
Chris Viens has watched with dismay as the roads in Waterbury have steadily deteriorated under his feet.
His town’s underfunded highway crews, facing greater maintenance needs and stagnant state aid, have for years been spinning their wheels on short-term fixes such as patching potholes instead of building lasting upgrades, he said.
Now Viens, an excavation contractor and chair of the Waterbury Selectboard, says towns like his are reaching a crisis point. More roads are crumbling beyond the point of repair, forcing road crews to rebuild them completely at exponentially higher costs and with borrowed money.
“The governor wants to get more people to move here,” Viens said last week. “But who wants to live in a house that’s falling down around them?”
The exasperation of local officials who struggle to maintain roads with existing funds is fueling a renewed drive for a controversial solution: hiking the state gas tax.
Rep. Kari Dolan (D-Waitsfield) said she plans to propose a five-year, 4-cent-per-gallon increase in the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, with the funds dedicated exclusively to cities and towns for road maintenance.
The bill has the support of the influential Vermont League of Cities and Towns, which lobbies for the interests of the state’s 246 municipalities. The group estimates the tax hike would raise about $10 million per year for municipal roads.
Vermont drivers pay nearly 50 cents per gallon in state and federal gas taxes and fees based on January’s average prices, according to the American Petroleum Institute. State taxes and fees amount to 31 cents per gallon, while federal taxes, which have been static since 1993, remain at 18.4 cents per gallon.
While the league has supported unsuccessful bids to raise the gas tax before, this year is different, said VLCT lobbyist Karen Horn.
Gov. Phil Scott’s 2020 budget proposes a $6.2 million cut in a key chunk of state aid that helps towns and cities pay for certain roadwork, primarily stormwater upgrades aimed at improving water quality.
Local officials were surprised by the nearly 10 percent decrease and found it “pretty appalling,” given that the proposed reduction coincides with new state requirements for local governments to carry out stormwater improvements, Horn said.
“I was stunned,” Horn said. “If they are going to put new obligations on us to help clean up the waters of the state, they need to give us some money to do it.”
The governor’s overall proposed transportation budget would increase funding by 1 percent, to $618 million, but aid to municipalities for local roads would stay flat, at $26 million. It would be allocated based on the number of road miles each community maintains.
The $6.2 million reduction reflects the fact that previous budgets included a temporary boost in federal highway money for stormwater projects, but that extra funding is drying up, said Wayne Symonds, director of the state’s highway division.
Viens described the cuts as “a hand grenade coming in from left field.” He said he and other local officials had been discussing possible funding fixes before Scott made his budget plan public. The proposed cuts, he said, have left them little choice but to ask legislators to boost the gas tax.
He and John Freitag, a Strafford Selectboard member, penned a letter pointing out that 70 percent of the state’s roads, or 11,382 miles, are maintained by cities, towns and villages. Stagnant assistance from the state means that the burden of keeping up with maintenance costs puts upward pressure on property taxes.
They urged members of city councils and selectboards throughout Vermont to contact their legislators to support the tax hike and attend meetings of the House and Senate transportation committees in a show of force on February 14.
“If we can pack the committee room with like-minded local officials who are passionate about fixing the failing infrastructure that we constantly hear about, perhaps we can get the legislature to do something to help our cause,” they wrote.
Freitag acknowledges that there are well-reasoned and long-standing objections to increasing the gas tax, including that it is regressive, hitting low-income residents harder than the well-off. Many lower-income people live in rural areas and drive long distances to jobs and commercial centers, leaving them highly sensitive to such a tax increase, he said.
But rural roads are also the ones hit the hardest by a changing climate, with wider winter temperature swings that wreak havoc on roadways, Freitag argued.
“The reality is, if you tear out the bottom of your car, it’s going to be a hell of a lot more money than you’re going to be paying in this tax,” he said.
