The Vermont legislative session begins on Jan. 8, and lawmakers and administration officials are preparing for the new biennium. First elected in 2016, Gov. Phil Scott won a fifth term in November with nearly 74% of the vote. The election results signaled significant changes under the golden dome, as Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate, breaking the Democrats’ supermajority. Scott joins Vermont Edition to discuss his priorities for the upcoming session, including property taxes, education spending, and the incoming Trump administration.
Then, Vermont Public senior reporter Bob Kinzel provides analysis of the governor’s interview and discusses what’s unique about this political moment in Vermont and what seems like business as usual.
This interview was produced for the ear. We highly recommend listening to the audio. We’ve also provided a transcript, which has been edited for length and clarity.
Mikaela Lefrak: The state's projected education property tax bills are going to rise in the coming fiscal year by an average of 5.9%. Will your administration be submitting a plan for how to address that increase?
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, of course. We're all going to have to enter into this discussion to make sure that we reduce the tax burden on Vermonters, I just want to level set this as well. Many people are focusing on property taxes, and that's that's where we need to focus right now, because that's where what people saw, they saw their bill and knew that that wasn't affordable for them anymore. But just to to continue to spend as much as we're spending without taking care of some of the structural problems within the education system, doesn't fix the problem at all. And if we, if we just focus on property taxes and don't consider other taxes as well and the overall spending, then we're not going to provide the relief that Vermonters are asking for. You know, eight years ago, when I came into office as governor, education spending was about $1.5 billion, and today it's, it's closer to $2.5 billion. It's $2.4 billion, the second highest in the nation in education spending per pupil. And I think we may have even eclipsed that milestone as well. We may be number one in the nation at this point. So we have a lot of work to do, but I think voters sent a clear message. They want a more affordable Vermont, but it's not just about property taxes.
More from Vermont Public: How does Vermont pay for schools? A video explainer and glossary of terms
Mikaela Lefrak: Would you say that affordability is your number one priority for the upcoming legislative session, or is it something else?
Gov. Phil Scott: I would say that has been one of our priorities since day one. I think most. Mikaela, I'm sure you've heard it numerous times. Vermont has certainly heard it. I've used it in every single speech I've given to the Legislature, starting eight years ago, when I talked about making Vermont more affordable, growing the economy, and protecting the most vulnerable are the pillars of our being. It's who we are and what we need to do to provide relief to Vermonters and move us forward, not backward. So yes, affordability will be again, one of the principles that will adhere to.
Mikaela Lefrak: Well, while we're on this topic of affordability and its overlaps with Vermont's education funding system, I want to ask you about Zoie Saunders, who, late last month, you reappointed to serve as permanent education secretary. She's been serving as interim secretary since April 30. The Vermont Senate voted down her confirmation last spring when you first appointed her, and it's been a point of contention between your administration and Democratic leaders for the past nine months or so. I'm curious what you appreciate about Zoie Saunders' first nine months in office that made you decide to reappoint her, and also she's involved in these conversations about the spending on our education system that you keep highlighting.
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, I think that, I think legislators are, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think legislators are starting to get to know her and see what we see in her — a breath of fresh air, a different perspective, works hard and incredibly bright and articulate and will be part of how we provide education to — high-quality education for our students, and while making, giving, producing it at a cost we can afford. So I think, I think we're seeing a bit of a softening with the legislature there. They're seeing her attributes as well. I've heard comments from many who appreciate her perspective. So I believe this will, I thought it was political before again, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt, a clean slate, and we'll, we'll begin again. But again, when you have the Democrat, Democratic leader of the Education Committee, Senate Education, who was a proponent of Zoie Saunders, get up on the House floor, the Senate floor, and talk about all her attributes then and see that she got voted down. That just told me that it was right with politics. And but it's a new day, a new year, a new new body, and I have great hopes that she'll be confirmed.
Mikaela Lefrak: Let's go to the phones. We have Meaghan, calling in from South Burlington. What's your question or your comment for Gov. Phil Scott? Meaghan.
Meaghan: Yes. Hi. Thank you Mikaela, and thank you Gov. Scott. It's really important for the people of Vermont to hear directly from their governor. I am calling from South Burlington, and like many towns and cities in our state, we are facing another challenging budget year for our public schools. And you have asserted numerous times that our education fund provides the only second, or I guess, the top second cost per pupil in the nation. And I know, having talked to both legislators as well as other people, I know throughout our country that our education fund also funds human and health services as well as facilities for our schools, which is not the case in every state throughout the nation. So I really want to challenge the apples to apples comparison, giving perhaps a false perception that our schools are overpriced, our public schools, and I'd like you to actually back up that assertion that we are the second highest cost per pupil in the nation, actually comparing apples to apples. Thank you.
