Legislative Report /Word in the House 5/16/2018 - Not Quite the End of the Session

The last two weeks of a legislative session are a whirlwind of activity. Dozens of bills that have been worked on during the previous 16 weeks of the session in both the House and the Senate reached final stages of passage. Most traveled back and forth between the two bodies as amendments were made to reflect the different concerns of the responsible committees. Twenty-eight bills this year required a conference committee made up of three representatives and three senators to resolve disagreements in language that couldn't be settled by amendments. 

The budget is the final bill passed in a session. Any bill that was still outstanding when the budget passed would be dead. As the session ended just after midnight Sunday morning, we managed to complete all of those bills as well as many more. The bills included raising the minimum wage, providing paid family leave, establishing toxic materials responsibility, protecting sexual harassment victims, funding clean water efforts, setting appliance efficiency standards, helping Vermont manufacturers improve energy efficiency and productivity, providing free tuition for National Guard members, several consumer protection and economic development bills, and an income tax reform and education funding bill as well as the budget.

Our legislative agenda reflected in the bills we passed promote a caring economy that makes Vermont more affordable for lower and middle income families, protects all Vermonters from various social and environmental impacts, and provides opportunities for economic growth. While we did not adopt the Governor's proposal for using one-time money to keep our education property taxes from increasing, the funding changes made by the legislature will hold the residential property tax rate increase to two cents in a sustainable way that avoids the need to find one-time money again next year. One-time money is just that. There’s no guarantee that it will be there next year, which just defers a tax increase. Instead, this year's one-time money will be used to pay for one-time expenses like fully funding our reserves and paying down the teachers' retirement fund obligation saving Vermont taxpayers $100M in future budgets. Our income tax changes will return $30M in extra tax revenue generated by the federal income tax changes back to Vermonters by lowering the income tax rates for everyone. Overall state spending increased less than 1 percent, significantly lower than the rate of inflation. Here are links to the details of the tax changes and to the budget.

Unfortunately, the Governor has stated that he plans to veto the budget as well as several other bills that address affordability and the health and welfare of Vermonters. The budget passed with a tri-partisan vote of 117 – 14. If he does carry out his veto promise, he will have to call the legislature back into session. There have been plenty of opportunities for the administration to engage with the legislature to work out a compromise, but that didn't happen. Now we are faced with the additional expense of an extended session.

Finally, I would like to make a correction. It was called to my attention that in my previous article about the minimum wage bill, I reference some total wage numbers that seemed to be based on different assumptions. The $15/hour total should have been $31,200 based on the same 40 hours/week and 52 weeks/year used for $10.50/hour.

As always, I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 3/21/2018 - Workforce Development through Education

At the CVSD (Champlain Valley School District) budget presentation the evening before Town Meeting, Board member Lynne Jaunich was describing the district's intent to help students connect with employers through internships for skill development. Moe Harvey, who owns Patterson Fuels, stated that he had positions in his company, well-paying jobs with benefits, that he had a hard time filling because he could not find people with the skills or the willingness to learn. He was unaware of programs matching students with employers, which to me sounded like a communications problem between our educational system and our business communities.

Growing Vermont's economy is a goal we can all agree on. It is a key to affordability, to maintaining a sustainable tax base, and to keeping Vermont an attractive place to live and work. A skilled and productive workforce is critical for the economic vitality of Vermont, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. However, our state currently faces several key labor market challenges.

Employers throughout our state have been telling the legislature that it is difficult to fill job openings due to the lack of qualified workers even though there is a wide range of job openings across multiple sectors. At the same time many Vermonters are underemployed and require training to update their skills and find job opportunities that match their interests. A lack of skills presents a significant barrier to those who would like to improve their work situation but are not qualified for the available jobs.

Vermont's educational system can play an important role in addressing this problem. While Vermont has an excellent high school graduation rate, we have the lowest rate in New England of youth accessing post-secondary education including college and technical education. By focusing on aligning learning opportunities with workforce needs, we can maximize the potential of every Vermonter to participate in a robust labor market.

The Vermont House last week passed H.919, a workforce development bill, to do just that. It commits the state to a redesign of Vermont’s workforce development and training system through a concerted three-year effort led by the Commissioner of Labor in collaboration with key administration partners, the education and training communities, and others from business and government. This system will allow all Vermonters who want to work and all employers who want workers to connect, through education and training, allowing both business and individuals to thrive. It will seek to promote employer-driven workforce education and training opportunities and equitable access to employment and training opportunities for women and underrepresented populations in Vermont. The bill will require the Agency of Education, in partnership with the Workforce Development Board, to set up a pilot program called Career Pathways. This program will promote collaboration among middle schools and regional technical education centers that, in partnership with business and industry, will integrate the academic and technical skills required for post-secondary success. The bill now moves to the Senate for further consideration.

To bring this back to the local level, it was satisfying to hear that our small group discussion at the CVSD school budget presentation led to contacts between Patterson Fuels and CVU's Nexus program, a flexible learning program that allows interested students to partner with business to apply academic learning to the world beyond school. These types of programs have the potential to benefit both employers and students and, hopefully, all of Vermont.

As always, I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

The Word in the House 3/1/2018 - Proposed Education Funding Changes

As we approach Town Meeting Day the issue of how to fund our K-12 education system is once again in the news. The fact that we continue to have the discussion from one year to the next indicates that it is not easy to address all the concerns regarding property taxes, budgets and services that are needed. Moreover, the current funding system is nearly impossible for the average Vermonter to understand and for most legislators to explain. At a briefing I attended, the remark was made that the system could be simple or fair, but not both. This year the House Ways & Means Committee decided to take a fresh look at how we fund education with an eye toward making it easier to understand while maintaining fairness in application.

Before describing the proposed changes, it is important to review the roles of the municipalities and school districts, the voters and taxpayers, and the state. School districts decide what is needed to educate their children and put together a budget, with taxpayer input, to meet those needs. The budget is presented to the taxpayers who then either approve or disapprove it. The state, on the other hand, is responsible for raising the money to fund all the budgets passed across the state. Today, that funding consist of 36% of the sales tax revenues, 100% of the lottery revenues, a transfer from the General Fund, federal dollars, and a statewide property tax. The burden on taxpayers is reduced by adjustments to the property tax assessments based on household income, and a fixed rate is assessed on all non-residential property.