Bill Shepeluk, Waterbury’s longtime municipal manager, said it makes more sense for drivers to pay taxes to maintain the roads than bills for car repairs. Someone driving 20,000 miles per year in a 20-mpg vehicle would pay only $40 more annually in gas taxes, he noted. Compare that to $400 to repair a broken tie rod, and the tax increase doesn’t look so bad, Shepeluk said.
His town’s $1.6 million highway maintenance budget has increased by 64 percent in the last decade, while the state’s contribution has risen a mere 4 percent.
The shift to hybrid and electric cars leads to good questions about whether the gas tax is the fairest way to fund highway repairs. But, according to Shepeluk, it’s still the closest thing to a use tax for roads.
“I’m pretty darn sure that 90 percent or more of what is used to power vehicles around Vermont’s roads is still fossil fuels,” he said.
While the increase seems reasonable to him, Shepeluk said he’s well aware that it may face more than a few obstacles.
“I don’t have any illusions that this is an idea that the legislature as a whole or the governor is going to wrap their arms around,” Shepeluk said.
Despite his willingness to increase some taxes and fees this year, Gov. Scott remains opposed to increasing the gas tax, believing it “would have a particularly harsh impact on rural Vermonters,” said Rebecca Kelley, the governor’s spokesperson.
The idea is nevertheless getting some traction.
One of the first committees the tax would have to pass through is House Transportation, where it would get a favorable reception from the new chair, Rep. Curt McCormack (D-Burlington).
McCormack, who doesn’t own a car, said he supports the idea of giving people an incentive to choose transportation options that are less fossil-fuel intensive.
“With gas prices so low, I don’t even think most people would notice,” McCormack said.
Vermont’s gas taxes are near the middle of the pack compared with other states. The American Petroleum Institute ranks the state’s 31-cent-per-gallon gas tax the 22nd highest in the nation, far below Pennsylvania’s 58 cents but well north of Alaska’s 14 cents.
The last time the state increased the gas tax was in 2013, when it tacked on a 6 percent sales tax, phased in over two years, paired with a reduction in the per-gallon excise tax. The goal of the change was twofold. It raised matching dollars needed to preserve $56 million in federal highway funding, which was sorely needed as the state continued to recover from Tropical Storm Irene. The sales tax was aimed at preserving revenue despite declining consumption as vehicles become more fuel-efficient.
The downward trend in gas tax receipts is expected to continue, with revenue forecast to fall $1.9 million, or 2.4 percent, by 2024.
Scott has previously proposed a mileage tax that would apply to all vehicles regardless of fuel type, but the idea has stalled.
If another increase is in the offing, the state would be far from alone.
Since 2013, 28 states and the District of Columbia have approved gas tax increases, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. McCormack said he fully expects, however, that boosting the gas tax would face opposition from those who would mischaracterize it as a carbon tax.
Horn said she expects the idea to get a favorable reception from many members of the House, given the heightened awareness of climate change and the clear disparity between local needs and the governor’s budget. But she also believes it may face tough sledding in the Senate.
“If this isn’t the answer, fine,” Viens said. “What’s their solution? You can’t keep throwing pennies at million-dollar problems.”
This article appears in Feb 13-19, 2019.


STOP raising taxes on the working class!
Sorry Rep. McCormack but not all of us can afford a fuel efficient vehicle.
@Seven Days, why don’t you break out where the current VT Fuel taxes go here in the state. 100% of the tax does not go to the DOT.
Why doesn’t the state stop diverting the fuel tax to the general fund and put it toward the roads?
I’m glad the discussion has moved to how to tax hybrids and electrics. Instead of a gas tax try an odometer tax,
If overnight everyone switched to hybrids or electrics, how would we pay for the roads then? The state is already talking about a carbon tax for fossil fuel vehicles enough is enough.
BTV reader makes a good point. A large part of the state gas tax revenue, I believe 12.1 cents, goes to the general fund and not for our highway infrastructure. Shifting more of the funds collected for state and local highways is indeed another option for the legislature to consider to address our pressing highway and bridge needs.
