Not sure they still sell those “EASY” buttons, but we sure could have used one in the House Appropriations Committee last Friday. In an extraordinary long day, the committee finished a draft on its version of the state budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1. The $9 billion spending plan of state and federal funds has something for everyone to take issue with.
The committee begins in January with a proposal put forth by the governor’s administration and then proceeds to hear from various departments, agencies, other policy committees in the House, advocates and members of the public. Going into last week, we had about $300 million in funding requests over and above what was in the governor’s budget plan. And the funny thing was that there were few, if any, recommendations on what to cut from the governor’s budget.
Given that revenue projections are established by state economists, every dollar added means a dollar needs to be reduced elsewhere. And that is where it gets messy. We all represent different districts, have different political perspectives and life experiences, which gives us each a unique lens we evaluate each change with.
Late (actually very late) Friday evening the committee came to a tentative 9-2 vote on the package of ups and downs.
I was one of the two “No”s.
I appreciated our chair’s effort to work with all of us to try and find that delicate balance of ups and downs for each member, but in the end, I didn’t feel comfortable with the total or all the choices we made. And I don’t think the governor’s team will be either.
However, as a few more adjustments were made over the weekend, I am pleased to say that I was able to get to a “Yes” when the final vote was taken, and the committee advanced the FY26 budget package on a 11-0 vote. It will now go to the full House this week for approval and then on to the Senate.
A major concern of mine had to do with $20 million that had been previously earmarked for reducing state bonds, some of which the committee utilized to raise current spending in the budget. There were other concerns as well regarding a few new state positions, some of which were addressed. In this era of uncertainty of federal revenues and/or potential for a recession in the next few years, I have a hard time expanding the role of state government. I strongly believe in living within our means. But in the end, we reached a compromise and that is important and the way the process should work.
Although there was a bipartisan vote on the budget, that was not the case with the annual mid-year Budget Adjustment Act bill. It was vetoed last week over the issue of extra spending and the extension of the winter rules for the hotel program through early summer. Rather than vote on an override, House leaders chose to introduce a new BAA that moved some of the extra spending to the state budget for the next fiscal year but kept the extension of the winter rules for hotel vouchers. As expected, it received preliminary passage on a party line vote and unless amended this week, it is headed for another veto. The administration has offered several compromises on the hotel program, but each was rejected by legislative leaders.
Instead, House leaders apparently chose to bring their case for expanding the hotel voucher program to the public in hopes of applying public pressure on the governor to accept the expansion. It’s not going to happen from what I see. It’s like the leaders haven’t accepted the fact that the political balance at the State House has shifted. However, I am encouraged that at least conversations are now taking place to find common ground.
The other big news of the week may be the advancement of the annual Yield bill, which sets the statewide property tax rate. Gov. Scott proposed utilizing $77 million of one-time funds to bring down the average statewide tax this year to help with the transition of education finance and consolidation, which they believe will save taxpayers money in the coming years. On Friday, the House Ways & Means Committee did include the $77 million to bring down this year’s rates as proposed, but thus far there has been no movement on an education reform bill. Will it be another “kick the can?”
Without changes to education, Vermonters risk an even larger increase in property taxes next year if there are no surplus funds to artificially lower the rate again.
There are many other bills moving through the State House, but until we get the budget passed the House this week, it is hard for me to get a clear picture of all the issues to give you a better summary of the key ones.
In closing, I remain hopeful that we can find the necessary compromises on the budget bills this week and move forward. If only we had the “EASY”button.
Jim Harrison is the state representative for Chittenden, Killington, Mendon, and Pittsfield. He can be reached at [email protected].
