Category Archives: Budget

Single moms can’t afford Shumlin cuts, says Vermont Commission on Women

In a somewhat unusual public foray into legislative politics, the Vermont Commission on Women this afternoon issued a statement opposing Gov. Peter Shumlin’s plan for welfare reform.

The 16-member commission, which bills itself as a “non-partisan state agency dedicated to legislative, economic, social, and political fairness,” said it weighed the matter carefully before determining the plan would have a disproportionate impact on single mothers.

Shumlin has proposed a five-year cap on welfare benefits, a cost-cutting measure he says will encourage impoverished Vermonters to get jobs. The move would shave about $6 million annually in human services costs, and kick about 1,200 families off the welfare rolls beginning in October.

In a release, the Vermont Commission on Women said the “overwhelming majority of Vermont households receiving this cash assistance are women, and limits to this program will disproportionately affect female-headed families with children.”

A number of facts lead the VCW to this conclusion,” the release said. “The lives of these families are complex. They often include challenges, such as lack of transportation, education and child care; mental health concerns; care of a child with a disability; or trauma from having survived domestic violence.”

In a written statement, the commission’s executive director, Cary Brown, said Shumlin’s proposal targets those that can least afford it.

These are Vermont’s most fragile and vulnerable families,” Brown said. “The Commission believes that budgetary concerns should not be balanced on the backs of those least likely to be able to function without government assistance.”

As Shumlin sounds alarm over sequestration, GOP chairman urges calm

As Congress inches closer to the brink, lawmakers and administration officials in Vermont are beginning to sound the alarm over the financial impacts of sequestration. But Jack Lindley, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, says it’s much ado about nothing.

“There’s very, very little evidence that would indicate the sky is going to fall,” Lindley said this afternoon. “I think things are being terribly overblown.”

A report put out by the White House last week enumerates the financial impacts of sequestration on Vermont. Across-the-board cuts to human services, public safety, education, health care and the military will see a reduction in federal revenue of at least $9 million over the next seven months, according to the White House projections. And that figure doesn’t capture the dollar effect of furloughs or job losses for the thousands of federal employees that call Vermont home.

For a complete list of the Vermont-specific impacts, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sequester-factsheets/Vermont.pdf

But Lindley said Vermont can more than withstand the looming cuts. He said the “cuts,” after all, are actually reductions in rates of increase.

“There’s going to be very minimal damage,” he says.

Lindley said he’d like to see the D’s and R’s get together and cut a deal. But he said it needs to include at least as significant a spending cut as the one awaiting the country if they do nothing. If Vermont and the U.S. can’t absorb the kinds of spending reductions associated with sequestration, Lindley said, then we’re all doomed anyway.

“This is exactly what needs to happen if we’re going to get ourselves where we’re not borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we’re spending at the federal level,” Lindley said. “If we can’t get this accomplished, lord help us all in terms of what it means for our kids and grandkids.”

Administration makes scathing case against its own proposal

The most damning argument yet against the Shumlin administration’s plan to cap welfare benefits has come from, well, the Shumlin administration.

In his budget address last month, Gov. Peter Shumlin said “Reach Up” benefits, as they’re called, should be “temporary,” not “timeless.” He said the state should cap lifetime benefits at five years, a move that would save the state an estimated $6 million in fiscal year 2014.

But as is being reported today by VTDigger’s Alicia Freese and Seven Days’ Paul Heintz, the administration took a hard look at an identical proposal in 2012, and pretty much condemned it.

As Freese noted, a January report signed off on by Commissioner of Children and Families Dave Yacavone – the same guy urging lawmakers to adopt the plan now – concluded that capping benefits at 60 months “could leave families destitute and at risk and will create a large hole in the fabric of Vermont’s safety net for those most in need.”

In a passage pulled by Heintz, the report says that “the families who would be affected by this cut have three times as many barriers to gaining self-sufficiency as the general Reach Up caseload population.”

“They are families with limited abilities and resources to recover from such a loss. The elimination of their financial assistance may put their children at risk and force a cost shift to other programs.”

For the full stories, head over to http://vtdigger.org/2013/02/06/shumlin-proposal-on-welfare-work-requirements-rebutted-by-2012-report/ and http://7d.blogs.com/offmessage/2013/02/reach-up-beneficiaries-push-back-on-shumlins-proposed-cuts.html

 

Shumlin administration proposes new gas tax, says it’s open to suggestions

Saying it’s still open to other options, the Shumlin administration this afternoon unveiled its plan to raise $36.5 million in new revenue for upkeep of roads and bridges.

It’s a little complicated, but the proposal calls for an increase in one gas tax, a decrease in another, and a $9 million bond that would be paid for by an existing revenue stream.

