Vermont law requires children in school to complete a schedule of immunizations outlined by the Department of Health, but allows for medical, religious and philosophical exemptions.  While medical exemptions were never an issue, and religious exemptions are likely protected by the US Constitution, the right to use a philosophical exemption came under fire, sparking a lengthy, passionate and respectful non-partisan debate in the House last week.   The following is by no means a thorough review of the issues.

Two major themes emerged as to whether non-immunized or partially immunized children should be admitted to school based on the philosophical exemption. Very generally, one side said the health risks were exaggerated or incomplete arguing for a parent’s right to make informed choices about their children’s health.  The other side did not deny this right, but argued that this did not give them the right to put others at risk for serious preventable disease.

Each side was passionately presented, backed by philosophy, statistics, history and rights that I will not go into here.  Both sides seemed baffled by the position of the other.  The Health Care Committee dug deeper into the issues, taking testimony from over 100 individuals and groups.  Throughout this process, many of us came to believe that simply removing the philosophical exemption was not likely to be the silver bullet so many desired and might do damage in the process.  Ultimately, attention turned to the data on vaccination rates in Vermont, and the government’s role.

The House found shortcomings in the Department of Health data collection mechanism. A child exempt only for chicken pox, for example, is simply tabulated as “unvaccinated.” In addition, a school’s vaccination rates are based only on kindergarten statistics in the beginning of the school year.  Low kindergarten numbers can therefore skew data in either direction. The House also found two different vaccination schedules were being reported and referenced, further muddying the waters.

A call to Shelburne Community School revealed that of the 765 children enrolled in pre-k through 8^th grade, two students are admitted with medical exemptions and none with religious exemptions.  Eleven have philosophical exemptions for one or two vaccines while nine have exemptions for all.  This represents 2.9% of the student population who have some form of exemption for vaccines.

Forty-two additional students or 5.5% are enrolled in school under “provisional” admittance.  These students are either behind schedule or missing a booster but within the 11-month grace period to bring these up to date.  When these numbers are disaggregated, it is easier to determine 1) if a school has a problem and 2) where effort is needed to bring a school up to the recommended 95% of the population immunized.

The House-passed bill addresses this by making changes to the way data are collected and reported.  Schools would see the following changes:  1) Philosophical exemptions are moved from a one-time event to a yearly requirement in which educational materials are reviewed.  2) Students under provisional admittance will need a signature from a physician indicating they are in process.  3) Someone who is authorized to give vaccinations must sign off on medical exemptions.  4) Schools will make immunization rates available to the public.   5) Extra resources will go to areas with low immunization rates, likely not Shelburne.

These reports should help to determine whether the increase in philosophical exemptions is a trend or a short-term balloon.   As several school nurses told us, first time parents often become more comfortable with vaccines through contact with their child’s successfully vaccinated peers.  It is unlikely the Senate will agree with these changes.  It is expected that the final version will be sorted out in a committee of conference.

The “Miscellaneous Tax” bill passed in the House this week with only 14 “no” votes.  It now heads to the Senate where it will likely undergo modification.  This bill addresses a variety of tax issues related to property, sales, electrical generation and rooms and meals.  It also addresses several administrative and tax payer advocate issues.  Based on contacts from Shelburne residents, the property tax issue is likely to be of greatest interest, the largest changes coming to those who qualify for adjustments under income sensitivity.  First, the doubling of income from dividends and interest comes to an end.  Second, the bill amends current law giving the tax commissioner discretion to grant extraordinary relief to homeowners who were unable to file income sensitivity on time.  Third, it allows health savings accounts or HSA’s to be deducted from the income calculation.   The bill also updates the rooms and meals tax so that residents living in independent living facilities are seen as living at home thus do not pay tax on meals.

One issue that drew debate was the change in taxation for Vermont Yankee.  Vermont Yankee has been subject to two memoranda of understanding or MOUs under which it has made payments to the state that range from $3-8 million per year.  These payments have funded the Clean Energy Development Fund or CEDF and the last payment will be made in March 2013. To replace these payments, the tax on electrical generation and property was increased to bring a projected $6 million in annual revenue to the state. This revenue will be split between CEDF, the Education Fund, and a new economic development fund for Windham County to prepare for post-VY closure.  While opponents called it a tax increase, supporters saw this as generating similar amounts through a different means.

