Today, August 27th, Doug Racine called for a recount of the historically close Democratic primary for Governor. Peter Shumlin leads in the voting by less than 200 votes. I'm looking forward to settling the issue so that the candidates can get out in front of the people and debate the many issues which will face us in January.
One of those issues concerns the future of jobs in the renewable energy sector. Last session, a solar business tax credit was cut to save money, but it was to be replaced by funds from the Clean Energy Development Fund. Now, the amount available from the CEDF is less than predicted, so some projects ready to go will be funded and some won't. This prompted one major developer to threaten to leave the state because the rules of the game had been changed mid-session, which creates havoc for a carefully designed business plan. Fortunately, this situation was averted, but it points to the ongoing problem of trying to create meaningful incentives to jump-start renewables while balancing taxpayer concerns about lost revenue through taxcredits. House Natural Resources and Energy will be working on a longer-term fix in January to provide stability to developers seeking to provide jobs in our state.
On another energy note, I recently attended a Council of State Governments regional meeting to learn about regional energy news. One exciting possibility is deepwater offshore wind off the coast of Maine....enough potential megawatts to power the entire United States! Current plans call for a 3% harvest, which would provide a lot of power for New England. There are some really new ideas for towing towers to sea, then filling with water to turn them upright, then tether the floating wind tower to the ocean floor. Obviously, this technology is years away, but there is a plan for a test site near Monhegan Island to see if the plan will work. The obvious draw is that there are no aesthetic issues, no ridgeline, bird, bat, or road problems. However, there are transmission issues in getting the power back to shore for regional distribution.
I'm hoping that energy/job issues play a big role in the upcoming election debate. This is the year that the Entergy VY debate will be settled (unless there is protracted litigation). My position for two years has been that the twin pre-conditions of a signed PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) with the major utilities AND a pre-funded decommissioning trust fund must be in place to protect Vermont taxpayers BEFORE I would consider voting to allow continued operation for up to another 20 years. Unfortunately, the House has passed three decommissioning bills, but none have yet been enacted into law. Meanwhile, the existing fund continues to be dramatically underfunded. Stay tuned to this debate; until it is settled we won't focus on a meaningful long-term energy plan for Vermont.

0 Comments

No special session—legislature officially adjourns

The speculation over a one-day special session to override the Governor’s veto of a bill related to “Current Use” has ended with the legislative decision not to contest the veto. This means that proposed changes to current use will again be debated in January, with a new Governor to weigh in on any changes. Why was this important? Like many issues, it comes down to money, and who pays. The current use program taxes large tracts of farm and woodland properties at their “current use” value, which is much less than fair market value. The program has been credited with keeping much of Vermont’s rural landscape intact, but it is expensive. The amount lost to the state in property tax is approaching $50 Million, which makes everyone else’s burden greater whose property is taxed at fair market value (i.e., all of us). The idea of changes this year was to insure that participants did not escape the cuts that were occurring everywhere else in state government, and that some abuses involving land that was scheduled for development down the road but avoiding current fair taxation would be fixed. Since that did not happen, we can add this to the list of issues which will be debated during the upcoming gubernatorial campaign.
I supported many of the pro-business changes which emerged at the end of the session as a result of compromise between the executive and legislative branches. You may have seen a recent BFP “My Turn” by Vermont Chamber of Commerce president Betsy Bishop, praising the cooperation this year to get through these major changes:
*exempting 40% of Vermont investments from state capital gains tax
*amending the estate tax to not penalize farms and small business
*balancing the budget, closing a $150Million gap without raising taxes
*allowing a pass-through of a federal tax exemption to manufacturers (production reduction)
*raising the VEGI cap (Vermont Employment Growth Incentive) to allow job growth and capital investments
*comprehensive unemployment insurance plan to return solvency long-term
*increasing tourism marketing funding
*boosting workforce training funding to keep pace with employer needs
*delivering an $8.7Million jobs package with increased business loans, broadband access funds, and Seed Capital Fund to encourage business growth
For the most part, the session was the most non-partisan I’ve seen in my three terms in Montpelier. With the budget problems severe for the coming year, I expect that spirit to continue regardless of how the election turns out in November.
On Friday, I attended the last bill signing by Governor Douglas of the year, for H. 781, the Renewable Energy bill. This year’s version is important because it allows Hydro-Quebec to be defined as renewable power, it streamlines some environmental permitting, contains language which helps IBM meet guidelines for transformers with no additional cost, allows the Vermont Air National Guard to install solar power generation without much additional red tape, and fixes some problems with farm methane generation plants. Our House Natural Resources and Energy committee spent a lot of time on this bill, working closely with the Department of Public service, the Public Service Board, and Vermont’s utility companies.
I am excited about the upcoming campaign and will be running for re-election to the House from Essex Junction. Part of my reason for wanting to continue to serve is that we have a lot of unfinished business in committee, including a major solid waste initiative to improve recycling without adding costs to consumers. I also expect that we will again take up the decommissioning costs of Vermont Yankee, which passed the House but died in the Senate this year. We are watching closely the latest leak (including strontium- 90) at Vernon, with the usual conflicting versions of how/when it happened and how serious it is. It’s not at all clear at this point that VY will be able to operate reliably until it’s scheduled closing date in March 2012. There will also certainly be new initiatives related to Vermont’s energy future.
I have added more information on session and committee actions on my website, so please feel free to visit at www.timjerman.com . As always, it’s been an honor to serve the community in Montpelier, and don’t hesitate to get in touch, 878 2972 or Tjerman@leg.state.vt.us. It’s so great to see the work of the Railroad Ave. group, and the parade committee who did such a great job this year. I’m looking forward to the farmer’s market and many activities around the village this summer and fall.

0 Comments

Legislative leadership has decided not to challenge the Governor's veto of the "Current Use" bill this year; opting instead to return to the issue next year. Unfortunately, this means the Governor will leave office with an unbalanced budget ($1.6 Million), but hopefully that shortfall will be addressed in budget adjustment in January. I was hoping the compromise bill would pass, because Essex Jct. does not have properties taxed at current use value; so essentially we pay more in property taxes to subsidize those with land in the program. I am supportive of the program, but am concerned that some are parking land in current use which will be developed later, and avoiding taxes which then fall to other taxpayers.

Below is a summary of accomplishments of my committee in the past two years...House Natural Resources and Energy. I've included ALL the bills that were referred to our committee...you can see that only a fraction of bills introduced make it to the governor's desk. I'm looking forward to continuing work on many of these bills if I'm re-elected in November. We've got a full plate before the session even begins!

1 HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY BILL ACTION 2009-2010
2
3 H.0002 An act relating to the sale, use, or installation of outdoor wood-fired boilers introduced
4 H.0006 An act relating to the sale of engine coolants and antifreeze signed by Gov. 5/12/09; (now Act 15)
5 H.0045 An act relating to allowing the clean energy development fund to support the development of geothermal energy incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
6 H.0057 An act relating to the applicability of amendments to Act 250 rules discussed
7 H.0097 An act relating to the idling of motor vehicles passed House; still in Sen. as of 5/7/10
8 H.0168 An act relating to direct billing by the utility of the members of a farm or group net metering system incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
9 H.0170 An act relating to a requirement that the Public Service Board, by August 1, 2009, issue a standard long-term contract offer for qualifying SPEED resources incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
10 H.0172 An act relating to the clean energy development fund for thermal projects incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
11 H.0188 An act relating to Vermont-based renewable energy development projects incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
12 H.0194 An act relating to cost recovery of permitting costs for wind generation projects incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
13 H.0211 An act relating to establishing the Vermont Hydroelectric Power Authority discussed
14 H.0340 An act relating to energy efficiency standards for residential construction incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
15 H.0369 An act relating to stage II vapor recovery systems at gasoline stations discussed
16 H.0402 An act relating to renewable energy generation on state lands incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
17 H.0414 An act relating to economic stimulus and limited permit exemptions for wind generation and wood-based combined heat and power incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
18 H.0436 An act relating to decommissioning funds of nuclear energy generation plants Vetoed by the Gov. on 5/22/09
19 H.0446 An act relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency Bill became law on 5/27/09 without Gov.'s signature (now Act 45)
20 H.0549 An act relating to a reduction in sulfur and an increase in biodiesel content in heating oil incorporated into JRH 36; passed House; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
21 H.0566 An act relating to existing agricultural methane electric generation plants incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
22 H.0589 An act relating to nuclear energy generation and the institution of trusts for greenfield restoration and spent fuel management Passed House-still in Senate as of 5/7/10
23 H.0592 An act relating to the development and permitting of hydroelectric projects discussed
24 H.0654 An act relating to permitting and taxation of renewable energy plants incorporated into H.781; still in Senate as of 5/7/10
25 H.0696 An act relating to producer responsibility for solid waste stayed on the wall-subject will be readdressed next year
26 H.0781 An act relating to renewable energy Passed House-still in Senate as of 5/7/10
27 JRH036 Joint resolution urging Congress to create a cleaner and greener standard for heating oil in the Northeast and to extend the federal tax credit for biodiesel fuel Passed House-still in Senate as of 5/7/10
28 S.0064 An act relating to growth center designations and appeals of such designations Passed Senate and House 5/6/10
29 S.0077 An act relating to the recycling and disposal of electronic waste signed by the Gov. 4/19/2010 (now Act 79)
30 S.0109 An act relating to brominated flame retardants incorporated into H.444; signed by the Gov. 6/2/09 (now Act 61)
31 S.0224 An act relating to the establishment of a paint stewardship program passed HNRE; still in HWM as of 5/7/10
32 S.0239 An act relating to retiring outdoor wood-fired boilers that do not meet the 2008 emission standard for particulate matter sent to Gov. 5/3/10
33 S.0293 An act relating to state standards for boilers and pressure vessels signed by Gov. 4/27/10
34 H.0059 An act relating to outdoor wood-fired boilers no action
35 H.0106 An act relating to the recycling of cell phones no action
36 H.0112 An act relating to the management of solid waste no action
37 H.0113 An act relating to brownfields no action
38 H.0114 An act relating to enforcement and compliance authority of the Agency of Natural Resources no action
39 H.0139 An act relating to green growth zones no action
40 H.0163 An act relating to repealing the mural exemption from the sign law no action
41 H.0169 An act relating to expanding the scope of the bottle bill no action
42 H.0215 An act relating to protection of utilities against disallowance of costs associated with long-term, fixed price contracts for renewable energy approved by the Public Service Board no action
43 H.0262 An act relating to tax on plastic bags no action
44 H.0320 An act relating to authorizing judicial bureau enforcement of minor violations of forest and parks requirements no action
45 H.0332 An act relating to providing admission to local state parks and forests no action
46 H.0344 An act relating to establishing the solid waste advisory board no action
47 H.0367 An act relating to the creation of planned unit development distributed generation systems no action
48 H.0403 An act relating to prohibiting plants for the incineration of solid or human waste no action
49 H.0404 An act relating to requiring electric companies to pay avoided cost to net metering customers, when those customers generate more electricity than they use in a 12-month period no action
50 H.0419 An act relating to environmental and land use permits no action
51 H.0486 An act relating to an environmental board that hears appeals of decisions of district commissions and the secretary of natural resources no action
52 H.0500 An act relating to an industrial electric rate class no action
53 H.0504 An act relating to land use permitting of telecommunications facilities no action
54 H.0547 An act relating to development and analysis of data relating to environmental permit applications that take longer than 120 days to process no action
55 H.0603 An act relating to the sale of electric energy within discrete areas of the electric grid no action
56 H.0637 An act relating to additional payment for solar power that is net metered no action
57 H.0644 An act relating to replacement of gasoline dispensers no action
58 H.0652 An act relating to the use of transfer of development rights for off-site mitigation of primary agricultural soils no action
59 H.0653 An act relating to a program to invest in clean energy to serve Vermont’s electricity needs no action
60 H.0664 An act relating to Act 250 jurisdiction in towns that do and do not have both permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws no action
61 H.0673 An act relating to removing the requirement of legislative approval of continued operation of a nuclear power plant no action
62 H.0677 An act relating to wind energy plants no action
63 H.0721 An act relating to requiring municipal development plans and ridgeline protection bylaws no action
64 H.0731 An act relating to land use and environmental permit process no action
65 H.0732 An act relating to construction or alteration of structures affecting public use airports no action
66 H.0735 An act relating to beverage container recycling no action
67 H.0756 An act relating to recycled content in plastic packaging no action
68 JRH037 Joint resolution urging Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee LLC and any other owner of Vermont Yankee to establish a restricted account for employee retraining following the closure of the nuclear power plant in Vernon no action
69 JRH041 Joint resolution relating to the operating and financing of a new nuclear power plant in the town of Vernon no action
70 S.0018 An act relating to limiting the power of municipalities or deeds to prohibit the installation of solar collectors, clotheslines, or other energy devices based on renewable resources no action
71 S.0054 An act relating to clean energy assessment districts no action
72 H.0546 An act relating to consolidating land use and environmental permit administration, rulemaking, and appeals into a department of environmental quality headed by an environmental council no action-subject will be readdressed next year

other subjects discussed:
Invasive Species discussed 2009 and 2010; subject will be readdressed next year
Geothermal Energy discussed
Switchgrass Biofuel discussed, future unknown

0 Comments

The legislature adjourned this morning after midnight, on May 13, 2010. It was an extraordinary session, and the Challenges for Change created a new dynamic in both houses and with the executive branch. I am proud of the fact that our budget negotiators and the governor's staff put in the extra time needed to get an agreement on the budget and on challenges in this difficult financial climate without the acrimony of last year. We'll need to carry that spirit forward as next year's financial challenges won't be any easier. Below is a summary of actions taken in 2010; please e-mail or call if you have any questions. As always, it's been an honor to serve Essex Junction this year and I look forward to getting out and seeing people during the upcoming campaign for re-election--Tim



Teacher’s Retirement, investing in our future
There is a keen awareness that the strengths of our communities are vastly dependent on the quality of our schools. Our teachers are an integral part of the direction in which our youth are heading. They are competing globally. With collaboration between the administration, NEA and the legislature, teacher’s retirement was under keen scrutiny for savings with teachers’ interests in mind. The bill will result in savings to the state General Fund in FYI 2011, more than that in each successive year, and an additional $85 million in taxpayer savings over the next three decades regarding health benefits for retired teachers.
At the same time, the benefit structure of the system is enhanced. Teachers will be able to accrue as much as 60% of their average final compensation rather than the current 50 % limit. Teachers will be able, with extra teaching years, to retire with a health benefit for their spouses as well as for themselves, rather than a benefit just for themselves. There are several policies in play here. First, there is no intrusion into the benefits of current retirees. Secondly, the basic structure of the system remains a defined benefit pension and not a defined contribution system. Thirdly, the Education Fund is left without any additional burden. Fourth, there is a recommendation in the bill that the state meets its annual obligation to this system on an ongoing basis. It does this without any imposition on the property tax payer.

Protecting Home Ownership
Like the rest of the country, Vermont has seen massive increases in the rate of home foreclosure during this recession. While this is a natural symptom of the recession, it is not one that we have to accept.
Federal law requires that lenders consider modification of the terms of principal residence home mortgages when the borrowers are 60 days behind in their payments. When the federal law is followed, more than half the homeowners going into foreclosure are able to remain in their homes. Based on 2009 foreclosure filings, this would allow as many as 1,000 families to remain in their homes.
The foreclosure mediation bill (H-590) requires banks to set up mediation with those homeowners with whom they intend to file foreclosure. Mediations will be conducted by Vermont attorneys who have been trained in foreclosure prevention and loss mitigation by the Vermont Bar Association. Mediators will make sure that a variety of home foreclosure prevention tools are explored including application of the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).
One of the biggest challenges to avoiding foreclosure is getting homeowners to answer the complaint and appear in court. We heard that as many as 80 or 90% of foreclosure defendants fail to appear and lose their houses to the bank by default. If you know anyone facing foreclosure please urge them to file an answer (show up in court) and request mediation with their lender; H-590 may allow them to keep their homes.
FIGHTING HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Trafficking is an epidemic of global proportions. Experts estimate that there are more than 27 million people currently enslaved across the world. As a border state positioned on heavily traveled interstate roads, we can be certain that human trafficking is happening within the borders of Vermont. We are only one of five states that lack a human trafficking law. Due to the complicated nature of this crime and its consequences for victims, we need to address the issue carefully and thoughtfully. We are intentionally choosing to begin with a task force and law enforcement study so that we can be sure that whatever laws we eventually pass are the right laws for our state. We know that our laws are only as good as our ability to enforce them. The issue is pervasive. We need to lay the groundwork before we force any training onto local enforcement and before we pass laws that we are not prepared to enforce. The best interest of Vermonters and their safety are tantamount.

Big trucks on the interstate
This bill passed quickly through both bodies and was signed by the governor within the first weeks of this session. Senate bill 93 is a one-year federal pilot program that allows large trucks to carry up to 90,000 pounds on Vermont’s interstate highways. Previously, trucks were limited to 80,000 pounds on the highways and therefore those with heavier loads traveled on state roads, often through the center of our small towns. The increase in weight will allow truckers to carry bigger loads and thus make fewer trips. And it will make our small towns safer by keeping the most heavily loaded trucks out of town centers. It also keeps the town roads in better shape. It is a win- win situation for Vermont. We hope the pilot will continue into permanent law.

Protecting bicycles riders
Vermont is well known for its wonderful landscapes and outdoor recreational opportunities but fell in national ranking for bicycle tourism because we didn’t have a law like this. This bill spells out some safety rules for bicycle riders and explains about passing animals using caution. The Senate passed a similar bill last year, but we did not have time for both houses to give it due consideration. The bill is purely educational but will add tourism dollars to our state, as our beautiful landscape can now be enjoyed by more riders in a safer manner.

Vermont’s Transportation Program
This is the largest transportation bill in many years because of federal stimulus money, with a total budget of $595,000. It will create many local jobs and improve our roads and bridges for residents and visitors. We have provided extra money for our towns to repair municipal roads and bridges as well as the state and federal roads and structures.
We received a large federal grant for high speed rail and will be working toward getting our rail system on the western corridor lengthened for passenger rail. One of the upgrades on the west is a portion of rail from Whitehall NY to Rutland, to finally increase train speed through this section and add a new rail station for Castleton College. The station in Rutland is getting better signage and sprucing up by the local community.