A joint House and Senate Transportation Committee hearing will be held on Thursday the 14th from 10;30 to noon in room 11 of the capitol . They are offering this opportunity for town officials at the capitol as part of Local Government Day to give testimony on the condition of their roads and bridges and the vital part state aid plays in addressing needs. Those wishing to testify can sign up at the hearing.
I think it would be ok to have a good tax increase for 3-4 years on gas as long as they take it off once they fix the roads, And make sure it goes for the roads, The problem will be that they find a way to keep the higher tax indefinitely, gas has gone down 10 cents recently, just raise it back up 10 cents fix those roads then lower the tax back down, Also they are voting on the inspection of our vehicles soon, so if all goes well that will save every Vermonter lots of money.
Vermont already has to many taxes! Why doesn’t Montpelier get rid of the offices that aren’t necessary? That’s a lot of money wasted there. And why is the money for roads being put in the general fund?
I cannot wait to be fully relocated from this ridiculously unrealistic, mostly bleeding heart liberal state called Vermont that would rather spend money for welfare and fueling the opioid crisis than fixing its roads.
Those who howl for more American Empire, Endless Wars for Corporate Profits and more tax cuts are the same ones who cannot figure out why the infrastructure is crumbling? Delusional idiots. No wonder both major party candidates in the last Presidential election were so toxic. Nothing will change in the next election cycle, either.
The country is being hollowed out by the deceit of “free market capitalism” and Neo-liberal economics and out of control military spending.
America signed away its Rights with the wildly misnamed “Patriot Act”. So, wave the flag, inoculate yourself from reality with lies about American “exceptionalism” and “democracy” and enjoy the party before the keg goes dry. We’re almost to the bottom as it is.
The state has a spending issue!!!! Us the current gas tax dollar for its purpose, fixing roads!!!!! Deal with the basic needs and stop giving all this free stuff.
You don’t need more state funding. And towns that are losing population do not and should not provide the same level of service in terms of road maintentance that they had when
What needs to happen is municipalities simply need to tear up the pavement on these non-essential roads and replace them with *dirt* roads; “like in the old days” as POTUS would say.
Not only are dirt roads aesthetically more pleasing to look at, they also are much preferable to residents for jogging/running as well as gravel grinding. That raises the quality of life for residents and will better attract families to move to rural Vermont.
Who is asking for Guptil Road to be paved, anyway? That new traffic light they’re putting at the bottom of Guptil is ridiculous.
I don’t live in S Burlington and I don’t pay S Burlington taxes. But if S Burlington had a Go Fund Me page for repairing the disaster that Dorset St is I’d gladly kick in a couple hundred bucks. Hell, $200 would be cheaper than suspension repairs for my car. And maybe they could even synchronize the lights, which would save me gas money. My favorite light is the one at the corner of Swift and Dorset headed south. It’ll change and let one car through and then skip a cycle or two. Please fix it. IT ISN’T ROCKET SURGERY!
Cut. Spending.
On the bright side, I finally get to move out of this shit hole.
Good luck, you’ve done so well so far.
Look at how much the state and the feds take per gallon.
Then realize that most gas companies make less than 5 cents a gallon.
LikeDry road policy leads to overuse of salt (where are the environmentalists on this?)
Onerous inspection of vehicles.
Cash for clunkers.
Crumbling infrastructure breaks suspensions and other parts.
State that has some of the longest driving averages for commutes.
No, I’m sure 4 extra cents a gallon will totally fix this.
How are those driving tax subsidized Green cars paying their “fair share”?
Just to keep up with what the fuel tax was in 1970, the Vermont gas tax should be 16 cents a gallon higher and the Federal tax should be 9 cents higher. Add to that the fact that most cars get far higher MPG today than they did decades ago together with the number of hybrid and electric cars on the road, and you can see why there is not enough money in the transportation fund to handle the maintenance and new construction needed. It also doesn’t help that millions of dollars are transferred every year from the transportation fund to the education fund.