Nothing in this bill addressed cloud computing, which the Ways and Means Committee will be discussing in the coming weeks. This issue has come to the Legislature following reaction to a 2010 bulletin from the tax department stating that software accessed remotely from the cloud was not all that different from software customers downloaded or purchase in a store, thus subject to a 6% sales tax.  Because this is an evolving technology, both vendors and customers have been understandably unaware of this fact.

Many in the business and tech communities have taken issue with the bulletin, claiming it was issued without legislative oversight or public input.  They also take exception to tax and penalties going back four years and fear that this tax could put Vermont at a competitive disadvantage.

Proponents cite a recommendation from the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission addressing the 21^st century economic shift from bricks-and-mortar retail to an Internet service economy.  As the state sales tax erodes, revenue needs to be found in new areas.  One-third of this revenue is used to offset increases in the education property tax.

This issue is more complex than it first appears and will be subject to continued scrutiny in the Ways and Means committee.

Please join Joan Lenes at me at Bruegger’s on Tuesday mornings from 7:30-8:30 am or by appointment:  klwebb22@mac.com or 233-7798.

The standing-room-only presence at the evening health care forum last week is a testament to the community’s interest and concern about pending health care legislation.  After the meeting, several people came up to me with feedback.  While several people expressed relief when they saw the flow chart showing a multi-year process with check points along the way, a more vocal crowd expressed frustration that their questions had not been answered or did not feel that their concerns about the general principles were being heard.  I have shared this with our leadership and made some recommendations.

I am planning to put some links on my website (www.katewebbvt.com)  to help people get answers to their questions and follow the action unfolding in the Senate.  This should be up before the weekend.  In the meantime, I will field questions related to your situation by email: klwebb22@mac.com.  The more specific and focused the questions, the easier it will be for me to get back to you. Do remember that the only staff I have is myself.  There is extensive information and a list of frequently asked questions on this website: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/healthCareReform.aspx that I will also post on mine.

Of ongoing concern to everybody has been “how much will it cost” and “how will we pay for this?” We do not know what it will cost yet, but we do have a starting place.  We know what we are spending now ($4.7 billion) and we know where we are headed in the 2013 ($5.9 billion) so we do know that whatever we build needs cost less than this. Businesses know that if they are spending, perhaps $500 rising to $700 then  $1000 per employee per month with no sign of letting up, there must be a more efficient and effective use of these dollars that also allows them to focus on their own business and not the business of health care.

Throughout this process, there has always been a balance between the competing interests of accuracy and speed in developing a financing plan. The faster the plan is developed, the broader the assumptions must be.  To develop an accurate plan, to allow for public participation, and to build confidence in this plan, it is important that it not be rushed.  This is why a full picture of the financing is not expected to be in place for at least two years.  The future board will look at a variety of sources: payroll tax, income tax, consumption taxes, provider assessments or other new or existing options.  Nothing here is set as of yet.  How it will come about will be subject to a lengthy study and opportunities for continued participation.  Those of you frustrated by this, please stay engaged, keep asking questions and giving input.

Other more specific questions can be answered and here are a few I heard that night.  As the bill stands today, Medicare is untouched.  Those who are receiving retirement benefits would not be required to change. Union-negotiated benefits may continue to bargain benefits if they so choose.  Other questions need more time for thought such as what to do with students in Vermont colleges, adult children up to age 26 and out-of-state networks available to Vermonters.

I voted for and continue to support H.202, an act relating to a universal and unified health care system.  That said, I too am anxious to see how the details will be fleshed out and addressed.  I believe that within two years, we will have a better idea as to whether or not this will work as planned.  The bill is continuing to undergo change in the Senate and should a bill pass, we will likely be revisiting this legislation for years to come.  When we do, we will need to analyze the data and continue to question our underlying assumptions and adjust accordingly.  And in the end, “do no harm.”

In addition to being a member of the Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee in the Legislature, I also serve on the Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) for the future of Lake Champlain. The mission of the CAC is to gather and disseminate information and make recommendations about the condition and management of the waters of the Lake Champlain basin region. Working with government and non-government groups, we recommend priorities for improving the health of the Lake.  Our 2011 list will be presented to the Vermont Legislature in mid-March.

Most of these priorities have been on the list for some time.  Most will also require additional dollars at a time when budgets are shrinking.  Funding from the EPA, often the biggest source of financial support for programs, is also on the chopping block in Washington.

