Legislative Preview, 2024

 

Every year, the Times-Argus asks local legislators to share their priorities for the legislative session ahead, and the first half of this preview report is a copy of that – a fairly quick read. After that are some details.

If you don’t like to delve into numbers, stop after the preview!

I see the overall role of government, and therefore our necessary priority, as funding essential services at a cost that we can afford. Affordability does not mean by personal perception. It means not letting the state economy crash, hurting us all but those who struggle financially the most.

The details that bedevil us? What are “essential services,” which is a subjective decision. What is affordable for economic stability, which is more objective, if we are following fiscal expertise. For example, our state fiscal analysts tell us we are still facing about a 50/50 chance of a recession in the near future.

My fiscal priority this year is to push back against the momentum to increase new initiatives. These have been caused in part by the number of new legislators this session who have only lived through the recent years of unprecedented federal funds flowing into Vermont. The desires are good ones, but we have added major new programs already and sustaining them will be extremely challenging as we return to more modest revenues. We need to stabilize and meet existing needs before we add more.

Within existing core responsibilities, costs are rising more steeply than the governor’s plan to increase base budget spending by only three percent. His may thus be an unrealistic goal. We are already locked in to a 15% increase in health costs and a four percent pay act increase plus a new paid family leave program for state employees. We have the inflation jump of the past year, retirement fund obligations, and further budget increases to pay for last year’s bill to significantly expand support for childcare. We also need to maintain climate change mitigation efforts and address the unresolved homeless motel program.

All of those require more than three percent growth, so deep cuts would be required in other vital services if we restrict ourselves to this; even more reason that it is critical to avoid any and all new initiatives.

Education costs are predicted to increase by 20% due to some similar pressures, adding to the need for fiscal restraint. Once again, health costs are a driver that will not change without more aggressive reforms. Economic stability also demands a priority of ongoing state intervention in grappling with the critical housing shortage and labor force recruitment challenges.

I have two priorities for the budgets in existing essential services. In health care, we need to stop abandoning low-income senior citizens when they go on Medicare and face a cost cliff due to our drop in state support. For children in trouble, we need to rebuild foster care, mental health treatment, and treatment capacity for youth violence.

My policy priority continues to be the full incorporation of mental health into our health care system, which will bring better access and better care. We also need to reassess our criminal justice system so that it does a better job of protecting citizens while also respecting civil rights and avoiding measures that increase cycles of criminality.

***

Fiscal Details

Our December presentation from the Joint Fiscal Office consultant was a summary of the national economy and implications for our own. Their take on it is an improving economy with the rate of inflation down, solid growth, and low unemployment. Consumers see the economy with a great deal more pessimism yet spending trends (which drive the economy) do not reflect that pessimism.

There are also “mounting headwinds,” with the risk of a recession dropping but still at about a 50/50 chance, and with low unemployment creating a risk of wage-price spirals. That’s when wages increase in order to attract workers, but then drive increased prices for products. Vermont’s worker gap far exceeds the national average, with fewer than 7,000 unemployed versus 17,500 job openings, which often means the market is even tighter than it appears due to lack of enough of the matches between skills and job openings.

As reflected in some further data, our continuing demographic challenge makes the picture even worse, because we will be losing numbers in our existing labor force in the years to come. Between 2010 and 2022, we already lost five percent in the ratio of labor force to population. However, the 35-54 age group – those moving into peak earning years (Interpretation: tax revenue) – dropped from 32 to 24 % of our population, and incoming the future incoming work force – those 0-14 – dropped from 20 to 15%. Those soon-to-leave the workforce, ages 55-64, increased from 9 to 15%, and those already into retirement years, 65 and older, increased from 13 to 20%.

***

Housing

The shortage of housing didn’t come out of the blue. We’ve sharply dropped in construction of new units since the 2008 recession. Multiple factors have made it much worse, and we are not remotely close to closing the gap, without even including possible population increases or the loss in housing units from age/decay over time.

A healthy housing market is defined as having a 3% vacancy rate in owned housing and 5% in rental housing. In Washington County, the rate for owned homes is 1.57% and for rental housing, it’s 1.65% -- well below the state average and on par with Chittenden County. There are many fascinating details about individual community and county data for those who enjoy knowing that kind of detail about their communities on the website, https://www.housingdata.org/profile/housing-needs.

The deficit in current construction of new units is a whopping 4.7 (based on a 5-year average.) What that means is that for every new home or apartment unit currently being built, we actually need almost five more to be built if we were to close the vacancy gap. This is despite the $268 million the state (with a great deal of the recent federal money) has invested in the past two years to support what would normally be a private market process for housing construction. Much of that is still in the pipeline for the shovels to actually hit the ground.

Other data I’ve discussed earlier in this update can be reviewed there and in much greater detail on these sites:

https://accd.vermont.gov/press-releases/webinar-housing-deficit-data-presentation

https://ljfo.vermont.gov/publications/legislative-briefing

***

Education

When a system changes, there are usually winners and losers, and that will be the case with the new method for assessing the costs of educating out K-12 students. Pupil weighting was revised last year to more closely match the actual costs of educating children in different communities. One child in a school does not count as one child for “pupil weight,” or cost, for the purpose of how much the school district receives from the Education Fund. High school students cost more than elementary, for example, so they are weighted more and school districts’ costs are adjusted differently if the elementary-to-high school ratio is different.

The two largest categories that gained “weight” in the new counts were low-income children and those with English as a second language, with a new rural school component as well. A more detailed explanation of pupil weighting and changes can be found at: https://ljfo.vermont.gov/assets/Subjects/Issue-Briefs-Related-to-Education-Finance/8e94aa83db/GENERAL-371568-v3-Understanding_Pupil_Weights-v3.pdf

Berlin and Northfield will be affected differently. Based on the early estimates, Northfield will see little impact from the change, because current weighting of students in the Paine Mountain district will likely be fairly close to the new counts. Berlin will gain some, because the pupil count in its in the Washington Central district will increase given its higher number of pupils with a higher weighting.