Gov. Phil Scott: We'd be happy to do that because I do believe that we are one of the highest in the nation, and to say that —
Mikaela Lefrak: Just to jump in, I do think that a report from the Agency of Education that came out at the end of last month said that we were the highest cost per pupil per student. Yeah, go ahead.
Gov. Phil Scott: Again, I think that we have to acknowledge that we have some mental health challenges, with some emotional issues, with some of our kids as a result of the pandemic, but that's been the case for many across the country. So I believe we are comparing apples to apples, but we'd be happy to produce the data to either back it up or walk it back, one of the two, but it doesn't change the fact that we were spending $1.4 or $1.5 billion, eight years ago, and we're spending $2.4 billion or more now. Those are facts you can't you can't debate. So regardless of how that is, we're doing the same thing then, as we are now. So again, I want to make sure that that we're providing an education to our children, that is, that is the best in the nation, but at a price we can afford.
Mikaela Lefrak: Well, thank you, Meaghan for the call. Let's go next to Steven in Strafford. Steven, go ahead.
Steven: Hi. Thank you for taking my call, I want to say, Governor, why? Why aren't we taxing second homes the way we should be, which is doubling their taxes? We pay income tax when we live in the state. You can't, you can't find a house because the prices are so high. Because people are buying second homes and living in Vermont, I think that they're not paying enough tax.
Mikaela Lefrak: Thank you, Steve. Gov. Scott, thoughts on increasing the property tax rates for second homes?
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, I think the number of people I've spoken, to second homeowners in Vermont, and let's, let's make sure that we, we know we're talking about. It's not just out-of-staters who are, who are paying these property taxes. When we talk about the non-residential portion of our taxes, that's businesses. That is, that is second homeowners, camp owners, Vermonters who just want to enjoy themselves in the summer, deer camps, and so forth, as well as those second homeowners from other states, they pay a lot now and don't receive the services that that we others enjoy, our education system being one. So we just have to be careful with that. And I just think that we can deliver education in a much more equitable way if we pay attention to that, but if we start increasing the tax on the non-residential side, that's going to impact businesses and they're just going to pass those costs on to consumers, which is us. So we're not really fixing and solving the problem by just spending more. We need to find ways to provide education in a more equitable way, in a more cost-effective way, than we're doing today. And I truly believe that can be accomplished.
Mikaela Lefrak: Well, speaking of possible accomplishments or points of emphasis for this upcoming legislative session, Governor, the Legislature is going to look a little bit different in terms of the split between parties than it did last session. On election day, Republicans gained 17 seats in the state House and six in the state Senate. Democrats, of course, still control both of those chambers, but they don't enjoy the supermajority that they did last session. You campaigned pretty hard for a number of Republicans that won their seats. What do you hope will be different about this legislative session?
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, I think it will give us a seat at the table, and so that they will need to listen. The majority will still be the majority. They control the agenda, but at the same time, they will have to at least consider our proposals as they move forward. So I think it'll be a healthier debate, and there will still be controversy, and we'll disagree vehemently in some areas, but at the same time, I think we'll come to a better conclusion, and everyone will have to give a little bit to get what they want.
Mikaela Lefrak: You also backed the lieutenant governor-elect, Republican John Rodgers, over the incumbent David Zuckerman, who's a Progressive/Democrat. The lieutenant governorship. I mean, you're a former lieutenant governor, so it's a, it's a bit of a funny position. In some ways, it's very prominent. In some ways, there's not a lot of direct day-to-day, you know, legislating things like that that a regular Vermonter might notice. Now that you are going to be working with John Rodgers, and you both are, you know, very vocally supported one another's politics. Do you think there are ways in which Vermonters might notice a difference?
