By STEVEN JUPITER
Last week, heads exploded all around the state when Vermonters heard about the projected 18.5% increase in property taxes next year. Social media lit up with anger, disbelief, and dismay. Vermont already has among the highest taxes in the country and now the state tax authorities are advising us to brace for one of the largest single-year increases in state history. People are understandably worried and ticked off.
Everyone is feeling squeezed. It’s not a matter of perception: life is simply more expensive now than it was before the pandemic. We can debate the causes—supply-chain disruptions, pent-up demand, corporate greed—but we can’t debate the effects. We’re all watching our purchasing power diminish at a rapid clip. The announcement of such a large increase in property tax is pretty much the last thing anyone wanted to hear.
But it’s important to keep in mind that we, the taxpayers, are still in control of this process. The 18.5% hike is, for the moment, just a proposal. A lot of commentary on social media took the projection as a done deal when, in fact, it is just a prediction of the cost of maintaining all the educational services that we’re currently providing. We will not end up paying 18.5% more in property tax unless we agree to it.
The portion of our tax bills that will account for the huge hike is the portion that supports our schools. There are costs that districts have to deal with every year: payroll, health insurance, equipment, supplies, etc. But this year we’re in an especially tricky position because much of the federal pandemic-era funding that allowed districts to weather that storm is now coming to an end. Taxpayers will have to work with their school districts to decide which pandemic-era staff and programs should survive and which should be phased out.
Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union, which encompasses Otter Valley, Neshobe, Lothrop, and Barstow, has been sounding the alarm for a while now, warning that we were heading toward an “ESSER cliff.” ESSER stands for Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief and was the source of much COVID-era funding.
RNESU will have to make many tough decisions over the next month or two while it prepares the budget it will present to voters in March. Residents of the district should make an effort to familiarize themselves with the budget, attend School Board meetings, and let their representatives on the Board know their preferences. This is an instance when civic participation can make a huge difference.
State Representative Butch Shaw (R-Pittsford/Proctor) said, “In my 14 years serving as a Representative this is the largest increase that I have seen in the annual forecast letter. This increase is driven in part by actions of the General Assembly in the past session, the ending of large amounts of one-time federal funding made available to school districts during the pandemic, a 16% increase in health-care benefits, overall inflation increasing the price of operating our schools, and overall increases in school budgets statewide.”
According to State Representative Stephanie Jerome (D-Brandon), “the letter sent by the Tax Commissioner on December 1st is only a starting point. It is based on very preliminary budget information submitted by school districts across the state, revenue forecasts, and the assumption of NO legislative action.”
Both Jerome and Shaw emphasized that the process is far from over. Voters must approve the school budgets in March. And then the legislature will determine the tax rate in the spring, when a clearer picture of our schools’ needs and our state’s resources is available. Voters have time to make a difference.
“I have confidence in our local school boards that they will work diligently to keep costs down and reduce increases,” added Jerome.
Yet, the likelihood of reducing the 18.5% to something insignificant is itself insignificant. There will probably be a substantial increase in school tax no matter what.
This is no small matter for many Vermonters.
“Vermont’s tax burden is already, unfortunately, among the highest in the country,” Governor Phil Scott wrote in response to the tax letter. “And families are bearing an incredible burden with increased costs of living across the board, including new and higher taxes and fees imposed by the Legislature. Put simply, a nearly 20% property tax increase would hurt Vermonters and our economy, and we cannot let it happen…I sincerely hope the Legislature agrees.”
“We should agree it is time for us to take our affordability crisis seriously,” Gov. Scott continued.
Vermont is in a bind: a relatively high cost of living combined with a relatively low population yields a relatively high tax burden per capita. There just aren’t enough people in Vermont to share the costs of the things we need, let alone the things we simply want. But with each tax increase, we diminish the appeal of relocating here. We’re seeing the influx of new residents who made money elsewhere and the exodus of longtime residents who can no longer afford to stay.
If the cost of owning and maintaining a home here is out of reach for average Americans, we’re in deep trouble. The labor shortage we’re now experiencing will only get worse if Vermont is not affordable.
The cost of living everywhere in the U.S. is on the rise. Vermont is not unique in this. But what does make Vermont unique is our hands-on system of town and school governance. Go to meetings, speak with your reps, make your voices heard. Remember, when folks reference a “20% increase” as if it were already in effect, that none of this is inevitable if we use our power as voters.