***

Policy Bills

There are a record-breaking number of new policy bills being introduced by individual legislators this session, creating a big and likely wasted workload for our legislative counsel drafters. Why wasted? In the second year of a biennium, most of the legislature’s time is taken up by finishing last year’s “must do” work and addressing this year’s required tasks.

Bills that were taken up last year, but didn’t make the deadline, will be up first for consideration, and bills that passed one body but not the other are yet to be reviewed. In my committee, for example, we’re already getting heavy lobbying about the ban on flavored vaping products that passed the Senate last year, and we didn’t get to yet.

By the time new bills get introduced and allocated to committees this year, there will be virtually no time for them to be addressed. That’s not to say they don’t have merit – but a lot of ideas may have merit without beating out the competition for limited time. We had an unusually high turnover in the House this session, which likely accounts for some unrealistic expectations.  Ergo, this year more than ever, if you see a headline about a new bill – check in with me or Rep. Goslant about whether its odds of getting action before you get too excited about it (pro or con.) 

My bill initiatives are fairly modest. I’m mostly focused on having the Senate pass my right-to-repair bill for consumers in its broader form. The House passed the agricultural equipment component last year. I’m also hoping for some action on my existing bill to increase health care support for low-income elders who lose coverage when they move to Medicare.

A few short bills (some requested by constituents) address narrower needs: a notice requirement when renting a mobile home lot that is in a designated flood plain; a requirement that businesses maintain cash payment options; and public meeting access protections in our evolving digital world.

I’ve also been deeply involved in a personal effort to identify burial locations for those who died at our state hospital in the late 1800s and 1900s before the laws required hometowns to take responsibility. Some were buried in unknown locations on the grounds, and it turns out that may have happened at other state institutions as well. I’d like to see an inventory done of such sites and some efforts to identify and protect those that can be located.

These are mostly in what are termed “short form” bills, which are quick to draft, because they present the basic idea but leave the concept to be fleshed out only after a committee has made a decision to take it up.

***

As we begin the new session on January 3, please remember to keep in touch with me and district-mate Rep. Ken Goslant when you have questions or concerns to share. We are here to serve you and listen to your voices. It is an honor to do so. Emails are adonahue@leg.state.vt.us and kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us All of my updates, current and all through the past, are accessible at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com.

June 22, 2023, Veto Session

 

Legislative Update, Veto Session

Rep. Anne Donahue, with Rep. Ken Goslant

This year’s legislative session is officially over with the completion last week of overrides votes on several vetoes by the Governor. There were no great surprises because the Democrats have a supermajority. That means having enough votes to override any veto. Both Rep. Ken Goslant and I are scared by the outcome in terms of the cost increases. We don’t think that increasing state spending by 13 percent, and raising taxes to achieve it, is what Vermonters want to see.

While most of the new initiatives being funded are good ones, responsible budgeting is about living within one’s means by setting priorities, not by just starting up anything one might want. I was in the legislature the last time we had a recession. We – and that includes a Democratic majority at that time – had to go through incredibly painful decisions about layoffs and program cuts. The more we overinflate the budget now, the deeper those cuts might be if the economic indicators before us for the next several years hold true. A majority of current legislators haven’t experienced that and instead have been here at a time of extraordinary surplus revenues. The only budget decisions have been where to spend money, not where to hold the line. And in this budget, spend we did.

Nowhere is the challenge of cutting something once it’s been created as evident this year as in addressing the hotel program for those who are homeless. During the COVID emergency, group emergency shelters that exposed multiple people could have led to disastrous spread of virus. Separating people by using federal emergency money to place them in hotel rooms made sense for everyone’s protection.

It was an “everyone in the door” effort, including eliminating the standard requirement for all subsidized housing in Vermont that people contribute a third of their income – no matter how small, but never more than a third – to their housing costs. Emergency use of hotels or motels when shelters were full has always existed, but it was time-limited and restricted to defined emergencies or to the “cold weather” exemption. As a result of the unlimited access, the number of households receiving shelter exploded over these past several years and it became a semi-permanent home for many, not just a safety net for a month or two.

Now that the emergency (and the federal money) has ended, there has been outrage that these folks would be thrown to the streets. That’s a very legitimate reaction. We created this reliance on a program that exceeds any typical or reasonable approach to helping people have safe housing. It was also destined to create a big number of people in crisis all at once as it ends.

We wanted people to make use of it for our overall benefit; they did. Housing is exceptionally difficult to find right now; it realistically cannot be found for several thousand people all trying to find affordable options at the same time. But it’s a bad “program,” if it can be called a program at all. There have been inadequate supports beyond a roof over the heads of people, many of whom have serious struggles in life coping skills in general. It hasn’t been a positive option for them, beyond the question of costs. It also placed major burdens on communities like Berlin that are hosting these hotels, which suddenly found themselves with large groups of needy people, including that small minority who gum it up for everyone else up by abusing it.

So, what to do?

Some more liberal legislators who wanted the whole program extended threatened to support the governor’s veto in order to demand a new budget with increased spending, by joining with Republicans who were voting “no” because of overspending. Advocates, including many who are living in or recently already lost hotel housing, were chanting loudly from the public seating areas as we assembled for the one-day veto session: “housing is a human right.” (They respectfully stopped shortly after we began work.)

So, a deal was struck. It still officially ends the open-door program on June 30, including not changing the termination of hotel payments for those had already lost them this past month. Those were the folks who did not have someone with a designated level of disability, children, or a person over age 60 in their household. But it creates a special, more gradual “off ramp” program for the households with that greater vulnerability who are already there as of June 30. (Note that new folks are still enrolling until that end date, since the old program doesn’t end until then.) Between now and next April, the Agency of Human Services is tasked with finding a housing option for each such household before terminating hotel payments, working with case managers gradually over those interim months.

There are a lot of great goals and concepts for parameters set out in this new legislation. Unfortunately, none of it – neither the protection for those vulnerable individuals, nor the assurance of a program end in April nor the standards for participant compliance – are worth the paper they are written on. This was a deal that saved face for both sides: On one side, “we aren’t being mean and tossing people to the wolves, but we have set limits”; on the other side, “we saved the day by keeping the program going until everyone has replacement housing.”