As I reviewed the list, there seemed to be only one remaining “low hanging fruit” and that was restricting the use of phosphorus (P) in fertilizer on non-agricultural turf.  To implement this, there would be no impact on government spending, no financial impact on taxpayers, and would ultimately put some teeth in the 2007 educational campaign known as “Don’t P on the Lawn.”  I introduced this bill, H.26, in January and it passed the House on a unanimous voice vote on February25^th. It is now on its way to the Senate.

What is the problem with phosphorus anyway? Excessive amounts of phosphorus create a perfect breeding ground for toxic algae blooms that deplete the amount of oxygen available for aquatic life.  This begins a chain of events that has a disastrous environmental and economic impact.  Lake Champlain is now classified as an “impaired waterway” and earned a spot on a New York Times list of places in the world not to visit.  As nitrogen from the Connecticut River was implicated in causing dead zones in Long Island Sound, we included nitrogen restrictions in the bill as well.

While agricultural pollution has often been viewed as the primary source of phosphorus, developed lands are actually bigger contributors to phosphorus pollution.  According to the Lake Champlain Basin Program, 46 % of non-point P pollution comes from urban and developed land while 38% of the non-point P pollution comes from agriculture and 5% from forestland.

Each watershed area has its own breakdown.  The Missisquoi basin region contributes one-quarter of the non-point phosphorus pollution entering Lake Champlain while Chittenden County, including the Main Lake, Burlington Bay and Shelburne Bay contributes another quarter.  The sources of pollution from these two regions however are quite different.  While about two-thirds of the problem can be attributed to agriculture in the Missisquoi basin, agriculture in Chittenden County accounts for only 20% of the problem.  The lion’s share here then, is due to urban and developed land and one of those sources is excess fertilizer applied to turf.

H.26 restricts the use of phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizer to non-agricultural turf, i.e., our lawns.  Golf courses will be required to follow nutrient management plans. Phosphorus fertilizer will still be available when starting a new lawn or for patching when young roots are less able to access available phosphorus in soil.  There will be a fine of up to $500, not for the confused consumer, but for those consumers and sellers who knowingly and intentionally violate the law.

Stores will need to post signs explaining the law and reminding consumers to get a soil test (cost ranging from free to about $14) to determine whether P is actually needed.  If it is, you will be able to buy the product.  If it is not, you have either just saved yourself some money, or you can purchase phosphorus-free fertilizer products that work well to feed lawns and don’t hurt our waterways.  Nitrogen fertilizer will still be available but with restrictions in amount and type.

If this bill becomes law, we will be joining 12 other states that have already banned or restricted the use and/or sale of phosphorus including New York, New Jersey and Maine.

Minnesota enacted a law in 2004 and found that the amount of phosphorus applied through lawn fertilizers decreased 48% between 2003 and 2006.  There were not reports of the law being enforced by local governments; rather, the law created “teachable moments” for extensive yard care and water quality education.  By 2007, 82% of the fertilizer sold was phosphorus-free.

I do not expect to see fertilizer police hanging outside of Aubuchon’s.  Our real hope here is to decrease the amount of P that finds its way to the Lake by strengthening education and making unnecessary fertilizer less available.  With the cost of clean up of Lake Champlain estimated at more than $800 million and possibly 50 years, it seems like one small effort we homeowners can make.

For more information on fertilizer and water pollution, visit www.lawntolake.org

Last week, Goveernor Shumlin delivered his first budget address.  As I read the blogs and listen to the conversations in the State House, I hear Republicans generally approve of the budget, but are a bit annoyed that it sounds a lot like Governor Douglas.  Progressives can’t keep their eyes off the massive cuts to human services without any attempt to raise taxes. I am reluctant to speak for the rather large and varying House Democratic Caucus, however the general sense seems to be no big surprises, the devil is in the details but seem more comfortable with Shumlin’s version of realism and his vision for the future.   That same day, the Secretary of Administration began working with the House money committees, a big change from the typical 2-3 week lag of years past.  The general lack of clapping during the speech is some indication of the seriousness of the tone.  What is there to celebrate?

The budget process is an arduous one and traditionally goes like this:  1) look at projected revenues; 2) look at last years budget; 3) add for inflation and new initiatives; 4) ask, “where can we cut?”  In this model, the executive branch comes to the legislature with dizzying streams of numbers showing where the money will go but this isn’t very revealing, because it doesn’t tell us what results we will get for that money.

