2013 Legislative Town Meeting Report - 3/5/2013

Since the 2013 session of the Vermont Legislature began on January 9^th, all committees have been busy working on legislation that will keep Vermont moving forward despite the turmoil in Washington and the continuing challenge of a slow economic recovery.  We are responding to this challenge keeping in mind not only the burdens of taxation but also the financial struggles facing hard working families, the threats to our environment posed by climate change, and the desire to ensure that Vermont is a great place to live and to do business.  Here are some of the results of our work so far.

 

The Budget

The House passed the Budget Adjustment bill in January to address a shortfall of $25M based on actual versus projected revenues and expenditures since July.  Most of the changes are in response to the reduced revenues and increased spending resulting from the slow recovery from the recession.  For the past month, the Appropriations Committee has been working on the FY14 budget. Fiscal pressures continue to be felt in every committee as the legislature tries to maintain programs vital to Vermont’s people, environment and economy.  This work is expected to extend to near the end of the session in May.

 

Health Care

The Affordable Care Act of 2010, also known as Obamacare, requires all individuals to be covered by health insurance starting January 1, 2014.  Each state is required to established a “health care exchange” that will help individuals and families purchase insurance with federal subsidies. Vermont’s individuals, families and small businesses will have access to a new insurance marketplace called Vermont Health Connect starting in October of this year that will allow them to make apples-to-apples comparisons of their health coverage options. It will serve as the place where they can access the tax credits to help pay their health care premiums. Information packets on how Vermont Health Connect will work can be found today at my Town Meeting table and can also be found at http://healthconnect.vermont.gov/sites/hcexchange/files/Town%20Meeting%20Day%20Informational%20Packet.pdf.

In 2017 the federal government will allow states to apply for a waiver from the Affordable Care Act exchanges that would allow Vermont to create a universal health care system. Once this system is in place, Vermont could save $500 million per year compared to our current system. In order to embark on a new health system, Vermont needs to do more work to be sure our health care is affordable, offers high quality and contains growth. The Green Mountain Care Board continues to work with health care providers on quality and cost containment initiatives to make Vermont's health care delivery system the most efficient and highest quality in the nation.

 

Energy and Environment

Most Vermonters heat their homes with oil and other fossil fuels. This leaves us vulnerable to constant price increases, feeds our greenhouse gas emissions, and makes our homes less and less affordable.  House bill H.216 aims to improve the thermal efficiency of our leaky housing stock. It bolsters low-income weatherization, takes steps to keep the price of oil as low as possible for people who receive heating assistance, and streamlines services for higher-income Vermonters who can more easily finance their retrofits. As the pace of home improvement picks up, we also anticipate local job growth for contractors, auditors, and other heating professionals. 

Leftover paint is considered a household hazardous waste.  The Chittenden Solid Waste District has a paint recycling program that is very effective, but other parts of Vermont do not.  House bill H.262 will establish a paint stewardship plan for the collection, reuse, and recycling of paint in Vermont.  This bill has been developed with the cooperation of the American Coatings Association representing paint manufacturers, Vermont’s solid waste districts, and the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.  The cost of the stewardship program will be borne by the paint manufacturers and will fund collection centers that will be conveniently located throughout the state.

Transportation

A safe and efficient transportation system is integral to our economy and quality of life.  Vermont’s roads, bridges, airways, railways, and transit systems have served this need. A perfect storm of considerable pressures are bearing down on our transportation system due to increasing costs, crumbling, aging structures, decreasing state revenue, climate change with increasingly dramatic weather events, and the uncertainty around federal assistance. The need for increased revenues comes at a time when Vermont and the nation is emerging from a deep recession.  Balancing these pressures is what Vermont leaders are weighing as we consider options for transportation funding. The impacts and consequences of a system in disrepair are vast, affecting the lives of every Vermonter.  The Legislature is exploring several options to invest in the health of a system that is integral to our prosperity and well-being.

