Darrell Degreenia’s driveway is seen in Sutton in July 2025, after being damaged by flood waters from the Calendar Brook. File photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger The Vermont House on Friday passed its version of a state budget for the next fiscal year, which starts in July. The $9.3 billion sp ending plan would use state dollars to help towns in the Northeast Kingdom rebuild flood-damaged infrastructure after the Trump administration twice denied Vermont’s requests for federal disaster aid. The budget bill, H.951, now heads to the Senate for further consideration. So far, much of the debate over state spending has centered on how much money lawmakers will use — together with provisions in related tax legislation that also cleared the House last week — to dampen the property tax increases projected across the state this year.  House Democrats have proposed spending less to “buy down” tax rates this year to keep more money available next year, possibly to plug federal funding cuts. But Republican Gov. Phil Scott and his House allies want more spent this year to lower taxes. For the Northeast Kingdom, the House budget would direct $1.35 million to a state grant program that is already intended to fund disaster relief. Under a plan first proposed by the Scott administration, the money would then be sent out to cover half of the rebuilding costs in four Caledonia County towns. Sutton would get the most, at $1.1 million; Burke would see $104,300; Sheffield would get $81,900 and Newark would be awarded $53,600.  Each award would be based on damage estimates the state previously sent the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Had the White House granted Vermont’s requests this time around, towns could have recouped up to 75% of their expenses. The grants would go to those towns’ governments, not individuals. Flood recovery grants weren’t included in Gov. Scott’s initial budget proposal to the Legislature this year. His administration shared the idea with the House Appropriations Committee earlier this month, as the committee was developing H.951. The governor proposed a different source for the money, though the committee kept the dollar value of his plan unchanged. Property taxes Overall, the budget bill the House approved last week totals very nearly the same amount as Scott’s: $9.334 billion, versus the governor’s $9.335 billion.Included in the House’s proposal, though, is a higher amount of spending — to the tune of $17.5 million — from the state’s major operating fund, the General Fund. That includes a handful of new state government positions and increases to the rates the state pays health care organizations, among other changes. The House’s budget would, like Scott’s, send about $105 million from the General Fund to the state’s Education Fund. But how much of that money would be used this year for the purpose the governor proposed — reducing property taxes — has become a point of disagreement.  Scott, in his proposal in January, wanted all the money to be used in the upcoming fiscal year to achieve a 4% average increase in tax bills. But House lawmakers would reserve half that amount for property tax relief or some other use the following year, resulting in a higher average increase on tax bills of 7%. Both are still lower than the 12% average increase the state projected initially, before school districts finalized their budgets and either side presented their plan to whittle that figure down. READ MORE Notably, because those amounts are average increases, the actual amount of year-over-year changes people see on their bills will vary significantly. The budget bill won unanimous, bipartisan approval in the appropriations committee. But it saw 40 votes against it on the floor, while 97 were in favor. One GOP member, Milton Rep. Brenda Steady, explicitly tied her “nay” vote to concerns over rising property taxes during remarks on the floor. Scheu, also speaking on the floor, chastised those who voted against the bill over the property tax plan. “I find it ironic that those who support throwing taxpayers under the bus with a one-year buy down of property taxes, with no plan for what to do next, choose to vote against a bipartisan, thoughtfully crafted budget,” she said. Scheu’s counterparts on the Senate Appropriations Committee are slated to start taking testimony on the budget bill on Tuesday. Sen. Andrew Perchlik, D/P-Washington, the panel’s chair, said on Monday he hadn’t yet decided whether he supports using all of the $105 million earmark to buy down property taxes this year, or whether some should be squirreled away for next year. He said he understands that there are major concerns about affordability driving the conversation, especially as gas and heating costs increase. But he also thinks it could be wise to save money if possible because the most recent state revenue projection did not forecast the same level of surplus that legislators have relied on in recent years. “There’s pros and cons,” he said. “I haven’t decided myself.” Read the story on VTDigger here: Vermont House passes state budget bill with disaster aid for the Northeast Kingdom. ...read more read less