Unified Approach to State Law Enforcement
The state is at a crossroad; increasing demands on law enforcement and the inability to increase policing budgets force the state to choose between either keeping pace with the demands of, or not providing, policing services that citizens are accustomed to receiving. It became apparent while studying the issue that there needed to be coordination and consolidation of police services to maximize resources and streamline deployment more effectively. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the commissioners of public safety, motor vehicles, liquor control and fish and wildlife in January. The MOU recognizes the need to maximize collective resources by improving efficiencies, reducing redundancies and implementing better coordination, communication and strategic planning.
To protect Vermonters, there should be a unified approach to all law enforcement in Vermont. The core mission of the individual agencies will be maintained. A Vermont Task Force will be created to facilitate collaboration in day-to-day operations among the agencies by streamlining information involving various levels of statewide law enforcement. The legislature codified the MOU into state law to ensure that long-term benefits would continue.

Moving the Primary Election date
Vermont received notice earlier this year that we were not in compliance with the federal election laws. Federal law requires that states send out absentee ballots 45 days before an election to overseas voters. Because we have a number of Vermont Guard soldiers serving overseas, the Primary date was changed to protect our soldiers’ ability to exercise their right to vote. They are fighting for our freedom; we should protect their ability to participate in our democracy. With our largest deployment of soldiers since World War II the legislature felt it appropriate to move the primary election to the 4th Tuesday in August. This extra time will allow for receiving ballots from overseas in a timely manner so they are more likely to be counted. With the increased use of absentee ballot, those voters who are away or on vacation at the end of August can still cast their vote absentee. This bill is cost-neutral and definitely helps our overseas voters.

Environmental interest, fishing and hunting
Caring for Our Lakes, Rivers, and Streams
This year, the legislature passed a combination bill designed to protect one of the state’s most important capital assets: our waterways. This bill addresses pollution control measures for Lake Champlain and the other waters of the state. The problem is phosphorus which finds its way into our lakes and streams from runoff across our increasingly developed lands and from agricultural runoff. High phosphorus feeds toxic algae blooms which earned Lake Champlain a place in the NY Times book, Don’t Go There. Over the past 7 years, we have spent over $100 million to clean up Lake Champlain. Although we are no longer going backward, we are not really going forward either.

This past summer, the Clean and Clear program held meetings with stakeholders to identify the next steps needed to clean up Lake Champlain. Some of these steps were identified in this bill, including such simple things as keeping livestock out of streams, tightening rules for altering streams, maximizing funds for farms to implement conservation practices, and requiring the Better Back Roads program to develop better standards that affect problematic erosion and runoff.

The second part of this bill addresses the increasingly expensive, taxpayer-funded, after-the-fact clean up of our rivers and streams due to erosion, runoff and resulting flood hazards. One of the least expensive and most effective ways of managing this damage is to respect the natural flow of water and the lands around it. The science around this has been demonstrated over and over and is good for fish, wildlife, our receiving lakes, and surrounding vital floodplain. This bill provides incentives to encourage municipalities to establish bylaws to protect our river corridors.
Protecting clean water
The House passed two bills that were ultimately combined to protect one of the State’s most important capital asset, our waters. One of these was H.509-An Act relating to pollution control measures for Lake Champlain and the other waters of the state. A court case involving the State of Vermont, the EPA and the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has created considerable confusion about the future of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Currently, the EPA has taken actions that could lead to the TMDL being sent back to Vermont to be reworked. Since the Clean and Clear program and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) have been operating under the current TMDL since its inception in 2002, over $100 Million has been spent and numerous rules and regulations have been enacted that affect much of Vermont. Since it took over eight years to create that TMDL, going back to the starting point could leave all that has been done in legal limbo for years. In the Senate this bill was combined with H.763, an act relating to riparian buffers.
River Corridors (or part two of protecting clean water)
H. 763 an act relating to river corridors, is a committee bill which emerged from H.323, an act related to riparian buffers. H. 763 enables towns to prevent pollution and increasingly expensive, taxpayer funded, after-the-fact clean up of Vermont’s rivers, lakes and streams due to runoff and flood hazards. One of the least expensive and most effective ways of managing this damage is to respect the natural flow of water and the lands around them. The science around this has been demonstrated over and over. H.763 is an “enabling act” that allows and encourages municipalities to establish buffer zones along its waters. There are no buffer mandates in H. 763. The combined bill was passed as H.763 on March 4th, 2010.

Protecting traditional Vermont sports
The House originated three bills that are designed to encourage fishing and hunting. One of these was H.477, an act reauthorizing reciprocal fishing licenses on Lake Champlain. In theory, without reciprocal fishing an angler would have to have a license from both New York and Vermont or know where the border was in the middle of the lake and only fish in one state. This was, of course, ridiculous and the reciprocal fishing law allows New York licenses the fish in Vermont and vice versa. This bill was signed into law by the Governor on January 19th, 2010.
We realize how important hunting is to the State’s economy and the problem of the declining number of hunters. H. 243, an act related to mentored hunting, was passed on April 30th, 2010. Designed to give prospective hunters an opportunity to try hunting before making the investment needed in equipment and hunter safety course, this act allows a licensed hunter to accompany a mentee on a hunt. A great deal of responsibility is put on the mentor and considerable concern was voiced about safety. However, the experience of other states was that no serious safety issues had arisen. Moreover, such legislation had increased the number of hunters creating more revenue.
Also an effort to increase the number of young hunters, H. 555 provides for a youth hunting weekend for deer and turkey. This bill was designed to give younger hunters a “first shot” at the available game in order to encourage them to continue to enjoy the sport. It passed on May 3rd, 2010.

Other misc. bills of interest to wildlife enthusiasts, hunters and farmers
H.614 will make it easier for farmers to use composting as an income stream, and will also help reduce the solid waste stream. It does this while maintaining the regulatory process for large commercial composters while making it easier for small farmers to navigate this procedure.
H. 488 bans felt-soled waders as of April 1, 2011, with an exception made for emergency personnel.
H. 779 makes the land records process more transparent by including “well shadows” information. Now notice is required if the location of a well or wastewater facilities will have an impact on a neighboring parcel and all permits must be filed in the town clerk’s office. This bill was amended to allow outdoor picnic tables at small stores without adding septic capacity, for a six-month period.

Corrections changes (may be subject to updates, Cynthia B. will provide them if necessary)
The Legislature looked at all areas of the state budget to identify potential savings while investing in the future and protecting our communities. There were several Corrections policy changes that passed this session hold offenders accountable while also creating opportunities for them to be productive members of society when they return home. We can prevent crime and reduce the rate of re-incarceration by ensuring that all offenders receive support and supervision when re-entering our communities. If we can reduce the number of incarcerated offenders in the state, we can reduce the number of prisoners that we pay to house out of state and thereby save money. But we will always work to ensure that communities are protected from violent offenders. The crime rate in Vermont is low and we want it to be lower.
The legislature has made some changes to corrections policies in order to make more effective use of resources in achieving our goals. Nonviolent offenders who have completed required programming for rehabilitation may be released from incarceration earlier when appropriate. The commissioner will request that some offenders who have succeeded on probation will be released from supervision by the judiciary. This will make room in the caseload of probation officers to assist the other offenders who are re-entering the community. At the discretion of law enforcement and the judiciary, nonviolent offenders will be diverted from prison to community justice centers and reparative boards, or to drug treatment. Individuals who have been arrested and charged, but not convicted, and for whom bail has been set, may be released on home detention or other form of electronic monitoring should they be unable to post bail. The commissioner of corrections has been given greater flexibility in sanctioning technical violations by those on probation with consequences other than a return to incarceration.
We have provided for investments in community justice centers and other community services and facilities to create the capacity to support and supervise offenders. Significant investments in substance abuse treatment and in housing for re-entering offenders and for public inebriates who are often housed in corrections will also be undertaken. In making such investments the Department of Corrections will take into consideration the need for services in communities with significant populations of offenders under supervision.

The Capital Bill (may be subject to updates, Cynthia B. will provide them if necessary)
The capital bill invests the state’s bonded dollars in state and municipal infrastructure. This year the $71 million to be invested will create jobs while improving government functions and facilitating future economic development. This legislation allocates funds to the construction or renovation of state buildings and parks, municipal water supply and wastewater treatment projects, rural fire protection, fish hatcheries, and environmental protection projects.
This year we will complete the construction of the new forensics lab in Waterbury and the Bennington state office complex will be renovated and rebuilt with a geothermal system for heating and cooling. Planning for a new state health lab in Colchester will move forward. Other major maintenance projects will be undertaken at state buildings and parks throughout the state.
This year we allocated funding to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board for affordable and supportive housing projects. And the legislature continues to provide grants which enable municipalities and non-profit organizations to make investments in community infrastructure to support education, recreation, and cultural activities. And we will provide funding for the Vermont Telecommunications Authority to continue to extend high speed internet service throughout the state.
In terms of school construction, funding is provided for emergency school projects or school consolidation. We continue to pay down the backlog of prior commitments to past school construction projects, but the moratorium on state support for new school construction continues. The legislature rejected the governor’s recommendation to shift the burden of this cost onto the education fund and the town property tax.

Unemployment Insurance (the policy)
We have known since January, 2009 that our Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund would run out of money by early in 2010. We have been working since then to find a workable solution.
The primary cause of the imbalance is that the premiums paid by employers has not changed since 1983, while our benefits to unemployed workers has slowly risen along with our average wage. In good times with low unemployment, this was not a problem, but when the current recession hit with full force, the fund was rapidly depleted.
Business interests said they could not afford to pay the full cost of bringing the fund back, and labor interests said that it is unfair to ask laid-off workers to suffer cuts to benefits that scarcely cover basic needs. Unable to agree in 2009, we made a slight upward adjustment to the “taxable wage base” on which premiums are paid, moving from $8,000 to $10,000. This helped to stanch the bleeding, but it was only a temporary relief.
This winter, after long negotiations between competing interests, a compromise was reluctantly agreed to by all sides. The deal called for some reductions in benefits (a one-week waiting period, some exclusions for serious misconduct, some recalculations of eligibility and duration of benefits), though the greater burden will be carried by employers. We raised the taxable wage base to $13,000 in 2011 and to $16,000 in 2012.
Many measures in the compromise will be favorably adjusted when the trust fund regains solvency and full adequacy, but we will not get there for at least five years.

Unemployment Insurance (the facts in detail)
After much negotiation, the administration and the legislature came to an agreement on unemployment insurance (UI). If we had done nothing, Vermont would have continued to borrow about $4 million dollars every week from the federal government to meet our unemployment insurance benefits obligation. In eight years, we’d have borrowed $312 million and spent $103 million in interest. An additional piece of good news is that Vermont’s unemployment rate is currently down to 6.5% and is projected to continue to decline further.
The problem was this: during the last major effort to reform UI in 1983, Vermont chose to index the benefits but not the taxable wage base. So, for the past 27 years, benefits have grown but the money going into the trust fund hasn’t. This imbalance was exacerbated by the deep recession we are still in. As a result, in February, Vermont’s UI Trust Fund ran out of money. We needed a long term solution for Vermont’s unemployment insurance.
Workers in Vermont go back to work faster than they do in any other state in the country. The average time a Vermonter uses UI is 14 weeks. Unemployment replaces less than 60% of employee’s regular wages – a significant reduction in income – and often the employee has lost health benefits as well. The maximum weekly benefit in Vermont is $425, but the average weekly benefit is $312. Until last year, employers were still being taxed on a wage base of only $8,000 dollars – set in 1983 and designed to be about ½ the average Vermont wage. Here are some highlights of the legislation:

• Increases the taxable wage base (TWB) from the current TWB of $10,000 to $13,000 in 2011 and to $16,000 in 2012. The TWB will index upward annually by overall wage growth after the trust fund balance is positive, projected to be in 2015.
• Freezes the maximum weekly benefit amount at $425 until we stop borrowing from the federal government. When the fund balance is positive, the benefit will resume being indexed to a percentage change in the state annual average weekly wage.
• Imposes a 1-week waiting period before an individual receives benefits; we last had a waiting period 10 years ago. This provision starts in 2012 and expires in 2017 or when we are no longer borrowing from the feds. It saves the UI Trust Fund $8.3 million a year.
• Requires an individual to participate in re-employment services if directed to do so by the commissioner.
• For seasonal employees it limits the maximum yearly benefit an individual can receive to the lesser of either 26 weeks or 46% of the total wages paid to the individual during his or her base period.
• Disqualifies a person from receiving benefits while receiving severance pay.
• Changes the earnings disregard (the amount you can earn without losing benefits) from 30% of the benefit amount to 30% of wages. It is hoped that this measure will encourage people to get back to full time work.
• If a person is fired for misconduct, the bill provides that he/she can be disqualified from receiving benefits for a period of 6-15 weeks and also terminates benefits after 23 weeks. It further defines gross misconduct. It prohibits workers fired for gross misconduct from using the wages paid by that employer to qualify for benefits.


Supporting Our National Guard
We, as legislators, commend the 1,500 Vermonters from across the Green Mountain State deployed in Afghanistan and have made every attempt to ensure our servicemen and women do not have to worry about their families back home while they serve our nation overseas.

The House and Senate have passed the Military Parents’ Rights Act, which protects the parental rights of military members when they are absent from their children’s lives due to orders. Swift mobilization can be disruptive to custody arrangements, sometimes causing military parents to lose access to their children because of deployment. The bill expedites court processes and custody hearings, requires the non-deploying parent to facilitate contact between the child and deployed parent, and stipulates that a permanent loss of custody cannot be based solely on deployment.

It is important to the legislature that deployed Guard members be able to focus on completing their mission and returning safely to their families and communities. If you have a loved one deployed overseas and need financial or resource assistance, please call the Vermont Veteran and Family Outreach 24-hour hotline: (888) 607-8773.

Caring for Vermonters
The legislature worked very hard to protect and improve services for Vermonters, especially children, seniors and Vermonters with disabilities who need some help to live safely and with dignity.

Every child should have a stable, permanent home. We passed legislation that will help children who come into the foster care system find permanent homes with a grandparent or other relative. H. 507 will allow federal funding to be used to provide financial support for a child when a member of the extended family takes permanent guardianship of that child.

All our children should have enough good, nutritious food to fuel their growth and their learning. H. 408 encourages after-school programs and school-operated summer educational or recreational programs to make use of available federal funds to provide nutritious snacks or meals to participants.

It is the state’s responsibility to ensure that vulnerable adults—those who are elderly or have a disability—are free from abuse, neglect and exploitation. The Adult Protective Services (APS) Unit in the Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living receives and investigates complaints of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of vulnerable adults. Legislation calls for an independent evaluation of the Adult Protective Services Unit if funding becomes available to do that. The purpose of this is to ensure that we maximize the effectiveness of our protective services.

In Vermont’s cold winters, no one should be unable to heat their home because they can’t afford fuel. The legislature passed a bill, H. 456, updating our seasonal fuel assistance and crisis fuel assistance program eligibility. This program provides needy Vermonters with assistance for purchasing essential home heating fuel. The new law raises the maximum eligible household income so that more people will be eligible for assistance.

Protecting Vermonters from toxic chemicals
The legislature has banned the manufacture, sale or distribution of several types of products containing Bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is a chemical used in manufacturing various hard plastics. Even low-dose exposure to BPA has been linked to delayed development, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and various other health issues. Young children, infants and fetuses are particularly susceptible to toxic damage. Beginning July 1, 2012, infant formula or baby food stored in a plastic container, jar, or can that contains BPA may not be sold in Vermont. Infant formula or baby food stored in a can that contains BPA may not be sold here starting in July 2014. Food or beverage containers intended for reuse such as baby bottles, sippy cups, and water bottles that contain BPA are prohibited in July 2012. Many stores already have stopped selling some of these items because safer alternatives are available.

Education
The house passed four education bills that focus on educational quality and safety. They will strengthen our communities now and in the future: Independent colleges will develop harassment policies (H.648), schools will have greater access to funds for nutritional programs (H.408), a PreK-16 council was charged with increasing college aspirations and completion rates (H.709), and separation agreements with former employees would no longer be permitted to hide conduct that could jeopardize the safety of a minor or vulnerable adult (H.730). In addition, children with learning disabilities will be able to participate in graduation activities with their peers without losing access to continued educational opportunities and school districts that decide to create a more efficient structure for their communities can merge voluntarily (H.66). Voluntary school district merger language was incorporated into H.66. The bill permits districts who find it is in their collective interest to merge to receive incentives and technical assistance to facilitate merger. It leaves decisions in the hands of the district, removes barriers to merger, and allows districts to design for efficiencies.
The education section of Challenges for Change (H792) maintains local control for our schools and prohibits a one size fits all decision. Our schools have responded in the past and we have confidence that they will make the best decisions for their communities in these difficult times. They chose the efficiencies that are the best for them.
Invest in future
• a PK-16 council was charged with increasing college aspirations and completion rates(H709
• Voluntary merger option for school districts that decide to create a more efficient structure for their communities
strengthening communities
• Separation agreements with former employees would no longer be permitted to hide conduct that could jeopardize the safety of a minor or vulnerable adult(H730).
• Independent o colleges will develop harassment policies (H648),
• schools will have greater access to funds for nutritional programs (H408)
• local education control maintained for quality programs
• H66 guarantees that students with learning disabilities can participate in graduation activities with their peers without losing access to continued educational opportunities

Natural Resources
In the natural resources arena, the House has taken several significant steps to protect our environment, grow local jobs, save Vermonters money, and invest in our future.
H.781, an Act Relating to Renewable Energy, makes another big investment in our clean energy future. It's a package of actions that build on last year's major success, the feed-in tariff, which allowed many small renewable energy developers to start selling their power at a fair and consistent price. This year, again without changing environmental standards, we made the process for permitting renewable energy projects more predictable and efficient. Smaller projects will be able to use a simplified permitting process, and larger projects will see a more defined permitting path. Among other provisions, H.781 also gives much-needed price stability to the pioneering farmers in the Cow Power program by allowing them the same feed-in tariff rates that we allowed last year for newer methane digesters, and it allows the Vermont Air Guard to develop a significant solar project through the simplified net metering process. Across the board, we are signaling that Vermont is open for business and that we are committed to continued investment in our energy independence.
E-waste
Vermont’s legislature acted to protect the environment from a growing scourge and help Vermonters save money: S.77, an Act Relating to the Disposal of Electronic Waste. This is a "producer responsibility" bill that addresses the fastest-growing and most hazardous portion of the waste stream. Effective next January, the bill will ban the disposal in landfills of all electronic devices, such as computers, monitors, TVs, printers, and other detritus of modern life. These products contain lead, mercury, and other hazardous substances that pose a threat to human health and the environment if improperly discarded. Consumers who currently recycle such products must pay a big fee to do so, which is a major disincentive to disposing of them responsibly. Joining some 20 other states, S. 77 requires the manufacturers of certain electronic devices to take responsibility for their disposal; they will pay a fee to the Agency of Natural Resources, according to market share, to fund free, convenient collection sites around Vermont by the year 2012.
Clean air and wood boilers
Another major pollutant in Vermont is the smoke from the older generation of outdoor wood boilers. Unfortunately, many of the owners of these boilers depend on them for heat and can't afford to replace them. We addressed this problem through S.239, an Act Relating to Retiring Outdoor Wood Fired Boilers that do not meet the 2008 emission standard for particulate matter. Using the five-year settlement funds of $360,000 per year that Vermont received from the air pollution case against American Electric Service Corporation, we will enable Vermonters who own these older boilers to buy new heating units that meet current emissions requirements. This voluntary retirement of high-emission units will be administered by the Agency of Natural Resources.

