By Tess Hunter, Managing Editor
Four candidates — all Democrats — are running uncontested for four seats in the Vermont House of Representatives in the primary election on Tuesday, Aug. 13. Two of the seats will represent the Windsor 1 district (Hartland, West Windsor and Windsor), one seat represents Windsor 4 (Barnard, Hartford, Pomfret and Bridgewater), and one seat represents Windsor 5 (Reading, Woodstock and Plymouth). Early and absentee voting is already underway.
The Windsor 5 district seat is currently held by Rep. Tesha Buss (D). Buss has announced that she is stepping down in January to spend more time with her family. Former House Rep. Charlie Kimbell (D) of Woodstock is running for the seat. All of the other candidates are incumbents.
Our area’s four candidates for the Vermont House agreed to share their priorities and positions with the Standard this week.
From left: John Bartholomew, Heather Surprenant, Charlie Kimbell, and Elizabeth Burrows.
Q: What will be your top priorities for the next session of the Vermont Legislature, beginning in January 2025?
John Bartholomew (D-Windsor 1): There are numerous important issues facing our state and nation, and I need to focus my attention on all of them. Understanding the problems and the history of previous legislative action will be important as we continue our effort to address these issues. I have focused much attention on these problems. As a legislator with seven terms of experience in office, I already have a clear understanding of the problems and have been actively involved in the ongoing work toward solutions. I have much more to contribute to the process.
Essentially my entire career has been dedicated to public service, through serving in the military, serving as a U.S. Public Health Service officer at the National Institutes of Health, and currently serving the people of Vermont in the state legislature. My background and experience make me well suited to continue in this role.
If forced to identify my top priorities, they are:
1) Addressing climate change – Climate change already is having a serious impact on our state and its residents. We need to continue making progress on developing renewable sources of energy, efficient transportation, electric vehicle infrastructure, weatherization and affordable heating of homes, storm mitigation, et cetera.
2) Reinventing Vermont’s public education system and school funding..
Elizabeth Burrows (D-Windsor 1): My priorities have not significantly changed since I first considered running for office in 2020. One of my top priorities has always been to use innovation to protect and bolster our public education system — despite the fact that I do not serve on the House Education Committee. As a school board member and parent I feel I am in a strong position to weigh in on behalf of small communities downstate, and have pointed out problems specifically related to rural school funding that have been left out of important conversations.
In addition, and perhaps in the same vein from time to time, I plan to advocate for transparency and accountability in our state government. Where does the money that’s collected actually go? The legislature has got to commit to tracking whether and where funds are being spent.
I will continue to work towards inclusion. As part of Vermont’s Social Equity Caucus, I helped to promote use within legislative committees a set of probing questions that make us think about exactly who is left out of consideration for every bill we take up. It is not something we automatically think about without building the muscles to do so, but once we identify faults in proposed laws, we can work to address them.
I also plan to continue to advocate on behalf of our aging population. This facet of our future is often willfully ignored, but is bound up with normalizing conversations about accessibility for our disabled community. We need to find ways to not just include its members, not just nibble around the edges of where we are headed, but face all of it as a whole, through focusing on Social Determinants of Health for an aging population. We are not looking for enhanced survival — we are looking for empowerment.
Charlie Kimbell (D-Windsor 5): My top priorities will be to advocate for the interests of the district: change the way we pay for public education, establish state aid for new school construction, create more housing that is affordable and fix or replace aging infrastructure. My focus in my three terms in the legislature was on economic development — training the workforce, diversifying the economy, helping rural communities thrive. Using my 30+ years of business experience and work in local and state government, I believe I have the right perspective and skills to shape legislation to accomplish these things.
Heather Surprenant (D-Windsor 4): My priorities have remained consistent over the past four years of my service in the legislature. I have been committed to our agricultural economy as well as to the resilience and strength of our rural communities. I have and will continue to introduce legislation that helps farms remain financially viable, while also centering sustainable practices as we continue to adapt to an ever changing climate. Our farms play a critical role in the strength of our rural economies and to me, they are at the powerful intersection of human health, food security, climate resiliency and a vibrant local economy. As it stands, Vermont farmers are aging out and over the next decade we are going to have to ensure that we do not lose that ag land being tended by folks who have made this their livelihood. We need the next generation of farmers to enter into this field, knowing it is financially stable, and that our state is putting policies in place that will help them succeed. That means, we need transition plans, we need to look at the role conservation plays and we need to prioritize institutional purchasing. We would be remiss if we didn’t realize the economic impact our farms have on our state’s tourist economy and beyond — we must continue investing in them. I’ve been farming for over a decade and as a young Vermonter, I am deeply aware of the barriers to entry into agriculture and the working lands economy at large. We are losing farms at a rapid rate and I am profoundly committed to shifting that trajectory with sound policy and increased education around our local food system.
Q: Our state has a deep-seated housing crisis, with a lack of affordable, accessible housing for everyday working Vermonters. What are your key policy recommendations for addressing this crisis?
