Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Good morning members and welcome to the caucus of the whole on House Bill nine fifty five. We're going to be receiving an update on the ways and means amendment. Representative Kornheiser will lead this and, we have chairs and staff ready to answer questions after she gives an update. So please write your questions down and we'll take questions at the end. And just another reminder that we will be here tomorrow morning at 08:15 for office hours also on this bill for members who have questions. With that, representative Kornheiser.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Thank you. Hi, everyone. So h nine fifty five, our complete instances of amendment can be found on the Ways and Means Committee page for Friday along with a fiscal note and a section by section. We voted out affirmatively on Friday afternoon. Bill was just referred to appropriations just in case you were not paying attention to that one moment of floor time and should be up for action on Thursday and Friday. While we did receive the bill earlier this month from house education, most of the language in our amendment was drafted as stand alone separate instances of amendment earlier in the session and is the product of work we began at the beginning of the session to continue the work that we passed in act 73. We specifically used instances of amendment rather than a strike all so that you can see specifically where we added to the work of the house education committee and, frankly, to also give more clarity to the senate about areas of jurisdiction for when the bill goes over there. One word of caution, though, when you are reading the instances of amendment, it makes some already very confusing contingencies and effective dates even more confusing to read. They are really remarkably interconnected in both act 73 and in the instances of amendment. Staff drafted a timeline that includes many of the key components of both the effective dates and the activity dates, but it's not able to include everything. So if there's something you have a question about the effective dates or on, please do reach out to someone on the committee. And you can that timeline is, looks like this. It's pretty and colorful, and that's also available on our committee page from Friday. But I believe that representative Higley also has an enormous stack of them that he's handing out to whoever's interested. So you can go get one from him if you want. But if there is a specific thing sorry, Mark. I did not warn you. I was gonna say that. I just saw you right there, so I thought I would. So as I said, I'm just gonna give a moment. They're available on our website as well on Friday, and maybe Mark will go get some more. So as I said, we've been working on our components of the education transformation bill since the start of the session, and we did receive possession of the bill late last week. And so at that point, we put all of those separate incidents of amendments into one big amendment. They took a few different tacks. There were planned updates to components of the property tax changes that we made in act 73 that were laid out in act 73 as next steps we would need to take this year. There were necessary components of the future education finance system that were needed and laid out in act 73 to enable the foundation formula to work fairly and efficiently. And then the third tact was adjustments to act 73, a new policy to support the work that the education committee did to shift to a real emphasis on CISAs, collaborative education service Okay. Areas. Areas. Areas. Oh. Areas. Community driven state supported district mergers. And And so we had to shift some of the language and some of the incentives and disincentives in the bill to make sure we were aligning with that new policy path that the education committee took. So within the realm of planned updates to components of our property tax changes from act 73, we, worked further on our separation of property classification. Some people might think of this as the second home tax. So act 73 set in motion the division of our nonhomestead properties into two separate categories for the purposes of taxing second homes at a higher rate in the future. We received a very comprehensive report from the Department of Taxes that recommended next steps for legislative decisions, forms development by the tax department, and how rates could be set in a future state. Legislation in this, part of this instances of amendment is those next steps in definitions so the tax department can move forward with form development. We will not be able to set those new rates until we understand which properties in Vermont fall into this new classification, and that's the work of the next couple years. So we we do not yet have the processes and data's completed that's necessary to successfully implement this new tax. This statutory language in our instances of amendments finalizes language so the tax department can do the next step in the administrative work and data collection necessary prior to this being a feasible tax to implement. The final reports that are aligned with implementing this new tax type are anticipated to happen with the foundation formula and other changes to property tax credits that we put in place in act 73 so that all three changes in both funding and taxation happen simultaneously so communities don't experience what the tax department described as tax whiplash. So all those have an effective date that lines up really sort of near the end of our timeline. We also took the next step on reappraisal and reach if folks have questions, about hypotheticals, does my