The Deeper Dig is a biweekly podcast from the VTDigger newsroom, hosted and produced by Sam Gale Rosen. Listen below, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify or anywhere you listen to podcasts.
As Vermont’s Legislature opened its 2023 session and Republican Gov. Phil Scott was inaugurated to his fourth term, one theme got an early spotlight in the Statehouse: Vermont’s urban-rural divide.
Much of Vermont’s state population is concentrated in Chittenden County, clustered around the metropolitan center of Burlington, which is Vermont’s largest city with a population of nearly 45,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And while smaller cities offer smaller pockets of density — such as Montpelier, Middlebury, Rutland or Brattleboro — much of Vermont’s population is spread thin across the rural state.
Scott focused on this dynamic in his Jan. 5 inaugural address and how Vermont communities’ needs differ whether they’re smaller or larger.
Specifically, Scott floated an idea to the Legislature: Let’s take a page from the playbook of retired U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who, as the powerful chair of the Senate’s Appropriations Committee, instituted a rule called the small state minimum. The small state minimum guarantees small states like Vermont receive a minimum amount of funding with every major federal government allocation to states. The rule is designed so states with small populations would not be dwarfed by high population states when the feds dole out money.
By taking a page from Leahy, Scott proposed, the Legislature could prioritize Vermont’s smallest communities to receive funding from the state to tackle expensive local projects they could otherwise never cover themselves with their small tax bases.
“Now, it’s not about turning Canaan into Burlington,” Scott said in his address. “And no offense to Burlington, but I’m not sure anyone in Canaan wants that.”
Some lawmakers viewed Scott’s rhetoric as unnecessarily divisive. But others, especially lawmakers from rural regions, expressed gratitude that small towns, and the challenges they face, were getting some extra attention.
In this episode, various legislators — Rep. Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, P/D-Burlington; Rep. Taylor Small, P/D-Winooski; Rep. Lisa Hango, R-Berkshire; Sen. Russ Ingalls, R-Essex; Rep. Katherine Sims, D-Craftsbury; Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover — respond to the governor’s proposal and weigh in on Vermont’s infrastructure needs.
Below is a partial transcript, edited for length and clarity.
Riley Robinson: So lawmakers returned to the Statehouse last week. You’ve been in the building watching everything that’s going on. Can you catch us up on what the last week-ish has looked like?
Sarah Mearhoff: So in the Legislature, we have a new makeup, a whole new slate of legislators. Roughly one-third of the body has turned over.
Obviously, this is also the first fully in-person legislative session since Covid. So that’s brought a lot of energy into the building that we didn’t see last year. And then of course, Gov. Phil Scott was inaugurated for his fourth two-year term in office. We heard his fourth inaugural address, where he laid out his kind of vision for Vermont over the next two years.
Gov. Scott talked a lot about the urban rural divide in Vermont.
Gov. Phil Scott: … The distance between Burlington and Rutland, Manchester and Readsboro, Middlebury and Craftsbury, St. Albans and Richford, can be measured in more than just miles. Consider the data: Whether it’s housing burden, income, property value, poverty levels, labor force or access to broadband, it’s clear some places are consistently doing better than others.
Sarah Mearhoff: Gov. Scott talked a lot about the rural-urban divide in Vermont. And this is an issue, a dynamic, that is not entirely unique to Vermont. I’ve covered politics in a number of states, and urban-rural divides have been a theme in every state that I have covered. You know, you have your urban centers, big cohorts of population. And then the population sprawls. And people in different geographic areas have different needs, different priorities, different political beliefs, etc. So what Gov. Scott was talking about, in his inaugural address, he was talking about that kind of dichotomy in Vermont, where we see Chittenden County as, obviously, the state’s population hub.
So if you are in, say, Burlington, obviously the state’s biggest city, things are going to look quite a bit different if you’re there versus, I don’t know, Dover.
Riley Robinson: I noticed that Scott mentioned in his speech, the small state minimum, which is a federal policy. It’s in the U.S. Congress.
Gov. Phil Scott: Just look at how he used the small state minimum to prevent states with larger populations and larger congressional delegations from taking the lion’s share of federal funds. About half of you represent towns of less than a thousand. So, you are up against the same challenge when compared to our biggest cities.
What better way to honor Sen. Leahy’s legacy than to deliver for your small communities the way he has delivered for our small state.
Riley Robinson: Tell me what that means.
Sarah Mearhoff: So the small state minimum is kind of former U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy’s baby.
What the small state minimum does is that it ensures that small states with small populations like Vermont get — it almost establishes a floor for their funding when we’re passing these really big-dollar bills. The reason for that is that if you used a formula that would just go on a per capita basis, you know, some of the really high population states — California, New York, Texas — would just dwarf small, small states like Vermont. And, of course, Sen. Leahy’s influence in crafting this practice in Congress has led to quite a large amount of dollars coming into Vermont.
