Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: I know what this is.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So, we are back live. We are working on the yield bill. Anyone need anything, want to discuss anything? Representative Waszazak.

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: I'm going to extremely reluctantly support the half a buy down of $105,000,000

[James Masland (Member)]: I

[Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: think that we are in an intense moment of crisis for low and middle income people in this state. And I think that what we're doing by buying down the education fund is completely unsustainable because the underlying education system, education finance system that we have in Vermont is incredibly unstable. I have people who are getting kicked off of their healthcare. I have people who are getting priced out of our community. I have students who are not getting what they need. I have teachers in my school district, permanent substitutes who have been taken into custody because of drug use in the classroom, and they're permanent substitutes because we can't afford to pay or retain teachers. My budget was voted down in the city for the first time in a while. The city always votes to support it, they voted no this time. Good, solid public school folks are telling me that they cannot afford the city. We are refusing in this half of the building to have a real conversation about the gross transfer of wealth that's happening to folks who already have it. We could plug that entire hole that we are creating in the general fund. We could plug that entire hole and more if we were willing to have a real conversation about addressing the transfer of wealth. I think at a time when people cannot put food on the table, when they can't go to the doctor, we should not be holding a single penny in reserves that could be used to help folks to afford to live in Barrie City. And so I am very, very hopeful that the Senate's going to make some changes in this, and I will There's a provision that my municipality desperately needs in other parts of the yield bill that aren't part of the buy down. We need every dollar that we can get right now, because as I spoke about earlier, we're having to pave state roads because of how bad the conditions in our city are. So I think that the timeline for Act 73 is way too long. My city cannot wait for the relief that was set out before in Act 73, and I just feel that we're selling out working people the longer that we kick hands down the road. But this needs to move my school board meeting that I went to last week, they need to know what the yields are going to be. And so I'm going to vote to move this forward, but we have to have a real conversation and a real wake up call about what income inequality looks like in this state, what poverty looks like in this state, and what a failed education finance system looks like, because we're not meeting Burkhardt right now. You cannot go to EUUSD and then go to some of the higher spending districts across the state and say that we're meeting the Brigham tests. I have seniors on fixed incomes who can't go to the doctor, who can't fill their prescriptions. And I hope that this is a wake up call because I'm not doing this again.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yep. Thank

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Jenny, I appreciate your position. I too represent people that have had their property taxes go up by 30, 35%. They're struggling, and they are actually paying higher property taxes than our second homeowners in the same community as a rate. So that's not a just system either, and I'm looking for as much relief as I possibly can. And I still know proper budgeting, that this is not the way to fund a budget long term, and yet we continue to do it because our taxpayers are asking us to. So I will vote for it as well. I would rather see greater property tax relief as well, but maybe not from the same source, So that's why I will be supporting.

[Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I just want to, I would be remiss that coming from appropriations, the one thing we heard over and over and over again was don't use time, money for ongoing operations. And we do that repeatedly in the EDD Lab, and it actually destabilizes the system. I'm tired of hearing us talk about how unstable the system is when we are at the source of much of the instability. And I have heard it over and over from our boards, at recent town meetings, please stop messing with our budget so we can do long range planning because this is our safety net. And I hear you. There are lots of problems. I wish we'd fix Ax 01/2027 because we could provide relief to your community immediately. I hope we figure out what happens to those two fifty long term weighted ADMs because you should not be losing long term weighted students right now by the time when we're phasing in the supposed benefits of Act 127. But this makes it very hard for those local managers to plan, and the inability to plan and the lack of stability also makes people afraid, and it makes them make decisions that are injurious. And so I just really think to be better fiscal stewards of resources and support the capacity of local leaders to make good judgments and try to do that. I think there are many things we could do with that money that would either yield long term savings or yield benefits for people. I'd love to help you support some of those other needs you've talked about. I think you're right. But this is like throwing cash into the wind, because all this will do is next year, once again, we'll have those headlines that we've had every year for the last ten years, or every other year for the last ten years. Education is too expensive because it's a 9% increase. And half of that is us.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I don't think this is sending cash into the wind. I think this is still investing in Vermonters, and the money will be spent in our communities to support children. And the longer I stay in the building, the more I become an institutionalist that is focused on fiscal stewardship, because that is the role and the seat I'm supposed to sit in. But when I had less resources than I do now, and most of my constituents are perfectly have find it perfectly necessary to spend their one time money for ongoing costs, because that's how people at the edges have to budget, or not budget, but spend. And so I am glad that we are doing everything we can to make Vermont as affordable as possible. And it is only my fear about next year's budget cycle and my fear about Vermonters' budgets next year that makes it feel okay to me to save the 50% for next year. Representative Branagan.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: I agree with you, Madam Chair, but that's not why I put my hand up. May I ask

[Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Yeah. We haven't What's it called? A two year Yes.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: So Julia, the property yield this current year, 85, 90 six, if I'm reading that chart correctly. And the property yield, if we do what we are voting on right now, goes up 100 about what, dollars 600 to $9,070 Is that right? Yes. So my superintendent tells me when the yield goes up, taxes go down. Is that right?

