Veto Session Update

 

Legislative Update, Veto Session

Rep. Anne Donahue

June 11, 2024

Five bills have been vetoed thus far since the end of the legislative session, with some not yet acted upon by the governor. The legislature will be meeting next Monday and Tuesday, the 16^th and 17^th, for possible votes on overrides of the vetoes.

Constituents have begun to reach out to urge for or against voting to override. One note said the person assumed I was going to vote against any overrides, since as a Republican I will support my Republican governor. So I want to be clear from the outset: a veto from a governor, from either party, would never affect my previous decision of whether it was a good bill or not.

The only reason I would change my prior vote would be if I received new or different information to consider that developed after we passed a bill. That has not been the case for any of the vetoed bills thus far, so I do not expect to change any of my votes, whether they are in line with the governor’s position or not. I have always been a fairly independent Republican and in fact, in the interest of greater transparency, that is why I am running this year as an Independent.

A lot has been made of the record number of vetoes by Governor Scott. That should not be surprising. For as far back as my history can recall, this may be the first time that we have had a governor of one party and a legislature with a supermajority from the opposing party. A “supermajority” means that a party has two-thirds of the legislative seats, enough to override any veto. If power is divided between legislative and executive branches, there is a range between 50% and 2/3rds that forces efforts to compromise. If the majority in the legislature passes a bill but has not listened to concerns by the minority, it faces a potential veto that it may not be able to override. In that situation it is in everyone’s interests to work together. There could still be an override of the governor if there is enough minority support to reach the 2/3 threshold, but it is far from guaranteed.

Once the supermajority number is reached, the only way an override will fail is if some members of the majority party itself do not support the bill. That happened earlier this year, for example, when there was no override attempt of the governor’s veto of the flavored vape and tobacco ban. The majority knew some of its members did not support it, so it did not call for a vote at all and left the veto standing. (It was a bill I had supported.)

Given that level of power – where compromise is not needed – one party can fully control outcomes. Inevitably, it means that some bills will go farther to an extreme on a spectrum of viewpoints. Unless a governor wants to simply concede to every such initiative instead of communicating her or his beliefs about better outcomes for Vermonters, there will be more vetoes than if there was a more level balance of power.

While Governor Scott has voiced concerns about many bills passed this session, he has only vetoed a few. Those we already know will be on the agenda next week – and my earlier votes on them – are these:

H.887: An act relating to homestead property tax yields, non-homestead rates, and policy changes to education finance and taxation.

This is the bill setting property tax rates, which must pass in some form every year. Voters pass the spending amount in their school budgets, and the legislature must set a rate that will raise the money to pay the bill. We have known for years that the system, within its very effort to create fairness, is fundamentally flawed. Towns vote on individual budgets but must pay a designated amount of the statewide spending, regardless of the reasonable of its own spending. When big increases in home values combine with big increases in budgets, everyone feels it most harshly, which happened this year. Rates have skyrocketed.

The bill passed by the legislature adds stopgap funds from other sources to reduce those rates a bit for this year but does nothing to resolve the fact that the same thing will keep happening in the future. I am less deeply concerned by this year’s increase as I am about the ongoing deferral of tackling the underlying issue. I voted against the bill and will vote against the override. This is potentially the only bill that has some Democrats feeling nervous about voter reaction, so it is possible that there will be an effort to develop and pass a new bill rather than to override the veto.

***

H.706: An act relating to banning the use of neonicotinoid pesticides.

The focus of this bill is the critical protection of pollinator bees. The governor is concerned that it is anti-farmer, because Vermont is a tiny market and can’t control the availability of seeds that are not treated with these chemicals. I voted to support it, because I believe it has protections built in against adverse consequences. It doesn’t take effect until the New York State law does, and that state’s market can ensure access to seed. The bill also allows for suspending the law if crops or economic stability are significantly threatened. I will support an override.

***

H.289: An act relating to the Renewable Energy Standard.

In contrast to H. 706, the RES bill has no protection against an unknown, but potentially severe, financial consequence. It seeks to expedite our existing, aggressive standards towards fully renewable energy, but experts can’t predict the costs with any degree of confidence. I voted against it and will vote against the override.

***

H.72: An act relating to a harm-reduction criminal justice response to drug use.

This is the “safe injection site” bill, to fund a program in Burlington where illicit drugs can be used under supervision so that if a person overdoses, they can receive an immediate medical response. The mantra is, it will save lives. I have supported broad access to Narcan, the overdose reversal drug for that reason. I support strong resources for prevention and treatment.

But will a site like this actually save lives? Or do we shoot ourselves in the foot by educating on prevention and yet sending a public message that it’s OK to use, as long as you practice “safe use” – when we know there is no such thing as safe use? We could lose more lives in the longer term, and in a world of limited resources, choosing one thing ($1,000,000 for the safe injection site) means fewer resources for existing, proven interventions. I voted against it and will vote to sustain the veto.

***

H.645: An act relating to the expansion of approaches to restorative justice.

I found this bill to be a tough call. I believe in the evidence that restorative justice for non-violent crime is more effective than punitive measures. I strongly believe that there should be equal access to these programs in Vermont, regardless of county. That isn’t true now.

This bill works to ensure access across the state. It will be expensive, and there is no money in the budget to pay for it, since the costs won’t come until next year. The governor’s veto was based upon the fact that we don’t know where the money will come from to implement it.

For me, the bigger problem is that although it professes equity in access, it doesn’t actually create it. It will require every county to have a program, but in the name of local prosecutorial authority, it doesn’t require that the standards be the same. The same crime will block access to a restorative justice program in one county, but not in another. That’s still not equity. I voted no and will vote against an override.

***

Given the supermajority, will my votes make a difference when I oppose an override, given that the original House and Senate votes have it locked in already? Not likely. Fortunately, the Legislature still retains degrees of collaboration at the nitty-gritty level of committee work.

While some majority priorities can be and are rammed through, most committee chairs do want to build consensus, and bring bills to the floor that have a unanimous committee vote. Democracy survives there, even within a supermajority legislature. Once a bill gets to the floor, no one is listening to debate anymore because the votes are pre-ordained. This is even more true, when a veto override vote is called. Don’t expect any surprises.

***

Thank you, as always, to all those who make contact and share your concerns. You can reach out any time to Rep. Ken Goslant at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us or me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us. And have a great summer!

End of Session Legislative Update

 Brain teasers:

How many bills can you read and pass in 14 hours?

How much in new taxes can you enact in a day?

How many times can you repeat studies of the education funding system without acting on them?

The end of a two-year session always comes in as a firestorm of decision-making. Some of that is human nature. I always crammed for tests at the last moment in school. Some of it is when one is dependent on someone else: If the Senate doesn’t send us a bill until there are only a few hours left, the choice in the House is to either rush it to a vote to concur or to abandon an important initiative. And some of it is simply session exhaustion. Better to stay until 2 a.m. and cram everything through than to extend the session several more days to complete work more thoughtfully. It seems to be something embedded into our process.