The new proposal, which has not yet been finalized, would keep the non-residential rate the same, but would change the other allocations significantly. The General Fund transfer would be eliminated, but 100% of the sales and use tax revenue as well as 25% of the rooms and meals tax would go to the Education Fund. The income sensitivity adjustment would be eliminated and be replaced by a direct school income tax based on adjusted gross income. Low income residents and property owners would continue to be assisted by creating a homestead exemption, by exempting the first $47,000 of income from the school income tax, and by retaining the renter rebate program. Also, responsibility for several programs that do not go directly to K-12 education will be moved to the General Fund. Together, these changes would reduce reliance on the residential property tax by moving to a tax that is more closely related to ability to pay and would more closely link decisions on school budgets to the actual homestead tax paid.

Finally, while the Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) adjustment would continue to be a factor on the local level, the per-pupil property tax yield would be reduced from $13,000 to about $5,000. Since the base statewide property tax would be reduced from $1.00 to $0.25, the Champlain Valley School District, which spends about $15,000 per pupil, would see an effective tax rate of $0.75, three times the base rate.

Final details remain to be worked out, as well as a decision as to whether the new funding system will go into effect this year or next. The legislature will continue to look for a fair, easy to understand funding formula that provides a quality education for all the children of Vermont. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 2/8/2018 - Vision Reflects Values

The President's State of the Union address is a tradition of our democracy that allows the head of the executive branch of the government to express his vision for America. It usually addresses a broad range of issues at a high level and is short on detail. Whether or not you agree with what is said, at least you get a pretty good idea of where the speaker is coming from. This got me thinking about my own communications, so I thought I'd try to deliver my own vision of what I try to accomplish as I serve as your Representative in Montpelier.

Let me start by saying that, as wonderful as Vermont is, we all want to help make our state a better place to live, work and play. We want Vermont to be affordable, not just for those at the top of the income bracket, but for everyone. Every family should have the opportunity to thrive, to be able to earn a living wage. While our minimum wage is above average, I believe that it should continue to rise gradually over time until it becomes a livable wage. Likewise, no employee should have to worry about losing their pay or even their job if they have to take time off to care for a sick child or elderly parent. That is why I voted for paid family leave last year, a bill that is awaiting action in the Senate. For those who are stuck in low wage jobs, we need to continue to increase access to training, career and technical education so that every Vermonter has a fair shot at success.

We have a great education system, but the cost of education continues to place a heavy burden on property taxes. With the additional demands placed on our schools from addiction, mental illness, and poverty, great public schools in all our communities are more important than ever in giving all children a bright future. During this session we are proposing a system of education funding that is simpler, still progressive, still subject to local control, and that will significantly reduce property tax burdens. Nor can we forget about the need to support pre-K and post high school educational opportunities.

Another core value is healthy families in healthy communities. The cost of health insurance and housing are the biggest challenges faced by many Vermonters. While Republicans in Washington are dismantling the Affordable Care Act and cutting funding for Medicare and Medicaid we need to make health insurance more affordable and ensure that Vermonters have access to treatment without barriers for drug addiction and mental health. A key to maintaining individual health is affordable housing, We need to support affordable housing development in downtowns and in village centers that also provides access to jobs, shopping and public transportation.

Finally, we need a healthy environment. We can't put off efforts to clean our lakes and streams. We have to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels which has become a major contributor to climate change. Extreme weather events as well as adverse health effects. Lyme disease, algae blooms, heat waves, and extreme cold are the result. We can't afford to do nothing,

These are some of the values that frame my work in the legislature. I hope that my work will lead to a better Vermont for us and for our children and grandchildren.

I'll end by reminding you that I will be hosting an informational forum on the topic of Pricing Carbon Pollution at the Charlotte Senior Center on Monday. February 12, at 7:00 p.m. I hope to see you there.

As always, I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 6/24/2017 - Veto Session Summary

This report was written jointly by Vermont House Members, Jessica Brumsted, Bill Lippert, Terry Macaig, Jim McCullough, Kate Webb, and Mike Yantachka

The legislature met last week in a veto session to address the statewide budget and education property tax bills.  Although these bills are essential to fund state government and our schools, the Governor believed that the legislature had foregone an opportunity to garner savings resulting from statewide changes in health insurance coverage for school employees and vetoed them. The veto forced the legislature to go back into session to avoid a government shutdown.

By the time Senators and Representatives returned to the statehouse on June 21st, much negotiating had already taken place with the Speaker of the House Mitzi Johnson, Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe, and  Governor Scott's representatives.  After negotiations stalled, Governor Scott joined the negotiations on the last day prior to the veto session. An agreement was reached and a new bill combining the budget and property tax language passed on a voice vote in both the House and the Senate. While no one was particularly happy with the result, no one felt essential values had been compromised.

So what does this mean? First, the statewide property tax rate for residential property tax payers will decrease by 2 cents as passed in May, while the nonresidential rate will remain at last year’s rate of $1.535.  Second, a greater share of the statewide sales tax will be used to offset the cost of education. Only minor technical changes were made to the budget which had originally passed the House and Senate with a single dissenting vote. This was the easy part.  

The challenge came in addressing the issue of health insurance for school employees. Democratic leadership believed that savings were already built into the new plans, and these savings were best accounted for at the local level.  In contrast, the Governor believed that more savings could be obtained if these policies were negotiated at the state rather than local level, identifying savings if all schools negotiated an 80-20 premium split with teachers paying $400 per person toward out-of-pocket costs.

The compromise reached by Democratic leaders and the Governor retains bargaining for the health insurance contracts at the local level, but withholds $13 million from schools for FY 18, thereby requiring schools to reduce spending accordingly, preferably through negotiations over health insurance benefits.  It requires each school district to achieve savings in health insurance in the amount that would have been saved in FY18 if Scott's 80/20 benefit plan had been implemented.  The savings will be measured by comparing the cost of the current insurance plans against the new plans that will start on January 1, 2018.  For districts that do not achieve those savings, the difference between the target costs and the actual costs will be deducted from state Education Fund payments to the district.  To ease the effect on property taxes, 65% of the deduction will be applied to FY18 payments and 35% to FY19 payments.  At the time of this writing, we do not have information on how the Champlain Valley School district will be affected.