It’s like an agreement to say, there are small communities that need help, and they need a disproportionate amount of funding.
Riley Robinson: Is that controversial?
Sarah Mearhoff: Some people think it’s unfair that states with small populations get a disproportionate amount of funding, compared to some other states. If you look at some of the allocations, say, from the American Rescue Plan Act, ARPA, Vermont got more money per capita than say, California, the most populous state.
Vermont happens to be a very white state. And when a small, rural, white state is getting a disproportionate amount of funding compared to higher population states with a more diverse population, this is something that people have raised alarm bells on. But, of course, the other piece of it is to ask, how would these states survive without this?
Small states need money somehow, especially for, say, infrastructure projects, (which) are really huge.
The government has to take care of its rural folks, too. If you don’t have the tax base in your local jurisdiction to cover some of these big ticket items. You know, that’s what many would argue that’s what the federal government is for.
Riley Robinson: There is a lot of federal money out there right now. So Sarah and I wanted to talk to lawmakers about this — Where is this money going? Is it distributed fairly? And what do they make of the governor’s approach?
Rep. Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, P/D-Burlington: Well, the urban-rural framing was — I’ll try to be hip and cool. It was a cringe moment, I will say, about how to talk about Vermont. Because one of the things that I have been most proud about, for most of the pandemic, and even when we’ve gone through storms like Irene, is the sense of fierce community that we have in the state, where it doesn’t matter if you’re in Wilmington or Canaan or Burlington, for that matter, that we’re all in this together.
Riley Robinson: This is Rep. Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, a Progressive/Democrat who represents part of Burlington’s North End.
Rep. Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, P/D-Burlington: Why I said cringe is that the way that he set up this dichotomy was quite unfair and unresponsive to also the needs of more urban areas, which are largely Chittenden County — but also could be Barre and Rutland and Springfield — because there are definitely economic struggles happening. Maybe in a different degree. But in my neighborhood, in the Old North End of Burlington, people are really struggling to keep up with rents.
This is not a competition. I think that kind of gets into that place of polarizing parts of the states against each other, which is unnecessary. We’re all in a housing crisis. We’re all in an economic crisis, where cost of living is impacting everyone.
I think it sort of has folks double down on that there are really stark differences, when they’re not, between the Northeast Kingdom and central Vermont or parts of southern Vermont.
Riley Robinson: Taylor Small, a Progressive/Democrat representative from Winooski was also hesitant to draw dividing lines between urban and rural areas.
Rep. Taylor Small, P/D-Winooski: Overall, we’re a rural state. But I don’t want that to overshadow the fact that there are aspects of rural Vermont that are being missed in the discussions, when we have such a heavy focus on the urban areas, and in particular, Chittenden County.
I think what the governor also highlighted is that there is a large contingency of representatives and senators from Chittenden County because of population density in that area. And I think one of the nuances there is really recognizing that when we are putting votes forward, when we’re putting policies forward, it isn’t specifically for our town or city that we represent, or our specific county, but that we need to be taking a statewide approach. And so that’s where I would have loved to see the governor’s remarks go is not creating an unnecessary divide, but really focusing on the totality of Vermont, and that these issues are impacting every single one of us every single day.
I think that would have been the message that sustained us and would have actually brought some optimism and being able to collaborate. But now I feel like there are folks in more urban areas on the defense because they are worried about what the governor’s remarks meant.
Riley Robinson: But it seemed some of Scott’s comments did resonate with lawmakers from more rural parts of the state, who feel like the most remote parts of the state don’t always get adequate attention in state government.
Rep. Lisa Hango, R-Berkshire: That is a common thing, absolutely, in rural areas. A couple of my towns really do feel left out of the process.
Riley Robinson: This is Lisa Hango, a Republican state rep. from Franklin County. She’s a co-chair on the Rural Caucus.
Rep. Lisa Hango, R-Berkshire: Since I got here in 2019, I’ve been mentioning their names consistently, you know, like this town is at the end of the line, so to speak, and doesn’t really get them the attention that it deserves. So in a way, that’s what this rural caucus is all about, is bringing attention to the towns that are at the end of the line. They’re not on a major highway, for instance, you know, they’re not along the interstate.
Sen. Russ Ingalls, R-Essex: I think the pandemic has been one thing that has really shown us where the rural areas have really lacked.
Riley Robinson: This is Russ Ingalls, a Republican state senator from the Essex District.
Sen. Russ Ingalls, R-Essex: When I first ran for the Senate, I met with a household that had six kids. Blended family. I went there because I wanted to hear their take on what they thought government was, and I wanted them to ask questions and all. The oldest one was a freshman in high school, and the youngest one was in fifth grade. And the one that was going in as a freshman was very, very troubled, because in eighth grade, it showed that she missed 43 days of school because they were all trying to get on the broadband system that was there.
There wasn’t enough broadband width for all six of those kids to be on there at the same time. And that’s the only service that was available to them.
