The Prog Blog

The Institutions and Corrections committee heard testimony from the active Community Justice Centers in Montpelier, Burlington, Springfield and St. Johnsbury. The committee wanted to hear from them directly regarding the proposed release of up to 350 low risk offenders in an effort to reduce spending in Corrections. The committee wanted to hear what their current capacity is, how the proposal would impact their service and what would need to be done, if anything to help them succeed. The Justice Centers pointed out the need for housing and coordinated services to help them work with the released offenders. As the Committee works through this and the recommendations of the PSG report these are areas that will need to be looked at and considered to help the offenders with a successful reintegration and to reduce recidivism.

Many readers have seen that the House Ways and Means Committee and then the full body of the House has passed H. 485, an act relating to the Use Value Appraisal Program (UVA, also known as Current Use). This bill came about due to the increasingly difficult budget situation that the state is facing in light of the challenging economy and the unwillingness of the Governor and legislative leadership to look towards a temporary upper income tax to fund critical areas of state government.

At the end of the session in 2009 various land use interest groups (with a range of viewpoints on the political issues surrounding land use, taxation, and regulation) were tasked by the legislature to find $1.6 million in savings. This was a positive step as the original proposal was to simply cut $3.2 million from the UVA program.

While no one wanted to make drastic changes to the program, it is apparent across state government that there will be 5-20% cuts across the board. At $1.6 million (out of about $40,000,000 or 4%), we are looking to keep UVA from taking significantly larger hits as the session gets to the end.

So, what are the changes? There is one fundamental change to the program and one short term effort to find short term savings in a way that will not jeopardize the program in the long run. For different groups, each of the issues are causing quite a stir. But in the aggregate, they are some of the least harm options that were available.

First, we implemented a one year moratorium for new enrollments. What is particularly challenging about this is we applied it to those properties that are in the application process this year. While it is unfortunate that these individuals will need to wait a year to be enrolled, the forestry plans that were created and the ag uses will all be able to commence. While it may appear unfair, and in some respects it is, there is no way to make any changes that will be deemed fully fair. If we did not do the immediate moratorium, then we would have had to increase the taxes on all parcels already enrolled. What this would have created is a slope for the long run that could lead to the end of the program.

Current use works by a formula for farmland and forestland that assesses land at the value of what can be produced in the fields of forestry and agriculture. If we made a temporary assessment adjustment to save the $1.6 million, then other property owners could argue, “if they can afford a little more this year, why not a little more next year” and the year after, etc. This would pit fair market taxpayers against the current use tax payers: a battle that nobody wants to get into.

The second change that we made was the Land Use Change Tax (LUCT) that is applied to land that has been enrolled and is withdrawn from the program. The idea is that a property owner has enrolled their land because they are using it for ag or forestry purposes. These are not high yielding professions per acre. Nor are they high expense uses for the land either (no more kids in the schools, little use of the roads, etc., on a per acre basis). However, once land is being removed for development, it will no longer remain viable for those sectors in the future. The current law was a tiered LUCT based on how long the land had been enrolled and was assessed based on the prorated value of the land removed (3 acres of a 100 acre lot would be paying a LUCT based on the $6000 value of the acres if the 100 acres was worth $200,000 (or 3 times $2,000 per acre)). At a rate of 10 or 20% that would amount to $600 or $1200. Given the increase in land values for 3 acre lots, the taxes saved would have amounted to that much in a year or less (If a three acre lot is worth $50,000, the taxes at $2/$100 would be $1000 per year). This meant that folks who were planning to develop a 100 acre parcel into twenty five four-acre lots would save tens of thousands of dollars just by enrolling for the year or two of planning. This was not the intention of the UVA program.

The new rate for the LUCT will be 10% of fair market value of the dis-enrolled land. Therefore, the tax on that three-acre (valued at $50,000 for development purposes) would be $5,000. While significantly more, it would still only take 5 years of enrollment to have made it worthwhile to be enrolled. For those that were enrolled for 10-20 years, the tax savings is still significant under either scenario, but it removes the incentive of short term enrollment for planned development.

By changing the LUCT, the tax impacts for the long run will continue well beyond the immediate $1.6 million that the moratorium provides in year one.

We also included a provision that allows for 90 days of withdrawal window for those people who are currently enrolled. This will allow folks to withdraw a parcel if they had been planning to in the near future so that they will not be assessed the new LUCT without fair warning.

Nobody really likes the changes, but given the economic climate and the scarcity of resources, this was seen as one of the least painful ways to save money while preserving the heart of the UVA program.

