Nigh time to spread some Bottlecap cheer
1 week ago
How to Navigate City, County and State Governments, Voting Information and Current Events Commentary
Migration patterns are also changing among college-educated workers. Between 2005 and 2007, Texas, Virginia and North Carolina already enjoy higher rates per capita of net migration of educated workers between the ages of 22 and 39 than California, New York or Massachusetts.
This advantage could expand as the upcoming states increase their educational offerings along with employment opportunities. Students may end up tempted to attend schools closer to where there is job growth. Unlike Austin and Raleigh-Durham, which have rapidly expanded tech employment, Silicon Valley has produced virtually no new net tech jobs for the past decade.
The second impact may be more subtle, as declining revenues from businesses and individuals reduces the opportunity to boost education spending. As the country stumbles into this recovery, the greatest advantage will fall not only to states with the most natural resources, but those with the best-educated human resources. For a half century this is a game that states like California have played to perfection, but it is one in which other places are likely to catch up, and perhaps even pass. The long-term implications for the nation’s economic geography could prove profound.Do we want to lose the advantages Texas has over other states by striping our Education system?
Burrell Day and Joel McDaniel [who] requested a permit to pump 700 acre-feet from the ground. The two wanted to start a peanut and oat farm on the 350-acre ranch they had recently purchased. Their plan was to use the free-flowing water from a well drilled by the previous owner that was filling a 50-acre man-made lake on the property. The EAA denied their application for groundwater.The EAA did issue them a permit that allowed Day and McDaniel to pump 14 acre feet per day. (One acre foot of water can provide enough water for the typical single family home in San Antonio for an entire year.) Day and McDaniel sued EAA, claiming the authority was regulating them out of their ownership of the groundwater they legally own. The case has been in the courts ever since, and just this last February finally made it to the Texas Supreme Court. The amicus curiae (friend of the court, interested parties who are not involved in the suit, but believe the courts decision could effect them, i.e. other farmers in the EAA district) briefs are still being filed for the case, and so far the court has not issued any opinions. The Texas Supreme Court's decision in this case, could radically change Texas Ground Water Law.
In general, the other courts agreed with the EAA and the outcome of the permit process. But the state Court of Appeals ruled landowners do have “some ownership rights in the groundwater.”
On Wednesday [Feb 2, 2010], the EAA argued that if the groundwater is owned by the landowners, then it and the roughly 95 groundwater conservation districts in the state would be open to a lawsuit every time they tried to limit pumping or be forced to compensate landowners.
“This is no small question for the authority,” the EAA lawyers wrote in their brief to the court.
The EAA would have its “legs pulled out from underneath it” if the court ruled against it, EAA lawyer Pamela Baron told the justices.
According to Senator Fraser, Senate Bill 332 “would clearly state that landowners have a vested ownership interest in the groundwater beneath their property…[G]roundwater conservation districts could still require a landowner to get a permit and limit the amount of groundwater that can be produced. However, the legislation would prevent a district from "taking" a landowner's right to capture the water beneath the land.”
This all sounds very reasonable and benign, but the reality is that this legislation could undermine the ability of groundwater conservation districts (GCD) to effectively manage the very resource that they are charged with protecting. If every landowner has a vested right to the groundwater beneath their property how can a GCD manage that land owners’ access without it being considered a taking?Fair and equitable use of groundwater will likely be a continuing, contentious, and sometimes volitile issue between cities and farmers/ranchers throughout this century, as Texas population grows and Climate Change slowly makes Texas a dryer and dryer place.
With certain legal exclusions and additions, the term "brownfield site" means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. [as defined in Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869) - "Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act" signed into law January 11, 2002]Throughout the inner cores of cities in the US there are pieces of property that are lying vacant because they at one time had a gas station, a manufacturing facility or some other type of hazardous use performed on them. Now that the New Urbanists are singing the praises of inner city living, more and more people are looking for places to live. Unfortunately there's only so many housing units, but there is property that can be developed for housing if it can be cleaned up first, the brownfield.
provides direct funding for brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving loans, and environmental job training. To facilitate the leveraging of public resources, EPA's Brownfields Program collaborates with other EPA programs, other federal partners, and state agencies to identify and make available resources that can be used for brownfields activities. In addition to direct brownfields funding, EPA also provides technical information on brownfields financing matters.Funding and grants are provided for anything from coming up with an area wide assessment, to cleanup money, to job training grants. They also have links to other federal agencies and private groups that offer grants and assisstance. There is even a National Brownfield Association, a non-profit dedicated to sustainable development of previously undevelopable land.