camp fall into a second home classification? The answer is no. Does my outdoor horse exercise ring fall into second home classification? We have a very, very long series of hypotheticals and scenarios available that Charlie is happy to help you with, I'm happy to help you with, other members of the committee. And so if you do have one of those hypotheticals about a property that might be more complex and you're curious about where that would wind up definitionally, please do ask and be in touch. We have worked through really a pretty vast array of hypothetical scenarios in committee and with the tax department on that. So the next big component of the amendment is changes and updates to our re reappraisal and regional assessment district work. I don't know how many of you live in a community that has not reappraised your properties for more than twenty years or just reappraised recently for the first time in twenty years. Anyone? Show of hands. Come on, people. Give me a hand. Thank you. When that reappraisal happens and it hasn't if it hasn't happened in a long time, it is incredibly disruptive to everyone in the state. And I'm sure if you're in one of those communities, you have received many an email. We also because of the way we reappraise at the town by town level, we don't have the mathematical certainty we really need to understand if those reappraisals were fair because it's too small a statistical unit. So this work is sort of this, I think, the third year phase in moving towards something called regional assessment districts so that we can reappraise properties on an every six year cycle, and we can reappraise a wider swath of properties simultaneously so we can make sure that, essentially, our statewide grand list is consistent from one area of the state to another since we're all paying the same property taxes. That was done very closely with the tax department. So those are the two big updates to our changes to property taxes from act 73. The next big bucket of work we did is components of the education finance system to make sure the foundation formula, as set out in act 73, works fairly and effectively. We are expecting a report back on the foundation formula and updated numbers in December, December 2026. And so there will be significantly more work next biennium on this. But in order for that to work, we needed to put a few things in place. We took the next step in a school construction and school debt program set to take effect over the course of the next few years, and really finishing, really, like, fully launching when the foundation formula takes effect. This has two main goals. One, I think we all know that different district configurations, different governance configurations, and access to high quality education for kids really requires some brand new buildings. Maybe that's a regional high school, or maybe that's two elementary schools that are really struggling wanting a new building where kids can have the space that they need to really learn together. Or we have some buildings that are just frankly crumbling, and kids are going to school, with septic running through their classrooms. Right? All of those scenarios are true. We also have school districts that have taken on significant debt over the last twenty years, and that district debt might be a disincentive for another community to wanna merge with them. Right? Because you don't wanna, you know, get into a marriage with someone who's carrying a big liability. Right? And so the school construction language sets in place a path forward for new school construction that incentivizes the kinds of governance changes and educational changes that were laid out by the education committee and also creates a mechanism for covering district debt that was taken on before now, into the future so that that debt will not eat into sort of the foundation formula payments for communities. So that's a combination of categorical grants paid out of the education fund, possibly, new debt taken on by the state, the same way our capital bill operates, and then enabling, possible public private partnerships in the future to pay for that. All of that work is just another step forward, in school construction work that happened after really multiple series of task forces to figure out what a path forward was for a school construction. And we have asked the school construction division of AOE and the school construction advisory board to really advise to us where those new buildings need to be so we can figure out what that full cost would be so we can set in place financing for that in future years. When we looked at the transition, the voluntary state supported transition to new governance structures as outlined in the agency in the from the education committee. We took a bunch of testimony about what tax penalties and what tax incentives worked under act 46, And I personally was surprised to learn, how much the tax policy in act 46 did not work at all. And so we decided to take a different tact. What we heard was that the tax incentives in act 46, when those expired, they were treated or experienced by Vermonters as a tax hike. Right? And that makes a lot of sense. You have a credit go away, your taxes go up, you think, oh, what have they done to me? And so we did not move towards, using blunt tax penalties or blunt tax incentives to support the work. What we tried to do instead was remove disincentives to mergers. That school construction language I told you about was part of that, and to make sure that those districts had the clear technical assistance they needed and the clear information they needed to make the work that they did be as informed