It was my committee that reviewed the bill, and I identified all the reasons that it actually has no assurance of achieving either of those and has little likelihood of success. But I also voted for it in my committee – it was an 11-0 vote – as well as on the floor. Why? I do not believe in rejecting a proposal that attempts to solve a problem unless I have a better alternative in mind that would address it. I don’t have a solution for resolving this crisis, and we are the ones who created it.

What are its failings? It’s a very long list, but here are a few highlights that touch on them:

It will depend on the ability to hire additional staff for case management and for administrative tasks (we piled on a vast amount of data demands for legislative oversight.) Has anyone noticed we have a major workforce shortage, with every single business and profession unable to fill essential positions?

It lacks definitions and creates no authority as to who will establish them. What is the meaning of “misconduct” that will allow a discharge, and who determines whether that has occurred?

How are criteria established for whether someone met a mandate that they “participate in” their case management or “engage in” their own independent search for housing?

What does it mean that AHS must offer “alternative housing” – which includes emergency shelters – before someone can be cut off? If the offered alternative will only last a week before the household will be homeless again, have we actually done anything to prevent the identical outcome?

Yet if it had said, “appropriate housing,” who would have defined whether it is appropriate? (On the House floor, the bill’s presenter already suggested that if the offer was in another part of the state and the person had reasons for not wanting to go there, it wouldn’t count as an offer even under the current language.)

Any decision can be appealed. On the one hand, allowing an appeal from an arbitrary decision is legitimate. The bill is rife with possibilities of arbitrary and inequitable application of the undefined criteria. Yet open-ended appeals of legitimate decisions will cause long delays in actual implementation.

It came with no cost estimate for either the extension of hotel stays or the added services. It does set out the funding as coming from shifting funds in the existing budget, not adding new money. But any shift means something else – previously determined to be necessary – will not be funded. There is a goal to re-negotiate rates with hotels (which up until now, could name their own price) but there is no guarantee of success.

The reality is that there is no true end to it. Those still stranded in April (which could be almost as many as those there on June 30) will be in front of us yet again. We created this crisis, and we haven’t found a way to solve it.

Perhaps we will make progress between now and April, and perhaps those added months will give us time to figure out some additional approaches. Let’s hope. We have put hundreds of millions into developing new housing, some of which can move quickly; that might also help.

But make no mistake about it. The housing crisis itself will ensure that new families will be in need as well. The new compromise bill doesn’t touch that issue yet, not does it help those on the streets today who relied on our COVID program but don’t meet the federal disability, child, or “aged” categories.

***

The other challenge was the issue of childcare. The vast expansion of subsidies and state rates to providers was a major part of the overall budget expansion and the reason for a new payroll tax. I know of no one who disagreed with the need for major new investments to support childcare.

The issue was, by how much and how quickly? Many people, including myself and Rep. Goslant, voted no because there was a better alternate to adding some $230 million over the next two years. (The benefits only start halfway through the year for the first year, which is why the cost will nearly double next year.) Staging it more carefully would not have required a new tax. The governor’s balanced budget had proposed $50 million for this year.

It was the very strongest of the override votes because of the intense desire to demonstrate support for childcare. Some of my colleagues then voted against the underlying budget. I think that was a bit disingenuous. If you vote to create one the biggest of the new programs in the budget, you probably need to vote for the budget that funds it.

There were 98 votes needed for the required 2/3rd majority, as three members were absent. The childcare override vote was 116-31. The budget vote was 105-42.

***

There were five other vetoes besides the childcare and budget bills, and the supermajority in the House made short order of overriding three of those; the Senate then also backed those overrides.

Those were the professional regulation changes with $7m in fee increases (109-38); a charter change in Brattleboro allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in local elections and serve on local boards (110-37); and the charter change for Burlington to allow noncitizen legal residents to vote in local elections and on the school budget for the statewide Education Fund (111-36.)

Two other veto bills were in the Senate, and they did not choose to vote to override either of them, so they are dead for this session: the legislative pay raise, and the ban on deceptive interrogation of criminal suspects under age 22.

***

Ken and I both work hard to try to balance the needs of all Vermonters in the legislative process, understanding both how the state has a key role in providing supports but also to not overburden struggling taxpayers. That means listening to all perspectives and trying to work together and reach compromise, regardless of party labels. Sometimes it feels as though that balance keeps getting tougher to reach.

The session is over, but we are still here and ready to listen. Please get in touch with questions or concerns that can help us gain your perspective for the year ahead. Email anytime at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us

May 7, 2023 Legislative Update

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

May 7, 2023

 

In theory, May 12 is the closing day for this session, but if that actually is to happen, we will be having some very long nights this week, because so little moved in the past several days. Of course, resolution of the budget is what dictates the close, so it is now essentially in the hands of the six members of the conference committee who are resolving the major differences between House and Senate versions.

This year, several other bills hang in that balance as well, and might end up swept into the budget bill in the end. The House had the funding for its paid medical and family leave bill in the budget, but the Senate has refused to move forward on it this year, so House leadership has now conceded and dropped that from the budget.

The Senate’s childcare bill has had a lot of revisions made in the House but has not yet been sent back to the Senate. Instead, it sits in the House tax committee, because the two bodies have different ways they want to fund it. So, both funding and the system reforms for childcare are still in flux. In an unusual move, the chair of the House Human Services Committee was appointed as one of the three House budget conferees. It’s usually all Appropriations members. That’s the clearest sign of how entwined the issues have become.

The rest of us are all left in wait-and-see mode. Either budget version is headed towards an increase of 12 or 13%, which will require new taxes and fees to balance it. That’s not sustainable, and not something I can support.

***

The Senate accepted the House version of the clean energy bill, so it went straight to the governor, who has vetoed it. That sets up a veto override vote for as early as the coming week. As explained in detail in my last update, I voted against the bill and will stay with that position and vote to sustain the veto.