Thus, answer number one: Between 10 a.m. and 2 a.m. Friday-Saturday, we passed some 26 bills – everything from finishing minor amendments to the biggest items of the session: the budget, the education funding bill, the broad revision to Act 250 (our land use law.) But “read” before passing? In many cases, committees had a brief window of time for review, and members had no advance time at all for reading.

Answer number two: We added four new taxes or fees, none of them broad-based or staggering, but cumulatively, $62 million in new revenue, in addition to taxes from last year that are starting to hit: the 20% increase in motor vehicle fees and the payroll tax for funding childcare subsidies.

Answer number three: By some counts, we’ve done 38 studies of the education funding system since 2000, with lots of promises but no resulting significant action, despite broad recognition of the need for structural reform.

***

Education Funding

This year’s property tax increase crisis led to major momentum to… do a bigger study.

The yield bill – setting the rates to determine how we balance the education spending budget – had a primary focus this year of scraping up other money so that property tax increases could be less drastic. The effect will be to defer the impact of spending decisions by a year. Next year, those deferred costs will be added to the increases that will, in part, be the result of having “kicked the can down the road” on change. There were no new cost-containment proposals in the bill, even for the short term while waiting for a new study committee report due in 18 months.

In January, estimates were that projected school budgets would result in an average of an 18% increase in property taxes, not including the local effects of changes in relative property values (the common level of appraisal, or CLA.) In town meeting day numbers, it had the combined effect of a 24% increase in Northfield and a 26% in Berlin. Both of their district budgets were defeated. The new base increase estimate is now about 13.8% instead of 18%. 

That has come about through several factors. Multiple budget revotes lowered statewide spending a bit, and it is statewide spending that establishes how much money needs to be raised. The new yield bill reduces that further by adding other sources of taxes to offset (or “buy down”) the effects of new spending. These included a one-time $25 million transfer from the General Fund, a new 3% surcharge tax on short-term rentals (projected to raise around $12 million), and the repeal of a tax exemption on software accessed over the internet, expected to raise about $15 million. Those funds also contributed to the ability to create a one-time offset for the two-thirds of Vermonters who pay property tax based on income. There is a bonus 13% subsidy for the property tax credit to ease the degree of increase that would have occurred because of the timing lag of income versus tax years.

Currently, because of the statewide mechanism, districts that spend a lot get supported by those that keep costs down. There is little incentive to run a tight budget, but those who do are hurt the most when costs go up statewide. Cuts they make to the local budget gives minimal reduction to the local tax rate. That’s a lousy system.

Deferring some of this year’s huge increase for a year might have been OK if we also began some actual reforms to the funding structure, but that has also been deferred. The mega-study on creating an entire new vision for education to go along with new ways to finance it won’t be ready for action for at least another two years. There was a lot of flowery language before the vote, rejoicing over the bright future that will come when everyone contributes to the “Blue Ribbon Commission.” It was all things that have been said many times before. 

The 93-44 vote in the House (13 absent, and some Democrats joining Republican opposition) means it could be close as to whether the bill will survive an expected veto from the governor. A 2/3rds vote (100) is required for an override. We will return on June 17 for veto override votes.

***

Budget

The governor introduced his budget proposal at the start of the year to hold to an increase of roughly 3% from last year, with no new taxes or fees. The final version had comparatively tame additions, aided by increased revenue over original projections. It ratcheted up financial regulatory fees by about 20 percent to gain an added $19.4 million. That will be pretty well hidden from everyday pocketbooks, with difficult to predict filter-down costs into the economy. The final general fund increase was a half percent higher and the overall state budget was about a quarter percent higher than the governor’s, at $8.57 billion in full.

I was upset over the fake budget the House past two months ago. Major spending initiatives and the taxes to pay for them were placed in separate bills, so that they did not appear in the budget bill, even though they would all end up being paid out of the budget. The Senate eliminated almost all of that. 

I was also very pleased to see that we began to address the Medicare cliff in this year’s budget, which has been a high priority for me. By next year some 15,000 lower-income seniors will be added to those helped with their Medicare premiums or co-pays.  Before this, they lost health care financial support when they turned 65, sometimes in significant amounts, because the criteria for assistance dropped so steeply in Medicare. States can expand support options and many have done so, but we have been helping only those with incomes below the poverty level, which is $15,000 a year for an individual. The change will increase eligibility to 145% of the poverty level (about $21,000.)

The Salsbury fish hatchery, defunded in the governor’s budget, had broad constituent push back and the final budget added it back.

The hotel emergency housing program was cut back, and the compromise on which ways to hold the line was messy. Compromise can force that. I think some general eligibility is still too broad, but eliminating the assurance of shelter for all in true, extreme weather goes too far. Hopefully we will truly expand enough shelter capacity (non-hotel) to make up the difference.

Our community social services providers, who don’t get the benefit of state employee contracted raises, will received a 3% increase; the governor had left it at zero.

One hidden add-on remained. I was told that it wasn’t hiding anything; I should just think of it as a “box outside of the box” – new taxes and spending that didn’t show up in the budget bill. That came in a bill that suddenly combined two separate ones that were worked on all session in both houses: the Act 250 reforms and new money for housing expansion and supports. An added $15.7 million was raised through a new second-home property transfer tax to put funds into an array of housing supports. 

Through being combined, a yes or no vote included a decision on the re-envisioning of our land use laws, commonly referred to as Act 250. It determines what people can do with their own property so that we can control growth and restrict it to the places we believe as a state that growth should occur. That bill will divide all Vermont land into three “tiers,” to be determined by regional maps developed by the Natural Resources Board and applied by a new Land Use Review Board, rather than applying Act 250 review based on specific sizes and attributes of property.

Tier 1 allows development with a waiver of Act 250 review and is confined to more urban areas that have sewer and water infrastructure and designated town centers and a strong local staffing ability for a town to review its own projects. Tier 3 are critical natural resource areas that will come under high protections against any development. The official definition of Tier 2 is “an area that is not Tier 1 or a Tier 3 area.” All of Tier 2 will come under ongoing Act 250 review.

It will take several years to roll out, and in the interim, some flexibility will be in place to encourage housing development as long as acreage requirements are met. 

Earlier in the session, I asked what money was being put aside to reimburse property owners for taking of land by “eminent domain,” and I was told no one’s land was being taken. But “taking” in the legal sense means significantly reducing value for a public need. If your land drastically loses value because it gets mapped in as “Tier 3” and can’t be developed at all, done in order to benefit all of us to protect our natural environment, usually there is some level of reimbursement owed. We will now need to wait and see whether and how this bill plays out. I did not support it.

***

Scattered Bill Notes

Almost under the radar among the last-few-hour bills was one that adds aggressive criteria that must be met before a government function can be contracted out. We have strong law on this already so that we don’t cut state jobs just to cut corners. Does this new bill go overboard without enough information? Here’s what our nonpartisan fiscal analysists said about potential cost: “The size of direct fiscal impacts on the General Fund and other State funds is uncertain but could potentially be substantial.”