and collaborative as possible. That was just making sure that our appropriations lined up with the work that the, education committee did. We also carefully aligned the timelines of the foundation formula, the tax changes, and the school construction program to support the work of the merger committees and to well realize the savings that might happen as a re that will happen as a result of the CSAS, the new collaborative service agencies. Gonna take a breath and move into foundation formula. So as I said, these really are separate instances of amendment because there are so many different details that surround the work of act 73 that we anticipated needing to pick up this year as studies happened and took place. So the third real bucket of work that we did was working to make sure that the rest of our school funding system would work in alignment with the new foundation formula. So that included a number of contingencies and clarifications. When we set up the new when the education committee set up the new merger process, we moved the contingencies out to f y 30. So as I said, the foundation formula and all those tax changes would take effect after communities had a chance to really fully negotiate whether they wanted to form new governance bodies and after the CSAs was stood up. We also wanted to make sure and the contingencies call for, including the funding of special education, transportation, and other essential education costs, as well as further analysis and report back to the legislature, really trying to compare apples to apples between our current funding system and how much money districts can anticipate receiving under the new finance system. And that is that further analysis is happening in 2027 and 2028. In terms of the details, we set in place a path for reserve guidance to make sure that all districts are, saving in a similar way to each other, and so that we make sure that, resources that are available as we sort of move into this next step are consistent from district to district. We are looking deeper at how we fund pre k. The current law way we fund pre k will not work under a foundation formula, and so the Human Services Committee and the Education Committee did part of that. And then we added final clarifying language to how we study the funding of that to make sure we have the best possible information next January to set a finance system for that that will align well with the foundation formula and incentivize exactly the kind of policy that we're putting in place, to move to more opportunity and more scale. We added language about special education funding to ensure that any changes that we make with the foundation formula or to special education funding in the future will fully meet our federal requirements for maintenance of effort. Because right now, our special education funding is sort of carried in three different buckets by districts, and we wanna make sure that when all those numbers combine, we are still meeting both our federal obligation and our obligation to some of the most vulnerable kids in our state. We move forward in collaboration with the transportation committee on work to further clarify what the transportation costs and needs will be in these new systems to make sure that access to transportation is not a barrier to any districts making the decisions that they need to make to create the best possible opportunities for our kids and for taxpayers. And so we have tasked the agency of education with a follow-up report to better understand how transportation costs work under current law and how we anticipate it would work under future law because we're gonna need to change that grant program. So those are all pieces that wrap around the foundation formula that we put in place in act 73. And the foundation formula work best to deliver opportunities around the state only if we address the cost drivers that have led to the increased spending around the state and the decreased opportunities that find us all here today continuing to talk about education transformation. That's why we're here. We want to see increased opportunities, increased scale in order to realize those opportunities, and cost savings and tax stabilization to make that all possible. And so I wanna spend just a brief moment talking about how we have addressed those cost drivers in the legislation we passed last year and this year. Because it is, in some ways, in the cracks of our work, and it is in other ways in committees that are beyond the purview of house ways and means or house education. So health care, health care costs. A lot of bills come to the floor about health care. I don't know about you. I don't always understand all of the details of all of them. And so what I will tell you is that as a result of a lot of the health care work we did last year, specifically around pharmaceutical costs, but I believe some other work as well, we received a memo from the folks who calculate health care costs for school staff saying we've reduced that expense by is it 20? Around $20,000,000 a year. That's a huge difference for all Vermonters. And then the second big piece we did to reduce health care costs in our school systems was something called reference based pricing that we are in a multiyear path to achieve and is anticipated to save around another 100,000,000, maybe more, as a result of that work. And so I encourage you to talk to the health care committee about those savings that we are realizing in our system and for school staff, because they've done some really extraordinary work on that that has not gotten all the attention that it needs. Mental health costs are a big driver, is one of the many