Connect with us

Vermont

Vermont lawmakers reconsider school funding law – Valley News

Published

on

Vermont lawmakers reconsider school funding law – Valley News


The future of Vermont’s education system again hangs in the balance as lawmakers return to Montpelier this week to reconsider a sweeping law that would change how the state funds and governs public schools.

Six months ago, Republican Gov. Phil Scott and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate stood together at a bill-signing ceremony in Montpelier to celebrate the passage of Act 73. The landmark law launched a multi-year plan to consolidate Vermont’s 119 school districts into five regional governance hubs and ultimately shift control over school spending from local boards to the state.

“While this session was long and difficult and uncomfortable for some, we were able to come together and chart a path towards a system that better serves our kids and one that taxpayers can afford,” Scott said in July.

Advertisement

But that path may no longer be politically viable in 2026.

The critical first phase of Act 73 — mandatory school district mergers — has ignited fierce opposition in communities across Vermont. That resistance got amplified last month when a task force appointed by the Legislature to draw new district maps rejected the premise of forced consolidation altogether.

In its final report, the group cited “strong concerns about student wellbeing, loss of local control, transportation burdens, rural equity, and a process perceived as rushed or unclear.”

Cornwall Rep. Peter Conlon, the Democratic chair of the House Education Committee, said lawmakers now have to confront the possibility that Act 73 no longer has the political support needed to move forward as originally envisioned.

“Whether state-imposed larger districts would pass the General Assembly I’d say is questionable,” Conlon said. “To be very honest, we’re still wrestling with the question of what the best way forward is.”

Advertisement

A new plan to rein in school spending

The seeds of Act 73 were planted on Nov. 5, 2024, when Vermont voters punished House and Senate Democrats at the ballot box following an average 14% property tax increase driven by education spending.

Republicans made historic gains in both chambers, shifting the balance of power and forcing Democratic leaders to negotiate an education reform compromise with Scott, despite significant resistance within their ranks.

Senate President Pro Tem Phil Baruth said he remains hopeful lawmakers can still move forward with district consolidation. But the Chittenden County Democrat acknowledged that the task force’s refusal to produce new maps has delayed implementation by at least six months to a year.

That delay also pushes back the rollout of Act 73’s centerpiece: a new “foundation formula” that would give the state the authority to set per-pupil spending levels for every public school in Vermont. Lawmakers view the formula as the primary mechanism for curbing education spending, which has increased by $850 million over the past decade.

With property taxes projected to rise another 12% on average this year, Baruth said taxpayers can’t afford to wait. He plans to introduce legislation this week that would impose hard caps on school budget increases ahead of Town Meeting votes in March.

Advertisement

“Now that we have this delay, I think it’s very hard to say that anything is going to produce savings within the next three or four years,” Baruth said. “So I started thinking about, ‘How could we reduce the rate of growth in the education system quickly?’”

Baruth said he has not yet settled on a specific allowable growth rate. He said the growth caps would be in effect for the next two fiscal years.

The proposal has drawn swift pushback from school officials. Sue Ceglowski, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, said budget increases are largely driven by rising health insurance costs that boards can’t control.

Imposing hard caps, she warned, would force districts to cut core student services. And she said the proposal comes as school boards put the finishing touches on spending plans they’ve been carefully crafting for months.

“Imposing hard caps on those same school budgets would inject chaos and confusion into the budget process, possibly postponing budget votes until later in the spring,” Ceglowski said.

Advertisement

House Speaker Jill Krowinski echoed those concerns. While she acknowledged the need to address what she called “unsustainable” property tax increases, the Burlington Democrat warned against a last-minute mandate.

“I am concerned that a last-minute pivot to new (a) school budget construct will upend communities and lead to rash decisions that will have a negative impact on our Vermont kids,” Krowinski said in a written statement.

Redistricting or bust?

It’s now up to the Legislature’s education committees to redraw school district maps, though neither has a clear plan for how to proceed.

“The task force, whether you agree with them, don’t agree with them … it set the process back,” said Bennington County Sen. Seth Bongartz, the Democratic chair of the Senate Education Committee. “And so we’re going to have to regroup and figure out the path forward.”

Bongartz said he remains supportive of redistricting but warned lawmakers not to let opposition derail broader funding reforms.

Advertisement

“The funding formula that we have right now is not working, is not going to work, and is putting Vermonters in a position where they can’t afford to pay their bills, so we must fix the funding formula,” he said.