A huge bill to protect Vermonters regarding access to personal data, with an added focus on child protection, was nearly lost in House-Senate negotiations, but survived the final days after going back and forth several times on the last day. The House wanted it stronger; the Senate was more cautious. (The vote on a bill that goes through that kind of ping-pong can end up titled this way: Shall the House concur in the Senate proposal of amendment to House proposal of amendment to Senate proposal of amendment thereto!)

Another new law will allow organizers to use a process that eliminates a secret ballot for a worker decision to unionize. It was called a labor protection act; I see it as an anti-worker rights act. It was one of the pieces added to another bill, thus opposing it meant being recorded as voting against the good parts of the original bill (which included restrictions on employers proselytizing and looking into better protection for farmworkers.) Protections against arm-twisting need to go both ways, and I voted no.

A crucial bill I worked on in the Human Services Committee to ensure we had the right secure treatment settings for a small number of individuals with disabilities charged with violent crime but not competent to stand trial led to a standoff with the Senate committee over a single word. Everyone wanted the bill, but it almost died over semantics on using the word “forensic” or not in the description. Who would blink first? (Can you spell the word, “stubborn”?) At last, compromise occurred.

A bill I introduced and pressed for over two years failed on the last day. It would have protected farmers in accessing the parts and tools they need to repair their own equipment, instead of being locked into a manufacturer monopoly. The Senate gutted the “Right To Repair” bill when it passed it in the final days, and there was no time left to negotiate restoring any of the protections that were in the original bill.

On the plus side, the Senate bill that made controversial changes to the Fish and Wildlife Board was abandoned on the House committee side.

***

Insider Baseball

Every year in the final days, I fight for the ability – the right on behalf of those I represent – to actually read a bill or amendment before I vote on it. Almost unthinkable that one would have to fight for that. One time last week when I raised an objection on the floor, another member, in a comment clearly directed at me, said he believed in respecting the work of the committee instead of feeling a need to review the work directly. Of course I respect their work, but I don’t believe I’m doing my job if I don’t even know what it is that a committee is recommending. Nor do I think a race to the finish on our final day benefits our work.

Here’s one episode that gives a rare exposure of how politics can play out in processes: 

The House had a bill with assorted revisions to our current laws on the cannabis market. It didn’t come back from the Senate with their proposed changes until early Friday afternoon. One change struck out an existing piece of our restrictions on advertising. That bans the offering of “a prize, award, or inducement for purchasing cannabis” – in other words, the bill was making it legal to use prizes or awards to increase sales. I proposed sending the bill back to the Senate with “further proposal of amendment” to accept everything else, but to remove the deletion of that ban. 

Members of the House committee itself expressed some clear support – they didn’t think the deletion was good policy, either. But their leadership urged them to oppose my amendment because there might not be enough time left for the Senate to vote on a cross-proposal. The bill potentially could die. I argued that we should be voting based on what we thought was right, and not let the Senate control an issue by slipping a change in knowing time was running out.

Despite the leadership argument, there was a very rare rebellion in the ranks of the supermajority. People clearly did not think this should be deleted from the bill, and the standard voice vote sounded close. Before the result was called by the Speaker, a member called for a division, meaning people must stand up to vote yes or no, enabling an exact count. It’s hard to see from one’s seat, but it looked as though it was going to be close. After the count, the Speaker started consulting with the House clerk. It seemed something was awry.

Suddenly, a member from the majority party called for a roll call vote (these voting format changes can be requested any time before the vote result is announced.) That meant folks were going to have to put their names to the vote if they broke ranks with their leadership. It later turned out that the consult by the Speaker was on the question of whether under the rules she could use her tie-breaking vote authority, and the answer was no. That only comes into play if there is a tie in a roll call. Thus, the roll call was requested to get the dissenters in line and avoid the embarrassment of a loss on the vote. The tactic worked to get enough votes to shift, and my amendment failed, 85-59. That count meant a lot of Democrats still stuck to their guns to support me, but not enough of them.

***

Obviously, a lot has happened in the final days. The journal with the list of Friday’s bills isn’t out yet as I write this; staff is still assembling it, and with so many bills “taken up prior to entry in the notice calendar” there is no listing available elsewhere. Please reach out to Representative Ken Goslant or me if you have questions about any bill outcomes, at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us or adonahue@leg.state.vt.us As always, thank you for the honor of representing you.

April 27, 2024 Legislative Update

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

April 28, 2024

 

Sometimes the legislature is a pendulum of careening objects… and that’s even before a bill moves from the House to the Senate. Two weeks ago, a whole new education funding plan was unveiled in the Ways and Means Committee and the initial announced plan was to vote it out in a mere two days – far too fast for judicious consideration.

Two weeks later, we received the bill on the House floor. It was stripped of any and all reforms, even short-term cost containment for next year. Perhaps it was a straw man, only intended to draw in negative reaction from those with vested interests and thereby create an excuse for doing nothing this year to change factors that led to the crisis in property taxes.

The core of the new bill is yet another study. There have been 39 different studies on Education Fund reforms since 2000. The new Commission has 23 members and a huge array of tasks, almost guaranteeing that its mandate cannot be achieved. Waiting for its recommendations means at least two years before any proposals come forward to reform what everyone agrees is a dysfunctional system. We know the status quo is failing.

It is now in the Senate hands to consider whether to agree to our proposal.

What is not transparent within the complexity of the current system is how much local taxpayers are held hostage to what other towns want to spend. Without better cost-containment mechanisms on upper-end spending, towns that maintain thrifty budgets end up paying for those that want to spend more. It is what makes cutting a local tax increase so difficult: for every dollar cut, the town only sees 25 cents reduced from the budget impact on its own tax rate. Those who want to spend more have only to contribute 25 cents locally per each dollar increase.

That is a key part of what is meant by the structural change needed: We need mechanisms that prevent excessive spending by individual districts from being included in the statewide funding that places the cost on everyone. At the same time, maintaining enough sharing of costs to protect equity is a core value.

The crumbs tossed to taxpayers in the House bill were that we eased the homeowner tax increase slightly by creating several new taxes and putting that revenue in the Ed Fund. In addition, an increase was shifted onto all commercial property, landlord property, and camps or second homes.

In the legislature, one often relies heavily on colleagues who have developed an expertise in a particular area and whose analysis one trusts. For me with education funding, that is Rep. Scott Beck, who has been on either the Education or the Ways and Means Committee since 2015 and understands the system deeply. His words on the floor:

“There is nothing in this bill for short-term or long-term cost containment, or structural reform... Our taxpayers are going to get absolutely hammered this fall and we will not even be able to tell them that we made a course correction. And then they are going to get hammered again next year, and then this Commission will come… and tell [taxpayers] we might make a change by fiscal year ‘28. Our taxpayers can’t handle any more; it is unconscionable that we aren’t making structural reforms right now.”

