Part 1: In newspaper survey, voters sound off on failed school budget
March 20, 2024 | By Lisa Loomis and Lisa Scagliotti
Note to readers: This is one of two parts reporting on the recent community survey regarding the proposed 2024-25 Harwood Unified Union School District budget that failed to win voter approval on Town Meeting Day. The second part posted here contains all of the survey responses on the two main questions covered in this story below.
Local newspapers asked and the community answered with specific, detailed comments about how and why they voted as they did on the Harwood school budget on the Town Meeting Day ballot.
The proposed 2024-25 budget for the Harwood Unified Union School District was one of 30 school budgets to fail at the ballot box on Town Meeting Day on March 5. Voting in Waterbury took place at Brookside Primary School. Photo by Lisa Scagliotti
Over the past week and a half, 315 people answered an online survey from The Valley Reporter and Waterbury Roundabout.
Voters rejected the $50.8 million proposed budget for the 2024-25 school year by a vote of 64% to 35% on March 5. The budget represented a nearly 12% increase over the $45.4 million budget voters approved last year and the property tax increases to support it were expected to range between 22 and 32%.
The budget aimed to offer level services, meaning no programs were to be added or cut next year. School officials said it eliminated 13 positions through attrition, however, to account for the loss of federal funding that the school district received as part of the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
To understand the reasons behind the overwhelming defeat at the ballot box – and ultimately what voters might support, the newspapers sought input using an online survey.
What did it find?
Respondents were candid in sharing their thinking behind their no – and yes – votes on the budget. Expected property tax increases, dissatisfaction with the state’s complex education funding formula, and the budget’s overall spending increase topped the list of reasons they gave for rejecting the school board’s budget.
Those who voted yes offered their perspective, too. Some said they always vote in favor of the school budget; others admitted being very conflicted in their vote.
Some of the most interesting feedback came in response to the question, “Another vote will need to be held to ultimately have a budget approved for the 2024-25 school year. What will it take to win your ‘yes’ vote?” Although this question did not require a response, 262 of those who answered the survey – 83% – offered comments.
Responses ranged from specific dollar amounts they’d tolerate to questioning the number of schools and administrators in the district, as well as wanting assurance that the state will take concrete steps to improve the education funding formula. Some who voted yes said they would only do so again if budget cuts did not impact students.
Who responded?
From March 6 through March 18, readers in each of the Harwood school district’s six communities filled out the survey with the most responses – 109 or 34.6% – from Waterbury residents.
The next largest group was 55 or 17.5% from Fayston readers; other groups ranged from 44 in Waitsfield to 32 in Duxbury.
Source: Waterbury Roundabout & Valley Reporter Post Election Community Survey. Chart by Julia Bailey-Wells
People were asked to note their role and the vast majority – 219 or nearly 70% said “community member.” Another 64 or 20% said they were parents of current students in the district. The remainder included 13 district employees, 7 students and about a dozen others identifying as parents or grandparents of alumni, taxpayers, and a second homeowner.
Source: Waterbury Roundabout & Valley Reporter Post Election Community Survey. Chart by Julia Bailey-Wells
Most responding – over 95% – said they voted in the March 5 election. However, 14 who took the survey said they did not vote for reasons such as traveling, not making it to the polls on time, muddy roads, and illness. A few said they deliberately did not vote. “I was very conflicted, and undecided,” one wrote.
The split of those completing the survey who said they voted mirrored the actual election results: 62% or 191 said they voted no; 38% or 117 said they voted yes.
Source: Waterbury Roundabout & Valley Reporter Post Election Community Survey. Chart by Julia Bailey-Wells
The survey also asked about the second question on the ballot: whether to put $535,000 of surplus funds from 2023 into the district’s Maintenance Reserve Fund for facility repairs and improvements. That won strong support on March 5 with voters approving 62% to 36%. Survey respondents also strongly supported that measure with over 82% saying they backed it. The district usually asks voters to allocate surplus funds that way and voters consistently approve.
The details below and the summary information both newspapers are posting online skip the comments regarding the surplus allocation for now.
Budget work continues
The Harwood Unified Union School District School Board meets next on March 27 to continue working on potential cuts to present a revised budget to voters this spring.
This is the second time since the district unified all of its schools under one budget in 2017 that the budget failed on Town Meeting Day. The other instance was in 2020 when the $39.7 million budget called for combining all seventh- and eighth-grade classes at Crossett Brook Middle School and moving fifth- and sixth-graders there from Moretown Elementary School. The plan relied on using temporary classrooms until Crossett Brook could be expanded. For the revote, which came early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the board scrapped plans to move students and voters approved it.
Now the school board’s goal is to have a new budget approved by voters before the current fiscal year ends on June 30. The new budget would go into effect July 1.
