Updated at 11:18 p.m.
MONTPELIER — In a normal year, Steve Quinn supports the school budget. But 2024 isn’t a normal year.
“The school spending I think is out of control,” Quinn, 61, of Montpelier, said Tuesday outside of City Hall. “They’re squeezing us out of town.”
Voters across many Vermont communities on Town Meeting Day considered whether to support school budgets that are estimated to increase the average education property tax bill by 19%. Benefits and salaries, school construction, disappearing federal dollars and increased mental health-related needs are all contributing to rising education costs, according to state data.
In other towns, the votes have been punted. Amid concerns about such dramatic increases and questions about the impact of the state’s revamped education financing formula, lawmakers and Gov. Phil Scott passed eleventh-hour legislation last month allowing districts to postpone votes to next month.
For those that forged ahead, early results on Tuesday night suggested some budgets were in peril.
According to preliminary results released on Tuesday evening, Montpelier voters rejected the Montpelier Roxbury School District budget, 1507-1214. Results from Roxbury, Montpelier’s smaller counterpart in the school district, were not available as of 9 p.m.
Voters also knocked down school budgets in South Burlington, Milton and Rutland Town, according to local results and media reports.
Burlington’s budget was unscathed, sailing through with 71% of the vote, according to district officials.
But although the budget apparently passed in Barre City, squeaking by with a two-vote margin, the overall Barre Unified Union School District vote failed after Barre Town voters rejected it, according to the Times Argus.
In Montpelier, the proposed budget would increase taxes by 23% in the capital and 12% in Roxbury, according to the Montpelier Bridge. Quinn, who told VTDigger that he was voting against the budget, pointed to universal school meals (projected to cost $24 million statewide next fiscal year) and teacher health care (increasing an estimated $47.9 million statewide) as two factors driving up property taxes.
He also suggested it might be time to close the Roxbury Village School, the 42-student elementary school in the merged district, as a cost containment measure.
“It’s not just the schools’ fault, it’s the state funding system,” Quinn said, “and I’m not smart enough to fix any of it.”
Hurrying out of City Hall as a storm rolled into town, Montpelier’s Marna Murray, 76, said she had “deep concerns” about school spending.
“I’m very worried that the whole process of assessing wealth and funding education” — based on property value as well as income — is a “19th-century assessment” that doesn’t work anymore, she said.
Murray also pointed to confusion around what she called the “weighted student issue” — a reference to Vermont’s new law governing education funding, Act 127 — which she said “has thrown education funding into an abyss we don’t understand.”
In addition to allowing districts to push back their votes, lawmakers’ last-minute change to the law in February served to adjust its tax implications.
Yet Murray also called public education one of the “most important values, especially in a democracy.” Despite her qualms, she voted “yes” on the school budget.
Other voters on Tuesday echoed concerns about the opaqueness of Vermont’s education funding formula.
Richard Synnott, 74, who lives in the Hartford village of Quechee, has been following Hartford’s school budget process closely. Facing a potential 40% property tax increase, the Hartford School Board delayed its school budget vote to April 15.
At the polls on Tuesday to vote on the town budget and other matters, Synnott noted that, as a retired person, “all these increases in taxes always affect me.” But even devoting time to following the local school board, much remains a mystery, he indicated, particularly the back and forth between local officials and legislators in Montpelier.
“This whole situation is almost impossible to connect the dots or follow, as far as who screwed up and when and why,” Synnott said.
A self-proclaimed “small-government person,” Synnott suggested the statewide nature of the education fund was partially responsible for the system’s failure.
“I believe local people understand their budgets,” he told VTDigger. Synnott said he was leaning “slightly” against supporting the budget, but he needed to see the final version before deciding.
In the Northeast Kingdom town of Kirby, residents also expressed concern about school spending.
During a floor meeting Tuesday morning, auctioneer Reg Lussier rose to ask town officials how much his tax bill might increase if town and school budgets were both approved. Lussier said he had been alarmed to hear that many Vermonters faced double-digit tax hikes — and blamed the Legislature for that prospect.
“We can’t afford to live in this state anymore,” he said.
Rep. Scott Beck, R-St. Johnsbury, who represents Kirby in the Vermont House and attended Tuesday’s floor meeting, stood to respond to Lussier’s concerns. He said that Kirby residents, who belong to the rural NEK Choice School District, would not be hit as hard as many Vermonters.
“The statewide narrative doesn’t seem to apply to this school district,” Beck said.
In the Champlain Valley, on what began as a sunny and unseasonably warm Tuesday morning, a steady stream of voters flowed in and out of the polls at the National Guard Armory in Williston.
The Chittenden County town is part of the Champlain Valley School District, one of the districts most negatively affected by the recent changes to Vermont’s education funding system. Education property taxes are estimated to rise between 19% and 26% in the district’s towns, according to WCAX.
“My opinion probably differs from many,” Jason Ruwet, a 50-year-old attorney in Williston, told VTDigger. “I think we’re a little heavy on the administrative side,” he said of the school budget, but he “supports paying teachers and paraeducators more.”
Ruwet also felt that community members had shared some “misinformation” regarding what exactly the budget included, and that the school board could have done a better job disseminating correct information to voters.
Tony O’Rourke, 59, has run for state representative in Williston as a Republican and has five kids who attended the local schools. He said he was voting “no” on the school budget.
“The rising costs of education could be counterbalanced by declining enrollment,” O’Rourke said, pointing to Vermont’s dwindling number of school-aged children. “Everyone wants to support education, the issue is a return on investment.”
He also said Vermont’s “incredibly complicated” education finance system falls on the backs of the elderly, who may live on fixed incomes but own high-value property.
“The senior citizens are completely forgotten in this state,” O’Rourke said.
Through her work with a child welfare nonprofit, Morgan Cole, 38, said she knows schools are “dealing with things they haven’t in the past,” like “mental and behavioral health challenges, constant absences (and) teachers leaving the profession.”
Cole, a Williston resident, is also the child of a public school teacher and called herself the product of Vermont’s public schools.
“I’m pretty much always looking to understand and support what the school system needs,” she said.
Vermont’s complex education finance system can make that difficult, and Cole said she turned to the local paper, the Williston Observer, to glean more insight into the school budget.
Ultimately, though, she acknowledged a degree of faith.
“I opt to trust that the school district knows what it needs.”
Maggie Cassidy and Paul Heintz contributed reporting.
Correction: A previous version of this story misquoted Jason Ruwet.