The bill also creates a nine-member commission that will study whether the state should implement a statewide teacher health insurance benefit, a provision that was included in the vetoed property tax bill.  This panel will “determine whether and how to establish a single statewide health benefit plan for all teachers, administrators, and other employees of supervisory unions and school districts.” 

The compromise also mandates that all school contracts, other than those districts that have already settled their school contracts, will expire in 2019 so lawmakers can implement the recommendations of the commission. Contracts negotiated by July 1, 2017, will remain in effect as negotiated.  Districts currently in impasse on health insurance negotiations are provided an opportunity to reopen negotiations.

Despite the frustration expressed by many legislators that the bill had flaws, we recognized the hard work that went into achieving this compromise.  Speaker Johnson, President Pro Tem Ashe and the Governor issued the following joint statement:
“We are pleased to announce we have reached an agreement in principle on an education savings proposal that will take an important step to make Vermont more affordable. If passed by the full legislative body, this proposal will help the state achieve significant savings in the education fund and lower property tax rates. The agreement reached upholds the principles each of us committed to during the legislative session, building on areas of agreement and our shared goal to improve the lives of Vermonters. Importantly, it ensures that we will have a budget that does not raise taxes and fees, including property tax rates.”

Before adjournment the House and Senate passed nearly identical resolutions strongly opposing the announced U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and recognizing Governor Phil Scott for enrolling Vermont in the US Climate Alliance.  We were all pleased to support this timely resolution.

House Adjournment Recap 5/19/2017

The gavel came down shortly after midnight ending the 2017 session of the Vermont House pending a veto session in June and a possible callback in October.  The October date was set aside in case the passage of the federal budget later this year deals some major impacts to Vermont.  The last day was not without its hopes and tensions.  Thursday morning Speaker Mitzi Johnson and Senate Pro Tem received word that the Governor wanted to meet over the stalled teacher health insurance issue. 

The legislators presented the agreed upon language that they would vote on which included:
1) setting up a commission to study the implications and feasibility of having a statewide teachers health insurance program;
2) setting a statewide termination of teachers health insurance contracts that have not yet been negotiated to December 31, 2018;
3) exempting from that termination any contracts negotiated prior to July 1, 2017; 
4) exempting those negotiated afterward that fit the Governor's proposed 80%-20% premium split with a $400 deductible; and
5) passing legislation in 2018 that would reflect the results of the commission's study.

This proposal would honor the dozen contracts that have already been negotiated, encourage the adoption of the terms that the Governor says will achieve the $26M savings ($13M in FY18), and allow the legislature to properly examine, with everyone's input, over the course of a regular session the pros and cons of a standard statewide health insurance program for teachers. No agreement was reached.

In the afternoon, the three parties were joined by the Dean of the House, Alice Emmons, and the Dean of the Senate, Dick Mazza, the longest serving members of each body.  After hours of discussion focusing on the points everyone agreed on, the talks once again reached an impasse as the Governor insisted that the contracts had to be negotiated at the statewide level instead of between local teachers and boards.

At around 9:30PM the House received word that the House-Senate Conference Committee agreed on language for H.509, which was passed by the Senate 20-8. The House was now ready to vote on the language described above except for points 4 and 5. H.509 also set the education tax yields for FY18, which was the original purpose of the bill. The yields, how much $1 of the property tax will raise per student based on the statewide grandlist, determine the local education tax rates.  The higher the yield, the lower the tax rate needs to be.  For residential property tax payers not income sensitized, the yield will be $10,160.  For those eligible for a property tax adjustment, the yield is $11,990.  These yields result in an average homestead property tax rate of $1.505.  The nonresidential rate will be $1.555, down from $1.59. This measure passed on a vote of 84-54.

In his remarks to the House in closing the session, Governor Scott told us he would veto the budget because we did not agree to statewide teacher negotiations. So, we will be returning on June 21 to consider overriding his veto.  What will change between now and then, I don't know. As I stated in my vote explanation after voting for H.509,  "The right of employees to enter into collective bargaining with their employer is a right that was hard-fought and won over the last century and a half. It is a right that we should not throw away. My yes vote underscores my support for this sacred principle.”

At the same time the teachers' unions would do well to ensure that their demands are reasonable when they enter negotiations so as to avoid alienating the property taxpayers whose support they need in times like this. 

Impasse on Teachers' Health Insurance Plans

The Legislature reached an impasse in negotiations with Governor Scott on his plan to use $26 M in potential savings from the new VEHI health insurance plans for teachers.  After 12 days of negotiations with the Governor and his staff, the Governor was unwilling to compromise according to House Speaker Mitzi Johnson and Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe who held a joint news conference on /Wednesday, May 17th. The goalposts kept moving from one meeting to the next, according to Johnson. The Governor would not move from his position to short-circuit the collective bargaining process, so there was no point in continuing to negotiate.  The legislature will now convene a Committee of Conference between the House and Senate to come up with a joint proposal that will address the potential savings in a way that will preserve the bargaining process and allow the savings to reduce property taxes.  The collective bargaining process is a hard-fought and won right of workers to negotiate directly with their employer.  We should not allow Vermont to become a state which devalues this right.  I recommend reading the editorial by David Moats, editor of the Times Argus newspaper, which can be found at this website: 

http://www.timesargus.com/articles/budget-impasse/.

Legislative report 5/17/2017 - Stuck in Session

As I write this late Friday afternoon on May 12th, I should be home in Charlotte. Instead, I am in a holding pattern in Montpelier. There are a number of bills that are still under negotiation, all of which deal in some way with money. The Budget cannot be passed until all the constituent parts are finalized. These parts include the capital bill that deals with the overhead required to run the state government, the fee bill that covers the expense of administering regulations and licenses, the transportation bill that maintains our transportation infrastructure, and the education tax bill that determines what the statewide property taxes will be. While the capital, fee and transportation bills, have already passed both the House and Senate, the education bill has become the sticking point over how to deal with the new health care plans being proposed for public school teachers.

