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