The session’s other major bill still in progress addresses our housing crisis, and that is expected on the House floor this week. In both the House and Senate, it has ping-ponged between the perspectives of the economic development and natural resources committees. In concept, everyone agrees: we need to prevent barriers to new housing, but we need to do that in ways that don’t back off the commitments to protect our environment.

Updating Act 250, the state’s land use law, hasn’t been stalled for years for nothing. It’s a tough line to draw. Once that gets through the House sometime this week, it will still need Senate approval, which is by no means assured. Thus that, too, may come just in time for the closing bell.

***

No parts of the constitution are absolute, and I have supported gun restrictions where they increase protection and meet constitutional standards. I voted against (and will vote to sustain a gubernatorial veto if it occurs this week) the 72-hour waiting period and safe storage bill. Existing data shows the waiting period would not have an impact in Vermont. The bill also fails to meet standards for constitutionality.

However, I am in support of a pending bill makes it a crime to knowingly possess a firearm that has had its serial number removed, and to knowingly buy a firearm on behalf of a person who is prohibited by law from possessing it (referred to as “straw purchases.”) It allows individuals between 18 and 22 who have been found delinquent regarding a crime that would have been a felony if it was an adult conviction, to have the confidential juvenile record sent to the national background check system – as it would have been if convicted in adult court.

That is a segue to another issue this same bill addresses. It is a bit of a corrective course after several years of bills called “Raise the Age” to treat older teens as juveniles. I have generally supported the idea that when a young adult commits a minor crime, they should be handled with supportive rather than punitive measures, and not gain a lifelong stigma for a youthful mistake. The crimes under our “Raise the Age” law, however, include all but the most high-level violent crimes. Making a youth a legal juvenile also means the public never knows the outcome.

Current law now considers an 18-year-old to be a juvenile. This bill will delay the plan to also add 19-year-olds as juveniles. It also creates a review process for identifying whether there show be additions to the list of crimes that are still permitted to be moved to adult court.

***

Other bills of Interest

Important bills move that are under the news media radar, often because there was work done to build consensus. No controversy… no headlines.

The Senate sent back my committee’s overdose prevention bill with a big new section that creates a legal mechanism for individuals to get small samples of illegal drugs tested for the more and more toxic new additives, which are killing people even faster that previous ones. I’m leery of creating an implication that something like heroin is “safe” because it doesn’t have fentanyl in it, or of creating a scenario where dealers can clam (falsely) that what they are selling has been tested for “purity.” But we are losing more and more Vermonters to this epidemic.

The Senate proposal was a loosely worded liability protection that allowed almost anyone to establish a testing site. I got the language considerably tightened, so that any provider who offers the testing would lose any protection if they did not follow operating guidelines established by the Department of Health. They could be charged criminally for possession of illegal drugs. The Department supported the language, and I think it minimizes the risks of abuse, so I supported the amendment.

That’s not the same, though, when it comes to the new overdose prevention bill that my committee is now working on. (It is too late for the Senate to take up this year, so if we pass it this coming week, it will be in the hands of the Senate for next year.)

That bill would sanction sites where people could use their drugs in the presence of people who are trained to reverse an overdose. Our Health Commissioner testified that the research is not strong enough yet to show that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are only two sites in the United States, both in New York City and both relatively new.

Both our Attorney General’s Office and the Vermont Medical Society, despite deep concerns about the overdose crisis, have indicated they have concerns about starting a program like this at this point. I listened closely to testimony both pro and con, and told my committee I was not going to be able to support it. It will almost certainly be controversial when it gets to the floor this week.

My Right to Repair bill for agriculture and forestry equipment passed out of the Commerce Committee on a unanimous vote and through the House with a 137-2 roll call vote, so it will be primed up for Senate action next year. This bill requires manufacturers to make tools and parts available for sale directly to equipment owners to fix themselves. With our increasing technology, more and more things we buy can only be repaired (at high cost and delay) by the manufacturers. Our Vermont roots are as thrifty, do-it-yourselfers, and that is being robbed from us when it requires a specialty tool even to just open the item up! This bill is a starting point. I’m hoping next year that we can move forward on the larger version of the bill, which covers a broad range of consumer products.

In another consumer protection measure, we are also asking the Department of Financial Regulation to review the existing laws on automobile insurance and covered car repairs to ensure consumers are not being misled or over-charged based on requirements regarding after-market parts or limits on authorized repair shops.

We passed a Burlington charter change that will allow legal non-citizens to vote in its municipal elections, including the school budget. This is the second city to do this; Winooski was approved last year. Montpelier was the first, but with an important distinction, because its charter does not permit those voters to vote on the school budget, which directly affects our statewide education fund. I was fine with Montpelier deciding who can vote in its own local decision-making, but not with it being extended to votes that affect other towns and I voted against the Burlington change as I had with Winooski.

With some dismay, I heard proponents on the House floor state that Vermont’s Supreme Court had found both the earlier changes to be constitutional. Not true! It found Montpelier’s was constitutional, but explicitly said its opinion did not address situations where the vote might be a statewide issue. There has been no ruling on the expansion in the Winooski expansion.

I dug up the direct quotes from the court decision to read to the body – so that decisions could be based on accurate information. The bill did pass. Hopefully the court will make a decision in the next year, and we will have clarity one way or the other.

Finally, it was great to be congratulating two groups of young people with resolutions this past week – the U-32 hockey team that won a thriller to become Level 2 champions this year, and the Northfield Junior Rifle team that brought back so many gold medals from New Hampshire.

I missed Green Up Day this year for the first time in eons. I was in New Jersey for my oldest grand-nephew’s First Communion. How quickly time flies! It seems like he was a toddler such a short time ago…

***

Please share your input and thoughts. You can reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us, or Rep. Ken Goslant at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us It is an honor to represent you.

April 22, 2023

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

April 22, 2023

After several weeks buried in wrapping up bills in committee work, the big items of the session have started exploding onto the House floor, beginning last Thursday and Friday with the “Clean Heat Standard” bill. It had passed the Senate by a vote of 19-10, and this week, passed the House by a vote of 98-46. Both those votes (despite a few legislators absent) make it highly likely that the expected veto by the governor will be overturned.

