|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Charter Committee hits pause on ‘tax fairness’ measures, ponders advisory vote
By Guy Page
The City of Burlington will go slow on a plan to increase the property tax exemption and shift the burden to higher-value properties.
The City Charter Change Committee had planned to move forward Monday night with discussions on a new homestead property value exemption of up to the first $50,000 of real estate value. The exemption – backed by Mayor Emma Mulvaney Stanak – would benefit lower-value homes the most, but would increase the taxes of commercial properties (including rental properties) and higher-value first and second homes within the city limits.
Had the Charter Change Committee referred the proposal to the City Council, and had they voted to approve, it would have then gone to voters. Had voters given it their okay – likely at the City Meeting in March – the plan would then have required approval by the Legislature.
However, city officials Monday night instead opted to study the issue further and said it might be presented to voters as an advisory question.
As proposed, owners of homes and commercial properties valued at $800,000 or more would see their tax bills rise by an average of 4 to 6 percent, according to reporting by WCAX.
Burlington Business Association executive director Kelly Devine said higher taxes could push businesses off Church Street, where operating costs are already steep. “It’s not so much that these small businesses will fail, but they may decide to manage their costs better by abandoning Church Street because rents are already high,” Devine said. “The cost of doing business is high. The cost of parking is high.”
Both measures were presented as ways to address inequities in the city’s tax system and close longstanding structural budget gaps. The committee met at 6 p.m. Monday, Nov. 10, in the Bushor Conference Room and via Zoom. A “General Fund Tax Fairness Discussion” topped the agenda.
Borrowing more without voter approval
At present, the City Council can direct city officials to borrow up to $2 million to meet expenses, without needing voter approval by referendum. A proposed change would allow the City to borrow up to $5 million without referendum in 2028, and $10 million in 2031.
City officials announced last week that Burlington’s bond rating had improved dramatically as a result of financial management under longtime Mayor Miro Weinberger. Increasing bonding authority could (but not necessarily would) impact the city’s bond rating and therefore the interest required to repay borrowed money.
The charter change would allow five percent of the voters to contest the bonding via referendum.
Next steps
The Charter Change Committee is expected to recommend further study of both proposals before any formal action is taken.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Burlington, Local government, Taxes
Kiss your camp on Lake Champlain, because it will soon be gone.
Just an FYI, you cannot get out of Burlington fast enough( as if you do not know this already). The current group of inmates are primed to give it the coupe d’grace.
Shifting taxes to industry (whatever it is) is not realistic, the outcome will force industry to shut down or leave. Then the employees will be out of a job. What was accomplished—-NOTHING, only makes matters worse. Solution reduce taxes and live within the state’s means. What’s so hard to understand that? It’s a tax and spend state.
Tom, Vermont is a spend and THEN tax state.
Actually Vermont is a spend and tax state. If a budget was set, then spending stayed within that budget, like we have to do, maybe cap any budget so it included a COLA that reflected the previous years COLA, but that is not the way these spend thrifts conduct business. They spend whatever they want, then come back to their boss (us) and tell us, I bought all this crap that I want, now gimme the money to cover my azz !
Good luck to all the small businesses on church street, your going to need it.
Looks like the btv mayor is taking notes from Mamdani
I’m sure that she is so happy that she is still wetting her pant suit !
$800,000.00 or more? That’s barely anything in Chittenden County. To Mulvaney-Stanik, anyone who has a job is rich.
Shifting the burden to renters. Wow.
You can’t make up this level of stupid.
The State of Vermont will not allow a bond default in this state, which means all the people in this state will be on the hook for paying off the Burlington bond debt. Comment from Richard Day. One may want to check and see if there is a limit to bonding based on the grand list of the city.
Reportedly, as of September 2024, City of Burlington bond debt stood at $299 million. In October 2025, “Moody’s upgraded bond rating for the City from AA3 to AA2 meaning the city is more trustworthy when paying debts.”…”There is a source of funding through the state Revolving fund that’s at 2% interest, which is very positive and beneficial,” DPW Director Chapin Spencer said. “When we need to go out for public bonding, this will save us money.” The city will borrow $19 million to go towards the new $165 million high school, $7 million will be borrowed for road, park and city building maintenance.”
As one financial observer stated recently, the ratings giants such as Moody’s are rubber stampers – they’ll make anything look good because they are compensated to do so. Moody’s rated Bear Stearns stable before the 2008 collapse that took Lehman Brothers down as well. Is the State of Vermont acting as lender and borrower simultanously? “As of June 30, 2024, the net tax-supported bond debt for the State of Vermont was $727.168 million. The total amount of all active municipal bonds in Vermont was higher, at approximately $3.40 billion as of January 23, 2025, but this includes bonds issued by local governments and other public entities, not just the state itself. ” Good to know how indebted we really are inside and outside our households.
They’re always doing a study. Nothing gets done. All they have to do is read the comments on these articles, and they learn everything they need to know. Raising taxes on commercial properties causes rents to go up. The state already complains about not enough housing, but they make it so people can’t afford to live or have businesses here. They just don’t get it. The government is too big, and it’s too big of a middleman. The government has to cut its spending by getting rid of its programs and useless positions and create incentives through tax breaks of private sector programs.
3.40 billion dollars with a Vermont population of 650,000 people and I do not want to know how much I am on the hook for. Young persons need to come to Vermont and share our wonderful bonding scam. Remember, now you can get a fifty year mortgage and stay here for ever.
This is communist socialism, pure and simple.
Why else would they do all they possibly can to disincentivize industrious, creative, hardworking, honest people who make more money than some other folks?
Why is being wealthy or earning more money than some others seen as a bad thing by the Bernie Sanders, Mamadani communist Democrat progressive socialists? They instinctively insert their own deceived moral biases into the equation as a justification to take money from these people and give it to those who, for many reasons, don’t earn as much of an income as they.
But isn’t one the greatest benefits of being a citizen of the USA the ability and the opportunity to do the best you can and be rewarded for it? Why denigrate and penalize those who actually apply, use, and invest their strengths, resources, ability, and energy to produce and add value to society, and in so so doing, earn a nice living?
Why is Bernie and is his ilk so obsessed with vilifying and calling anyone who makes his subjective and arbitrary amount of “too much” money an oligarch? Must be they’ve bought in to the demonic communist socialist lie. How did that work out for the society/country of every dictator who has ever tried this?
And they call Trump a dictator, while they themselves would coerce and compel “wealthy” folks to be guilted into adhering to their own skewed ideas of justice and morality. Such foolishness and hypocrisy.