drivers. And when I talk about cost drivers in our education system, I really wanna be clear. These are really important costs. These are meeting really important needs of our communities and our kids. And so the fact that we're spending money on this is not bad. It's great that we are trying to meet the mental health needs or the special education needs of our kids. But right now, we are not doing it as efficiently and effectively as we can. And frankly, even in the face of all of that spending, we are not meeting the needs of kids, special education and mental health needs. And so this move towards the CISAs, towards these cooperative education service agencies did I get it right that time? Areas. I'm never gonna get it right. Okay. Towards these CISAs, which were called BOCES before, if that's familiar to you, allow us to achieve scale for mental health support and special education so that, one, for mental health, we can better those districts will have a much easier time coordinating with our designated mental health agencies who receive significant funding from from Medicaid and from our general fund already, but because of scale and opportunity, do not collaborate with our districts as effectively as they could. And the CSOs are a real step towards doing that well. So there's a lot of cost savings and opportunities for kids to begin there. That is a system that's designed to deliver to deliver those services to families, and then special education costs will be we are already seeing significant reduction in special education costs in the one area of the state that does have the CISA or BOCE. And that's really exciting, and we're moving towards doing that at scale around the state. I don't know how many of you have a child or a grandchild who has received special education services in a school, but in a very small district, it's possible that that child's need might be the first time that district has encountered that need in five years or ten years. And so by the time the district is able to fully get their head and find the right services for that kid, your kid might have graduated already or left the school. And so by doing special education at greater scale, we're much better able to get those opportunities to kids, and we're also much less likely to need to contract out those services at a much, much higher cost. So those I've now talked about savings on health care, savings on mental health, savings on special education. Two more cost drivers in our education system. School facilities. We all know how it costs more to meet a need that has not been, deferred maintenance. Right? We all know how expensive deferred maintenance is. And the school construction language we put in place should help us address that deferred maintenance in a very meaningful way for the first time in twenty years. And then the last is scale. And the work of the education committee on class size minimums and moving towards greater scale, all of those things, and the school construction language that will enable districts to have different shaped classes, different shaped schools, perhaps larger classes when appropriate. All of that will come together to also reduce costs in significant ways in our school. And so between those five things, those were the top five drivers that we identified two years ago when we really started this conversation in-depth, and we are addressing those all through the work of both this legislation and last year's act 73. I have one more sentence to share with you, and then I will stop talking. And that is to really acknowledge that this legislation is step two or three in a multiyear, really five, ten year process, and that is very hard to do in a biennial legislature. We are addressing a wide range of both very large and very micro details in order to get this work right, And I really encourage you to ask questions if you have any concerns about how it might impact your community because there are pieces in this bill that might be shaped just for the individual needs of your specific community, but frankly, it might be on page 73 line four, and one of us can find that language for you. Because we are working sort of at the macro and micro simultaneously. It's gonna take trust in future legislatures to get this right. That's scary. Right? It's gonna take trust in the intentions that we had last year to carry that forward into next year, and that's also really hard as the world is a very fast moving and changing place right now. But in order to do the kind of transformative work we need to do to meet the needs of our kids and to meet the needs of families around the state who need to pay their bills, we really need to be thinking about this across exactly the speed of change that's possible in Vermont. And so I'm really proud of the work the Ways and Means Committee did on this bill to take hold of the work that the House Education Committee did and circle up around it to make sure the dollars match the policy. And I really thank you all for your attention to it and for all the questions that are coming.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Thank you, representative. Alright. Let's open up for questions. Representative Burrows.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Hello? Oh. I have a couple of pretty simple questions. One is, where is it? Where is it? Is the merger support funding a reimbursement or an outlay? And either way, how do boards how do you envision boards budgeting for it?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: That's a great question for representative Conlon.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Okay. So then you left here.