One way to preserve valuable landscapes while accommodating a growing population isIn San Antonio, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) are used to faciliate brownfield redevelopment.
to redevelop previously used urban lands, sometimes known as "brownfields."
Even with the expense of environmental clean-up, a recycled parcel is often less
expensive to develop than new land, because it is already serviced by roads, utilities,
and other infrastructure. Brownfield development also relieves some pressure to
develop farms and other open space.
The City uses TIF in areas where little to no private sector investment is currently taking place, and where redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment in the reasonably foreseeable future.
TIF allows future ad valorem and sales tax revenue to pay for the construction of public infrastructure improvements.
By leveraging private investment for certain types of development within a targeted area, TIF can be used to finance new and/or enhanced public improvements and infrastructure. These improvements and infrastructure, in turn, attract additional private investment in surrounding areas.If you are interested in brownfield redevelopment contact the City of San Antonio Housing and Neighborhood Services Department's TIF Unit.
The proponents of consolidation argue that fewer and larger local governments will be more efficient and effective than many small governments. Costs can be held down and perhaps reduced through the elimination of duplicative services, personnel, and equipment. Larger governments may also be able to take advantage of “economies of scale” or lower per-unit costs for government services. Further, a single unified government will be better able to coordinate policies and decisions for activities, such as regional planning and economic development, than several independent governments.
In theory, consolidation should produce economies of scale which allows cost savings to be achieved – average costs are reduced when spread out over a wider set of users. The reality is that this may not always occur—but why? Why do city-county consolidations not always produce cost savings and, in some case, actually lead to higher costs? To help local and state officials grappling with this issue, we have summarized recent literature on the causes of diseconomies of scale in city-county consolidations and listed useful online resources.
What Causes Diseconomies of Scale in a City-County Consolidation?
- Labor intensive services. Consolidated city services that are labor intensive and require replication from one neighborhood to the next cannot always achieve economies of scale and may in fact result in diseconomies of scale. Labor intensive services can include: police, general fire protection, public works, and parks and recreation services. [based on studies by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington]
- Bureaucracy growth. According to some economists, diseconomies of scale in consolidated local governments occur because bureaucrats and politicians become removed from day-to-day contact with residents. When these officials are “out-of-touch” with citizen concerns, there may be no incentive to cut costs, or to stop increased spending. [based on a study by the Cato Institute]
- Merging personnel-related costs. In city-county consolidations, personnel-related costs may actually rise as two pre-existing personnel systems and benefits packages merge. One explanation is that the wages and benefits of employees are equalized to the highest level of comparable employees. Similarly, existing employees may have job security as part of the merge agreement. [based on a study of Athens-Clarke County by Campbell and Selden, University of Georgia]
- Merging service quality costs. When pre-existing delivery systems are merged in a city-county consolidation, an “averaging up” effect may occur with service levels and standards for equipment and facilities. These increased service quality costs then become ongoing expenditures. [Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington]
But it would still be nice to make our local governments more efficient, so here are some alternatives, proposed by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, study that could work for San Antonio.
- One-time transition costs. Consolidating city services may require one-time operating and capital expenses that can quickly add up. One-time transition costs can include: merging and upgrading computer systems and consulting fees to resolve conflicting rules and regulations. [Campbell and Selden, University of Georgia]
- Increased Citizen Responsibility for Themselves and Others
- Functional Consolidation Among Governments
- Efficiency Gains Within City and County Government
- Regional Government
- Regional Cooperation On Selected Services
The $4.4 billion increase [between 2008-09 and 2010-11] for Health and Human Services is primarily due to increased funding for the state’s Medicaid program.
Federal Funds are the largest source of funding for the HHS function. Many federal funding streams require General Revenue Fund (or other state fund) expenditures to draw down Federal Funds. State contributions can be a match, wherein General Revenue Funds comprise a set percentage of total expenditures, or a maintenance of effort, wherein the state expends a set dollar amount that is tied to previous expenditures.
The 2010–11 GAA establishes the following average monthly service levels for fiscal year 2011:When Politifact looked at Rick Perry's claim that the
• health insurance for almost 3.2 million Medicaid recipients (including 2.2 million children);
• health insurance for more than 500,000 Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollees;
• cash grants to approximately 100,000 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) clients;
• adoption subsidies for over 30,000 children; and
• foster care payments for nearly 15,000 children per month.
Eligibility for many of these programs is based on income in relation to the federal poverty level (FPL)
they found thatfederal health care overhaul will cost Texas state government "upwards of $30 billion over the next 10 years."
An essential fact underlying all these figures: Health care reform becomes more expensive for the state as time goes on. Among the factors driving up costs down the line is the federal government's declining contribution for Medicaid. During the first three years of the Medicaid expansion (2014-2016), the feds pay all the cost of newly eligible enrollees. Starting in 2017, that federal share starts to drop, reaching 90 percent by 2020.
