Sticker shock! This is the term that appropriately describes Vermonters’, including Charlotters’, reaction to the school budgets that are going to be voted on at Town Meetings across the state. The subsequent effect on property tax rates might make one wonder if their school boards and state legislators have gone off the deep end and just don’t care about the amount of taxes their constituents have to pay. I would argue that, while that might be an understandable reaction, it is very far from the truth.
No one goes to Montpelier with the intention of raising taxes of any kind. However, with the goal of providing every Vermont child access to a good quality education, the costs of education are spread across the entire state. The Education Fund is funded mainly through the statewide property tax, but also through sales taxes, the lottery and transfers from the General Fund. As your State Representative, I want to explain how and why the statewide property tax rate has increased.
Since the amount of money that needs to be raised is determined by spending decisions at the local level, the legislature can only determine who pays, not how much to spend. At the local level, school board members have deliberated long and hard over the Charlotte Central School budget. If you don’t believe this, refer to the CCS Board meeting minutes and read the article by Board member Kristin Wright in the February 21st issue of The Citizen. She describes in detail the decisions of the last several years to minimize and even eliminate budget increases. Yet, this year external cost pressures, including declining enrollment, teachers’ health insurance increases and contracted salary increases, have forced a 6.4% increase in the budget. When the 6.4% increase is divided among fewer students it results in an 8.5% education property tax increase in Charlotte.
The base statewide property tax rate of $.94 per $100 is based on the total proposed school spending for all Vermont school districts, the total number of students in the state, and the total grand list property value of the state. Since district spending per pupil varies, a formula is used to adjust the tax rate proportionally. For Charlotte per-pupil spending is $15,189 leading to a tax rate of .94 x 15189 / 9151 = 1.56. Another factor is the CLA or Common Level of Appraisal, or how closely the assessed value of a property is to the fair market value. Because Charlotte’s assessments are 2% higher than market, the final rate is adjusted downward to 1.52.
[Note: I only used the CCS numbers in this analysis. I did not include the effects of the CVU budget. - MY]
But this is only half the story. For those households with incomes below $90,000, property tax is based on income or ability to pay. The base income rate is 1.8% of household income, and the same spending ratio determines Charlotte’s income sensitivity rate to be 2.99%. This is the upper limit of education property tax on the first $500,000 of value of a house plus two acres that a household is subject to. So, for a house site assessed at $500,000 for a household with an income of $90,000, the tax is limited to 2.99% x $90,000 = $2691. Furthermore, the statewide education property tax subsidizes the Current Use program, which helps Charlotte maintain its rural character.
Our School Board has worked hard to keep costs as low as they could while still maintaining the high standards CCS is noted for. Just as we have no control over the price of gasoline or heating oil, there are costs that the School Board has no control over. As you decide how to vote on the school budget, consider whether you are one of the 42% of homeowners who received an income sensitivity property tax adjustment last year or whether some of your property is in the Current Use program. If so, you, too, are benefiting from our statewide educational funding formula.
As always I welcome your feedback on any issue or topic of concern. You can contact me by phone at 425-3960 or email me at myantachka.dfa@gmail.com.
Legislative Report 2/28/2013 - Reflections on the Cost of Education
The Word in the House - 2/21/2013 - The Transportation Challenge
We are now
six weeks into the legislative session.
Governor Shumlin delivered his budget priorities, the legislature passed a Budget Adjustment
Bill that brought last year’s budget, based on projected revenues, in line with
revenues actually realized, and now the work to come up with a budget for the
2014 fiscal year is being addressed.
Separate
from the general state budget is the Transportation Budget. Vermont's
transportation system has faced some extraordinary challenges in recent years,
with four federally declared disasters in 2011, including spring floods
followed by Tropical Storm Irene. This
year we face different transportation challenges, one more immediate and
another reaching far into the future, that have an impact on the Transportation
Fund.
The Long
Term challenge: As Vermonters drive less and shift to more fuel-efficient
vehicles, state revenues from gas taxes have steadily declined. These state
fund reductions are combined with federal uncertainties such as highway trust
funding and possible federal transportation reauthorization reduction. With
this in mind, one can begin to see that Vermont's long-term transportation
funding stability is seriously at risk. A
summer funding study committee worked to determine the annual gap between
available state transportation revenue and the cost to meet basic
transportation needs. They have reported the Vermont gap is estimated at more than $240 million per year, each and
every year. The needs estimate includes the cost to preserve the state's
existing transportation system in a state of good repair. It assumes that
preserving the functionality of the road network is fundamental to meeting
basic travel needs of people and goods. It does not include major roadway
expansion beyond projects already in the pipeline.
The Short term challenge: The $657 million, FY2014
transportation budget presented by the Governor assumes the Legislature is able
to identify a revenue package that enables Vermont to maximize all of its
available federal funds. Federal formula funds require a state dollar match. If
Vermont is unable to provide this match, then federal formula funds must be
returned and projects would be delayed and/or suspended. The additional
funding needed to fully fund the proposed FY2014 transportation budget program
is $36.53 million in state funds. Without action, we place at risk our ability
to match all the available federal transportation dollars which would require
cutting $123 million dollars in projects from this coming year’s budget.
The
Proposed Solutions: The Agency of Transportation has proposed the following steps to
achieve the immediate funding gap:
· Utilize transportation Infrastructure bonds providing yielding
$8.3 million after issuance costs and debt reserves;
· Decrease the current
per gallon gas tax by 4.7 cents, from 19 cents to 14.3 cents per gallon. This
reduces the transportation fund by $15.32 million;
·
Index per gallon gas tax to inflation (revenue neutral first
year). This action assists in a small way with the long-term structural
funding problems mentioned earlier.
·
Sustain gas tax revenues by adding a 4% assessment on retail
sales price, yielding $43.56 million.
This assumes $10.89 million for each one percent based on $3.79/gallon
price estimate.
Combining all the recommended
funding options obtains the $36.54 million needed to fully access and maximize
Vermont's federal funds. They are a starting point, and the House
Transportation Committee is in the process of discussing, hearing testimony and
evaluating all options.
I am indebted to Rep. Diane Lanphere
(D-Vergennes) for the information in this article. I
have heard from many of you on a variety of topics and continue to welcome your
input. If you would like to get in touch with me
about this issue or any other issue before the legislature, you can email
me at myantachka.dfa@gmail.com or call me at 425-3960.
Interview with Vermont Treasurer Beth Pearce
 |
| Click here to view the interview |
Are You Missing Money?
The State Treasurer’s Office has more than $57 million in unclaimed property. Could some of this be yours? Financial property becomes “unclaimed” after a business or non-profit entity loses contact with a customer for a period of years. Unclaimed property may include cash, checks, security deposits, refunds, stocks, bonds, bank accounts and estates. There is no charge to claim funds through the State Treasurer’s Office. Search at www.MissingMoney.Vermont.gov or call (802) 828-2407
The Word in the House 2/7/2013 - Seeking Firearm Safety
You can’t
turn on the TV news, open a newspaper, or visit a news website without hearing
of incidents of gun violence on a near daily basis. Senator Leahy’s Judiciary Committee is
holding hearings on reinstituting an assault weapons ban. Wayne Lapierre, president of the National
Rifle Association, calls for armed guards in all of our schools. State Senator Philip Baruth introduces a bill
to ban assault weapons in Vermont and quickly retracts it after a flurry of opposition
by Vermont gun enthusiasts. The
political climate in Vermont touching all things guns is a “third rail” that
all politicians fear not only because of the long traditions of hunting and
sport shooting, but because of the visceral reaction any talk of regulation
illicits among gun owners.
However,
despite this fear of reprisal, some members of the Vermont House, including
myself, have dared to introduce a bill, H.124, that seeks to improve the safety
of the citizens of Vermont while respecting the right of responsible citizens
to own a firearm. The introduction of
H.124 has not unexpectedly drawn a flurry of emails and phone calls to the
sponsors from across the state opposing the bill. In this article I will explain the provisions
of the bill and the reasons for them.
First, let
me point out that I support the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership by
law-abiding citizens. The bill does not
take away or infringe on that right. It is primarily focused on firearms safety,
both to insure that firearms do not get into the hands of people who shouldn’t
have them, and that those who do own them use them responsibly. The bill:
- Proposes to prohibit large capacity magazines
(holding more than 10 rounds). This is the most controversial section but
it is a legitimate question to ask whether or not these magazines pose a
public safety hazard. On behalf of
the many Vermonters who are outraged at the unprecedented number of mass
killings in 2012 (and we are off to a rousing start in 2013), we need to
ask the question and do our due diligence in investigating this issue.
