Vermont Voters Reject School Budgets in 29 Districts

Facing massive property tax increases, residents rejected school budgets in 29 of about 95 districts that voted on Tuesday. The Champlain Valley School District and nearby South Burlington, two of the largest districts in the state, were among the Town Meeting Day casualties.

Budgets also failed in Milton, Montpelier, Fairfax, Georgia, Barre, Rutland Town, Springfield and St. Johnsbury, according to unofficial data collected by the Vermont Superintendents Association.

Now those school boards must take a fresh look and try to craft more palatable spending plans. That will likely be a challenge given the numerous factors driving cost increases this year, many of which the districts don’t control.

In the Champlain Valley School District, which includes Shelburne, Charlotte, Hinesburg, Williston and St. George, the budget typically passes handily. But on Tuesday, 60 percent of voters rejected the $105.8 million spending plan, which was expected to send property tax rates soaring as much as 30 percent in some towns.

Some voters leaving Shelburne Town Hall on Tuesday indicated that their no votes this year were more about the unsustainable tax increase than the district’s spending decisions. Jenny Ockert, a retired teacher, said it came down to “sheer economics.” As a homeowner on a fixed income, Ockert said she could not afford the increase and it was time “to draw the line.”

Richard Thut said the potential property tax increase in Shelburne — estimated at between 19 and 26 percent — scared him. Should it come to pass, he said, he would likely have to move out of state: “I just feel it’s too much.”

In South Burlington, 59 percent of voters rejected the school district’s $71.2 million spending plan. The budget would have led to a projected 23 percent property tax increase for homeowners.

The last time city voters rejected a school budget was in 2020. That year, residents also shot down a $209 million bond to build a new middle and high school. The school budget eventually passed — on its third try — in June of that year.

At South Burlington’s annual meeting on Monday, resident Kathleen Easton described the current situation as one of “runaway budgets and tax levels that seem to have no ceilings.” She lamented the lack of affordability in the state and said lawmakers have the “fiduciary responsibility to look out for what is happening.”

Another resident, Richard Cassidy, asked South Burlington superintendent Violet Nichols what the district would have to cut should the budget fail. Nichols said reductions would likely impact programming, staffing and facilities.

Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools’ $32 million budget also went down. That spending proposal would have led to an estimated 23 percent homestead property tax increase in Montpelier and a 12 percent increase in Roxbury. The school board has already started to discuss whether to close the Roxbury Village School, which has just 42 students and 13 staff members. Superintendent Libby Bonesteel recently told legislators that while shuttering the school makes financial sense, it would be a hard sell to local residents.

The Milton Town School District’s $37.2 million school budget, which represented a relatively modest 7.3 percent increase over the current year’s budget, also failed. Residents in the Chittenden County town were looking at a 15.4 percent property tax increase had it passed.

The defeats come amidst the most tumultuous school budget season in recent memory. In January, lawmakers realized that a 5 percent tax rate cap provision in Act 127, a law intended to create more equitable school funding, was backfiring. The cap was meant to soften the blow for more affluent, homogenous and densely populated school districts that were losing taxing capacity due to Act 127.

But some of those school districts took advantage of the cap by adding money for capital improvements, meaning less affluent districts that were supposed to benefit from the law were suddenly at risk of major tax hikes.

The legislature fast-tracked a bill, H.850, that repealed the cap and replaced it with a less generous “cents discount” for school districts negatively impacted by Act 127.

H.850 also allowed school districts to modify their school budgets and postpone voting on school-related ballot items until April 15. Gov. Phil Scott signed the legislation on February 22, less than two weeks before Town Meeting Day.

Despite the time and energy lawmakers spent on rushing through the legislation, the majority of school boards chose not to modify budgets. Many figured they’d present their original spending plans, then find cuts if voters rejected them.

In Chittenden County, only one district — Mount Mansfield Unified Union — postponed its budget vote until April. Other districts that decided to delay votes included the Stowe School District; Blue Mountain Union School District; Echo Valley Community School District; Hartford School District; Hartland School District; Weathersfield School District; and Mount Ascutney School District, according to data collected by the Vermont Superintendents Association.

Not all districts fared poorly on Town Meeting Day. In Burlington, residents approved the school budget for the 10th year in a row. More than 71 percent voted in favor of the $119.6 million budget, which comes with a projected 15.6 percent property tax increase.

More than half of that increase is associated with the cost of paying off the $165 million bond voters approved in 2022 to build a new high school and tech center.

Voters in Colchester also approved the school budget despite a projected homestead property tax increase of 16.7 percent. Winooski, a district that benefitted from Act 127 because of its many multilingual and low-income students, also overwhelmingly approved its school budget, with 70 percent voting in favor.

Statewide, cumulative education spending is up a staggering $230 million this year. The state surveyed school districts and supervisory unions, which said salaries, health care costs, the loss of federal pandemic funds to support critical personnel, inflation and facilities issues were driving the spending increases.

Nicole Lee, director of finance for the Agency of Education, told lawmakers last week that costs for special education and mental and behavioral health had also increased substantially in recent years.

In a statement on Tuesday, Vermont-NEA president Don Tinney called the failure of nearly one-third of school budgets “a reasonable reaction to completely unrealistic spikes in property taxes driven by events over which our dedicated local school boards have no control.”

Tinney called on the state to consider an education tax based on income rather than property values and “to take a serious look at how our local schools are governed and organized.”
Legislators have already begun discussing ways to address soaring property taxes related to education spending. Some shorter-term ideas include generating more revenue by taxing cloud-based software or increasing property taxes for second-home owners. Longer-term solutions include school consolidation, increasing class sizes and revamping the state’s complex education funding formula entirely.

This year, though, it seems the state has limited options to ease the burden for many school districts.

At South Burlington’s annual meeting on Monday, outgoing city councilor Meaghan Emery asked what the legislature might do if many school budgets across the state were rejected. Rep. Brian Minier (D-South Burlington) offered little assurance.

“Under the current model, there’s nothing for the state to do about that,” Minier said. “I don’t think there’s a cavalry coming if the vote fails.”