The education tax bill, H.509, was close to being finalized until Governor Scott proposed his teachers' health insurance plan to capture an alleged $26M savings within days of adjournment. The fact that only $13M would apply to the FY18 budget, since the new insurance plans don't start until January 1, has not stopped him from repeating the $26M figure. The Governor insists that the only way the savings can be achieved is with negotiations between the administration and the statewide union. This runs counter to the right of workers, the teachers, to negotiate directly with their employer, the school board. With the backing of the Republican caucus, he has refused to compromise on this point. He also has proposed that only 30% of the savings should go for property tax reduction.

Meanwhile, the House and Senate have been working toward a way to realize the estimated savings while maintaining the integrity of the employer-employee relationship of teachers and school boards. The latest amendment passed by the Senate would require $13M to be saved in the second half of FY18 which would reduce the statewide homestead property tax by 3 cents. Based on the number of employees, each school district would be allocated a proportion of the savings which would be achieved by negotiations between the school board and its teachers, a process that is already taking place across the state, by the way. Any difference between what the district actually saves and the allocated amount would reduce the state's payment to the district. Since each action on a bill requires a 24 hour waiting period, the failure of the Governor to work with the legislature to find a solution guarantees that the session will run beyond the budgeted 18 weeks.

A couple of weeks ago the 2017 session seemed to be moving along nicely with no new taxes and a budget that got nearly unanimous support. Yet, here we are. Despite agreement on what could potentially be saved, the issue has boiled down to labor relations and how much should be applied to reducing property taxes. I hope that by the time you read this we'll have a solution and a budget that won't be vetoed.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Who wouldn't want to save $26 million? (Front Porch Forum Issue No. 2767 May 10, 2017 )

I submitted a commentary on this topic that will be published in The Citizen this week and on my website (www.MikeYantachka.com).  However, I would like to add a few more thoughts here for your consideration since I have received many emails on the subject.

Sound bites are very simplistic. "Save the taxpayers $26M!"  Very easy to say, but another saying that applies is that "the devil is in the details."  The Governor's proposal relates to a change happening to teacher health plans throughout the State. This change is not dependent upon, nor due to the Governor in any way. It is the result of a redesign of the teachers' health plans by VEHI that offerss two high deductible and two regular plans that teachers may choose from, and that have lower premiums than the current plans.

The new plans are cheaper because they are less generous plans. The statewide savings estimate is $75 million. Of that, $48 million is anticipated to be needed to pay for the increased copay and deductible costs in the new plan. The remainder, if you believe the estimates, would be the $26 million which the Governor keeps talking about.

The Governor's plan, as embodied in the Beck amendment to H.509, was to return $8 million of the $26 million to property tax payers and to use the other 70% for other purposes, namely the General Fund and to cover the transfer of the liability for the state portion of current teacher retirement obligations to the Education Fund.  This transfer would lead to higher property taxes in the long run.
The issue of statewide bargaining has no impact on whether the savings occur.

What the House passed instead, the Webb amendment, was a provision that makes no change in bargaining, but directs 100% of the savings that actually occur in teacher healthcare to be returned directly to local communities in the form of reduced property taxes.  The money saved would be returned to a local school district only after a budget was voted upon and approved. It can go to only one place, and that is to directly reduce property taxes. All of the savings, rather than just the 30% in the Governor’s plan would come back to your property taxes. This is what property taxpayers want, and why I voted against the Beck amendment and for the Webb amendment.

Legislative Report 2/8/2017 - Budget Adjustments and Education

Although it is still early in the session, the Vermont House has already done some noteworthy work. Faced with a revenue shortfall for the current fiscal year of $51 million, the House Appropriations Committee made adjustments to the budget adopted in May of last year. The data on which the original budget is built reflect estimates and projected trends that are made several months prior to the start of the fiscal year on July first. The budget adjustment process allows the impact of actual experience to be incorporated into the appropriation levels for the year. The action taken in January brings the budget back into balance. This was accomplished by moving some funds from areas where spending was less than expected, by the addition of non-budgeted federal funds paid to the Agency of Human Services, and by tapping some of the reserve funds set aside for budget adjustment purposes. The budget adjustment bill (H.125) passed on a tri-partisan vote of 141 to 0.

Despite the unanimous agreement on the budget adjustment issue, other issues presented more of a challenge. In his budget address Governor Scott laid out a plan to revise how Vermont pays for education. The proposed changes included level funding all school budgets and moving several programs from the General Fund to the Education Fund. Payments to the Teachers' Retirement Fund, higher education support, and child care support as well as PreK-12 education would come out of the Education Fund which would also see an increase in Innovation Grants. The total additional cost to the Education Fund would be about $136M which the Governor would offset by a transfer of $86M from the General Fund, leaving a difference of $50M. To make up this difference, he proposed using one time funds and requiring all teachers to pay 20% of their health insurance premiums, up from an average 16% currently. Furthermore, he proposed deferring voting on school budgets from Town Meeting day to May 23^rd. Coming only weeks before school boards had to finalize their budgets, it left little time for the Legislature to review and evaluate the proposal, and threw school boards around the state off balance. These changes would also come just as many school districts are implementing consolidation under Act 46. Adding an additional $50M in costs to the Education Fund will have the effect of raising the statewide property tax rate by at least 5 cents according to the Joint Fiscal Office.

The plan for education as proposed by Governor Scott is going to require a lot more analysis that is going to take several weeks. We have taken steps with Act 46 to address education costs, and we need to give those steps time to work before more major changes are made. The Legislature now has to do its job to make sure all the consequences are apparent and determine whether the proposal should be adopted in the future.

I encourage you to let me know your concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 5/16/2016 - End of Session Summary

As the final installment of my Legislative Reports this year, I thought it would be good to highlight some of the important work the Legislature did over the two years of the biennium.

