The Valley Reporter reached out to the six candidates seeking three seats in the state senate representing Washington District, which includes The Valley towns and Waterbury. Candidates were asked to respond to four questions in 125 words or less. Here are the answers from those who responded. Incumbent Senate candidates are Ann Cummings, D, Montpelier, Andrew Perchlik, D-Marshfield; Anne Watson, D- Montpelier; Donald Koch, R-Barre; Mike Doyle, R- Montpelier; and Mike Deering II, Barre. Cummings, Perchlik, Watson and Koch responded.
VR: Vermont’s education finance is an untenable mess. Which state’s system should Vermont emulate because it is working and affordable? Please identify a state/s and why that system is working.
Cummings: Vermont legislators have no personal staff -- I don't have the resources to study other states’ funding systems. To my knowledge, Vermont’s locally-controlled funding system is unique. Local voters decide how much to spend and the state deducts the dedicated state revenue and sets the tax rate to raise the rest. Most other states use an adequacy formula and set a rate considered adequate and provide it to the local schools. There are many variations on this system, but that is the basic system. Vermont also has the Brigham decision, which requires that every child have the same access to school funding. We can't just provide a state payment and let the schools raise the rest on the local grand list.
Koch: We need to look at how other states fund education and how it’s working. We’re the only state that funds our schools this way, with the second highest per pupil cost. Can we consolidate by county, with one superintendent for each county district? Can we do this and still maintain local control over our schools? We need to consider moving away from funding schools with property taxes and consider a baseline funding from the state, paid for by income taxes. This might be supplemented locally by property taxes if a school district wants extra funding for specific needs not included in the baseline funding. And how can a citizen’s action in the voting booth be made to have a direct effect on the citizen’s tax bill?
Perchlik: My understanding of the other states’ systems is that the majority are based on the state sending a set amount per student to the local schools. Vermont is the only state that funds kK-12 education the way we do with local control of spending amounts with a statewide property tax set to meet that locally approved spending (minus the other taxes that send funds to the Education Fund). We need to comply with the Brigham Decision regarding equity in educational opportunities while moving towards a student-based payment to local schools. That means keeping pupil weighting but not guaranteeing that all locally-approved spending is covered by the education fund. I support local control but want a closer connection to one’s school budget vote to one’s tax rate.
Watson: I don't think there's going to be any specific silver bullet to solve our education financing problem, but rather there are probably multiple steps we should take. One of those steps is to tax second homes at a much higher rate. If someone can afford to own a second home in Vermont, then they can afford to pay more in taxes. My understanding is that Michigan does this.
VR: How can/will you adapt that system for Vermont given our small population? Voters all understand that the Legislature is now engaged in another lengthy study that will yield no real education tax savings in the near term.
Cummings: Vermont has one of the highest per pupil costs in the country with many schools well below the size recommended for best student outcomes. Past recommendations for changes to how we deliver education, school, or district consolidations, have met with stiff local resistance. The state, including the Governor and the Legislature, must lead the discussion on improving outcomes while reducing costs. We need to look at the funding formula and funding sources, school and district sizes, transportation, our weighting system, and our academic performance. We all want affordable, high-quality education for our children. Politicizing the discussion makes it more difficult and reduces our chance for success. I presently serve on the Commission on the Future of Public Education, its Steering Committee and School Finance subcommittee.
Koch: I agree that the present study is a waste of time. There have been something like 38 such studies before it, and none of them has produced any significant improvement. This study was the Democrat supermajority’s method of kicking the can down the road.
Rather than creating a committee to study what has already been studied to death, the Legislature itself has to take responsibility for education funding reform, do the necessary research, and pass a bill.
Perchlik: I’m not sure that all voters understand that, but I get the point the question is trying to make. That said we do need to do these in-depth committee discussions if we are going to pass meaningful changes. I think some short-term budget controls could be imposed on school spending that give school districts reason to consolidate administrative and other costs. The state also needs to support schools for costs driven by the state – like PCB remediation, health insurance, and social services that have been pushed onto the schools that used to be covered by the state.
Watson: I don't think we need to wait for the Commission on the Future of Education's reports to tax second homes at a higher rate. The state would likely have taxed second homes sooner, except that the tax department did not have the data about who owned second homes. Because of a bill that was passed last session, we should have that data by the end of this year. Given our small population, I think we will likely need to consider other potential solutions as well, like ensuring that our school-provided mental health services are paid for through Medicaid, not the education fund.
