They are circling the wagons around politically powerful special interests
by Rob Roper, Behind the Lines
Democrats in the State House were parading around this week with a banner insisting, “If you make a mess, you clean it up!” Yeah! Big talk! They think this should apply to oil companies regarding climate change (another story I’ll get to soon), but apply that message to themselves regarding the colossal property tax tsunami of a mess they’ve made for us? Well, not so much.
As far as property tax relief for Vermonters goes, the banner reads, “If you make a mess, create a ‘task force’ of usual suspects to ‘look into it’, keep the money flowing to your political cronies, and hope the voters have short memories and deep pockets.” Hey, it’s worked in the past! But I’m getting the feeling it’s not going to work as well this time. They’ve been successfully boiling the frog (us) for a long time, but got greedy, turned up the heat too fast, and the taxpayers are ready to jump out of the pot.
Vermonters worried we are about to be taxed out of our homes come July are now being told not to expect any sort of relief for at least three years while they study the issue. News flash: we can’t afford the bill this year! Fix your mess NOW.
Vermont’s current property tax explosion/crisis is driven by the fact that we spend more money per public school student that almost every other state in the Union by a long shot. After this year’s spending spree, we might just be number one. The official “weighted student average” is $23,299, but if you divide the total $2.5 billion education budget by the 80,000 pre-k to 12 kids in the system the number is over $30,000.
This latest $200 million budget gap that is the reason for the 20 percent year over year average property tax (and/or other taxes) increase is primarily the result of over spending on:
The $30 million unfunded mandate to expand the free and reduced meals program for low-income students to universally include free food for the wealthiest kids as well. Yeah, that was dumb and unnecessary.
Poor financial planning that irresponsibly used one-time COVID emergency money for ongoing expenditures. Yeah, that was dumb and avoidable.
Jacking up per-pupil spending with a new weighing system (Act 127). That was just a power/money play to pay off the teachers’ union at the expense of the taxpayer. Repeal it today.
Salaries and benefits resulting from the overstaffing of a system (Vermont has the highest staff to student ratio in the country; more than twice the national average) that has lost roughly 25 percent of its students over the past two decades. Simple bureaucratic bloat.
And general inflation. Thanks, Joe Biden!
What’s the solution? Here’s my proposal:
Short term, cap individuals’ property tax increases to a level no greater than inflation (currently 3.5%). If what that generates plus the other revenue streams to the Education fund (100% of the sales & use tax, 25% of the rooms & meals tax, lottery, etc.) doesn’t cover the cost of school budgets, the delta should be made up through cuts to other programs – unfunded education mandates such as the $30 million free meals programs, or cuts to general fund programs with the revenue shifted to education. I’d suggest starting with all those programs that use taxpayer dollars to subsidize EV purchases, solar panel installations, etc. Those are luxury programs, not basic government services.
No new taxes! We are taxed enough already and taking even more of our money just out of different pockets – as the Democrats are doing — is not tax relief. It’s making the mess that much bigger.
Long term, restructure the system to first establish an education budget amount and a tax rate Vermonters can afford, and then figure out how to spend that amount in the most efficient and cost-effective way to achieve superior student outcomes. Every other state in the Union bar one has figured this out how to spend less on education than we do, and a lot of them are getting better student outcomes to boot. Every independent school in Vermont operates this way, and they get better results for less money. How about we learn from them instead of trying to shut them down.
A big reason we are in this mess is because our lawmakers created a public education financing system in which we throw everything the special interests say they want into the shopping cart, and then tell the taxpayers to pay for whatever the cash register rings up. This dynamic has to end. Unfortunately, it is the dynamic that Democrats in Montpelier, under the influence of the VTNEA, Superintendents Association, and Principals’ Association are doubling down on.
The multi-year study process they are opting for in lieu of meaningful reform is not being set up to control costs and provide property tax relief. It is going to “figure out the policy, vision and the system of where we are going and then how do we fund it….” That’s no different from what we are doing now. It’s the problem. It’s the reason for the mess. Clean it up.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer with 20 years of experience in Vermont politics including three years service as chair of the Vermont Republican Party and nine years as President of the Ethan Allen Institute, Vermont’s free market think tank.
Categories: Commentary
Democrat ” supermajority ” Vermont’s gaggle of fools, have no interest in solving the property tax mess, of course not………………… you are the cash cows !!!
Wake up people, you vote these inept clowns in year after year.
oh, come on/// you know these clowns can not find a real productive job///
Please run some Republican candidates who could actually be elected.
Do you mean people almost like democrats or progressives or
(RINOs). People are unable to live in VT now with wages that can’t support the taxes and living expenses like housing and food. Single people living alone are broke and living check to check.
Let’s understand something here, republicans have not been in control of the Vermont government for decades. You cannot blame the condition of this state on republicans. You can blame the voters who continually vote for the same party, year after year and ignore the fact that they are wrong and are hurting themselves and the state. They are dumbed down by the VT liberal media. In my long life, I have never heard a liberal Dem or Prog say we were wrong and we are sorry. They double down on misery and continue to violate their oaths of office and our state and federal constitutions.
The definition of insanity is the Vermont voter. There are about 112,000 of us that see the problem and refuse to vote for these people. This phrase should be the VT moto. The beatings will continue until the morale improves. We don’t need any more RINOs, we need conservative republicans. And we need voters to get their heads out of their sand or wherever the sun doesn’t shine.