 

Water Quality

In 2015 legislation was passed that will help prevent agricultural runoff from farms, roads and other impervious surfaces by controlling discharges that could violate our water quality standards. The Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) that all farms must follow are in the final stages of development and should be released in September, 2016. The Agency of Agriculture will provide technical and financial assistance to help farmers comply and there is funding in the budget to help towns comply with water treatment and road runoff mitigation.

 

Governance

Legislation was passed this year that will allow voluntary regional collaboration by municipalities around a range of services, including ambulance, solid waste, fire protection, and land use planning to achieve economies of scale. The law promotes transparency, local municipal voice, and treatment of municipalities as equal partners. The Legislature relaxed the requirement on how often municipal plans need to be updated from every five years to every eight years to allow more time for plan implementation. We also passed a bill that automatically registers eligible Vermonters to vote when they apply for a state driver’s license making it easier for our citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

 

Human Services

The Legislature continues to focus on efforts to keep our children safe. At the end of 2015, there were 1052 children in state custody placed in foster or adoptive foster homes or in foster homes of relatives. In the past two years, reports of child abuse and neglect have surged and the state has experienced an 82% increase in the number of children under six who are in the state’s custody. In 80% of these cases, families are struggling with problems related to opioid addiction or other serious substance abuse. In addition, the tragic death of a DCF social worker allegedly by a parent this past summer has continued to place our state’s child protection system under pressure. The number of case workers added last year has not kept pace with the increase in cases, and more social workers will be hired along with substance abuse screeners to address this ongoing problem. More is being done to address the opioid addiction problem as well, including treatment, education, prevention, and increased market-constraints such as increased fees on pharmaceutical manufactures to help fund mitigation programs. A key provision is a requirement for health care providers and pharmacists to register with the Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS) and to query the system upon prescribing or dispensing a controlled substance to help eliminate prescription fraud and the diversion of controlled substances.

 

Natural Resources & Energy

Over the past decade, Vermont has led the nation with its energy efficiency programs, lowering both electricity costs and rates. In 2015 the Renewable Energy Standard Act was passed which will eliminate the double-counting or Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and is helping Vermonters transform their energy use in the heating and transportation sectors. This year we recognized Vermonters’ concerns over the proper siting of solar and wind projects and passed legislation that will give municipalities a greater voice in these decisions if they develop energy plans to address the state’s goals for renewable energy in collaboration with their Regional Planning Commissions. We also required the Public Service Board to develop noise standards for wind projects in recognition of complaints about existing projects. We passed legislation this year that will preserve and maintain the health of Vermont’s forests, and we ensured that conservation easements that were always meant to be perpetual will continue to be so by removing the 40 year renewal requirement and ensuring that the easement remains with the property if a tax sale of the property occurs.

 

Working Vermonters

Legislation passed this year guarantees working Vermonters the right to earn paid sick leave up to three days per year, increasing to five days in subsequent years. We also increased subsidies for child care facilities to provide high-quality, affordable child care for working families. Because of Act 176 of 2014, the minimum wage in Vermont is $9.60/hour and is scheduled to increase to $10/hour on January 1, 2017. 

 

Education

The Legislature continued to address the increasing cost of education by encouraging school district consolidation under Act 46 passed in 2015 and made some changes early in 2016 to address budgeting issues being faced by school boards. Several districts across the state have already voted to merge and more, including Chittenden South, are expected to vote in the next couple of months. Chittenden South will hold its vote on June 7^th, and I encourage everyone in Charlotte to take the time to vote in person or by absentee ballot. You can find information about the proposal at act46.cssu.org. I strongly recommend reading the Final Report to inform your vote.

 

I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).  I wish you all a wonderful summer and hope to see you around town.

The Word in the House 4/11/2016 - Education Funding and Property Taxes

A little over a month ago at Town Meeting we voted for our town budget, our local CCS school budget and our CVU budget. Together these budgets will determine the amount of spending that our property taxes will be based on. By far, the largest portion of those taxes will go to the school budgets. How our taxes get to the school districts is not a direct path, however, because we pay those school taxes to the State, which then allocates them to every budget voted in Vermont. This is because our Constitution requires every student to have an equal educational opportunity which cannot depend on how rich or poor their community is. This article seeks to explain this process and the effect it has on our local tax rates.

Our education property taxes along with 35% of the sales and use tax, proceeds from the Vermont Lottery and a transfer from the General Fund go into the Education Fund from which the school districts are financed. Every year the Vermont Legislature has to pass an education funding bill which sets the statewide property tax rate. This requires knowing the total amount of all school budgets, the total value of the statewide property grandlist, and the number of students. These variables determine how much $1.00 of property taxes or 2% of household income will yield in revenues and, consequently, the base yield per pupil. The income-based rate is for homeowners with household incomes less than $135,000. All these factors work together to determine what tax rates are required in order to fund all the school budgets in the state.

This year's education funding bill, H.853, sets the statewide residential homestead property tax base rate to $1.00 per $100.00 of valuation, up from $0.99 last year. This is called the “penny tax rate” and is applied to homesteads with incomes above $135,000. Also, the base income rate for households with income of $135,000 or less is set to 2% of household income, up from 1.8%. This may look like a tax increase, but we're not finished. The yield per equalized pupil for the penny tax rate this year is $9701, up from $9459, and the yield per equalized pupil for the income tax rate is $10,870, up from $9459.

To compute the local tax rates, the tax rates in the bill are multiplied by the ratio of the local spending per equalized pupil to the statewide per pupil yield. For Charlotte the CCS and CVU per pupil amounts are used to come up with a blended average of $15,477, up from $15,203 last year, so this year's ratio is 15477/9701 = 1.595. This is a slightly lower penny tax rate than last year's 1.607. Likewise, the income rate of 2% is multiplied by the ratio of the local spending to the income rate yield, or
2% x 15477/10870 = 2.848% compared to last year's 3.215%. Both of these rates are lower than last year.

However, another local factor, Charlotte's Common Level of Appraisal (CLA), has decreased from 105% to 102% year over year because the prices for homes that sold in Charlotte over the last three years are closer to their assessed values than before. The penny rate is divided by this factor causing the CLA adjusted penny tax rate to increase from $1.53 per $100 valuation last year to $1.56. The CLA has no effect on the income tax rate.

