Budget and tax bills reduce governor's spending proposal, raise $1.2 million in new revenues - VTDigger

Budget and tax bills reduce governor’s spending proposal, raise $1.2 million in new revenues

In the annual dance to balance the state budget, zero is the magic number. This year, the budget and revenue committees in the House got as close to nada as possible.

They reduced spending without cutting programs, and managed to fill a $14 million hole with less than $1 million in new taxes on tobacco products.

Both the budget and the miscellaneous tax bill passed out of committees on Monday afternoon, preparing the way for debate on the House floor later this week. (The property tax rate bill, meanwhile, will be finalized on Tuesday.)

The Big Bill can’t be closed until lawmakers figure out whether there are enough revenues to cover any gaps. And this year, as in years past, state receipts have not been robust enough for lawmakers to assume that there will be a surplus. Tax revenues have grown since the Great Recession, but not enough to cover expenditures. Usually, the balance is struck with one-time money — rather than a steady surplus of funds based on economic growth.

The state began the budgeting process this year with a $70 million gap in revenues and expenditures. But by the time Gov. Peter Shumlin introduced his budget in January, he found $30 million in one-time monies, and he pursued new revenues — a $14 million claims assessment that would put a fee on every insurance transaction. The governor’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal increased government spending by 5.1 percent over last year.

The House rejected the claims assessment and instead opted to reduce spending and raise as little money as possible through new taxes.

Rep. Martha Heath, D-Westford, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, heard testimony Wednesday on the Budget Adjustment Act. Photo by John Herrick/VTDigger

Rep. Martha Heath, D-Westford, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, heard testimony Wednesday on the Budget Adjustment Act. Photo by John Herrick/VTDigger

In the end, House Appropriations and House Ways and Means, working in tandem, found all but $3.3 million of the $14 million in savings, and reduced the overall spending increase for fiscal year 2015 to 3.8 percent. The General Fund budget, that passed the budget-writing panel on Monday 7-4 (the four Republicans on the committee cast the dissenting votes), is $1.44 billion.

On Monday morning the gap was $4.4 million, and by late afternoon, after huddles with the Joint Fiscal Office and the Department of Finance and Management, the appropriations committee had decided to tap $1.1 million from a sequestration setaside for possible federal cuts to programs that did not materialize this year. That brought the total in new money needed to close the budget to $3.3 million.

Rep. Martha Heath, D-Westford, and chair of House Appropriations, said she was excited that the two committees were “able to create a responsible budget without asking for new revenues.”

“We made important investments in opiate addiction treatment, addressed poverty and developed a strategy that will reduce homelessness in children,” Heath said after the vote.

Republicans on the committee opposed the Big Bill because it didn’t go far enough to reduce spending.

Rep. Peter Fagan, R-Rutland, said he thought it was a good budget, “but because of its reliance on one-time issues and because of the growth rate that needs to be lower to better reflect Vermont’s revenues, I’m not capable of supporting it at this time.” Fagan has suggested that the committee use a “little different process” for reviewing the budget next year.

Miscellaneous tax changes

Meanwhile, the tax writing committee, House Ways and Means, found money here and there — from unexpected compliance funds, sequestration setasides and small decreases in tax exemptions for renter rebates and a cap on income sensitized rebates — to bring the need for more revenues almost down to nil. In the end, the committee needed to raise $1.2 million, and it did so through an increase in the tax on snuff and a first-time wholesale tax on electronic cigarettes.

The miscellaneous tax bill passed 9-2 Monday afternoon, with Rep. Adam Greshin, I-Warren, and Rep. Patti Komline, R-Dorset, dissenting.

Rep. Janet Ancel, D-Calais, chair of House Ways and Means, shared the credit for keeping new taxes in check with her colleagues in House Appropriations. “The good work upstairs allowed us to get there without raising taxes,” Ancel said.

Photo by Jan Doerler

Rep. Janet Ancel, D-Calais, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Photo by Jan Doerler

“I think it was really pretty impressive to have a budget with a $14 million increase and come together with a budget and so-called revenue bill that doesn’t have any revenue,” Ancel said.

Greshin supported the bill overall, but voted against it because he was unhappy with a disclosure requirement for businesses that receive tax credits for research and development. “It achieves nothing and it leads to petty discussions about who is taking what with no context,” Greshin said. “We don’t ask people who take a property tax adjustment to drive around with a bumper sticker.”