Texting
Pretty nearly everybody agrees texting should be banned while driving. The Senate passed a bill which specifically made it illegal for any person to engage in texting while operating a moving motor vehicle on a highway. Texting is defined as "the reading or the manual composing or sending of electronic communications including text messages, instant messages, or e-mails using a portable electronic device." This does not include use of global positioning or navigation system. Penalties for texting are $100.00 for the first offense and two points on your license, and $250.00 and five points for the second offense and any subsequent offense. This ban applies to all drivers.
When the bill came to the House, additional provisions were added, to protect our young drivers. We banned the use of any portable electronic device while operating a moving vehicle on a driveway for drivers under 18. Additionally, while wearing a safety belt is the law for everybody, now police may stop a car driven by someone under 18 if it appears the driver is not wearing a seatbelt.

Health Care: S.88
Everyone knows that the health care system needs to change. Insurance coverage is too expensive or insufficient for many, drug costs are too high, and hospital costs can bankrupt a family. Federal health care reform will help, but… is it enough? How do we make sure Vermont’s health care system reflects our care for each other and strengthens our communities? S.88 answers this question in two ways.
First, it moves us toward a single system of health care, by authorizing Vermont’s health care reform commission to hire one or more consultants to produce at least three such designs. One must be a single-payer option (meaning publicly financed and government-administered), and one must be a public option (meaning that you can choose between private insurance and a government-run plan). Every design must take into consideration federal reforms and meet a list of principles and goals that stress fairness, equitable and sustainable financing, and equal access for all.
For example, all Vermonters should have access to comprehensive, quality health care. We should be able to choose our primary care providers. The health care system should continually improve and its leaders should continually eliminate unnecessary costs. And the financing of health care must be fair, sustainable, shared equitably, and adequate to cover costs.
But this in itself is not enough. Every developed country in the world, whether single- or multi-payer, publicly or privately run, faces unsustainable increases in costs. Therefore S.88 also furthers Vermont’s ongoing reform efforts, because improving the way health care is delivered and reducing costs are key to building strong communities.
The Blueprint for Health, at the center of our reform efforts, organizes care around the patient and his/her primary care provider, who might be a family doctor, nurse practitioner, gynecologist or someone else. These are supported by a “community health team” that might include a nurse, nutritionist, behavior specialist, or other specialist. These people together make up the patient’s “medical home” and work together, supported by electronic health records, to keep the patient healthy. Instead of only getting paid per procedure, the participating practice also gets a per-member-per-month fee to support its work—and this model has been proven to lower costs by reducing emergency room visits and hospital admissions. S.88 furthers statewide expansion of the Blueprint.
Investing in the future, S.88 also provides for pilot projects to manage costs at a regional level. It also limits increases in hospital spending and directs a workgroup to address the shortage of primary care providers,
Finally, it says that if the federal government does not release to the states the information it will be collecting from pharmaceutical companies about free drug samples given to physicians, then the companies must provide that same information to Vermont’s Attorney General. And, because people choose lower-calorie items when they know the calories, S.88 requires fast-food chains to post the number of calories on their menus and menu boards. This information will allow people to make healthier choices and help reduce obesity and its attendant health and cost issues. (500 words, or a la carte if you don’t like it so long)
Protecting renter’s security deposits
H.213 will bring some fairness to both landlords and tenants when it comes to repayment of security deposits and rent. In the past, if someone was moving from one apartment to another, they would receive their security deposit from their previous landlord within a certain amount of time. When some of the amount is withheld, and if the tenant disputes that amount, the tenant would not be able to cash the check, or use it for a security deposit for their new apartment. This is because if they sign and cash the check, they are accepting that amount as payment in full, and if they cash it, they give up any right to pursue full payment. H.213 allows people to cash that check and, if they have a disagreement with the landlord about the withheld amount, they will be able to seek an agreement. From a landlord’s perspective, the same concept will apply to partial payment of rent. If a renter only pays a portion of their rent, the landlord may cash that check and still be able to pursue the balance of the rent. These are exceptions to the “accord and satisfaction” provisions of law.

By creating this exemption, we are allowing tenants who may move the ability to use any partial payment of their security deposit when the rest of it is disputed, while still retaining the right to seek reconciliation of their dispute. It also gives landlords the reciprocal right with relation to the collection of partial rents.

Mobile home ownership
H.542 is an important piece of legislation with respect to ownership of mobile homes, as well as rent-to-own agreements. This bill recognizes and addresses the reality that rules and regulations surrounding mobile homes have been notoriously confusing. It attempts to untie some of the knots and succeeds in setting a foundation for further strengthening of UCC regulations in the future.

In a nutshell, it is sometimes difficult to track sales and rentals of mobile homes and this makes a negative impact on the renters, as well as municipalities that must track property taxes for the home. Many homes are owned, and the pad upon which they sit is rented from a mobile home park owner. The mobile homes themselves have, in the past, been considered real property at times and real estate at others. Put upon this confusion the general lack of sophistication of the owners and renters and the “deals” people make for “rent to own” properties, there has been much abuse. This bill will help provide a straight line of rentership or ownership between the buyer and seller, and will provide municipalities an easier way of tracking ownership so the collection of property taxes will be easier.

Mobile homes remains one of our primary “affordable housing” categories. They are an important component of our housing stock and have been in a sort of legal limbo for years. By taking care of some major aspects of this limbo, we are going a long way toward settling those communities, providing important guidance to owners and sellers and giving our municipalities tools to maintain proper records.

A Stronger Vermont Economy
Our actions will create jobs and more broadband throughout Vermont. Namely, we wrote new policy and funded critical projects.
Our jobs bill invests almost $9 million in federal stimulus funds in broadband, workforce training, access to capital, agriculture, and many worthwhile projects.
Our new policies make business and commerce more equitable and operate more efficiently. This includes a solution for the unemployment insurance trust fund, strengthened rights for condo-owners and others in home associations, fair labor laws that ensure proper classification of employees for workers’ compensation, strengthening of the VT Seal of Quality, and support for Farm-to-Plate grants and the Buy Local movement.
Additionally, merchants will be helped by being able to decide for themselves whether to accept credit cards for purchases under $10, responding to the fact that they often lose money on small credit card transactions due to high credit card fees. Non-profits will be strengthened by prohibiting discrimination against drivers who are volunteers. Furthermore, we responded to concerns from Ben & Jerry’s and Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility to create a new structure for businesses to choose to define their bottom-line-results. This would allow them to not only maximize profits, but also make business decisions based on the greater social good through the designation of Benefit Corporations.
As our economy struggles to rebound, we have set in place many of these measures to put Vermonters back to work, strengthen our telecommunications infrastructure, and help businesses thrive in Vermont.

Challenges for Change
The legislature initiated “Challenges For Change” as an innovative approach to address the state budget crisis. Facing the $154 million gap in the state budget and the mounting social pressures of the Great Recession requires leaderships and a willingness of all branches of government -- legislative, executive and judicial – to work together to find new ways of achieving desired goals.
The Challenges for Change bill changes the way government spends taxpayer dollars to provide services, by establishing an outcomes-based budgeting process for government accountability.
The Challenges process began in January when the legislature and administration agreed to work together to achieve $38 million in savings through new initiatives for delivering services. In February, the Administration presented its ideas for savings and outcomes to the Legislature, and the legislature worked to carefully review the proposals and accept statutory changes for the proposals it believed appropriately achieved the defined outcomes and could save money.
The Challenges for Change bill did not incorporate all of the governor’s proposals. The legislature did not agree to take local control away from Vermont communities by mandating statewide school consolidation. We declined to compromise Vermont's environment by allowing for a pre-determined permitting process, nor for conditional exemptions as suggested by the administration. The legislature said no to the administration's proposal to undermine our regional planning commissions and economic development corporations, which help create Vermont jobs.
The Challenges for Change bill embraced a number of innovative proposals for change that the administration presented. The House endorsed proposals for performance-based contracting; establishing appropriate targets for school boards; reducing nursing home beds and keeping seniors in residential cares settings; reducing health care costs and expanding the Vermont Blueprint for Health; and reducing the number of non-violent offenders in prison. These changes amounted to some $30 million in savings without drastic cuts to services that Vermonters depend on.
In spite of a sometimes contentious process, some positive and innovative suggestions for change have emerged from a process of out-of-the-box thinking about how we invest public dollars. These ideas constitute real change; and change is not easy. The Challenges for Change process will continue into the future, and new ideas for change are encouraged from state employees as well as the public at large.

Transportation
Vermont’s road conditions rank close to the bottom in the nation. Commuters and tourist alike experience this fact each day. The national infrastructure is poor at best, dangerous at worst. Washington DC understands the investment in infrastructure results in better roads and the funds generated will put people to work. An investment in jobs is money well spent. Improvements bring tourists to this state and move them around the state.

Vermont will invest almost $600 million on transportation projects in fiscal year 2011. This is the largest transportation budget in Vermont history. A combination of funds from bonding, taxes, balance of stimulus and grants attribute to this record amount. Municipals received a much needed increase ($3.5 million increase) in paving and structures program grants. VT rail received several of the federal completive grants which will update the Vermonter rail line in mid VT. The Western Corridor rail grant was not obtained but, the state will be reapplying in the future as opportunities open.

Bridges in Vermont continue to receive a hearty investment however; the number of bridges in need of significant work is large and growing. We will need to be mindful of the problem(s) and be aware it will require many years of investment with strong oversight. It is good news indeed that Vermont be able to invest in infrastructure. There is little doubt of the positive impact highway projects has on Vermont’s employment. Happy motoring this summer!

Miscellaneous Tax Bill
The Vermont Legislature made good on Speaker Shap Smith’s pledge not to raise any broad-based taxes. Our state faced a 150 million dollar budget gap in January, yet the budget was balanced without any increases in sales, income or property taxes---a major accomplishment!
Earlier this year, the Douglas administration had forecast a two-cent increase in base property tax rates. The legislature was able to avoid the predicted tax hike, saving property tax payers 20 million dollars across the state. And, on the income tax side, lawmakers continued their two-year plan to reduce top marginal income tax rates.
To help avoid tax hikes, lawmakers applied stricter eligibility standards to recipients of homeowner rebates. At the same time, the House and Senate also approved a full pass-through of the federal production deduction, which should help many local businesses.

H.767 The Livestock Care Standards Advisory Council is important to Vermonters who value dairy and livestock farming and access to locally raised meat. This council is made up of a diverse group of stakeholders -- from farmers to slaughterhouse operators to humane treatment advocates to vets. The council will provide policy recommendations regarding the care, handling and well-being of livestock in the state.
We are aware that Vermonters are increasingly interested in locally produced food and local Vermont meat has an excellent reputation for quality and flavor. Livestock raised on Vermont farms offers profit potential and economic opportunity for Vermont producers. Therefore we are committed to assure continued success for livestock and dairy farming with a safe and local food supply for Vermonters.
The state will benefit from a body charged with addressing humane treatment of livestock, training for livestock handlers, the study of best practices as they relate to cows, horses, pigs, sheep, goats, etc., and thoughtful recommendations of statutory and regulatory changes. Because it brings together the interests and expertise of all stakeholders, the council will be able to make recommendations that are effective without threatening the viability of livestock agriculture. Vermont has an enviable reputation for the quality and availability of its local food and the livestock care standards council will play an important role.

S.295 creates an Agriculture Development Director and an Agriculture Development Board. Vermont agriculture is the most visible industry in the state and both agriculture and forestry are major drivers of the state’s economy and tourism industry. Ninety-five percent of tourists purchase locally produced food items when visiting our state, and two-thirds of these visitors report purchasing Vermont-made products when they return home.
We talk about the “Vermont brand” which signals quality and value, and reminds consumers of the rural beauty of Vermont. Vermont’s tourism industry, worth $2 billion to the state, highly depends on our rich, visible and productive agriculture and forestry.
More and more food, dairy, livestock and value-added products are being produced all over the state. They prove that Vermont agriculture will continue to be a major economic driver for our state’s fiscal health. The work of an agriculture development director and an agriculture development board will be to recognize and coordinate the efforts of these initiatives, balancing the needs of production methods with the opportunities to market products that enhance Vermont agriculture. Their most important charge will be to develop and implement a comprehensive agricultural economic development plan for the state of Vermont.

S. 262 Autism Insurance Reform
Autism Spectrum disorder (ASD) is a medical condition which is diagnosed by a medical doctor and will now be covered by health insurance for children who are between 18 months and 6 years of age. The treatment plan includes "applied behavioral analysis" an intensive therapy, which is required to be supervised by a nationally board certified behavioral analyst. For many years insurance has claimed that these treatments were experimental and they denied coverage on that basis. This legislation requires all health insurance providers to offer coverage for children until they enter first grade. Studies show that for a subset of children with ASD, early intervention with intensive behavioral therapy can result in half of them being able to attend first grade indistinguishable from their peers. Those results coupled with the fact that special education for children in Vermont with ASD is $48,000 per year as compared to non special education costs of $14,789 made a compelling case for this bill.
The Agency of Administration in collaboration with the Agency of Human Services and the Department of Education are also directed to work together to do an evaluation of the payment structures for school aged children with ASD and report back to the legislature. The effective date for the insurance coverage is July 1, 2011 if all provisions of the bill are met.

This will impact the quality of life for children and their families who live with the challenges of ASD every day. It gives hope that they will get on a path to becoming productive, happy individuals who are independent. At the same time the savings to the state with be significant over time by decreasing the demand on special education.

Judicial Restructuring: Access to Justice and Savings Achieved
Last year, we informed the Judiciary that it would need to deliver $1 million in savings in the FY 11 budget. This year we delivered those savings together with a “unified judiciary” that has been in the works for 36 years.
In 1974 the Vermont Constitution was amended to provide the Supreme Court with management of all the state’s courts. Statutory amendments creating a truly unified judiciary system passed the House in 1977. Senate inaction, however, left the Supreme Court with a fragmented rather than a unified judiciary.
Our judicial restructuring bill consolidates the existing Family, district, superior, environmental and probate courts in to a single Unified Superior Court with family, criminal, civil, environmental and probate divisions. We have statutorily required that courts will continue to operate in all 14 of our counties. And we consolidate all court staff as state employees under the management of the court administrator.
This important government efficiency measure saves $1 million in the general fund AND an additional $1.2 million in property taxes (through county budget savings); it allows the court to “buy-back” most (but not all) of the existing court closures. Most importantly, it gives the Supreme Court the tools it needs to manage the entire judicial system efficiently.
Fee Bill
Each year the Fee bill adjusts approximately 1/3 of the fees that are charged for permits, licenses and other charges that are not defined as taxes. A fee bears a direct relationship to what is received in return. In doing so, the fees are investments in services that are forward looking and strengthen the communities in which we live.
This year the Administrative Fee Bill was not particularly contentious and House and Senate were able to meet our bottom line of raising a total of approximately $443,000.
The bill contains BISHCA fees that apply to a variety of licensed mortgagors, commercial lenders, and other financial service providers. As these services proliferate, the complexity of regulating them has increased commensurately. The bill also includes fees that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) charges for air, water supply and waste water disposal permits. Many of these fees are rising as the work required by the DEC to write and monitor the permits has grown. The most significant fee increase is for waste water discharge at Vermont Yankee. That fee rises from $60,000 to $105,000. The bill also contains enabling language that permits the General Assembly to create a special fund that would cover the costs of monitoring the river and groundwater after VY closes.
The bill also contains non-controversial fees related to elevator safety, boiler inspections, agricultural monitoring, fingerprinting and more.
Further, for the first time, there are significant new fees for salvage yard operators that vary depending on the level of activity. The revenue will fund a new position with the responsibility to bring salvage yards into compliance with environmental laws. There are perhaps 280 salvage yards (junk yards) and presently only 81 are licensed. While well run salvage yards provide a valuable community service, the common junk yards can be environmental hazards and lower the property values of neighboring homes.

The Budget
For three years now, the global recession has affected Vermont families, businesses and the state budget. The FY 2011 budget required difficult choices to resolve a $154 million gap between revenues and expenditures, while caring for each other, investing in the future and strengthening our communities. Through hard work and compromise we are positioning our state for a solid economic recovery.
The budget gap results from: $20 million in declining Federal Stimulus revenues, $70 million of growth in Medicaid and health care costs, $25 million in retirement expense pressures, in part due to loss of investment revenues in those retirement funds, $39 million of pressures in state government, and $17 million in other factors. We were able to work through these difficulties, as well as the legislature’s differences with the Governor, to agree on a responsible, balanced budget.
The 2011 state budget makes investments to preserve the health, well being and dignity of Vermonters. We restored the Administration’s proposed cuts to home-based services that are critical to keeping elderly Vermonters and people with disabilities in their homes. By sustaining Vermont’s Senior Companion program, Housing and Supportive Services grants, Foster Grandparent program, and the Neighbor to Neighbor program, our neighbors can continue to live with dignity in their communities and avoid the extraordinary cost of nursing home care. Our restoration of flexible family funding, attendant services and targeted case management means that parents of children with disabilities can maintain employment, knowing their children are in good care.
Many Vermonters are sharing the burden of budget reductions. State employees and legislators accepted a pay cut for 2 years. Teachers made changes to their retirement saving Vermont $15 million. Participants in Catamount Health will pay higher deductibles. Grants throughout state government will see reductions.
In order to improve Vermont’s financial stability, the FY2011 budget invested in tax policy to promote business investment, as well as positions that encourage business growth, collect owed taxes, and save significant funds by improving Medicaid integrity.
The FY2011 budget demonstrates responsible choices for Vermont’s fiscal future by reducing the 2012 deficit from $250 million to $122 million. We saved $17 million in retirement costs for teachers and state employees for this year, and each year going forward. We provided a portion of funding to replace the expensive and inadequate Vermont State Hospital. We began a new budgeting process in Challenges for Change that reduces costs by $38 million, and more in the future, while improving government effectiveness and outcomes. This is a budget that reflects our means as well as Vermont’s community values.

0 Comments

From the statehouse:

THE ENDGAME APPROACHES….