With per pupil spending up and the number of students dropping both locally and statewide from last year, we might ask why property tax rates didn't increase. There are 2 reasons for this. First, there was an increase in the General Fund transfer to the Education Fund by $2M above the $27M scheduled transfer. Second, statewide school spending increased less than expected and allowed $20M collected in the Education Fund last year to be carried forward to this year's budget. Act 46 will continue to improve the school funding situation as more districts consolidate.

Taxation is the most unpleasant responsibility of a legislator, but it is also necessary. When the legislature votes on an education funding bill, we are voting to pay for the education of the children of Vermont as determined by local school boards across the state. We have taken measures to control those costs with Act 46 and with measures we took in this year's budget, and the results we see this year have begun to move us in the right direction.

I welcome your thoughts and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

The Word in the House 2016-02-01 - Parliamentary Procedure and Politics

Act 46 was crafted last year to address the realities of increasing education costs due to declining enrollment and a 130 year-old structure of governance. In many parts of Vermont implementation has been an overwhelming success. But for some it was clear that the cost containment threshold provisions weren’t working as intended. A bipartisan group of lawmakers worked together to craft a solution in time for Town Meeting.

After four weeks of hammering out House and Senate responses to the outcry by school boards, the end seemed to be in sight. Senate bill S.233 would have repealed the spending thresholds altogether.  The House voted to amend the bill by adjusting the threshold for per-pupil spending increases upward by 0.9%, reducing the penalty from $1 to $.25/dollar of excess spending, and giving school districts the option of which Agency of Education calculation to use.  The Agency’s original calculation was modified mid-January and changed the effect on tax rates for many districts.  The House decided to let each school district choose the calculation that provided the better benefit.

After considerable debate and a number of further amendments which were defeated last Wednesday, the House approved by a wide bi-partisan margin the amendment and sent it back to the Senate.  The Senate accepted most of the changes but further modified it on Thursday evening and sent it back to the House. It looked like the bill would get to the Governor’s desk by Friday afternoon just barely in time for many school districts to finalize their budgets by the Sunday deadline for Town Meeting agendas.

The additional changes the Senate made included bumping up the excess spending penalty to $.40/dollar, exempting from penalty those districts whose per-pupil spending remained below the statewide average despite year-to-year increases that exceeded the threshold, and eliminating the spending threshold entirely for the 2018 budgets.  To get a final vote in the House, however, required a suspension of the rules since one legislative day is required for a bill to appear on the House Calendar before a vote can be taken. This is where it got sticky. Despite assurances by both the Education and Ways & Means Committees that the 2018 budget provisions would be reviewed later this session, the Republican minority refused to suspend the rules.  This set up a situation where the bill could not be passed in time for those remaining school budgets to be finalized and meet the 30-day notice requirement for Town Meeting. 

After repeated conferences of the party leaders with Speaker Shap Smith failed to resolve the impasse, the Democrats and Progressives agreed to adjourn for the day and reconvene at one minute past midnight.  That would officially be the next legislative day and allow us to take up the bill and vote on it.  When we reconvened at 12:01 AM, another amendment was offered that would have prevented the bill’s passage until Tuesday at the earliest. After an hour of debate including two roll-call votes, the bill was passed as amended by the Senate and sent to Governor Shumlin who signed it hours later with the following statement: “Act 46 is working better than I had imagined. Over half of all students in this state now live in communities that are moving forward with or having serious conversations about how to work together to improve educational quality and provide relief to taxpayers. That is happening because of Act 46 and it is how we will right size our education system to reflect the fact that there are 20,000 fewer students today than in 1998. The spending caps had become the enemy of that important work, and I am pleased the Legislature acted quickly to make this change.”

I welcome your thoughts and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

The Word in the House 1/7/2016 - Gearing Up

The second session of the legislative biennium began on Tuesday of this week. Once again we are faced with fiscal year expenses that exceeded revenues and require some adjustments to the budget. Fortunately, revenues came in a little better than expected, but were outpaced by increases in Medicaid expenditures.

The Appropriations Committee has already been taking a close look at areas where spending has not been as high as projected and is looking for money to move around to fill the Medicaid gap. The ability of the Joint Fiscal Office and the legislature to predict the state’s financial picture continues to be inadequate despite our best efforts last year. It appears our crystal ball needs an upgrade.

 

While the budget adjustment is a high priority, the effects of Act 46, the Education Reform Act, are even more pressing. The caps that school boards across the state are facing on per-pupil spending increases have been greater than anticipated. This is especially affecting school districts that are continuing to experience declines in student population. In CSSU Charlotte, Williston, Hinesburg, and CVU are in this situation. Charlotte will be assessed a significant penalty unless it can reduce its budget by more than $500,000 under the current formula. The repercussions throughout the state have caused the House and Senate Education committees as well as the Governor to work on changes that will mitigate the impending pain. Since school boards have to settle on a budget recommendation by the third week in January, the legislature must act within the first two weeks on this.

 

There are three proposals going into the session. The House Education Committee’s bi-partisan proposal is to increase the cap from 1.48% to 2.38%. This would make the required spending reduction for Charlotte a more manageable $53,000. The Governor is recommending that the caps and penalties be suspended for a year to allow more districts to consider and vote on consolidation. Since the purpose of the spending caps and penalties was to give a push for consolidation, it makes sense to allow time for consolidation studies to be completed and, if appropriate, be presented to the voters. The Senate’s proposal is to scrap the Act 46 caps and revert back to the pre-Act 46 spending caps and penalties. This issue will be a major news story, so watch the news and you will know the outcome as soon as I do.

 

I look forward to publishing my weekly reports in our local papers throughout the session, altenating between The Charlotte News and The Citizen, to keep you informed. I also welcome your comments and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 5/20/2015 - End of Session

Remember the Rubik's Cube? I always had a hard time solving that 3D, 3-axis puzzle. The last week of the legislative session seemed like trying to solve a giant Rubik's cube of legislation. Fourteen bills were assigned to Committees of Conference because the House and Senate could not agree on details in the versions each chamber passed. In addition to those bills, the Immunization bill (H.98), the Water Quality bill (H.35) and the Energy bill (H.40) still had not been settled.