[Representative Peter Conlon]: Thank you. I'm gonna ask you to repeat it. I have a cold, and I drove over the Appalachian Gap this morning, which is way up high, and my ears have been plugged ever since.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Yeah. I had the same problem last week, so I can empathize. Is merger support a reimbursement or an outlay from the state? And how do you envision boards budgeting for for that using using or not using those funds?

[Representative Peter Conlon]: So we have provided in the bill money that would sit with the AOE to reimburse merger study committees for their expenses. When we went through this with Act 46, one of the large expenses was hiring a facilitator to help the committee work through it. That is already being provided, so that shouldn't be an expense. So this would be for everything from, potential legal help to, donuts and coffee to meeting space rental. It would all be on a reimbursement basis.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: And would that still fall under the excess spending threshold?

[Representative Peter Conlon]: I think that this operates outside of a school budget, but is it's reimbursed. So what you're saying is that expense incurred during this process would probably be paid out of a school budget. Yep. But would then be reimbursed by the AOE. So there is no provision for this to count toward or against the excess spending threshold. It would be a budgetary expense. We do not expect this expense because the facilitator is being paid for to be fairly de minimis.

[Representative Kathleen James]: Okay. Thank you. I do

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: have another question if that's alright. And it has to do with I don't think it's for you, chair Conlon, but thank you for your response. I I heard you talk about, studying the cost of transportation, but I didn't hear what the timeline was for that and how it matches up with merger discussions.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: So we are receiving a transportation report, for us to act on next legislative session, so to begin work on in January. It's a pretty comprehensive set of data that we're requesting, and it's a follow-up from a transportation study that the agency of education delivered to us this fall. And what happens if

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: so it does not line up directly with the time frame of the merger discussions. What happens if a merger discussion winds up realizing that transportation is really just prohibitively too expensive and and is too big of a factor to overcome? What what happens?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: So the final, there are many pieces of grants that are not part of the foundation formula that will need to be included. Transportation grants is one. Special education is another. Pre k is another. All of those pieces should be determined next session. We have should have reports back in order to make those decisions next session. And so the and the analysis from the joint fiscal office related to that should be available before the final vote that is anticipated in the bill around mergers, which is November 2028. So the timelines are not perfect, but they do line up because the final information and final analysis from JFO should be available, much, much earlier in 2028. This next year, yes, there will be some unknowns. However, I don't wanna get ahead of next year's work, but the way the foundation formula is structured, instead of, you know, right now, we have a 50% mat we have a matching grant for transportation with transportation, standards being really, really different from community to community. Right? Some do after school care, some don't. Some do two morning buses, some don't. We're gonna need to have consistent standards around the state and to not have it be a matching grant, but to have it be a full grant. It's the only way for the foundation formula to work.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Thank you. And one more thing. Is it specified in that part of the amendment that the committee, the Transportation Evaluation Committee, for lack of a better term, because I don't know what it is, Is it specified that they, analyze risks involved with private equity ownership of transportation companies?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Oh, that's such a fun question. Not very explicitly, but there is something about, staffing, staff costs, costs of transportation, that I think could get to it. But that's we did not specifically name private equity as one of the components to be studied. Though, certainly, that would be a great thing to for us to pass on to the, for the study.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Yeah. I I would add that I believe it's more than 75%, I think it's in the eighties percent of our transportation is owned by private one or two private equity firms. And so that's a pretty big risk, actually.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Thank you for flagging that. I remember that, Brattleboro actually had a fairly massive school bus

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: That was

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Yeah. Challenge related to that.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: And that's part of the company that owns all the transportation in the along the Connecticut River. So

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Thank you. Thanks.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Right. Representative James.

[Representative Kathleen James]: Thanks, representative Corcoranizer. I I had two different questions as well, if that's okay. Sure. I I just wanted to make sure I'm understanding some

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: of

[Representative Kathleen James]: the language around Section 24 and 24A. So in Section 24, there's language that would prohibit schools eligible to receive tuition from requiring tuition or fees of any kind above the amount the school district pays. And I wanted to make sure I was understanding that that is going to apply equally to approved independent and public schools that receive tuition. So I wanted to make sure I had clarity on that. Also

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: one question, to clarify please.

[Representative Kathleen James]: Do you wanna do that one first?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yeah. Thank

[Representative Kathleen James]: you. Okay. You go.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Thanks. So, yes, that is all has an effective date that's aligned with when the foundation formula takes effect. It's not about current law financing. We tried our very best to make sure that this bill is really all looking at future state, future transformation and not the current financing system that we have. So, yes, that's all imagined to take effect in the future when the foundation formula happens and applies to all cases of a tuition student, whether it is a public school on the border in New York State or an independent school or an in state public school receiving tuition dollars.

[Representative Kathleen James]: Okay. So approved independent, in state public, out of state public are all will all be subject to the same policy but not unless until or unless the foundation formula takes place. In other words, this wouldn't happen prior to that independently of the foundation formula. Nope. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Welcome. Do you

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: still have a second question?

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows]: Yes.