One of the proposed amendments was an interim “allowable spending” percentage for the next two years that, if exceeded, would place a higher cost on the spending district. It was rejected.

One truly logical proposal was to suggest that if were delaying reforms to avoid unintended consequences, we should at least make the new taxes on computer software and short-term rentals temporary – then reassess as part of those future comprehensive reforms. As I said in explaining my vote of support, “We have a misfit when we refuse to initiate even interim changes that actually address our Education Fund stressors – we say we shouldn’t move that fast – yet reject a sunset on what should be solely a stop-gap measure, not permanent new taxes.” That amendment was rejected 41-100.

I need to note that of the $200 million or so in increases in the education budget statewide, close to $30 million was caused by the legislature’s decision last year to fund universal school lunches. I mention it because I supported that decision and need to be transparent about it. Unlike some types of constituent input in the form of cut-and-paste emails, I heard thoughtful and persuasive direct arguments in support from local residents. We knew that decision would be borne by the Education Fund.

***

Lots To Come

The Senate passed its version of the budget this past week, with numerous changes from the House bill. That signals that we are on schedule for ending the session by the end of the second week in May, because it takes about two weeks to reconcile differences. There are too many differences to sort out quickly. The Senate does rely on significantly fewer tax increases. It also pared back the House expansion of the hotel emergency housing program.

Although it budgeted a lower level than the House for the increase in support for Medicare cost-sharing for low-income elder Vermonters, it did still support the need for some increase. These Vermonters actually experience a significant drop in health care support when they go onto Medicare. I was glad to see it included, as it is something I have been fighting for.

These two weeks will see bills passing at dizzying speed. Many controversial bills I described in updates throughout the session are coming back from the Senate with significant changes, so new decisions (are they better? worse?) will need to be made before we wrap up. Among those controversial bills include the changes to the Act 250 process and whether it will help or hurt housing development (H.687); the changes to the Renewable Energy Standard (H.289); and Fish and Wildlife Board changes (S. 258). Still in play in the Senate but with time running out is my Right to Repair bill for agricultural equipment (H. 81).

***

Right Person, Right Timing

One little “add on” in the Senate Transportation bill was $2 million to purchase a large parcel of land in Berlin for a new state central garage. The old one was destroyed in the July flood and it would be senseless to rebuild on the same flood plain. I got a word of alarm from a resident last weekend: The land is a 23-acre piece of the state-designated town center that has been in development by Berlin for years. The hope has been that it would be a growth area for desperately needed multi-family housing.

I got in touch with Sen. Andy Perchlik who was well positioned by being both one of our Washington County Senators and the Chair of the Transportation Committee. It turned out the bill was already up for a vote on the Senate floor, usually too late to initiate any change. But Sen. Perchlik got a day’s delay on the bill to hear from both Town Administrator Ture Nelson and the Secretary of the Agency of Transportation, Joe Flynn.

There was quick consensus that though the money should still be appropriated, it shouldn’t be tied to a designated piece of land. That will allow the time and leeway for AOT to work with Berlin to assess the best options for moving forward. The amendment was made on the Senate floor the next day. Although the parcel seems to be well suited for the state garage, Flynn said AOT has no desire to be somewhere it’s not wanted and is in strong agreement that housing is the state’s highest priority. Rep. Ken Goslant and I were able to sit in to hear the discussion and praise the outcome, and I’ve talked to the House Transportation Committee to ensure smooth support there.

***

Congrats

This year’s class of new Eagle Scouts were presented on the House floor this week, and it was a joy to see one of our own on the list, Jonathan Andrew Tenney of Northfield!

***

Thank you for your support and the honor of representing you. Rep. Goslant and are available anytime to hear your concerns and input at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us or adonahue@leg.state.vt.us. My archive of legislative updates is available at representativeannedonahue@blogspot.com.

April 14, 2024 Legislative Update

 Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

April 14, 2024

I was all ready to rant and rave in this week’s update, until I found out that, 

a) the news media had exaggerated the status of a proposed bill and, 

b) major parts of the preliminary draft had already been put on hold. 

We are not going to pop a new education funding system into place with three days of committee review.

It may come as a surprise to know how often legislators must rely on the same news broadcasts the public gets. There are 11 Senate committees and 13 House committees, so keeping track of what they are doing prior to a bill being voted out and reaching the floor is nigh impossible. When a constituent writes to ask about the status of a bill, I can always catch a colleague to find out what’s happening within their committee. I usually also skim the weekly calendar for all committees to get a sense of what they are working on. But that’s a far cry from actually knowing details.

There have been rumors about development of a new education funding formula ever since the catastrophe that struck this year with soaring budgets and voter rejections. But obviously doing that is not a three-day job. Even after much longer work on some revisions last year, one part of the crisis this year came about as a result of unintended/unforeseen consequences of those changes. 

What actually happened in the Ways and Means Committee this past week is that a number of ideas that have been under discussion for weeks were put into a draft in order to see what concrete language would look like. That doesn’t mean that there was an actual bill yet that was proposing those ideas. But the draft certainly lit a firestorm. To clear the air, the committee chair publicly clarified that none of the long-term system changes are on the table for this year. There is not enough time left in the current session to do due diligence on major changes. 

That would have been my rant; now instead I’m letting you know you can ignore the reports. There is now an actual draft bill which, as of Friday, proposes some interim ways to ease this year’s homestead property tax increase by several new taxes and shifts among tax sources. Some of those will be controversial. I’ll mention them without opining at length, since they may or may not remain in the bill by the time it reaches the floor next week:

~Add what is called a “cloud tax,” applying the sales tax to software you purchase and access over the internet. That would raise a projected $20 million annually.

~Add a 1.5 percent surcharge for a “short-term rental impact” tax that would raise about $6.5 million. (A 10% surcharge, raising $24 million, has also been considered.) The majority of those rentals are AirBnBs that homeowners use to raise some added income.

~Increase property tax credits for one year by 15 percent to further reduce the homeowner tax burden for those at $90,000 income or less, who pay in part or fully based upon income rather than house value.

~Increase the higher, separate non-homestead property tax (rental property, business and second homes, most owned by Vermonters and some passed down to renters) to reduce the homeowner rate.

A reminder of where the money comes from currently to pay the $2.3 billion Ed Fund, in rough percentages: 

~non-homestead property tax, 38% (40% minus 2% in current use land exemption); 

~homestead property tax, 27% (34% minus 7% in property tax credits); 

~sales tax, 26%; 

~one quarter of rooms and meals tax, 2.6%; 

~one third of purchase and use tax (vehicles), 2%; 

~lottery, $1.5%; then smaller miscellaneous items.