A new, 4-percent tax on the retail price of gasoline would raise about $43.5 million in new revenue. The administration then would cut the existing 19-cent per gallon gas tax down to 14.3 cents, which would cost the state about $15.5 million in revenue. The $28 million in net new revenue, when combined with the $9 million bond, would raise the money that Transportation Secretary Brian Searles says is needed to maximize federal matching funds.

If the state fails to raise the cash, Vermont stands to lose out on more than $40 million in federal money next year.

Searles presented the plan to the House Committee on Transportation shortly after the governor wrapped up his budget address. Rep. Patrick Brennan, a Colchester Republican who chairs the committee, said it’s too soon to say whether the plan will fly in the Legislature. He did however say that lawmakers are united in their resolve to raise whatever revenue is needed to avert the loss of federal matching funds.

One thing Brennan said he liked about the governor’s plan is that it’s indexed to keep pace with rising petroleum prices. While the existing per-gallon tax would get cut to 14.3 cents, it would also get an automatic annual increase tied to the consumer price index. And by basing the new tax on a percentage, as opposed to a flat per-gallon tax, it too will rise with inflation.

“I’d like to see us fix this thing once and for all,” said Brennan. “If I’m going to go on the chopping block for raising gas taxes, I’d like to do it right and not have to come back to it year after year.”

A committee that met over the summer to adders the issue of flagging gas tax revenues issued a report recently detailing more than 20 options to raise revenue. Brennan said many of them, however, like taxes on tire sales, or what amounts to a property tax on cars, are nonstarters.

He said there’s some interest in a tax on vehicle-miles traveled, but cautioned that that tax won’t even be a viable option for at least five years.

“And we’ve got an immediate revenue problem that needs to be solved now,” Brennan said.

Cloudy revenue picture pushes back timeline for budget

This year’s budget address will come later than usual.

During a debriefing on the budget-adjustment act for members of the media Wednesday, Jeb Spaulding said the governor will wait until after the next revenue forecast to unveil his fiscal year 2014 spending plan.

The  updated forecast won’t come until Jan. 23. Spaulding said the budget proposal will be delivered to the Legislature on Jan. 24.

“And that is a little bit later than we’d like, but it’s something both the Legislature’s and the governor’s  economists recommended to us,” Spaulding said.

Spaulding said the extra time will also allow the final proposal to reflect as accurately as possible what Vermont can expect in the way of diminished revenue from the federal government.

State budget talks: Input wanted

State budget talks begin tomorrow, and the state wants your input. A draft copy of the presentation is available here, and an edited press release follows:

The first of two public forums occurs tonight to discuss the state budget process, revenues and expenditures.

As required by state legislation, public participation is required in the development of budget goals and general prioritizing and evaluation of spending and revenue initiatives.

“We hope to engage the public in a discussion about the goals, opportunities and complexities of putting together the State budget,” Finance & Management Commissioner Jim Reardon said in a statement. “We’ll discuss revenues and expenditures and conduct a budget exercise about priorities for how state funds might be directed.”

The meetings will be held from 5:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. today, at various sites around Vermont, through Vermont Interactive Technologies (VIT), including Montpelier and Rutland.

Another session will occur from 4:45 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. Monday.
For more information on Vermont Interactive Technologies, a list of all the sites, and directions, go to www.vitlink.org/.

Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding will moderate the forums.

Reardon will begin each forum with a 15- to 20-minute presentation about funding sources, revenues and how funds are currently spent. He will also analyze budget challenges.

The public’s comments will be considered as the governor prepares the upcoming budget recommendations, which will be submitted to the General Assembly in January.

Both meetings will have live streaming. The link will be posted on the Department of Finance and Management’s main webpage, finance.vermont.gov/.

Welch, Sanders to discuss budget and deficit

BURLINGTON — Vermont’s lone member of the U.S. House of Representatives is going to be talking about his priorities for the lame-duck session of Congress.
Rep. Peter Welch is planning to discuss the issues in his Burlington office on Monday before he returns to Washington.
The Norwich Democrat will outline his efforts to pass a farm bill and the need to avoid what is being called the looming fiscal cliff of tax increases and dramatic budget cuts.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, fresh off reelection, will also be holding a press conference at his Church Street office at 10:45 a.m. to discuss the budget deficits. Sanders as well will return to Washington in time for the start of ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations between both houses of Congress and the White House, which are expected to start  Tuesday.

CVPS customers aren’t the only ones lawmakers are trying to get checks for

As procrastinating Vermonters rushed to meet IRS filing deadlines Tuesday, lawmakers mulled a plan that would give a whole new meaning to the term “tax refund.”

The Senate Committee on Appropriations is considering an unconventional approach to property-tax relief that could see checks for $30 or more sent to nearly 176,000 residential homeowners next year.

