Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Days and memes, we're still here. It is March 12 at 03:00. We are going to look at the physical node for H757 with Ted Barnett. And then we're gonna look at H 519.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's up on the point of fiscal office. I'm gonna make sure I have 757, not 775 up here. That has been

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: It's the worst we were talking about before you got Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Is it 775 as Danny posted on?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I know. I thought I can select the Xs. I'll fix it. Yep. And I will fix one of the places where I put an X in. So fiscal note, by changing in the report from House General and Housing, they fully exempted manufactured homes from the sales tax and applied those manufactured homes that were subject to the sales tax of the property's transfer tax. That has changed to increasing the sales tax exemption on manufactured homes from 40 to 90%. And those homes now would not be subject to property transfer tax. So this would reduce sales tax revenues to the education fund by 200,000 in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. That is because the effective date is January 1. So it's a half year of impact there. And then approximately, it would reduce revenue by approximately $500,000 annually afterwards. And that is the only remaining fiscal impact of the bill.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: How many homes are you anticipating are sold each year?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So I will say This is a very challenging number to get at. That's fine. We are relying our Because it's a sales In the sales tax world, and so it's very difficult to get information out of the sales tax world. And because there are such a small number of manufacturers, it's likely that those data would be suppressed anyway, even if we were able to get to them. So we're using national data provided by the Census Bureau. I will say it's fewer than 200. Thank you. Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Anything else you want to

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: show us? I think that is it. Yes, and so this provision, I will say, it is designed to provide parity, this exemption, with the effective tax rates for manufactured homes under the property transfer tax. Previously, when I was in the committee, I mentioned that that effective tax rate was 0.7%. That is including the clean water surcharge. If you remove the clean water surcharge amount of 0.22%, the effective tax rate is 0.6%. And that is reflective of the fact that most manufactured home transactions, the buyers are using it as their principal residence and the value is less than $200,000 so it's subject The vast majority of those transactions of property transfer tax, they're paying half a percent on the value of the manufactured homes that are transferred.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Any

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: questions? Seeing none, thank you so much, sir. Of course. What do you think the natural next step is?

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You jumped all

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: over me last time.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Larry.

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Madam chair, I will now

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: be amend h seven fifty seven as presented in draft two

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 2.2.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Waszazak moves that we amend H seven fifty seven with draft 2.2 of our committee amendments.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Second, change the order. Second.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Discussion uneasy? Seeing none, clerk please call the roll.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Branagan? Yes. I'll vote yes as Representative Burkhardt. Representative Higley? Yes.

[Mark Higley (Member)]: Representative Fulpham? Yes. Representative Kimbell? Yes. Representative Basland?

[James Masland (Member)]: Yes. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page?

[Woodman Page (Member)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Waszazak? Yes. Representative Canfield?

[William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And Representative Kornheiser? Yes, thank you. We have amended approval eleven-zero. Thank you.

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Madam Chair, I would move that we pass, fine H757 as amended favorable.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: You represent Waszazak, assigned to age seven fifty seven favorable. Representative Holcombe seconds. Thank you. As amended. Any discussion?

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: You're getting silly to hear.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Seeing no discussion with the court, please fill the role.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Branagan? Yes. I'll vote yes as Representative Burkhardt. Representative Higley? Yes. Representative Tulpip? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland?

[James Masland (Member)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page? Yes. Representative Waszazak?

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Yes. Representative Canfield?

