Senate panel reviews JFO basic-needs budget; livable-wage baseline changed to single adult in shared housing

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee on Jan. 23 reviewed the Joint Fiscal Office's (JFO) biannual basic-needs budget and related demographic analysis, a report that updates how Vermont calculates its livable wage and highlights population shifts that inform housing, childcare and workforce policy.

The JFO presentation, given by Patrick Sheridan of the fiscal office, described a methodological change: the statutory livable-wage reference that had been based on a two-adult household with no children was updated by the Technical Advisory Committee to use a "single adult in shared housing" as the benchmark for the livable-wage calculation. The committee said the change was intended to target a younger, working-age renter demographic. Sheridan said, "All of this is coming from the U.S. Census Bureau," noting the demographic inputs and other federal and national datasets that underlie the report.

Why it matters: the basic-needs budget is used as a reference for employers, policymakers and agencies to assess whether wages and benefits meet local costs of living. Committee members said the updated baseline and supporting data should guide conversations about childcare subsidies, housing policy and recruitment and retention of working-age Vermonters.

Key findings and assumptions - Family configurations: the report uses seven household configurations (from a single adult to two adults with children) and assumes one child at preschool age (4) and one at school age (6) for two-child households; the Technical Advisory Committee retained those age assumptions for consistency with past reports. - New statutory baseline: the committee adopted a single-adult-in-shared-housing baseline (assumed to share with one roommate) instead of the prior two-adult, no-children baseline. JFO staff said that choice was deliberate to better reflect a younger working-age renter profile. - Geographic split: the analysis treats Chittenden County as the committee's defined "urban" area and the rest of Vermont as "rural," and the report reports separate figures for each (the presentation noted Chittenden County's population of about 137,000 compared with roughly 522,000 statewide in the dataset used). - Data sources: analysts rely on the U.S. Census Bureau (decennial and American Community Survey) for demographics; HUD's rental surveys (40th percentile unit) for housing; USDA food plans for food budgets; National Household Travel Survey and IRS mileage estimates for transportation; Consumer Expenditure Survey for household operations including telecommunications; Green Mountain Care Board claims data for out-of-pocket health spending; and JFO calculations for program assumptions such as savings and miscellaneous spending. - Policy assumptions: the Technical Advisory Committee assumes access to Vermont childcare subsidies where appropriate (the report treats subsidies as part of the cost structure rather than as means-tested public assistance), sets miscellaneous personal spending at $5 per adult per day (a policy decision by the committee) and assumes a 5% savings rate.

Demographics and migration The presentation included new demographic context compiled by JFO staff and a companion issue brief. Major points highlighted by Sheridan and other members: Vermont's child population has fallen compared with 2008 figures (the presentation cited a decline of roughly 20,000 in certain child-age counts over a 15-year span), births remain below pre-pandemic levels, and the state is seeing growth in older age cohorts (notably a rise in residents aged 65–79). Sheridan summarized population change as the result of both natural change (births vs. deaths) and migration; the committee was shown that interstate and international migration have been the main contributors to short-term population growth since 2020.

Questions and concerns from committee members Several senators and committee members cautioned that the chosen baseline and the seven household configurations cannot capture every family arrangement. Committee members expressed concern that a single static table can miss important variation — for example, single parents with irregular childcare needs, multi-generational households, or households where an adult provides unpaid caregiving. One member urged JFO to prioritize improving the accuracy of commonly used national online calculators rather than recreating those tools locally. Another expressed skepticism that a single baseline reflects policy goals such as encouraging family formation.

Ellen Kaylor, who identified herself as a member of the Technical Advisory Committee and described having participated in earlier iterations of the analysis, said the decision to focus the methodological benchmark on renters (rather than attempting to calibrate mortgage and homeownership scenarios) was driven in part by methodological constraints: "It was easier from a methodological perspective to choose renters," she said, and the budget is intended as a reference point rather than a precise mandate: "It is intended to be a reference point. It's not intended to be the be-all and end-all."

Committee direction and next steps Committee members asked for additional breakdowns and follow-up data: several requested county-level counts of children and school-age populations, and at least one senator asked JFO to attempt age- and income-specific migration figures (who is moving in and who is moving out, by age and by income). Members asked JFO to circulate the detailed appendix comparing methodologies (the report's appendix lists the MIT local wage calculator, the Economic Policy Institute calculator and JFO's approach) and said they would consider inviting outside groups, including EPI and other national calculator providers, to testify so the committee can compare methods directly.

No formal votes were taken in this portion of the meeting. JFO staff said the basic-needs budget is recalculated every two years and that the report and appendices would be circulated to committee members for review.

Ending The committee paused further discussion to continue with demographic presentations later in the agenda and asked JFO staff to supply additional county-level and migration-by-age information before subsequent sessions. Members signaled interest in a follow-up briefing with external calculator authors and in continuing to refine the assumptions that inform the livable-wage figures.