The long-term proposal that drew such consternation before it was taken off the table for now was to develop a statewide tax that would be used to provide all school districts a base payment per student. The payment would be based on an analysis of what an “adequate education” costs in Vermont. Voters would only consider any added local spending in excess of that base, thus taking most of the local decision-making power away from voters. It would recognize that current local budget votes end up imposing costs on everyone else, and thrifty budgets hardly reduce a local tax burden at all. 

The current draft bill turns that proposal into a task force study for a report back next year.

***

Back to the general fund budget: the Senate is working to finalize its response to the House, and is taking a much more conservative course, pushing back on some of the major new tax and spending bills that the House passed. 

There was an interesting comment by Sen. Jane Kitchel, the Chair of the Senate Appropriation Committee, as reported by VT Digger. She said the budget is where new positions and revenue sources should end up, rather than through individual policy bills, as the House sent over. “We’re going to be building our budget the way we always do — so some of these bills that the House passed will end up being incorporated into the budget,” she was quoted as saying.

It caught my eye because that was what I argued for on the House floor: that we were being deceptive by passing an alleged budget that put some major new expenditures and the taxes to pay for them into separate bills, rather than including them as part of a full budget.

Most other major bills that worked their way through House or Senate are also now being vetted by the opposite body; they will either be accepted, die, or most likely come back with proposed revisions (minor or major.) 

If the changes aren’t acceptable, appointed conference committees of three Senators and three Representatives get to hash it out to seek compromise. This is the end-of-session process that gets highly chaotic. With a May 10 date set for the session’s end, the pressure will be upon us soon.

***

Can the process of compromise and consensus-building work? 

Yes. I give credit to my committee chair for leading us through a Senate bill to reduce exposure to chemicals with significant health risks. It’s a highly important topic, but how to approach it could have been very controversial. Our committee includes seven Democrats, two Republicans, one Progressive, and one Independent, bringing a wide variety of views. We voted the bill out 11-0 because testimony was considered from all sides and incorporated: tackling risks but weighing feasibility of how quickly restrictions could be made effective.

Importantly, we recognized that Vermont is not large enough to be a “market changer.”  If we ban something, our market is not large enough to get manufacturers to change course. We will just lose the ability to get the products and hurt our local manufacturers in the process. Instead, we carefully followed the lead of a few larger states (California, most often) in terms of both the chemicals and the products, as to whether alternatives are available. We also set phase-out timelines based on those factors. 

The intentional addition of a number of chemicals will be banned in 2026 from products with a lot of risky skin contact, namely cosmetics and menstrual products. Cosmetics is very broadly defined: anything “intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed” on the body for the purpose of “cleansing, promoting attractiveness, or improving or altering appearance,” with soap as the only exclusion.

Dangerous PFAs (“forever chemicals”) will also be regulated then, from children’s products, clothing and textiles, and cookware. By 2028, the ban will reach artificial turf, which is currently loaded with these chemicals which slough off onto the skin and clothing of those playing on them, as well as into our water tables.

There was one skirmish. On the last day, finishing up the 30-page bill, we were resolving a few final items, including the maximum amount traces of lead that could remain in cosmetics (including in naturally occurring forms.) 

The Senate had sent us the bill saying it had to be under 10 parts per million, the same limit as set by California and others. Washington State alone had recently set the maximum at one part per million, which our local manufacturers said was not feasible. Local environmental groups pushed for that level, and we were split on it.

We came up with a compromise at five. But that was without taking any new testimony since we were in the final “mark-up” before the vote. Testimony is typically not continued for the committee back-and-forth changes on final parts of a bill. 

The day after our committee vote we – and many of our House colleagues – heard outcrys that five was no more feasible than one. We received an amendment proposing a return to 10 and after stalling on reaching agreement, had a vote and agreed 7-4 to accept 10. 

There were some vigorous voices of opposition on the floor and a roll call vote was requested, ending up with 101-28 favoring the revision. After resolving that, the final vote, also a roll call, was 138-0 in favor of the bill as a whole. 

Now, we watch and await whether the Senate will accept our improvements to its bill!

***

The repaving of Route 12 from Northfield (just past the front of my house and just before Cumberland Farms) through Berlin to the Montpelier line is now underway. It will be starting on the Northfield end, with single lane closures with alternating one-way traffic throughout the length of the project. 

If you would like a weekly email updating where the work will be happening that next week, you can email Bethany Oprendek at bethany@bbo-enterprises.com and request to be added to the email list for “Northfield-Berlin STP PS24(1).” If you want to check the status on your own, go to vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/updates and click on the “Northfield-Berlin” project.

***

Speaking of roads, Anyone else on the roads Monday evening?

My brother came up from Maryland for a visit and wanted maximum totality viewing of the eclipse, so we went up to North Troy to avoid the big-town crowds. The return home was going fine most of the way, since we were going via local roads.

Just a few miles north of Montpelier on Rte. 12 south, we were diverted by GPS via back roads to Bailey Drive and hit total gridlock. It took about an hour to get back on 12 via Dog River Road, then it seemed to be clear sailing continuing south.

Just before Chandler Road, GPS gave a “road stoppage ahead” alert and diverted us onto Chandler. Once again clear sailing, until about a quarter mile before Cox Brook Road: dead stop. We inched forward and realized that Rte 12 and Chandler/Cox Brook would have to merge – and then reached Cox Brook and discovered there was a long line of cars there to merge with first, as well!

It looked like it would take an hour or more for that last mile home, so we went west on Cox Brook instead to cross on Aseltine. The stop-and-go line of cars heading south extended endlessly beyond Aseltine! It appears they were all avoiding the jammed-up I-89 Waterbury entrance and then hitting the backlog of cars that was avoiding the Montpelier entrance, all trying to reach exit 5. My brother was driving his compact 2WD car and we had quite the experience with his crash course in Vermont mud driving, but made it easily home by reaching Rte 12 and doubling back north.

Watching from my house, the traffic on 12 was still stop-and-go at 9 p.m. By 10 p.m., it was moving steadily but still an endless stream of drivers. But even all those out-of-state folks were behaving politely, taking turns with merges and even breaking their flow to allow us to cross the Cox Brook one-lane covered bridges when we were headed counter-direction.

A memorable eclipse, and memorable traffic.

***

Thank you for the honor of serving you. Please be in touch with me (adonahue@leg.state.vt.us) or Rep. Ken Goslant (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us) at any time for questions or input. 

March 31, 2024 Legislative Update

 This past week’s House session should leave all Vermonters reeling, if they have been following the news.

I usually try to avoid speaking in partisan terms in my updates. It is impossible not to, when discussing the action of the supermajority to plow through with $131 million in new taxes in just a few days, while claiming its “balanced budget” was practically equivalent to the governor’s proposed budget.

By refusing to include major expenditures in three bills that passed separately, which caused the need for the taxes, it created a deceptive budget. 

I tried for public transparency with an amendment to include the extra $26 million in the budget we were passing, because it is, in fact, an additional part of the House budget proposal.

