HARSH THOUGHTS, but as predicted even last fall, school budgets this year may have to either assume a portion of the state’s budget cutbacks through higher property taxes or through reduced educational opportunity in our schools.

The example newly at hand: the Northfield School Board, in a well-developed presentation by Chair Debra Wick (attended by two members of the public) shared its proposed budget this past week with the admirable achievement of being lower than last year: 3.95 percent less for operations and 3.61 percent less as a whole.

Even on a per pupil basis (important, since pupil numbers are dropping), there is an increase of less than one half of a percent.

Yet this will still result in a 4.71 percent increase in the property tax rate because our unresolved mess of a property tax system assumes that the town is underpaying its share of statewide taxes by 20 percent, at its current assessment levels.

This is nothing new, but the school budget is also based on an assumption that the state will not change what it provides from the state general fund (non property tax revenue) to support the Education Fund.

General fund expenses on K-12 education are about one-quarter of the overall general fund, and about 85 percent of that is the direct transfer to the Education Fund to reduce the property tax burden. That transfer makes up the funding for close to a third of the $1 billion plus Ed Fund.

When you look at the two biggest chunks of the general fund – K-12 education, and one quarter on health care – it is hard to imagine that a $150 million shortfall in general fund revenues can avoid the need for cuts in what is transferred to the Ed Fund.

That will mean, in the Northfield example, the choice between school budget cuts despite a highly responsible budget, or a local property tax increase above 4.71 percent.

Worst of all, since the state general budget won’t be finalized until May, we will enter Town Meeting and vote on school budgets without knowing where the real figures will end up.

Human Services Committee

Much of my committee’s time has been on continued testimony for “having our eyes fully open” to understand and acknowledge the real impacts of necessary cuts, which is what makes me so acutely aware of how we may need to spread these impacts.

In the midst of cuts, we also face caseload pressures, which mean more people meeting the criteria for needed help, often due to unemployment and other impacts of the hurting economy.

One way to deal with this is to change the criteria itself. In the area of individuals with Development Disabilities, for example, the doorway will get smaller by requiring a more desperate need to be eligible for support, such as when the person is about to become homeless because of the death of a care giver.

Other ways of responding to caseload pressures and revenue drops are to reduce the benefits.

For example, in order to shift some funds into the dire need for homeless shelters to address increases in homelessness, a $17 per month grant for non-food necessities (e.g., toilet paper, laundry supplies) would be eliminated.

This is from the aid to the small group of very poorest Vermonters without children, who also can receive housing support of about $200 per month and federal food stamps. They represent mostly individuals who have run out of unemployment insurance without finding a new job, or who are disabled and cannot work but are awaiting a disability determination from social security.

Every other type of financial support in Vermont is restricted to children in poverty; in other words, a family must have children in order to receive support while the parent is looking for work.

Once called “welfare,” this is now known as “Reach Up,” and it amounts to about five percent or less of our general fund budget.

As happens when the state is in dire financial straits, we end up having to first cut those highly efficient programs that save money – and people’s lives – by early intervention, because the things that must be protected the most are the end-of-the-line safety nets.

One example of a program targeted to be terminated is the support for those in college. It has a demonstrated track record of resulting in individuals leaving Reach-Up permanently with stable, higher wages.

Just a few years ago, we created a program for families that had been on Reach Up and found employment that kept them supported with food stamps and about $50 to $100 in extra cash per month for six months to become stable.

The goal was to reduce families from returning to Reach Up at the first new crisis in their lives, and to also save millions of dollars in federal credit for the welfare reform work rules.

It has been enormously successful in those goals, based upon the data just emerging. But on paper, it is a fairly new program with a new cost, and is thus under the ax.

In the Health Department budget, recommended areas to eliminate include a $60,000 program assisting hospitals in reducing hospital-acquired infections, a key safety issue.

Under the Department of Aging and Independent Living, our current Adult Protective Services program has workers with caseloads of almost double the national standards, and the majority of community residential programs have not had annual inspections for four or more years. These homes often replace the role of more expensive nursing homes under our priority of keeping elders and those with disabilities in their communities.

For our elders and those with physical disabilities, every single community program state grant is targeted for elimination, because anything that receives only general funds, not matched by federal funds, has a lesser impact on reducing services.

Other Issues

My committee held a hearing last week on my apology resolution for the Sterilization Act of 1931, intended to “breed” an improved stock of Vermonters. Despite overall support, we learned from the hearing that it creates a controversial tie to Abenaki federal recognition issue.

Since we have no intent to spend our very limited time digging deeper into this, it may die as a result of the “perfect being the enemy of the good.”

We passed a bill (10-0-1) on supported permanent guardianship (it will be on the floor next week) that will access federal funds for support for children who are not appropriate for adoption.

Various other committees are working intensively on Vermont Yankee (both the immediate crisis as well as re-licensing), the bankrupt unemployment fund (we’re borrowing federal money right now), judicial restructuring (with its hoped-for budget savings), the transportation and capital budgets, and the fee bill (the money raised from the prices we pay for licenses and the like.)

Other bills that could pop out of committees soon are a health safety measure banning all but emergency use of mandatory overtime by health care workers, and last year’s controversial bill restricting property owner uses of land extending 50 feet from waterways (“riparian buffers”.)

The Senate has sent the House a bill to ban texting while driving, and the House passed a cost cutting measure last week to freeze new applications to the current use program for a year. It is now under review in the Senate.

Please keep me informed with your concerns or questions; you can reach me by message at home (485-6431) at the statehouse (828-2228) or by email (c