[Representative Kathleen James]: But I felt like my first question had already become two questions, I was just trying to be polite. It's just about the the definitions for the second homeowner tax classification. I think the I just wanted to understand the timeline, and I know you guys are working through a lot of different scenarios and property descriptions. It's it's this year in in this bill that you're gonna try to nail down those definitions. Right?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Yes. They are, as nailed as anything can be.

[Representative Kathleen James]: Are they already nailed or are they to be nailed?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: They are nailed in this legislation, and I'm happy to talk. We are both happy. I think Charlie would be particularly happy, but I am also happy to talk through any hypothetical scenarios of any type of property at all.

[Representative Kathleen James]: I already emailed Charlie. I I heard the comment about all the many hypotheticals. So I sent Charlie my

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Great.

[Representative Kathleen James]: Question. I just wanted to make sure I understood definitions this year.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: We also have flash cards about the hypotheticals in our committee room if anyone wants to take a look at them.

[Representative Kathleen James]: I don't believe that, but thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Other questions? Go ahead, representative Cooper.

[Representative Jonathan Cooper]: Great. Thank you very much. This pertains to education quality standards for small and sparse school determinations. Maybe a question for chair Conlon. This has 03/31/2027 when the rules will be amended to include that determination, small, smallness, and sparseness. Is by necessity locked down, or is that gonna be when is the by necessity elements phase playing into this?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: The by necessity definitions are going to formal rulemaking with the board of ed. Like, when this if this when and if this passes, when this passes, the board of ed would begin rulemaking on it. And they've done a significant amount of work on it already.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright. Representative Sebelius.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: So just looking for a little more detail on section 28 and how it connects to the reemergence of the dreaded small schools grant in section 29?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: I didn't hear the second half of your sentence.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: How it connects to the reemergence of the small schools grant in section 29. I apologize, chair Kornheiser. It's, repealing section 37 from act 73.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Oh, that's, because we, frankly, had a little bit of confusion between us and the board of ed about how rulemaking would go, and so we are, enacting rulemaking.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: I see. Okay. So there was not rulemaking. And that is about the small schools grants?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: That is, defining essentially how eligibility works for small and sparse by necessity Okay. For the purposes of the grants that were laid out in act 73. We're not changing anything about the grants. We're just getting really clear on that definition outside of this legislative body because it's an issue that could become quite politicized, and we would rather it does not. So we have passed that over to the board of ed.

[Representative Kathleen James]: K.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright. Next question.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: And just to clarify, representative Sebeliya, none of that would take effect until the foundation formula takes effect.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright. Go ahead.

[Unidentified Representative]: Any fiscal analysis of the effectiveness or cost savings of the CISAs?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Is your question, is there analysis of the cost effectiveness of the CISAs?

[Unidentified Representative]: Yeah. Was is any was there any physical analysis of of CESAs?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: So our own joint fiscal office staff, cannot do analysis of the far off future. However, I believe there is analysis of, structures like CESAs in other states as part of the fall task force, this report. It's in one of the appendices. And then, the house education committee took significant testimony from the one CISA that we do have going in this state about how they were able to achieve cost savings. And representative Conlon can come speak to that if that's helpful.

[Unidentified Representative]: I'm just curious whether or not there's any substantial savings. You know, we obviously, we need some large scales savings. We know that's what we're looking at if we're redistricting. We're trying to eliminate duplication in the the administrative part of the schools. So I understand I think I understand what the Caesars are intend to do. I'm just not sure whether or not they can do it or whether this is gonna layer on top of our already large administration, just another layer of bureaucracy.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Absolutely. So this is one of, I would say, sort of two out of five of ways we're gonna achieve significant cost savings is through these CSAS. It is not an additional administrative layer. It really is an opportunity to get the kinds of effective and efficient scale that we have been seeking, for very specific tasks that districts might take on. One of the things that's interesting about our current finance system is that any cost savings realized by a district are almost always folded in to that district's resources to provide a new opportunity in that district, which is great for kids in that district, but does not necessarily create the kind of equity across the state that we might be seeking. By pairing the cost savings in the CSUS with the foundation formula, we're able to make sure that cost savings are delivered across the state, fairly.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright. Any further questions? Representative Wilson?

