[T]he House voted to kill Gov. Phil Scott’s budget plan on Friday morning when it decided not to change the date towns will vote on their school budgets from Town Meeting Day to May.
Scott said he is disappointed and vowed to veto any budget that raises taxes or fees.
The governor’s budget proposal would plug a hole in the general fund with money from the education fund starting with fiscal year 2018. Scott asked lawmakers to change the date school spending is voted on to May and wants school boards to rework their proposals and level fund them.
School boards will be presenting their 2018 budget to voters between now and Town Meeting Day in most of the state.
Scott’s plan hinges on the change in the date. He has presented no Plan B to fix the gap in the general fund and has told lawmakers that if they bring him a budget that increases taxes or fees, or cuts frontline workers, he will veto it.
“This date change is the centerpiece of the governor’s proposal, it can’t move forward without it,” said Kurt Wright, R-Burlington, who did not support changing the date, but said he hoped it would inspire conversations that will lead to “serious property tax reform.”
Rebecca Kelley, spokesperson for the governor, said Scott is disappointed. “This is a vote in support of the status quo what has woefully underfunded early care and learning and higher education, and has continuously raised property taxes to an unaffordable level for so many.”
The House was thrown into chaos Friday morning when a lawmaker asked for a roll call vote on a measure that would change the date towns vote on their school spending to May and force school boards back to the budgeting drawing board.
Barre City independent Rep. Paul Poirier attached a “change the date” amendment to S.1, a bill that the Agency of Education needs to make a one-time adjustment to education law to ensure pre-kindergarten pupils are counted accurately for the purposes of funding.
When Poirier presented the date change amendment to the House he asked members not to vote for it.
The amendment should be voted down, Poirier said, because school boards have already warned their budgets and they have a legal obligation to tell teachers if they will be let go by the end of April.
An informal poll of 52 superintendents estimates spending at 2017 levels could result in a loss of up to 650 full-time school employees. The Vermont Superintendents Association surveyed members to better understand how level funding in the governor’s plan might cause cuts to staffing because that is the fastest way to cut costs and keep them over time, according to Jeff Francis, director of the association.
“This flies in the face of local control. This is top down management,” Poirier said, adding, “I urge members to vote no on this amendment.”
The amendment to move the vote failed 87-47 with two Republicans on the education committee — Scott Beck and Larry Cupoli — voting in favor of it.
During a Republican caucus, Poirier explained he offered the amendment because his town asked him not to change the date for the school vote. By holding a vote on the issue, he hoped to put the issue to bed.
“There was no hidden agenda. I did not consult with the Democrats, I didn’t have a conversation with the House speaker. I just did it at the request of our school boards to bring this to a vote and give them some certainty.”
Rep. Sarah Copeland Hanzas, D-Bradford, said the governor’s proposal creates $135 million in new spending and shifts that burden onto the property tax bill. “It forces local school districts to throw out their budgets, piles more on property taxes — this is a step backwards.”
Minority Leader Don Turner, R-Milton, reminded his colleagues they are only talking about moving the date, not about transferring money from the general fund to the education fund. “This is about allowing for a thoughtful discussion.”
Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington said it is simply too late. Timing is everything, she said, “in comedy, in taxes, in sex, timing really matters.”
After the measure failed, Rep. Scott Beck, R-St. Johnsbury, who is on the education committee, offered a substitute amendment that would change the date to May beginning next year.
At a press conference Thursday Scott advocated for the date change and said it would be “beneficial to communities” to separate the town from the school vote and give people more information about how school spending would raise their taxes.
“Many of the school budgets that are presented in many of these municipalities are five times what their municipal budgets are, so wouldn’t it be better to have a special date in order to consider that?” Scott said. “To be more fully engaged in the process? To fully understand what you are voting on?”
Beck argued that voters would have a clearer understanding of how their taxes would be affected because the yield (tax rate) would be set, and if there was a discrepancy, the Legislature could dip into the 5 percent reserve to right things.
Bristol Democrat Rep. David Sharpe, chair of the education committee, that found the measure unfavorable (7-4), said that the yield can’t be set until the state knows what localities have voted for in their school budgets. The plan would also mean the Legislature would have to reconvene in June at a great expense to taxpayers.
“I’m not comfortable with setting up a process that relies on deficit spending … and I can’t vote for a design that relies on moving to reserves,” Sharpe said.
Rep. Ron Hubert, R-Milton, said education expenditures come up every year. “This is the ninth time we have looked at school spending and it is the ninth time we have done nothing. Something at some point has to be better than doing nothing. If this amendment is defeated I’m looking forward to what will come out of our education committee to control education spending next year.”
Browning said she shared her colleagues frustration but said the current measure is only an illusion to action with no substance. “Just changing the date next year creates nothing but a weird chicken and egg thing when the yield is set. It is far from property tax relief, it is not solving the problem.”
The amendment failed 83-52. Sharpe asked for S.1 to be considered “unscathed” and it was approved with a quick voice vote.
The bill fixes a problem that began last fall when some pre-K workers were not able to get fingerprint supported background checks in time for the beginning of the school year. Some classes were not up and running in time for the annual headcount in October.
The fall census of school enrollments is what is used to provide funding to schools. AOE requested a one-time change in the law to allow for them to hold a second count and use it instead to make sure everyone gets paid.
Right now, the count is artificially low and will raise taxes for some areas, and could especially hurt especially small districts, according to Education Secretary Rebecca Holcombe.
Federal and state school law require fingerprint-supported background checks for school workers.