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, I think you know it may not be what Vermonters will notice on a day-to-day basis, but the lieutenant governor, for instance, is a member of the Committee on Committees, and they appoint, in the Senate, they appoint the members of the committees, committee chairs and so forth. And while they don't have a veto power, it's a three-member committee. They do have input, and I think that that's going to be important. For instance, last year, last two years, there wasn't a single Republican. Maybe a lot of that is due to the numbers, but not a single Republican sat on the Natural Resources [Committee]. And I don't think that's healthy. I think there should be at least one from the minority party on every single committee. I don't think it should be stacked in any way. And it should be those members should be accurate, be equitably distributed throughout those all the, all the committees in the Senate so that you can hear different perspectives. So I think that's, that's one another, of course, is there's going to be some close votes. Now there's, it's going to be closer than before, so the lieutenant governor, as a presiding officer of the Senate, will have a tie-breaking ability, so that that might impact more visibly than the committee assignment. So again, having another friendly voice on your side that has a statewide platform will be helpful.
Mikaela Lefrak: Let’s take one more call here before we have to take a short break. Chris in Castleton, you're on the line. Go ahead.
Chris: How you doing, Governor?
Gov. Phil Scott: I'm good, thank you.
Chris: My question is, is every state I drive through to get out of Vermont, except I think New Hampshire, I get, you know, a toll. But everybody comes into Vermont through the Fair Haven corridor going north, or, you know, on the 89 or the 91, they don't pay tolls to come into Vermont. And I've done the numbers before, it's quite a bit of money, and I don't see why we can't throw up tolls easily enough today with our technology and computers.
Mikaela Lefrak: Alright, tolls on Vermont's highways. Gov. Scott, is this something you'd support?
Gov. Phil Scott: Yeah, you know, that's been brought up many, many times over the last couple of decades. The issue Chris isn't whether we should or shouldn't. It's whether we can with the federal government and the way that the money flows. We receive a lot of federal money. We're dependent on federal money, especially for roads and bridges. So once you accept that money, you accept it under certain conditions. So if we get, let's say, 80 or 90% funding from the federal government, it means that we cannot put tolls on those highways. So I would say that the secondary roads in particular can't do, but even I-89, I-91, I-93, all of those are we've accepted federal money, and without a change from the federal government, we're not able to do so now. It's not to say that they won't do something in the future, but that that isn't the case today and I'm not sure it's on their radar in Congress. So again, I understand that's an easy place to go, but New Hampshire built those highways with their own money. They bonded for it, and they use the tolls to pay that off, and that's why they can continue to toll. Same with New York. Not all their highways are able to do that, but they've taken advantage of the ones that they built themselves and paid for themselves.
Mikaela Lefrak: Gov. Scott, you've made it very clear over the years that you are not a Trump supporter. You didn't vote for him in the last elections. Frederic in Brattleboro wrote us this email. “Donald Trump largely ignored Vermont during his first presidency, but some of us suspect that he will attempt to shift resources to states that were more supportive of his goals and punish and make examples of those that didn't display sufficient fealty. As a Republican governor who didn't support the candidate, do you feel the president-elect may be planning to penalize you, personally, or our state in various ways?”
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, I certainly hope not, but we'll see what happens. I think there are bigger fish to fry. He's going to have a number of states, bigger states on his left, who don't support him that probably have their eyes on running for president in the next election. That will be more problematic for him, and I would think that would be like Illinois, maybe California, New York. There's a whole list. So we'll see. It doesn't change my perspective. I don't think you need to fall in line just because somebody threatens you, and he hasn't threatened, I want to be clear about that. He hasn't threatened us in any way. We actually had a pretty good relationship with the White House itself, some of the folks from the last administration when he was in office, and we were able to work together, at least behind the scenes and so forth. So I look forward to doing whatever we can to improve the lives of Vermonters and make sure that we're getting our fair share and we're being heard. And we'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and this is a new administration. He put together his cabinet, and we'll do the best we can with what the cards that we're dealt.
Mikaela Lefrak: Speaking of that cabinet, over the past couple weeks, we've noticed that the Republican Governors Association has been putting out this series of press releases supporting the agenda of President-elect Trump. Just today, they sent one in support of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, who's been nominated to serve as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. There were 22 signatories out of the 27 Republican governors on that email. Your name is noticeably absent from the list, as it has been on other similar emails. Why?
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, I don't know about that one in particular. I’m very careful about what I sign my name to. I want to believe in it wholeheartedly. There must have been something that gave us pause or gave me pause, but I don't recall what that was. And sometimes they're very quick. They want a quick turnaround time and they need it within, you know, 12 hours or something. And that's just not doable from my standpoint without doing some research to make sure that we know what we're getting ourselves into.
Mikaela Lefrak: Well, let's go back to the phone lines. Looks like we have a couple questions coming in around property taxes, education spending and the like. We'll start with Mac in Calais. Mac, you're on the air. Go ahead.
