By Ethan Weinstein/VTDigger
A group of lawmakers and a Vermont Agency of Education executive tasked with designing a potential school construction aid program have hashed out the details but stopped short of identifying a funding stream.
The group is hoping Gov. Phil Scott will recommend appropriating state money in his budget proposal to help pay for school construction projects. But that looks unlikely.
“The Agency has not submitted a specific budget request for the creation of a [school construction aid] special fund at this time,” Lindsey Hedges, an Agency of Education spokesperson, said in an email Dec. 10. “The proposed legislation represents a thoughtful and collaborative effort, and we believe that the question of funding should be approached with the same level of diligence and consideration.”
The uncertainty raises questions about state financial support for Vermont’s schools as voters clamor for education property tax relief and deteriorating school infrastructure increasingly disrupts classrooms.
Vermont’s schools are the second oldest in the nation and will require upwards of $6 billion in infrastructure investments in the next two decades, according to the Agency of Education.
The eye-popping price tag is just one cost pressure on the state’s public education system. Lawmakers say they plan to address Vermont’s school funding system in the coming legislative session, with school construction aid a possible part of the path ahead.
Vermont has lacked a state-funded school construction program for more than 15 years, transferring the financial burden to local school budgets and property taxes.
Now, as the rising cost of education has become one of the state’s most pressing political issues, officials have turned renewed attention to the idea of state support for construction. Some argue updating schools would save money currently spent on deferred maintenance and energy inefficiencies. Others have indicated now is not the time to put more money into education.
“Voters were very clear that affordability is a top priority for them, so any proposal with a cost needs to be very transparent about what will fund it and how,” Amanda Wheeler, a spokesperson for the governor, said. “If that funding source is proposed to be a new revenue or fee, the governor would not be in support.”
As proposed, the aid program would pay for 20% of a project’s eligible cost, with opportunities for additional funding up to another 20% if certain criteria are met. The program’s responsibilities would primarily fall to the Agency of Education, with an additional advisory board consulting with the agency on implementation.
The agency would require at least three full time positions to implement the program, according to Jill Briggs Campbell, the interim deputy secretary of education and a member of the construction aid working group. The group voted unanimously to endorse a draft piece of legislation last week.
Sen. Martine Gulick, D-Chittenden Central, who co-chaired the group, said she felt good about its work but more needed to be done in legislative committees come January.
“A lot of the current draft, the draft that we ended up with, comes from the previous program that existed prior to 2007,” she said. “We’re hoping that the education committees will take this bill up and really flesh out some of the details.”
Asked about the likelihood that the governor will include an appropriation for school construction in his budget recommendations, Gulick called herself “hopeful.”
“We have the second oldest school facilities portfolio in the country. It’s at a point where it’s unhealthy,” she said. “If you want to be someone who’s looking at fiscal responsibility then you have to be looking at the future.”
Yet as of Dec. 10, there appeared little reason to expect the administration would recommend funding construction aid without cutting from elsewhere in the state budget.
Part of the working group’s charge was to “align the proposed construction aid program with fiscal modeling produced by the Joint Fiscal Office.” Historically, the state provided school construction aid in the Capital Bill through bonds and by appropriating one-time money.
Sen. David Weeks, R-Rutland, served on the construction aid working group and is a member of the Senate Education Committee. He said Republican senators recently met with Scott to discuss the administration’s legislative priorities, and construction aid was not among them.
“I get that we have some other fiscal problems to solve,” Weeks said in an interview Tuesday, noting that the administration could have secondary priorities that were not discussed. “I am trying to get a sense myself for whether they have an appetite for restarting school construction aid.”
Although he took issue with some of the working group’s recommendations, like the bureaucratic layer of creating an advisory group, Weeks praised the group’s bipartisan collaboration and indicated his support for some kind of school construction aid.
“Do we need it? Yeah, we really do,” he said.
Weeks predicted the legislation “will be changed a thousand times” when it reaches committees this session, and he suggested construction aid will be a key part of conversations about education finance this session.
“I think it’s very clear to everybody we do have a cost problem,” Weeks said. “There’s going to be a lot of levers pulled to make ourselves more efficient in how we spend.”