Riley Robinson: Do you think it’s fair for smaller towns to get more per capita for infrastructure projects?
Sen. Russ Ingalls, R-Essex: I think that you have to be careful with that. I think you have to be careful because here’s where it’s at: The state’s asking them to perform those duties. They’re asking them to do a lot of stuff. They’re asking them to make sure that your culverts are lined, or make sure those bridges are there, or this or that. And if they just don’t have the monies, if they don’t have the monies to do that … it gets down to where there’s just not enough people to do all what’s being asked of you. And so sometimes you do need more. Because if you just get it down to the population part of it.
But here’s where it’s at: We have all that beauty up there, and we have these snowmobile trails, and we have these four-wheeler trails, and we have all that stuff, and the rest of the state’s coming up and using all of that, and they’re asking us to keep up with the rest of what they’re doing as well. And we’re deriving nothing out of that, other than the mom and pops are you know, selling more gasoline, selling more bags of chips. We’re getting some lodging, which we’re very, very appreciative of.
But if we’re the playground for everybody else, and yet, we’re still being asked to make sure that all of our everything that you have in Chittenden County can be the same thing as what you have in Canaan, I guess probably then, yeah, send us a little bit more money because we don’t have enough people to do all of that.
Riley Robinson: The day after the governor’s speech, his administration put out its midyear budget proposal. As part of that, they requested $3 million for a new program that’s specifically designed to help small towns apply for the federal funding that’s out there.
This idea is generally popular with the Rural Caucus, which is a group of 50-plus lawmakers in the Vermont House. They represent some of the smallest communities and they span the political spectrum.
Rep. Katherine Sims, D-Craftsbury: In my town, we have three volunteer selectboard members, and we have a part-time town clerk. And that’s true for so many of our communities.
Riley Robinson: This is Katherine Sims, a Democrat who represents four towns in the Northeast Kingdom. She’s a co-chair on the Rural Caucus.
Rep. Katherine Sims, D-Craftsbury: And we see that there’s been a difference in the utilization of the state or federal dollars by communities that have town administrators or town managers and those that don’t. There’s a real bandwidth difference. And we want to help those smaller communities that have less capacity make sure that they can advance their projects in this critical moment to take advantage of the federal dollars.
I think what we’re trying to talk about is, how do we help every community thrive? How do we make sure that every community has equitable access to programs that we make available? And what we’re trying to have a conversation about here is, how do we make sure that we’re not leaving some communities behind? And I think there’s sometimes a kind of baseline level of capacity, whether it’s an organization or a business or a town, needs to operate.
Riley Robinson: Lawmakers and Phil Scott are both pointing to this bigger, structural problem of how we run government and how we distribute funding. When we say that there’s a lot of federal money for X thing, like broadband or weatherization, that’s usually done through a grant program. And that takes work. Someone, some human, has to sit there and write out an application and then run the project and sometimes report back on how the money was spent.
And most Vermont towns, like 55% of them, don’t have any paid staff to do that. So a lot of the time, the towns that could benefit the most from these big grants are the least likely to apply for them.
Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover: It’s, it’s humans, you know, it’s humans. It’s time. It’s technical know-how. It’s, you know, ability to interact, be able to find where different programs are, etc.
Riley Robinson: This is Laura Sibilia, and she’s an independent state rep. from Windham County. She’s the third co-chair of the Rural Caucus.
Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover: So I represent a pretty rural district and a lot of small towns in Southern Vermont, a pretty mountainous area. Really isolated, a lot of the towns. So I live at the very bottom of Route 101. At the very bottom, close to the bottom of route 100, In between Windham and Bennington counties, along Route 100.
These are very isolated communities. So when we think about their connection to energy to the grid, when we think about strong storms. We definitely see evidence from our utilities that weather is becoming more and more extreme in Vermont. You know, they’re being isolated. So the electric grid, I see as an infrastructure issue, broadband, which we certainly are doing a lot around broadband. I think the communications union districts are a big asset in that regard. Water, wastewater, I mean, those are differentiators going forward: Do communities have access to clean water and wastewater?
Riley Robinson: This is the second year that the Rural Caucus is working on a rural omnibus bill to put before the Legislature. And it will likely cover a broad range of issues: Housing and Act 250 reforms, the right to repair farm equipment, maintaining rural EMS services. Administrative capacity is also top of mind and touches all these other things — money for affordable housing, generally goes through grant programs. Anything where towns are pooling regional resources also takes admin work.
Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover: So here’s another great example. So how do two towns with fire departments that are pretty isolated, that they can’t really stand up fire departments, how do they come together? To even have that conversation? They may not do it. How can someone come forward and say, maybe we could help you have that conversation. Call the meeting for you, help you kind of find programs that may be able to support merging, those types of things.
I mean, those can be big issues for just regular citizens, and regular citizens run Vermont. That’s who runs Vermont.