Last week I attended the governor’s bill signing ceremony for S.77, the Electronic Waste Recycling and Disposal Bill. This is a strong consumer protection bill, and will allow free and convenient disposal of computers, TV’s, and peripherals beginning January 1 of next year. Jen Holliday of Chittenden County Solid Waste District deserves much credit for a multi-year effort to make this successful. There will be similar expanded attempts to improve solid waste recycling and collection in the next few years.
Also last week, Vermont legislators received a special funding appeal from the Vermont Fallen Heroes Fund for a memorial to be built in Randolph to honor those who have served and died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mention this here because this effort is being led by Essex Jct. Gold Star parent Ray Degiovine. The fund is trying to complete fundraising by Memorial Day, with formal dedication scheduled for Veteran’s Day in November. Donations may be directed to The Vermont Fallen Heroes GWOT Memorial Fund, Inc., c/o Ray Degiovine, 15 Corduroy Road, Essex Jct., Vt. 05452.
In energy news, the Clean Energy Development fund has just directed over $5.5 Million in ARRA energy stimulus funds to support the installation of solar and small wind projects on home and businesses across Vermont. Individuals won’t have to research how to take part in the programs; retailers will figure the incentives into the cost of installations.
The latest Vermont Yankee Nuclear decommissioning bill, which created two new funds for “greenfield” restoration and spent fuel management, appears stalled in the Senate after passing the House unanimously. No action means the bill will die. If the plant closes as scheduled under current law in March 2012, it would leave a limited liability corporation (LLC) with no producing assets to decommission the plant with a seriously underfunded trust and no guarantee of assets available for greenfielding or spent fuel management. Many House members are seriously concerned about the potential liability for taxpayers and hope the Senate will act.
The last major piece of legislation out of House Natural Resources and Energy this year is S.64, an act related to Growth Centers. There are currently five growth centers under current law, which promotes smartgrowth development in core areas with existing water/sewer/infrastructure to discourage sprawl. In four years, problems have been identified with the application process and this bill would collapse the current review process into one board to eliminate confusion and overlap. It represents a compromise between the Agency of Commerce/Economic Development and environmental and planning groups.
I’m hoping that when you read this there will only be a week left in the session. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the “Challenges for Change” actual savings, a special session has been scheduled for July 22, but that may become unnecessary if the Senate identifies further budget cuts that are agreeable to the House. Challenges for change created some odd dynamics and shifting alliances in the legislature this year, but the severity of the budget crisis actually led to less divisiveness over money issues than in prior years. Hopefully the stalemate over Unemploment Insurance benefits will be broken before adjournment as well.
It was a pleasure to welcome visitors to the statehouse from the high school championship basketball team and the ADL Mathcounts state champions to be honored with resolutions praising their achievements.
Please feel free to call or e-mail on any issue as we head toward adjournment….TJerman@leg.state.vt.us, 878 2972

0 Comments

FROM THE STATEHOUSE..

Legislative update—The Pace Quickens…. Rep. Tim Jerman, Essex Jct.

House bills are starting to pass out of committee and hit the floor for action. This means a lot less time in committee and much more on the floor for full debate from now until the end of the session. Last week, the House passed a bill to prohibit texting while driving. The bill also contains a ban on hand-held cell phone usage, places nighttime restrictions on junior operators, and makes seat belt usage eligible for primary enforcement, meaning drivers can be stopped for a seat belt violation without any other infraction suspected. The Senate version of the bill contains a ban on texting only, so the stage is again set for a conference committee disagreement over how far to ban distractions while driving. I’ve heard from a lot of people over the past year about near accidents with drivers talking on cell phones, so if this issue is important to you, please contact your local state senators (all 7 of them!) and let them know how you feel; it can really make a difference!
My committee, House Natural Resources and Energy, passed out a renewable energy bill that has two major provisions. One section now recognizes large hydro-electric projects as renewable, which is important for Hydro-Quebec and Vermont. The anticipation of this change added value to the recent long-term deal being negotiated now with HQ for a third of Vermont’s power needs going forward. The importance of this long-term, carbon-free, renewable base load power deal at stable prices for Vermont’s energy future can hardly be overstated. The other major section consolidates renewable energy permit appeals within the Public Service Board. There aren’t many appeals, but when they happen they drag on way too long—this change could attract investment to Vermont by assuring developers that there will be one-stop shopping for appeals related to a required CPG…Certificate of Public Good. It could also serve as a model for greater permit reform for other non-renewable development projects as well. The bill also contains a small provision which will help IBM and other large employers come into compliance with federal regulations governing installation of large electrical transformers. Next up is a nuclear power decommissioning bill (again) which would create a new “greenfield” fund to assure full payment of non-radiologic decommissioning costs whenever the Vermont Yankee plant closes. This could mean that regardless of how a new legislature next year approaches VY’s continued operation after 2012, the issue of who would pay for millions of dollars of decommissioning costs would be settled; it would be Entergy and not Vermont or federal taxpayers.
The 2011 budget is coming along well, considering the magnitude of the deficit. While there will be inevitable political differences over the final priorities, the legislative process has incorporated much of the Governor’s original budget recommendations. Appropriations Chair Rep. Martha Heath will have much more to report next week. Martha also recently received an important education award from the New England Board of Higher Education in Boston for her outstanding twelve years of service as a UVM Trustee.
Another major bill coming to the floor is Judicial Restructuring, which contains $1 Million in savings and streamlines the organization of the Judicial branch, which is currently overly decentralized. The most controversial pieces involve reduced hours for some lightly-used courthouses (although none will close), and more focused responsibilities for assistant judges. This is a big change, and will likely spark a long floor debate.
Economic development, or the “jobs bill”, passed the House unanimously and is on a fast track. It distributes $8.7 Million of federal stimulus funds. Projects include broadband access for 12,000 homes and businesses; more worker training programs; loans to farmers and qualifying businesses; investments in tourism; help for businesses affected by the Champlain Bridge closure, and more.
One compromise that remains elusive to date is how to fix the deficit in the Unemployment Trust Fund. I am very concerned that one of the proposals, a payroll tax on employees, could place municipalities like the village at a disadvantage, and in effect make us pay twice for a problem we did not create as a “reimbursable” employer. We’ll see how that comes out. Your local reps. are also concerned about unfunded mandates dealing with stormwater runoff monitoring in impaired streams, which is a cost shift from the state’s Agency of Natural Resources to local government. With local budgets already prepared, this would be a bad time to implement the change, which is being proposed by the administration, not the legislature.
As I write, it also looks like there has been significant progress on a bill to incent public school consolidation without mandates from Montpelier….more on that soon too.
With so much going on in the next few weeks, please don’t hesitate to call or e-mail on any issue. I hope to see a great crowd at the Village Annual Meeting and dinner on April 7th at the high school. Is it too soon to say Happy Spring??—Rep. Tim Jerman, 878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

FROM THE STATEHOUSE…. Rep. Tim Jerman


APPROACHING CROSSOVER..


The 2010 legislature is approaching the halfway mark. After Town Meeting, bills originating in the House or Senate must pass and “cross-over” to the other body to be considered this year. If not, they die and must be reintroduced (or not) in 2011.
Substantial progress has been made on the budget deficit. Both houses voted overwhelmingly for “Challenges for Change”, a $38 Million budget reduction for next year which directs state agencies to redesign processes to deliver services more effectively. The bill contains incentive funding to promote innovative thinking and collaboration among agencies. Savings will carry over to the following year as well. This addresses a large piece of the deficit, but there is much more work to be done to balance the budget.
The Senate will likely have voted NOT to allow Vermont Yankee to continue the operation of the nuclear plant beyond March, 2012 by the time you read this. Because both chambers would have to vote yes to allow continued operation, a Senate no vote effectively ends the official debate for this year, but it hardly ends the discussion. My committee, House Natural Resources and Energy, will continue to discuss decommissioning of the plant with an eye towards assuring that Vermont and federal taxpayers do not pick up the tab if the current fund doesn’t have enough money. The current decommissioning fund is controlled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but we are exploring additional Entergy-funded plans which would cover costs of returning the Vernon site to a “Greenfield” and for the storage/ management of the nuclear waste which will remain on-site for many years. Still lots of unanswered questions remain after a Senate vote.
The Essex delegation was excited to learn recently of the $50+ Million federal stimulus grant to enhance the rail line running through Essex Junction. We will continue to work to add the Essex-Burlington line improvements, which would have multiple benefits for the corridor, and provide a needed east-west linkage for heavier freight loads. Funding for this will depend on whether other priority projects in the western corridor (Burlington to Rutland) can be completed in a timely fashion.
Last week, I was elected by the full legislature to serve a four-year term on the Vermont State Colleges Board of Trustees. My priorities will be to keep the VSC schools viable and affordable for Vermont students. Innovative programs like dual enrollment, which allows high school students to sample college work for credit, should be expanded to help more students get a successful start on college study. It was an honor to be nominated for the board by Reps. Martha Heath of Westford and Joe Krawcyk of Bennington. The legislature votes on new VSC Trustees this year and UVM Trustees next year, so there is regular turnover of Board members.
Rep. Margaret Cheney of Norwich serves on my committee and has pledged to try to get constituent and Olympic Skiing Gold Medalist Hannah Kearney to come to the statehouse soon for recognition—very exciting! It was great to have the captains of the championship Essex High football team visit as a resolution honoring the team was read, and congratulations again this year to the state championship Essex We the People civics team of constitutional scholars—what a great group of students!
As always, don’t hesitate to call or e-mail on any issue…878 2972 or 828 2228 at the statehouse. TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

http://www.evacuationplans.org/

0 Comments

February 16, 2010

New Well GZ-15

Over the weekend, Vermont Yankee reported that groundwater monitoring well GZ-15 was completed and put into service. GZ-15 is located in the Containment Access Building that is east of the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) Building. This new well is approximately on the line formed by connecting well GZ-10 near the southwest corner of the AOG Building and GZ-14 near the Connecticut River.

GZ-15 tested in the range of 238,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/l) for tritium, according to Vermont Yankee. This result somewhat substantiates the location of GZ-15 as mid-point of the groundwater contamination plume that runs from the AOG pipe tunnel, pit, and drain line as well as some buried piping, on its way down to the Connecticut River.

Using the most recent groundwater monitoring well data, the plume of tritium contamination starts with a concentration of 2,112,000 pCi/l at GZ-10, believed to be near the source(s) of the leak, past the area of well GZ-7 where the concentration of tritium is about 949,000 pCi/l, past the new well GZ-15 at about 238,000 pCi/l and on to well GZ-14 near the river at about 90,300 pCi/l.

Excavation Work

Excavation near the AOG building and well GZ-10 is ongoing.This excavation is now about 13 feet long and 7 feet wide, and will eventually be about 15 feet deep. The area of excavation is roughly bounded on the north by the AOG pipe tunnel, by the AOG building on the east, and by the turbine building on the west. The purpose of the excavation is to uncover the AOG pipe tunnel, pit, drain and piping associated with the AOG system to be examined as the source(s) of groundwater contamination.

This work will take some time because the area contains safety-related fuel oil piping and electrical conduit that service the emergency diesel generators, and a solid structure to support the excavation and the exposed piping and services is being constructed. In addition, a rugged enclosure is being built over the excavation area to provide weather protection, negative pressure ventilation, radiologically-controlled area access restrictions and other services such as lighting, electricity and heat.

Soil and Water Testing

As the excavation progresses over the next several days, soil and water samples will be taken for testing.These samples will be split with the Department of Health, as well as any other evidence that may help substantiate that a particular component failure is related to the groundwater tritium contamination. Soil and water samples will be analyzed for tritium and other radioisotopes related to nuclear plant operations. Vermont Yankee has some mitigation plans for piping and other components that are found to be leaking, and other plans are being evaluated. Planning for long-term repairs (for example re-routing underground pipes that carry radioactive materials so they are no longer buried) is beginning.

AOG Pipe Tunnel

The steam and standing water observed in the AOG pipe tunnel last week was also addressed over the weekend. Operators identified the steam source, the B recombiner steam trap drain piping, and isolated it. They also dislodged a blockage in the drain line from the pipe tunnel to the AOG Pit accessing the blockage from the sump side of the drain. This released much of the standing water from the floor of the pipe tunnel into the sump. The sump was then pumped down to the rad waste building for processing. The water in the pipe tunnel was heavily tritiated, as was the nuclear steam. This means each had tritium concentrations in excess of about 2 million pCi/l. Once the standing water and nuclear steam were removed, an inspection of the pipe tunnel was undertaken. No obvious source of leakage from the pipe tunnel into the ground was identified. The excavation will likely be needed to complete this investigation.

More Monitoring Wells Planned

Drilling has begun for well GZ-13D, to be followed by GZ-14D. These wells, along with GZ-16, GZ-19 and GZ-19D, will continue to improve our understanding of the underground flow of groundwater and the protection of drinking water.

GZ-16 will be sited west of the AOG excavation to more precisely map the western edge of the tritium plume. Its siting and drilling is complicated by the construction of the maintenance shop floor where the well is to be drilled.

GZ-18 is planned to be drilled very close to the river, following the line from the potential plant sources at GZ-10 through GZ-14. Until GZ-18 is drilled, samples of river water at this interface between the river to the east and the land to the west, may be obtained by boat in the river (as long as the river is not frozen over at that site).

0 Comments

From the Statehouse—Rep. Tim Jerman, Chittenden 6-2 January 2010

As the legislative session shifts into high gear, the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee has been busy completing work on S.77, a bill to promote free and convenient electronic waste disposal. It will likely be one of the first major bills to be passed this year. The committee vote was 11-0. With S. 77, old computers, televisions, printers, monitors, and peripherals will be able to be disposed of conveniently at area drop-offs free of charge, starting in 2011. Manufacturers will accept product responsibility through disposal of their products, and the result is good news for consumers. TVs and computers make up most of the electronic waste stream. Recyclers will arrange for pickup at a variety of sites in every county, which will keep toxic chemicals like mercury out of our landfills. In coming years, more will be done to make recycling easier and move us towards the concept of zero waste. Details will be available in the near future, so yes, if that computer or TV junk in your basement isn’t driving you crazy, you may want to hold on to it until the program starts to avoid a disposal fee!
Our committee also recently heard from economist Tom Kavet, who is doing an economic analysis of various scenarios involving the closure or continued operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear plant. His analysis will take several weeks. This briefing came at the same time news of the tritium leaks at the Vernon site was received. Tritium is a radioactive isotope; it’s presence near the Connecticut River is a serious concern. Tritium was also recently discovered leaking from one of the other aging nuclear plants in Michigan which is also slated to become part of the spin-off company, Enexus. The Public Service Department has expressed outrage about not being informed of the existence of underground pipes carrying radioactive materials, and Entergy’s credibility has suffered badly. Additional requests for information and investigations of the extent of the tritium problem makes a legislative vote this session on continued operation unlikely. I remain very concerned about the status of decommissioning funds under the proposed new spinoff, Enexus. The Public Service Department is reviewing that deal now independently of the legislature’s decision on continued operation, but pending the outcome of the tritium leakage investigation, the prospects for early action on Enexus by the Public Service Board are also in question. New York is supposed to issue a decision on the same question next month. Can a decision to relicense and operate beyond 2012 be delayed to 2011? Vermont Yankee has repeatedly said that would be too late, but more recently has left that door open as a possibility. Sound confusing? It definitely is!
Next up for our committee is a bill to reduce truck and car idling. Exhaust fumes have been linked to serious respiratory illness. The thrust of the bill is to educate the public rather than just punish offenders, and there will be exceptions for commercial vehicles with special circumstances. We’re the only state in New England without a statute controlling at least diesel exhaust. I’ll have more to report on this soon. I’ve also heard from a lot of folks lately concerned about cell phone usage and texting/e-mailing while driving. I’ve been passing this along to senators considering legislation, so let me know if you feel strongly about this issue…I would really like to see action this year.
Recently, a state board raised the limits on the amount of money that can used to incent new business and job development under the VEGI program (Vermont Employment Growth Incentives). I’m excited about plans to locate a solar film manufacturing operation in Essex, which would create 80-100 good new jobs here in an existing empty space. This company (and others) are counting on VEGI support. I’m a believer that Vermont can become home to great new employment opportunities in the energy sector, and we have taken steps to make that possible. VEGI demands results prior to giving out incentives, which is an improvement over the old tax credit programs, where some new ventures received aid but then closed down or left the state w/out following through on job creation promises.
As I write this, I’ve just come from the special Town Meeting where the Tree Farm property purchase from the state on Old Colchester Road was overwhelmingly approved. This will be a wonderful opportunity for the Town and Village, and I can assure voters that chances like this to control a great parcel of land and buildings at a bargain-basement price from the state don’t come around often. Villagers share equally in the costs through payment of Town taxes. The Selectboard, Trustees, and staff deserve a lot of credit for working together on a short time frame to get this deal ready for the voters.
Budget adjustment for this year (FY2010) is now complete, and the money committees’ attention turns to next year, or FY2011, which begins in July. There will have to be many cuts in programs and services in the next two budget years, and very few activities of state government will be spared to reach the goal of patching a $150 Million revenue shortfall without raising taxes. Communication will be key, so please keep in touch with your reps. and senators as we go forward. Every legislator will be voting for distasteful cuts to good programs to produce a balanced budget in these extraordinary fiscal times. As always, it’s an honor to serve the village in Montpelier. Enjoy and have a great winter season!—Rep. Tim Jerman, 878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

Theresa, Trevor and I have moved to 5 Sycamore Lane in fairview from South Hill Drive. Still at 878 2972.

0 Comments

FALL OF THE GAVEL…

I’m writing this update on Saturday, May 8, the last day of the regular 2009 legislative session. In the past week, many of the major bills of the session have cleared House/Senate conference committees and been brought to the floor for final action before being sent on to the Governor. In this group are the capital and general fund budgets, transportation bill, renewable energy, enhanced sex offender registry, Vermont Yankee decommissioning, pharmaceutical marketing, and last but not least an omnibus economic development bill. Each of them is an extremely detailed piece of work with many hours of testimony and deliberation going into them. Not all bills get such thorough treatment, and I’ll be describing what happened to one of them in my committee in a future column.
Essex Junction’s charter changes approved in April also passed both houses this week.

The budget, or the “Big Bill”, was a difficult vote for every single member—there were things to dislike for everyone. In the last week of the session, it was clear that an $18-21 Million dollar hit to the local property tax was on the table in the form of a reduced annual transfer of funds from the general fund to the education fund. The budget conferees were able in the end to eliminate the increase, but the education fund was not “held harmless” or exempted from the deep cuts experienced in the rest of the general fund budget. A planned one cent ($.01) decrease to the state residential and non-residential property tax rate will not happen, and the base amount of spending per student was frozen for next year (FY2011) at 2010 levels. This means that school boards will know in advance that their base per-pupil expenditures are fixed regardless of inflationary pressures and can plan cutbacks accordingly in advance. This compromise assured that the proposed $40 Million transfer of Teacher’s Retirement obligations to the education fund would not happen, and that the education fund would not be cut by the administration’s original $23Million proposal.