- Requires background checks on firearms purchased at
gun shows. IF it is true that “guns
don’t kill people, people do,” then we need to do all we can to keep guns
out of the hands of the wrong people like criminals. Vermonters are generally responsible gun
owners. But a criminal from NY City
or Boston or even Montreal can come to Vermont to buy guns when they would
legally be prohibited from doing so otherwise. Vermont is not an island.
- Puts into state statute the federal prohibitions on
firearms possession. This includes:
felons, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, domestic
violence offenders, and persons legally judged to be a danger to
themselves or others. Our state and
local law enforcement officers have no authority under state law to
confiscate firearms prohibited by federal law. They can hold a person but
need to call the federal authorities like the ATF or FBI in order to
further detain and/or charge the offender.
- Requires a course on safe procedures for carrying a
concealed firearm. Just as we
require a test to obtain a driver’s license to demonstrate the ability to
safely operate a motor vehicle, we want to ensure that anyone carrying a
gun in public areas knows how and when to use it without endangering
others.
- Requires the Vermont Department of Mental Health to
report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check (NCIC) System
persons legally judged to be a danger to themselves or others. This would prevent them from purchasing
a firearm outside of Vermont.
- Repeals the prohibition on sale or use of gun
silencers (suppressors.) Vermont is 1 of 7 states that does not allow
silencers. This proposal is consistent with firearms safety. Silencers or suppressors not only
protect hearing, they also help prevent injuries to other parts of the
face and neck. This provision may also help abate noise from firing
ranges. It does not prevent the state from issuing rules prohibiting the
use of silencers while hunting.
Like any other bill, this one will be vetted in committee and will probably undergo some changes. Some provisions may not survive in the final version. In my opinion, these are reasonable requirements that enhance public safety without infringing on the 2nd Amendment. All of these provisions have passed the test of constitutionality in other jurisdictions. In spite of that, H.125 has aroused vocal opposition. I hope this article will lead to civil and respectful discussion in our community and will prompt supporters of the bill as well as opponents to contact me or their own Representative with their opinion. As a society we should not fear to discuss ways in which we can lessen the opportunities for gun violence that claims more than 11,000 victims each year in the United States.
Related: WCAX Investigates: Guns and Drugs
Legislative Report 1/31/2013 - The Vermont Health Insurance Exchange
Rising
health care costs and lack of access to affordable health care for millions of
Americans have been a target of health care reform efforts for decades. The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA),
a.k.a. “Obamacare”, and the recent Supreme Court ruling that it is indeed
constitutional addressed the problem on a national level. Vermont’s own plans for its Green Mountain
Care universal health care system will not be implemented until 2017, so
compliance with the ACA required Vermont to take the interim step of
implementing a Healthcare Insurance Exchange by 2014. Vermont is one of several
states that decided to set up its own exchange instead of leaving it up to the
federal government. In this article I
will explain what the Exchange is and what the practical implications are for
Vermonters.
The ACA
requires that starting on January 1, 2014, all individuals must be covered by
health insurance, and businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees
must offer health insurance coverage to their full-time employees. Federal tax credits are available both for
small businesses (less than 50 employees) and for individuals to meet these
requirements.
If a person
is not covered by an employer-sponsored plan or by a government-sponsored plan
like Medicare or Medicaid, he or she will have to purchase their insurance on
the open market or through the Exchange.
Only insurance purchased through the Exchange is eligible for federal
tax credits or subsidies. The Exchange
is a list of approved health insurance options that provide standardized health
care coverage at various levels of cost.
There are four benefit levels:
-
Bronze – 60% payment of covered medical expenses
- Silver – 70% payment
- Gold – 80% payment
- Platinum – 90% payment.
Annual out-of-pocket payment of expenses cannot exceed $5,950 for individual coverage and $11,900 for family coverage at all four benefit levels. Insurance premiums will vary by insurance provider, amount of deductibles and co-pays, and benefit level.
Households
with income from 133% to 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) will be
eligible for subsidized premiums.