At the board’s March 8 three days after the recent budget defeat, district Finance Manager Lisa Estler addressed a key question: What happens if a budget is not passed by July 1?
Estler explained that state law allows for school districts to borrow up to 87% of their prior year’s budget if voters fail to approve a new one. In Harwood’s case, 87% of the fiscal year 2024 budget is $39.5 million. That would be 22% less than the budget proposed on March 5.
“That’s [a] devastating impact to us,” Estler said.
She described it another way to convey the magnitude: It would amount to having to cut $5.9 million from the 2024 current budget. “Putting it into perspective, Crossett Brook’s operating budget currently in fiscal year ’24 is $6.1 million,” Estler said.
What follows below are some highlights from survey comments on the two key questions: why respondents voted as they did on the budget, and what they would like to see to eventually vote yes.
The full list of responses to those questions has been compiled with respondent names deleted. That data is posted in Part 2 here.
State education formula broken
Voters who rejected the $50.8 million budget cited the impact on property taxes and a desire to send a message to legislators in Montpelier as their top reasons. A typical response: “Taxpayers cannot afford the ridiculous property tax increases because of our state legislators’ fiscal irresponsibility.”
Some elaborated on what they would like state lawmakers to consider, one writing that they wanted “to send the legislature the message that they have to treat the school funding issue with urgency. We need to fund schools differently, and in my opinion move away from the property tax as full funding source for schools. we need to finally get single payer health care (at least for primary care) to bring down the staff health care costs, and increase the ‘wealth’ taxes.”
One voter said their message to state government is “that the way we fund public schools is broken. I own a 2,000-square- foot home and my taxes will be over $1,000 per month.”
This comment from a Waitsfield voter was echoed by many who responded: “My vote was based on the absurd funding mechanisms and not about the spending.”
This voter agreed: “Enough is enough: the current state-wide education 'system' is irreparably broken.”
Cost was too high
A common theme in dozens of comments stressed that the tax increases from the defeated budget were not affordable or sustainable or responsible.
“The schools should not be punished for a broken property tax system, one voter wrote.”
“It is obnoxious to expect an average resident to see a 20-30% tax increase,” another said.
“I feel the school board needs to show fiscal responsibility. I don’t see any efforts to reduce or control costs. We cannot continue to run and maintain as many schools as we do for as few students as we have. I attended the budget meeting and I did not get the sense that anyone on the school board was concerned about the increase in property taxes.”
In February, the legislature amended the state funding formula to remove a 5% tax cap incentive that the Harwood budget relied on. The school board passed on the chance to reduce the budget, saying it didn’t want to postpone the vote. That didn’t sit well with this commenter: “I thought the board showed arrogance when given the opportunity to postpone vote and rework budget given the lifting of the 5% cap and chose not to,” they wrote.
Additionally, many who voted no also expressed support for the work of the school board and administration.
“Our spendthrift legislature needs to understand the impact their decisions (the decisions that result in 20-35% increases in property taxes in one year!) have on everyday Vermonters. This is not a repudiation of the local school board,” a voter pointed out.
‘Yes’ voters weigh in
A fair number of survey respondents said they voted for the proposed budget and shared their reasons why.
“Because it is our responsibility to educate the kids in our district. I know how tight the budget is, and the care taken to write it. I am disappointed with our legislature’s lack of planning and research. Our local reps signed off on this and then offered very little in explanation at town meeting. It’s BS,” is how one put it.
Another respondent voted yes because “the schools should not be punished for a broken property tax system.”
Yet even many of those who voted yes on the budget acknowledged that the proposed increases were significant. One wrote, “I thought the 11% increase was too high given the property tax hike in store, but wished to support the Board's work which I thought would be voted down.”
“I understand the objections. The tax increases are no joke. They're completely unsustainable for some families, so ultimately, I'd like to see us move away from property taxes as a method of funding education,” is how another “yes” voter put it.
“I'm afraid that squeezing schools too much will create a downward spiral of education quality via staff attrition, deterioration of buildings, and cuts to essential services. I moved to Vermont from a state that went this route; it wasn't pretty,” another said.
Impacts of cuts
While some questioned why the board offered a budget with the same level of service that was offered during the COVID pandemic when federal funding aid was available, others expressed concern that trying to reduce staff and programming now is too soon while students’ social, emotional and academic impacts have not recovered to pre-pandemic levels.
“Because I believe the pandemic has left the schools with large and long-term problems (behavior, learning loss, emotional trauma, neglect) and they are already struggling to meet those needs. Cutting staff, services, or programs is a terrible idea right now,” one respondent said.
Another spoke up with concern about where cuts might be made.
