As legislators returned to Montpelier this week we saw some of the hastiest decision-making this year. To be fair, that is usually the case as the cross-over deadline looms large over committee work.

The most concerning instance of this, for us, is a bill that would remove the requirement for House and Senate panels to consult with the Ethics Commission when a complaint is referred. This week we issued our first action alert of the year on this issue. The independent Vermont Ethics Commission has limited authority to begin with, but this bill would further exacerbate that situation. While we have made much progress in the last decade, Vermont is still ranked in the bottom ten for anti-corruption measures - lack of full enforcement powers for the Ethics Commission is a big reason for this. At a moment when faith and trust in Government is at an all time low, this move comes across as tone deaf.

Education

On Monday we released our education proposal, which is focused on the learnings from Act 46 and recognizing Vermonter’s preference towards local control of schools. We believe that we can have BOTH economies of scale AND local control. We can achieve this through consolidating our 52 Supervisory Unions (SUs) to align with our regional Technical Education Centers.

In our current system, SUs have not been properly leveraged for their cost-saving potential. Many services, such as special education and transportation, are already provided at the SU level. We can push even more services up to this level to achieve economies of scale, but structural reform will also be necessary. Currently, there are roughly two districts for each SU. Our proposal would result seven districts per SU.

This approach leaves local school boards intact and focused on community schools. It also better aligns post-secondary educational opportunities through the Tech Centers if they are run by the SU. It will also create cost-savings as more services would be shared across multiple districts while maintaining a Vermont-scale school governance model.

Housing

The House and Senate both continue to work on concurrent bills to expand the state's housing footprint. The House, for the most part, focused on program funding for low-income housing projects. This included $4M in new funding for the Rental Housing Improvement Program and $2M for the Manufactured Home Repair program. Overall the House General & Housing Committee is proposing $73M in program spending, however they were informed that the Appropriations Committee is already facing nearly $300M in requests beyond the Governor's budget. Any additions to the housing bill would likely require cuts elsewhere, they were cautioned.

Also contemplated in the House bill are refinements to who can appeal a permit application, requiring a "specialized interest" in order to do so. A local option tax on short-term rentals that municipalities could levy is also on the table.

The Senate version mostly focuses on project-based tax-increment financing (TIF), which is a mechanism that allows projects to be funded through increased municipal property tax revenues that are realized in future years. Currently, TIF's are only available in a set geographical area, known as a district. These usually encompass multiple projects and the accounting requirements are quite complex. As such, only large municipalities are able to take advantage of this financing mechanism. The project-based TIF would be more accessible to small municipalities, at least in theory.

Much of the discussion in the Senate this week focused on clearly definition which projects would be eligible for TIF's to ensure that development aligns with community needs, includes public-private partnerships, and avoids confusion. There was also discussion about balancing the needs for environmental protection with the need for affordable housing development.

Good Government

The House also advanced an elections reform package this week that would move the state towards Ranked Choice Voting, a method currently used in some municipal elections. While this voting method is more responsive to voter preferences, concerns were also raised that it may confuse voters who are not familiar with it. There were a number of other revisions included, such as standardized ballot processes across different elections, the party nomination process, fusion candidates, voter checklist audits, and campaign finance requirements.

Also advancing in the House this week was H.67, which would create a panel to monitor and report back the performance of legislative initiatives.

On behalf of Vermonters,