The problem with this long held tradition is the tendency to focus on dollars and positions rather than results.  By putting our energy into margins and cuts, we encourage hiding and padding.  We know each side is going to play this game and it becomes a vicious circle, a tit-for-tat and for many, an emotional roller coaster, not knowing whether their programs will be spared or cut.  Interest groups are pitted against each other in the scramble for dollars and citizens wonder who is representing their interests?  This process discourages innovation and often our highest priorities go under-funded after we have funded everything else. This can lead to people feeling like they don’t get the value they want from government.

Albert Einstein once said, “we can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  In 2009, leaders from the legislature and administration hired the Public Strategies Group (PSG) to help find a different way to look at our budget challenges.  Instead of funding departments based on last year’s costs plus inflation, groups were formed to look at budgeting based on results.  From this joint venture, “Challenges for Change” was brought forth and was passed into law as Act 146 last May.

Act 146 has had its problems.  The development of outcomes and measures began too late in the session to allow for much public input or buy-in and has yet to generate the anticipated savings.  As a result, there are some forces that would like to see this process dropped, keeping the time-honored cut-or-tax budgeting.  I hope this is not the case, because there has been progress.

Since the passage of Act 146, the agencies have been reviewing identified outcomes, setting up programs and designing measurement systems.  The first quarterly report came out January 24^th and the information I have seen so far under the Regulatory Challenge is clear, easy to understand, and a measure of something of importance to Vermonters.

I do believe that outcome-based budgeting makes a great deal of sense.  Our early efforts here should be seen as part of the learning process toward a move to outcome-based budgeting rather than a failure.

I wanted to write to you about the Blue Ribbon Tax Commission report and the role of the Legislature.

The so-called Blue Ribbon Tax Commission was brought to life by the Legislature during the veto-override special session in 2009.  It called for a three-member panel to provide a structural analysis of the state’s revenue system and to offer recommendations for improvements, modernization and a long-term vision for the state tax structure.   Governor Douglas appointed Bill Sayre, Senate Pro-tem Shumlin appointed Kathleen Hoyt and House Speaker Smith appointed Bill Schubart.  The tax system was to be easier to understand, sustainable, equitable, economically competitive and “revenue neutral.” In other words, revenues added would be in direct proportion to revenues reduced.  The desire was to create a 21^st century tax system with a big picture perspective rather than picking away piecemeal at incentives and taxes.

On January 12^th, the Commission unveiled its 175 page report to the Legislature.  The report focuses on core concepts and purposefully does not get into specific detail.  The job of the Legislature, beginning with the House Ways and Means committee, will be to go through each concept and flesh out the details.  During this time, the committee will take testimony from experts, advocates and citizens and this can include you. .   I encourage you to go to the website: http://www.vermonttaxreform.org/library/ and click on “Final Report.”  For a quick summary go to page 15 to read the 3-page executive summary.

An interesting part of the report includes a review of our current tax structure.  They found that much of the conventional wisdom regarding Vermont’s tax system did not hold up under scrutiny.  These misperceptions were felt to have a deleterious effect on public debate resulting in recommendations for change based on misconstrued information.  In order to move the debate forward, the Commission needed to demystify these assumptions and focus on real vs. imagined facts. For example, the assumption that ‘some people don’t pay taxes” was not correct.   If total tax contribution is considered, lower income earners pay a greater percentage of their income on sales taxes while upper income pays a great percentage on income taxes.  Middle and upper-middle income taxpayers pay a greater percentage of their income on property taxes.

Over an 18-month period, the Commission held public hearings, completed careful study and participated in thoughtful deliberations, critically questioning every assumption in the tax system.  Though all three members found the process respectful and on the right track, they did not come to full agreement on all of the recommendations.  A dissenting view by Bill Sayers is in the report.

Over the coming months, and likely years, the Ways and Means committee will begin to look at the recommended changes to the sales tax and personal income tax.  As we move from a goods industry to a service industry, what are the implications of decreasing the sales tax rate from 6% to 4.5% but expanding taxes to services such as lawyers, landscapers, hairstylists?  Can we work with other states to change federal law to collect revenue on burgeoning Internet sales competing with our state-taxed merchandisers?

The Commission was in unanimous agreement that we should restructuring the personal income tax to align with surrounding states. By switching from Taxable Income to  Adjusted Gross Income, Vermont’s tax rate would compare more competitively to other states, simply by comparing apples to apples.  Does it make sense to take away deductions like the home mortgage tax and instead use a “residential tax credit?”