Mac: Hi. Yes, I just wanted to challenge the governor about equity and education. I hear a lot of talk about equity and education. Yet kids that are receiving special education [have] some of the worst outcomes in the nation. And so I haven't heard anyone articulate why. What's the problem? Why do we have such a huge equity problem? And how are they going to fix that problem? I wonder if the governor could do, he says he thinks you can do this. Well, if he thinks, who can do this, what is the problem with equity and what is the solution? Thank you.
Mikaela Lefrak: Governor?
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, I guess I'm not quite sure what the caller is getting at.
Mikaela Lefrak: Yeah, and sorry, do you mind if I clarify with the caller there for a second? Mac, when you say equity in education, are you talking about different schools and school districts getting different amounts of resources per student, or a different type of equity?
Mac: Yes, well, I'm talking about equity between different groups of children and families. If they have free and reduced lunch, their outcomes are much worse. And if they're in special education, like I said, we have some of the worst outcomes in the nation for students of that population. And so how do we improve that equity? Why are our students doing so poorly? What is the solution to that problem?
Mikaela Lefrak: OK, so in improving outcomes for kids who are on free and reduced lunch, or who have other high needs.
Gov. Phil Scott: Well, again, I think the system itself, when you look at the number of students that we once educated. It was to the tune of almost 120, probably 125,000 at one time. I don't know what the exact number is — 125,000 students — but now down to like 80 to 85 [thousand] and we have the same system, same structure. So we're educating fewer kids with the same system. So a lot of it is getting eaten up. The costs are within the system itself. So we have too many, too many teachers and so forth, the system itself for a smaller number of kids. So we have to right-size that in some way, and it doesn't mean closing every school that doesn't have enough students. It just means that we have to downsize in a way and create a structure that makes it equitable within the community. So it's going to make there's going to be some tough, tough decisions to be made over the next couple of years, and that's going to be the difficult part we just need to find ways to make sure that kids are getting the education they deserve, but it isn't getting used up by the system itself.
Mikaela Lefrak: Well, thank you, Mac, for your call. Let's go next to Wendy in Middlesex. Wendy, go ahead.
Wendy: Yeah, Gov. Scott, I have a 21-year-old and a 24-year-old who went to Rumney School in Middlesex and I used to go to the school board meetings quite frequently. The issue of how expensive our health care is for the teachers and the paras and everyone that works in the school has exacerbated, and I don't hear that much conversation when we're talking about cutting back and making school and property taxes affordable, addressing the issue, that health insurance for our teachers that work so hard is such a huge part of this issue.
More from Vermont Public: Health insurance premiums for schools are set to rise nearly 12%
Mikaela Lefrak: Thank you. Wendy, yeah, I'm curious to hear that as well, the role that rising health care costs plays in many of these areas that we're talking about. Governor, how much of that is in the state's control?
Gov. Phil Scott: It definitely is a major factor as well. The health care costs, education costs, and some of the problems associated with that are similar. And if you really dig deep, it's the same issue. It's demographics. You look at the latest census, and I talk about this a lot. We have gained 21,000 people according to the latest census, but we lost 14,000 of our youth. You know, ages zero to 17 have 14,000 fewer under the age of 18. We've lost 20,000 people between the ages of 40 to 54. That's our workforce, that's, that's the backbone of our workforce. And then we gained 48,000 more people over the age of 65, the Baby Boomers, myself included. I mean, we're aging out, but we're not replacing that with a healthier working population. That's what the problem is, and making it more unaffordable in Vermont isn't going to bring more people into the state. So that's why demographics is key to whatever we do, and that's why housing is so important. We don't have the housing we're not going to grow the workforce that we desperately need. We're not going we need more people in Vermont, more working, working-age people in Vermont to work our way out of this, because we need more taxpayers, not more taxes.
Mikaela Lefrak: On the subject of housing, a number of people emailed us ahead of today's show about homelessness in Vermont. Governor, I'm curious to hear from your perspective how the state-run Williston and Waterbury shelter operations are going. And do you think our state needs more state-run shelters like this moving forward? Is that the path you think we should take?