Households with incomes less than 133% FPL will be covered by
Medicaid. The federal poverty level
(FPL) varies with household size: for an
individual it is an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $11,496; for a household of
2, $15,516; for a household of 4, $23,556; and so on. 133% is 1.33 times those amounts and 400% is
4 times those amounts. So, a family of 4
with household income between $30,657 and $92,220 will be eligible for premium
assistance. The premium subsidy (paid directly to the insurance provider on
behalf of the buyer) will vary with income level and for 2014 will be based on
the 2012 tax return that is due on April 15th of this year. Adjustments for changes in a household’s
financial circumstances can be made on a monthly basis.
The penalty
for not carrying health insurance will be assessed on tax returns starting in
2014 and increasing each year through 2016.
For 2014 the penalty is the larger of 1% of household income or $95 per
individual household member without coverage up to a maximum of $285.
Vermont’s
implementation of the Health Insurance Exchange is called “Vermont Health
Connect”. Vermonters will be able to enroll in one of several plans offered
through the Exchange starting on October 1, 2013. More detailed information on Vermont Health
Connect can be found at http://hcr.vermont.gov/timeline/exchange.
Legislative Report 1/15/2013 - Can This Vermont Institution Survive?
Do you attend Town Meeting regularly? Are you unable to attend Town Meeting because
of work, lack of child care, or some other valid reason? Or, is Town Meeting something you are
unfamiliar with or just don’t care about?
Town Meeting on the first Tuesday in March is a
uniquely New England institution and is especially revered here in
Vermont. As the population has grown,
however, smaller percentages of voters are attending for a variety of
reasons. Some even in Charlotte have
called into question the value of Town Meeting since budget decisions are being
made by a small minority of the voters.
This issue came to a head last May when a special Town Meeting was held
to reconsider the passage of the article authorizing sidewalks to be built in
the west village. A separate article was
included to change the vote on the town budget to an Australian ballot in the
same way we vote on the school budget.
The budget article was tabled, killing it for the time being.
The discussion regarding the budget article served as
an impetus for a group of Charlotte citizens to get together to study the issue
with the goal of increasing participation in Town Meeting by making it more
accessible. It also included some
attendees who felt that our traditional Town Meeting was no longer suited to
today’s world. So, back in December, a
small group led by Joanna Cummings and John Hammer invited Middlesex Town Clerk
Susan Clark, who co-authored a book about Town Meeting with UVM professor Frank
Bryan called All Those in Favor,
to visit and talk about their research and some of the steps Middlesex has
taken to make their Town Meeting work better.
Clark considers Town Meeting to be a valuable exercise
in direct democracy that is worth preserving.
Some of the points she made include:
- As a vehicle
of direct democracy, no elected representatives intervene between
the citizens and what town government says or how it acts.
- In Vermont every citizen is
a legislator; town government is truly by and of the people.
- Town meetings are
legislatures operated by its citizens.
In order to make Town Meeting more meaningful in
today’s society, it is necessary to understand why people won’t attend the
meeting and what the real issues are. Do
they feel intimidated by the process? Is
it not worth their time? Do they lack
the information they need to feel competent to participate? To gather information on the reasons and
attitudes of its citizens, Middlesex conducted a town-wide survey, not only on
paper, but through living room meetings.
They also created an “operator’s manual” as a guide to how Town Meeting
works. Every new voter also gets a
welcome letter that includes a two-page description of the Town Meeting process
and encourages them to attend. They also
provide child care, make food available, and have moved the meeting to the
evening with a set time for the budget discussion to begin. They have even experimented with remote
participation via web-streaming and teleconferencing.
The Charlotte group has since expanded and is developing
some recommendations to Charlotte’s Selectboard for discussion. The aim is to increase participation at Town
Meeting by making it more accessible and to make people more aware of its
importance both to our community and to our democracy. This ad hoc committee is also working to
expand discussion within the community before Charlotters make any decision
that would irrevocably destroy a valuable Vermont institution for our town. Anyone who would like to participate in our
discussions is encouraged to contact John Hammer at 802-870-3481 or via email
at TownMeeting05445@gmail.com.
As the new session of the
Vermont legislature begins, I look forward to again sharing with you important
developments in future articles. As
before, I invite you to contact me with your concerns and opinions via email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com) or via phone (425-3960).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