It was rejected 97-41, but I was honored by the fact that four Democrats broke from party lines along with two Progressives and two Independents to support it.

The program expansions belonged in a more thoughtful overall budget that kept them in line with our revenues by balancing among priorities. 

They added new positions in the Judiciary to address court backlogs, Medicaid expansions focused on our older, low-income Vermonters, and housing programs, partly to try to add housing units but also for expansions to the emergency housing (hotel) program.

I was deeply disappointed by Medicaid bill because the Medicare support component came from a bill I introduced and believe to be vital, but it jumped levels too quickly and was combined with other expansions so that it cost much more; plus, it was not included in a balanced budget.

***

Pieces of Tax Burdens

In order to re-balance the actual budget, new taxes were required for the general fund. 

Why $130 million in taxes to pay for $26 million in program expansions? 

Because the budget increase in those bills for this year only gets them started. The new taxes coming in will be raising the funds for much larger full costs next year.

It’s like that with many programs and taxes. It takes them a while to get up and running; the impact hits later.

Last year, motor vehicle fees were increased by 20 percent; those are now being felt as renewals come due. The $100 million payroll tax to increase childcare support that was passed last year will go into effect this July.

The historic property tax increase is also looming and in the next week, it seems probable that another new tax will be created in order to reduce that impact.

This would be “property tax relief” to at least a small degree, but it will not be tax relief, because the statewide education funding will still be paid with taxes; just another type. 

All of this comes in the face of significant increases in tax revenues over the past ten years in all categories – increases that far exceed inflation. It is spending, not inadequate revenue, causing the shortfall.

Outside of direct taxes we are also piling on major new costs in home heating when last year’s “clean heat standard” bill kicks in. That will require more electrical energy use, and we will be paying much higher electricity rates, thanks to the most expensive version of revisions to the Renewable Energy Standard bill, also passed last week.

And finally, we moved forward with a bill that will make it harder and more costly to build new housing in most of the state. In the middle of a housing crisis!

***

Taxing the Rich

The new tax bills were developed mostly behind closed doors: presented to the committee of jurisdiction the prior Thursday morning and voted out that afternoon.

They are being promoted on the premise that they are directed only at the very wealthy and big business. That requires a deeper dive.

The income tax increase is imposed only on those earning more than $500,000 per year. Surely, they should pay their fair share.

Those tax filers represent about 3,500 taxpayers. That represents one percent of all income taxpayers. They currently pay 35 percent of all personal income taxes in the state. They are already supporting the rest of us. 

When we demand more, and become the state with the second highest upper bracket tax rate in the country, some will choose to move away, and others will not move in. 

We kill the goose laying golden eggs. At a high tax-revenue-per-person, it only takes a small number leaving to create an overall revenue loss. 

Another of the new tax bills increases the corporate tax rate. The bill would make Vermont the state with the highest corporate tax state in the country. 

We do not live in a vacuum. Businesses choose locations based on costs of doing business. 

And over the past 10 years, the revenues we’ve received from corporate taxes have tripled. If they make more money, they do paying higher taxes.

We are sending a message to businesses: we do not want you, or your jobs, here. 

Some of the new taxes were embedding the program policy bills, even though the revenue goes to the general fund and is not guaranteed to specifically fund them.

I went through procedural gyrations to force a vote on the corporate tax alone before the vote on the full bill. The tax passed, 97-40. 

The housing bill expressed an intent to spend $900 million over the next ten years. The tax on high income, raising $17.5 million in the start-up year, passed 92-43. Of that, only $7 million actually goes towards new housing.

***

The Act 250 Bill

The most contentious bill – one that divided some majority Democrats in the debate from their colleagues – was the “reforms” to Act 250.

Act 250 is our decades-old land planning law that protects the environment through tight oversight of development. 

It has been highly successful in doing that, and the major complaints over time have not questioned that aspect. The complaints have been how unwieldly it is, costing excessive bureaucracy and time, meaning high costs even for good development.

Given the housing crisis, there has been pressure for reform to ensure that we do not have unnecessary barriers for new construction.

But this bill adds them. It creates requirements that most of our smaller communities will not be able to afford as a trade-off for easing the burdens in very small, contained areas in large towns. 

There are no estimates of how much land will be added to the protective class for highly restricted use because the new Environmental Review Board it creates will be setting those higher thresholds.

The most bizarre aspect of the new bill is that the Board that sets the standards is the same body that would hear appeals of permit denials based on those standards. 

That part of the bill drew an amendment from a tri-partisan group of legislators (including me); bill supporters opposed it saying it would “gut the bill” of its intended process.

It failed on an 89-53 vote, splitting the majority party to a virtually unheard-of degree, with 14 Democrats supporting the amendment. Most of them later voted against the bill itself.

*** 

Other Stuff

Those were such major subjects that other bills that would usually make bigger news received less attention – but not necessarily less debate, resulting in several late nights on the floor.

A few key bills included:

A bill expanding emergency housing, replacing past, pre-Covid rules. The changes would go into effect under this year’s budget, then become law next year. 

The former “adverse weather” rule, for example, intended to shelter any person who is homeless in frigid temperatures, would become an automatic entitlement from November 15 through March 15 – five months of the year – under a new “Winter Shelter” part of the bill. 

The policy allowing hotel shelter to be discontinued for criminal activity was not included. Vulnerable individuals would be eligible for more extended time frames. 

Other changes include broader definitions of who is eligible and a requirement that if a shelter is full in one county, the individuals must be given access to a hotel/motel room even if there is available space in another county.

A statewide ethics bill is halfway through the floor debate process. There have been concerns expressed about the new mandates on municipalities, including training costs, all imposed by a state board.

I was very disappointed that a bill that will allow retail cannabis establishments to receive a license endorsement to sell to medical-use patients – which thus includes those under age 21 – did not add language requested by the Human Services Committee (where I serve) to require rules that protects underage buyers in that new environment.

Instead, it added language saying that rulemaking by the Cannabis Control Board must include “rules requiring access for patients who are under 21 years of age.”

***

And Good Stuff

Some broadly supported bills:

A revision of the law on how a person accused of child abuse is placed on the registry, which can be a lifelong impairment to access to many jobs. It maintains the protections for children but improves the fairness of the process.

A new disclosure requirement of flood history for home sales and rentals. I was gratified that the committee included my bill for rentals of lots for mobile homes. 

I will not easily forget the couple I met who were among those who lost everything in the July flooding at the Berlin Mobile Home Park, who had moved in two months earlier with no knowledge of the flooding history. Their home was a wedding gift from their parents.

Finally, after months of Agency of Human Services insistence that no state licensing was required for a new psychiatric residential treatment facility for adolescents that will be funded by the state, I pressed the issue enough so that the agency reversed its position.

Just hours before the House was to adopt bill language to mandate licensing, the agency decided to agree to it. We still included language I drafted prohibiting use of state money to place youth there prior to the licensure. It seemed wise, based on the foot-dragging that had occurred.