Overall, the budget contained a balanced approach in dealing with the drastic loss of state revenue over the year. Of a $281.5 Million dollar budget gap, new net tax revenue totals $21.3 Million, or less than 8% of the shortfall. The rest is a combination of budget cuts, enhanced tax collection/compliance, federal stimulus funds, and human services caseload reserve funds. Not surprisingly, new revenue from taxes was controversial from the start, and there were many options considered. In the end, many taxpayers not at the highest end of the income scale will see a substantial net reduction next year because marginal income tax rates were lowered at all levels. Obviously, this means less revenue (22.4Million) for the state, lowering the actual new general fund revenue from taxes to $15.4 Million. The new revenues include so-called “sin taxes” on cigarettes and hard liquor, a lowering of the state capital gains exclusion, a cap on the amount taken in the state deduction, a tax on digital downloads, and a reduction in the estate tax exclusion.

There are of course many who will say the legislature cut too much (over $120 Million this year counting rescissions) and those who say not enough (more cuts, no taxes). I voted for the budget as a reasonable compromise, knowing that next year could likely be worse in terms of the revenue picture. I was most relieved to have avoided a massive cost shift to the local property tax, but that pressure will only grow in the coming years. I can assure voters that every effort was made to work with administration personnel to capture every available dollar from the federal stimulus programs. Those dollars appear as immediate help in many budget areas, but the money committees are well aware that they are temporary and do not address our structural deficit issues long-term.

I think all the local representatives agree this was the hardest session in memory because of the deepening recession. I contracted a bad case of laryngitis on Monday and couldn’t speak all week, so I did a lot of listening! My wife says that was a first (just kidding!). If you have any questions about any of the bills passed, please feel free to call me at 878 2972. It was great to see so many of you in the statehouse for different functions this year. I hope to see you at the Memorial Day Parade and candlelight vigil on Friday and Saturday, May 22 and 23rd. Special congratulations to the Essex High School “We The People” students for being the Northeast Regional Champions and 15th best in the nation civics team in the recent Washington, D.C. national competition! Great job!

0 Comments

CRUNCH TIME UNDER THE DOME…..
Rep. Tim Jerman

With about three weeks to go in the session, important bills are coming to the House floor for action in rapid succession. The capital budget, which was the largest ever passed by Vermont because of targeted ARRA (federal stimulus) funds, will get money out quickly to communities for needed projects, including school construction which has been backlogged for years. The fiscal year 2010 general fund budget, coming later, will also blend in recovery/stimulus funds to relieve the pressure on the state budget, particularly in Medicaid, and provide time for a longer term fix to the state’s structural deficit.
The House Natural Resources and Energy Committee’s bill on renewable energy, H. 446, may have made the floor and been acted on by the time you read this. It creates “standard offer pricing” for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass plants to help these new technologies take off in Vermont. Unrestricted federal stimulus funds for energy are directed to the Clean Energy Development Fund, which will offer some of the funds in rebates so that renewable installations like solar panels become more affordable for homeowners and business. There is also a provision to help IBM expand its current energy efficiency efforts to thermal savings as well as electric in a three year pilot project which exempts them from Efficiency Vermont charges. Opposition to the bill is based largely on the “standard offer” provision, which creates stable pricing from utilities for new renewable energy plants to get help with upfront costs, which will slightly raise electricity costs for consumers. My committee spent much time trying to balance the need for new sources of clean power with impacts on ratepayers. There are some other creative proposals to help homeowners reduce energy costs being considered separately in the Senate.
The Miscellaneous tax bill, H. 442, will be getting a lot of ink because any time you raise revenue, it is controversial. The bill includes a temporary three-year income tax surcharge to save critical state programs, including VPharm (Rx drugs for low-income seniors), keeping rest areas open, providing supervision for paroled offenders, keeping courts open, and much more. The surcharge will add about $56. per year for a family making up to $75K per year; less for lower incomes, and more for higher income families. One-third of the $25 Million in new revenues are not raised in taxes but by innovative programs like beefed-up collections on more than $150 Million of currently unpaid taxes. Spending cuts will be included in the budget bill later in the session, and they will be significant because of the large deficit in 2010.
People have asked me locally how could I support ANY tax increase when the economy is in such bad shape? On the transportation side, I supported a $.05 increase in the gas tax, which would go exclusively to support principal and interest payments on bonds to fix our failing roads and bridges (the need goes way beyond any federal stimulus $$). The Senate has removed the tax and replaced it with increased fees. A conference committee will resolve the differences; please be aware that “fees”, which are a kinder, gentler word for “taxes”, are paid 100% by Vermonters. Gas taxes are shared up to 35% by out-of-staters who contribute to wear and tear on our roads. With $.05, the price now would still be less than half of the $4.00 OPEC tax/price we were paying last summer at the pump. The other alternative of doing nothing will just push out higher fix-up costs to future years.
The income tax surcharge is a tougher proposition, but I know several state employees in the village who are being asked to do their share by taking 11-13% cuts in pay and benefits on salaries of $38,000+ or be laid-off and added to the unemployment lines. I am, and suspect many others are, willing to forego one dinner out this year to keep that from happening, or to keep our fish hatcheries and historical sites open, or keep from closing a prison which is a major employer. The House Ways and Means Committee considered several options before recommending a short-term tax similar to actions taken by Governor Snelling in the early 1990’s recession.
The need to consider raising revenue along with budget cuts was made more difficult by the administration’s original proposal to cut $63 Million from the general fund budget by moving it to the local property tax, which would have dramatically increased local property tax rates. I will always oppose property tax increases mandated by Montpelier which attempt to override local control. There were legitimate structural questions about whether teacher’s retirement should be a general fund or education fund expense, but the wholesale off-loading onto the property tax all at once was not a constructive proposal. The Ways and Means efforts seem to be a balanced approach to helping us get through the worst of the recession. Deep budget cuts alone are not recognized by economists as an effective way to fight a severe recession. And, because of federal “Making work pay” tax credits, all working families under $250,000 in income will pay substantially less personal income tax in 2009 even with the proposed state surcharge.
Lastly, I want to thank everyone who contacted me during the recent marriage debate. Some are very happy with the outcome, and some not, but I was reassured by the respectful, thoughtful tone of the correspondence and calls on both sides of the issue. It was a reminder of why I am proud and honored to represent this community in the legislature. Please feel free to contact me or visit the statehouse: 878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

Vermont Yankee: dance or poker game?

As you read this, the House and Senate will be immersed in figuring out how the federal stimulus funds affect this and next year’s state budget. It’s an extraordinary task to put this all together quickly before the end of the session. We’ll also be debating the comprehensive public safety bill passed by the Senate early in the session.
In House Natural Resources and Energy, we are working on a collection of bills to promote the development of renewable energy sources to help the economy and reduce our over-reliance on fossil fuels. We also quickly passed a bill to require a bittering agent additive to auto antifreeze products to remove the “sweet” taste which attracts, and then kills, domestic dogs and cats. This may seem like a “boutique” bill, but to pet owners who have lost a family dog to an avoidable painful death, it is important. Several other states have similar laws, and we heard passionate testimony from veterinarians. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
If you read last week’s headline on Vermont Yankee’s “rejection” by the Public Service Department, you may be wondering what’s going on. Like a dance, the interested parties are circling, and like a poker game, there is some bluffing and intimidation—a multi-layered negotiation taking place on several levels. The Public Service Department (and Board) wants to know what the price of power from VY will be after the current contract expires in 2012. They, and the legislature, want to know about how Entergy VY will meet its commitment to decommission the plant in the future when the cost is now estimated at $915 Million and the decommissioning “fund” has been dropping to its current $361 Million level because of the downturn in the stock market. The state’s major utilities want to negotiate a price for power for their future planning and are also looking at other sources of base-load power to lower their reliance on VY. Entergy would like to provide maximum value for their shareholders and continue to operate the plant for at least another 20 years.
Other major players are the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the federal Department of Energy (DOE). The NRC determines plant safety and the DOE is responsible for spent fuel removal. It is important to clarify that the legislature and Public Service Board are looking at whether or not continued operation (legislature) and license renewal (PSB) constitute a “public good” for the state; they are not weighing in on safety of operation for another 20 years. Very complex stuff—add the pending sale of Vermont Yankee from Entergy to a newly created limited liability corporation, the continuance of a multi-million dollar Clean Energy Development Fund, a revenue-sharing agreement with the state, power contracts with users in other states, and you have a very complicated set of negotiable items.
To make it even more complicated, how and when decommissioning takes place is a matter of great interest. A “Safestor” option could mothball an inactive plant for many years, by some estimates more than 100; a far more attractive option is “decon”, or returning the Vernon site to a “greenfield” in a much shorter timeframe. Unfortunately, the likelihood of dry cask storage of spent nuclear fuel on site for many years in the future is a possibility under any decommissioning scenario, given the federal government’s failure to deliver on a centralized storage facility, at Yucca Mountain or elsewhere.
Be assured that the lights are not going out in 2012. There is lots of power available to our utilities. The issue is cost, and that changes quickly in the current environment. The days of long-term contracts for power (more than 3 years), are over for the foreseeable future. Stay tuned, as the outcome of this debate is far from over.
In the News You Can Use category: I attended the announcement of a new partnership between Goodwill Industries and Dell to recycle old computers for free. You can now take that old box, monitor, and keyboard (any brand) in the basement to Goodwill’s drop-off site on Harvest Lane in Williston at no cost. This program could significantly lower the amount of solid waste electronics being carted off to landfills, and is part of a national movement to have manufacturers be responsible for the entire life of their products.
I can be reached at 878 2972 or TJerman@leg.state.vt.us. I hope to see you at Town meeting on March 2 at the high school!

0 Comments

REVENUE IDEA—EXPAND THE LOTTERY?
Rep. Tim Jerman, Essex Junction
Now that the State Auditor has publicly raised the idea of casino gambling at Killington or other resorts, it may be time to look closer at other states before rejecting the idea out of hand.
Locally, the idea of legalized gaming was discussed informally a few years ago in the context of a well-controlled environment at one or more of our state fairs, based on a similar model in Delaware. Given the backdrop of our current revenue crisis, consider some eye-opening numbers from other small states. Delaware, with a population slightly larger than ours, received $222 Million in tax revenue in 2008 from gaming (slots only plus lottery). Gaming accounts for 6% of all revenue in the state, heading toward 10%. Starting with one location at the state fair, Delaware pulls in those dollars from just three facilities, all located at racetracks, and much of it from out-of-staters. They have lowered property taxes substantially since the introduction of gaming, all from the new generation of slot machines called VLT’s, or video lottery terminals.
Rhode Island has also gone into gaming, with $284 Million in revenues in 2007. Gaming revenue there is already the third largest source of state income behind income and sales taxes. You know about Connecticut’s mega-sites and Massachusetts is planning three venues which are currently on hold. Maine has just one betting site at a racetrack, and its take was $21 Million last year. New Hampshire is considering a controversial expansion of it’s lottery to include VLT’s at one racetrack, with a projected revenue take of up to $200 Million per year. Also, in the current downturn, small states revenues from gaming are down far less than the giants of Las Vegas and Atlantic City as people stay closer to home for vacations.
The downsides of gaming are well-documented and serious, but it seems that many of the dire predictions of mental health problems and family disruption with the introduction of the Vermont lottery have not been borne out by actual experience. We have the ability to do Vermont-scaled projects well. Obviously, a Vermont version of controlled gaming would have to be designed to minimize the negative affects of problem gambling, crime, and other issues. Other states have a mixed record of adequately funding support services, but new technologies like smartcards which time-out individuals with pre-set loss limits make it easier to monitor problems.
I don’t know if Vermont could pull off a gaming system to please everyone, but it seems worth a thorough look. The “core values” argument is important, but the same debate was had over the introduction of the current lottery. The revenue numbers in other states are compelling, and the reality is that we are losing significant tax dollars from Vermonters who choose to leave the state for gaming entertainment, as well as those who visit and would participate if they could. As we look around we are almost now fully surrounded by legalized, taxed, state-sponsored gaming. If we choose to be an oasis, shouldn’t it be after a full look at the pros and cons? This discussion isn’t taking place in a vacuum…there are serious cuts coming to health care, education, and human services programs that we all value. A potential revenue source of this magnitude, with its obvious benefits to the tourism industry, should at least be on the table for discussion.

Tim Jerman is a state representative from Essex Junction 802 8782972

0 Comments

From the statehouse:

The mood is very different in Montpelier this year. Committees were named on the very first day and got to work immediately. The new Speaker instructed that every bill be analyzed for its potential contribution to economic development, and every committee has a liaison to the Appropriations committee to evaluate the impact of budget cuts in each policy area.
The financial picture, as you know, continues to worsen, with the bottom of the economic recession not yet in sight. Just last week, revenues for the current year were downgraded another $10Million to a $53 Million shortfall now, and another $34.3 Million for FY10. There are actually two budget challenges hitting at once. One is a cyclical deficit caused by the bad economy, and the other is a structural deficit in key areas (like Medicaid and Transportation) where ongoing revenues don’t meet expenditures. This was a major problem even BEFORE the recession. As you can see, serious cuts will have to be made to balance the budget this year and next, even if other remedies are applied. If further revenue downgrades hit in April, that will be when “rainy day” funds kick in automatically to help address the current year shortfall.
In a recent meeting with the Village Trustees to discuss their thoughtful legislative priorities, I promised to use my municipal experience to help recognize the difference between needed state budget cuts and simple cost shifts from the state to municipal budgets and therefore the local property tax. I will oppose the latter wherever possible. An example of this, brought to our attention by the Chiefs of Police, is a proposal to cut local sheriffs transportation budgets, which would simply transfer the cost of transporting prisoners to local police budgets.
I was asked this year to join the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. So far, we have received much information on Vermont Yankee’s future past 2012 and heard from several utilities on their future plans. The legislature will weigh in on whether or not VY may operate beyond 2012, and the Public Service Board will determine whether or not to re-license. Two major studies have just been received by the PSB, with several more on the way. I’ve been impressed with how open-minded and knowledgeable the energy committee veterans are.
I can report some good news on the energy front. Regardless of VY’s future, power companies are moving ahead to add more renewable and diversified energy to their portfolios. Green Mountain Power, for example, plans to reduce their reliance on nuclear power from 38% to 17%; they and CVPS are evaluating other possible new options now. I’ve learned about some surprising new energy options too. Washington Electric Co-op gets 70 % of its power supply from a methane digester at the Coventry landfill. A similar program will soon be on line in Moretown. Unfortunately for Chittenden County, most of our solid waste will be going to these landfills to lower other people’s electric rates because we haven’t solved our problems locally. But help might possibly be on the way in a few years without a new landfill. The Vermont Electric Co-op is actively working on a new technology to gasify solid waste and use it to produce energy….potentially eliminating the need for landfills. This is several years from fruition but is an example of a new technology which was the stuff of science fiction just a few years ago.
As always, please feel free to contact me at 802 878 2972 or TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

Thank you to everyone in Essex Junction who supported me for re-election to the House in 2008. If you missed any of the results, below are the totals for all of Essex:
GENERAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TOWN OF ESSEX 6-1, 6-3
November 4, 2008 VILLAGE OF ESSEX JCT 6-2

Party Dist 6-1 Dist 6-2 Dist 6-3 Total
PRESIDENT/VICE-PRESIDENT US
Chuck Baldwin and Darrell L. Castle C 8 6 4 18
Bob Barr and Wayne A. Root L 15 15 7 37
Roger Calero and Alyson Kennedy SW 1 1 0 2
Gloria Lariva and Eugene Puryear S/L 0 0 0 0
John McCain and Sarah Palin R 1560 1596 468 3624
Brian Moore and Stewart Alexander LU 0 0 0 0
Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez I 28 29 10 67
Barack Obama and Joe Biden D 2835 3281 910 7026
Write-in 15 25 8 48
0
REPRESENTATIVE TO CONGRESS 0
(Vote for 1) 0
Mike Bethel I 141 153 41 335
Cris Ericson I 78 87 25 190
Thomas James Herman P 77 88 24 189
Jane Newton LU 53 52 16 121
Jerry Trudell EI 109 132 39 280
Peter Welch D/R 3523 3955 1108 8586
Write-In 60 69 24 153

GOVERNOR (Vote for 1)
Peter Diamondstone LU 8 6 2 16
Jim Douglas R 2883 2964 821 6668
Chris Ericson I 10 7 1 18
Tony O'connor CRE 22 21 10 53
Anthony Pollina I 782 964 272 2018
Gaye Symington D 689 880 271 1840
Sam Young I 8 18 6 32
Write-In 1 8 7 16

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR (vote for 1)
Thomas W. Costello D 1185 1407 430 3022
Brian E. Dubie R 3053 3262 901 7216
Richard Kemp P 101 134 27 262
Ben Mitchell LU 9 12 5 26
Write-In 3 6 5 14

STATE TREASURER (vote for 1)
Murray Ngoima L 49 48 13 110
Don Schramm P 223 256 60 539
Jeb Spaulding D/R 3761 4201 1200 9162
Write-In 19 24 6 49

SECRETARY OF STATE (vote for 1)
Eugene J. Bifano R 1130 1189 336 2655
Deb Markowitz D 2872 3205 932 7009
Leslie Marmorale LU 29 22 7 58
Marjorie Power P 106 150 26 282
Write-In 6 7 2 15

AUDITOR OF ACCOUNTS (vote for 1)
Martha Abbott P 525 550 204 1279
Jerry Levy LU 67 89 15 171
Thomas M. Salmon D/R 3285 3717 1012 8014
Write-In 26 23 7 56

ATTORNEY GENERAL (vote for 1)
Charlotte Dennett P 143 176 49 368
Rosemarie Jackowski LU 48 49 13 110
Karen Kerin R/L 703 755 196 1654
William H. Sorrell D 3144 3508 1004 7656
Write-In 11 13 3 27

STATE SENATOR (vote for 6)
Darren Adams R 1269 1259 383 2911
Tim Ashe D/P 1268 1575 437 3280
Denise Begins Barnard D 1263 1578 458 3299
Dennis Bedard R 1284 1348 372 3004
Agnes Clift R 1114 1164 354 2632
Edward Flanagan D 2044 2388 666 5098
Larkin Forney JFV 155 164 42 361
Tom Licata I 664 830 174 1668
Virginia "Ginny" Lyons D 1900 2142 661 4703
Hinda Miler D 1556 1848 553 3957
Robyn Myers Moore R 1793 1776 530 4099
Doug Racine D 2447 2825 777 6049
Diane B. Snelling R 2263 2354 681 5298
Paula Spadaccini R 1146 1174 363 2683
Write-In 40 34 11 85

STATE REPRESENTATIVE (vote for 2)
Debbie Evans D 2960 2960
Martha Heath D 934 934
Tim Jerman D 3277 3277
John Lajza R 1980 1980
Linda Myers R 2942 2942
Jamie Parent R 393 393
Linda J. Waite-Simpson D 2278 2278
Write-In 22 4 26

HIGH BAILIFF (vote for 1)
Daniel L. Gamelin D 3231 3654 999 7884
Write-In 47 76 16 139

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE (vote for 15)
Jeff Bartley R 573 1285 378 2236
Deborah Billado R 1502 1763 427 3692
Robert Chaffee D 3002 1801 488 5291
Diane Clemens D 1520 1929 502 3951
George Costello D 1702 2074 516 4292
Linda Costello D 1761 2235 559 4555
Bernard Couture D 1474 1981 464 3919
Debra DeCell D 2617 1378 366 4361
Debbie Evans D 2317 1899 708 4924
Mary Gauthier D 1346 1734 437 3517
Sherry Haggerty D 1190 1423 385 2998
Dawn Hill-Fleury R 1558 1454 519 3531
Tom James R 1554 1406 526 3486
Tim Jerman D 1584 2961 532 5077
John Lajza R 1407 2103 409 3919
Christopher Loso D 1014 1195 352 2561
Josie Lowe McQueen D 1313 1427 422 3162
Steve McQueen D 1989 2042 605 4636
Judy Moreau R 1232 1371 356 2959
Linda Myers R 2262 2075 676 5013
Robyn Myers Moore R 1482 1419 437 3338
Jeanette M. Pelkey R 1245 1294 374 2913
Hugh Ross R 1164 1170 343 2677
Carla Boardman Smalling D 1273 1588 413 3274
Linda Waite-Simpson D 1484 2526 467 4477
Write-In 94 127 17 238

0 Comments

Describe your personal and professional background?