Bartholomew: As most of us know, the cost of housing has skyrocketed due to the real estate market and the increased costs for building materials. We cannot control either, and there is no easy solution to this problem. We need to address the troubling trend of investors purchasing property in our state to be used for short-term rentals. We need to find funds and to leverage funds through state programs, grants, and private entrepreneurs to build affordable housing. This will continue to be a major focus of the work of the House General and Housing Committee.
Burrows: As a member of the House General and Housing Committee, I look forward to addressing landlord and tenant rights this upcoming biennium. Unfortunately, our legislature is wholly dominated by landlords, so we are unable to create much movement in that area of policy, but that does not stop us from regulating corporate takeover of rental units that set prices at unattainable rates. Obviously that hamstrings renters, destroys their quality of life, and causes tremendous shifts in terms of who can afford to live here in an economy dominated by the service industry — but it also severely diminishes the ability of Vermonters to dig into and be involved with their communities, which is one of the most prized characteristics of our state. We are forcing people to work way too hard just to survive, which creates isolation (versus independence) and despair. That is not Vermont — or maybe it might become Vermont, but we can choose to stop it from coming about.
I also plan to push hard on normalizing the inclusion of accessible residential units for people who live with disabilities when we consider funding and building new multi-unit apartment buildings. In a rapidly aging state like ours, it does not make sense to me that our current inventory of available, accessible rental units is roughly 0.04% of all rentals. We ought to be looking down the road at shifts in demographics to accommodate not only an increase of people who can’t get around very easily, but also people who age in place because of a lack of adequate supported facilities. If aging in place is going to grow, so must housing where people can live safely.
Kimbell: Increasing the inventory of quality, affordable housing requires building new and renovating old. The high cost of construction makes it nearly impossible to make it affordable without grants and subsidies from State, Federal and private sources. Vermont needs to fully fund VHCB’s grant programs for housing, support local housing agencies like Twin Pines Housing Trust, and expand the Vermont Housing Improvement Program to include revitalizing existing single family homes that are vacant or abandoned. In our area, we need creative solutions that relieve the pricing pressure from the second home market including programs like Local Deeds.
Surprenant: This certainly may not be a popular opinion, however, I believe we MUST examine the impact that short term rentals are having on our overall long term housing stock. I appreciate folks seeking to supplement income with rental properties, but we must also contend with the fact that those spaces will not be available to house young folks entering the housing market, families and working Vermonters. With limited options on the market, landlords have the financial upper hand with what they can charge and it simply is not keeping pace with what folks can afford. Vermont’s minimum wage is nowhere near high enough to account for the cost of living, so we must most consider progressive policies like no-cause evictions, rent stabilization regulations, better low interest loans for first time homebuyers and additional taxes on short term rental properties, the revenue of which would go towards supporting rent relief for Vermonters in need. Additionally, we need to incentivize new construction, through act 250 reform. We need more multi-family homes, and we need to encourage folks to build and support them in that process.
Q: Act 250 reform is a perennial topic of debate at the State House each legislative session. What is your position on the Vermont Legislature’s override of Gov. Phil Scott’s veto of H.687, the latest attempt at reforming the state’s landmark land-use law?
Bartholomew: The statutes associated with Act 250 are complicated. There are numerous, often conflicting, opinions about the best approach to update these laws. Act 250 has been very useful to direct how development occurs in our state and is important to maintain the character of the land we love, but it also can be a significant impediment to progress. This year the legislature passed a well-considered bill to update the statutes. Fortunately, the legislature was able to override the Governor’s irresponsible veto of H.687 (An act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection through land use). Rather than making useful suggestions when legislation is being drafted, our Governor consistently prefers to govern by veto. It is time for the Executive Branch to change its course and make real attempts to work with the Legislative Branch to develop strategies that will help all Vermonters.
Burrows: As a current member of the House Committee on General and Housing, I have a different and nuanced position on the override of H. 687, as the bill also included crucial components to the development of housing in our state that were brought forward by our committee. We provided funding for families and landlords who want to upgrade their dwellings to be more accessible; we enhanced funding for first-generation homebuyers; we strengthened the so-called “missing middle” through revolving loans for affordable housing; and we enabled developers to overcome the funding gap caused by dramatic rises in building materials costs. Having done extensive research on these areas and having heard hours of testimony on it, I wanted to be sure that these elements were not left out by our legislature when we are at such an important time in addressing our housing crisis.
Regarding the Act 250 reform included in H. 687, I am not an expert on zoning regulations, so I cannot speak specifically to what was included in the bill. But I do feel that exclusionary zoning is problematic in our state. If we only allow for building in town centers, young people will never be able to afford to build homes that they did not inherit, and some years down the road we will be left with predominantly non-homesteaders. What will our taxing capacity be then? What will our voting demographics look like? Who will provide services to our residents? I know and understand and even cherish the limits Act 250 places on a balance between development and preservation, but I think exclusionary zoning takes us down the wrong path to what we want and has too many unintended consequences that have been ignored.