***

Thank you for the honor of serving you. Please reach out to Rep. Ken Goslant (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us) or me (adonahue@leg.state.vt.us) at any time with questions, concerns or input. All of my past updates are available at RepresentativeAnneDonahue.blogspot.com

March 17, 2024 Legislative Update

 In these updates, I typically discuss bills in some depth when they are of particular import or being worked on in my committee. There isn’t nearly space to address every bill throughout the session. But this past week, the crossover deadline, it seems of value to briefly summarize many of them to provide a sense of the breath of subjects being addressed.

Crossover means the last chance for bills to come out from House or Senate committees if they are to be taken up by the other body this year. Many have broad or unanimous support, so they don’t make headlines.

Deadlines are later for the two biggest decisions of the session: what do we spend, and do we raise taxes to do it? There are various tax increase proposals on the table to fund more spending. An example is H.828, which would add a three percent surcharge on existing income taxes for individuals making more than $500,000.

First, a couple of notable bills that passed this week on the House floor: 

A bill on retail theft allows multiple small thefts within the same two weeks to be combined in their value so that if they add up to $900 – the current level to become a felony – they can be treated as a felony. This is a bone being tossed towards being able to claim to be addressing the widespread concerns about public safety and lack of accountability for crimes. On the same day, we passed a bill that allows for expanding the diversion system so that folks can be “diverted” from criminal prosecution multiple times, and have their records expunged. I think diversion is an excellent tool, but not for repeat offenses and not to fully delete records. (Also coming up is a bill that revises the categories for such expungements of records.)

One of the best health care bills of the session passed this week, to address unnecessary administrative burdens that interfere with the time doctors can give to patients. It requires all insurance companies to use uniform categories for prior authorization requirements. My primary care doc once said if we could do this, he’d “dance his happy dance.” Federal law was a barrier in past years, but that was recently solved through a court case.

The sales ban on flavored nicotine products, including all vapes plus menthol cigarettes, also passed. Though these have been banned for kids, kids are getting them from adult purchasers and use is exploding; the bill’s ban is focused on the effort to enhance youth protection by blocking all sales. In an unusual move, the Democratic caucus permitted its members to vote based on individual decisions, so it was a much closer vote than typical contested topics, at 83-53. The menthol ban was particularly controversial, and an amendment to remove it from the bill only failed by a vote of 54-64.

***

Significant bills pending on the House calendar that came out of committees this week include these:

A bill from my committee to formalize and reshape the emergency shelter program. It sets a long-term policy goal of leaving no one behind to live on the streets; creates a Task Force to work on parameters for the first steps; and sets a July, 2026 start date for the initial new structure. (All good.) But as we worked through the new bill under a tight time frame, more and more was added to the mandates in statute for what the new program has to include. All were things that expand the scope of anything we’ve done before – as well as that will massively expand costs. The administration’s rough estimate is in the $50 million range. Just as with the tobacco bill (which will cost up to $14 million due to lost revenue), that doesn’t need to be addressed in the current budget since it doesn’t take effect until next year’s budget. “Let the next legislature figure the money part out.” I voted no.

The bill that first proposed major expansion groups for Medicaid is now pared down to require development of a cost and feasibility proposal. The one part it retained is the financial support for those who turn 65 or become disabled and lose existing coverage when they go onto Medicare. This is an incorporation of the bill that I introduced to protect low-income seniors who have been abandoned by all prior reforms. How much of that new support survives the budget balancing process is yet to be seen. Many of this bills that came out of committees this week have yet to go through the “money” committees (taxes and spending.)

Another health care bill will add to regulation of pharmacy benefit managers: the companies that serve as go-betweens to set price deals for insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

“Neonics” is the shorthand for a pesticide used to protect seeds but that are believed to harm the environment and in particular, the fragile bee population. Their use for crops would be banned under H.706. There are lots of concerns about access to alternative seeds, given our small state market, but the bill mirrors the ban and the 2027 timeline that New York has passed. Given their market power, I’m good with it.

The annual update of laws for our “tax and regulate” cannabis market includes a problematic expansion to allow the medical-card program to include all cannabis outlets. This could vastly expand the places where those under age 21 who have medical needs can make purchases, with some significant resulting risks. It needs an amendment to require regulation on that issue, or I can’t support it.

The alcohol law update is a major disappointment to me, because despite all the discussion about protecting kids from nicotine, the committee with the jurisdiction over this bill refused a health policy addition requested by my Human Services committee to protect youth. Two years ago, we made it legal for convenience store to sell those single-serve spirits that include the same kind of youth-appealing fruit flavors as nicotine vapes. Now in some places we see them turning up in bins next to the candy bars at the checkout. A peach-mango-vodka drink in a can may be side-by-side with its look-a-like flavored peach-mango iced tea. I had a youthful-looking friend go to a local store and buy one of each, together, and he wasn’t carded. My Human Services committee’s request -- the one that was rejected – would have created a small level of protection: prohibit alcoholic drinks to be displayed mixed in among non-alcohol products.

Expect to hear much more about H.687, a controversial approach to addressing how to balance reform to permit requirements for urgently needed housing construction with maintaining our environmental protections. A proposal supported by a group from all parties and the governor did not move forward; instead, this version came out of committee on a partisan vote despite a claim that it is a compromise.

Another significant controversy will play out when H.289 gets to the floor on revising the state renewable energy standard to expedite achieving 100% renewables in 10 years. The Joint Fiscal Office first estimated it would cost $1 billion over that time to implement. It revised its report this past week to an estimate of between $150 million and $450 million, but added, “due to various unknowns – potential technological advances, changes in demand for electricity, adaptations in the ISO-New England grid, actions of Vermont’s utilities in future years, etc. – considerable uncertainty regarding the overall cost and impact on the State budget remains.”

***

A sample of bills moving forward with broad support:

H.173, making it a crime to manipulate a child for the purpose of sexual conduct; H.614, addressing land improvement fraud and timber trespass; H.657, updating communications taxes and fees;

Also, H.702 on improving government accountability; and H.868 for the annual funding of roads and bridges (yes, including, at last, Route 12 from Cumberland Farms on North Main in Northfield on through Berlin to Montpelier.)

H.871 moves work forward on planning how to address the funding needs for a huge backlog of school construction/rehab, while H.873 attempts a compromise on how to move forward on testing schools for PCBs;

H.875 establishes uniform ethics codes for state and municipal officials; H.121 addresses data privacy; H.707 focuses on workforce expansion and development; and H.622 updates reimbursement fees for Emergency Medical Services.

The agriculture committee apparently has less urgent work to do than others. It took testimony on multiple separate days to establish a state mushroom (in line with our state flower, bird, fish, mineral, pie and so forth.) It was a learning tool for a group of schoolkids. All fine and good if you spend a couple of hours to do it. This was a bit much.

***

Thank you for the honor of serving you. Please reach out to Rep. Ken Goslant (kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us) or me (adonahue@leg.state.vt.us) at any time with questions, concerns or input. 

