by Representative Heidi E Scheuermann (R-Stowe)Approximately one year ago, I informed you through a similar email of a proposal that had passed the Vermont Senate Finance Committee to institute a $2per room, per night Occupancy Fee on all of our state's visitor room nights to fund a Workforce and Supportive Housing Fund.
While we were fortunate last year to defeat that proposal, I am disappointed to report that it has reared its head again this year. This time, however, the proposal that has passed out of the House Natural Resources, Fish, and Wildlife Committee in S. 260 is to fund clean water efforts (page 1546 of Today's House Calendar).
Essentially, this proposal would mean that starting in January 2020, every bed and breakfast, every small inn, and every lodge/motel would be charged an extra $2.00 per room per night on top of the 9% (in some cases 10%) rooms tax.
The argument from advocates in support of the proposal is a simple one (albeit misguided and wrong): that this is a tax that would be paid by tourists, and it would not negatively impact our hospitality industry. To be sure, this claim is absolutely inaccurate. The advocates simply don't understand, or don't care to understand, the complexities and challenges of the hospitality industry.
Indeed, this additional charge per night may not have a significant impact on the visitors to Vermont on their family vacations staying at high-end resorts. It very well may notmake a difference in their vacation plans.
But, where it will most certainly make a difference is in at least three areas:
1) The convention and group booking business throughout the state, all of which is extremely competitive with other states and destinations;
2) The hotel and lodges that depend upon the tour bus business, which is also extremely competitive and is all about the bottom line of the room cost; and
3) The small bed and breakfasts and inns with the lower weekday room nights.
In every one of these situations, the businesses already run on very, very slim profit margins, and sometimes none at all if the weather isn't cooperating.
We simply cannot make it more difficult for these small Vermont businesses to achieve success.
This piece of legislation has now been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, where they are expected to take it up for consideration immediately. I am hopeful the impact of this Occupancy Fee will receive much greater scrutiny in that committee.
Rest assured, however, if the proposal does progress, I will do all I can to ensure legislators know why it is a flawed one, and will continue to be a vocal advocate of ensuring the viability of our small businesses - in this community and throughout the state.
Mandated Paid Family Leave Bill Taken Up inSenate Committee
$16 Payroll Tax Increase on All Vermont Workers
The Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs has taken up for consideration H. 196, a bill that would create a state Paid Family and Medical Leave program paid for by taking .141% out of each paycheck of all Vermonters who receive one.
Under the program, employees would beeligible for up to 6 weeks of paid leave over the course of 12 months to care for a family member, or for medical or maternity/paternity leave. And, anindividual who takes advantage of this program would qualify for 80% wage replacement up to $1,042 per week in benefits.
To be clear, I want to do all we canto ensure the ability of Vermonters to take the time needed to care for their family or themselves.
But, assuming that Paid Family Leave is something that all Vermont employees want - and want to pay for out of their paychecks - is not something we should assume from on high in Montpelier.
For more practical purposes, though, I have a number of concerns about the proposal itself, including:
Will the use of the program exceed estimates - maybe significantly - and result in the insolvency of the program or higher taxes on both employees and employers?
Will the creation of such a program lead to employers eliminating the benefits they provide so that their employees will use the state Paid Family Leave Program instead - again increasing the utilization of the program and the revenues needed to cover its cost?
How much will this cost the State of Vermont initially, and over time, in terms of additional benefits provided to State employees?
If an employer wants, and is able, toprovide up to 6 weeks of Paid Family Leave for his/her employees, I think thatis fantastic. And, I would be the first to commend them.
What I would like to see from Montpelier is an understanding that a one-size-fits-all approach to how businesses are run and managed is just not appropriate. There are different growth stages of business, different sizes of business, different reasons people decide to work at particular places or in particular fields. Yet, they are all part of the fabric and community that is Vermont.
We must, therefore, allow Vermonters the flexibility to work with one another to determine for themselves and their families what might work best for them as individuals and families. More mandates and costs coming down from Montpelier is not the answer.
Minimum Wage Update
The House Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs, the committee on which I serve, continues its work on S. 40, a bill to increase the minimum wage to $15.00/hour over the course of six years.
I have written some about this topic in the past, and shared with readers my significant concerns about this legislation,but further investigation and testimony received about it have only served to solidify those concerns.
Most recently, we heard from a few individuals of note in the retail business - one of the industries that will be hit especially hard by this proposal:
Local entrepreneur and small business owner, Caleb Magoon (owner of Power Play Sports in Morrisville and Waterbury Sports in Waterbury) took time out of his busy schedule to come to the State House to share his concerns about the proposal.
In addition, Sarah DeFelice, owner of Bailey Road in Montpelier, gave us a very in-depth analysis of what passage of S. 40 would mean to her small, local business.
And, finally, here is a commentary by Erin Sigrist, President of the Vermont Retail and Grocers Association, outlining the challenges as well.
I am hopeful more legislators, most specifically the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate will come to realize the real flaws in this proposal.
Contact:[email protected]