 

Combatting Substance Abuse, Addiction, and Crime

Several committees are studying aspects of drug abuse and its consequences and looking for potential solutions. House bill H.331 is one effort to create a systemic response to the problem of opioid addiction. It will work to maximize the effectiveness and appropriate utilization of the Vermont Prescription Monitoring System (VPMS) while still protecting the privacy of individuals who appropriately use medications.

The State is beginning to implement a “Hub and Spoke” System to provide care for Vermonters with addictions. A Hub is a specialty treatment center and a Spoke is the ongoing care system comprised of physicians and other addictions professionals, including counselors. One “Hub and Spoke” System in Chittenden County is in operation and others will begin operation in the near future. There are plans for five systems in the state.

Drug abuse also fuels property crime in Vermont. Ensuring public safety in our communities is a high priority for the legislature.  Home and vehicle break-ins are occurring at a high rate, in large part fueled by opiate addiction.  The spoils of these illegal activities are easily converted to cash at many places around the state.  Some precious metal dealers who are not complying with the retention period are prompting discussion of increasing penalties as well as increasing the retention period. House bill H.202 which I have co-sponsored seeks to address this problem.

Methamphetamine use does not appear to be as large a drug problem as prescription drug abuse. However, the degree of violence in combination with the highly addictive qualities associated with meth use prompts a more detailed review of state policies.  The Judiciary Committee is considering a proposal that would require pharmacists to check a real-time database to ensure that people have not already purchased meth ingredients at another pharmacy in the state within a 30-day period.

 

Pension Forfeiture

Public employees must not betray the trust placed in them by the public.  If this trust is broken, there is a mechanism that may be used to make taxpayers “whole” and restore the public trust.

House Government Operations and House Judiciary worked on House bill H.41 defining the consequences for a public employee convicted of financially-related felonies.  In addition to a jail sentence, the public employee’s retirement benefits may be subject to forfeiture, “in whole or in part.” The House passed this bill in February and sent it to the Senate.

Legislative Report 2/28/2013 - Reflections on the Cost of Education

Sticker shock!  This is the term that appropriately describes Vermonters’, including Charlotters’, reaction to the school budgets that are going to be voted on at Town Meetings across the state. The subsequent effect on property tax rates might make one wonder if their school boards and state legislators have gone off the deep end and just don’t care about the amount of taxes their constituents have to pay.  I would argue that, while that might be an understandable reaction, it is very far from the truth.

No one goes to Montpelier with the intention of raising taxes of any kind.  However, with the goal of providing every Vermont child access to a good quality education, the costs of education are spread across the entire state.  The Education Fund is funded mainly through the statewide property tax, but also through sales taxes, the lottery and transfers from the General Fund.  As your State Representative, I want to explain how and why the statewide property tax rate has increased. 

Since the amount of money that needs to be raised is determined by spending decisions at the local level, the legislature can only determine who pays, not how much to spend.  At the local level, school board members have deliberated long and hard over the Charlotte Central School budget.  If you don’t believe this, refer to the CCS Board meeting minutes and read the article by Board member Kristin Wright in the February 21st issue of The Citizen.  She describes in detail the decisions of the last several years to minimize and even eliminate budget increases.  Yet, this year external cost pressures, including declining enrollment, teachers’ health insurance increases and contracted salary increases, have forced a 6.4% increase in the budget.  When the 6.4% increase is divided among fewer students it results in an 8.5% education property tax increase in Charlotte.

The base statewide property tax rate of $.94 per $100 is based on the total proposed school spending for all Vermont school districts, the total number of students in the state, and the total grand list property value of the state.  Since district spending per pupil varies, a formula is used to adjust the tax rate proportionally.  For Charlotte per-pupil spending is $15,189 leading to a tax rate of .94 x 15189 / 9151 = 1.56.  Another factor is the CLA or Common Level of Appraisal, or how closely the assessed value of a property is to the fair market value.  Because Charlotte’s assessments are 2% higher than market, the final rate is adjusted downward to 1.52.

[Note: I only used the CCS numbers in this analysis.  I did not include the effects of the CVU budget. - MY]

But this is only half the story.  For those households with incomes below $90,000, property tax is based on income or ability to pay.  The base income rate is 1.8% of household income, and the same spending ratio determines Charlotte’s income sensitivity rate to be 2.99%.  This is the upper limit of education property tax on the first $500,000 of value of a house plus two acres that a household is subject to.  So, for a house site assessed at $500,000 for a household with an income of $90,000, the tax is limited to 2.99% x $90,000 = $2691.  Furthermore, the statewide education property tax subsidizes the Current Use program, which helps Charlotte maintain its rural character. 

Our School Board has worked hard to keep costs as low as they could while still maintaining the high standards CCS is noted for.  Just as we have no control over the price of gasoline or heating oil, there are costs that the School Board has no control over.  As you decide how to vote on the school budget, consider whether you are one of the 42% of homeowners who received an income sensitivity property tax adjustment last year or whether some of your property is in the Current Use program.  If so, you, too, are benefiting from our statewide educational funding formula. 

As always I welcome your feedback on any issue or topic of concern. You can contact me by phone at 425-3960 or email me at myantachka.dfa@gmail.com.

The Word in the House - 2/21/2013 - The Transportation Challenge

We are now six weeks into the legislative session.  Governor Shumlin delivered his budget priorities,  the legislature passed a Budget Adjustment Bill that brought last year’s budget, based on projected revenues, in line with revenues actually realized, and now the work to come up with a budget for the 2014 fiscal year is being addressed. 

Separate from the general state budget is the Transportation Budget.  Vermont's transportation system has faced some extraordinary challenges in recent years, with four federally declared disasters in 2011, including spring floods followed by Tropical Storm Irene.  This year we face different transportation challenges, one more immediate and another reaching far into the future, that have an impact on the Transportation Fund.

The Long Term challenge: As Vermonters drive less and shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles, state revenues from gas taxes have steadily declined. These state fund reductions are combined with federal uncertainties such as highway trust funding and possible federal transportation reauthorization reduction. With this in mind, one can begin to see that Vermont's long-term transportation funding stability is seriously at risk.  A summer funding study committee worked to determine the annual gap between available state transportation revenue and the cost to meet basic transportation needs. They have reported the Vermont gap is estimated at more than $240 million per year, each and every year. The needs estimate includes the cost to preserve the state's existing transportation system in a state of good repair. It assumes that preserving the functionality of the road network is fundamental to meeting basic travel needs of people and goods. It does not include major roadway expansion beyond projects already in the pipeline.

The Short term challenge:  The $657 million, FY2014 transportation budget presented by the Governor assumes the Legislature is able to identify a revenue package that enables Vermont to maximize all of its available federal funds. Federal formula funds require a state dollar match. If Vermont is unable to provide this match, then federal formula funds must be returned and projects would be delayed and/or suspended. The additional funding needed to fully fund the proposed FY2014 transportation budget program is $36.53 million in state funds. Without action, we place at risk our ability to match all the available federal transportation dollars which would require cutting $123 million dollars in projects from this coming year’s budget.

The Proposed Solutions: The Agency of Transportation has proposed the following steps to achieve the immediate funding gap:

·    Utilize transportation Infrastructure bonds providing yielding $8.3 million after issuance costs and debt reserves;

·   Decrease the current per gallon gas tax by 4.7 cents, from 19 cents to 14.3 cents per gallon. This reduces the transportation fund by $15.32 million;

·   Index per gallon gas tax to inflation (revenue neutral first year). This action assists in a small way with the long-term structural funding problems mentioned earlier.

·   Sustain gas tax revenues by adding a 4% assessment on retail sales price, yielding $43.56 million.  This assumes $10.89 million for each one percent based on $3.79/gallon price estimate.