These questions and many more are likely to spur lively debate and certainly trigger anxiety as Vermonters wonder how they will land in the final package.  I trust that the  tri-partisan committee will do a thorough job in sorting this out.

Please join Joan Lenes and me at Bruegger’s on Tuesday mornings between 7:30-8:30.  I am also available by appointment.  Contact me at 802 233-7798 or klwebb22@mac.com

This next legislative session poses many challenges for our small state.  We face a $150 million dollar deficit in FY 2012. Our state population is the second oldest in the country (median age 40.4), preceded only by Maine (40.7) and we struggle to figure out how to retain our adult children or entice them to return.  Although we are making progress repairing our roads and bridges, many are still crumbling from years of deferred maintenance, and we are behind in broadband infrastructure so vital to today’s economy. We struggle to maintain funding for quality education and health care in a way that feels fair and equitable.  Our state agencies have been pared down making some legislation difficult to implement.   Our tax burden is high in comparison to other states and we continue to hear that this is a deterrent to business.  Even though our unemployment rate of 5.6% is the 5^th lowest in the nation, this offers little consolation to those unemployed or underemployed particularly outside of Chittenden County.

It is essential that we honestly face these challenges.  It is also worthwhile, however, to look across the country to see how other states are faring in comparison.  Here are a few areas where Vermont is doing well:

Vermont is the “greenest state in America” according to 24/7WallSt. The study analyzed and compared environmental problems across the country, then looked at how effectively each state was addressing these problems.  We earned high marks for having the smallest carbon footprint in the nation and the fewest carcinogenic toxins.  In addition, we have developed policies to promote efficiency, alternative energy, and reduce pollution and so far have succeeded better than any other state.

Vermont is the “healthiest state” in America according to the United Health Foundation having risen from 20th in 1990 to 12th in 2000 and to 1st in 2009 and 2010. We are tops in clinical care, particularly prenatal; have comparatively few cases of infectious disease and less air pollution.  Our poverty rates for children are comparatively low and we have the first or second lowest violent crime rate in the country depending on information source.   Although about one-quarter of us struggle with weight issues, we are doing better than 45 other states on obesity measures.

Vermont is the “smartest state” in America according to Morgan Quitno Education State Rankings.  Our children are the best educated with our 4^th and 8^th grade math and reading scores ranging from the 2nd to the 5th highest in the nation. Over a third of us have a college degree and we read more regularly to our preschoolers than any other state.  Our high school graduation rate of 89.3% is second only to Wisconsin at 89.6%; all this in a state 15^th from the bottom for median teacher salaries.

We win in a few other areas as well.  Our foreclosure rates are the lowest in the nation likely due to our honest lenders sticking to policy and long-standing guidelines for making loans.   We rank 3^rd in Morgan Quitno’s overall  “best state to live.”

As we face this next legislative session, we must honestly address our challenges with fortitude and courage and capitalize on rather than sacrifice those assets which have made Vermont an incredibly special place to live.  We have clear challenges as well as many, many blessings.

“Work on Lake Champlain is fine,” a community member said, “but what are you doing for the economy?” This question came to me on Town Meeting Day after I shared some of my legislative work to clean up Lake Champlain and Vermont waterways. Protecting our lakes, rivers and streams has everything to do with our economy. As the late Mollie Beattie once said, “In the long term, the economy and the environment are the same thing. If it’s unenvironmental, it’s uneconomical. That is the rule of nature.” Mollie Beattie was a former Vermont Fish and Wildlife commissioner and the first woman ever to head the US Fish and Wildlife service.

Most of us in Shelburne are well aware of the impact Lake Champlain has on our quality of life. But how does this translate to economic benefit? And what is the overall economic benefit of Vermont’s lakes, ponds, rivers and streams? In the late 1990’s, the Lake Champlain Region Chamber of Commerce did a study on the financial impact of Lake Champlain on Chittenden and Grand Isle Counties. They were able to account for $338 million in revenue for Chittenden County and $14 million for Grand Isle County in lake-related sales, lodging, food and beverages. In addition, a 2002 Vermont Tourism and Markets study of the Vermont visitor, identified fishing and hunting, and water recreation as the top tourism revenue generators coming in well ahead of the ski industry.