Under the terms of a still-developing provision in the annual budget bill, lawmakers would use 50 percent of any general-fund revenue surpluses in fiscal year 2013 to fund the giveback.

“If you want to take the grandchildren to McDonald’s, you can do that. If you want to use it to pay off some of your tax bill, then you can do that,” said Sen. Dick Sears, a Bennington County Democrat who sits on the appropriations committee. “The point is that it’sVermont taxpayers who paid the extra taxes, and so it’sVermont taxpayers that ought to get the money back.”

The Legislature has been abuzz this session with talk of whether rebate checks should be issued toVermont households. For once, however, the conversation has nothing to do with the proposed merger of Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power.

Check out the full story here: http://bit.ly/J9OawL

Vermont hit with D-minus for transparency

Ouch. The U.S. Public Interest Group has graded all 50 states on government transparency. And Vermont is near the bottom of the barrel with a ‘D-’, according to the authors of “Following the Money 2012.”

Government here lacks the kind of “online transparency portals” through which modern-day bureaucracies ought to be transmitting data to the public, the study says.

In states with high marks, those portals offer a clear view of “the state’s checkbook – who receives state money, how much, and for what purposes.”

In the 10 states that received Ds, the study says, “online checkbooks are difficult to use,” and “rarely provide spending details for off-budget agencies, post information on state revenue foregone through tax expenditures, or link to city and county expenditure sites.”

The Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office has worked in recent years to bolster transparency around the issue foregone revenue inVermont. Exemptions and tax loopholes, the JFO has found, amount to more than $1 billion annually. But apparently the analysts’ work isn’t as detailed or searchable yet as USPIRG thinks it should be.

New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island also got stuck with D-minuses. Massachusetts earned an A- for having a “user-friendly” portal with “comprehensive information on government expenditures.” New York got a B+.

Property tax rate likely headed up another penny

Look for the statewide property tax rate to jump another penny before lawmakers adjourn this year.

The House last month approved a 1-cent increase in the statewide rate, bringing the figure from 87 cents to 88 cents. But that was before Vermonters headed to town meeting. And the school budgets approved last Tuesday, lawmakers learned today, included much higher increases than legislators had projected.

The 88-cent property tax rate presumed a 1.7-percent increase in school spending. After Tuesday’s votes – budgets in all but seven districts were approved – the increase looks to be closer to 3 percent, according to legislative analysts testifying before the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Maintaining the 88-cent rate would bring the reserve in the education fund down to 3.5 percent, well below the 5-percent lawmakers tend to maintain.

“We probably need another penny, is my guess,” said Rep. Janet Ancel, chairwoman of Ways and Means. “But I think we anticipated that would happen.”

School districts also anticipated the increase – most based their budget and tax calculations on an 89-cent statewide property tax rate.

Brad James, finance guru at the Department of Education, said he directed inquiring business managers atVermontschool districts to go ahead and assume the rate would increase by another penny before the end of the session.

School budgets by and large won the support of voters Tuesday. Of the 226 budget votes, only seven went down. Districts collectively will spend about 2.9 percent more next year than they did this year. Twenty-two towns have yet to vote on their school budgets, though those districts aren’t large enough to impact the overall spending trajectory.

Gov. Peter Shumlin had urged districts to hold the line on school spending. Doing so, he said, would allow the state to likewise hold the line on statewide property taxes.

Controversy brews over mental health as Senate preps for vote

Senate lawmakers this morning are frenetically preparing for a floor session this afternoon during which leaders aim to pass out, at long last, the mental-health bill that Gov. Peter Shumlin says will alleviate the “crisis” unfolding in hospitals across Vermont.

It’s been a long road for the legislation, which lays out a replacement plan for the 54-bed psychiatric hospital flooded out in Tropical Storm Irene. Seven weeks of legislative debate have done little to quell dissent over the administration’s plan. And a spate of amendments on the Senate calendar today spotlights the major areas of disagreement.

The size of the replacement hospital remains the biggest sticking point. Shumlin has demanded a bill that calls for a facility, to be located somewhere in central Vermont, with no greater than 16 beds. Exceeding that number, Shumlin says, will cost taxpayers nearly $10 million in foregone federal revenue annually. That’s because new rules in place at the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, he says, prohibit federal Medicaid matches for facilities with greater than 16 beds. Continue reading

State revenues disappointing for January, but better than 2011

MONTPELIER — A shortage of snow has hurt the Vermont economy and is one reason state tax revenues came in below target in January, the Shumlin administration said Wednesday.
General fund revenue was $4.7 million, or 3.5 percent, below target for the month, the administration said in a news release.
Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding said the results were disappointing but not surprising.
“The lack of snow is having an impact on consumption tax receipts, and personal income tax withholding was less than predicted,” Spaulding said in a written statement.
The underlying economy appears to be stronger than the January results indicate, he said.
Revenues are below target for the year so far by less than 1 percent. But Spaulding noted that January revenue was still 1.3 percent higher than a year ago, “indicative of our modest but steady recovery.”
The transportation fund was also down 3.4 percent. Non-property tax education fund revenue — which accounts for 12 percent of the education fund — was down 1.5 percent.