Yet the voters will blindly re-elect the same people right back into office come November. They just keep going back to their vomit.
Very well written Rob. Now is the time to get the REAL message out to people, with property tax bills pending. I know I have said this many times, and I will again. One of the primary cost issues is the student to staff ratio!! It is not uncommon to be in a classroom with at least one or two, or more, special Ed teachers as well as the teacher. I’m glad you mentioned the special interest groups, esp. the VTNEA! Just a few days ago I mentioned that in a meeting, and although others agreed the response was like “don’t waste our time on that!”. I totally know that, but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be addressed.
I agree that one of the primary drivers of the cost of education in VT is our extremely low student to staff ratio. How many commenters here are prepared to support mandated closure of our rural elementary schools to lower costs?
<<>>
I’m sorry to be picky. But the text should read lowest staff to student ratio. I read here that if you add all of the bureaucratic bloat at the DOE, various school boards, and individual schools the ratio is 2:1
Ooops cancel that. I am accustomed to reading student to staff ratio not the other way. The text is correct.
You are correct, VtRocks whoever you are. My latest data for the 2021-22 school year indicates that there are more than 37,000 fulltime equivalent employees directly employed in Vermont’s public school system. And that doesn’t include various independent school staff, sub-contractors, and social services NGOs also receiving taxpayer funding. And consider too that there are approximately 73,000 K thru 12th grade students in our public schools. And that the Agency of Educations annual operating expenses alone to manage this behemoth is $51 million covering 161 staff members. And that these ratios are persistently understated in virtually every discussion on the matter.
The proof in the pudding is that every time a raise these points, no one ever contradicts them.
Agreed..
My town of Milton is one of those that just rejected the proposed FY25 school budget for a second time. Had this passed, our so-called Education Spending would have been $13,434 per LTWADM. You have to understand the new pupil weighting system per Act 127 in order to translate this into anything meaningful. I have spent the last few weeks educating myself on that system, and I recommend that all taxpayers need to do the same – you would be appalled. Here’s a few takeaways for our town, had the last proposal passed;
– Average preK through grade 12 from a middle class English speaking family; Education spending $15,196 per pupil.
– Same kid but from an “Economically Disadvantaged” family (defined by Act 127 as having a family income of 85% or less ABOVE the Federal Poverty Level) – $29,033 per pupil.
– Same average kid but also classified by the state as an “English Language Learner” – $48,646 per pupil.
– Same kid but both Economically Disadvantaged and an ELL (probably true for most ELL’s) – $62,483 per pupil.
Keep in mind also that so-called “Education Spending” does not include many other expenses such as Special Ed and Transportation that add another 15% or so into the total school budget.
I have a hard time believing that the weights that Act 127 applies to the Economically Disadvantaged and ELL categories are truly accurate – I think that they were deliberately inflated by the legislature to promote D.E.I. through the back door, essentially turning those pupils into cash cows that schools would seek out.
Mr. Saganich:
I just checked the most recent cost and enrollment data for the Milton School District.
The proposed budget that just failed was $36,672,099.
Milton’s Total Avg. Daily Membership (ADM) enrollments, for Kindergarten through 12th grade is 1304 students. Even when you add in Milton’s 160 or so 3, 4, and 5-yr.-old part-time PreK students, that’s about $24,958 per student – to educate a 3 year-old or a high school senior.
And as I’ve been saying, for perspective, parents can send their kids to VT State University for a full year of standard undergraduate college programs for $22,882 – and that includes room and board.
If you really want an eye opener, check out Winooski. Thanks to the generosity of Act 127, their approved FY25 Education Spending will be $13,462 per LTWADM, about the same as Milton’s proposed budget that failed ($13,434) but Winooski’s total budget is $31,970,907 for just 782.54 pupils or $40,855 each on average.
Re: Winooski School Budget
Wow! I mean, what else can anyone say. The enrollment data I have, from February, indicates only 764 students in Winooski. That would be $41,846 per student. But, apparently, no one is counting.
My guess is that Winooski has a significant ‘immigrant’ population, and non-profit NGOs are making millions on their trafficking.
Why not just give every parent $30,000 a year for each of their children and let them choose the school they believe best meets the needs of their children? That would cut Winooski’s education taxes by, let’s see now, almost 30%.
Seriously, though, I don’t think our circumstance will survive until November. When this house of cards falls, and it will, a lot of people are going to suffer.
It’s amazing how fond Democrats are of cost-controlling things like rent charged by a private landlord to his or her tenants (you know, because private landlords are all evil, greedy, capitalistic bigots…), but not on the costs of public education? Some consistency sure would be nice!
Much of what’s being discussed concerns how to improve schools…make them more efficient…responsive to the public…make them less expensive. That is, how to save these failing government schooling organizations. Wouldn’t it be simpler to get out of this failed schooling business? …return the education of kids to their parents. Debate how much of a per pupil financial commitment the community wants to invest in an educated citizenry…tax for that and then return it to the parents to buy the schooling services that fit their child. Families deal directly with teacher for the curriculum and services they want.
Thanks for the Facts as usual Rob Roper!! Every year that I vote I seldom pick a winner, Conservative!
We are stuck here in Vermont paying these outrageous taxes, but those that can are getting the heck out. We need new blood in Montpelier!!