Another essential fact: So far, we've only mentioned the cost of health care reform to the Health and Human Services Commission. A June report by State Comptroller Susan Combs enumerates other costs — as well as some financial benefits — to the state as a whole, although it doesn't offer a net figure. (The comptroller's report also uses a different time period than the commission's, focusing on the 10 years from 2010 through 2019.)
For instance, on the expense side of the ledger is the mandated expansion of health plans administered by the Employees Retirement System of Texas, the University of Texas System and the Texas A&M University System.
One of the pluses: The comptroller's office estimates that the state will receive $1.3 billion in new revenue from a tax on premiums charged by insurers and health maintenance organizations licensed by the Texas Department of Insurance.
As for the projected increase in Medicaid costs, the comptroller's report jibes with the health commission's estimates. But it also tabulates the hefty federal contribution. For every dollar the state spends on new Medicaid enrollees through 2019, the federal government will spend $13, according to the figures in the report. The total federal contribution: $76 billion.So Perry's claim was considered barely true because he exaggerated the state's contribution ($27 billion instead of $30 billion) and claimed that the costs would start immediately, when they actually don't start until 2014. But Texas still has a $21 billion budget shortfall so one of the biggest state expenses, Medicaid, has to be looked at to find ways to lower the costs.
Unfortunately, states have lost considerable flexibility to reduce Medicaid’s burden on their budgets. As a condition for receiving the additional federal dollars, both the stimulus bill and PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] contain maintenance-of-effort (MOE) provisions that prohibit states from changing eligibility levels. States have resorted to slashing provider reimbursement rates and benefit packages to cope with rising Medicaid expenses and reduced revenue attributed to the recession. Forty-one states and the District of Columbia cut provider reimbursement rates in 2009 or 2010, and 29 states and the District did so in both years. Additionally, 39 states and the District cut Medicaid pharmacy benefits, and 22 states cut Medicaid medical benefits over the past two years.
In the short term, however, the best solution is to remove the MOE requirements and give the states greater flexibility to manage the cost of their programs.So how would you remove the MOE requirements? Opt out of Medicaid, it's a voluntary program. Here is a proposition by the Heritage Foundation for fixing the part of the problem, not enough doctors to treat Medicaid patients.
A Better Policy.But do these block grants exist already?? The CHIP program is covered by block grants. So what's the difference in the way Medicaid is currently funded and the way block grants work
There is a better way. Rather than expand the funding for HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration], Congress should convert the various training-related (and perhaps other) programs funded by this agency into block grants to the states. This would enable states to build upon their critical roles in the oversight of the health care workforce and encourage them to craft solutions relevant to their unique requirements. When the Reagan Administration collapsed the separate mental health service programs supported by the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration into block grants to the states, the clinical care system that emerged was able to “bend” the cost curve while offering more choice to patients and families through a more diverse workforce and other innovative strategies.[5] By virtue of the breadth of their oversight, states are in the best position to define the needs and develop the models for the future workforce across the health professions.
Everyone? Even people without health insurance?
When we asked for back-up for Perry's statement, his campaign didn't offer any data or additional analysis.
Next, we looked at hospital emergency rooms, often the portal through which uninsured people seek treatment.
Some background: In 1986, Congress responded to concerns that emergency rooms were refusing to treat indigent and uninsured people — a practice known as patient dumping — by approving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The act requires all hospitals with emergency rooms that participate in the Medicare program to medically screen, treat and stabilize any patient (including illegal immigrants) who shows up with an emergency medical condition. The law doesn't require hospitals to offer preventive or follow-up care.
However, not every condition that merits treatment is an emergency, and not every town has an emergency room. In Texas, 64 of the state's 254 counties don't have a hospital because it isn't economically viable, "particularly in the Panhandle and West Texas," said Amanda Engler, spokeswoman for the Texas Hospital Association. Still, Engler said "everyone should be able to access some level of care through the community."
A national health care expert, Henry Aaron at the left-leaning Brookings Institution, echoed Engler, saying that "everyone has access to some health care. The issue is what care and how much of it... If you live in a place where few physicians practice and you don't have a car, you may not get much."Also the health care provided by emergency rooms tends to be a lot more expensive than visits to the doctor. Us tax payers will bear the burden whether the care is received through Medicaid or the emergency room at the county hospital. I'm not convinced that going to block grants would be the end of health care for the needy, but at the same time it seems that it would definitely limit our options and could be more costly in the end if the poor spend most of our health care dollars in the emergency room.