This is in the spirit of compromise

By PATTIE MCCOY
Regardless of how the political debate over whether to raise property tax rates ends, the Education Fund is going to spend nearly $1.7 billion dollars next year on 76,000 students in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. That is about $22,000 per student — the most in the nation and nearly twice the national average. Meanwhile, we have about 27,000 fewer students in our schools than we did 20 years ago and enrollment continues to decrease by about 1,000 students each year. On average, there are about four students for every adult in our schools, down from seven students for every adult in 1997.

Vermont’s economy, generously described as average by national standards, and its taxpayers struggle to support this level of education spending and this growing inefficiency.

Yes, we have a good system and great educators. However, even as spending and property tax rates increase every year, there is substantial inequality among schools. As Governor Scott points out, after high school graduation, only about one-half of our children pursue a trade, technical certification or college degree. When you consider how much we are spending, we should have the very best education system in the country. We have work to do.

We did not get to this point overnight and building a stronger system is going to take some time; however, we cannot drag our feet.

Vermont’s House Republicans share the goal of preventing tax rates from rising. After all, we have surplus tax revenue that should go back to taxpayers in the form of lower rates. That is why we cannot support the “business as usual” approach of the legislative majority — they just want to keep raising tax rates, year after year.

We also know that a larger slice of the $1.7 billion dollars we are investing can be used for additional and enhanced educational opportunities and that spending growth must be in line with taxpayers’ ability to pay.

With these goals in mind, we have offered a compromise that meets the Governor’s objectives and respects the work of the majority in a fiscally responsible way.

Our compromise uses the legislative majority’s H.911 Conference Report (also known as the tax bill) as a starting point. We would include the cost containment mechanisms in the House version of H.911, but phase it in over 10 years. This will reconnect voter education spending decisions to their education tax rates — strengthening local control. It will also eliminate a perverse inequality in the current system: low-spending districts currently pay a higher rate so that higher-spending districts can receive a rate discount. That is worth repeating: low-spending districts pay a higher rate so that higher-spending districts can get a discount. That is backwards, and it is not something any legislator should be proud of. We need to fix this. Now.

In addition, we propose adopting additional temporary cost containment in FY20 and FY21. Under our plan, districts that propose spending greater than the projected statewide average would need 60 percent voter approval.

Over the next five years we would reduce the maximum house site value that receives income sensitivity to $300,000 — this is still far more than the statewide average house site value. We would establish a statewide teacher healthcare benefit. And, we would require the tax commissioner to provide tax rate impacts for different levels of education spending by Oct. 1, before districts begin their budget discussions for the ensuing year. 

Finally, to prevent property tax rates from rising this year, we would invest unanticipated surplus revenue, similar to what the Governor proposes. We would also begin to repay this investment, beginning July 1, from the savings generated by the policy changes proposed above. The payments would go directly to shore up the teachers’ retirement system, as proposed by the majority.

The Governor wants to avoid increases in education property tax rates. The Democratic majority wants to reduce the final teacher retirement payment, scheduled for 2038. Both are admirable goals. We can achieve both while establishing long-term cost containment and equity in tax rates between districts.

We offer this proposal in the spirit of compromise and good government. The Governor has said he could support it. We hope our Democratic colleagues will as well.

 

Pattie McCoy is a Republican representative to the Vermont legislature. Her district includes Poultney and part of Rutland. She is the assistant minority leader of the House.