There is increasing evidence that our lakes, ponds, rivers and streams are in trouble. Extensive development using impervious paving materials, has reduced the amount of land available to soak up rainwater. As a result, storm water, rich with pollutants and nutrients, rushes off these surfaces making its way into our rivers, streams and ultimately our lake. Our practice of stripping away riverbank vegetation for development, agricultural use and views has disastrous effects on the health of aquatic ecosystems, increasing erosion and reducing the capacity to filter sediment. Over the past 150 years, Vermont’s rivers and streams have been extensively modified, moving them away from their natural form and flow. Of the nearly 1400 miles of assessed rivers in 140 communities, 74% of these rivers have become deeper, swifter, and no longer have access to their historic floodplains.

The monetary, social and environmental cost to this is exceedingly large. Over the past 20 years, over $148 million has been spent to recover from avoidable flood damage. When poorly managed, agricultural runoff contributes an abundance of nutrients into our waterways during storm events. Despite efforts to help farmers meet the costs of improving these practices, recent lake testing tells us that we still have a very long way to go. And what does this erosion and run off bring us? Phosphorus! Phosphorus that feeds toxic algae blooms in Lake Champlain’s northern segments, earning the whole lake a spot in the New York Times best selling travel book, Don’t Go There: the travel detective’s essential guide to the must-miss places of the world (2009, p 17-18).

This year, I worked extensively on two bills that addressed the health of our surface waters including Lake Champlain. These two bills were ultimately rolled into one, H.763, which was signed into law on May 13th as Act 110. What can we expect from Act 110?

• We formalized the River Corridors program at the Agency of Natural Resources. Using existing funding and pass-through grants, the program will provide technical and financial assistance, fluvial erosion hazard mapping and helpful guidance to towns that want to establish river corridor or buffer bylaws.
• We increased flexibility for use of funds to farmers implementing alternative strategies for manure management, soil erosion reduction practices, and temporary fencing to keep livestock out of streams.
• We required the Vermont Agency of Transportation to develop standards for roads and bridges to decrease erosion and pollutants which could enter our ground and surface waters. Implementing these standards will not only protect water quality, higher standards will result in higher reimbursement from FEMA following a flooding disaster.
• We expanded requirements for those wanting to alter streams which could affect water quality. Is this enough? No, but hopefully we have taken another few steps in the right direction.

I think Mollie Beattie got it right. The economy and the environment are the same thing. “If it is unenvironmental, it is uneconomical.” For things you and your family can do to help our lake, check out the “The Lake Protection Series” series at http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/lakes/htm/lp_protection.htm.

Between January, 2009 and adjournment, 2010, 1092 bills were introduced in the Vermont Legislature.  Their status is as follows:

As of this writing, approximately 58 bills still await action by the Governor.  The cordial ending to the 2010 legislative session saw the big bills pass by high margins and administrative support.  Although the remaining bills are expected to be enacted into law within the coming weeks, two still remain elusive.  These are S.88, the Health Care Reform bill and H.485, the Current Use bill.

Although there is widespread support for the “Blueprint for Health,” two sticking points remain for the Governor in S.88.  The first is the requirement that pharmaceuticals register where free prescription samples are dispersed.  The second is the funding for the health care option study.

Many folks still think the pharmaceutical reporting will mean doctors can no longer receive free samples or if they do, they will be required to break confidentiality by reporting patient names.  This is not correct.  The burden here is on the pharmaceutical companies, not doctors, includes no patient names and is merely an extension of the new federal legislation.

The second bone of contention is the health care option study.  This section of the bill authorizes Vermont’s Health Care Reform Commission to hire one or more consultants to produce at least three different system designs for delivering health care.  One must be single payer; one a public option; and a third is left to the commission to determine. The Governor has expressed concern about spending money on a study when health care has been studied before.  What distinguishes this study is the degree of design detail and it takes into account the new federal reforms.

Let’s look now at Current Use.   Since 1978, the Use Appraisal Value or “Current Use” program has allowed farm and forest lands in active production to be valued and taxed based on productive value rather than market value.  The law recognizes that if we tax 50 acres of land used for growing vegetables at the same rate we tax 50 acres of land slated for development, all farmers would likely throw in the towel.

There are currently close to 16,000 parcels totaling 2.2 million acres or one-third of Vermont lands enrolled in the program.  It has become ever more popular over the years particularly as farmers and foresters have struggled to stay in business.  Current Use accounted for approximately $44 million in savings to property owners in 2008 and $49 million in 2009.  Our tourism industry derives great economic benefit from our farms, forests and scenic vistas, which more than makes up for this difference. Each year, the state sends approximately $11 million dollars to the municipalities to help offset some of these reduced revenues.