February 24, 2024 Legislative Update

 

Urgency versus deliberation. Inclusion versus inaction. Complexity versus fairness. Unintended consequences. Some of these real-life conflicts in the process of lawmaking are front-and-center before us in the issues we will debate in the weeks ahead.

A report updating the progress of implementation of last year’s Clean Heat Standard bill makes some of these tensions dramatically clear. That was the bill that requires a financially-forced transition away from fossil fuel heating sources. Some believed it would be unsustainably costly; others that it was essential to address climate change; and others also believed it was being imposed far too rapidly.

The Public Utility Commission, working on the first phase to develop the rules that will be brought to the legislature for approval in 2025, had a message in its “check-in” status report this year. The executive summary is worth directly quoting.

“…[M]ost participants have expressed serious misgivings that the quality of the rule and the success of its implementation will suffer as a result of the aggressive schedule required by Act 18…[It] sets such an untenable pace that it will be extremely challenging for the Commission,

the Equity Advisory Group, and the Technical Advisory Group to carry out their responsibilities

in a manner that allows time for deliberative process, thoughtful input from all stakeholders, and

sufficient public participation to design such a transformative, first-of-its-kind, highly complex,

and technical program. The Commission shares stakeholders’ serious concerns that any draft rule … will suffer from the haste demanded [which] … allots mere months to the creation of an unprecedented, complex program with the potential for unintended consequences that impact the lives of all Vermonters…” The full report can be found at: legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/Checkback-report-1-FINAL.pdf

There is no indication that the legislature will agree to any delay. Instead, we are now moving ahead on a new initiative to change our current Renewable Energy Standard to require 100 percent renewable sources by 2035. That, according to some testimony, will cost Vermonters $1 billion over the next 10 years.

It does respond to a criticism over both the Clean Heat Standard and our recent past targets to significantly increase electric vehicle use: the facts that shifts to electricity result in demands that our current electric grid can’t handle, and production of more electricity requires use of more fossil fuels and thus also increases greenhouse gasses. So this next bill would block that impact by shifting electric production to all renewable energy.

We are acting in response to urgent issues but creating significant risks of failure at multiple levels. Prominent in my mind has always been the size of our state relative to the impacts caused by others, and thus the fact that when we act alone – or are first off the block – we take on a disproportionate burden that causes danger to our economic competitiveness and thus sustainability as an affordable place to live.

Across Other Issues

The same goes for a plethora of issues in front of us. We are currently looking at new tax sources to pay for ongoing costs of how we want to sustain the costs of our state responsibilities.

The costs of education have skyrocketed this year, for reasons I’ve discussed previously. News media have referenced an average 20% increase in property taxes, but for Northfield it is 24% and for Berlin it is 26%. The legislature is contemplating reducing that harm by raising new funds from elsewhere. There’s also a lot of talk about reforming the whole funding structure and school spending, but that talk has happened many times before, with only new bandages resulting. The efforts at fairness over the years have led to incredible complexities.

There are other reasons for wanting tax increases.

We locked in new burdens to the state budget and on wage-earners last year with the mega-childcare support package and now are looking at needs for significantly greater expenditures to address homelessness, record drug overdoses, mental health, a juvenile justice system in crisis and health care underinsurance. We suspended school construction contributions by the state in 2014 and the infrastructure is crumbling; we hear regular complaints about conditions of roads. The list goes on. These pressures are, at least, taking two other new initiatives off the table for now: a paid leave program, and salary increases for legislators.

But who pays?

In answer to the momentum to “tax the rich” I would warn that we already have one of the most progressive tax rates in the country. The rich do pay more. At last count, 16 percent of our state’s revenues from income tax were paid by the .17 percent wealthiest Vermonters. A full 25 percent of income tax revenues were paid by the next wealthiest bracket, made up of only 2.7 percent of taxpayers. Ergo, 41 percent is paid by the fewer than three percent of Vermonters who represent the wealthiest wage earners.

If we become radically out-of-step with states around us, economic drivers will move out.

Policy versus Cost

The budget raises another question that legislators face based on different committee assignments. Policy committees are expected to make budget recommendations to help guide the decisions of the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriation Committee then must balance among the competing “asks” and also turn to the Ways and Means Committee, which controls tax policy. What will be included in the budget, and when that exceeds the balanced-budget total recommended by the governor, how will the added money be raised?

As a member of the policy committee which oversees all of human services, I’m told that I should be recommending what would be needed to serve the wellbeing of all Vermonters, regardless of total price. While we do identify by priority levels, we are not expected to look at the bottom-line increases in the budget. That’s because we don’t have the context of the other parts of the budget, nor the decisions about the total taxes that will be raised to be available to pay for it.

If I vote now for ideal policy – regardless of cost – wouldn’t it be duplicative to vote against the future budget, no matter what taxes it requires? Usually, I think not since I can argue the money should have come from other budget lines rather than increased taxes. This year, knowing that we are dealing with revenue downfalls, that doesn’t seem legitimate.

Nicotine

A similar issue has already been through my committee and will be up for a full floor vote this coming week: the clamping down on flavored vapes and menthol cigarettes. As a public health policy, I voted in support of the bill; our committee vote was 10-0-1.

Vape products are getting into the hands of schoolkids because adults are buying them for them. These are incredibly addictive, and we know that the majority of lifetime nicotine addiction occurs if it starts at a young age. Menthol, by blunting the harshness of tobacco, also increases the appeal. If adults are the suppliers, it seems that we need to take these specific products off the adult market in order to protect kids.

But we didn’t look much at the budget consequences. That wasn’t our jurisdiction. The Ways and Means Committee looked at it last week and it will likely end up costing some $14 million to implement in direct lost tax revenue. That committee supported it on a 7-5 vote, and pushed back the implementation date by a year, to January of 2026. That’s a sly move: it means we can ignore it for the upcoming budget year, since the lost revenue won’t begin until halfway through fiscal year 2026’s budget. Clearly, the long-range cost benefits are likely massive in future saved health care costs, but that’s more amorphous.

In the shorter term, that $14 million annually is equal to thousands of nights of emergency shelter stays; hundreds of new recovery beds for those fighting addictions; one major school renovation every year; or more than half the annual cost of the universal school meals program we passed last year.

Feed our schoolchildren, or protect them from nicotine addiction? These may not be good things to present as an example of choices. But one way or another, government needs to make choices.

There are some choices I make on bills every day that I see as decisions that clearly represent my values, and thereby, represent the choices you made in the aggregate by electing me as a person closest to meeting your own values.

They are not all as clear, and that is why your input is so important to me. Please reach out, especially during the coming town meeting break. I’ll be at town meetings in both Berlin and Northfield, so it’s a great time to catch me for direct conversation.

***

Thank you for your support. You can always reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us, and Rep. Ken Goslant at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. It is an honor to serve you.