By STEVEN JUPITER
PITTSFORD—In a symbolic vote on Tuesday, July 30, the Pittsford Selectboard rejected the education tax rate set by Montpelier. The unanimous vote was intended to send a message and carries no legal weight. It does not relieve the town of its obligation to impose and collect the education tax from its taxpayers.
After a particularly contentious budget season that saw residents across the state reject many school districts’ proposed budgets multiple times before ultimately voting yes, Montpelier was finally able to calculate the education tax rate that dictates the largest share of Vermonters’ property-tax bills. The impact on Vermonters’ FY25 tax liability was significant.
Pittsford’s education homestead rate for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) is $1.7195 and the education non-homestead rate is $1.9152. The homestead rate applies to properties used as primary residences. The non-homestead rate applies to all other taxable real property. This means that for every $100 of assessed value for a homestead, the owner will pay $1.7195 in education tax. Similarly, the owner of a non-homestead property will pay $1.9152 per $100 of assessed property value. So, a homestead that is assessed at $100,000 will pay $100,000/$100 = $1,000 x $1.7195 = $1,719.50 in education tax for FY25. A homestead assessed at $400,000 would pay $1,719.50 x 4 = $6,878.00 in education tax alone.
The rates for FY24 were $1.4194 and $1.6372, respectively. Accordingly, a homestead assessed at $100,000 for FY24 paid $1,419.40 in education tax. The education portion of this homeowner’s tax liability thus increased by $1,719.50 – $1,419.40 = $300.10 from FY24 to FY25, an increase of approximately 21%. For an owner of a non-homestead property, the increase is approximately 17%. Though the percentage increase was less for non-homestead properties, non-homestead rates remain higher than for homestead properties.
The municipal portion of the tax bill is added to the education tax to arrive at the total tax liability for a property. Pittsford’s municipal rate for FY25 is $0.6744 for those who live outside the central village and $0.7043 for those who live within the central village, an increase of approximately $0.01 (or approximately 1.5%) over FY24. A Pittsford homeowner outside the village whose house is assessed at $100,000 will pay $674.40 in municipal taxes for FY25, for example.
The board voted unanimously to adopt the town’s municipal rate, noting that the municipal rate was responsible for only $1.00 of the $307.60 per $100K increase. Pittsford’s budget for FY25 is only 3% higher than its budget for FY24, thus yielding only a modest increase in the municipal tax rate.
Pittsford Town Manager David Atherton stated in a later phone conversation that a 3% increase in a municipal budget is merely keeping pace with inflation.
Pittsford’s total homestead tax rate is $2.3939 for non-village and $2.4238 for village. The non-homestead rate is $2.5896 for non-village and $2.6195 for village. Ultimately, homeowners’ total tax liability will also be determined by their income. Vermont gives significant tax discounts to homeowners whose total household income is below $128,000.
Though the board voted unanimously to adopt the municipal rate, it initially could not find a member willing to move to adopt the education rate. Board members David Mills and Tom Hooker stated flatly that they would not move to adopt the education rate. Mr. Mills called the state, which sets the education rate, “irresponsible and despicable” and stated that the legislature should have found a way to minimize the increase in Vermonters’ tax liabilities.
State Representative Butch Shaw, who represents Pittsford and Proctor in Montpelier, was at the meeting and stated that Montpelier has commissioned 31 studies to reform education tax but has not acted on any one of them.
Board member Dan Adams stated that the tax increases “seem unfair at a time when people can’t afford to buy their groceries.” He also stated that the tax increases would keep many prospective home buyers out of the local market.
Board Chair Alicia Malay suggested that the board could vote to reject the education tax rate, even though the gesture would be strictly symbolic. Mr. Atherton added that other towns had done so.
In the end, the board voted 5-0 to reject the education tax rate.
Mr. Atherton expressed concern that Pittsford residents would blame the board and town management for the increases in their bills, even though the municipal rate increased by only 1.5%.
“We’ve done our fiscal responsibility to spend the town’s money in a responsible way,” he said.