[Julia (Legislative Fiscal Analyst)]: Director Danfox, yes, that's correct.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Alrighty. And income yield, same thing, only not quite so much. The income yield right now is 12,172. Did I get on the right line for that one? Yep. And if we vote on this, 12,191, that's $19

[James Masland (Member)]: or $20 If

[Julia (Legislative Fiscal Analyst)]: you vote on the proposal that John walked through, the income yield would be 12,576. Oh,

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: say it again,

[Julia (Legislative Fiscal Analyst)]: 12,576. And I do want to note that these yields do have an inverse relationship to tax rates, meaning that if the yields go up, the tax rates go down. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have an inverse relationship, the same inverse relationship to bills, because bills are twofold, right? Both the rate and the base against which the rate is being applied.

[Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Okay. John, can you remind me what the draft number is?

[James Masland (Member)]: 2.1. Thank you.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Masland? Yeah, three or

[James Masland (Member)]: four things like, Teddy, everything is representative, everything is said is absolutely correct. And I also agree and understand that we could plug the hole if we correct how we charge income taxes to the wealthiest of owners. And those of us who run the numbers know full well that if we put the Trump cash cuts on one side and see how grossly huge they are, and balance that against what might be proposed to be increasing income taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters, there's still a net gain for those people. Yep. I mean, it's recognizable, you can't miss it. And so, support any number of the different proposals to do that, and know that all my constituents, your constituents, with a few outliers, were getting in that game. So, what's wrong with that? But then I'd say, with regards to where we are right now, the governor wanted us basically to sweep all this money and put it into reducing property taxes, and as Representative Holcombe said at our town meetings, we said we wouldn't do that. But for practical terms, I'm willing to take half of that. This is the art of the article, art of the possible, trying to be practical here and move the bill forward so we see where we end up. So I'm happy to do that. I don't have a problem with that. And it also, as we're now proposing, would provide a little bit more money for appropriations to do things all of which are worth. And things that, no, not doing that. Thought we're okay, so I misunderstood. I thought we were carving out a little bit for folks. I support doing that at the end of the day to figure out how to do that, but if that's not what we're able to do right now, okay. I support providing appropriations for money because those of us who've been down there and testified know how difficult it is for them to sort out the merits of one proposal. These are all things that are required. So I'll support this, as I've said,

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative that's Holcombe, and then I'm hoping we can move towards a vote just because I want make sure that we're all available for the vote. And we have many more discussions we can have tomorrow and next week.

[Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Yes, but this is a I understand.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm not I don't want us to rush the vote. I'm just Well,

[Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: we are rushing the vote. And the problem is, again, the tax rate bump we are committing to next year is already bigger than what we have in Ed spending this year. And it is just hugely problematic. What we are not buying with that use of real time money is any permanent affordability or any investment in a more functional system down the road. I'm going to go back to construction aid. There is no meaningful constructive consolidation without construction aid. And part of our challenge is we don't know how we can fund them. And that would actually give better opportunities to kids, including in your area, because I think some consolidation is needed in your area. And it would also give people healthier buildings. But we are giving that way. And that's what I meant. It's not that we're not investing in kids, but kids need us to invest in permanent changes that make for permanent affordability and permanent better opportunities, not a one time tax write off that we're going to have to pay for next year. Or they need health care. Does anyone else have anything they'd like to say?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Madam Chair, I think at this point it's probably appropriate to make a motion that we find draft 2.1 of Committee Bill 20 six-eight-one available, which contains the concept of a fiftyfifty split of the 104,900,000.0 from general fund in the Ed Fund.

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Thank you.

[James Masland (Member)]: I second. Second.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Kimbell moves that we find the yield bill draft to point one favorable with all of the numbers, and Representative Masland seconds. Any further discussion?

[Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Seeing none of the quirk, please call the roll. Representative Branagan? No.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I'll vote yes. Does Representative Burkhardt? Representative Higley? No. Representative Holcombe? No. Representative Kimbell?

[Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

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

[Woodman Page (Member)]: No.

[Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Waszazak? I couldn't hear you. Yes. Representative Canfield? No. Representative Kornheiser? Yes. Voted the bill favorable six fifty, sorry.

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you, everyone. This was a really productive day. And I appreciate all the work through the differences of opinion. And I'll see everyone back here at 9AM. Thank you. We're going to

[Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: work on the data center. Bye, Lee.

[James Masland (Member)]: Bye, Wendy. Good luck.

[Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Bye. We're

[Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: on the floor. We're going work on the data center bill tomorrow morning at nine, so folks have time to pre

[Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: read.