Lawmakers wrestled for several hours on the tobacco taxes. It was clear from the beginning of the discussion that raising taxes on cigarettes was not going to go far. The recommended increase from anti-smoking advocates was $1.25 per pack, which would have raised $14 million, and the committee no longer needed to raise that much money.

Passing a slight increase on snuff — going from $2.24, the current level, and bringing the tax up level with cigarette taxes, $2.62, was not a big deal for the committee and was a surefire way to raise $700,000 in new revenues — but a new wholesale tax on electronic cigarettes led to a long discussion on whether it was appropriate to put a new assessment on a product they didn’t really understand. They didn’t have conclusive testimony or evidence regarding the prevalence of ecigs, who used the product, how addictive it was, or whether it was in fact a smoking cessation product.

But in the end, committee members rejected a proposal to raise cigarette taxes by 6 cents, and voted instead for a 92 percent wholesale tax on ecigs that is likely to bring the total cost of the product up to about $14. The new tax will raise about $500,000 a year for the state.

The changes outlined in the miscellaneous tax bill that affect General Fund revenues include $1.2 million in unexpected monies from a percentage of Tax Department compliance collections for the state.

Education Fund changes also contribute a total of $900,000 to the General Fund bottom line. A reduction in property tax breaks for renters raises $600,000 and a downward adjustment in the cap on the maximum property tax refund from $8,000 to $6,000 (the bill includes an adjustment for households with a single member who is more than 65 years of age) brings up state revenues by $300,000 for the Education Fund and $300,000 for the General Fund.

Other changes include an increase in the cap from $1.7 million to $2.2 million for tax credits to developers who pursue downtown projects (overall cost of $250,000); a $150,000 tax credit for the wood products industry; and a new voice over Internet phone tax that raises $82,000.

The solar capacity tax

The miscellaneous tax bill also includes incentives for small-scale renewable energy projects.

Representatives from the Department of Taxes, towns and solar industry this year ironed out a compromise to expand tax exemptions for small solar projects. The changes include:

Solar panels in East Montpelier. VTD/Josh Larkin

Solar panels in East Montpelier. File photo by Josh Larkin/VTDigger

• An exemption for  solar net-metered projects less than 50 kilowatts in size from the state’s annual capacity tax, which is used to support the Education Fund. Projects over this size would be taxed at 70 percent their value for 25 years, at which point the project is unlikely to continue generating electricity. Net metering is a program that allows ratepayers to generate their own electricity.

• A municipal tax exemption for the first 50 kilowatts of any renewable energy project. Every additional kilowatt will be taxed at $4 – the current capacity tax rate. The previous exemption threshold was set at 10 kilowatts.

The solar industry wanted to see the tax policy updated to account for the recent boom in small-scale, distributed energy generation projects. This included exempting net metering projects from taxation altogether.

Nonetheless, the industry supports the predictable 25-year tax rate, a model that replaces the so-called Sandia tax valuation formula.

“It doesn’t include an exemption for net metering systems that we had hoped and that we thought was fair, but it does provide a level of stability and predictability to the industry to allow the industry to grow in Vermont,” said Andrew Savage, a spokesman for AllEarth Renewables, a Williston-based solar manufacturer.

Towns would see a small decline in municipal tax revenue, according to Steve Jeffrey, executive director of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. He said the bill was a “good compromise” between the towns and solar industry.

“It’s pretty close to a wash. I mean it looks like it’s going to come out to be about 70 percent of what we would have gotten otherwise,” Jeffrey said. “But the fact that the valuation is stabilized for 25 years is going to help us make sure we can budget as opposed to seeing a declining valuation happening.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 5:23 a.m. on March 25. Johnny Herrick contributed to this report.

Correction: March 25, 11:40 p.m. The 50 kilowatt exemption figures for the solar tax were incorrectly described. Fifty killowatts or less is exempt from state tax and the first 50 kilowatts is exempt from municipal tax.

Anne Galloway

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Dave Bellini

    “…but a new wholesale tax on electronic taxes…”
    don’t you mean ‘electronic cigarettes’ ?