The governor, however, insists that no aspect of Act 73 can fall into place until and unless the Legislature votes to approve new district maps.

Jason Maulucci, the governor’s director of policy development, said the foundation formula depends on economies of scale that only larger governance structures can provide. Act 73 also envisions major reforms to special education, pre-kindergarten, and career and technical education, all of which, he said, require larger administrative units.

“We don’t see a scenario where the foundation formula that we established last year would work well at all with 119 districts of significantly different sizes,” Maulucci said. “They need the protection of scale in order to make the best budget decisions given the funding that will be provided them.”

A different path

Jericho Rep. Edye Graning, the Democratic co-chair of the School District Redistricting Task Force, was one of several lawmakers who drew the governor’s ire for failing to deliver new district maps.

Advertisement

She said lawmakers’ response to the group’s work has been far more positive.

“We have had more often than not an incredibly positive response to what we did, which feels much better than some of the other responses we got from the administration,” Graning said.

Instead of forced mergers, the task force recommended voluntary consolidation and the creation of “Cooperative Education Service Areas,” which would allow districts to share services such as special education, transportation, and IT.

Graning said the task force heard from thousands of Vermonters and received a clear message.

“Don’t try to jam through massive redistricting without public input and without creating trusted bonds within our communities,” she said. “It was almost a unanimous voice across the state saying, ‘Please do not close our schools, but also we know that there is some reform that is needed, but please do so slowly and deliberately and thoughtfully.’”

Advertisement



Source link

Vermont

Commentary | Afonso-Rojas: Who pays when businesses ignore risks?

Published

on

Commentary | Afonso-Rojas: Who pays when businesses ignore risks?


In 2024, when Vermont passed the nation’s first Climate Superfund law (Act 47), it did something unusual; it sent a bill. After catastrophic flooding that turned roads into rivers, damaged homes and businesses, and strained public budgets, our little green state moved to require major fossil fuel companies, such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell USA, and BP America, to help pay for the costs of climate damage. It was a striking moment for policy innovation and corporate accountability. Implicit in the law is a simple idea: these costs were predictable, and someone chose not to plan for them.

For community members across Vermont, and in similar towns nationwide, Vermont’s decision is a call to action. When major companies avoid managing environmental risks, local residents pay the price through higher taxes, damaged homes, disrupted livelihoods, and strained public services. “Good” business should mean safeguarding the communities they rely on, not shifting costs onto neighbors and taxpayers. Every time companies ignore these risks, the burden lands on local taxpayers and community budgets, not just corporate balance sheets.

Thus, community benefit must be proactively built into business models from the start. They must choose prevention over mitigation. Vermont’s Climate Superfund law makes clear that when companies fail to invest in local resilience, the burden shifts to taxpayers and neighbors. Too often, companies take from communities without investing in their strength. When disaster strikes, the community pays first, while corporate donations often arrive too late or are motivated more by public relations than genuine support.

Advertisement

This is inadequate and inefficient, leaving communities vulnerable and weary. Companies that prioritize local hiring, invest in regional supply chains, and partner with community organizations create stronger, more resilient neighborhoods and consumers. Local procurement reduces supply chain disruptions, and partnerships with governments and nonprofits ensure investments address real needs. Embedding community benefit is not charity; it is smart risk management that protects both businesses and residents.

However, purpose without power is empty. Many companies continue to fall into the trap of confusing “purpose” with performance, as mission statements and sustainability pledges have become synonymous with largely symbolic changes. Executives continue to be rewarded for short-term financial gains rather than long-term resilience or community impact. This results in sustainability commitments often being sidelined when they conflict with quarterly targets. If companies are serious about sustainability, they must collaborate, employ, and invest locally to reduce long-term risks and improve communities’ well-being.

Some critics of Act 47 may argue that requiring businesses to invest in sustainability and community resilience imposes unnecessary costs. But these costs do not vanish. When companies fail to manage environmental risks, families pay higher taxes, local governments stretch their budgets, and communities face lasting hardships. Vermont’s Climate Superfund law puts the responsibility back on those who caused the harm, rather than allowing community members to bear the weight.

Addressing these challenges requires companies to work directly with their stakeholders. Multi-stakeholder solutions and collaborations between businesses, governments, NGOs, and labor groups are essential for achieving meaningful impact. For example, working with local governments can improve infrastructure planning, while collaboration with community organizations ensures that projects address real needs. These partnerships transform sustainability from a corporate initiative into a collective effort with broader and more lasting benefits.

