Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pension Tax Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Firefighters, unions urge Ways & Means to expand H.483 pension tax break to public safety
Summary
Witnesses at the House Ways & Means hearing on April 23 urged lawmakers to expand a proposed pension tax exemption (H.483) to include municipal public safety employees, and asked the committee to consider offsets if the state adopts further retirement tax breaks.
Lawmakers heard testimony April 23 on H.483 and related pension-tax proposals, with firefighter representatives and public‑employee unions urging the House Ways & Means Committee to include municipal public safety workers — firefighters, police and some EMS employees — in a proposed tax exclusion now written for military and civil‑service retirees.
Witnesses said the risks public safety employees face and pension design differences merit treating those workers the same as military retirees. They also urged lawmakers to identify revenue offsets if the state extends tax relief to additional retiree groups.
Chris Dubey, president of the Professional Firefighters of Vermont, told the committee he came to testify “specifically in reference to the military pension and the exclusion of public safety.” Dubey described the daily dangers public safety workers face, said BEAMERS retirement benefits cap at 50 percent for many municipal workers, and urged that if the legislature adopts an exemption for military pensions it should include firefighters and police from the start. “If you're gonna do it, you do it right from the get go,” he said.
Steve Howard, executive director of the Vermont State Employees Association, said his membership includes frontline state workers whose jobs are high‑risk and understaffed. He warned that any new tax exclusion that reduces state revenue should be offset elsewhere. “If you're going to pass legislation that reduces the revenue to the state, you should make up that revenue in another way,” Howard said, and recommended looking at options such as reference‑based pricing and other revenue measures.
Representatives of unions for health‑care and education workers also spoke. Keith Brunner of AFT Vermont supported raising revenue from wealthier Vermonters and suggested targeted tax relief for occupations experiencing acute shortages, including nurses. Jeff Bennett, executive director of Vermont NEA, asked lawmakers to consider teachers and school‑based employees who participate in the Vermont Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (VMERS) or the Vermont State Teachers’ Retirement System (VSTRS), noting that “more than half” of VMERS participants are school‑based employees.
Committee members questioned details of current retirement formulas and retirement ages, and asked witnesses about recruitment and retention. Witnesses described local variations in municipal retirement plans, said public safety employees often must work shifts that multiply overtime (which can raise a retiree’s “best‑two‑years” calculation), and pointed to a drop in applicants for municipal career positions in some towns.
No formal committee action or vote on H.483 occurred during the hearing. Witnesses urged that, if lawmakers move to grant pension tax relief, they adopt clear, inclusive eligibility language and plan for the fiscal effects.
Lawmakers will have to weigh the policy and fiscal tradeoffs: supporters argue inclusion would recognize similar risks and aid recruitment and retention, while several presenters warned the committee to identify revenue offsets so existing services and staffing are not further strained.
