Rutland Herald
October 08,2014
On Friday, Oct. 3, The Herald inaccurately
reported that I said the current formula for funding education through
state property taxes creates “a Robin Hood situation.” On Saturday, the
Herald used this inaccuracy to support its editorial, “Paying for
Schools.” I have never uttered these words or made this analogy.
Property tax reform is a critical issue for our town, and we have chosen
our words very carefully and deliberately when it comes to describing
our position on the topic. As we wrote in various letters to Governor
Shumlin and state officials over the last year, our position is:
“We believe Vermont’s current education funding system is inhibiting the growth of tourism communities which are primary drivers in our state’s economy. By placing huge tax burdens on tourism towns like ours, Act 60 and 68 have dramatically limited businesses’ ability to reinvest in capital improvements and marketing and keep pace with their competitors in other states. For example, as a result of Act 60 and 68, Killington Resort saw a 345 percent increase in their property taxes from 1996 to 2012. As a result, the Resort had to defer improvements and marketing campaigns they otherwise would have implemented to keep pace with competitive resorts in other states such as New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, California and Utah that don’t have similar limitations. A recent report from the Vermont Legislature on Act 60 (also known as the Equal Educational Opportunity Act) notes that while Vermont has experienced the largest growth of per-pupil spending in the country (149.9 percent between 1999 and 2011), the results during that period have been relatively flat or exhibit only modest increases. We support equitable funding for schools, but the education property tax system is inhibiting our ability to grow economically, and the funding system has not improved the education of Vermont students as a whole. In our estimation, the effect of Act 60 and 68, while well intentioned, has produced a net loss for the state. We advocate that the state seriously reconsider its education funding policy.”
Last week, Rutland Regional Planning leaders convened to kick off the formation of a regional economic development plan. We applaud their efforts and will work to support this critical initiative. We understand that our regional economies are intertwined and interdependent. For these regional collaborations to be successful it’s important for everyone at the table to understand how education tax policy and our regional economic development are linked. In the future, I encourage the Rutland Herald editorial board to consider these significant factors as well as use accurate reports on policy positions to base its opinions.
SETH WEBB
(Town manager)
Killington
“We believe Vermont’s current education funding system is inhibiting the growth of tourism communities which are primary drivers in our state’s economy. By placing huge tax burdens on tourism towns like ours, Act 60 and 68 have dramatically limited businesses’ ability to reinvest in capital improvements and marketing and keep pace with their competitors in other states. For example, as a result of Act 60 and 68, Killington Resort saw a 345 percent increase in their property taxes from 1996 to 2012. As a result, the Resort had to defer improvements and marketing campaigns they otherwise would have implemented to keep pace with competitive resorts in other states such as New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, California and Utah that don’t have similar limitations. A recent report from the Vermont Legislature on Act 60 (also known as the Equal Educational Opportunity Act) notes that while Vermont has experienced the largest growth of per-pupil spending in the country (149.9 percent between 1999 and 2011), the results during that period have been relatively flat or exhibit only modest increases. We support equitable funding for schools, but the education property tax system is inhibiting our ability to grow economically, and the funding system has not improved the education of Vermont students as a whole. In our estimation, the effect of Act 60 and 68, while well intentioned, has produced a net loss for the state. We advocate that the state seriously reconsider its education funding policy.”
Last week, Rutland Regional Planning leaders convened to kick off the formation of a regional economic development plan. We applaud their efforts and will work to support this critical initiative. We understand that our regional economies are intertwined and interdependent. For these regional collaborations to be successful it’s important for everyone at the table to understand how education tax policy and our regional economic development are linked. In the future, I encourage the Rutland Herald editorial board to consider these significant factors as well as use accurate reports on policy positions to base its opinions.
SETH WEBB
(Town manager)
Killington
No comments:
Post a Comment