The debate was not over whether we should be doing everything we reasonably can to address climate change. There was broad consensus on that. It was not even about whether working to convert heating away from fossil fuels (oil, propane and natural gas) was a bad idea.

The fundamental question was over whether we should pass a law to require that conversion without knowing whether the program is even feasible, or what it will cost, and whether we should answer those questions before locking it into statute. The member who presented the bill said that it would be “wildly speculative” to assign details or cost estimates at this point. We just can’t know that yet. Thus, she said we should move forward in order to find out the costs and potential benefits.

I got up and agreed with her about needing that information. That was exactly the point. It is wildly speculative, and that is why we should answer those questions, at least with some rational estimates, before enacting a bill. Unlike last year, when the final bill required later review and agreement of the legislature before moving forward (and I thus voted in support of the failed effort to override a veto), this year’s bill allows the process to go full steam ahead.

The legislative “checkback” that proponents point to, which requires the legislature to approval the implementation rules in 2025, is more of a “lookback” at what was developed in that interim. Yes, the brakes could be put on – as can always happen with any bill, by repealing it on a future date – but the bill actually establishes the “clean heat standard” in law. It does not wait for information to be gathered first.

All of the language is, “shall.” It begins by saying, “the Clean Heat Standard is established.” Not, “shall be designed and then reviewed.” Fuel dealers “shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions” from heating sources; the Public Utility Commission “shall establish” a credit system that will mandate dealers to pay for incentives to get homeowners to put in heat pump systems and the like; the dealers “shall obtain” the credits that are required of them; the Commission “shall adopt rules and may issue orders to implement and enforce the Clean Heat Standard program.”

Who pays for these measures? This will be your choice: replace your heating system (with or without support from an efficiency organization that will help lower-income families), or pay the cost of higher fuel prices that dealers will be forced to charge in order to pay for the “credits” they are mandated to obtain. Pay how much? Providing an estimate at this point is what the bill’s presenter said would be “wildly speculative.” Damn the torpedoes -- full speed ahead

There are certainly long-term cost savings that may occur – again, no estimates on how much – but that will be many years down the line. Supporters kept pointing to the language that says the rules to implement the standards cannot take effect “without specific authorization enacted” by the legislature after the program has been fully fleshed out in 2025. That is the checkback.

But here is the other language in the bill that is the mega-loophole, in full:

“The requirement to adopt rules and any requirements regarding the need for legislative approval before any part of the Clean Heat Standard goes into effect do not in any way impair the Commission’s authority to issue orders or take any other actions, both before and after final rules take effect, to implement and enforce the Clean Heat Standard.”

Note the number of times “any” is reiterated!

I was gratified when a new Democratic legislator who is one of the now-three attorneys in the House got up to directly affirm my analysis. He was one of the few Democrats who bucked party directives, and voted “no.”

There were several skirmishes over amendments that were offered before the vote on the bill. Perhaps most relevant was one that would have placed a cap on how high the cost of heating fuel could be allowed to get before a “pause” button could be hit. That was voted down, on the basis that it would constrict development of the program when the costs are yet unknown.

Note that the sponsors themselves said that this bill will not change the status of global warming. The minute-scale efforts from our little piece of the earth cannot change the trajectory of the effects of worldwide efforts, or lack thereof. What it would do would put the costs of trying to push that massive boulder on the shoulders of Vermonters and our economy. We can’t do this in isolation, which is what this bill is proposing to attempt. We need to join consolidated efforts, not go it alone.

***

More To Come

The childcare bill was voted out of my committee on a 10-1 vote. I strongly supported the restructuring and thoughtful work on developing steps to improve the system and support more access and affordability. But again I said, “we can’t do all of this all at once!”

The estimated price tag in the first full year of implementation will be in the range of $140 million. That’s just the baseline. I would absolutely support phasing it in – such as what the governor’s budget proposed, with a new investment of $50 million – but voted no on going full throttle.

The bill will now move through the Education Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for identifying how we will raise the money for it.

The chair of that committee was quoted in the press last week as saying she believes the bill does not go far enough, and that her committee will be looking towards an increase in the personal income tax to fund it.

Keep in mind that this would be on top of the payroll tax to pay for a medical and family leave program that is moving through the House and Senate, the heating costs of the Clean Heat Standard, the investments in maintaining our safety net and universal school meals – and at the same time, continuing to tax most of Social Security and military pensions to a degree that other states do not.

***

Other Actions

The House approved the Brattleboro charter change 103-33, a bill that was vetoed last year but can clearly move forward this year. It allows 16 and 17-year-olds to be elected as representatives to the town’s delegate-style town meeting system.  I’ve seen a lot of Facebook posts over recent months, confused about why young adults up to age 21 are no longer being named in arrest reports and are being sent to Family Court.

We made that change in the legislature based upon the emerging science that the brain development to make thoughtful decisions rather than impetuous ones is ongoing through about age 25, so older teens shouldn’t be held liable as adults. But they can represent constituents and make decisions about town government? It would be nice to stop being so inconsistent.

We also passed a bill that was more symbolic than substantive that bans “paramilitary training camps” when the intent is for the training to be used for violent civil disruptions. It was targeted, of course, against Slate Ridge in Pawlet that has been a thorn in the side of that community for years now.

Why do I say symbolic? The government has the burden of proving intent. Someone need only say, this is training for defense against a violent civil disruption. Ironically, it included specific examples of “exemptions” that included Norwich training activities. I think the “intent” requirement already more than covered Norwich!

***

On the Agenda

Several bills are working their way through the process to address the delicate balance between public protection regarding the tiny fraction of individuals whose mental symptoms lead to violence – but also to help, rather than harm, people in crisis. These include enabling police to arrest and remove anyone (frequently unrelated to mental issues) who is being violent against hospital staff or EMTs. I helped work to ensure that the bill is clear that people who are being treated and not yet medically stabilized would not be subjected to being hauled away to jail.

Another bill creates a segregated “forensic” treatment capacity as a subunit at the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin for persons accused of crimes who are found not competent to stand trial but who remain a danger. They are currently held in the hospital, but sometimes do not need that high a level of nursing care. My main concern was that we do not hold people in a more restrictive way based on being “accused” of a crime. The bill is being revised to require the same standards that are currently used in “no bail” decisions based on risk of violence, which requires a judge to also find “that the evidence that the person committed the alleged crime is great.”

I do worry about taking nine inpatient beds off-line to create this non-hospital care level. The administration is saying that our bed shortage (and resulting number of people left waiting for days in our emergency rooms) is not for these high-level, involuntary hospital settings. Those currently left waiting are primarily people who are asking for, and need, hospital care – but for whom we lack inpatient space. That remains unaddressed.

Finally, there is a bill moving (at last!) that would restrict police who are taking a person in crisis to the hospital from using handcuffs unless it is the only means for safety. Police would need to have medical-style restraints available if needed, so that these folks are not being treated like criminals. We have already required this for years for sheriffs who do hospital transport, and it hasn’t created any problems; it’s clearly the right way to treat and respect people.  

***

Please stay in touch with me and Rep. Ken Goslant. We welcome your views and the opportunity to represent you. We can be reached at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. My archive of legislative updates is available at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com

 

April 8, 2023 Legislative Update

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

April 8, 2023

 

Our current legislature functions without the checks and balances of robust dialogue and compromise that a democracy creates through a two (or more) party system.

A majority of Vermonters have chosen one-party control through their votes, so that’s as it should be from the perspective of policy priorities. But it does reduce the ability of minority voices to be heard.

Despite a Republican governor, there is no check there either, since the Democratic majority is now large enough to be “veto-proof,” meaning holding a 2/3^rd majority that can always overturn a veto.

Fortunately, we do still have one healthy arena for the exchange of perspectives that I believe is critical to best outcomes. That is because the House and Senate, despite both holding very liberal views, often have very different priorities and approaches.

This year, the Senate appears to be the best hope to reign in a few of the highest cost aspirations of the House.

I’ve referenced several times about my concern that we are headed towards financial catastrophe if we combine a predicted slowing of the economy (revenue downgrade) and loss of the influx of federal funds with a cumulative number of very high-cost new initiatives.

Most of them will have a smaller cost this year – enabling a balanced budget this year – but will have a significant increase in cost in the next several years ahead as they scale up, just as increases in revenues drop.

The budget the House passed two weeks ago included major increases for existing programs to maintain them in the face of inflation, something I support. Let’s not undercut our current safety net in order to fund new programs.

But the full proposed budget is off the rails. That is particularly so in the way it “balances” revenue and costs.

It included the first year of investment to develop a paid family and medical leave program that is untested in its scope and cost, and a multi-million increase in support for the early childcare and education system.

To pay for just first-year costs, the House budget added a 20% increase in motor vehicle fees, removed several proposed tax relief proposals, and of greatest concern, decided not to hold aside funds for the required matches for huge federal infrastructure opportunities that will still be coming in for the next two years.

If we don’t have that cash on hand because we spend it this year, we won’t be able to take advantage of those infrastructure funds; that money will be lost to us.

We also already voted for a new payroll tax for the future family and medical leave program.

Still on the horizon are the consumer costs that will result if we begin to implement the proposed heat program to convert our energy sources away from fossil fuels.

Will the Senate partially rescue us?

The Senate has passed the “affordable heat” bill with a requirement for a report on the major elements of the plan before implementation is locked in.

It also passed a combination childcare and family leave bill, with major new investments but a lower cost than overall House versions because it does not include medical leave.

Neither of these are likely to sit well with the House.

It is also now the Senate’s turn to work on and present its version of the budget.

It is only in the Senate that I have heard comments that, “We can’t do everything we want in just one year.” Thank goodness for that recognition.

By late April, the divergent views of House and Senate will begin to be hammered out into compromises, and only then will we begin to see what the real outcomes of this session will be. Though these will be unlikely to show any significant restraint, it hopefully won’t be as extreme as the level of cost burdens the House is putting forth.

***

Child Care

My committee is now deeply immersed in the Senate’s childcare bill. The crisis in this system is multi-tiered, which means that creating both accessible and affordable access – the goal – carries big costs in multiple areas.

A study authorized last year tells us that to meet criteria for a high-quality system of care for children 0-to-4-years-old, the price tag would be about $24,000 per child per year, just about the same as the average per pupil cost in our schools. That contrasts with a current cost of $17,000 a year.

Last year, we set a goal that no family should have to spend more than 10% of its income on childcare. To attempt to meet that with inclusion of the major spending increase, state subsidies for the cost would need to extend to families of 600% of poverty, or more.

Roughly speaking, the official definition of poverty is below $25,000 for a family of three and $30,000 for a family of four. At 600%, that means below about $149,000 and $180,000, respectively.

Even at that level of subsidy, the increase in per child cost would mean that families just about that threshold would be paying significantly more than they do now -- about 16% of income -- and if they have two children, as much as a quarter of their income.

The state would pay a $38.5% rate hike on the payments to childcare programs that are the basis of the subsidy system.

The reason for the increase in tuition rates is to address early education pay increases. Low wages add to the challenge in finding workforce, which in turn adds to the challenge of having enough childcare programs in the state to meet demand.

Part of the plan is to set a tiered professional compensation scale that would align with primary grade schoolteachers with equivalent degrees.

I raised a question: since most childcare programs are privately run, how does the state get to set wage scales (or tuition) for them?

The answer: the same way we do a lot of carrot-or-stick interventions, which is with money.

We can tell programs that they will get increased subsidies per child, based on a higher tuition level, but only if the money is being used to meet state-set wage scales. It will be those higher scales that will force a tuition increase for unsubsidized children as well.

One question being batted around is whether pre-K for 4-year-olds should simply be folded into the school system.

Currently we have universal pre-K education funding for these kids, but it’s only for 10 hours per week, and it assumes a parent can find an opening, particularly if the school doesn’t run any program or is capped in the number of slots.

There are downsides. From the testimony we are hearing, many of the experts believe our current “mixed delivery system” – the choice of school-run or private programs for state-support eligibility – is best for families.

They also believe it enhances child development to blend 3- and 4-year-olds.

The other system gap is the afterschool issue, both for the pre-K and older grade school kids. School hours don’t align with working hours.

We are sliding into a more fundamental question.

What is the state’s role – or more correctly stated, the societal and taxpayer role – in paying for care and education before the start of the traditional school age? Does the village pay to raise the child beginning at birth? Does the role extend to cover all parent working hours?

Conceptually, that is the direction the new bill is heading, if it lowers the age for full reimbursement and expands the role of taxpayers in paying subsidies at all ages.

The Senate bill which tied early childhood education into a family leave bill raises a lot of the total cost for both programs through a payroll tax on everyone. The startup phase next year would be $88 million; in the years after, it would be $163 million per year.

The payroll tax (.42 %) would raise $88 million of the cost, elimination of the new (last year) child tax credit of $1,000 per year would raise $32 million, and the rest would be a general fund cost.

I’m not sure that payroll taxes or tuition increases are what people have in mind when they urge legislators to do more to support the funding of early education.

This goes way beyond adding help with costs. It is restructuring the concept of responsibility for the cost of raising children – shifting it from resting fully on parents to becoming a shared community responsibility.

I’m not automatically saying that’s a bad thing, but it is certainly worthy of recognition and serious reflection.

Just as we all benefit from an educated society and thus share in the cost of public schools, investing in healthy growth of children from the beginning brings a community benefit.

These are the most formative years of all for young brain development, so it matters to do the job well. We want our next generation of kids to flourish.

Let’s also not forget that we keep bemoaning the loss of new young workers because they will be needed to sustain the economy and fund Social Security for our aging population… aging population means that fewer children are arriving to balance off those of us growing old.

We all have a stake in this for many reasons.

But it also has to balance with affordability for Vermont. We aren’t an island, and the further ahead we get of other states on these kind of costly initiatives, the more we lose both business and taxpayers to the tax burdens.

Ergo, my plea: we can’t do all this all at once. We don’t have to be – can’t afford to be – first in everything.

***

Other Bills

We passed the property tax rate for next year, the basic math between budgets passed by schools versus revenue from the grand lists. On average budgets increased 8%, grand lists (property valuation) increased 9.7%, and individual property tax rates will increase 3.84%.

The number doesn’t mean much on an individual basis, since every town varies.

We also passed a bill that proposes to shift away from locally elected listers to a more professional, statewide system.

There was some opposition to taking away local control, but the reality is that this is about an effort at greater equity among all our towns, since the property valuations that make up the grand list in each town impacts the entire state. Thus, I supported the bill.

I also – with misgivings – supported the expanded “bottle bill.” It isn’t just an expansion of the deposit system to more recyclables, which I wholly support. It reconfigures the entire system and could be more disruptive than anticipated.

There will be a window, however, between rulemaking and implementation that will allow us to back up if some of the premises turn out to be wrong.

My committee received a bill from the Senate on banning all flavored tobacco and vaping products to reduce the appeal to kids, and we are hearing a lot of lobbying from both perspectives already.

Given the amount of work needed on the childcare bill, our chair has said we won’t take this up until next year.

The Senate has sent us a bill that would more than double legislator salaries over the next several years and add health benefits (at a cost of $853,000) for next year. It also includes a first-ever salary for one day per week during the off-session.

It is another example of costs being approved this year that will hit the budget at much higher levels in future years.

The last time there was a major hike in legislator salaries was about 16 years ago. It came after an independent study and recommendations, was pegged at median Vermont salaries, and included an ongoing cost of living increase tied to state employee increases.

This new bill is not generated by outside recommendations, but by some legislators who feel underpaid and who believe it will make it more possible for lower income folks to run for office. If equity is the issue, there may be an argument for it, but doubling the salary means legislators being paid far above median income for what is supposed to be public service. I can’t support that.

Since we, as the lawmakers, have yet to achieve access to affordable health benefits for all Vermonters, it’s a hard sell for me to say legislators should get that coverage.

***

Please stay in touch with me and Rep. Ken Goslant. We welcome your views and the opportunity to represent you. We can be reached at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us or kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us. My archive of legislative updates is available at representativeannedonahue.blogspot.com

March 25, 2023 Legislative Update

 

Legislative Update

Rep. Anne Donahue

March 25, 2023

 

We had three long days of debate addressing bills that are now headed to the Senate. Spoiler alert: if a bill comes to the House floor, it will be passed by us. It also has a solid chance to override a veto, given a Democratic super-majority.

***

Paid Leave

One new initiative is paid family and medical leave. Side-by-side review shows that it will be the most expansive benefit among the nine states that have such programs. Setting up the infrastructure will cost an estimated $111.5 million from our budget over 3 years. Beginning in 2026, it will cost between $118 to $214 million per year in premiums shared between employers and employees. It will require 65 new state employees, assuming we can find them; 10% of state jobs are currently open. There is no choice involved. Everyone pays in and everyone has access to the benefits.

There are alternatives: start smaller and expand infrastructure and benefits after we know what is sustainable. Better yet: adopt the program developed by the governor for state staff which starts this year and uses a well-established commercial financer. Their infrastructure is already in place and private employers could buy in. It would also allow for individual employees to choose whether the cost-benefit meets their needs, and they could buy in even if their employer did not participate, ergo, an equally universal opportunity, but not a mandatory one.

If we found it did not work in the ways we had hoped, it would not foreclose creating a system of our own in the future. This private alternate is how New York and two other states run their programs.

I would support starting up that way. I think paid leave is incredibly important to support working families. I would really like to see a sustainable way forward to make it available. And if optional, it avoids forcing other trade-offs, which I’ll discuss later.

***

Universal School Meals

This program has strong support for becoming permanent. There are benefits, including capturing children whose families struggle making ends meet but are not eligible for free meals under the federal program. There is also a bigger bang-for-the-buck. Some features for federal support mean that making meals available to all kids brings in a higher reimbursement rate.