In an effort to address a nearly $160 million dollar General Fund deficit, legislative leaders put all government taxing and spending on the table including Current Use.  Following two years of study, members found that some changes could be made that would protect the original purpose of the program while reducing some of this year’s budget pressures.  A goal to find $1.6 in savings was put into action.

Three aspects of this bill have proven problematic to the Governor.  First, the bill assesses a one-time fee of $128 on all property owners in the program.  Second, it eliminates a tax break which will now require a buyer to pay the full 1.25% Property Transfer Tax instead of the reduced 0.5%.  Third, it brings back the pre-1993 legislation to restore higher penalties for those who decide to take their land out of Current Use and sell it for development.

None of these should be a deal breaker; in fact, it is my hope that this will strengthen a program that has received increasing public criticism.  Town officials have reported that speculators have received huge tax breaks on land ultimately intended for development.  This was never the intention of the program.  Farmers will still be able to remove parts of their land for development, however this will not be as lucrative.  While open land is easily developed, I have yet to see developed land return to open land.  Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

The bill has received support from a variety of organizations including the Vermont League of Cities and Towns; the Vermont Land Trust, the Vermont Assessors and Listers Association.

As I write this on Sunday evening, we are still moving toward adjournment now expected to be Wednesday evening. The pace seems to be on both ends of the spectrum: long periods of waiting for bills to come over from the Senate followed by a rapid-fire, full-on response when they do.

There are still major bills being reviewed and the pressure on members to feel informed before casting a vote is palpable. Although we have seen and voted on all of these bills before, each has undergone some degree of modification in either the House or the Senate. Some of these have gone to special “Committees of Conference” where three members of the House and three members of the Senate hash out the differences before bringing them back to the full legislature for a vote.

The 2011 budget and the Miscellaneous Tax Bill take center stage this week and must be completed before the session can end. Accompanying these bills are the budget companion bill known as Challenges for Change and the Capital Bill. The Challenges bill was designed to find $38 million in cuts to the General Fund through government efficiencies without reducing services. The Capital Bill directs funds to a variety of infrastructure projects around the state. Expect also to see changes to the Current Use program and health care reform among others.

Here are a few other bills recently passed and headed to the governor for signature:

§ H.470 restructures judiciary. It brings all five types of courts: superior, family, district, environmental and probate under the state Supreme Court predicted to improve efficiency and accessibility while saving $1 million in costs.

§ H.759 sets executive fees. Expect to see some new fees, such as licensing of salvage yards and fee increases, many of which haven’t increased in years.

§ H.781 supports renewable energy projects. It makes the process for permitting renewable energy projects more predictable and efficient; provides incentives for solar; gives price stability for Cow Power programs and helps our larger employers such as IBM meet efficiency standards. This bill also defines Hydro-Quebec as a renewable energy source which has met with some heat from the environmental community.

§ H.614 regulates composting facilities. It helps define which facilities will be considered part of farming and regulated by agriculture, and which are businesses regulated by Act 250.

§ S.182 fixes the unemployment insurance deficit. It is designed to bring the bankrupt fund back to a sustainable level in 5 years. After delicate negotiations, both businesses and workers had to give on this, but all felt that it was better than the current situation.

§ H.488 bans the use of felt-soled waders by anglers in our waterways. Implicated in the spread of invasive species, this bill follows the Alaska ban. Rubber-soled alternatives are available and some stores are already offering trade-in incentives.

§ H.540 gives legal protection to bicyclists and other “vulnerable users” of the road. It represents an important step in recognizing that Vermont roads are a shared public resource and not just built and maintained for automobiles.

§ S.262 mandates health insurance for young children with autism. It provides for some early intervention services for children with autism between the ages of 18 months and 6 years and calls for a study to see if insurance mandates should apply to older children. Research indicates that these early services are related to reduced costs to schools.

§ S.222 sets up a program for state recognition of Native Americans. This will ultimately allow our Vermont Abenaki bands to receive the recognition they need to legally sell their crafts as authentic.

§ S.247 bans the manufacture, sale or distribution of infant formula and baby food containing bisphenol A or BPA. BPA is a synthetic estrogen used in hard plastics and has been linked to cancer, recurrent miscarriage, early onset puberty, reduced sperm count, delayed development, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

By the time you read this, I do hope that the session will have adjourned.