Montpelier, VT - Governor Phil Scott announced action on the following bills, passed by the General Assembly.

On June 13, Governor Scott signed bills of the following titles:

• H.10, An act relating to amending the Vermont Employment Growth Incentive Program
• H.279, An act relating to the Uniform Trust Decanting Act

On June 13, Governor Scott returned without signature and vetoed H.121, An act relating to enhancing consumer privacy and the age-appropriate design code and sent the following letter to the General Assembly:

Dear Ms. Wrask:

Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I’m returning H.121, An act relating to enhancing consumer privacy and the age-appropriate design code, without my signature because of my objections herein. This bill creates an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk. 

One area of risk comes from the bill’s “private right of action,” which would make Vermont a national outlier, and more hostile than any other state to many businesses and non-profits – a reputation we already hold in a number of other areas. I appreciate this provision is narrow in its impact, but it will still negatively impact mid-sized employers, and is generating significant fear and concern among many small businesses.

Another area of risk comes from the “Kids Code” provision. While this is an important goal we can all support, similar legislation in California has already been stopped by the courts for likely First Amendment violations. We should await the decision in that case to craft a bill that addresses known legal pitfalls before charging ahead with policy likely to trigger high risk and expensive lawsuits. Vermonters will already be on the hook for expensive litigation when the Attorney General takes on “Big Oil,” and should not have to pay for additional significant litigation already being fought by California.

Finally, the bill’s complexity and unique expansive definitions and provisions create big and expensive new burdens and competitive disadvantages for the small and mid-sized businesses Vermont communities rely on. These businesses are already poised to absorb an onslaught of new pressures passed by the Legislature over the last two years, including a payroll tax, a Clean Heat Standard, a possible Renewable Energy Standard (if my veto is overridden), not to mention significant property tax increases.

The bottom line is, we have simply accumulated too much risk. However, if the underlying goals are consumer data privacy and child protection, there is a path forward. Vermont should adopt Connecticut’s data privacy law, which New Hampshire has largely done with its new law. Such regional consistency is good for both consumers and the economy.

Sincerely,

/s/

Philip B. Scott

Governor

On June 13, Governor Scott returned without signature and vetoed H.687, An act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection through land use, and sent the following letter to the General Assembly:

Dear Ms. Wrask:

Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I’m returning H.687, An act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection through land use, without my signature because of my objections described below. But first, I want to assure you, there is a path forward and I would respectfully ask the Legislature to pass a replacement bill that will result in more housing while protecting rural communities from additional economic harm.

Despite almost universal consensus, I don’t believe we’ve done nearly enough to address Vermont’s housing affordability crisis. 

H.687 is heavily focused on conservation and actually expands Act 250 regulation. And it does so at a pace that will slow down current housing efforts. Vermonters need us to focus on building and restoring the homes communities desperately need to revitalize working class neighborhoods, reverse our negative demographic trends, and support economic investment in the future.

Specifically, I would suggest a compromise that would achieve more balance and could be passed next week, with the following changes to H.687:

• Modify removal provisions for the chair and executive director of the Land Use Review Board and ensure some political balance – This measure is critical to ensuring accountability to Vermonters and prevent overregulation that will harm rural communities.
• Modify the current Road Rule with the Amendment proposed by Senator Sears – The addition of the Road Rule is a significant expansion of Act 250 that will make it harder to build. While I would prefer it be removed entirely, the Amendment proposed by Senator Sears would reduce the harmful impact. That amendment mirrors the recommendations of the Natural Resources Board (NRB) study group consensus report.
• Extend the timeline to allow for reasonable implementation and more housing – The current timeline for the new regulatory system is not achievable and will delay the permitting process for much-needed projects. Extending deadlines for interim exemptions to 2029 to coordinate with the start of the new system, will ensure Vermonters see the full benefit of the housing package, and a more thoughtful process.
• Extend the interim exemptions to additional communities in need of housing – Apply interim exemptions to areas serviced by municipal water and wastewater to give smaller, more rural communities the same opportunity for housing.
• Increase the tools to spark revitalization of blighted units in low-income communities – First, we should reverse the decision to exclude Bennington, Grand Isle and Essex counties from using the property tax value freeze available to every other county. Second, without impacting the FY25 budget, we can redirect new Property Transfer Tax revenue to increase the Downtown and Village Center Tax Credits by $2 million. Third, implement the tri-partisan proposal for a Property Transfer Tax exemption when turning blighted properties into housing.
• Make the 1B designation easier to achieve for long-term housing solutions – Revert to the Senate-passed provision to automatically map all eligible Tier 1B areas while still enabling municipalities to opt-out of the Tier 1B designation, helping these communities benefit from housing exemptions sooner.  
• Limit appeals in designated areas to ensure interim exemptions can be used to boost housing – Designated areas indicate that a community wants housing so limiting appeals makes sense and will allow the interim exemptions to have the jump-start effect we’re seeking.

To be clear, I would not object to the remaining H.687 provisions if the above changes were made – meaning I’m conceding a significant number of concerns, because I’m committed to a responsible compromise.

Working together on these changes would demonstrate to Vermonters that prioritizing housing wasn’t just a talking point.

Sincerely,

/s/

Philip B. Scott

Governor

To view a complete list of action on bills passed during the 2024 legislative session, click here.

Governor Scott recently discussed his decision-making approach to the bills passed by the Legislature, highlighting the challenge of balancing benefits, costs and risks, and concerns about the realities of new costs and short timelines for numerous new initiatives coming out of the Legislature. In part, Governor Scott said, “As I’ve always done, I will carefully weigh the good against the bad to make a decision based on whether the benefits outweigh the negative impacts for our entire state. These decisions aren’t easy and they’re not always popular here in Montpelier. But I’ll take that heat when I believe I’m making the right choice for the everyday Vermonter.” Read his full statement here.