To the editor: Housing, education and a tentative meeting in Grafton

Hello Neighbors,

The Vermont General Assembly is still in session as of the writing of this note, which is Sunday, May 25.  The complexity of the bills under consideration and the work needed to find consensus have kept us in Montpelier longer than usual to get the work done. I am hopeful that this will be our final week, but we will see.

This year’s omnibus housing bill has passed, though I believe further work will be needed to make simpler options available to rural communities.  There is substantial funding for the various housing agencies tasked with expanding the housing stock that would be affordable to working class families, which is our current need.

More, however, needs to be done to bring vacant or abandoned properties back online.  Likewise there needs to be clear resolution to landlord-tenant issues that drive property owners out of the long term rental market and into short term rentals.   Both of these can be complex, but together represent more than half of our current housing shortfall.

The housing bill does include a tax-increment financing program meant to fund infrastructure (water, sewer, roads etc) where it means the difference between building housing or not.  It is more complex as passed than it was as introduced, but will help mid-size communities develop such that the workforce we need can move to or stay in the area.  This works in such a way that a portion of the increase in taxable value of the project is set aside to repay the bond.  Some have suggested that this “takes from the education fund,” which it most emphatically does not.  Over time it contributes significantly more to the tax base than doing nothing does.

Construction represents one of three options we have for Vermont’s fiscal future:  we broaden our tax base, bringing our per-capita tax burden down, and/or we cut out expenses at least as significantly to do the same …. OR we just keep raising taxes until only the rich can afford to be here.  I am somewhat concerned at the number of voices that think the third is a viable plan.  Work continues.

The long anticipated education bill has been voted out of the Senate and is now returning to the House. There will be a committee on conference and negotiations with the administration as soon as we return this week.   The Senate’s version of the bill, though it had enough bipartisan votes to pass, was prevented from coming to a vote earlier this week by the Senate Democratic Caucus.  The House education bill in its original form was voted out rather grudgingly, so it is difficult to determine just what reception it will get on Tuesday, as amended by the Senate.

This is some progress, though I am convinced that the timeline is still too long, the savings do not appear significant enough in the near future, and there is too much erosion of local control.  Understandably, savings are likely a couple years out, and some changes can only be made between school years.  A new funding formula and a plan for consolidation of districts (which is not the same as closing schools) come first.  The last iteration of this bill requires mapping to be done prior to the end of the year, which will move things forward.  For the coming tax year $77 million in surplus revenue from last year will be used to keep the increase to the education property tax rate to 1%.  There is concern that this may not be an option for the next year, to which I would suggest we’d better get on with a prompt solution.

The state budget passed this year with far more consensus than it usually does, with broad agreement that we need to be cautious until federal funding, or lack thereof, is better defined. There is a $100 million reserve anticipated to mitigate at least some changes in federal funding, though it will not replace them outright.  There is a possibility the Legislature may be called into an emergency session in the autumn to make adjustments once the numbers are known.  Federal actions, including tariffs and immigration, remain a focus of attention with regard to their impact on the operation of the state.

I am, tentatively, planning to be at the Grafton Town Hall, 117 Main St. in Grafton, at 6 p.m.on Wednesday June 11, having been assured that I will not be in Montpelier.  In addition to celebrating the end of the session,  I invite you to please come and contribute to a more in-depth discussion of the above.  To confirm the date and time, visit Tom Charlton for Vermont House of Representatives or reach out to me at tcharlton@leg.state.vt.us.

Sincerely,

Rep. Tom Charlton
Windham-Windsor District
(Athens, Grafton, Windham and Chester)