On Friday, Jeff Fannon (Executive Director, VT-NEA) joined the Senate Finance Committee. “Too often the conversations around education revolve around money,” he said, blaming the current education challenges on a “shattered societal safety net, a global pandemic, economic upheaval,” and that schools must be “staffed adequately.” He also pointed to school construction and inflation as additional factors.

Legislative Counsel reviewed the changes made in H.707 for the House Commerce Committee. The bill makes a number of changes to Vermont’s workforce development system. Since they had reviewed the bill a few weeks ago, the overview focused only on the changes which reflected the Committee’s discussions and the thoughts of Chairman Marcotte.

On Wednesday, Legislative Counsel reviewed the Senate Education Committee’s, S.304, dealing with the state's Career and Technical Education programs.

Act 127 Fix (H.850) - H.850 was taken up on Wednesday with a walk-through from Senator Cummings on behalf of the Senate Finance Committee. She notified Senators that she would “be a little longer than I normally would because this bill is trying to solve confusion as to what was happening out there with property taxes and school spending… and why taxes were being capped and uncapped.”

I had an opportunity to testify to the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday regarding this year's historic property tax increase. Even though it may not have been new material for the Committee, I thought it was important to cover the basics on what is contributing to the surge in property taxes this year. This is not a new problem, schools have increased spending $900,000,000 over the past decade and are projected to spend up to another $240M this year. We have the second highest cost per student in the country, and lowest student/teacher ratios by a mile. Our problem is spending.

National average student/teacher ratio is 15, Vermont's is 10.8

The Joint Fiscal Office reviewed the Education Fund stabilization reserve for the House Ways & Means Committee on Wednesday. The reserve is always set at 5% of the prior year’s education spending and is meant to be used if tax revenues miss projections. It also contributes to the bond rating of the state.

In February 1997, Vermont’s Supreme Court found “the current system for funding public education in Vermont, with its substantial dependence on local property taxes and resultant wide disparities in revenues available to local school districts” is in violation of the Vermont Constitution. In response, in June 1997, the Vermont Legislature and Governor enacted the Equal Educational Opportunity Act—Act 60— a Vermont law intended to achieve a fair balance of educational spending across school districts independent of the degree of prosperity within each district. Act 60 was followed by Acts 68 and 130, which addressed some imbalances caused by Act 60.  Acts 68 and 130, established a system to pool the state's educational budgetary requirements from across jurisdictions and pay for them, in part, with pooled statewide property taxes.

The House General & Housing Committee returned to a conversation around setting regional housing targets on Tuesday. Maura Collins (Executive Director, Vermont Housing Finance Agency) had comments regarding the Draft 1.1 that the Committee was reviewing. She was very supportive of the “great changes” regarding the Housing Needs Assessment, with one caveat. She pointed to the Building Homes Together Campaign (Chittenden County) which also set a target but also assumed 25% would be “affordable units.” She noted that in some years that program has come close to meeting the targets but fell short of the “affordable” goals.

February 20, 2024

House Ways & Means Committee,

We agree that the ‘Who Pays’ report showing that our state’s tax burden is flat, and even slightly regressive, for taxpayers with incomes in the top 40% is concerning. Middle class Vermonters are struggling to make ends meet and inflation, taxes, and other impacts on cost of living have not been kind to them. Learning that they also shoulder an outsized share of the tax burden adds insult to injury. It is also important to highlight, as the report authors did, that this distribution of tax burden is not because our income tax system is inadequately progressive, but rather that we have a number of other taxes that are quite regressive.