There are many intangible benefits that were articulated by constituents last year when we were extending the COVID-funded program for one year. It was a tough call, but I voted against it then, based on the number of constituents who opposed it and the fear that the one-year extension would increase momentum to make it permanent in our tax base. Worst, the scuttlebutt was that the sales tax would become the permanent funding source. Our most regressive tax! The least wealthy pay the highest percentage of income, and the wealthy, the lowest, meaning low-income folks paying in to taxes to feed wealthier kids.

This year, the decision was made to roll it into the Education Fund, paid for primarily through property taxes, and thus, structured progressively. Based on that and the strong constituent support, this year I voted for it. But with reluctance, because of the timeline of our decisions in our overall budget process. Again, keep reading for more on that issue.

***

Gun Restrictions

New gun restrictions also passed this week, with a stated focus on suicide prevention. There are several unequivocal facts: Vermont has a suicide rate much higher than the national average and growing; this is directly tied to high gun ownership in our state; suicide attempts by firearm are nearly always lethal, compared to those attempted by other means.

There are three parts: a 72-hour waiting period for any firearm purchase (to thwart impetuous actions); a safe storage provision requiring firearms to be locked if a minor might get access; adding any family or household member as a person who can file a petition for an extreme risk protection order to remove firearms from a person.

The first issue was whether the bill was constitutional, given a new US Supreme Court decision last year changing how gun laws are reviewed under the 2^nd amendment. The Offices of the Attorney General and of the Defender General (the state’s top two attorneys) had opposite opinions on that.

As someone who has spent decades in the work to address suicide – myself a survivor of several suicide attempts during my severe illness in the 1990s – this issue is close to my heart.

I have received an award for my work from the Vermont Suicide Prevention Coalition. Suicide is a terrible tragedy not just for the individual but also for family and friends. If I were a gun owner, I would likely not be alive today. My attempts had far lower risk of lethality. Fortunately for me, I dislike guns. I’ve never owned one.

But I hold a priority on defending constitutional rights on any issue. Yet no right is absolute. I have voted for gun restrictions when it was clear that the benefit in protecting others outweighed burdens on 2^nd amendment rights.

In this case, the second question was whether the restrictions would actually be a benefit. I put a great deal of time into reviewing the research on the measures in this bill. It’s clear that the 72-hour wait would have almost no impact. States where guns are already widely available do not benefit by sale delays. These deaths occur because weapons are there, so that is the option chosen.

The preeminent study reviewed a 5-year period (1994-1998) when many states had to institute a 5-day waiting period to enforce the federal Brady bill background check before the instant check system went into place. That included Vermont. During that time, there was no change in our own rate of suicide. In the past 10 years, there have been more than 400,000 gun sales in Vermont, with two deaths known to have resulted within 72 hours of a purchase. However, the House rejected an amendment to permit buyers who had proof of existing gun ownership to be exempt.

We know less about safe storage. We do not know how many individuals accessed a gun for a suicide despite it being secured, or as the existing owner, versus it being unsecured and accessed without permission. It would be easy to gather that data, and I’ve urged in the past that we do so. I offered an amendment to postpone the bill one year to first gather it and make informed decisions based on the actual Vermont experience. When that was rejected, I proposed that we at least direct the administration to gather it, so that it could be reviewed for potential later adjustments to the bill. Incredibly, that was rejected.

Finally, I offered an amendment expanding those able to file a petition to include law enforcement, but to remove the new proposed broadly defined categories of extended family or household. They can have a petition filed today, with assistance by the state’s attorney office. Acting alone, such petitions will be more likely to be driven by emotion, not neutral facts. They allow no opportunity for the person at issue to be present, and they remain in place for 14 days until a hearing is held. This was also turned down.

Many members voted believing this bill will help prevent suicide, and it passed with a 2/3rds vote. The evidence does not support that, and the bill is also quite likely to be found unconstitutional. I voted against it.

***

Budget Priorities

All three of these issues relate to the budget, which is the expression of values and priorities as a state. There are significant areas where funding for essential social services is being cut, through providing no increase against an 8% inflation rate. Our community mental health centers – our strongest protective service addressing suicide – were cut in that way in the governor’s budget despite the challenges in attracting workforce given an inability to offer competitive wages. In the House, they may at best see a 4% increase, but we don’t have the budget before us yet to know what will be proposed. Meals on Wheels, the food bank, our nursing homes, our youth support agencies – even youth mentoring, a proven low-cost intervention – are all facing cuts.

We continue with little progress on ensuring health care access. Tens of thousands of families are unable to get care because of unaffordable deductibles and copays. We have seniors who see a major drop in coverage when they transition to Medicare.

Worst, legislators have had to vote on the new programs like school meals and paid leave without knowing what the cuts might be, what else is being funded, or what revenues will be available, because we won’t see the budget until next week. We do know that other major budget additions are planned for childcare, housing, and carbon reductions (the new clean heat bill, after last year’s veto), but we don’t know the amounts being proposed. But existing priorities are being cut to jump to new ones. Good ones, but at the cost of existing ones. That was my caveat on my vote for school meals. It may increase the odds that I will feel compelled to vote against the budget when I see what the final trade-offs are.

Say you go to the grocery store. You start in produce, and you see a new product: a veggie that your kids will likely eat! Beneficial to their health, and though it will be an addition to your budget, it will be a good investment. But you haven’t gotten to the milk or the bread or the eggs yet to find out whether their costs have gone up. Worse, you don’t even know how much you have in your wallet. Do you buy the new veggie right away? Or do you first check the prices on the other things you need and would not want to cut out? And do you first check what’s in your wallet?

When we get to the checkout lane next week, I don’t know whether we can afford everything I would like to have or to buy for you. And I’ll have no opportunity to return anything. It’s an up or down vote.

***

Finally, congratulations to Rachel Giroux, Berlin’s Town Clerk, for being named to the Secretary of State’s Town Clerk Advisory Committee.

***

Please share your input and thoughts. You can reach me at adonahue@leg.state.vt.us, or Rep. Ken Goslant at kgoslant@leg.state.vt.us It is an honor to represent you.