Early in the week the House Health Care Committee took a couple more days of impassioned testimony on whether to retain the philosophical exemption or to remove it before finally bringing it to the full House for a vote. The hours-long debate on the floor reflected the range of opinions heard in testimony. Several amendments were offered before the House voted to remove that exemption while retaining the religious and medical exemptions. The 85 to 57 vote crossed party lines as individual legislators made up their own minds on the legislation. Following the decision on vaccine exemptions, the House voted quickly to concur with the Senate on proposed amendments to the Water Quality bill, which will put Vermont on the path to reducing phosphorous runoff into its lakes and streams.

 

By Friday afternoon most of the conference committees reported agreement on all but the Budget, Revenue, Health Care, and Education bills, and the Senate was still debating amendments to the Energy bill. Earlier in the afternoon we passed the very important Child Protection bill (S.9) which requires any mandated reporter who reasonably suspects abuse or neglect of a child to report it to Department of Children and Families instead of to a superior, and it improves cross-agency communication for child welfare cases. Typical of the "hurry up and wait" character of the session's final days, the House was repeatedly recessed to await updates on the status of conference committee negotiations.

 

Friday evening we received from the Senate its amendments to the Energy bill, and the House quickly concurred in its passage. The Senate left the provisions adopted by the House and added provisions regarding siting of solar energy projects. They include giving municipalities automatic party status in Public Service Board hearings, defining minimum setback requirements, and allowing municipalities to define screening requirements. Passage of this bill satisfies the objections Connecticut and Massachusetts had regarding Vermont's double-counting of renewable energy credits (RECs) and avoids the loss of $50M in annual revenue for our utilities, thereby avoiding a potential 6% increase in electric rates.

 

Saturday brought the passage of the Education bill and the Health Care bill. The Health Care bill had been trimmed back considerably because of an inability to agree on funding. What remained was a 33 cent/pack cigarette tax increase and subjecting soda to the 6% sales tax. The package contains $3.2 million in new state health care spending, which is eligible for roughly another $3 million from federal matching funds. The money will be used to level-fund Vermont Health Connect subsidies for out-of-pocket costs, target increases to Medicaid rates, and invest in initiatives to strengthen the primary care system.

 

As late as Saturday afternoon negotiations were still going on among the House and Senate leadership and the Governor regarding how the agreed upon budget would be funded. $53M in program cuts had been agreed upon with the expectation that $30M in additional revenues would have to be found. This represents $3M more in cuts and $5M less in revenues than originally passed by the House. Finally, around 10 PM the final agreements were made and the House gave final approval to the Budget. After the traditional speeches from the leaders of the Progressive, Republican and Democratic parties, the Speaker of the House, and the Governor, the session was gavelled to a close just before 11 PM.

 

I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 4/22/2015 - Re-forming Our Education System

During last year's elections, candidates across the state heard complaints about property tax increases due to education spending. Decreasing enrollment and the large number of school districts throughout the state (282) present challenges to how our public schools are governed and funded. The House Education Committee was reorganized this year with a new Chair who previously served on the Ways & Means Committee and was the recognized expert on school funding. Rep. Dave Sharpe of Bristol and his committee have made a serious attempt to create policies that would control spending and property tax increases. The resulting Education bill (H.361) reflects a lot of tri-partisan work that will reform education funding, spending and governance. The bill was passed out of committee unanimously and achieved strong support when it was voted on by the full House: 88 to 55.

The bill has as its purpose the improvement of education quality for all Vermont students through greater equity in student opportunity by maintaining a community supported system, asserting Vermont's commitment to public education, and achieving economies of scale. Elements of the bill include:

• Creating larger education districts of at least 1100 students by 2019 unless a waiver is granted for special circumstances. The larger education districts comprised of existing smaller districts will share responsibility for educating all pre-K to grade 12 students. The State Board of Education may approve alternate configurations, including existing Supervisory Unions, as long as the proposal advances specific goals like equitable educational opportunities, stable leadership, the flexible and efficient use of resources, increased student-to-adult ratios, budgetary stability and less volatility for taxpayers, and community engagement.
• Financial support for reorganizing districts including access to grants up to $150,000 and temporary local property tax reductions ranging from $.08 in the first year to $.02 by the fourth year after consolidation.
• A temporary cap on local spending increases ranging from a 1.4% increase to 4.1%, depending on whether the district chooses to base the increase on its total spending amount or its per equalized pupil spending amount. For example, a district that spends exactly the statewide average (roughly $14,100) would be allowed a 2% increase. A district that spent more would have a lower cap; a district that spent less would have a higher cap.
• A moratorium is imposed on the legislature passing any new unfunded mandates on schools until 2017.
• For the year 2016 the statewide non-residential education property tax rate will be $1.525 and the residential rate will be $.98, the same as this year.

The bill also reflects the realization that more work needs to be done. It creates a House-Senate Joint Oversight Committee to monitor, evaluate, and provide a continuing review of matters concerning education policy, education funding, and student outcomes and the intersections of each with corrections, economic development, health care, and human services issues. It charges the Office of Health Care Reform to consider the possibility of transitioning health insurance plans for teachers and administrators to plans offered through Vermont Health Connect by 2018 in order to address the impending excise tax on highly beneficial health insurance plans. It also requires the Secretary of Education propose alternative methods of delivery and payment for special education services, including best use of paraprofessionals, ways to reduce administrative burdens, and increase flexibility in the provision of services.

While the bill reflects a lot of good work and compromise to get the tri-partisan support it received, it still relies heavily on the property tax. I will continue working with my colleagues to come up with funding alternatives that decrease reliance on the property tax. I continue to welcome your thoughts and questions and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

The Word in the House 2/4/2015 - Microbeads and Education

Now that we are a few weeks into the session, the 14 committees of the House of Representatives have settled into their main work: taking testimony on bills and on the Administration's initiatives. A bill's main sponsor as well as interested parties, administration staff, lobbying organizations and interested private citizens are invited to give their insight and analysis of the subject. Committee Chairs take very seriously the responsibility to make sure every side of an issue is heard. It is detrimental to the success of a bill if key testimony has not been heard when the bill comes to the floor for a vote of the full chamber. On the other hand, convincing testimony against a bill might kill it in committee so that it never reaches the floor for a vote. Since there are more bills introduced in a session than can ever be adequately considered, most bills stay “on the wall”; that is, they are posted on the committee's bulletin board where they remain for the duration of the 16 week session.