As a Representative on the House Ways and Means Committee the numbers game can be quite a slog.  Recently we voted out the Fee Bill 10-0-1.  This bill is the annual bill that reviews state fees for the “privileges” that Vermonters enjoy.  This is everything from licenses (drivers, hunting, service, trades), to permit fees across the board.

As a Progressive my goal is to keep the fees as low as possible for working people, while reminding the committee and others that we should be funding state government through broad based income taxes to provide government services.

That being said, there are over 100 fees that are being changed this year.

One of the biggest nuggets this year was related to Entergy Vermont (the nuclear power plant).  It turns out that there is an annual fee for generation facilities that discharge waters into the state.  The Administration was looking to increase the per gallon fee by $0.0001 per gallon from $0.0009 to $0.001 per gallon. While appearing small, this can amount to thousands of dollars.  The other change that they proposed was to increase the maximum amount this fee could be from $27,500 annually to $60,000 annually.

The rate is based on the daily design flow capacity.  To put this in perspective, the McNeil wood generation plant in Burlington is designed such that this charge is only a few hundred dollars a year.  However, Entergy is designed to discharge up to 543,000,000 million gallons of heated water each day.  Therefore, the maximum cap limits their exposure to the fee.  At their design flow, the fee would be $543,000 per year, or in other words, they receive a subsidy of $483,000.  The Ways and Means Committee raised the cap to $210,000, thus recapturing some of that subsidy.  I pushed to remove the cap entirely, but was unsuccessful.

To put this into perspective, the recent supreme court ruling in favor of Entergy to allow for a 1 degree increase in the net temperature for the Connecticut River (from 12 to 13 degrees) allows Entergy to save approximately $1.3 million dollars in cooling costs for the water that they discharge (for which this fee applies).  For the privilege of heating the water and discharging it into the waters of the state, we are willing to still subsidize Entergy by $333,000 per year, while we are allowing them to make $1,300,000 more by heating the water more.

Once again, Entergy is making money due to a subsidy from Vermont taxpayers.  While we know there will be increased costs to Vermont taxpayers in the future, it is frustrating that we do not capture legitimate resources today.

In the $150 million sea of proposed cuts to next year’s budget, it can be daunting to identify all the long-term costs to Vermont. The integrity of so many state policies are at stake. The methodology used to find reductions in programs for senior citizens focused simply on saving general fund dollars. In other words, if an expenditure is not matched by federal funds at the state level, the governor’s budget will eliminate the entire appropriation. As a methodology, this is fairly straightforward. As a policy, it seems misguided. The results can be draconian.

One example of such an ill-conceived cut is the small appropriation for a program called Neighbor to Neighbor. Administered through the Area Agencies on Aging, this program has used $120,000 of state funds to match a federal grant twice that amount. This fund provides the modest stipend for 20 AmeriCorps workers to assist the elderly in staying independent. Not only does the program offer needed help to the target population; it fosters a much larger network of local volunteers, strengthening the community supports we have always encouraged in Vermont. This is an area where a modest state investment leverages not only significant federal funds (paid to the agency, not the state), but more importantly mobilizes hundreds of local volunteers who contribute countless hours to helping their neighbors. Elimination of the state appropriation will effectively unravel a whole community network.

Such a result is somewhat puzzling given the often-stated goal of the current administration to rely on “our community partners” in meeting the needs of Vermonters. Neighbor to Neighbor would appear to be the poster child for community involvement. Not only are 20 people employed by AmeriCorps, they coordinate the work of 800 volunteers to provide over 5000 hours of direct service to seniors and people with disabilities. This appropriation is truly an “investment,” and we need to think carefully before we cut this or similar investments in our people and our communities.

I am lead sponsor of H.540 whose main purpose is to establish a standard of care for motor vehicles to observe when passing and sharing the road with “vulnerable users” such as bicyclists and pedestrians; persons operating a wheelchair, on roller skates, roller skis, or rollerblades; a highway worker; a person riding or herding an animal; and a person operating a farm vehicle.

It states that the operator of a motor vehicle must use every “reasonable precaution” to increase clearance when approaching and passing the vulnerable user. It goes further in specifically prohibiting crowding and harassment of vulnerable users. And it establishes the requirement to yield to cattle, sheep, goats, or horses.

The legislation also lays out operating standards for bicyclists including the use of hand signals. It requires reflective material on pedals or ankles for night time riding.

