Senate Finance members weigh repealing and streamlining dozens of statutory reports

Members of the Senate Finance committee spent much of their meeting reviewing a long list of statutorily required reports and debating whether to repeal, retain or extend them, asking staff for a follow-up briefing to clarify which reports are produced, who receives them and where they are posted.

The discussion centered on whether routine reports still provide value. Speaker 3 said, "There's gonna be tons of effort being put into producing reports that nobody wants to read, and that's not a good use." Speaker 1 added a practical concern about fees and enforcement, saying, "We had something like 30,000 Vermonters driving with suspended licenses," in an exchange about court-related fees.

Committee members reviewed several specific items: a private activity bond advisory committee annual report (noting past beneficiaries such as VSAC and BHFA), a Department of Finance and Management listing of special funds created before the current fiscal year or since 2018, and a reporting requirement tied to enterprise funds requiring a January 15 submission from the Secretary of Commerce and Community Development on resources made available from those funds. Speaker 2 read language tied to Act 191 of 2014 and noted a separate statutory provision (BSA section 20(d)) that permits report requirements to expire after five years but requires active repeal by the legislature to stop the reporting obligation.

Speakers raised process questions: some reports are routed to multiple committees (appropriations, health and welfare, ways and means, finance and others), which limits Senate Finance's ability to unilaterally remove a requirement. Speaker 2 summarized the committee's procedural choices as "repeal, extend, or retain," and members repeatedly requested that Tucker brief the committee with specific information before they took any action.

Members also discussed format and audience. Speaker 1 advocated for concise briefings: "I think I I don't like the reports. So I like verbal reports with bullets," and another participant asked whether the committee or agencies track online access to reports to help determine their public value. Several speakers noted that outside groups—advocates, municipalities and planners—sometimes rely on reports posted to legislative pages.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the discussion. The committee asked staff to provide a list showing which committees receive each report, where copies are posted, and to schedule a briefing (requested for staff member Tucker) so members can decide, for each item, whether to repeal, extend or retain the statutory requirement.

The next procedural step is a staff briefing and follow-up emails identifying overlapping committee recipients and the online locations of the reports; no repeal or retention decisions were finalized at the meeting.