By Guy Page
As Vermont school district voters face (on average) 18% tax hikes due to higher staff salary/benefits costs, loss of Covid-era funding, and the ‘common level of appraisal’ state education tax formula, another huge expense is looming: replacing aging school buildings.
61% of Vermont school buildings are nearing the end of their useful life, a Jan. 3 State Dept. of Education report said. The estimated cost of upgrading buildings statewide is $6.3 billion over 20 years – and that number may be too optimistic, officials say.
The report shows that like the state’s housing stock, Vermont’s school buildings are old and worn down – and in some cases worn out. Many did not escape flood damage. And despite declining enrollment, school buildings are being used more as Vermont adopts a ‘community school’ approach in which the public school offers more and more community services.
No state aid for construction since 2007
In 2007, The Vermont General Assembly suspended state aid for school construction. Since then, a growing backlog of deferred maintenance and renovation projects has resulted. Act 72, passed in 2021, mandated a study to review the scope of the problem.
The resulting assessment covered 384 buildings. It found that 61% have been “subjected to hard and long-term wear and are nearing the end of their useful life.” Another 5% have already reached the end of the road and “renewal is now necessary,” the study concluded. About a third are in serviceable-to-excellent condition.
The $6.3 billion estimated pricetag is just for in-kind replacement of existing buildings. It does not include:
- Additional costs that will be incurred, such as permitting, and any engineering assessments required, waste disposal, materials testing, contingency adder, etc.
- Modernization initiatives in equipment or educational programming spaces.
- Overcrowding concerns that may exist, nor do they consider enrollment projections
“All this to say, that there could be additional costs incurred to address other facilities goals,” the report authors said. Furthermore the report doesn’t specifically address the growing problem of replacement/remediation due to banned PCB chemicals found in dozens of schools.
The report projects an estimated cost timeline:
•Immediate: $228,613,264
•Short Term (1-2 years): $341,424,888
•Near Term (3-5 years): $904,680,288
•Medium Term (6-10 years): $1,426,800,696
•Long Term (10-20 years): $3,450,805,816
•Total: $6,352,324,952
Anticipating that lawmakers may wish to kick the can down the road to future legislatures, the report warns that delay will only boost the cost. “If the level of spending to address identified facilities needs is less than what is required, the cost for unaddressed needs carry over into the next fiscal year. This “snowball” effect will lead to an annual project need that escalates annually.”
What to do and how to do it?
Advising a specific plan to replace aging school buildings is the purview of another advisory board. Act 78 of 2023 created the School Construction Aid Taskforce to examine, evaluate, and
report on issues relating to school construction aid. It has been tasked to develop a specific plan, including funding, setting criteria, and governance.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Education
Re: “•Immediate: $228,613,264”
If ‘immediate’ translates into construction costs that will be charged to taxpayers in addition to the projected 18% increase in Vermont’s public education spending this coming year (already projected to be a total $2.37 Billion), that will equal a $2.6 Billion total annual cost. Given that there are 75,272 K-12 students in Vermont, that translates to an annual per student cost of $34,522. These are the highest per student costs ‘in the world’, by far.
Meanwhile, half of Vermont’s students graduate without meeting minimum grade level standards in reading, writing, math, or science. Never mind the other nonsense the kids are learning.
And, curiously, I have yet to see one comment from the Agency of Education or the State legislature justifying this expense. Nothing in FPF either.
Let them eat cake.
I can maybe afford a tax increase like this but I refuse to. If this happens, I’m out…
This is one of the reasons we are getting out of Vermont.
I left ten years ago, and have no regrets.
This article doesn’t mention the $&BILLION Vermont owes to the state employee retirement.
Montpelier doesn’t talk about that as the continue to find NEW ways to spend money we don’t have.
Brian, the unpaid billon-dollar commitments or proposed commitments are surely adding up. Pension. Grid restructuring. Underground power lines. Rebuilding old schools.
I may sound like a “broken record” to some of you, but I’m just going to keep saying it, until (maybe) someone out there will listen. They (those in the decision making arena) need to start by increasing the number of students per teacher!! OH-I know-the Teachers Union!! They will not let that happen! Well-they will cont. to get away with it until more of us agree and are willing to address it! BTW-I did some subbing at some local schools a few years ago, so I’m speaking from observation. Don’t get me wrong-there are a lot of good teachers out there, and they deserve adequate compensation. BTW- it is often stated that Vt. has one of the lowest teacher per student ratio in the country. Check it out. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Gail: Consider this.
There are 75,272 K-12 students in Vermont today.
In 2021 there were 23,962 Fulltime Equivalent teachers and para educators employed in the classrooms… not all at once of course.
Student/Teacher Ratio: 3.14 to 1
In 2021, when counting all Agency of Education staff, from Superintendents to bus drivers, there were 75,534 employed.
Student/Staff Ratio: 1 to 1
And this doesn’t count the subcontractors and independent consultants working for our schools.
That was 2021. Since then, government, healthcare, and education have been the fastest growing employment sectors in Vermont.
Meanwhile: as just reported on Seven Days –
“The reworked bill, S.224, is the latest effort to increase legislative compensation to make it easier for working-class Vermonters to afford to serve in the Statehouse.”
Again, the rest of us will just have to eat cake.
Thank you for all of that information, as I failed to mention the number(s) 0f para educators required. That is a whole other situation/issue in schools today. Too many parents do NOT take any responsibility for helping the children at home, incl. both any learning difficulties and behavior issues. “That’s the teachers responsibility” is opined way too often.
Re: “That’s the teachers responsibility.”
Well, when we’re paying more then $30,000 a year to these teachers, isn’t it their responsibility?
The irony, of course, is that the while the education establishment blames the parents for not stepping up to the plate, it won’t allow those same parents to choose the education program they believe is best for their children.
I mean, come on. If you think the parents should be repsonsible, let them be responsible.
News for the Legislature: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are myths, along with infinite ability of Vermont taxpayers to accept more spending,
Perhaps this will be the year voters will explain that fact through their votes by electing a more conservative legislature.
This crisis presents a wonderful opportunity to implement full school choice which would include homeschooling and religious schools. It also is an opportunity to decentralize k-12 education in Vermont. Disbanding the Vermont Agency of Education, the VT superintendent’s association, the Vermont principals association, the Vermont School Boards association and the VTNEA would save the taxpayers millions of dollars.
By Jackson Elliott, January 15, 2024
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/parents-are-winning-the-battle-for-school-choice-5537583
We can’t afford it. Just say no.
This whole thing seems very fishy to me – all of a sudden multiple schools getting tested for chemicals and needing remediation/new buildings. Are they trying to squeeze out rural communities and make it completely unaffordable for most? Or not an option because there won’t be schools? It sounds like a slow and steady move to the smart city…get everyone out of rural areas and into multi family/dense housing…the only place with schools (aka The Wildlands Project). Or are we moving toward more online learning as an option? That’s also a terrible idea for many families. I hope I’m wrong about all of this!
Thoughts?
Under the banner of “commitment to education” the community has invested funds in schools, their infrastructure and extensive real-estate. The burden to the public can’t but be ever increasing. Shouldn’t we be considering privatizing all this? Instead of investing in these organizations, invest in learners. Return the resources to families. Let schools and teachers compete for families’ business.
no comment