By Matthew Thomas
Roxbury taxpayers may see their school taxes go up by 31%, despite efforts from the Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools district to reduce its fiscal year 2027 budget.
In its third budget draft, the district found savings that alleviate some of the more severe property tax increases that might have come from the budget, but still result in tax increases, although lower than prior budget drafts predicted.
The current budget draft shows Montpelier’s taxes increasing by 4%, while Roxbury’s tax increase (although decreased from an earlier projection of a nearly 60% increase) remains startlingly high at nearly 31%. The FY27 budget is, according to Superintendent Libby Bonesteel, “relatively level-funded.”
“This is, I think, a major win for the town of Roxbury, relatively speaking compared to the first draft,” MSRP Chief Financial Officer Michael Concessi said.
In order to get that number down to 31%, Concessi said he and his team have been finding savings in the budget. Board members also discussed the possibility of offering a one-time cash payment to Roxbury property owners to lessen their tax burden during their Jan. 7 meeting, but no action was taken.
As for further savings, the district administration continues to capture more revenue via payments from the state for services provided by the district. Staff resignations also represent some of the savings in this budget draft.
Bonesteel said the state’s Common Level of Appraisal (CLA) is in for both Montpelier and Roxbury. Montpelier’s score went up to 122.27%, slightly higher than earlier MRPS projections and translates to a lower tax rate increase for Montpelier. Roxbury’s CLA went down sharply, which means a higher tax increase in that town.
A rising CLA means property values are decreasing compared to appraisals. A falling number indicated property values are increasing compared to appraisals. The CLA is applied to ensure equity among towns with different appraisal levels.
Following from the CLA numbers for both towns, Montpelier’s FY27 school tax rate will increase 4.03%, or $1.32 per $100 of value in their home. Roxbury’s school taxes will increase by a whopping 30.64%, or an added $1.70 on the rate.
In order to find more savings, Bonesteel suggested the board forego its planned $285,000 FY27 Capital Fund contribution. Instead, she said that rather than coming from the taxpayers, the Capital Fund contribution could come from the fund balance.
Without the contribution, Roxbury’s rate went down from approximately 30% to approximately 29%, according to Concessi’s calculations.
Board member Jake Feldman floated a “crazy” idea to lower Roxbury’s district tax rate: “What if the school district made a payment to the town to offset some property taxes?” Feldman suggested that this would cost little, because Roxbury is a small town with a small grand list. “That’s a direct way of addressing Roxbury’s tax increase without messing with the budget,” he said.
“You mean through the fund balance?” Bonesteel replied.
Board member Tim Duggan said he would like to see what the numbers for such an initiative would look like, adding that he liked Feldman’s “kind of crazy.”
Concessi suggested the same relief achieved through a cash payment to Roxbury could be found through additional savings in the budget. Feldman and board member Jim Murphy noted that cuts to the budget affect both communities, however.
Bonesteel said she was having “heart palpitations” from the discussion and the precedent such a payment would set. “Is the board willing to set a precedent that when a town doesn’t like the tax rate because of something out of the board’s control that the board would use the fund balance to pay them?” She added that she was not comfortable with the board setting such a precedent.
Board member Jill Remick said she liked the idea in theory but did not think the board was legally able to make such a move. “We’re a district. We have a district budget. I don’t think we’re allowed to take money from our budget and allocate it to a specific town,” she said.
Bonesteel said she is not permitted to directly give so much as a gift card to a family in need and did not see how Feldman’s proposal — using district funds to make a payment to one specific constituent town — could be executed.
Discussion of the matter ended with questions around the legality of such a move unanswered, and the board did not take any official action.
The MRPS Board meets again on Jan. 21 when it will vote on the final budget draft.