VR: Vermont’s clean energy standard has received a fair amount of press recently. If you served in the Legislature during its review and passage, please explain your vote. If you are seeking office, please explain your position.
Cummings:- I served in the Legislature when the Clean Heat bill was passed. The problem is the cost of making that transition for individuals, especially those living on fixed incomes. I was very vocal about my concern about that cost when the bill was first debated. I was instrumental in having the bill referred to the PUC to have the costs calculated. With that proviso attached, I voted for the bill. My next vote depends on what the report says about costs and what mechanisms we can find to help people make the transition. Reducing carbon emissions is a public good and the cost shouldn’t be placed on the backs of individuals. It’s essential to reduce electricity costs, so people realize a savings in their fuel bills.
Koch: The Clean Heat Standard study the Legislature commissioned to determine the cost of implementing the clean heat standard determined that it will cost at least $9.6 billion, resulting in heating fuels increasing as much as $4 per gallon. This is unaffordable, and I’ll vote no in January, if I am elected. The Democrats are crying “misinformation” saying that the Clean Heat Standard was just a study, and that we won’t know the real cost until December or January (after the election), but it was not a study. The bill which passed said that the mandates must be met by the set dates, and the study was simply to determine if that standard will be implemented. The Democrats won’t say how they will vote. I’ll vote no.
Perchlik: I voted yes to move forward with developing a draft clean heat standard so we would have more detailed information on which we could build a clean heat standard program – or not. There were a lot of questions in 2023 when it was first discussed and the reports, rules, and draft program design the Legislature will receive in January will help answer many of those question. I think our current heating system is unaffordable and there is little we are doing to protect Vermonters from heating fuel price spikes when they happen. I support finding a market-based way to lowering our dependency on imported polluting fossil fuels and building the local renewable energy heating sector, in particular local wood-based heating fuel like pellets.
Watson: Fossil fuels available in central Vermont are more expensive than their renewable alternatives. The Clean Heat Standard is one way to make renewable heating systems or technologies significantly cheaper so that middle and lower-income Vermonters could afford to switch. That could save Vermonters a significant amount of money, and provide an incentive for fossil fuel dealers to transition into clean heat providers. Right now, three out of five fuel dealers install heat pumps and another fifth are considering offering them. Act 18 required the state to design a Clean Heat Standard program, but not move forward with implementing it until multiple studies had been done. I voted yes on this bill. We'll see what those studies say specifically about the financial impacts of such a program.
VR: That clean heat standard is designed to reduce the state’s reliance on fossil fuels and creation of carbon emissions. What other measures can the state foster/encourage to help Vermonters prepare for more extreme weather events?
Cummings: No answer sent.
Koch: We need to focus on climate resiliency rather than fantasizing about changing the climate. We need to consider such measures as selective dredging of the rivers, streambed, and riverbank stabilization projects, upgrading our culverts and bridges to handle larger volumes of water that come with more frequent weather events, and the additional runoff that comes with increased development. We also need to examine what we can do to limit the increase in impervious surfaces which contribute to additional runoff, such as choosing to build solar panels on existing rooftops and parking lots, rather than in farm fields.
Perchlik: Supporting local towns dealing with flash floodings should be a top priority for the next legislative session. Small towns are not equipped to rebuild the amount of infrastructure and housing destruction on top of dealing with immediate health and safety needs that new super-storms are causing.
We need to support homes and businesses – as well as their towns -- to move structures out of the river corridors or build more resilient buildings to withstand the more extreme weather events being driven by a rapidly warming climate.
Watson: Over the summer, I worked as a disaster case manager, helping people recover from the 2023 floods. We need more contractors, case managers, and engineers to help people understand how to mitigate damage or potential damage to their properties. I'd like Vermont to adopt a statewide waterway strategic plan to coordinate between municipalities and watersheds to see where the most impactful river improvements would be in the state, and fund those improvements. We also need to build more housing out of the flood plain so that people in the flood plain have more options if or when their homes are flooded. We need more housing for many reasons, but getting people out of harm's way is a reason to build more housing.
