Legislative Update

From: Dave Venter

Legislative Update In This Issue Water Quality Bill Economic Development More Economic Development Items of Interest VT Travel Industry Conference 2015 Awards Congratulations to All  Johannes vonTrapp  Borden Avery Innkeeper of the Year VT Business Magazine April 3, 2015 VT Business Magazine VT Chamber of Commerce Best Places to Work in Vermont Burlington Free Press March 26, 2015        Davis and Hodgdon's Vermont Economic Survey Reveals Frustration VT Business Magazine March 16, 2015 Useful Links    Vermont Legislature  Vision to Action Vermont Campaign for Vermont Upcoming Events    ________________ Mon. April 13, 2015 LRCC/SAA Legislative Breakfast 7:30 - 9:00 AM Stowe ________________ April 6, 2015 Dear Friends,   The Vermont House education reform effort took center stage this past week, culminating in the passage of a bill that essentially consolidates even more of the power over our students' education in the hands of those in Montpelier. And, this is not just my opinion.  The Rutland Herald/Times Argus clearly shares my concerns. The bill mandates that school districts consolidate into entities with greater than 1,100 pupils, and imposes a spending cap in 2018 and 2019 if spending in 2017 increases by over 2.95%. [The irony of Montpelier imposing caps on our local school boards and districts while we have increased state General Fund spending at 5.3% year over year over the past five years, and have proposed another 4.8% increase this coming fiscal year, seemed to have been lost on many.] Aside from that irony, however, I am exceptionally disappointed in the bill as it came to the House floor, and made an impassioned plea to my colleagues for better work. After so many years of inaction on education and education funding reform - and in fact, the dismissal for so long of the issue altogether - I was extremely hopeful coming into this legislative biennium.   After all, throughout the 2014 campaign, candidate after candidate spoke of the need to comprehensively reform the system; prior advocates for the status quo promised Vermonters that they were committed to meaningful reform; that indeed, this was the year the Vermont General Assembly was going to tackle education reform. But, is what passed the House what Vermonters were asking for?  Is it what Vermonters had expected of us? The elimination of local school districts and school boards?  The elimination of the local community voice in the development and provision of its educational services? And while eliminating so much of the local voice, we maintain the vast and overreaching administrative structure that is so firmly in place? And, finally, we don't include any meaningful reform to the funding system? Frankly, I don't believe this is what Vermonters have been clamoring for.  It is not what they had expected of us. With so much attention paid to education reform over the 2014 campaign, I was really hopeful.  I thought for sure that this would be our opportunity to do something meaningful; to look at our education system not as what it is, but at what it could - and should - be.  And do so in a way that reconnects taxpayers to budgets voted upon and money spent - thus bringing accountability back to the financing system. H. 361 has passed the House and has been sent to the Vermont Senate.  While I am unsure of its future in that body, rest assured, I am going to continue my efforts at comprehensive reform.  After all, you cannot address education reform without addressing the education funding system. Water Quality Bill While much of the attention last week was on the education bill, a significant water quality bill was also on tap, and overwhelmingly passed the Vermont House. The bill is the first step in a very long process to clean up Lake Champlain, and other waterways throughout the state.  While the bill is not everything that some wanted, it is a positive - and much-needed - first step.  For too long, we have allowed phosphorus and other pollutants to build up in Lake Champlain and other waters in Vermont - from farms, roads, parking lots, and other developed areas.  And, finally, the clean up of those waterways has become a priority for legislators from across the political spectrum. As importantly, unlike last year's water clean-up bill, this one has funding to go along with it.   To be clear, as I have stated throughout the year, I do not believe Vermonters are paying too little in taxes and fees to the State.  In fact, I know full well the struggle that many families and businesses continue to face, and have fought increases throughout my years. And, when there were options presented on the House floor by Representatives Corey Parent and Lynn Dickinson to raise the necessary $8 million/year incorporated into H. 35 within our current revenue picture, I supported those efforts wholeheartedly. But, when those amendments were defeated, I remained committed to the water quality bill.  I still believed in the importance of it, and supported the new funding package as well. I am confident that H. 35 will progress through the Senate, even with changes, and that by the end of this session, the General Assembly will have set Vermont on a path to clean waters. Disappointments in Economic Development As I mentioned in prior newsletters, the Senate Economic Development Committee worked hard to develop a sound economic development bill; one that would, among other things, allow greater access to capital for our entrepreneurs, would further invest in proven growth strategies, and would make modest, yet important reforms to our regulatory structure. Unfortunately, as the bill has progressed through the other Senate committees of jurisdiction, the bill has been all but gutted of economic growth initiatives.  And, after a campaign season full of promises from candidates from across the political spectrum, this couldn't be more disappointing for me. I understand the challenges with regard to the huge budget deficit our state faces this year.  But, to simply ignore the importance of investing in growing our economy is incredibly short-sighted. After all, it is only with more and higher-paying jobs, and greater investment in our innovators and entrepreneurs, that our state will see the necessary increase in revenues to pay for the many initiatives Vermonters want to maintain. I know some Senators are also disappointed in S. 138 as it now stands, so I am hopeful there will be action on the Senate floor to put some important economic development initiatives back into the bill. In the meantime, the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development, on which I serve, continues its work to put together legislation on its own.  From tax policy to access to capital, and from housing, to workforce, to regulatory reform, we are hopeful to have an economic development bill that will move the economic dial in Vermont in a meaningful way. Representative Heidi E. Scheuermann Stowe, Vermont