Kimbell: H. 687 (Act 181) was a huge bill that contained dozens of policy changes that ranged from increasing the property transfer tax for second home owners to amending the criteria for accessory-on-farm businesses. There are many provisions in the bill to help expedite housing and to make that housing more affordable on a long-term basis, but the Governor did not think the bill went far enough and actually expanded Act 250’s jurisdiction. The bill does some very good things and the Governor’s seven specific suggested changes in his veto message were too late to re-open the debate in the 2024 legislative session. No doubt that Act 250 amendments will again be taken up in the next legislative session. My concerns have not been with the criteria as much as with the extra time and expense that an Act 250 application requires.
Surprenant: I think that this bill struck an important balance between the need for increased development, while also acknowledging the role we play in protecting our state’s biodiversity.
Q: The state’s current means of funding public education — including the construction of new school buildings — is leading to skyrocketing property taxes that are simply unsustainable for average Vermont families. What are your suggestions for financing public education in Vermont and relieving the excessive financial burden on taxpayers?
Bartholomew: Vermonters are looking for a simple solution to this problem. Unfortunately, there isn’t one. Schools must be funded through some type of taxation. However, our education financing formula in Vermont relies too heavily on property taxes and we must find a different approach. We need to look closely at ways to lower the cost of educating our children, while making sure all Vermont students have the opportunity to get a quality education that will serve them well throughout their lives. We need to make sure that public money is being directed to public schools. We need to reduce the burden on the education fund. As an example, we should not be using education fund dollars to address mental health services in schools.
The problem of school funding was an all consuming issue during the 2023-24 biennium. I expect this to continue into the next legislative session. H.887 (An act relating to homestead property tax yields, non-homestead rates, and policy changes to education finance and taxation) is another example of a misguided gubernatorial veto that was overridden. An important provision of this act is the creation of “the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont to study the provision of education in Vermont and make recommendations for a statewide vision for Vermont’s public education system and the policy changes necessary to make the vision a reality.” I am looking forward to hearing the recommendations of this panel of experts and am hopeful that the process will yield a logical direction for legislative action.
Burrows: This extraordinary tax year has been extremely damaging and painful; I do not ever want to see us back here again. I want the money committees of our legislature to take the time to fully explore and vet a new funding formula that will keep the equity that we strive for, but also do so without pushing Vermonters out of our state. We can find more revenue sources for the Education Fund, but I do not think that would help us over the long-term. We are ignoring the need to scrap the whole formula and start over. I do not believe shifting towards an income-based formula is the answer, but I do not know what all of the potential answers might be. What I do know is that we ought to be doubling down to fix our whole education system.
On the periphery, I believe that removing state-directed (mandated) spending from our local budgets would go a long way to providing short-term but sustained local relief. It would make it easier to understand decisions made by local boards, and it would ease the tremendous tax burden we wrestle with every year. I feel we should take a look at the elements that go into our Education Fund, and stop dragging it by continually transferring cost burdens from the General Fund. I can abide by an excess spending threshold, but I am strongly against penalizing communities for costs that are not directly related to education or that are not within the purview of our local school boards.
I also strongly believe we should study the impacts of school closure over a 20-year period. We have the data already, we just haven’t analyzed it. And we already know of closure’s impacts on students, families, and communities. But we do not have any information about what happens to the health of towns that lose their schools, all of which are in rural areas. Do they thrive? Do young families move in? What does it do to the town’s demographics? What does it do to the state’s overall taxing capacity? What does it do to the provision of services? The invitation of new businesses? If the state wants to consider closing schools, it needs to provide hard evidence that doing so will help us to grow and not force us to die.
Kimbell: The current system of paying for public education has to change. The education property tax in Woodstock will go up by 30% this year and 35% in Plymouth, 28% in Killington! And that is without a new school! But because nearly 70% of households receive an adjustment on their property tax bill based on their income, the impact of the higher tax rate is muted. The system is complex and nearly impossible to understand. In 2021 the Tax Structure Commission recommended changing the system and going to local education income tax instead of the property tax. And there is a committee of legislators working this summer on bringing a proposal to the legislature to create a different system. We need to look at what is working for other states. In the end we all want a quality education system that is a magnet for prospective and existing residents that opens the door of opportunity and enrichment.
Surprenant: I really value this question and am grateful that it is such a present topic in the minds of Vermonters, but I do deeply wish it wasn’t because they were feeling such a profound financial impact. I think it’s rare to be able to engage in conversations around sustainable and long term changes when people are so immediately and viscerally feeling burdened by tax increases. Folks are wanting solutions now, ones that they can feel alleviate the strain they and their families are feeling and I hear that. I want to be so honest with Vermonters and say that I don’t have a solution to financing our public education system- not on my own and not without raising taxes on the wealthiest Vermonters. This is a complex problem that deserves deep community feedback. I want to hear from local school boards, parents, young Vermonters, new families, and older Vermonters whose kids are out of the school system. I could not in good faith even begin to think that I have the answers to this when so many Vermonters’ lives are being impacted by these decisions. I welcome the conversation to continue to learn about ways in which we can fund our education system in a more sustainable way.
Standard Senior Staff Writer Tom Ayres contributed to this story.