Combining all the recommended funding options obtains the $36.54 million needed to fully access and maximize Vermont's federal funds. They are a starting point, and the House Transportation Committee is in the process of discussing, hearing testimony and evaluating all options.

I am indebted to Rep. Diane Lanphere (D-Vergennes) for the information in this article.  I have heard from many of you on a variety of topics and continue to welcome your input. If you would like to get in touch with me about this issue or any other issue before the legislature, you can email me at myantachka.dfa@gmail.com or call me at 425-3960.

Interview with Vermont Treasurer Beth Pearce

Click here to view the interview

State Representative Mike Yantachka (D-Charlotte) interviewed Vermont State Treasurer Beth Pearce on the Chittenden County Democrats Show on February 4, 2013.  Video is compliments of CCTV , channel 17, Burlington, VT.

Are You Missing Money?
The State Treasurer’s Office has more than $57 million in unclaimed property.  Could some of this be yours?  Financial property becomes “unclaimed” after a business or non-profit entity loses contact with a customer for a period of years. Unclaimed property may include cash, checks, security deposits, refunds, stocks, bonds, bank accounts and estates. There is no charge to claim funds through the State Treasurer’s Office. Search at     www.MissingMoney.Vermont.gov or call (802) 828-2407

The Word in the House 2/7/2013 - Seeking Firearm Safety

You can’t turn on the TV news, open a newspaper, or visit a news website without hearing of incidents of gun violence on a near daily basis.  Senator Leahy’s Judiciary Committee is holding hearings on reinstituting an assault weapons ban.  Wayne Lapierre, president of the National Rifle Association, calls for armed guards in all of our schools.  State Senator Philip Baruth introduces a bill to ban assault weapons in Vermont and quickly retracts it after a flurry of opposition by Vermont gun enthusiasts.  The political climate in Vermont touching all things guns is a “third rail” that all politicians fear not only because of the long traditions of hunting and sport shooting, but because of the visceral reaction any talk of regulation illicits among gun owners.

However, despite this fear of reprisal, some members of the Vermont House, including myself, have dared to introduce a bill, H.124, that seeks to improve the safety of the citizens of Vermont while respecting the right of responsible citizens to own a firearm.  The introduction of H.124 has not unexpectedly drawn a flurry of emails and phone calls to the sponsors from across the state opposing the bill.  In this article I will explain the provisions of the bill and the reasons for them.

First, let me point out that I support the 2^nd Amendment and gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.  The bill does not take away or infringe on that right. It is primarily focused on firearms safety, both to insure that firearms do not get into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and that those who do own them use them responsibly.  The bill:

1. Proposes to prohibit large capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds). This is the most controversial section but it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not these magazines pose a public safety hazard.  On behalf of the many Vermonters who are outraged at the unprecedented number of mass killings in 2012 (and we are off to a rousing start in 2013), we need to ask the question and do our due diligence in investigating this issue.
2. Requires background checks on firearms purchased at gun shows.  IF it is true that “guns don’t kill people, people do,” then we need to do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people like criminals.  Vermonters are generally responsible gun owners.  But a criminal from NY City or Boston or even Montreal can come to Vermont to buy guns when they would legally be prohibited from doing so otherwise.  Vermont is not an island.
3. Puts into state statute the federal prohibitions on firearms possession.  This includes: felons, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, domestic violence offenders, and persons legally judged to be a danger to themselves or others.  Our state and local law enforcement officers have no authority under state law to confiscate firearms prohibited by federal law. They can hold a person but need to call the federal authorities like the ATF or FBI in order to further detain and/or charge the offender.
4. Requires a course on safe procedures for carrying a concealed firearm.  Just as we require a test to obtain a driver’s license to demonstrate the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, we want to ensure that anyone carrying a gun in public areas knows how and when to use it without endangering others.
5. Requires the Vermont Department of Mental Health to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NCIC) System persons legally judged to be a danger to themselves or others.  This would prevent them from purchasing a firearm outside of Vermont.
6. Repeals the prohibition on sale or use of gun silencers (suppressors.) Vermont is 1 of 7 states that does not allow silencers. This proposal is consistent with firearms safety.  Silencers or suppressors not only protect hearing, they also help prevent injuries to other parts of the face and neck. This provision may also help abate noise from firing ranges. It does not prevent the state from issuing rules prohibiting the use of silencers while hunting.

