The town of Granville has a population of fewer than 300 people and an annual municipal budget of about $400,000.
But the small Addison County community is bearing an additional financial burden right now, due to the more than $100,000 in statewide education property taxes that residents haven’t paid in the last two years.
Bruce Hyde, the town auditor, says the spike in delinquencies is no mystery to him – in 2024 alone, homeowners saw their education property taxes soar by 38%.
“I would say every one of the people we have on our delinquent tax rolls are economically challenged, and they just can’t afford to pay their taxes,” Hyde said.
Because municipalities are responsible for sending the full amount due the state, it’ll fall on Granville taxpayers who are still in good standing to come up with the funds their neighbors can’t swing.
“And at some point,” Hyde said, “the town is not going to be able to make those payments to the state.”
There’s no data on the total number of property tax delinquencies statewide. But Josh Hanford, with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, says anecdotal evidence paints “a troubling sign.”
“Many folks aren’t able to pay their property taxes,” Hanford said this week.
Elected officials in Montpelier say they feel their constituents’ pain. Washington County Sen. Ann Cummings, the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, told fellow lawmakers this week that she and her husband, both retired, are also struggling to keep pace with property tax bills that have risen on average by 40% over the last five years.
“I can’t keep affording property taxes,” Cummings said. “And there is no place for me to downsize to except for maybe a senior apartment, which I’m not ready to do that yet.”
The Senate Finance Committee will soon vote out a bill that attempts to curb growth in property taxes by taking the unusual step of telling school districts how much they can spend. The legislation, introduced by Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth and endorsed by Republican Gov. Phil Scott, would impose a graduated cap on school spending in fiscal years 2028 and 2029.
The highest-spending districts would see budget increases capped at 2%. The lowest-spending districts could increase spending by as much as 9%. Analysts for the Legislature say if the caps were in place for budget votes coming in March, the measure would trim about $67 million in spending.
As lawmakers come to terms with the fact that their more systemic education reform plans won’t yield meaningful savings for at least several years, the spending cap bill has gained traction in a Democratically-controlled body that isn’t generally inclined to intervene so heavy-handedly in local spending decisions.
Education officials are working hard to remind lawmakers why they’ve resisted similar efforts in the past.
Jay Nichols, executive director of the Vermont Principals’ Association, said “arbitrary” caps ignore rising costs – healthcare and contracted salary obligations among them – over which districts have little control, and will lead to “unnecessary cuts to programming.”
Sue Ceglowski, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, which also opposes mandatory spending caps, offered lawmakers an alternative: cap the actuarial value of the teacher health benefits that now account for more than 12% of total education spending in some districts.
“Every dollar absorbed by unchecked benefit growth is a dollar unavailable for classroom construction, student supports, staffing ... and our facilities,” Ceglowski said.
The Vermont teachers’ union opposes that plan.
Cummings said the Legislature will need to pursue some manner of short-term cost containment this year, even if that means ramping up pressure on schools to relieve the strain on taxpayers.
“There will be some pain, yes,” she said.
