By Katy Savage, Standard Staff
WEST WINDSOR — Due to a spending cap and higher special education costs, taxpayers are facing a 34-cent education tax rate increase this year.
Two-thirds of the tax increase, 21 cents, comes from a penalty for spending more than its 1 percent allowable growth rate — a part of the new Act 46, which assigns each school its own an allowable growth rate between 0 and 5.5 percent, along with a spending threshold.
“I’m at a loss to react,” said select board chair Dick Beatty, who was informed of the potential increase on Tuesday. At that rate, the tax bill for the owner of a home assessed at $200,000 would go up about $680. “I know the taxes keep going up on the schools. Of course we have to pay what the state tells us to pay — we have no control.”
Schools that spend above the threshold are double taxed on every dollar over the threshold.
“Don’t ever consider consolidating because you’ll just get penalized for it.”
Prosper Valley School board chair Greg Greene
School board chair Art Keating blamed the school’s higher budget on increases in special education, salaries and benefits, technology and transportation, in a letter to the Vermont Standard.
Albert Bridge School’s $3,140,253 budget represents about a 15 percent increase from the previous year due to health insurance premiums, a $200,000 increase in special education, $20,000 in higher preschool expenses, $175,000 in tuition and $3,000 in transportation.
West Windsor isn’t alone in its education budget challenges.
The Joint Fiscal Office predicts 127 of the state’s school districts will face penalties from Act 46, resulting in a collective $9.5 million in revenue.
Woodstock Elementary School would need to cut $96,000 from the budget to avoid penalties, according to meeting minutes. Prosper Valley School could need to cut $98,000, said board member Greg Greene.
“It’s killing us,” said Greene.
Some legislators have admitted Act 46 was poorly thought out. It was rushed the final days of the last session.
“This isn’t doing what we wanted — at least not what I wanted,” said Senate Education Committee chair Ann Cummings.
Now legislators are scrambling to fix it.
The House Committee on Education voted on Tuesday to raise the spending threshold for each district by 0.9 percent to account for unforeseen health care premiums and special education expenses. The rest of the House is scheduled to vote next week.
“0.9 — it will help,” said Keating by phone Wednesday. “It’s good news.”
Windsor Southeast Supervisory Union Superintendent David Baker estimated the increase would reduce the West Windsor’s tax rate hike by half.
But even if the House adopts the 0.9 percent increase, 106 districts would still face penalties, the Joint Fiscal Office says — $7.1 million worth of penalties.
Rep. Dave Sharpe, the House Committee on Education chair, admitted the amendment wasn’t perfect, but it’s a quick fix.
“This is really clear-cut and does give relief across the board,” he said.
Sharpe is pushing for the bill to go through with no amendments. It gets “messier” the more time it takes, he said.
Meanwhile the Senate Commit- tee on Education has talked about repealing allowable growth and reverting back to the excess spending penalty, which would cap school spending at just over $16,000 per pupil for all districts.
“I think we will do that once we’ve worked through all the numbers and feel this is the way to go,” said Cummings.
Town Meeting, the day residents vote on school budgets, is two months away. It’s frustrating for school boards waiting for a decision.
The Prosper Valley School hasn’t put together a final budget yet.
“We’re not doing anything until the state gives us some guidance on what our actual cost containment number is going to be,” Greene said. “I’m not wasting my time on a hypothetical situation.” Prosper Valley School, the new joint school made up of Pomfret and Bridgewater students, is spending less per student than it did last year, but like West Windsor, it could face a double-digit tax increase.
If Act 46 remains as is, Greene said he’d reach out to every school district in the state with a warning: “Don’t ever consider consolidating because you’ll just get penalized for it,” he said.
Not every school board is suffering. Hartland’s proposed budget of about $8.8 million results in about 12 cents less on the tax rate compared to last year. Barnard’s $1.22 million budget is up from last year, but per pupil spending is down, said chair Dave Green.
Legislators in both chambers will have to come to an agreement. They have mixed feelings about the spending cap.
“I’d like to see the cap go away,” said Rep. John Bartholomew (D-Hartland, West Windsor, Windsor).
Rep. Teo Zagar (D-Barnard, Pomfret) also wanted to repeal spending caps.
He called the caps “a punitive mechanism that implies if you’re exceeding this cap you’re not doing something right.”
Rep. Alison Clarkson (D-Woodstock, Plymouth, Reading) says balancing the budget is a challenge when there’s a contradiction with what constituents want: lower taxes but better education.
“People want education property tax controlled but they want to be able to spend what they want to spend on education. It really is a challenge to balance that,” she said.
Rep. Job Tate (R-Killington, Mendon, Chittenden, Bridgewater) doesn’t know what the answer is going to be.
“It’s not for every school,” he said of the amendment facing the House vote. “I think for some schools it will give them enough room to drag them across the finish line.”
This article first appeared in the January 14, 2016 edition of the Vermont Standard.