In spite of these constraints, some bills are so obviously beneficial that they just sail through committee, are read on the floor and pass unanimously. This happened with a water quality bill last week that prohibits the sale of personal care products and over-the-counter drugs containing microbeads. Microbeads are plastic beads less than 5 millimeters in diameter that are suspended in lotions and cleansers as a mild abrasive. The problem is that they are so small that they pass through wastewater filtration systems, are discharged into rivers and streams, and end up suspended in Lake Champlain. They adsorb (attract to their surface) toxic chemicals and are ingested by small fish which confuse them with food. They, in turn, are eaten by larger fish, which are then eaten by humans. In this way the toxins become concentrated up the food chain and pose a hazard to us as well as threaten the sport fishing industry which is an important part of our tourist economy. On a roll call vote H.4 passed unanimously 140 to 0.

Many issues require a lot of testimony even before a bill is introduced. Such is the case with education financing. The Education Committee has a new Chair, Representative Dave Sharpe of Bristol. Dave was a member of the Ways and Means Committee for many years and brings valuable experience with taxation to his new role. At the same time the House Rules Committee revised the authority of the Education Committee over education financing. Previously, the Ed Committee made education policy and the Ways and Means Committee addressed the financing. The new arrangement will allow a comprehensive approach to this high priority problem. The committee has already heard from many individuals and organizations and is expected to draft a bill in the next few weeks. Already a change in approach is emerging. Whereas the current method requires setting the statewide property tax rate to be set according to the total amount of school budgets throughout the state, the committee is looking at fixing a statewide property tax rate to raise a given per-pupil amount which would be allocated to school districts regardless of the size of the budgets that they pass. Needless to say, the devil is in the details, and we'll be hearing more about this topic before anything is settled.

 



Presenting: Ethan Lisle, Olivia Zubarik, Charlie Cantor,
and Schuyler EdgarHolmes with Schuyler's
 Mom, Deirdre Holmes, working the projector.

It was also a pleasure to see a contingent from the CCS 6^th

Grade present their report on composting at the Statehouse during the Farm to School awards presentation last week. CCS was awarded a grant last year and the composting project was the result. Kudos to the whole 6^th Grade team!

 

 

 

I continue to welcome your thoughts and questions and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).

Legislative Report 01/28/2015 - Setting the Stage for Economic Sustainability

A Governor has the primary leadership role for making policy. Governor Shumlin laid out his policy agenda in two major speeches, in his inaugural speech and, a week later, in his budget address. In the latter he focused on health care, education, and the economy.


Gov. Shumlin addresses the General Assembly

Because Vermont's economy has been growing at a roughly 3% rate while expenses have grown by about 5%, the projected gap between revenues and spending for next fiscal year is $94M. Governor Shumlin's first priority was to propose a way to balance the budget. To do this he is looking for a combination of efficiency improvements through restructuring of departments and programs and cuts to some services while simultaneously investing in programs that deliver more economic value than they cost. But efficiency improvements and program cuts won't bridge the gap without additional revenues. So, he is proposing to close an income tax loophole that allows Vermonters to deduct from the current year’s income the state taxes they paid the previous year. Reforming this loophole will cost taxpayers who use it an average of $175 and raise an expected $15.5 million.

Since the Governor stepped back from his "single payer" health care initiative, he still recognizes the need to pursue health care reform. Vermont needs to continue to move from the current quantity based, fee for service system to one that pays providers for the quality outcomes they produce. To build on the early success this effort has shown in bending the cost curve while ensuring high quality health care for Vermonters, the Governor’s budget more than doubles payments to Medicaid providers with a new $4.5 million appropriation. Since the Medicaid cost shift drives up private insurance premiums by $150 million every year, the Governor is proposing to invest $25 million beginning in 2016 when new insurance rates begin for increased payments to health care providers. This will mean $50 million in cost shift reduction per year and enable a reduction in insurance premiums by up to 5 percent from what they would have been for all Vermonters. To pay for these health investments, the Governor is proposing a 0.7% payroll tax on Vermont businesses. Every dollar raised will draw down $1.10 in federal funds, more than doubling the money raised through the payroll tax. This tax would amount to 7 cents for every $10 of payroll expense. For a small business that pays employees $10/hour, it would mean an extra $2.80 per 40 hour week per employee, but would reap big benefits for both employers and employees.

With student enrollments down 20 percent since 1998, a 10 to 1 average student to staff ratio, and property taxes rising fast, the Governor outlined a number of proposals to help address the education spending problem in Vermont while improving education quality. These include placing a moratorium on any new legislation that adds costs to districts, phasing out expensive incentives including the small schools grant and the phantom student provision, targeting construction aid for districts that are actively trying to right-size through a merger, and prohibiting strikes and board-imposed contracts while requiring arbitration when contract negotiations reach impasse. Some of these ideas are already being discussed in the House Education Committee which has had more than 500 suggestions submitted by legislators, organizations and citizens.

Building on expanded dual enrollment and early college programs, the Governor hopes to implement a new program to create a pathway for Vermont Technical College (VTC) students to earn a free Associates Degree in Engineering Technology as a pipeline for Vermont employers looking for skilled employees. Through a partnership of the state, VTC, and private employers, high school seniors who sign up for an Engineering Technology degree at VTC will get their first year of higher education free while finishing high school, then will be guaranteed a summer internship at the partnering employer to gain critical job skills. When they return to VTC for their second year, the employer will pay for their first semester’s tuition (about $5,000). The Vermont Strong Scholars program will then pay back their loans for their final semester if they stay and work in Vermont after graduation.

Now it is up the the legislature to take those ideas, meld them with their own, and change Vermont's laws to accomplish the desired results. I continue to welcome your thoughts and questions and can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).