This legislation has been a priority of the Vermont bike/ped coalition for more than two years. A similar version passed the Senate in 2008 but was never taken up by the House transportation committee.

It has now been introduced as a House bill and is currently waiting for the House Transportation committee to vote it out for consideration. This will be a challenge, given the number of transportation bills awaiting consideration, and the focus of the committee on its budget.

Numerous letters of support for this bill have been coming in to the transportation committee, mainly from bicyclists who are increasingly finding Vermont roads to be dangerous and hostile to biking. Bike tour companies also cite the economic benefit their business brings to the state, and the “bicycle friendly” reputation that this bill would establish to support their business.

The overall benefit of this bill would be to establish a “share the road” philosophy and give vulnerable users protection in statute. It may slowly begin to change the perception of the automobile as the only legitimate form of transportation.

Anyone who would like to support this bill may send an email to the transportation committee at: fcerulli@leg.state.vt.us.

State government departments (including the Department of Corrections-DOC) are looking at ways to reduce their budgets and at the same time maintain essential services, safe communities, and citizen access to justice. In 2008, the Corrections and Institutions Committee worked with the Council of State Governments to look at policy changes for term probation, reintegration, electronic monitoring, transitional housing, and alternatives to arrest of non-violent misdemeanants. The committee’s good work resulted in the passage of the Justice Reinvestment legislation, H.859 (Act 179).  Act 179 called for a series of progress reports and benchmarks concerning corrections population management and responses to overcrowding. The bill called for looking at the probation caseload capacity and assess the risks to re-offend to reduce recidivism, along with screening and assessments of each felony drug and property offender for substance abuse treatment needs prior to release. The legislation called for the feasibility and costs of establishing transition units, reorganization of the correctional facilities, the Dale Correctional Facility in Waterbury to be closed, the mission of the facility in Windsor changed to be a therapeutic community in a work camp model, and the facility in St. Albans reconfigured to house and program women.

The legislation also called for the Commissioner of Corrections and the Court Administrator to report on implementing a pilot program to provide screening, assessment and triage in order to:

• divert individuals with substance abuse issues committing felony property and drug crimes from the criminal justice system and incarceration to treatment;
• report on the prevalence of co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders among those committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections and
• progress in establishing a comprehensive system of community substance abuse treatment services.

Act 179 called for a detailed description of the progress made on increasing the use of electronic monitoring and the bill gave the DOC specific policy direction to move beyond the initial pilot program with expanded criteria for use for offenders on community release status.

To me, the work done by the Committee in H.859 laid the groundwork for reducing recidivism and also called for collaborative work between the Department of Corrections and the Court Administrator and the Department of Human Services in pilot projects.

The latest consultants’ report: “Challenges for Change: Corrections Rebalance,” challenges the DOC to “improve the recidivism rate and community safety while spending 8% less in FY11 and FY12. The report specifies redesign options stating that: “Vermont may be incarcerating some offenders who do not need to be incarcerated and would be less likely to recidivate if not incarcerated in traditional setting. Substance abuse treatment that uses early evidence-based intervention can also reduce recidivism.”

The reports list of some design options (many of the same options in H.859) for reducing the prison population include:

• Lower cost alternatives for public intoxication -including expanding the Chittenden County pilot
• Establish lower cost alternatives for weekenders
• Probation time limits for non-violent offenders
• Identify lower cost alternatives for non-violent offenders with terms of less than 90 days
• Increase substance abuse treatment interventions at evidence-based appropriate times
• Provide increased transition housing of at least 200 beds in 2011
• Either close a state facility or move out-of-state placements in state to replace beds used currently by non-violent less than 90 days offenders, weekend sentenced offenders and or offenders lacking transitional housing.

In FY2011, a one-time investment of $5 million will be made available to the Department of Corrections to establish a transition housing program, weekender program, chemical dependency treatment programs, and other measures that evidence shows will decrease recidivism.

While the latest consultants’ report is very similar to Act 179, we must ask: “What if the DOC doesn’t realize the savings through recidivism in the time frames outlined?” Sometimes money has to be spent up front to save, or you may not see the savings for a given time period. The report shows a reinvestment of $5M with an aggressive $15M in savings, but will reducing recidivism take more time to see the resulted savings? Though reductions in DOC spending and reducing recidivism are goals most of us want, we should not kid ourselves. If this is not accomplished as challenged by reaching the goals for reducing recidivism, savings will be accomplished through cuts in the Department of Corrections. So, are we putting the cart before the horse without the inclusion of the judiciary restructuring? And who’s holding the axe?

