By STEVEN JUPITER
BRANDON—The Otter Valley Unified Union School Board (OVUU) approved a proposed FY25 budget of $27,247,823 at its meeting on Tuesday, January 9. This budget represents a 12.71% increase over the current year’s budget of $24,174,395. The vote came at the end of a tense meeting during which OVUU and the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union (RNESU) were criticized for the cost-cutting decision to eliminate foreign-language instruction at the elementary level.
The proposal will be presented to district voters in March.
The vote to approve was 7 yes and 3 no, with 3 absent. The nay votes were Paul Lathrop, Brett Mullins, and Brent Scarborough. It came after a tense meeting during which several Board members and attendees voiced disapproval of the decision to cut foreign-language instruction at the elementary level.
Board President Laurie Bertrand began the meeting by reading aloud two written comments the Board had received from the community.
Pittsford resident Rob Spensely had written to express discontent with the decision to eliminate foreign-language instruction at Lothrop. Teaching foreign languages encourages “open-mindedness” and is a “barometer of educational quality” in a school district. The decision to cut the program “misses the big picture.” Later in the meeting, Sybren Spensely, who was in attendance on Zoom, expressed similar frustrations with the decision, noting that she would not vote to approve any budget that did not fund instruction in foreign languages.
An anonymous resident had written to voice a similar complaint.
Several Board members echoed the complaints. Pajua Gamba, Barbara Ebling, Fernanda Canales, and Brett Mullins all voiced concern about the elimination of the programs.
Ms. Ebling stated, “that elementary principals thought it was expendable shows how we let [elementary foreign-language instruction] get to the point of failure.” Ms. Ebling added that the programs teach empathy and expand kids’ perspectives on the world. She also worried that foreign-language instruction is often seen as “elitist” and therefore becomes vulnerable to elimination.
“It’s not ‘elitist,’” Ebling said. “It’s a necessary pursuit and we should make this right.”
RNESU Superintendent Kristin Hubert expressed sympathy for the critics’ perspective but defended the decision.
“Foreign languages are not ‘expendable,’” said Hubert. “It wasn’t an easy decision, but we needed to cut $540,000 to stay below the guardrail of Act 127 and there was no way to do that without cutting positions.” Ms. Hubert went on to explain that special-service positions could not be cut, because of statutory mandates, so other positions had to be eliminated. The foreign-language instruction was only 1 hour on 1 day per week, she said, and the positions were difficult to fill. In the region, only Rutland Town provides foreign-language instruction at the elementary level, noted Hubert.
“If circumstances change, we can always bring the programs back,” Hubert added.
Board member Fernanda Canales asked whether the District had a concrete plan to bring the programs back. Member Brett Mullins said that the Board ought to heed “its owners” and provide the programs that the community says it wants.
Board member Kevin Thornton, however, pushed back against the complaints, stating that the process was already at “the 23rd hour” and the time for such negotiations had passed.
“One day a week doesn’t really do much good,” Thornton added. “We’re not cutting much. Let people push for [the programs] next year.”
Board member Natalie Steen agreed with Mr. Thornton’s stance.
“We’re just approving a number,” said Board President Laurie Bertrand. “We may be able to shift things around later on and bring these programs back later on.”
Ms. Hubert also noted that in the feedback solicited from parents over the past year, the priorities had been school safety and social/emotional learning. Foreign-language instruction had not been high on the list.
Act 127, which is in effect for the first time this budget season, implemented new spending formulae to more equitably distribute education funds in Vermont. The act allows a district to cap its property-tax increase at 5% per year if its budget increase remains under 10%. The proposed budget for FY25 represents an increase of 12.71% in absolute dollars but because of adjustments made by the state to take into account the extra supports and service some students need, the state will deem the District’s budget to have increased by only 9.74%, below the 10% guardrail.
After the vote to approve the budget, Board member Brett Mullins explained his nay vote by saying that the felt that the budget process had “failed” and that he wasn’t sure that he had been given adequate time to digest the information that had been provided by the district.
The Board also discussed the need to reach out to the community to explain and advocate for the proposed budget ahead of the March vote. The increases in the OVUU budget come at a time when other municipal increases are making taxpayers feel distress.
Specifically regarding the school budget, there is a confluence of several factors helping create taxpayers’ discontent.
First, the ESSER (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) funding that was provided by the federal government during COVID will no longer be available, forcing districts to make difficult choices about what to keep and what to eliminate.
Second, when the discrepancy between the Grand List value of a district’s real estate and the market value of those properties rises above a certain level, the state will take the difference into account when setting the tax rate. The percentage of market value represented by Grand List value is known as the Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) and this ratio has been declining in all of OV’s communities, meaning that assessed property values have not kept pace with the local real estate market.
According to current CLA calculations, the homestead tax rates in all of OV’s communities will rise in 2025. The percentage increase in the towns’ respective homestead rates range from a 17% increase in Whiting (from 1.417 to 1.658) to a 28% increase in Goshen (from 1.402 to 1.801). Brandon will increase from 1.431 to 1.693 (18% increase). Pittsford will increase from 1.417 to 1.741 (a 22% increase). Leicester will increase from 1.525 to 1.828 (a 20% increase). And Sudbury will increase from 1.288 to 1.606 (a 24% increase).
The 5% cap on property tax guaranteed by the 10% budget guardrail does not take into account whatever adjustments may be subsequently required by a change in CLA, potentially resulting in property tax increases above 5% even when the budget remains within the guardrail. Property owners whose tax rate is adjusted downward for income will see smaller increases in their tax liabilities.
