The committees of conference — there were 18 in all on Monday — are in full swing as lawmakers scramble to meet the Saturday adjournment deadline.
The imminent departure of lawmakers, lobbyists and Statehouse hangers-on hinges on the harmonious convergence of the money people in the building. The House and Senate budget, fee and tax writing lawmakers have to agree on a wide range of spending and revenue issues in the next day or so, in order for final passage of the money bills can move onto the floor of the Green and Red rooms.
The budget appears to be close at this point. Senate and House leaders have eased ultimate passage of the appropriations bill by stripping two Senate amendments to the appropriations bill — one that would enable child-care providers to unionize and another that would require the Public Service Board to ask CVPS to return $21 million in bailout money to ratepayers. (Supporters of both amendments are looking for new legislative vehicles at this point.)
Meanwhile, lawmakers have a handful of issues to work out on the tax and fee bills, a few of which (the cloud computing tax, fees for Vermont Information Consortium) could give lawmakers heartburn.
Surplus setaside for Irene projects
The biggest shift in the Appropriations bill so far is an agreement with the Shumlin administration on a $15 million setaside of any surplus monies in fiscal year 2012 for Irene recovery projects, including the temporary Morrisville facility for psychiatric patients, the replacement building for the Vermont State Hospital and the Waterbury state office complex.
There is no guarantee that there will be a surplus this year, in fact, state revenues are still behind by $7 million, but budget-writers say it’s prudent to put the language in place just in case.
Rep. Alice Emmons, D-Springfield, says the Waterbury complex and the Vermont State Hospital are top priorities this year and next. The cost to build both will be between $120 million and $130 million, and it’s still unclear how much the state will receive in insurance settlement money and FEMA support. As a result, Emmons anticipates Irene-related financial pressure on next year’s Capital Bill.
“Anything we can do to put money toward the bottom line is a big help,” Emmons said.
Jim Reardon, commissioner of the Department of Finance and Management, said there is no way to know whether there will be any surplus for fiscal year 2012, but the provision gives the state a contingency plan.
“Our thought was to take one-time money that comes in at the end of the year and use it for one-time purposes,” Reardon said.
The members of the Appropriations conference committee are: Sens. Jane Kitchel, Dick Sears and Diane Snelling; Reps. Martha Heath, Mitzi Johnson and Howard Crawford.
Tax writers narrow differences down to five
On Tuesday, the tax conference committee went through the Senate and House versions of the miscellaneous tax bill and came to agreements on a number of items, including the 2013 Education Fund transfer and the electric energy generating tax.
The Senate and House both agreed to put 50 percent of future excess revenues into the state’s budget stabilization fund and reserves for replacing federal funds that could be cut in future.
They had very different approaches, however, to the ultimate destination for half of the anticipated General Fund surpluses. The Senate wanted to refund the other half of the surplus to residential taxpayers. The House proposal was to eventually restore $27.5 million to the General Fund transfer to the Education Fund, which disappeared when the Legislature “rebased” the Education Fund to 2008 levels last year.
The conferees agreed on Tuesday to put a quarter of the surplus toward the Education Fund and another quarter of the money into a Special Fund for the next three years. The Special Fund money would be held in reserve until the Legislature can develop proposals for the following: depositing money in the Education Fund; creating incentives for controlling education spending while improving quality; finding ways to reduce the base percentage of income for the income sensitivity program. The Joint Fiscal Office would be charged with reporting on the relative share of the General Fund as a percentage of total Education Fund receipts and compare Vermont’s property tax and non-property tax revenues with those of other states.
The parties were also in agreement on the electric generating tax. The Senate and House originally prescribed allocations for the $12.5 million in taxes on Vermont Yankee. Originally, a portion of the taxes would have gone to the Education Fund and the Clean Energy Development Fund. Under the new proposal, all of the money would go to the General Fund.
