfires. Some of the deadliest and most destructive fires in recent years have been sparked by power equipment. Pacific Gas & Electric, whose equipment sparked a 2018 wildfire that killed 85 people in 2024, raised its rates six times to help cover the costs of putting power lines underground and other improvement projects. While one in every five ratepayers can't pay their power bills, utilities like PG&E raked in record-breaking profits last year, according to The Utility Reform Network, a ratepayer advocacy group. The group supports Becker's measure and has sponsored a similar effort in the Assembly. 'There are no limits to how much the utilities can ask for in rate increases. There are no limits to how many times a year they can ask,' said Mark Toney, the group's executive director. 'You can't blame them for asking for the sky.' Under Becker's proposal, utilities would be required to use public financing to fund the first $15 billion spent on capital investment projects. The option would allow utilities to access funding with lower interest rates, and utilities also would be prohibited from collecting a return on that investment for shareholders. That would save customers $8.8 billion over the next 10 years, Becker said. The bill would also set up a state-backed fund to reimburse utilities for wildfire projects, among other things. But the state may not have money to pay for that this year. The bill would also increase oversight of utility budgets and their wildfire spending. Utilities would have to include at least one rate increase proposal that doesn't exceed the rate of inflation in their requests. The proposal also calls for $60 billion worth of credits to apply on bills over the years during the summer months when usage is often at its peak. Senate Democrats overwhelmingly advanced Becker's measure this week. But Republicans, utilities and the California Chamber of Commerce said it would only drive up more costs. The legislation 'moves today's utility costs around without eliminating them,' the chamber said in a letter in opposition. New regulations around rate increase and shareholder returns also could halt utilities' investment in preventing wildfires or enhancing the grid, the letter said. Republican State senators said rising power bills are caused by Democrats' policies and push for more electric vehicles and less reliance on fossil fuels. In the Assembly, meanwhile, Republicans have called for permitting reforms to make it faster and cheaper to build better utility infrastructure. 'The regulation regime that we have in this state is oppressive and definitely drives prices,' said Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican. 'Your package of affordability is rather modest in number, but it is even more modest in its potential impact.' Lawmakers also advanced a slew of other measures aiming to provide relief to ratepayers, including one that would prohibit utilities from using rates to pay for lobbying efforts and one that would allow California to join a regional energy market with other Western states to help increase grid reliability.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Status of Epstein Files After Musk Allegation Against Trump
Elon Musk joins President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 11, 2025. Credit - Jin Watson—Getty Images The breakdown in relations between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally Elon Musk has played out over social media in spectacular fashion, with the two engaging in a tit-for-tat spat. The row initially started over politics. Musk expressed his vehement disapproval of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination' and encouraging people to 'kill the bill.' Meanwhile, Trump maintained that the fall-out was prompted by Musk being upset over the removal of electric vehicle subsidies—a provision that made Tesla vehicles more affordable. But the fight has since taken a far more personal turn, bolstered by Musk's allegation that Trump is listed in the files related to the late financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk said in a post shared via his social media platform, X. He did not provide evidence pertaining to this. The accusation has spurred Democrats to chase the full unsealing of the Epstein files. California Rep. Robert Garcia and Massachusetts Rep. Stephen F. Lynch—Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—sent a letter on June 5 to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Kash Patel. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' read the letter titled 'Is Trump Suppressing The Epstein Files?' The White House responded, saying that the move by the Oversight Committee members was 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' Here's what to know about the Epstein files and the renewed push to declassify them following Musk's allegation. On Feb. 27, Bondi released more than 100 pages of declassified documents related to Epstein—as part of the Trump Administration's vow to be more transparent regarding the high-profile case. During the presidential election, Trump promised to appease the clamoring for the alleged 'client list' of Epstein's since his arrest and subsequent death by suicide in 2019. Though Bondi called this the 'first phase' of declassified files, people were underwhelmed by the published pages, as much of the text had been redacted. Bondi's release included Epstein's 'black book,' which had previously been published. It featured names like Trump and former President Bill Clinton, but as the New York Times reported, there were people in the book with whom Epstein had never even met, and thus listed names are not necessarily connected to Epstein's activities. One of the only never-before-seen documents included in the release was an 'Evidence List' of catalogued evidence obtained by investigators. Bondi blamed the FBI for the fact that the report was incomplete, suggesting in a published letter to Patel that the FBI had more information related to Epstein. Bondi ordered Patel to deliver the rest of the investigation documents and 'conduct an immediate investigation' to understand why she had only received parts of the files. There is much discussion as to whether a fully-fledged 'Epstein client list' even exists. Jacob Shamsian, Business Insider's legal correspondent who has covered the Epstein case for years, said via social media on Feb. 27: 'I should also point out that the 'Jeffrey Epstein client list' does not exist and makes no sense on multiple levels (you think he made a list???). But if Pam Bondi wants to prove me wrong, I welcome it.' Read More: Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi Blames FBI for Incomplete 'Epstein Files' Musks' allegations have brought the Epstein files back into the spotlight, but there were already calls for them to be published in full. In April, Trump was asked by a reporter about when the next phase of the files are due to be released, to which he responded: 'I don't know. I'll speak to the Attorney General about that. I really don't know.' Since then, Democrats have continued to push for more documents to be released. Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York released a statement in May, 'demanding that [Bondi] promptly release the Jeffrey Epstein Files in full.' Spurred by Musk's allegation, Democrats including Garcia, Goldman, and Lynch are now renewing these calls for more transparency. But it remains to be seen whether or not the pressure will be enough for Bondi, Patel, or Trump to provide more answers. Trump's connection to Epstein dates back decades. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, he famously said that Epstein was 'a lot of fun to be with.' 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' Trump told the reporter. In July 2019, NBC News' TODAY released unearthed video footage believed to be from 1992, which showed Trump greeting Epstein at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The two men could be seen laughing as they engaged in conversation. After Epstein's 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Trump made strides to distance himself. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in 2019, Trump said: 'I had a falling out with him [Epstein]. I haven't spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Dems Get Bonus Hearing on Crypto Market Structure, Assail Trump Conflicts
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. President Donald Trump's crypto ventures were once again under the microscope during a House Financial Services Committee hearing that otherwise saw legal experts express worries about how regulators might police digital assets under a market structure bill. The committee held a "minority day" hearing — meaning the witnesses were primarily picked by the Democrats, the current minority party in the House — on Friday, letting lawmakers ask questions more targeted on concerns they have with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the Republican-led market structure legislation that will receive a markup vote next week. Maxine Waters, the ranking Democrat on the committee who'd demanding this extracurricular hearing after the panel met earlier in the week on the same topic, pointed to Trump's various crypto efforts in her opening statement, saying her goal was to stop Trump from profiting off of his crypto ventures to the extent he has been. "What I'm opposed to in this act … is the crooked president of the United States of America, who's decided to use the office of the presidency to enhance his access to profits," Waters said. Republicans focused on a different tack: "Currently, there is no federal framework for non-security digital assets," Committee Chair French Hill said in his own opening statement, a stance echoed by his colleagues Bryan Steil and Warren Davidson. They contend that Democrats and the administration of former President Joe Biden allowed years to pass in which they failed to protect consumers by offering no rules to oversee crypto. Crypto has driven an ideological wedge into the Democratic Party on Capitol Hill, with many Democrats — typically skewing toward the younger members — supporting the advancement of digital assets legislation despite the direction of their leadership. Most of the Democrats attending this bonus hearing on the Clarity Act were in the crypto-critical camp, though Representative Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat, has supported crypto bills in the past and questioned witnesses at the hearing about his concerns that the bill may include loopholes that could allow financial firms to dodge oversight. Himes, a yes vote on last year's predecessor to the Clarity Act — the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21 — said some of the provisions in the new effort may allow for a carveout that can be abused by certain types of issuers under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. The Clarity Act itself is more complicated than it needs to be and does not address some of the cybersecurity risks posed to the cryptocurrency industry, said Carole House, a former White House adviser who is now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council GeoEconomics Center. She pointed to recent crypto hacks, including crypto exchange ByBit, as an example. Amanda Fischer, policy director at Better Markets, a Washington group advocating for financial policies that favor the public, said her bigger issue was with the exceptions that exist for companies to seek regulation under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission, saying that it might provide loopholes for issuers or other crypto companies that otherwise would be regulated under the SEC and be subject to securities registration and reporting requirements. But as has been seen in other recent hearings, Trump's crypto ties again reappeared as the star of the show. Bart Naylor, a policy expert at Public Citizen and a former investigator for the Senate Banking Committee, said he believes Trump is specifically soliciting gifts through his memecoin and selling favors through actions like his memecoin dinner or by terminating SEC lawsuits against companies which donated money to him. White House officials have routinely denied Trump is exhibiting a conflict of interests in his pursuit of digital assets business gains. Waters had staged a walkout last month from what was meant to be a joint hearing of this and the House Agriculture Committee on crypto policy, though industry insiders were careful to note that not all the panel's Democrats followed Waters' departure.
