The 2026 legislative session reached its conclusion this week, and the slate of bills that emerged in its final days paints a complicated picture. After months of competing visions and the ever-present shadow of a gubernatorial veto, the final days produced a set of interlocking conference reports that together represent a consequential education policy, a modestly disciplined budget, targeted property tax relief, and a new chapter for transportation finance. But the week also delivered reminders that sometimes ambition reaches too far, as the Governor's veto of the data center bill was sustained on the House floor.

Let's bring this in for a landing.

Changes started happening rapidly this week as the bulk of the work moved out of committee and onto the House and Senate floors. Nearly every major policy thread of the 2026 session is now being actively reconciled between chambers, and the outcomes of those negotiations will determine whether this session produces durable reform or elegant placeholders. Those negotiations also include the Governor in some instances, such as education reform efforts which were unveiled last night.

Reference-based hospital pricing cleared critical procedural hurdles and is now positioned to become law this session. The property tax yield bill conference committee dug into the mechanics of excess spending exemptions and a one-year renter credit expansion (and the fiscal analysts started raising red flags). The Act 250 conference committee finalized guardrails for accessory on-farm businesses while preserving the road rule repeal. Career technical education reform advanced with unanimous support. And on the Senate floor, a sweeping portfolio of bills moved through final readings, including a permanent ban on crypto kiosks, manufactured housing modernization, and the formal repeal of the Clean Heat Standard's dormant statutory language.

Let's jump in.

Dear Chair Mihaly and Members of the House Committee on General and Housing,

I am writing on behalf of Campaign for Vermont Prosperity to respectfully urge this Committee to insist on the reinstatement of the Off-Site Construction Accelerator pilot program as the House considers the Senate's proposed amendments to H.775.

This week has that stretch of the session where the clock forces decisions. Senate Education and Senate Finance continued to wrestle with the most consequential education bill of the session, House Ways & Means dove deep into the mechanics of property tax yields and the excess spending adjustment that will shape education finance for years to come, and multiple committees advanced housing production tools while grappling with whether Vermont's housing targets are built on solid ground.

Meanwhile, the House quietly concurred on a chronic absenteeism bill that represents a genuine shift in how Vermont approaches school attendance policy, and S.325 (the Act 181 fix) is headed to a conference committee that will determine the future of Act 250 jurisdiction.

Let's dig in.

Let’s pause for a second and look at 50 years of Act 250 from the perspective of a Vermont professional civil engineer, and Act 250 Land Use Consultant. I did my first land use project in 1973.

The first question, what went wrong in the first 50 years? My opinion, Act 250 killed housing and precluded most of Vermont from having a chance for a vibrant economy.

This week the Legislature continued its race against the clock, but the action shifted noticeably from the high level policy debates of recent weeks toward implementation details, technical fixes, and the quieter but consequential decisions that determine whether ambitious legislation actually works on the ground. The Senate pumped the brakes on proposed changes to its new housing finance tool (CHIP), the House heard about a promising geothermal pilot program that could reshape how Vermont delivers clean and affordable energy, and Senate Education weighed in on whether to terminate or fund the state's school PCB testing program.

Meanwhile, the education reform debate continues to simmer in Senate Education as the clock ticks toward adjournment. What appears to be taking shape is a more coherent, democratic, and data-informed bill than what emerged from the House. If it doesn't fall apart at the 10-yard line...

Let's dig in.

Dear Chairman Collamore and Members of the Senate Government Operations Committee,

I am writing today regarding S.298 and the ongoing discussion about candidate financial disclosure forms and the role of the Vermont State Ethics Commission. Our message is straightforward: Vermont's ethics framework can only succeed if it is given the resources to match its responsibilities.

Good Evening Chair Kornheiser and Members of the House Ways & Means Committee,

Thank you for your work in the yield bill (H.949) to try to get Vermont out of the cycle of using one-time funds to buy down property taxes.

As you know, the use of these funds creates funding cliffs in the following years that require further expenditure of one-time funds to fill and undermines the trust of taxpayers who see predictions of massive tax increases unless something is done… eventually there will be no one-time monies available and these predictions will come true. This is a cruel game of musical chairs.

Campaign for Vermont fought hard to get ethics legislation passed in 2017 (Act 79). Not even a decade later it is feeling like the legislature is dismantling the ethics and transparency framework in the state... and it's coming from all sides.

In 2024, the legislature passed Act 171, which was intended to build on Act 79 by giving the Ethics Commission more oversight and (finally) enforcement powers. Unfortunately, Act 44 last year paused the enforcement powers (the House version of that bill would have scrapped them completely if we hadn't stepped in on the Senate side). More importantly, the Commission, overwhelmed with requests from the public, stressed the need for additional staff. State budget-writers denied that request last year — leaving the Commission under-resourced.