I describe myself as an “Ethan Allen” Vermonter, which means I was born and raised in Connecticut! I came to Vermont after college in 1970 and have been here ever since except for a stint in Boston for graduate school at Northeastern University in the mid-70’s. I moved to Essex Jct. in 1982 from Woodstock and worked at Vermont Student Assistance Corporation for 31 years. My working career has been spent primarily as Director of Human Resources, but also included work with publications, private scholarships, development, and outreach/financial aid counseling. My family includes grown daughters Kate and Jenna, wife Theresa and stepson Trevor. I’ve lived on Pleasant Street, Mohawk Ave., and now South Hill Drive with Theresa, Trevor, and some four-legged friends. I’ve been blessed to live in this great community for 26 years.

Why are you qualified to represent Essex voters?

It all started with a call to a friend, Deb Billado eight years ago after my daughters went off to college and I was looking to get more involved with the community. She suggested I run for a Trustee opening, which I did. With three terms as a Village Trustee, I have the experience in local issues to represent village interests in Montpelier. Being a state representative is a cumulative learning experience, but you have to enjoy listening to all points of view and weighing all the facts and opinions before making a decision on any issue. You also have to be willing to be on the job year-round. My other community service (CHIPS, Recreation board, parade committee) has informed every decision I have had to make in Montpelier on behalf of local residents.

Why do you want to work as a state lawmaker?

It’s exciting, frustrating, diversified, and at times overwhelming, because you can’t follow every issue in detail. Bottom line: it’s rewarding to feel like you’ve contributed to making both the state and your community a better place because you were willing to get involved. I also believe that by respecting others I’ve been able to work well with diverse groups, particularly in committee deliberations. Most important, it’s a great honor to serve. We all say that, but it really is true. I’m always mindful of the great community-minded people who preceded me (that means you, Peter, Jane, Linda, Matt, Maryann, Rene, and others!) and from whom I still seek advice.

What are your legislative goals?

One is to be an active, engaged, productive member of whatever committee I’m assigned to. Both of my two experiences, on Education and Government Operations, have included significant bi-partisan legislation being enacted. I am concerned with public safety, energy issues, and education, but I probably have been most closely associated with property tax reform efforts. Simply, I believe there is a better way to pay for education with better cost controls than using the local residential property tax. Essex Junction is a good example of how significant swings in property values can negatively affect tax rates and provide a false reading of ability to pay. I’ll continue to work with others to develop ideas for improvements that do not reverse the equity gains made state-wide over the past ten years. There is a better mousetrap out there, and we have to work together to find it.

What are the most pressing challenges Vermont faces?

There are several, but they all relate to not having nearly enough revenue to meet the existing obligations of the state, in almost every budget category. Heating costs and rising housing foreclosures will be of major concern this winter. Our energy future, in particular Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec, will dominate the debate for the next few years. Deteriorating roads, bridges, and needed projects like the Circ will never be far from the headlines, as will health care costs. Central to every budget discussion will be how to facilitate job creation to support the services and infrastructure Vermont needs. We start next year with a multi-million dollar budget shortfall, and we could be looking at a long recession. These are hard times and will require collaborative thinking; I would look back to Governor Snelling’s leadership during the early 90’s recession for examples of creative bi-partisan problem-solving.

What are Vermont’s most promising opportunities?

One of the things we get to do as legislators is tour successful businesses and discuss future opportunities. It’s impressive how many high-tech internet-related businesses are flourishing here, and what they need is reliable high-speed communications. The prospect of a green economy built on Vermont strengths of environment and quality of life is not mumbo-jumbo; a lot of it is happening now. Of course we have to do everything we can to keep large employers here and keep business costs at fair levels. Our colleges and universities are also moving forward to keep up with a changing world…an example of this is Champlain college’s electronic gaming program. Specialty foods and agricultural products have exploded in the past few years, making Vermont a leader. The point is that Vermont does have great strengths to offset some of the ongoing decline of the heavy manufacturing sector of our economy.

Why should someone vote for you?

I’ve actually given this question a lot of thought. I can tell you that the legislature, just like the Trustees or the Prudential Committee, deals with hundreds of issues that the average voter will never hear about and is too busy to pay attention to. Therefore, it’s really a question of trust. Do you think I or someone else will consistently apply common sense and reflect community values when deliberating state-wide issues? I hope I’ve earned that trust and have communicated often on the important issues. My observation is that local residents have placed a lot of trust in their local leaders and have gotten a good faith effort in return. I often hear “I vote the person, not the party”, and I respect that most voters here want elected officials to work together to get things done. I will continue to try to do that and ask for your support on election day to return to the Vermont House of Representatives.

0 Comments

Here's a sneak preview of how I responded to questions which were sent to all House and Senate candidates in Chittenden County. The responses should be published in mid to late October. Obviously, it is difficult to respond to comples questions in 25 words or less, as is required, so please feel free to call or e-mail me to discuss any of the following answers:
1. How should the state pay for the mounting cost of road and bridge repairs when transportation revenues keep falling short of what is needed?
Consider additional bonding and dedicated revenue sources, such as gas-guzzler tax to promote energy-efficient vehicle use. Remove state police from Transportation Fund.
2. Would you vote to close Vermont Yankee?
Safety concerns first; Public Oversight Panel is examining. But no re-license with Vermont taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions in eventual decommissioning costs.
3. Do you support passage of a Jessica's type law--a mandatory 25-year sentence for sex offenders?
Not if it reduces conviction rates for the worst offenders by half, as testimony from child advocates and prosecutors indicates. I support tougher laws that work.
4. Should the response to these economic times be cuts in state services to balance the budget or temporary increases to taxes and fees to bring in more revenue? If you answer cuts, identify which programs/services. If you answer taxes, identify which ones.
Both. Always protect those in greatest need. Cut unnecessary public relations jobs. Support dedicated taxes for infrastructure and completion of major projects like the Circ Highway.
5. If no gubernatorial candidates receive 50% of the vote, would you vote for your preferred candidate or the top vote-getter?
Vermont constitution is clear that legislature decides when no candidate receives majority support. Vermont tradition has candidates work this out prior to legislative session.

0 Comments

You may be following the current back and forth between the administration and the VSEA (state employees union) about the impact of cutting 400 positions from state government over 2 years. Below is what the VSEA found after an investigation of related e-mails. I'll let reader's judge for themselves; I can relate that the House Government Operations Committee found the testimony given last year to be quite disingenuous in the Administrations stated claim that the cuts would have no impact on state services; it is now clear that they will, and an honest accounting of the impacts is essential to the discussion. Full disclosure is always the best policy:
VSEA Public Records Requests Findings
400 Position Cuts
On July 9, 2008, VSEA sent public records requests to all secretaries, commissioners and human resources staff from the agencies and departments impacted by the 400 position cuts exercise.

We requested:

Copies of all written communications (letters, e-mails, faxes, documents, or any other reports) concerning-

-The Governor’s initiative to eliminate 400 state positions.
-The impact of this initiative on the services provided by the Department or Agency.
-The impact of this initiative on the operations of the Department or Agency.
-The impact of this initiative on the Department’s or Agency’s clients and employees.
-The possible or actual use of temporary or contracted employees to provide functions of the positions eliminated as a result of this initiative.

TRANSPARENCY

WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION SAID:

“Gov.Douglas has always been straightforward with Vermonters, and with the Legislature, about the challenges facing our state and the best way to address them.”

Cynthia LaWare, Secretary of Human Services
Burlington Free Press
March 18, 2008

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT VSEA FOUND:

To: Mike Smith (Secretary of Administration), Tim Hayward (Chief of Staff)
From: Jason Gibbs (Communications Director)
November 3, 2007
“Have you had a chance to pass along talking points on the 400 positions to the Gov.? I would expect that the TVs will want to ask him about it today. Let me know if you want me to do that.”

To: Jason Gibbs (Communications Director)
From: Mike Smith (Secretary of Administration)
November 3, 2007
“Don’t we want to keep the Gov. away from this story?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration), Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director), Tom Ball (Director of Labor Relations)
From: David Herlihy (Commissioner of Human Resources)
February 5, 2008
“I can hear Jeanette White now saying that she’s concerned because they don’t get frank input. Just an FYI so we don’t get caught off guard asking if we would agree to enhanced whistleblower protection. This bill is a nightmare.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Mike Smith, Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration), Robin Strader (Private Secretary, Administration)
From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)
June 11, 2008
“If we can account for the savings target for AHS, (and I am sure we can) why don’t we abolish three of the long term vacant positions, and leave the social workers ‘on the books’ – they don’t need to fill them, but at least we are not abolishing social workers.”

To: Gail Rushford (AHS Personnel Chief), Monica Hutt (DCF Senior Field Services Manager), Steve Dale (Commissioner, DCF), Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)
From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)
June 24, 2008
“I know one of the options we discussed was to reclass the vacant social worker positions to Human Services Case Aide and Child Benefit Specialists...however, if we do that, the last person to fill the position will be a social worker, and my concern is that if legislators and VSEA recognize their names it will look like we are hiding the ‘fact’ that we gave up social workers. If it is not a concern that folks receiving this list will recognize Sarah Crosier, Sandra Crossman, Christine Dunn, and Mary Cameron as Social Workers/Domestic Violence Specialist, we can simply reclassify the positions.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Joshua Slen (Director of OVHA), Erin Cody (Associate Medical Director), Nancy Clermont (Deputy Director of OVHA)
From: Ann Rugg (Deputy Director of OVHA)
January 7, 2008
“What do you mean ‘hold open’? Would they then be lost? Is this an exercise of appearances? And if so how long must the appearance last? What is the target for ‘months of vacancy savings’?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Linda McIntire (Deputy Secretary of Administration)
From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)
November 26, 2007
“So, when I abolished the Commerce position I moved it to the pool, but I have a bad feeling about that...I think it might be perceived as a way to build up the pool for our usual nefarious purposes.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Linda McIntire, Jim Reardon (Commissioner of Finance and Management), Susan Zeller (Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Management)
From: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director)
March 13, 2008
“I was going to give HAC [House Appropriations Committee] the tracking sheet today – should I give them the second sheet with the $$ detail? I was not planning to, however, I am not sure we ever discussed what to give them”

To: Molly Paulger (Human Resources Director), Jim Reardon (Commissioner of Finance and Management), Susan Zeller (Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Management)
From: Linda McIntire
March 13, 2008
“They are like children – so give them the first sheet with the 1m savings – have them absorb that, then if they ask, hand them the second sheet – but they will be flipping it back and forth back and forth, trying to read it and you will lose them if they receive both at the same time.”
CONTRACTORS/TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION SAID:

“This exercise is about saving taxpayer money. Our efforts to reduce the size of state government will be to no avail if money saved from such reduction is re-directed to contractors or if there is an explosion in the use of temporary employees.”

Mike Smith, Secretary of Administration
Memo to Agency and Department Heads
December 14, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT VSEA FOUND:

To: Bill Apao (Health Surveillance Director), Christine Finley (Health Field Operations Chief), Sharon Moffatt (Acting Commissioner of Health)
From: Maureen Barnes (Human Resources Coordinator, DOH)
April 18, 2008
“Chris indicated that you have a lab position and that the work of this position has been getting done by a contractor she suggests that you continue with the contracting and we will give up the position.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Neale Lunderville (Secretary of Transportation)
From: David Dill (Deputy Secretary of Transportation)
April 24, 2008
“What we may have to face with the 09 cuts is the standard dilemma – some consultant work instead of staff – with an extra $10 M per year or work...”

To: David Dill (Deputy Secretary of Transportation)
From: Neale Lunderville (Secretary of Transportation)
April 24, 2008
“Seems like a bad choice... If we are ramping up over the next 5 years, it’s going to be difficult to find position cuts and still get projects out... my gut tells me if we are gong (sic) to have a steady stream or (sic) new work, it would be more economical to fill positions and have the work done in-house.. we’d be sending lots of consultants’ kids to college otherwise!”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Scott Rogers (AOT Assistant Director)
From: Alec Portalupi (AOT Manager III)
December 10, 2007
“With the loss of the Municipal Programs Manager position, we will have an immediate need to hire Bill McManis as a temporary employee to continue the processing of the various payments, tracking/processing of grant documents, and eventually closing out four separate FEMA declarations.”

To: Steve Chadwick (Admin Sevices Director, ANR), Brenda Berry (Assistant Director of Admin Services, ANR)
From: Susan Zeller (Deputy Commissioner of Finance)
June 2, 2008
“The loss of a Forester I position in Barre will be handled by a combination of shifting work and eliminating services. Since the incumbent was skilled in GIS activities, cutting back on the lease review burden from another GIS-trained individual by moving that work load to Waterbury will be suggested to help cover this work. The support services to the Washington and Orange County foresters that the position supplied will be eliminated. The state lands activities will be absorbed by the existing state lands staff as well as can be done. It will be suggested to the staff that they shift as much of the Recreation burden to the temporary Trails Coordinator as possible to mitigate this.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Comments

I am writing to respond to Vermonters’ concerns that we do the best we can to keep our communities safe and appropriately address the problem of sexual violence. This discussion has occurred in response to the recent tragic death of Brooke Bennett.
In last week’s article, my district-mate Representative Anne Donahue addressed the question of if the Legislature should have an emergency session and adopt measures such as Jessica’s law, the death penalty and civil confinement. In looking at these issues, Rep. Donahue quoted United States Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s statement that “Hard cases make bad law.” According to Rep. Donahue, Justice Holmes “meant that the most difficult situations – terrible tragedies, extreme horrors, and examples of the worst in us – can result in laws with unintended consequences that go far beyond what we might otherwise consider just and appropriate.” Representative Donahue also eloquently explained that “every session, about one third of the legislature turns over. A special session would be asking for one third of the body to act without any testimony or deliberation”, noting that the Legislature has made significant changes to our laws in the past years. I concur with representative Donahue for the reasons below.
I think that before the Legislature is called to an emergency session, there should be:

1. An immediate investigation into what happened in this case;

2. Examination of how have the laws changed since Mr. Jacques was first sentenced and released that better protect our communities;

3. Determination of if those laws are being implemented; and

4. Consideration of what can be done to protect our communities either by internal agency action or new legislation.
Such an investigation and gathering of information of each of these questions will begin in the coming weeks through hearings conducted by members of the Senate Judiciary committee, myself, and the chair of the House Institutions Committee. We will hold a series of six hearings between August 7th and the end of September. I think it is imperative to hold these hearings first and gather the information before we hold an emergency session. I will report about these hearings and welcome you to attend them and testify at the public hearings.
The first of the hearings will be held August 7, from 10AM until 4PM and August 8, from 9AM to 3PM, both in Room 10 of the State House. The meetings will be open to the public and there will be several public hearings when the general public will be able to speak. The first of the public hearings will be August 28 at 5PM in Room 10.
The first of these hearings will focus on why the Corrections staff advocated for the early release of Mr. Jacques and will investigate the Department of Corrections' standards, parole proceedings, job cuts, and policies regarding sex offenders.
The second series of hearings will focus on sex offender treatment, where we will hear from national experts. We will also look into the status of the special investigative units (SIU’s) the Legislature passed and funded 2 years ago. Questions such as are they fully funded as we directed, are the necessary staff such as detectives on board are things I am very interested in knowing. SIU’s are integral to the prevention, investigation and appropriate sentencing of sex crimes and offenders.
Finally, we will look at existing laws and if and how they are being implemented and other proposals.
As vice chair of the House Judiciary committee and member of that committee for eight years, I know that we have passed very tough legislation in recent years that addresses the issues of sexual violence and punishment of sex offenders that makes Vermont one of the strictest states in the country in dealing with these crimes.

0 Comments

2004 -2007 Legislative Acts Regarding Sex Offenses



H.148. AN ACT RELATING TO THE CHILD ABUSE REGISTRY AND
INCREASED SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS (2007)


• Established heightened sex offender registry requirements for persons designated noncompliant high-risk sex offenders by the department of corrections. These offenders are automatically subject to lifetime sex offender registration and community notification, must report to the department of public safety within 15 days after their release and every 30 days after that, and must inform the department of any changes in name, residence, post-secondary education status, or employment. They must also provide the department with identifying information about their vehicles, and are prohibited from operating any other vehicles at any time. An offender violates any of these heightened registry requirements is subject to a prison sentence of not less than five years and a mandatory maximum of life. The sentence may not be suspended, and the offender cannot be eligible for parole or other early release, unless the offender is placed under intensive supervision by the department of corrections.




NO. 192. AN ACT RELATING TO ENHANCING SENTENCES FOR AND PREVENTING RISKS POSED BY DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS. (ALSO KNOWN AS THE
“SEXUAL VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT.” (2006)


• Established a sentencing system, called "indeterminate lifetime sentencing," which mandates lifetime maximum sentences for most sex offenders. For most offenses, minimum sentences are not mandated and will therefore vary according to the circumstances associated with the crime. This means that, after the offender's release, he or she will continue to be under the supervision of the department of corrections for life and will be subject to the underlying lifetime maximum term of incarceration if he or she re-offends or violates the terms of probation. Additionally, the offender must complete sex offender treatment and programming in order to be eligible for release.