The Rundown: Week 2

In week two of The Rundown, Thatcher Moats breaks down Gov. Peter Shumlin’s budget address.

 

Shumlin plan: Barre to get 170 state workers; Waterbury’s fate uncertain

MONTPELIER – Under a proposal from Gov. Peter Shumlin, Barre will get 170 state workers, Waterbury will ideally be made whole again, and Washington County will benefit from a net gain of state employees.

During a press briefing with reporters before Shumlin's budget address, administration officials laid out the governor's vision for solving one of the most vexing issues that has cropped up as a result of Tropical Storm Irene: replacing the flooded out state office complex in Waterbury that previously housed 1,500 workers.

Shumlin's plan calls for moving about 350 Agency of Natural Resources employees from Waterbury to the National Life building in Montpelier; moving 170 Department of Education workers from three separate locations to downtown Barre; and an attempt to bring Agency of Human Resources employees from Chittenden County to Waterbury. Under the administration's ideal scenario, Waterbury would end up with more than 1,000 Agency of Human Services employees.

The outcome of the shuffling of state workers could have major economic impacts, positive or negative, for the towns that lose or gain state workers.

Waterbury officials have been seeking certainty since shortly after the flood that the 1,500 displaced state workers – and the economic benefits they bring with them – would return to the central Vermont town. 

Shumlin's plan won't give them that certainty, because he still wants to vet any plan to go back to Waterbury and it could be too expensive.

“Our hope is we can deal with the flood protection and modernization issues in an affordable fashion, but we're not going to jump ahead,” Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding said.

State officials still plan to view an alternate scenario for a different site for Agency of Human Services workers at a central Vermont site not at the office complex in Waterbury, Spaulding said.

“We will also be doing a scenario in central Vermont so taxpayers, the Legislature and the governor can look at what is the cost of doing to that in Waterbruy compared to doing it somewhere else,” Spaulding said.

– Thatcher Moats

The budget address: a sneak preview

In the earliest budget address in a decade, Gov. Peter Shumlin today will outline a $5.1 billion spending plan that increases overall spending by more than 5 percent over last year without raising any broad-based taxes.

Administration Secretary Jeb Spaulding said during a press briefing earlier this morning that the budget “finishes the job of Irene and makes strategic investments in our economic future.”

The transportation budget, up by 7.5 percent over last year thanks to additional aid from the federal government, will include more than $4 million in aid to towns and cities whose roads suffered severe damage in the late-August floods.

“For communities especially hard hit by Irene, we a proposing an expansion of the state match in the federal highway aid program,” Spaulding said, noting that the state will also pick up full freight of the cost to repair some town roads.

The governor will also dedicate about $2 million of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board’s $13.6 million budget to “flood mitigation.” That essentially means VHCB will buy out the homes and properties of people who lost their assets in Irene.

An unexpected windfall in the estate tax will fund an $8 million plan for “innovation” in higher education, including $4 million for the University of Vermont and $4 million for state colleges.

The money will in part fund a continuing education program for older Vermonters interested in developing the math, science and tech skills needed for a career change

Though general-fund spending is up by more than 5 percent, or $65 million, Reardon says that more than $20 million of that is needed to offset lost federal revenue, meaning the increase is “really only like a 3 percent increase.”

Spaulding said the administration has ensured full funding for existing human-services programs, but drew a line in the sand when it comes to starting new initiatives.

For that reason, he says, the administration has proposed eliminating a new mandate that would require the state to fund services for children with autism. Scrapping the new mandate, expected to cost about $10 million annually, helped the state balance the budget without raising taxes, Spaulding said.

“The governor’s budget tries to balance the appetite for spending on untold needs and Vermonters’ ability to pay for them,” he said.

Spaulding said the administration will catch flack from two sides – those who say the 5 percent increase is too much, and those who believe the state should raise taxes to pay for things like the autism mandate.

Save for a 0.1-percent increase in the hospital provider tax – a surcharge Spaulding said won’t impact their bottom lines (it’s being used, he said, to draw down federal funds – the administration’s spending plan doesn’t raise a dime in new taxes, officials said.

The budget does rely on a “fee bill” that will increase revenues from fees at places like the Agency of Transportation and Agency of Natural Resources by $11 million annually.

Spaulding said those are regularly scheduled increases designed to keep pace with the cost of providing services.     

House Republicans will offer a critique of the plan at a press conference later this afternoon.