[William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We voted the bill favorably as amended eleven zero.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Waszazak is going to report this. Thank you, everyone. Chris, do you mind doing the fiscal before the legislative language? Is that okay? So we're gonna switch to five nineteen.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Oh, you're very feasting. All right. Well, good afternoon, everyone. First Rutland from the Joint Fiscal Office. I'm here to talk about h five nineteen as recommended by house gov ops. Before I go through this Thank I just wanna let you know that the title of the bill, as introduced, is different than the contents of the bill that are being amended into it. So pay less attention to the title of the bill and more attention to the amendment and what my colleague from which counsel and I will be talking about. But this is about the state employee retirement system, the VCRS pension system, and there are a handful of municipalities that participate in the VSER system due to historical issues going back decades. A lot of it predates the creation of the municipal retirement system in the seventies. And the towns that participate pay for the cost of their employees. So it doesn't have you know, state government is not paying for the town employees. There is an issue that arose that there are three towns that currently are in Beershers, Randolph, Bethel, and Danville. The only one that has police officers, municipal police officers right now, is Randolph. And their officers, I believe it's three officers, are in VCR's Group F. Group F is the group that regular state employees are in. It is not the group for state troopers, and it is not the group for judges. What this bill would do is allow the towns that participate in Group F right now with police, now Randolph is the only one, to transition their members from group F into group G. You might remember that in Act 114, a few years ago, when the big pension reform bill created a new group, group G, for corrections officers in order to have a twenty year retirement plan. So, you can retire at age 55 with at least twenty years of service. And the benefit multiplier of that every year of service is worth two and a half percent of your average final compensation, which is similar to what the police who are in the muni system in Group D get, and it's similar to what the state troopers in Group C get. The added cost of that benefit in Group G is borne by the employee. So if you are an employee in group G, you make a contribution rate that is 4.68% higher than you would have if you stayed in group F. So the plan was designed to be cost neutral to the employer, and the extra cost is borne by the members in the group for having that twenty year retirement. So, in Act 114, you all created for corrections officers, and then it was a year or two ago, you passed a bill that allowed deputy sheriffs to transition into Group G because they in Group F, some of them, and they were facing these inequity issues with the fact that they were getting a benefit that was significantly below the benefit that other towns were getting who were in VMARS, Group D, or what the state troopers were getting. So, that bill passed. The deputy sheriffs that were similarly situated had that opportunity to transition to Group D. Then there's this remaining vestige where there's just these three officers in the town of Randolph that are still in group f. And they put forth a request to have the ability to transition into a twenty year retirement. So, what this bill does is very closely mirrors the structure that you all previously enacted for the corrections workers and for those deputy sheriffs, and applies it to municipal law enforcement that are currently in Group F. Again, Randolph is the only one right now that is impacted. Bottom line, there's some verbiage here that explains the difference in the benefit structure, But at the end of the day, the impact of this change will be de minimis on the VCRS pension system, and it will be it will have no impact to the state because we are not as a state, we don't pay for the cost of these municipal employees. The towns are paying it. And since that added marginal cost of moving into group g is formed by the employee, it would be the employees bearing that higher cost. You're talking three people, 4.68% difference. This is really low 5 figures of additional employee contributions that would be going into the state employee retirement system. And since these folks would be making higher contributions into the state system, that's why you all have the bill. Are there any questions?

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: That amazes me.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Has the treasurer looked at this? The treasurer's office was instrumental in developing this language in that government operations committee. Appreciate it.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Any other questions for Chris? Let's just mute the room while we wait for Sure. So we're still in Ways and Means, and it is whatever time it is. And we are picking back up H519 to do a very quick walkthrough of it with Cameron Wood. We already did the fiscal note and a lot of explanation from Chris, so it's high level if you feel

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: good. For

[C Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. This is a report from the Government Operations and Military Affairs Committee to strike all and then insert new language, I can be extremely succinct. This is about moving certain employees into retirement group g from group f. And those employees are on page three,

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: municipal

[C Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: employees, or I should say law enforcement employees of a municipal employer participating in the state retirement system. So municipalities have their own municipal retirement system. There are some municipalities that participate in the state system. Or certain employees that are level two or level three law enforcement officers and are required to perform law enforcement duties for those municipalities that participate in the state system, you're moving them over to group G. That's what this bill does. Everything from page one to 10 is accomplishing that goal. So here, you're amending a certain definition to have them in group g. You then have the necessary amendments to the definition of normal retirement date to give them a normal retirement date under group g. And then you have simply the corresponding technical changes throughout the sections to add these new definitions into the relevant statutory sections where they need to exist. And then at the end, are giving I apologize for the quick scroll. When you do this, when you move these groups over into a new retirement group, in the past, historically, you have always you all the the body has provided the current employees the opportunity to stay in the current group that they're in if they so choose. And so this section four here is creating that one time irrevocable election at the end of this year to say that for these employees, you get a one time choice. You can stay where you're at or you can go over into group g. And that is what that section's doing. And then you have the effective date of 07/01/2026. My understanding is this is a very limited number of municipalities and even a a smaller potentially number of employees themselves. I think it's only impacting one town, so a very small number of employees that we're talking about here. That's a good one.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm sure

[C Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would move that he

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm going to let him get out of his

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: chair. Okay.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Whatever whatever works for you.

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: I'm sure I would move that

[C Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we find age five nineteen favorable as presented.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Kimbell moves five nineteen favorable, favorably.

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Seconds.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Masland seconds. Any discussion? Seeing none, if the clerk please fill the role.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Branagan? Yes. All vote yes. Is representative Burkhardt? Representative Higley?

[C Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Representative

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell? Yes. Representative Masland?

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page? Yes. Representative Wazak?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Canfield?

[C Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have voted the bill favorable eleven-zero.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Higley, would you like this, or would you like someone else?

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'll just assume not. Thank you. Okay.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Anyone wanna report this? Great. Thank you. Representative Canfield is reporting, and see everyone tomorrow morning.