Money from 10 funding sources — including a $10 increase for the annual fee on motor vehicle registrations, a sales tax on marina slip rentals, and 1 percent increases in rooms, meals and alcohol taxes — would achieve that multimillion dollar figure, the Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Committee calculated.
The taxes would start in 2019 while the state figures out how to levy a “per-parcel fee” to be implemented in 2021. Such a fee would require property owners of all sizes, as well as tax-exempt organizations, to pay varying amounts annually.
Under the committee’s recommendation, that fee would become the long-term funding source as the state works to meet federally mandated goals to reduce phosphorus in Vermont’s rivers, streams and lakes. In the meantime, the state would rely on existing bonding capacity for the pollution reduction efforts.
The panel voted 7-2 to send the recommendation to the House Ways and Means Committee, which will decide which taxes, if any, to send to the full House.
Rep. David Deen (D-Westminster West) chairs the Natural Resources, Fish & Wildlife Committee, and said his members struggled to find ways to raise money.
“It’s going to be a tough sell,” Deen said. “What I keep reminding people is … if you think it’s tough to rent a room with a 1 percent tax, wait until the lake turns green and go ahead and try to rent that room.”
“Making decisions now about the appropriate funding source two to three years away is premature at best,” his communications director, Rebecca Kelley, said in a written statement.
In January, State Treasurer Beth Pearce recommended raising $25 million a year to pay for a portion of the pollution reduction plan. She suggested using existing state bonding authority to pay for the first two years, which lawmakers have embraced while searching for a longer-term funding source.
Deen’s committee considered a wide range of possibilities to bridge the gap before reaching the list of 10 recommendations. The panel briefly discussed, but decided against, a tax on coffee.
The money would go into the state’s Clean Water Fund, with a board determining how it is spent on projects such as wastewater treatment and farm pollution mitigation.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Hmmmm. Let me get this right: FIRST we collect the tax money and SECOND we determine how to spend it to protect the lake. Anyone else think this is backwards? Sadly, giving Vermont legislators a blank check has too often proven to be little more than buying a shot of Jameson for a catastrophic dipsomaniac.
What people don’t seem to realize is their taxes or fees will go up with or without Legislative action. The Legislature passed Act 64, which mandates at least $2.3 Billion in new government and private sector spending, and possibly a great deal more. They enacted the spending requirements before they had an estimate of the cost or a plan for how to pay for it. So the projects are already being planned. Absent some action by the Legislature to provide state funding to support these costs the entire burden will fall to municipalities and businesses, including farms. Property taxpayers and sewer utility ratepayers will carry the full public sector burden. So the question is not whether to increase taxes and fees – that was decided when Act 64 was passed. The question is which taxes and fees will be raised to pay these bills?
Quick edit to my last comment – the $2.3 Billion would be partially paid for by existing state and federal assistance, but almost all of that is loans, which means property taxpayers and utility fee payers will eventually pay for most of it.
The biggest problem with this proposal is the regressive nature of the new taxes. For example, an additional DMV registration fee hurts the lower-income individuals the most. In most of rural VT one has to own a vehicle, and typically households have more than one…such as a truck for work-related tasks…as well as separate cars for each driver.
Another example is how VHCB funds keep being raised and used for unrelated projects. VHCB funds largely come from the property transfer tax, which hurt people attempting to buy a home. In Chittenden County, where a home of $300k is nearly the median and/or average, the additional property transfer tax is about $5000, which one tacks onto the already high closing costs.
Until the funding source is strictly levied upon those who pollute, such as basing it on lot-coverage and impermeable surface area, this proposal should be scrapped.
How about looking at all of the programs currently being funded by the state taxpayers and figure out which ones can be cut or streamlined. Here’s what happens every single legislative session – the legislature debates and passes bills that create new programs which in turn add more and more burden to the already overtaxed Vermont taxpayer. Subsequently, budget gaps are created when revenue projections are invariably wrong and then the legislature has to try a piece together funding to fill the gap. This funding comes in the form of higher taxes, spending “rainy day” funds, engaging in creative accounting or the one that is always a favorite, cutting the budget for the agencies that are taxed with implementing and administering all of the programs that the legislature creates. How about we figure out a couple of programs that can be cut and use the savings to, at least partially, fund the cleanup of the waterways which is really vitally important.
Another friggin TAX,,how about these brainless liberals legislators get out of VERMONT!!!! We are being taxed to death..WTH..higher inspection fee, higher registrations fees, higher taxes here and there on this and that..These liberals legislators are trying to get us Vermonters out of Vt so they can take complete control of Vt..
I keep saying We TRUE VERMONTERS..need to TAKE BACK VERMONT!!!!!!! before it’s completely gone.. I’m a 7th generation and Vermont use to be a GREAT state an REPUBLICAN state..Now look at it Vermont is a joke!!!
I will happily pay this to help clean up our lake. However, I’d prefer no increase in registration fee and instead advocate a $2 or more fee per night in hotels, half to go to affordable housing and the other half for the lake. We spent a week in the Caribbean (St Lucia) in December and gladly paid a $5+ fee per night to support community development on the island. It just seemed SO RIGHT to ask tourists to do that.