[Representative Herb Olson]: Yes. Thank you very much. So in I see in part of the school construction aid, you know, construct, There's in sec I guess, 68, it talks about report and, you know, considerations. And I'm just wondering when when when you talk about scale, I think, you know, I can think of a number of different ways you think about scale, district, you know, functions, you know, through CCAs and stuff like that. We are also talking about school size. I need I see some reference to research around school size, and I'm wondering if you can help me, you know, with what that research is that you're relying or that someone's gonna be relying.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: We spent a great deal in committee great deal of time committee, time in committee on sort of that specific paragraph and making sure that we are being as broad enough to bring in really important concepts like community schools and narrow enough to actually be useful to the people who have to do the work. A lot of the prioritization for school construction has been laid out by two previous task forces, and then the agent the education committee has passed on that language through statute multiple times. That ways and means has also carried forward. And so I think that the scale that we're talking about can mean something like regional or comprehensive high schools, and it can mean something like two elementary schools that might be far off the beaten path, that would do well to collaborate together, realigning themselves so that they'd be able to do that. So I think about Westminster, for instance, has, a bunch of buildings that they're not using right now, and some that they are using. And none of them are quite the size for all the kids that they need, but the way that they're moving kids around between them is also not the most efficient and effective. And so, it would be opportunities for that if that's what was geographically necessary.

[Representative Herb Olson]: Yeah.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: I do not want to deny, however, representative Olsen, that the overall goals of act 73 and of this follow-up legislation is for us to reach the kind of scale that would meet kids' needs best when possible.

[Representative Herb Olson]: Right. And if I if I recall, you said there were two reports that talked about that you relied on?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Yes. There have been two different school construction task forces.

[Representative Kathleen James]: Okay.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: I think they both had slightly different names, but they were last year and the year before that or two years ago and the year before that. And we can get you both of those reports.

[Representative Herb Olson]: And they touch up?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: I believe representative Brady served on both of them. Yes. So she's a great person to talk to about that.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Go ahead.

[Unidentified Representative]: I was wondering if you can point to point me to the spot in the timeline. Maybe it's I don't I've checked quickly. I don't think it's explicitly called out. But, if there is a point in the timeline where, our application of weights would be reexamined and an opportunity to make changes potentially, particularly in the overweighting of tuition districts.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: So we do not, have a specific spot in the timeline where we are exploring the idea of changing weights under the current finance system. The weights under the foundation formula are a or will definitely be reexamined next January when we receive a very comprehensive report that the joint fiscal office has contracted for. But this bill tries in every way to stay away from the current law finance system because there's really only so many things that can be done in one place at one time, and we're already doing too many.

[Unidentified Representative]: Yes. And to be clear, I was referring to, you know, in setting up the foundation formula, will there be an opportunity to correct potentially incorrect weights?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: In setting up the foundation formula, we are looking at the weights. It's a whole new system with a whole new set of requirements, costs, and agreements between districts and schools. Yes. Alright. I think representative James, alluded to some of that in her questions.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright. We have time for one more question. Representative Sebeli.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Yeah. That's a helpful question and one that I'm really thinking about myself. So what I'm hearing you say is next year, there's going to be a reexamination of all weights as it relates to a potential foundation formula?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: So we are expecting a report so we've set in place a foundation formula in act 73. As part of act 73, we funded and asked the joint fiscal office to contract with an expert on school finance systems to recalibrate and calculate all of the weights under foundation formula because we've been using preliminary estimates in act 73, and to use much more current data to do that. And then the legislature will have an opportunity next year to take a look at those weights, take a look at all of the other grants that surround them that I've described, and set that into law.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: So the small schools grant that is a part of this is something that we potentially could be revisiting next year?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser]: Absolutely. Yes. And that's something that is would be a necessary part of next steps for the foundation formula.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright. Thank you everyone. We're at time. I want just another reminder that we will have office hours here in the well of the house tomorrow at 08:15 to 9AM. If you have any other questions, also feel free to reach out to chairs or committee members of the committees with your questions. My office will also email out the joint the fiscal note and the section by section and other materials so you have them handy. So that