• For lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, established a presumptive minimum sentence of five years of incarceration for a second offense and ten years of incarceration for a third or subsequent offense.

• For aggravated sexual assault, established a presumptive minimum sentence of ten years of incarceration and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years of incarceration.

• Permitted arrest without a warrant for failure to comply with sex offender registry requirements, and increased the penalty for knowingly failing to comply for more than five consecutive days to a five-year felony.

• Required high risk offenders to report to the department of corrections within 36 hours of any change of address instead of the standard 72 hours for other sex offenders.

• Added all recidivist sex offenders to the internet sex offender registry, as well as offenders who commit lewd and lascivious conduct with a child if the offender is determined by the department of corrections to be high risk.

• Increased public access to sex offender registry information.

• Required the department of corrections to conduct pre-sentence investigations, which may include psychosexual evaluations, for all sex offenders, and to develop a release plan and a community reentry support team for all high risk sex offenders.

• Required the department of corrections, prior to the release of a sex offender, to give careful consideration to the proximity of the offender's residence to any risk group associated with the offender.

• Created an “age gap," exception to some sexual offenses when both parties have consented to the sexual conduct and one of the parties is a minor. Under the age gap exception, no crime is committed if a person is charged with lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, luring a child, or statutory rape, and the person is less than 19 years old, the child is at least 15 years old, and the conduct is consensual.

• Directed the antiviolence partnership at the University of Vermont to convene an education task force on sexual violence prevention.

• Expanded special investigative units, which specialize in investigating sex crimes, to all regions of Vermont.




NO. 193. AN ACT RELATING TO ORDERS AGAINST STALKING OR SEXUAL ASSAULT, NO CONTACT ORDERS, AND ESTABLISHING A VICTIMS' RIGHTS STUDY COMMITTEE. (2006)



• Created a process for obtaining an order against stalking or sexual assault that is closely modeled on the procedures for obtaining a relief from domestic abuse order. A person who was the victim of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault may obtain an order from the court directing the defendant to stay away from the plaintiff and his or her children. A violation of the order is a crime, and upon conviction, the court may order the defendant to participate in mental health counseling or sex offender treatment approved by the department of corrections.





NO. 79. AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND
EXPLOITATION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS. (2005)



• Increased penalties for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. Maximum life in prison for recidivists.

• Prohibited a person who is convicted of aggravated sexual assault from being eligible for early release or furlough until the expiration of the minimum sentence imposed. Crime is punishable by up to life in prison.

• Streamlined process for designating an offender as a sexually violent predator, requiring, prior to sentencing, a presentence investigations and a psychosexual evaluation on person suspected of being a predator.

• Appropriated $50,000.00 in FY 06 to the department of corrections for the purpose of funding psychosexual evaluations as a part of presentence investigations conducted by the department in cases involving a petition to have a person designated as a sexually violent predator or in sentencing for the crimes of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child, aggravated sexual assault, and second offense use of electronic communication to lure a child. Required DOC to include this money in all future budgets.




NO. 83. AN ACT RELATING TO COMMUNITY SAFETY. (ALSO KNOWN AS
“THE SAFE COMMUNITES ACT.” (2005)



• Established a new voyeurism crime, commonly known as a “Peeping Tom” law.

• Amended the stalking laws to include harassment of a family member and eased standard regarding fear of physical safety or emotional distress. Increased the penalty for stalking while in the possession of a deadly weapon.

• Required the posting of pre-1996 sex offense convictions for offenders listed on the internet registry because they are recidivists.

• Affirmed the right of law enforcement to engage in active community notification if law enforcement believes a particular sex offender poses a risk to members of the community.

• Required the department of corrections to identify all sex offenders under its supervision who are high-risk and to designate them as such so that their information will be available on the internet sex offender registry.

• Authorized special investigation organized and operating under current law for the investigation of sex crimes, child abuse, elder abuse, domestic violence, or crimes against those with physical or developmental disabilities units to obtain and disburse grant money in furtherance of their duties.

• Required all felons to submit a DNA sample upon conviction.




NO. 157. AN ACT RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND
COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION. (2004)



• Established an internet sex offender registry.

• Increased public access to registry information through telephone or other contact with law enforcement agencies or the registry.

• Required sex offenders who attend college in Vermont to keep the registry informed of their enrollment status at a particular campus. Campus police would be notified that a registered sex offender is attending classes as a student.

• Required persons who are convicted in federal court of a sexual offense to register as sex offenders in Vermont if they are living in this state.

• Permitted homeless registrants to make arrangements with the registry to keep their information current even though they do not have a permanent fixed address.

• Permitted the department of corrections to evaluate and designate certain sex offenders as high risk, which would subject such offenders to increased notification procedures.

• Increased immunity for law enforcement and corrections employees in connection with the release of registry information provided that the actions were not the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

• Required the department of public safety in cooperation with the department of corrections to develop a comprehensive training program to inform and instruct law enforcement and corrections personnel on the operation of the sex offender registry and the administration of this act.

• Required the Vermont center for crime victim services in collaboration with the Vermont network against domestic violence and sexual assault and other appropriate agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for public education regarding sexual violence in Vermont.

0 Comments

The sad case of Brooke Bennett has again raised the question of whether or not Vermont's laws on child abusers are tough enough. Here is some background on where we are, the changes made in the last biennium, and why the Democrats don't support Jessica's Law, with mandatory minimum sentences.

Vermont has a comprehensive set of laws in place to prevent sexual violence.
These laws are specifically designed to prevent the offender from committing any further acts of sexual violence.
While serving a jail sentence, presumed to be at least 10 years, the offender must successfully complete a rehabilitation course.
The offender is automatically placed on the sexual offender registry, which is on the internet and can be accessed by the public. This registry ensures that the offender will be under supervision of the Department of Corrections for the rest of their life.
It is important to remember that Vermont is one of the safest states in the nation with one of the lowest crime rates per capita in the country.
While it may seem counter intuitive to argue against long mandatory minimums, these long mandatory minimums often result in the offender bringing the case to trial. Sexual violence cases are difficult to prove and under this process half of the perpetrators are released onto the street having served no jail time, received no treatment, and without their names being placed on the sex offender registry. The bottom line is, long mandatory minimums actually end up making communities less safe from sexual violence and that is why, in general, victim’s advocates (including the Vermont Network Against Sexual and Domestic Violence) do not support longer mandatory minimums.
What do we have in place to protect Vermont’s children:
Vermont’s laws have two main components – special sexual crime investigative units and indeterminate lifetime sentencing. Special investigative units, with specially trained police officers and social workers, have proven successful in Chittenden and Grand Isle County at gaining confessions from sex offenders. The Chittenden SIU opened in 1997. North Windsor, Windham, Bennington, and Rutland now also have SIU’s. Through the work of trained investigators, SIUs bring more predators to prosecution, conviction, imprisonment and treatment. Abused children and their families receive treatment to heal the trauma and to help break the cycle created when untreated victims grow up to become abusers themselves.

Once the offender confesses, he will serve time in prison - presumed to be at least 10 years. He will also receive treatment as a condition of release, and, upon release, will become part of the sex offender registry. If the offender refuses to take part in treatment or violates conditions of the sex offender registry he can be pulled back into incarceration. He is under the supervision of the Department of Corrections for life.

During the 2006 legislative session we closed one last loophole for violent sex offenders who were imprisoned prior to passage of our new laws. Under this new change, if an offender who has refused to undergo treatment comes to the end of his maximum sentence, and if he is judged to be at high risk to re-offend, he will be subject to a heightened sex offender registry requirement. If he violates the terms of that tightened registry he will be re-incarcerated with terms similar to those of our more recently passed laws.

In 2006, Vermonters told their representatives that child sex offender sentencing was not tough enough. In response, the legislature enacted new, tougher child sex offender legislation, the “Sexual Violence Prevention Act”, which includes but is not restricted to the following changes:

An increase to 10 years as a minimum sentence for aggravated sexual assault, unless the judge deems a lesser sentence to be appropriate and goes on record with his reasoning. Now, anyone convicted of aggravated sexual assault must spend at least 5 years in prison, and as much as life in prison.
Offenders must stay in jail until they successfully complete a rehabilitation course, regardless of how much of their sentences they have served.
Vermont has expanded the sex offender registry, with stricter guidelines for previous offenders. Sex offenders will now be under supervision by the Department of Corrections, every day for the rest of their lives.
The public can now access the online sex offender registry without having to login or provide personal information. All repeat sex offenders will appear on the internet registry, as well as all high-risk lewd and lascivious offenders.
The legislature expanded Special Investigative units specializing in sex crimes to serve every region of the state. (Note: the legislation gave the year 2009 for this to occur. During the next fiscal year SIU’s will be expanded to Washington and Lamoille. A planning grant has been submitted for an SIU to cover Orleans, Caledonia, and Northern Orange. Addison County will then be the only country without an SIU.)
Prior to the passage of this law, offenders would choose to max out their sentence rather than receiving sex offender treatment. During the most recent legislative session, legislators again worked to improve our laws around child abuse. After findings showed the state could more effectively manage the way in which it handles children who either commit delinquent acts or who are badly abused or neglected, the legislature rewrote our laws that guide our state’s response to child abuse and neglect. The legislation emphasized the need for family members to be considered before a child is committed to state custody and extra support services for families were created in cases of reported child abuse. The legislature also obtained written assurance from the administration that staff cuts would not reduce services to Vermont’s children at risk of abuse or neglect.

What about Jessica’s Law?
What distinguishes our laws from the so-called “Jessica’s Law” is that our laws are more effective at keeping our communities safe from sexual violence.

The Vermont Network Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, a victims’ advocacy organization, supports Vermont’s laws and does NOT support Jessica’s Law. And, that may be why the National Council on State Legislatures has informed us that fewer than 20 states have adopted Jessica’s Law. According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a program of the U.S. Department of Justice, there is no data or evidence that high mandatory minimum sentences improve public safety.
Sexual violence is a horrible crime that we all want to eradicate from our communities. It sounds counter-intuitive to argue against long mandatory minimum sentences for sex offenders. But, if the accused faces a mandatory sentence of 25 years, he is much more likely to take the case to court, requiring a trial. Sex crimes, especially those against children, are hard to prove. There are few witnesses and often victims are unwilling to stand at the trial – it’s like going through the crime all over again. As a result, generally only half the court cases are successful. The other perpetrators go free, with no jail time and no need to register on a sexual offender registry.
Helpful Facts:

Child sexual abuse is a national problem, both serious and widespread. Estimates say 1 in 7 boys and 1 in 4 girls has had some experience with sexual abuse.

The most recent US government statistics show a rate of overall child abuse at 11.9 victims for every 1,000 children. In Vermont, the rate was 8.4 – placing Vermont in the safest third of all states.

Nationally, the vast majority – possibly as high as 90% -- of child sexual abuse is committed not by a stranger, but by someone the child knows and trusts – a parent, grandparent, sibling or other family member, a teacher, coach, clergy, camp counselor, scout leader, or neighbor.

Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates per capita in the country, for 2004 and 2005 ours was the third safest state in the U.S. Indeed, Vermont is among the safest states in our nation for children to grow up in and for families with children to visit.

The legislature is committed to maintaining this high standard of safety and will continue to seek ways to further prevent child molestation in our state and to bring offenders to justice.

0 Comments

This post is from Village Resident Donna Sutton Fay, who is trying to educate the public on changes to Catamount Health in 2008....

We are very eager to let all Vermonters know about
these very important changes to Catamount Health.
Anything you can do to let your constituents know will
be appreciated.
Thank you.

Donna Sutton Fay
Chittenden County Outreach
Vermont Campaign for Health Care Security Education
Fund
879-8604
www.catamounthealth.org


Important Expansions of Catamount Health
Catamount Health is Vermont's new health insurance
program for uninsured Vermonters. It offers
comprehensive coverage at affordable rates. Premiums
are on a sliding scale based on income. The
Legislature made two very important expansions to
Catamount Health this legislative session.

Vermonters in high deductible plans can now enroll in
Catamount Health. Vermonters with at least a $10,000
deductible plan for an individual or a $20,000
deductible for a family plan can now enroll in
Catamount Health. They must have had the plan for at
least 6 months. They must also pay the full cost of
Catamount for the first 12 months, which currently is
$393 month for an individual. After 12 months, they
can apply for the Premium Assistance program to help
pay their Catamount premium. Vermonters in high
deductible plans effectively have no coverage. By
enrolling in Catamount Health they will have
comprehensive coverage.

Vermonters who apply for Catamount Health before
November 1, 2008 will not have to worry about coverage
for pre-existing conditions. Under this new expansion
to Catamount, anyone applying for Catamount before
November 1 will have coverage for pre-existing
conditions without any limitation. Pregnancy will
never be considered a pre-existing condition.

For more information about Catamount Health, including
information on how to apply, contact the Vermont
Campaign for Health Care Security Education Fund toll
free at 1-866-482-4723 or visit our web site at
www.catamounthealth.org.

0 Comments

For immediate release: June 2008
Contact: Tim Jerman
41 S. hill Drive
Essex Jct., Vt 05452
878 2972


TIM JERMAN ANNOUNCES BID FOR RE-ELECTION TO VERMONT HOUSE



Tim Jerman, State Representative from Essex Junction, Chittenden 6-2, has announced his intention to seek a third two-year term in Montpelier.

“Stepping down as a Village Trustee will allow me to devote more time to Essex Junction in the legislature”, Jerman said. “I will continue to work on a tangible bi-partisan plan for education property tax reduction, as well as any other issues affecting the Village.” Examples include support for the Circ Highway A&B, tax issues between Village and Town, and working with the Trustees to insure a healthy Village Center.

“My experience as a Trustee has grounded me in local challenges we face as a result of high taxation. The Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) adjustment this year was a victory, but it does not change the new reality that homeowners now bear a disproportionate share of local property taxes compared to surrounding communities, particularly those with local option taxes.”

Tim has lived in Essex Junction for 26 years. He has two daughters, Kate and Jenna, finishing graduate school this year and next. Remarried in 2007, he lives at 41 South Hill Drive with wife Theresa and step-son Trevor, who is entering ADL in the fall. A three-term Village Trustee, Tim has served on both the House Education and Government Operations committees. He has been recognized for his work on a special pre-K study committee and represented Vermont on the National Conference of State Legislature’s Education Committee. He is proud to serve on the EBPA Memorial Day Parade Committee, and has held a variety of volunteer positions over the years since moving to the Junction in 1982. For more information, view Tim’s website at www.TimJerman.com.

0 Comments

Legislative wrap-up…


By now you have probably heard about the successful provision in the tax bill to give Essex Junction a tax credit of approximately $1 Million in 2008 for an overpayment of education property taxes in 2007. But the tax bill also contained a provision to allow a limited extension of the 2007 filing deadline for some individual tax adjustment claims. This applies to Essex/Essex Jct. because our first tax bills in 2007 were issued after September 4, 2007. So, if you think you were denied a prebate tax adjustment claim last year due to sickness, absence, disability, or other good cause, you may appeal to the state tax department before August 1, 2008.

In other Essex-specific actions, the capital bill contains a provision whereby the state will sell some lands adjoining the old tree farm (soccer fields) on Old Colchester Road to both the Town and Village to satisfy old debts. The land will be restricted in use to recreation or agricultural use. Could this be a possible site for a dog park, cross-country running trail, public gardens, or other public use? The Selectboard and Trustees will work with the state to finalize the transaction. Lastly, an Essex Junction charter change to end dual taxation for services provided by the village did not pass, and the local boards were again asked to work together to solve remaining governance issues.

Some important and detailed bills passed this year. I want to highlight a fire safety bill that will mandate photoelectric smoke detectors in some settings. This bill was pushed hard by the Barre Fire Department. Barre recently suffered tragic loss of life in a home fire in which the standard ionization smoke detectors (the kind we all have) did not go off because of the type of fire which broke out. Where there is a smoldering smoky fire, ionization detectors may not go off until it’s too late. While existing homes are not mandated to install photoelectric, it is a good idea to install both types of smoke alarm; they are available locally at reasonable cost. We have done this in our house and I urge everyone to take this safety precaution. Below is a thumbnail sketch of other actions…

Prison reorganization: This is a major overhaul, which will close the Dale Women’s facility in Waterbury, and move inmates between several locations while beefing up drug treatment and transitional housing.
Energy efficiency: Expanded utility to include heating fuels to save $$ and create jobs.
Housing: created new incentives for affordable housing in designated downtowns
Juvenile justice: complete re-write of juvenile justice codes for better outcomes for youths.
Transportation: Agreed (finally!) to consider bonding for fixing deteriorating road/bridge infrastructure around the state.
Workforce training: Increased investment in workforce training for a stronger economy.
Prescription drug record privacy: Protects patient prescription drug records from data miners.
Electronic medical records systems: Moves toward a statewide e-medical records exchange system; gives Fletcher-Allen a go-ahead for an $89 Million system.
Immunization registry: Vermont Health Department will soon track and record immunization records for all Vermonters.
Communicable disease protections: Involuntary blood testing for certain communicable diseases will be allowed in limited circumstances to protect health and public safety personnel.
Enhanced drivers licenses: Rules were established for issuing licenses that can double as ID at Canadian border crossings.
Child abuse or neglect registry: A two-tiered system of investigating abuse complaints was established.
Election laws: passed a law to join with other states to elect the President by popular vote. Passed campaign finance reform and Instant Runoff Voting, but both vetoed by the Governor. I will report on these efforts in more detail in a future column.

Most of the bills passed this year were by concensus. Although the press focuses on controversy, 80% of committee votes to recommend legislation to the full House were unanimous; only about 5% were really partisan votes. And, we adjourned early, which was appreciated by all!

I am looking forward to an exciting presidential campaign this year, and unregistered local voters will probably find me on their doorstep with registration forms in hand! We may have an all-time high voter turnout in November, which helps keep our citizen democracy healthy. There sure is a lot of interest from activists who want to be delegates to the national party conventions later this summer! Again, please call on any issue, 878 2972 or e-mail at TJerman@leg.state.vt.us. Enjoy your summer!

0 Comments

The $1 Million overpayment of education taxes (scroll down for details) will be credited back to Village taxpayers in september 2008 as a result of the passage of H.888, the Miscellaneous tax bill. The Governor will sign the bill this week. Taking the Common Level of Appraisal to 100% from 93% for 2007 only will result in a substantial credit for Essex Junction taxpayers. Although many people assisted with helping to pass this legislation, it never would have survived in the House Ways and Means Committee without the staunch support of Speaker Gaye Symington, who recognized the inequity immediately and pledged to make the community whole for the error caused by the IBM devaluation after the recent property reappraisal.