They also concurred on an increase to the proportion of sales and use taxes for the Education Fund by 0.1 percent of one cent. Currently, one-third of sales and use taxes go to the Ed Fund and two-thirds to the General Fund; under the change, 35 percent would go to the Ed Fund and 65 percent to the General Fund.
Issues still to be resolved? The cloud computing tax, the dividends and income cap on the property tax income sensitivity program, a $500,000 cap on properties eligible for income sensitivity, a secondary packaging tax and homestead property tax declaration rules.
The members of the conference committee are: Sens. Ann Cummings, Richard Westman and Mark McDonalds; Reps. Janet Ancel, Jim Condon and Carolyn Branagan.
Environmental fee bill redux
Senate and House conferees have narrowed down their differences to a few issues.
They agreed to capping air pollution emission fees for the Burlington Electric Department at $64,000. The change is a $10,000 reduction from the original proposal.
“We feel it’s appropriate to cap emissions for BED since we capped the thermal discharge (for Vermont Yankee) on this bill,” Sharpe said.
Lawmakers also gave tacit approval to a Senate plan to tax earth extraction at a rate of 2 cents per cubic yard for up to 1 million cubic yards. After that, the rate drops to 1 cent. The fee would be applicable to new gravel or stone pit projects.
The key unresolved issues include: charges for fees for gas tanks and fees charged by a contract web development firm.
The Senate wants to move ahead with gas tank fee increases for three years; the House has proposed a one year hike until lawmakers can get more information from the Petroleum Cleanup Advisory Committee, which Rep. Dave Sharpe said was not consulted on the increases.
Conferees have not yet resolved how they’ll deal with web portal fees.
The Legislature, which has jurisdiction over all other fees, does not approve the amounts charged by Vermont Information Consortium, a national contractor with a franchise in Vermont, that has created 114 websites for the state since 2006. VIC, instead, negotiates the charges directly with the administration.
Members of House Ways and Means, the Legislature’s powerful tax-writing committee, have expressed concern about the lack of information about a portion of web portal fees retained by VIC, which is part of the National Information Consortium. Documents provided by the company do not include a breakdown of how much of the money goes to NIC in profits.
Many of the sites VIC develops provide information about state government and do not generate revenue. Others, like the Department of Motor Vehicles, bring in millions of dollars. Through a special arrangement with the Douglas administration, VIC agreed to develop “free” sites for the state in exchange for a portion of the revenues derived from motor vehicle and mobile home licenses, and court, police and vital records, among others.
From 2007 to 2010, VIC grossed about $6 million in fees on motor vehicle records. The company charges $4 per Department of Motor Vehicle transaction. Jamie Gage, who manages the Montpelier-based franchise, says VIC’s net revenue over that period was $1 million.
The House wants legislative oversight of all fees charged by Vermont Information Consortium. The Senate has proposed no change in existing statute.
The members of the fee bill conference committee are: Sens. Tim Ashe, Randy Brock and Dick McCormack; Reps. Alison Clarkson, Dave Sharpe and James Masland.
GMO labeling bill pinned to the wall in House Judiciary
Rep. Bill Lippert, D-Hinesburg, says it’s too late to move the GMO labeling forward this year, especially in light of the very good possibility that the legislation would spur litigation.
Lippert, chair of House Judiciary, says his committee has 15 bills that have already passed that need tweaking before they are enacted, and as the session wanes there isn’t enough time to give the GMO labeling bill its due.
Though there is broad support for the bill (the House Agriculture committee members voted 9-1 in support of it), it will need a thorough vetting, Lippert says, because of legal threats from opponents.
“Everyone expects there will be lawsuits from corporations who don’t want GMO labeling,” Lippert said. “We need to establish a solid legislative record.”
“I consider myself a supporter of the bill,” Lippert continued. “I’ve been telling advocates they’d be better focused on the upcoming election and asking candidates to take a position. As the campaigns go on, that would be a useful step.”