Gov. Phil Scott: Yeah, I do. I think that the hotel-motel program was a failure. It didn't do anything but house people. It didn't help them, lift them out of homelessness. It just, you know, put them in a warehouse, in a hotel. So I think that what we've come up with here, and we need to improve what we have. But for instance, with the family shelters we have in Williston and Waterbury, I think it's going to be helpful because we have more eyes on them, and we're able to to identify their needs. Why are they homeless? What can we do to help them out of this? Is it job-related? Is it addiction-related? And we need to do everything we can to provide that safety net around them, to help lift them out of poverty, out of homelessness. So I think that that part has been successful, and I think that we need to do more, not just with family shelters, but emergency shelters, and congregate shelters overall. I think that's the answer, more than a hotel motel program, where we don't see them again once we put them in the warehouse, them in a motel or a hotel, then we don't have eyes on them at all.
Mikaela Lefrak: Well, as I said, we got emails from folks all across the state about this issue. Seth in South Burlington, Rebecca in Brattleboro. And I also wanted to ask you about something that happened close to your own home in Berlin, just a couple weeks ago, a person died at an encampment there, and that happened just a few days after a couple died in a tent they were staying in in Wolcott. How did this news hit you, especially since one of the deaths happened in your town?
Gov. Phil Scott: Obviously, concerning any death is tragic. We're still waiting for the investigation to come to completion to find out what happened to the two in Wolcott. I think you probably reported on this, I'm sure you have because there was the sister of one of those who unfortunately lost their life was there staying at her home in her backyard with extension cords, with electricity, and a heater, offered and used the shower, laundry and so forth at the house and was offered a better arrangement, and chose not to do that. So we're waiting for that to unfold. The other one in Berlin, same situation. They were in contact, they were in an emergency shelter or homeless shelter of some sort but chose to not stay there any longer. So again, we're waiting to hear the results of the investigation, but it's tragic and it's unfortunate, and we need to do as much as we can, but we had some of those tragedies as well. With the hotel motel program, we had numerous deaths in our hotels and motels over the years, and they just weren't reported.
Mikaela Lefrak: Let's go to one more caller. David in Shrewsbury is on the line. David, go ahead.
David: Yes, Gov. Scott, thank you for taking my call. I did vote for you and Lt. Gov. Roberts, and I think you've done a fan [...] governor of our state, really given us a lot to be proud of. Now, you mentioned before about the homeless situation. Y'all were talking about giving people aid and so forth, the hotel situation. I live in Rutland County, so we've seen a lot of that in Rutland City. And the thing is, you know, when I call it, it really bothered me, because I never really saw an endgame being put in place when it came to career counseling or the housing shortage and making sure people [had] some place to go once the hotel situation ended. And the thing is, I would think the hotel situation is there to help people end what they're going and lead them to a better life and maybe make them those productive taxpayers you were speaking about earlier. Governor, can you tell me how you're going to, especially now the Legislature is a little more even, will it be easier? Do you have a plan in place to kind of push those agendas, maybe to help solve those endgame problems of housing people?
Mikaela Lefrak: Thanks, David.
Gov. Phil Scott: Yeah, absolutely. Again, our housing crisis is amongst our number one priorities, and that, again, is due to decades of not building enough housing to keep up. So producing more housing will help those who are homeless and I think that will produce more of our workforce that we desperately need and reduce if there's more supply and and the demand goes down, hopefully the price comes down with it. So that's all beneficial as well. So again, for those who are truly homeless, as I said before, we want to provide those wraparound services. And if we have an emergency shelter, for instance, we're trying to open one up in Rutland, where a congregate type of shelter where we are interacting with them, those who are homeless, on a daily basis, in providing services and finding them a job and getting them back on their feet and getting them clean, whatever we need to do that's going to be more, much more beneficial than throwing them in at a hotel motel and saying, you know, good luck. We'll see you. We'll see you at the end of the program, probably out on the street again.
Mikaela Lefrak: Well, thank you to everyone who submitted questions for Gov. Phil Scott and participated in this conversation today. Governor, I want to make sure we end on a piece of exciting, positive news here in Vermont that probably interests you as a UVM grad. The UVM men's soccer team is on a historic run. They're going to be playing in their first-ever NCAA Men's Soccer Championship game. Any words of encouragement for the team, will you be watching?
Gov. Phil Scott: Yeah, I'll be definitely watching. I'm a UVM grad myself, very proud of the team and what they've accomplished so far. And for a small state like Vermont to be on the national stage and on the edge of possibly winning a national championship is truly remarkable, so we'll be watching and hoping for the best. I know that they're a great team and just exude confidence. We look forward to seeing the game.
Broadcast live on Monday, December 16, 2024, at noon; rebroadcast at 7 p.m.
Have questions, comments, or tips? Send us a message or check us out on Instagram.