Property tax increase passes House on third reading, after flurry of amendments fail

by Anne Galloway February 22, 2013 vtdigger.org Representatives in the House passed a 5 cent increase in the statewide property tax on Thursday after a drawn out battle over a series of amendments.
All but one of those amendments failed.
Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington, asked lawmakers to consider using $11.3 million in surplus funds to buy down a penny on the tax rate. The measure was shot down 110-28.
Browning expressed her disappointment in the outcome of the vote in remarks to the body.
‘ I regret that my attempt to ease the burden of the property tax rates on Vermonters has failed,’ Browning said. ‘ I regret that the House has again put state needs and priorities above those of property taxpayers and again shirked a chance to fulfill their responsibility to fund their share of education.’
Then, Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, attempted a run at the current use program that failed in a voice vote.
The most dramatic amendment was a provision proposed by Rep. Heidi Scheuermann, R-Stowe, that would have repealed Act 68 in fiscal year 2015 and forced the Legislature to devise a new funding mechanism for the Education Fund.
That measure was killed by a compromise strike-all amendment proposed by Rep. Bill Lippert. The Hinesburg lawmaker substituted the repeal with language the following language: ‘ It is the intent of the General Assembly to examine our current education funding system. In order to achieve that goal, the House Committee on Ways and Means will continue their efforts to address concerns regarding education property taxes, including the financing, oversight, and educational outcomes of our current system and shall report its findings to the General Assembly by March 15, 2014 with the goal of implementing any statutory changes for the 2015-2016 school year.’
This last amendment passed along party lines, 92-50, after which the 5 cent property tax increase was approved by the House in a voice vote.
Rep. Patti Komline, R-Dorset, castigated Lippert’ s amendment. ‘ The attitude in this body with regard to Property Tax Reform is always ‘ No, because’¦’ . We need a ‘ Yes, if’¦’ approach,’ Komline said. ‘ The Scheuermann amendment gave us a date certain to come up with !i property tax reform. It would have given us the impetus for this new change-in-thinking attitude. We have missed this opportunity.’
At least one Democrat supported the idea of education financing reform. Rep. Chip Conquest, D-Newbury, told his colleagues that he ‘ applauded this amendment’ s author for trying to find a middle-ground. But I voted against it because it replaces an amendment that I believe requires of us a greater commitment to action ‘ a greater commitment toward the same goal.’