Editor’s note: Dover School Board member Laura Sibilia submitted the following comments regarding educational funding legislation now in play. A memo from Mark Perrault of the Joint Fiscal Office to Rep. Ann Manwaring, D-Wilmington, outlining the pending legislation follows.
Rep. Manwaring sent me this memo with regard to the ed fund raiding Dover is protesting.
School Boards effectively saved $22 million this year in ed spending. This memo outlines the ways in which Vermont taxpayers will NOT see those savings reflected in their tax rates.
It’s (bitterly, for me) ironic that localities are the parties responsible for finding the savings, and state policy makers are not going to pass that savings on. Happening at the exact time that the state is trying to wrest control from localities to reduce costs. (Challenges for Change administrative cuts, mandated consolidation proposals, etc.)
This problem needs a bipartisan solution. It is the legislature’s rapture with the ed fund mechanism and refusal to examine it for inequity, which has driven up costs, and the administration’s determination to find a way to pay for it all that is shifting responsibility for non-educational costs to the educational property tax.
We need to acknowledge the problem in the ed fund mechanism which has caused costs to rise, continue to produce excellent educational outcomes, and find a way to reduce property taxes. And we need some leaders.
Not an easy quest, but seems to me more doable in Vermont than probably just about anywhere in the nation.
Laura Sibilia
Editor’s note: The JFO memo, via e-mail, follows.
To: Rep. Ann Manwaring
From: Mark Perrault, JFO
Date: March 18, 2010
Subject: Pending legislation that may affect education finance
As you requested, the major pieces of currently-pending legislation that may affect education finances in FY2011 and beyond are summarized below.
1. Miscellaneous tax bill
Sets education tax rates: homestead @ $0.87; nonresidential @ $1.36 (one penny higher than FY2010; one penny lower than current-law recommendation for FY2011.
Modifies the property tax adjustment as follows: caps maximum adjustment @ $6,000; limits housesite value to $425K; eliminates additional payment for “excess” acres; modifies renter rebate.
2. School consolidation bill
Provides an incentive for school districts to consolidate. Incentive reduces per-pupil education spending by $0 to $875 per pupil over a four-year transition period. This will reduce the homestead tax rates in consolidating districts and result in lower education fund revenue.
3. Capital bill
Appropriates funds for school construction aid – this appropriation does not directly affect education fund.
4. Teachers pension bill
Reduces the state’s teacher pension obligations – this appropriation does not directly affect education fund.
5. Use value appraisal bill
Reduces cost of use value appraisal program by $1.6 million in FY2011 and redirects the savings to the general fund.
6. Challenges for Change I (passed)
Requires school districts to achieve administrative cost reductions – savings amount is $13M; $2M will be reinvested to instructional activities; redirects $4M of savings to general fund via a reduction in the general fund transfer to the education fund.
Requires school districts to achieve special education cost reductions – $7M; reinvests $1M; reduces the special education aid appropriation by $3.9M; redirects $2M of savings to general fund via a reduction in the general fund transfer.
7. Challenges for Change II (draft bill due on April 29th)
Determines how schools districts will achieve the administrative cost and special education challenges set forth in Challenges for Change I.
8. Big bill
Appropriates education and general fund revenue for the education department budget; education payment to school districts; categorical aid; etc. Redirects $7M in special education Medicaid reimbursement to general fund.
9. Federal budget
Federal budget uncertainties may also affect education finance at both the state and local level.
