Editor’s note: This commentary is by Ken Fredette, of Wallingford, a member of the Vermont School Boards Association, who has been a member of the school board in Wallingford for 18 years. He served as chair of the elementary and supervisory union boards for many years. â
[E]arlier this year I warned property owners that we all should prepare to pay the fiddler for the efforts in Montpelier to push down fiscal 2018 property tax rates at the end of the last legislative session. Said efforts left a hole in the education fund, and now that hole must be backfilled.
I also predicted that Gov. Phil Scott and others would be blaming school boards for not controlling education spending. The voting booths had barely been put away from town meeting, when voters across the state approved 97 percent of school budgets, when the rhetoric began. Scott, through Finance Commissioner Adam Greshin, expressed appreciation for the hard work of school boards out of one side of his mouth, but called for some $40 million in reductions to the school budgets that had just been approved by voters out of the other side. This is an alarming trend, to say the least, following the $12.9 million that was held back from schools last session, again from budgets that had been approved by voters. The other shoe has dropped.
Let’s look beyond the political rhetoric to some actual facts:
• On Nov. 9, the Vermont legislative Joint Fiscal Office issued a “preliminary fiscal note” that stated: “The cost of state and local government services is currently projected to grow by nearly 3% in FY19.” It went on to say that if education followed that rate, spending would increase by $39 million. It also stated that use of one-time funds — the FY17 education fund surplus and drawing down the ed fund reserve — would result in about a 4 cent increase in average property taxes. It was unclear how much impact to FY19 school budgets holding back the $12.9 million would have.
• On Nov. 30, Tax Commissioner Kaj Samson released the statutorily required annual education yield letter, which drives property tax rates. He based yield amounts on a projected 3.52 percent increase in education spending ($47.5 million), and a 3.9 percent increase in average per pupil spending.
• In the narrative press release associated with said letter, Samson projected a 9.4 cent increase to the statewide average property tax based upon those numbers, and relayed that Scott implored school boards to hold the ed spending increase to 2.5 percent.
• Ultimately, when school boards across the state presented their adopted budgets for voter approval, ed spending was up 1.37 percent and cost per pupil .71 percent.
That’s right, the projected 3.52 percent increase, upon which the yields were based, came in at 1.37 percent. Adjusting the yields accordingly would bring the projected 9.4 cent increase to the statewide tax down to around 5 cents, not coincidentally the amount driven by the hole in the ed fund. Further, per pupil expenditures, which up until very recently were the main drivers of tax rates, were up less than 1 percent. In the Mill River District, our cost per pupil actually went down slightly, yet due to the manipulation of the yields we were looking at a 10 cent property tax increase in Wallingford based upon numbers available at town meeting. Of course numbers available in early March almost always change before tax bills are issued, and we are hopeful that figure will drop substantially by the time the final gavel falls under the Golden Dome. But, still …
Greshin was quoted just after Town Meeting Day, referring to the only way to trim tens of millions of dollars from school budgets: “Our belief is it’s time for state policymakers to take over.” We already have policymakers elected by the people to oversee education in Vermont; they’re called school boards. They should be allowed to do their jobs and be given the monies approved by voters to do so.
Rep. David Sharpe, chair of the House Education Committee, said it very well: “Nothing is ever good enough for them. Can’t they celebrate the work that’s being done in our school districts and the work that our school boards have done to restrain costs? I mean, come on.”
So to review, last year the administration and legislative leadership agreed to shuffle obligations, use one-time funds, and withhold revenues approved by voters from school districts to hold property tax rates down in FY ’18. This created a hole in the education fund, which now drives the property tax rate for FY ’19 up by about 5 cents. Without the hole we would be looking at no increase, or maybe a penny. School spending is far from out of control.
The House and Senate have already passed significant education legislation this session. H.911 addresses the ed fund deficit this year and changes how education is funded in Vermont in the future. One provision creates a revenue source based upon people’s ability to pay through an income tax surcharge. Scott does not support the bill; he says it doesn’t do enough to curb school spending. He also says he wants to encourage people to settle in Vermont to work and raise families.
I say the single best way to do that is to not only support, but actually promote our schools. They will come.