“My vote was a vote of support for the school. If it was a question on how great a job I think the state is doing to figure out the funding hole we are in- I would have voted ‘no.’ We know the majority of flexibility schools have with budgets is around staffing. The first staff on the chopping blocks? The ones who are helping are most at-risk students.”
Finally, a handful of survey respondents admitted they did not cast a ballot on March 5.
“I did not vote. I was not comfortable voting one way or the other,” one said.
Getting to ‘yes’
While there was no one-size-fits-all answer for what it would take for voters to pass a new school budget, some themes emerged such as: anger that the legislature has not adequately addressed Vermont’s education funding formula, strong support for consolidating schools and reducing administrators, and specific, limited overall increases. There was also a strong sentiment from those who supported the first budget to avoid cuts in the next version that impact students.
At least seven suggested a budget with a 5% increase would get their vote; others called for no increase or 2% at most. Others called for cutting the failed budget by 10 to 25%. Here are some comments:
“Double digit tax increases are a non-starter.”
“Ninety percent of this year’s budget”
“At most, a level service budget as compared to 2022 - Meaning no more than 365 FTE. This is roughly $48.8 million budget. My preference would be a reduction from 2022 staffing to reflect the reduced enrollment to 355 FTE.”
“A single digit rate increase and a push to have the state start from scratch on education funding.”
The latter theme was popular: Will the state education funding formula get reworked? Many followed the saga of Act 127 this year with its new pupil weights and the repealed tax cap. Here’s what some had to say:
“I want to see what plans the board comes back with, and to be convinced that they have done the best they can, but just as importantly, I want to see the legislature put some funding relief in for this year, while they take aggressive action to fix the broken funding system.”
“Some confidence that lawmakers are committed to fixing the education funding system at the state level.”
“You won't win my vote. My vote is a protest against a failed system. I have only voted against a school budget once before in my life.”
“I don’t think it’s fair to put all the pressure, responsibility and blame on the SD - The state needs to get tough and put some smart and sustainable policies in place… otherwise the community will hate and resent their local schools and schools will continue to struggle.”
“I will vote yes but our legislature needs to get the message (one third of budgets voted down) that they need to step up and tackle the hard issues of funding and health care.”
School consolidation refrain returns
Among those voting no, there were dozens of references to consolidating schools as a way to reduce costs. Many suggested that considering fewer school facilities also was long overdue.
“Each of the Valley elementary schools serve 25% to 40% of the [number of] students that are at Brookside. From Moretown Mountain Road to Waitsfield Elementary is 15 minutes, the same as my child's commute from Waterbury Center to CBMS. I'd imagine a high percentage of kids attending Fayston Elementary drive past Waitsfield on their way to school. Having four schools in The Valley that serve nearly the same population as Waterbury/Duxbury does not seem sustainable any longer.”
Others suggested the district reduce the number of school administrators: “The number of students is decreasing and it seems we are hiring more administrative positions than actual teachers educating. Do away with ‘dual’ principles and there will be a significant cost savings. Also, time to close either Fayston or Warren elementary schools.”
“Start laying off in the administration offices – not the teachers.”
“Significant budgetary cuts through consolidation. I will not vote for any budget that cuts programs. We can save money through closing buildings.”
“Cut spending I don't care how. Consolidate schools, increase class size, have teachers pay more for their insurance. Reduce paraeducators. Cut everything that is resulting in a muffin top on this budget. My budget doesn't suffer from muffin top because the school budget is a parasite, sucking the life out of me. Do you hear the anger?”
“A budget focused on providing a high quality education for our district. Focus on student-facing teachers and staff, less on administrators.”
Another area survey respondents suggest school officials look at is having school staff share more of the cost of their health insurance as those in other professions do.
“Teachers need to absorb health care insurance increases, not taxpayers,” one wrote.
“Maybe the teachers can pay more of their own health care costs like more and more Vermonters are having to,” echoed another.
“Have employees help to pay for their health insurance and get new negotiators. You have to realize that your increases are not sustainable for taxpayers.”
Beware of turning ‘yes’ to ‘no’
Those who voted yes on the budget had a lot to say about the next budget. Many urged no drastic staff cuts -- some saying that would prompt them to vote no.
“I already voted yes. I hope not to see any drastic cuts in staffing at schools.”
“Do not cut any teacher positions. Do not cut any advanced programming.”
“I will vote yes. Period…. This is a hard time of year for educators and I also feel that having a strong direction for next year (i.e. getting a budget proposed sooner than later) will help keep more teachers from looking at other employment opportunities. I do worry that community members will vote no unless the change is bigger. I’m not sure how much we can lower taxes to make those ‘no’ votes turn around.”
Lisa Loomis is editor of The Valley Reporter. Lisa Scagliotti is editor of Waterbury Roundabout. The two newspapers collaborated on the online survey and reporting its results.