  • kathy boyle

    More taxes on cigarettes and other nicotine containing substances. It is a sad commentary. Let’s tax an addiction. Seems ironic since the state is now so focused on opiate addiction. Well at least it is surefire revenue. I am baffled that caffeinated drinks have not come under scrutiny (or am I mistaken) for future taxation. Hey, legislators , have another cup of Joe and support Vermont. I mean, caffeine is legal, and addictive also.

  • Jennifer Brown

    What’s going to happen when eveyone quits smoking cigarettes. Who will pay the tax then?

    • kathy boyle

      That’s why they took on the e-cigs. Real potential income as people use them to attempt to quit regular cigarettes. Still don’t understand why they won’t consider caffeinated drinks. Probably too unpopular with the general public. I guess they get the beverage tax on convenience store coffee also? When are they going to get the message that “you can’t get blood out of a rock”. There is only so much we can take. Reduced real income and increased taxes. Personally I am looking to live elsewhere. Paid into the system here long enough thank you.

  • Kathy Callaghan

    “The state began the budgeting process this year with a $70 million gap in revenues and expenditures. But by the time Gov. Peter Shumlin introduced his budget in January, he found $30 million in one-time monies,…”

    I will admit I’m confused. It’s a safe bet that the $30 million in “one-time expenditures” were not used for “one-time” expenses. So where does the $30m come from next year when the “one-time” monies have vanished?

    Since the legislature has this much trouble patching together a $1.4 billion budget and trying not to tax individuals and businesses any more than possible, how does that square with imposing $2 billion in additional taxes on Vermonters in 2017 for single payer? There’s no running away from that number, because the total cost is $6 billion and the Feds are paying $4 billion.

    Vermonters don’t pay $2 billion in health premiums so the theory of premiums replaced by taxes doesn’t work.

    Unless I’m missing something, Vermonters and Vermont businesses don’t have that much spare change lying around.

  • Jim Christiansen

    A 3.8% increase in spending.

    Now, everyone who’s disposable income went up 3.8% this year raise your hands.

    Unsustainable even at 3.8%.

    • Scott Markoski

      Just to point out: 3.8% represents a doubling time of roughly 19 years. A complete second “everything-we-spend-now” in just 19 years.

      An honest question might be: do we expect funding mechanisms (taxes, fees, federal dollars, etc) to double in 19 years? The answer might be yes, I don’t know, but I think it’s reasonable to expect an answer to that question. Because that’s what’s being said with 3.8%. That’s a big promise to be making for our futures.

    • Tom Pelham

      Jim…It’s much worse than the VtDigger article profiles, more like a 6.1% general fund budget increase. Last May at the end of the last legislative session, the general fund budget appropriations were $1355.74 million. See 2014 CoC column in legislative budget summary link below – CoC stands for Conference Committee, the last step in the legislative approval process. .


      Now look here at the most recent legislative budget summary:


      In Column 2014 BAA (Budget Adjustment Act), you’ll see that the legislature increased 2014 appropriations over the $1,355.73 end of session amount to a new level of $1,386.09 million and the House is now recommending a further increase over that amount to $1,438.44 million for fiscal 2015.

      Thus, the year-over-year increase, from end of session last year for fiscal 2014 to the House end of session recommendation for fiscal 2015 is an increase from $1,355.73 million to $1,438.44 million, or $82.71 million equaling a 6.1 percent increase over the budget passed last session.

      By using the 2014 BAA as the base of comparison, all the increases in the budget adjustment are masked, making the actual increase seem much small than it really is. This is especially true as the 2014 BAA has over $17.5 million in “one-time” spending which is now built into the base for fiscal 2015.

      Yes, the House proposal is slightly better than the Governor’s proposal, but both are well above the underlying growth rates of the Vermont economy. The consequences of this approach are profiled here:


      • Kathy Callaghan

        Voodoo economics again…………

  • Patrick Zachary

    Yup they are patting themselves on the back for 3.8% where they should be at 0% like the rest of us – they still don’t get it.

  • Yep, and now pay for healthcare and the predicted rise in food that will hit us in the next couple years. Do you hear that sucking sound? That’s our disposable income going to Montpelier. Centralizing every aspect of our lives is going to break the Bank, and “we the people” are supposed to keep coughing it up without compromise or question.

    I hear Wyoming is a nice place to live-

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Budget and tax bills reduce governor’s spending proposal, raise..."