0 Comments

From the Statehouse…..

It is “floor” time in the legislature, when the big bills worked on in committee all session come up for scrutiny by the full House and Senate. The House has recently passed a big miscellaneous tax bill, the 2009 budget, and the transportation bill. Still to come is the capital budget, which contains all the requests for bricks and mortar to support state services. The mood has been somber with passage of each money bill, because of hard choices made to cut services or put off needed infrastructure investments to meet the goal of a balanced budget. Recent downgrades in the state revenue projections will necessitate further budget cuts before adjournment.
With crossed fingers, I am happy to report that the miscellaneous tax bill passed by the House contains language to create a credit to return the school tax overpayment in 2007 caused by the IBM devaluation in the property reappraisal. The Senate now has the bill. There is also a provision in the bill to allow people who had 2007 tax filing problems related to income-sensitivity pre-bates to appeal to the tax department. More on all of this soon.
When not on the House floor, the Government Operations Committee has been immersed with helping the Institutions and Corrections Committee review a sweeping corrections reorganization plan. Rep. Myers has written often of her committee’s oversight role and alarm at the unsustainable rise in the cost of corrections. Vermont now spends much more on prisons than we do on higher education. In an effort to save money, there is a plan to shut down the Dale women’s facility in Waterbury. All female inmates, including those now at Windsor, would move to a renovated St. Albans facility, with some male inmates going out of state and some new less expensive work camps replacing some of the St. Albans beds.
Government Operations is looking at staffing and program issues, as many state employees will not likely be moved as a result of these changes, but many will have different job responsibilities. There are a lot of moving pieces to a change of this magnitude, and it is the legislature’s job to review the plans to insure that short-term cost savings don’t create problems which will lead to higher costs down the road. What we’ve learned is that nothing about corrections lends itself to easy solutions. At least there are promising ideas being implemented to provide better substance abuse interventions, better monitoring of probationers, and better protocols for non-violent offenders.
I was disappointed that the Governor recently vetoed our committee’s Campaign Finance Reform bill, again. We worked hard to find a compromise on a couple of contentious issues, but could not agree to uncapping national and state political party contributions. Vermont had a law in place for 10 years that worked well to keep the influence of money at reasonable levels in political campaigns. If the veto stands, we are very worried that Vermont may see a dramatic and unwanted increase in the amount of money spent on state and local races this fall.
It was great to see those who came out recently for village and school annual meetings. Best wishes and good luck to our new board members. As always, please don’t hesitate to call or e-mail about any issue you’re interested in….878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

Legislative update:

I am writing this update during the Town Meeting week break, right after the primary. It was encouraging to see so many people come out to vote during this exciting presidential race. Norm Faunce turned 80 years young last week, and he is still presiding over a hardworking and effective election day team of volunteers. Thank you Norm and Marjorie!

At Town Meeting, it was great to see a big turnout and overwhelming support to give a property tax break to disabled veterans. This affects a small number of residents, but is a meaningful reduction which costs the rest of us about an extra dollar. The law was recently updated to allow a $40,000 subtraction of value, so that if home value is $200,000, the tax is figured on $160,000. There is a companion bill pending in the Government Operations Committee to lower the 50% disability requirement to 30%, and we will be taking further testimony on that this session.

The House has plugged away in the past few weeks on detailed legislation dealing with energy efficiency, reducing lead hazards, improving the Corrections system, and increasing affordable housing. There has also been lots of discussion about changing the way we pay for education. A public hearing this week will raise the profile of this issue. There are two new proposals on the table, both of which have as their centerpiece the elimination of the residential education property tax. I support H. 866, which eliminates the confusing pre-bate system and the income-sensitivity “cliffs” which so many village taxpayers fall off because they are just over the current limits. H.866 recognizes that we already have an income-sensitive property tax system and extends the income tax option to all homeowners. The tax rate is tied to local spending. The competing plan, “LEAF”, returns to local funding of costs over a base state-wide level, but has all the same inequity problems which rendered the old Foundation formula unconstitutional. For example, Stowe would only need a tax rate of $.01 to raise $100. per pupil. Fair Haven would have a rate of $.07, seven times higher to raise the same amount of money. These kinds of disparities are a step backwards. It’s hard to get two people in a room who agree on education funding, but one thing that is clear from Town Meeting school budget votes is that hardworking school boards across the state were rewarded for their local cost-control efforts by overwhelming support for their budgets with very few exceptions.

On a personal note, I have just one more Village Trustees meeting to attend as an active Trustee. It’s been an honor to serve these past seven years and I’m proud to say I never missed a regular meeting in that time. I’m also proud of the dedication of this Board of Trustees to the Village, and look forward to working with the new board and also the new Town Selectboard to move the communities forward. There are contested Trustee races in April, so I hope everyone pays close attention and votes on April 3, the day after Village meeting. It’s at the high school this year (preceded by a great community supper, so don’t miss it!) on April 2.

There is still lots of work to do in the legislature this year on the budget and many other bills. Don’t hesitate to call or e-mail, 878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us.

0 Comments

A better mousetrap…


The Free Press recently ran a negative editorial on a new education income tax-based funding plan. This closely follows the administration’s worries about any increase to the income tax—it’s too high already, it’s anti-business, it’s too volatile, there’s not a funding problem just a spending problem, etc., so don’t go there. The editorial went further to caution “unless the debate is bundled with the issues of what we want from our schools and how much we are willing to pay for it.”

Perhaps it’s time to take a deep breath and reconsider what is being proposed, which is simply a better way to pay for schools with a direct link to costs. Coupling any reform proposal to an endless debate on “what we want from our schools” is code for maintaining an inequitable status quo. Local communities are the best deciders of what they want from schools. There are actually two new reform proposals on the table in the statehouse (LEAF is the other) which have as their centerpiece the elimination of the residential education property tax. Repeat: elimination of the residential education property tax! No more confusing pre-bate calculations, no more confidentiality issues, no more escrow problems, no more two-tiered residential taxpayers. We could have a simpler, more transparent system.

Do the math for your own situation. Figure 1.8% of your adjusted gross income (adjusted upward for higher than average spending determined locally) and compare this to your current education property tax payment. You may be pleasantly surprised.

The current bill under consideration, H. 866, is far from final and it won’t make “crossover” for passage this year. But it will be the subject of a public hearing on March 13 at 6:00p.m at the Statehouse, and will provide a forum for those of us who believe our over-reliance on the property tax must be fixed with a fairer system based on ability to pay. Let your representatives know if further discussion of the idea is worth their time.


Rep. Tim Jerman
41 So. Hill Drive
Essex Jct., Vt. 05452
878 2972,
TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

3 Comments

2/01/08


Last week, all five Essex representatives participated in introducing H.527 to the House ways and Means committee. The bill would guarantee a floor of 100% Common Level of appraisal (CLA) following town-wide reappraisal. Retroactive to 2007, the bill would return over $1 Million to Essex Junction taxpayers in a credit on next September’s education property tax bills for what was essentially an overpayment in 2007. We will keep you posted on the progress of this bill.

The Government Operations committee I serve on has spent a lot of time analyzing a new campaign finance reform bill. This process has been complicated not only by last year’s veto by the Governor, but by the rejection of Vermont’s 1997 law by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has also ruled that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional, so there will be no effort to cap what an individual can spend out of his/her own pocket. To date, Vermont voters have not been favorable to the few candidates who have been perceived as trying to buy an elective office with unlimited personal funds. Almost everyone wants some limits on the amount of money which can be contributed to election campaigns at the state and local levels in Vermont to preserve our citizen participation traditions. The trick is agreeing on how much is appropriate from individuals, groups, and political parties. Not only is the legislature trying to craft a good bill for Vermont, we are also trying to assure that the new bill will withstand further judicial review. The bill, S.278, may be voted on in committee by the time you are reading this. Since the Senate has already acted, a passed House version might go to a conference committee to iron out differences, or it could go directly to the Governor for signature.

As a municipal official, I am very concerned about the potential of state budget cuts to be passed along to municipalities and then find their way into local property tax increases. This danger is always present in education funding, wastewater treatment regulations, Medicaid reimbursements, and health care. But according to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT), the worst news of all in this year’s budget for municipalities is in Transportation. There is a 20.8% cut in state funds available to fix local bridges, coupled with a 30% reduction from two years ago in non-property tax funds for local bridge repair and a $1 Million cut to Class 2 highway and paving funds. I’m sure you have read recent articles about the coming infrastructure crisis, with almost half of state roads/bridges in unacceptable condition in just five years without significant action. I have signed on to a transportation bill which will start the discussion of the pros/cons of bonding for major road/bridge repairs. With heavy construction inflation of 18 and 20% in the past two years, the cost of doing nothing could be far more expensive than pro-actively working on infrastructure repairs before they become full reconstruct projects. More on this topic later….

January was not a kind month to some of our “greatest generation” octogenarian legislators. On my committee, Rep. Cola Hudson (Lyndon) passed away suddenly and Rep. David Clark (St. Johnsbury) was admitted to intensive care last week after not feeling well for weeks. Bud Otterman (Topsham) lost his wife to a long illness. The entire House is saddened by the illnesses visited upon these revered senior members.

As always, I encourage your calls, e-mails, and visits. Please keep in touch on issues you care about. 878 2972, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

The legislature is in full swing. There will be major decisions on budget, health care, leasing the lottery, campaign finance reform, corrections, transportation, and other issues. Don't hesitate to contact me with your views on any issues you are interested in. I'll be posting articles written for the Essex Reporter and giving updates on upcoming votes. Keep in touch and let me know what you're thinking...

0 Comments

http://www.essexreporter.com/EssexReporter/Home.html

0 Comments

The following press release explains the "CLA fix we hope to pass the 2008 legislature quickly after the new year:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 3, 2007

FIXING THE C.L.A.

Five state legislators representing Essex and Essex Junction announced support today for insuring that Essex Junction and all communities around the state are treated fairly by education funding formulas following a town-wide property reappraisal.
New proposed legislation will insure that the Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) following town-wide reappraisal shall not be less than 100%. Essex Junction’s CLA was 93% after reappraisal this year, adding hundreds of dollars extra onto already hefty school and municipal tax increases. The proposed change means that communities which experience a large anomaly in grand list caused by the depreciated value of a single property will not be penalized by the formula which determines the CLA after reappraisal. Similar protective “circuit-breakers” existed prior to the passage of Act 68.
In 2007, the communities of Essex and Essex Junction experienced a dramatic rise in local taxes because of the town-wide reappraisal. Although almost all residential properties doubled in value from the last appraisal, a $44 million drop in the value of one commercial property, IBM, lowered the total new 2007 grand list below the 2006 value. A complicated “one-size-fits-all” formula to figure equalized values state-wide created an inequitable situation which could not be appealed through an administrative process because of timelines which ignored the realities of the IBM reappraisal deadlines. Further administrative remedies through the Departments of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) and the Tax Department were unsuccessful because of lack of legal authority of the agencies to correct the situation.
The proposed legislation is simple and direct. It provides a credit for the overpayment caused by the CLA formula and assures that all communities are treated equitably in the future. The Tax Department and PVR assisted with the crafting of the legislative language so that by fixing one problem no other problems would be created at the same time. Essentially, Essex Junction was overcharged due to a malfunctioning system which was never intended to produce a CLA below 100% after reappraisal, and would now be refunded the overcharge as a credit in the next year.
The proposal to fix the CLA has bi-partisan support in the Legislature and the support of the Douglas administration. The Essex delegation will work for quick action by the Legislature, which would provide tax relief for Essex Junction, at the latest in September 2008.

For more information:

Rep. Tim Jerman, Essex Junction, Chitt. 6-2 878 2972
Rep. Peter Hunt, Essex Junction, Chitt. 6-2 878 8406
Rep. Linda Myers, Essex Town, Chitt. 6-1 878 3514
Rep. Debbie Evans, Essex Town, Chitt. 6-1 878 4317
Rep. Martha Heath, Essex Town/Westford, Chitt. 6-3 893 1291

0 Comments

The legislature often sets aside time out of session to look at issues which don't get a lot of attention during the session. Usually these "summer studies" don't ramp up until the fall. My committee, Government Operations, is looking at several issues involving the "Pay Act", the annual legislation covering pay raises for all branches of government. Although annual compensation is arrived at through collective bargaining, each year the Pay Act is underfunded in the state budget. Depending on how serious each year's shortfall is, approved positions may go unfilled to make up the deficit. This may sound like a good annual cost control technique, but we heard many problems associated with underfunding.
In the Supreme Court's budget, for example, severe underfunding leads to personnel shortages, but legally mandated services such as prisoner transport must go on, so current staff wind up logging excessive overtime or travel to fill the gap. There are many examples to demonstrate that the current system is inefficient, but this is one of those cases where the practice has existed for so long it is difficult to change, and budget pressures make full funding of the Pay Act unlikely. Hopefully, we will come up with a better mousetrap to alleviate the critical concerns being expressed.
Gov.Ops passed over 40 bills last year, and there is no doubt the Committee will have it's hands full again this year.

0 Comments

The Essex reps are close to a draft of legislation which would bring the "CLA" to 100% from 93% retroactive to 1/1/2007. If passed, this would allow the Village to credit school tax bills in March and provide tax relief to many residents on this year's school tax bill.
The Village Trustees are awaiting the results of the Village Advancement Committee survey to see how residents wish to proceed with the whole issue of governance. I anticipate that a strong majority will not want to repeat the failed merger process of 2006 but will want us to actively pursue tax fairness initiatives with the Town Selectboard. Stay tuned...
More soon on the joint efforts with the Trustees and CVE board to arrive at an equitable "fair share" proposal for the Fairgrounds. Meetings between members of the boards are underway.

0 Comments

10/4/2007--The following article appeared in the Essex Reporter on 9/27. Since then, the second tax appeal by the Town has been denied. The Essex delegation of 5 reps. will work together to fix the CLA problem in legislation in January.

The “CLA” PROBLEM MUST BE FIXED!

By now, everyone has probably heard about the tax increases due in October caused by the huge drop in IBM’s appraised real estate value. Your new tax bill may contain total increases of more than 25%.

This would have been bad news enough, but the way education taxes are figured in a reappraisal year have made it much worse for village residents. Briefly, the state (Department of Property Valuation and Review, PVR) used an equalized value of $256 Million for IBM in 2006, added that to the 2006 Grand List, and then divided that number into the re-appraised 2007 Grand List which included IBM at the new lower appraised figure of $103 Million. This produced a Common Level of Appraisal of 93% for the Village, rather than a CLA of over 100% (the Town’s came in at 104%). It was never intended for a community to come in at under 100% after a re-appraisal and be penalized with a higher tax assessment.

The bottom line of all this confusing math is that the Village is being unfairly taxed by a formula that was not designed to work this way. So what can be done? We agree with the town attorney that current state law allows the Tax Commissioner to readjust the 2006 IBM assessment to a reasonable level, now that we know the value set by the re-appraisal is $103 Million, not $256 Million. This simple re-calculation, or one similar to it, would have a big impact on the total village tax increase, and would not transfer the burden to other taxpayers.

Many people are working on a solution to this problem. The Town Selectboard and staff deserve much credit for their prompt response and thoughtful (though as yet unsuccessful) appeal to PVR and now the Tax Commissioner to rectify this situation. We have written to the Governor asking him to help. The town Selectboard also held the current Town highway tax surcharge at the same level after reappraisal, which is a very positive first step toward equalizing the municipal tax burden between Town and Village residents by lowering the Village contribution to Town roads.
.
This particular CLA problem may be short-term, but what to do about the overall tax increases caused by the recent shift from IBM to residential taxpayers is a long-term problem, and one we’ll all have to work together to manage. We’re confident that we will. As community priorities evolve and spending is scrutinized at all levels, please make your voice heard by attending meetings, speaking up, and letting us know what’s important to you to keep our community strong.

Rep. Peter Hunt 878 8406 PDHunt@leg.state.vt.us
Rep. Tim Jerman 878 2972 TJerman@leg.state.vt.us

0 Comments

Everyone is enjoying the summer soccer season at the Tree Farm facility. Stepson Trevor is having a great time playing goalie and trying to ignore the coach (in the yellow shirt). Theresa seems to be enjoying the whole scene...

0 Comments

This is my daughter Jenna just before her first marathon and race of any kind in this year's VCM in Burlington. She did a great job! (Father ran 2 legs of the relay). Jenna's older sister Kate just won a Point Foundation Fellowship for her second year at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

0 Comments

The 2007 session officially ended late in the day on July 11. The legislature failed to override the Governor's vetoes on H.520 and S.164, Energy -efficiency and Campaign Finance reform. As one of the few democrats voting no on H.520 because of the funding mechanism, here is what Rep. Evans (D-Essex) and I wrote for the Essex Reporter to explain our vote:

" Voting no on H.520--Light at the end of the tunnel?"

Last week, you may have gotten a flyer or phone message from VPIRG singling us out for our opposition to H.520, the energy-efficiency bill, and asking you to call to get us to change our votes. Some of you did call or e-mail, and we thank everyone who took the time to talk to us.
The vote is now over, and the simple fact is that the votes were never there to override the Governpr's veto--even if every democrat who voted no had switched, the veto would still have been sustained because some of the bill's supporters were absent on July, 11, and all the opponents were there at the Statehouse.
We voted no originally because of the controversy surrounding the Vermont Yankee funding source and the process which led to it. H. 520 is a good bill, with many benefits for the state. We're very encouraged that some of the divisive rhetoric is now cooling as the realization sinks in that we must act. A meaningful compromise passed by the Senate after the House veto vote which removes the Vermont Yankee tax as proposed and allows the Public Service Board to review the proposed energy-efficiency utility before implementation. This is a significant breakthrough and addresses our concerns. The bill received bi-partisan support in the Senate, and will be considered by the House when we reconvene in January.
So although we voted no in May and again last week (July 11), we remain confident that when the smoke clears Vermont will have an energy-efficiency bill we will all be proud of. Could all of this "showdown" politics have been avoided? Hindsight is 20-20, but hopefully the long public debate has convinced most of us of the serious environmental issues we face as a state and nation, plus the need to work together to solve the problem.
The "other" veto override vote, Campaign finance reform, S.164, failed by just one vote on July 11. As members of House Government Operations, we will go back in january and take another crack at it in committee. Failure to act will leave the state with no controls at all on campaign contributions after a decade of a very effective law which kept the money in Vermont politics at reasonable levels. But we'll also be looking to enthusiastically support a better version of H. 520 coming from Natural Resources and Energy based on the latest action of the Senate. Please call us if you'd like to discuss any of this further or have any questions..

0 Comments

Testing The News Subject.

0 Comments