Right now, all sectors of state government are looking at ways to reduce their budgets and at the same time preserve essential services. The judicial branch is no exception. H.470 proposes a number of measures to restructure the Vermont courts in response to the recommendations of the Commission on Judicial Operation.

In 2009, the Legislature directed the Supreme Court to appoint and convene a Commission on Judicial Operation composed of members of the three branches of government and citizens of Vermont. Among the areas the Legislature asked the Commission to address were consolidation of staff across courts in individual counties and statewide; regionalization of court administrative functions at the state and county level; use of technology, including video technology; and finally a way to reduce the Judiciary budget adopted by the Legislature for FY2010 by at least $1 million.

The Commission’s proposal of a Unified Court System includes, but is not limited to these recommendations:

• Consolidate trial court operations into a single Superior Court with four divisions: Civil, Criminal, Probate and Family;
• Make all judicial branch employees state employees paid according to state pay scale with the same benefits;
• Consolidate management of court operations through appointment of one court manager/clerk in twelve counties;
• Reduce the number of Probate Judges from 14 part-time to 5 full time judges; and
• Eliminate the judicial duties of assistant judges.

The long-term goal in creating a new and unified judicial system is to reduce the judiciary’s budget and enhance the efficient and effective delivery of judicial services without compromising the public’s ability to justice.

There will likely be much more testimony and discussion before H.470 comes to the full House for debate.

As Governor Douglas rolled out his FY2011 budget this week, it was clear that many of the proposed cuts were based on work done by administration “Tiger Teams.” These teams worked quietly (in fact, secretly) through the summer and fall searching for potential savings in state government and the provision of services. Our first notice of the effort came in December when the final reports were released.

One of the teams focused on Medicaid. The leader of that team was the Finance Manager for the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation. Although she admitted the steep learning curve in moving from forestry issues to an understanding of the Medicaid program, there is no evidence of such humility in the final report.

“A Path to Medicaid Savings” begins by highlighting the team’s epiphany that only 10% of Vermont’s Medicaid spending is actually required under federal law. The report emphasizes what the team saw as excessive spending for mental health services (which they lump together with developmental disability). The team makes a lengthy and confusing argument that Vermonters are somehow sneaking into the Medicaid program when they should be buying private insurance. The final section of the report addresses the need to root out fraud in the system. On balance the whole effort appears dedicated to fostering resentment and mistrust of those who rely on a system carefully built over decades to provide services to needy Vermonters, using the maximum available federal contribution.

Proposed cuts for Vermont’s Agency of Human Services include making the service package “client-centric” and “results-based.” Although most of us would agree that client needs are more important than program integrity, we have tried this script before. At the very beginning of Gov. Douglas’ tenure, he convinced the legislature to completely reorganize the agency. Departments were collapsed and missions were reassigned. The first goal of the enabling legislation specifically called for services to be “integrated, client-centered, outcome-based.”

As we ponder implementation of the latest consultants’ report, “Challenges for Change: Results for Vermonters,” we must ask what has been happening for the past seven years. Certainly we have seen major turnover at the head of AHS – four different Secretaries since Jan. 2005. Although we have had the same governor at the helm, we have not seen the leadership necessary to address even the first goal of the 2003 reorganization plan. Apparently an agency that spends half of our state tax dollars never got the attention it deserved.

We recently returned from a trip to the Dominican Republic where we visited a fair trade cacao cooperative in Hato Mayor. The area is impoverished, with almost 70% of the population classified as “poor” or “indigent”. Only 20% have indoor plumbing and almost 30% don’t even have outhouses. Fewer than 15% of residents have been formally educated beyond the primary level.

Fair trade practices assure growers and producers that they will get a guaranteed rate for their product, no matter what the market price would be. If market prices rise above the guaranteed rate, the growers and producers receive the higher rate. In addition, a small premium ($200 per ton in this case) is given to the community for needed projects such as sanitation, schools etc.

Awareness of and demand for fair trade products is very high among consumers in the UK and Euoropean Union. Because many consumers in these countries are willing to pay a higher price for these products, companies that supply these consumers are more willing to support fair trade practices. Awareness and demand is much lower in the US for fair trade products and companies that supply products to our country act accordingly. When you buy a fair trade product, you can be confident that that product was grown organically, using sustainable practices and that no one was exploited in the supply line. If we demand these products we can enhance the lives of millions of people around the world.