A Letter from Carolyn

[Chris Santee]

Representative Branagan has asked me to post this:

The FY2011 Budget Adjustment bill came before the House this past week. Annually the legislature acts on an adjustment bill to make corrections and redirect money for spending in the second half of the fiscal year. The Budget Adjustment bill typically addresses fiscal needs and adjusts reserves funds for the coming fiscal year, but this year General Fund spending will have to compensate for declines in federal spending since the ARRA money is gone. One of the biggest problems faced by the FY2011 budget is the failure of the Challenges for Change plan to take hold and reduce expenditures as hoped. In reality, Challenge savings were approximately $29 million, but savings of $38 million was planned. Since the Budget Adjustment bill reflects fewer Challenge savings than planned, and the taxpayer must pick up the difference. I’ll resist the temptation to say ‘I told you so’.

The bill was actually pretty mild, as these things go. It allowed an expenditure of $3.5 million in budget software. In addition it covered a shortfall in funds needed for child care subsidy, added 18 new social workers, added 2 positions for adult protective services and $500,000 to help in efforts to ease homelessness. Several of the services available from the Human Services Agency were increased and the bill adjusts the Global Commitment funding amount down by $7.4 million in state money. General Fund appropriations increased by about $11 million and, if the bill is approved by the Senate and signed by the Governor, the increase will be covered by one time money and by the revenue up grade promised by economists last week.

So far we’re making ends meet. Contact me at cbranagan@leg.state.vt.us  I want to hear from you.

Rep. Carolyn Branagan
Franklin-1, Fairfax/Georgia
Vermont House of Representatives

[rod anode]

wouldn't it be funny if shummie didn't sign it and the legislature over rode his veto

[ohhman]

Just some thoughts: how will there be less spending/cuts as Gov. Shum says, yet he put back in place postions Douglas cut to save$$.  Also, wonder how much it will cost to put the jail in St. A back to a "mens facility"after spending so much to make it a "womens facility"? Why does it have to be so nice?.. does anyone there know why we are sending people there? vacation?? Maybe some "higher-ups" should have listened to the voices of reason with the concerns from police in the 1st place BEFORE they redid the joint! ....the police are the ones that actually do the work!  Guess but I don't have alot of faith in a man that was OK with 3 of the gala events to celebrate him becoming governor!.... and some people on the forum complained our town spent a few bucks on our town employees Christmas celebration;  @ least they EARNED it for all their dedicated service to our town!!

[MikeF9]

I thought I heard someone say that there are fewer women at the prison now compared to the men, and right now you have empty cells.

I thought I read in the Free Press that the galas were paid for by tickets to the gala and donations and that they made a profit, and the proceeds went to VT National Guard family fund. Most inaugural galas are funded by private donors. Presidential galas are usually funded by the national parties.

[cedarman]

"the increase will be covered by one time money and by the revenue up grade promised by economists last week. "

Where is the "one time money" coming from?

What if the economist are wrong with their projections about revenue (it declines, holds steady, or doesn't increase as much as expected)?

[Thor]

First off, if their are "reserve funds" available, why are they not being used to pay down our debt? The folks down there in Montpelier seem to be good at one thing.... smoke and mirrors. 3.5 million in budget software.... WTF.... how about defining that. We did spend 3.5 million on it. We added 18 new social workers, 2 new adult protective services jobs and spent another half million on easing homelessness. How nice. And I am not sure I would call the Challenge for Change saving 29 million a failure simply because someone down there "predicted" 38 million. Maybe the soothsayers you guys are using should be shelved and the reasonable man theory get used. I sure hope the same fortune tellers that predicted the 38 million on Challenge for Change are not the same economists that are predicting a revenue upgrade. And if they are, and they don't make good on their promise, will you guys keep them around for continued use? Probably, because it must be nice to have people down there telling you want you want to hear, instead of what you need to hear!

[Carolyn Branagan]

Hi  guys,

I'll try to answer the questions.........

Reserve funds: The purpose of Reserve funds is to provide some cushioning to the ebb and flow of revenue when it comes in and out of state coffers. Revenues don't always come in at the same time they are needed: like when there is a huge snowstorm causing a lot of plowtrucks to head out or when some kind of an emergency causes the public safety officials to put in a lot of  overtime.  We're talking about a lot of money to run the state for a year, about $4.5 billion and we just can't have that much on hand at one time. The statutory requirement for the three largest funds, EducationFund, Transportation Fund and General Fund, is to keep the reserve between 3.5% and 5% of the previous year's spending.

Challenges for Change: Saving the $30 million is certainly something Vermonters can be proud of. Is there room for more change and improvements in government? Probably. I am hoping to find these additional opportunities for improvements in time to save taxpayers money. Gov. Shumlin expressed regret during his budget speech earlier last week that the Challenges were not more  successful.

One time money: That's money we can't count on for another year. We spend it once and it is gone. This year the state of  Vermont has received one time money from an estate which generated nearly $8 million and also from a court settlement having  to do with a bank franchise. The state won this lawsuit in court. It is never wise to spend one time money on ongoing expenses.  That's why  I  was  so  opposed  last year to spending the ARRA money on ongoing budget expense. Now that those federal monies are gone,  the state  budget builders  are  in a real pickle. One time money should go  to a one time expense, like building a  new mental hospital, or road  improvement.

Soothsayers: I deal  with these guys all the time and it is really looking into a crystal ball. When they are right, it gives us a good idea of where to head in revenue estimation, but recently they have been wrong more than right. No one predicted this recession would be this bad.

Thanks Chris!


from, C.

[slpott]

Carolyn:
I think you did a fine job with these two. You should know better than to leave them alone for very long.

[Carolyn Branagan]

At least I don't have to guess what these guys are thinking! 

C.

[cedarman]

Thank you for clarifying some of the sources of "one time money".

[mkr]

Thank you Carolyn!  So glad to have you down there.