Like any other bill, this one will be vetted in committee and will probably undergo some changes.  Some provisions may not survive in the final version. In my opinion, these are reasonable requirements that enhance public safety without infringing on the 2^nd Amendment.  All of these provisions have passed the test of constitutionality in other jurisdictions.  In spite of that, H.125 has aroused vocal opposition.  I hope this article will lead to civil and respectful discussion in our community and will prompt supporters of the bill as well as opponents to contact me or their own Representative with their opinion.  As a society we should not fear to discuss ways in which we can lessen the opportunities for gun violence that claims more than 11,000 victims each year in the United States.

Related: WCAX Investigates: Guns and Drugs

Legislative Report 1/31/2013 - The Vermont Health Insurance Exchange

Rising health care costs and lack of access to affordable health care for millions of Americans have been a target of health care reform efforts for decades.  The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a.k.a. “Obamacare”, and the recent Supreme Court ruling that it is indeed constitutional addressed the problem on a national level.  Vermont’s own plans for its Green Mountain Care universal health care system will not be implemented until 2017, so compliance with the ACA required Vermont to take the interim step of implementing a Healthcare Insurance Exchange by 2014. Vermont is one of several states that decided to set up its own exchange instead of leaving it up to the federal government.   In this article I will explain what the Exchange is and what the practical implications are for Vermonters.

The ACA requires that starting on January 1, 2014, all individuals must be covered by health insurance, and businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees must offer health insurance coverage to their full-time employees.  Federal tax credits are available both for small businesses (less than 50 employees) and for individuals to meet these requirements. 

If a person is not covered by an employer-sponsored plan or by a government-sponsored plan like Medicare or Medicaid, he or she will have to purchase their insurance on the open market or through the Exchange.  Only insurance purchased through the Exchange is eligible for federal tax credits or subsidies.  The Exchange is a list of approved health insurance options that provide standardized health care coverage at various levels of cost.  There are four benefit levels:

• Bronze – 60% payment of covered medical expenses
• Silver – 70% payment
• Gold – 80% payment
• Platinum – 90% payment.

Annual out-of-pocket payment of expenses cannot exceed $5,950 for individual coverage and $11,900 for family coverage at all four benefit levels.  Insurance premiums will vary by insurance provider, amount of deductibles and co-pays, and benefit level.

Households with income from 133% to 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) will be eligible for subsidized premiums.  Households with incomes less than 133% FPL will be covered by Medicaid.  The federal poverty level (FPL) varies with household size:  for an individual it is an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $11,496; for a household of 2, $15,516; for a household of 4, $23,556; and so on.  133% is 1.33 times those amounts and 400% is 4 times those amounts.  So, a family of 4 with household income between $30,657 and $92,220 will be eligible for premium assistance. The premium subsidy (paid directly to the insurance provider on behalf of the buyer) will vary with income level and for 2014 will be based on the 2012 tax return that is due on April 15^th of this year.   Adjustments for changes in a household’s financial circumstances can be made on a monthly basis.

The penalty for not carrying health insurance will be assessed on tax returns starting in 2014 and increasing each year through 2016.  For 2014 the penalty is the larger of 1% of household income or $95 per individual household member without coverage up to a maximum of $285.

Vermont’s implementation of the Health Insurance Exchange is called “Vermont Health Connect”. Vermonters will be able to enroll in one of several plans offered through the Exchange starting on October 1, 2013.  More detailed information on Vermont Health Connect can be found at http://hcr.vermont.gov/timeline/exchange.