Vermont’s Climate Superfund law is, in many ways, a response to communities being left to bear the consequences of unmanaged risks. Companies must embed community benefit into their operations, align incentives with long-term outcomes, and engage in partnerships that extend beyond their own walls. Because when the bill for unmanaged risk comes due, it lands squarely on the community.

Advertisement

Vi Afonso-Rojas is an Honors student at the University of Rhode Island, double-majoring in Supply Chain Management and Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. The opinions expressed by columnists do not necessarily reflect the views of Vermont News & Media.



Source link

Continue Reading

Vermont

VT Lottery Pick 3, Pick 3 Evening results for May 10, 2026

Published

on


Powerball, Mega Millions jackpots: What to know in case you win

Here’s what to know in case you win the Powerball or Mega Millions jackpot.

Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

The Vermont Lottery offers several draw games for those willing to make a bet to win big.

Advertisement

Those who want to play can enter the MegaBucks and Lucky for Life games as well as the national Powerball and Mega Millions games. Vermont also partners with New Hampshire and Maine for the Tri-State Lottery, which includes the Mega Bucks, Gimme 5 as well as the Pick 3 and Pick 4.

Drawings are held at regular days and times, check the end of this story to see the schedule.

Here’s a look at May 10, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Pick 3 numbers from May 10 drawing

Day: 3-7-1

Evening: 7-1-8

Advertisement

Check Pick 3 payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Pick 4 numbers from May 10 drawing

Day: 5-6-1-9

Evening: 1-7-2-0

Check Pick 4 payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from May 10 drawing

01-03-20-35-46, Bonus: 05

Advertisement

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your lottery prize

For Vermont Lottery prizes up to $499, winners can claim their prize at any authorized Vermont Lottery retailer or at the Vermont Lottery Headquarters by presenting the signed winning ticket for validation. Prizes between $500 and $5,000 can be claimed at any M&T Bank location in Vermont during the Vermont Lottery Office’s business hours, which are 8a.m.-4p.m. Monday through Friday, except state holidays.

For prizes over $5,000, claims must be made in person at the Vermont Lottery headquarters. In addition to signing your ticket, you will need to bring a government-issued photo ID, and a completed claim form.

All prize claims must be submitted within one year of the drawing date. For more information on prize claims or to download a Vermont Lottery Claim Form, visit the Vermont Lottery’s FAQ page or contact their customer service line at (802) 479-5686.

Advertisement

Vermont Lottery Headquarters

1311 US Route 302, Suite 100

Barre, VT

05641

When are the Vermont Lottery drawings held?

  • Powerball: 10:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Mega Millions: 11 p.m. Tuesday and Friday.
  • Gimme 5: 6:55 p.m. Monday through Friday.
  • Lucky for Life: 10:38 p.m. daily.
  • Pick 3 Day: 1:10 p.m. daily.
  • Pick 4 Day: 1:10 p.m. daily.
  • Pick 3 Evening: 6:55 p.m. daily.
  • Pick 4 Evening: 6:55 p.m. daily.
  • Megabucks: 7:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Millionaire for Life: 11:15 p.m. daily

What is Vermont Lottery Second Chance?

Vermont’s 2nd Chance lottery lets players enter eligible non-winning instant scratch tickets into a drawing to win cash and/or other prizes. Players must register through the state’s official Lottery website or app. The drawings are held quarterly or are part of an additional promotion, and are done at Pollard Banknote Limited in Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Advertisement

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Vermont editor. You can send feedback using this form.



Source link

Continue Reading

Vermont

Vermont State Police investigating suspicious death

Published

on

Vermont State Police investigating suspicious death


Vermont State Police are investigating a suspicious death in the eastern part of the state.

The investigation began around 10 a.m. Saturday when police received a report of a dead woman at a property at 48 Douglas Hill Road in Norwich. First responders located a woman dead inside the residence.

State police said their initial investigation indicates the woman’s death occurred under “potentially suspicious circumstances.” Everyone associated with the matter is accounted for, and they said there is no danger to the public.

The victim’s body will be brought to the Chief Medical Examiner’s Office in Burlington for an autopsy to determine cause and manner of death. State police said they will release the woman’s identity following further investigation and notification of family members.

Advertisement

No further details have been released.

Anyone with information that could assist investigators is being asked to call 802-234-9933 or submit an anonymous tip online at https://vsp.vermont.gov/tipsubmit.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending