Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. The devotional today will be led by representative Tiff Bluemle of Burlington.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Good afternoon. Seven years ago in this chamber, our friend and former colleague, Kalacke shared this devotional on horses and politicians, drawn from his experience working with Raindrop, his Shetland pony. I thought it fitting to share with you on a day when we'll honor his life's contributions to this body, to his communities, and to the arts before today's hard work. John wrote, as many of you know, equines are herd animals. Group dynamics and hierarchy are important. There's always a top mare, and horses are quite content to follow the leader of the pack. However, reconfigure the group in any way, and leadership is up for grabs. Size, tenure, and age don't matter. Taking charge with a few nips and kicks delivers the appropriate gravitas. During the session, many legislators will be in a leadership position one day and a supporting role the next. I urge us to challenge each other to accomplish even more and when necessary to step up for issues important to constituents even if we must elbow our way in. Horses have eyes on the sides of their heads and see the world peripherally with 350 degree vision. When driving my pony, I put her in a bridle with blinders to focus her on the work ahead. Representatives have their own blinders when dealing with the bottom line or committee assignments. I encourage us to embrace the periphery and not forget those who live outside this chamber. Training a horse requires patience, consistency, taking the long view, positive reinforcement, changing patterns patterns so as not to get stale, getting out of your comfort zone, and reaching for new achievements. Failure is an essential part of learning. This is familiar to seasoned legislators since you have toiled on bills for years before passage. As a new member, remind me to stay the course. Horse training used to rely mostly on domination. Now we seek to learn the animal and understand how it perceives the world. Here, seek authentic input and dialogue, listen intently, and adapt accordingly since our realities may be quite different from those of the people we seek to serve. A lot of time with the pony in winter is drudgery, mucking out stalls, chopping ice in frozen water buckets, cleaning hooves, exercising her in the unheated drafty barn. But when I sit in the cart and our drive goes well, all the effort is worth it as we glide through space. I wish all elected officials joy in our daily chores. I hope your efforts come to fruition, and more importantly, that we contribute to a just and civil society where all Vermonters can have safe, healthy, robust, and expressive lives. So as we head into these last decisive weeks, may we follow John's good advice.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, our first order of business today is to welcome our newest member to the chamber representative Kevin Scully of Burlington. Will the clerk please read the governor's letter of appointment?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Dear speaker Prowinski, I have the honor to inform you that I have appointed Kevin Scully of Burlington, Vermont to serve in the general assembly representing House District Chitin 18. Sincerely, Philip B. Scott, governor.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, the member from Burlington took his oath of office this morning and is ready to be seated. So at this time, I ask the member from Burlington to please proceed to the front doors of the chamber so he can be escorted to his seat. Madam sergeant at arms.

[Janet Miller, Sergeant at Arms]: Madam speaker, I present to you representative Kevin Scully of Burlington representing House District Chittenden 18.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the sergeant at arms please escort representative Scully to his seat which is seat number 98. And now the chair appoints the member from Burlington to the committee on government operations and military affairs. Congratulations, member from Burlington. Members we have a bill on the notice calendar today requiring referral to a money committee pursuant to house rule 35A. Senate bill two thirty nine is an act relating to the child abuse and neglect reporting working group carrying an appropriation, the bill is referred to the committee on appropriations. Also earlier today, the committee on human services reported favorable with amendment on senate bill 157 which is an act relating to recovery resident certification affecting the revenue of the state. The bill is referred to the committee on ways and means pending its entry on the notice calendar. Members, we have received requests to read three house concurrent resolutions that the house and senate adopted pursuant to the consent calendar. The first is HCR two thirty one which is a house concurrent resolution honoring the outstanding achievements of the federal trio trio programs in Vermont. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Whereas at seven Vermont colleges and

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: through

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, students who aspire to be their family's first college graduate but lack the requisite funds can avail themselves of these federal educational supports programs. And whereas in 1964 in the economic opportunity act, congress established upward bound, the original federal college incentive program for financially disadvantaged students. In the higher education act of 1965, congress created talent search to assist these students applying for newly established federal financial aid support. And in 1968, the 1965 law was amended to include the special services for disadvantaged students program, now known as the student support services. And together, these three services began commonly referred to as the federal trio programs. And whereas subsequent amendments to the 1965 legislation created the created the educational opportunity centers and the veterans upward bound, the Ronald e McNair post baccalaureate achievement program and upward bound math science, which is a division of upward bound. And whereas in 1992, congress officially renamed and combined these programs as the federal trio programs, and they continue to be a special gateway for financially disadvantaged students to pursue their college dream. And whereas students and administrators representing the federal trio programs in Vermont are visiting the State House today, Thursday, 04/16/2026, and their visit serves as an opportunity to recognize the educational and societal roles of the federal trio programs. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate and house of representatives, the general assembly honors the outstanding achievements of the federal trio programs in Vermont. And be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the board of directors of the Vermont Educational Opportunity Programs.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Next is HCR two forty five which is a house concurrent resolution celebrating the importance of the Vermont visitor economy and recognizing 04/16/2026 as tourism economy day at the state house. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Whereas Vermont is a world class destination for outdoor recreation, dining, lodging, art, and history that attracts visitors and new residents, incentivizes Vermonters to stay, and creates business opportunities. And whereas Vermont's visitor economy has a $4,200,000,000 economic impact and employs more than 10% of Vermont's workforce. And whereas in 2024, 16,000,000 people visited Vermont contributing an estimated 2.93 two two hundred and ninety three point five million dollars in state and local taxes. And whereas tourism and hospitality are two of the largest industries in Vermont, creating 31,780 jobs. And whereas tourism and hospitality are vital to the sustainability of rural and urban communities alike across all 14 counties. And whereas meaningful representation and inclusion are essential to ensure Vermont is welcoming to individuals from all backgrounds so that they can experience the joy of visiting the state. And whereas industry leaders who prioritize community values in their work and promote destination stewardship benefit Vermonters and the state's economy. Now therefore be it resolved by the senate and house of representatives that the general assembly celebrates the importance of the Vermont visitor economy and recognizes 04/16/2026 as tourism economy day at the state house. And be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Vermont Chamber of Commerce in Ski Vermont.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And finally, h c r two fifty is a house concurrent resolution honoring the extraordinary life and artistic achievements of former representative John Kalacke of South Burlington. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Whereas John Kalacke, the much honored artistic administrator and commentator, filmmaker, visual artist, former legislator, gay activist, and perhaps most importantly, dancer and athlete who became a paraplegic due to surgical mishap has persevered and maximized life's opportunities. And whereas his innovative and stellar leadership as an artistic administrator began as a program officer at the Pew Charitable Trusts, continued as a performing arts curator at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and proceeded west to California where he served as the executive director of the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco, and later served as a program director of the San Francisco Foundation, one of the nation's largest community foundations. And whereas John Kalacke, his husband, Larry Connolly, and John's beloved Shetland pony, Pacific Raindrop, next headed east to Vermont, where he assumed a new challenge as the executive director of Burlington's Flynn Center for the Performing Arts from 2010 to 2018. And his abundant creativity fostered programs for young students, promoting inclusivity, artistic excitement, and excellence while not exceeding budgetary limitations. And whereas for two terms from 2019 to 2022, John Kalacke represented his South Burlington neighbors in the general assembly, serving on the house committee on general and housing, and advocating for inclusivity, environmental protection, and a more just society. And whereas recently, his 2025 film Corpus, quote, a meditative reflection of our bodies that have been demonized, weaponized, and politicized, end quote, in conjunction with a floor covering and wall hanger hanging shroud were featured in the recent Burlington City Arts exhibit, Do We Say Goodbye? Grief, Loss, and Mourning. The two visual pieces in another film, Still Point, have been exhibited in galleries in Philadelphia and West Virginia. His film on the Fluxus art movement was shown at England's De Montfort University's Lester Gallery. Three of his recent films will be televised on Vermont public and Maine public, and he is eagerly anticipating a residency to sculpt at the Vermont Center studio Studio Center in Johnson. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate that the General Assembly honors the extraordinary life and artistic achievements of former representative John Kalacke of South Burlington, and be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to John Kalacke.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any announcements? Member from Waterbury.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. We just heard a resolution honoring former representative John Kalacke. I had the honor and privilege of serving with John for the time he spent in this body and his contributions were indelible. He translated his incredible skills from his long artistic career to this building and brought compassion, vision, and an understanding of the arc of the process in ways that many of us take multiple biennia to learn. His presence and his work ethic confirmed so much that I carried in this building from showing up early, the curiosity needed to know the subject at hand, and the ability to impart love to the stakeholders and his peers here, All of which made passage of important bills like our public apology for the harm that we, the general assembly did by approving and supporting the Eugenics Survey and the follow-up legislation to create a truth and reconciliation commission. As well as his hard work trying to bridge the gaps when those gaps were monumental. He didn't always succeed as none of us do, but his morals and ethics informed the work. When I met John, I learned he was Irish and recently as I've been doing some research on the language of names, I thought of his name and did a little research on it as an example. I asked the Google AI what the original derivation of Kalaki was in Gaelic and it gave me several answers. The one I'll claim is the most accurate for today is k I'm I'm gonna butcher this, sorry, anybody who's speaks Gaelic. Kilach or Kilach, which can mean a veiled woman or a shape shifter or one who gives life in the spring. And I think shapeshifter fits my impression and my love of John so well. His work here was a momentary culmination of all of his work as described in the resolution. From his career as a dancer, a marathoner, an AIDS activist, and as an arts administrator in cultural institutions across the country, our Flynn Center, John's core values and his ability to share his love and wisdom were apparent in the art he presented and the battles he fought so he could present that art.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from West Windsor.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you madam speaker. Whose seat this is, I think I know. Madam speaker, I sit in the seat once occupied by John Kalacke as a as a legislator. If I may, I would like to start by expressing gratitude to whoever it was who paired me with John in our mentor mentee relationship in what would become one of the most important relationships I have been able to rely on during my time in the house and one of the most cherished in my life outside of this of this building. It is a really big seat to fill. It says so much about John Kalacke that my family has met and still asks about Pacific Raindrop. That is because John went out of his way to include and honor my family as part of my life as a legislator. Oh, he knows each of their stories and has seen each one's sparkle, and that in turn illustrates who he is as a man. John is a man who knows that a person is never just one person. But here in the state house, the role of a legislator is an embodiment of loving supports without whom we are challenged to survive these halls, and that it is intending to those relationships that a legislator remains centered and grounded, an enormous gift that John gave me in our very first meeting. John is art made manifest. Through passion and expression, freedom, and hard contemplative work, John asks us to laugh and cry and ponder bodily and spiritual stasis and change, release and capture, and ultimately rejection and acceptance. This extends beyond his own countless works, writing, and endeavors in art to his full championing of mercy and the rights and conditions of those who are downtrodden and subjugated as well as simply in the way he talks about things. Why do we choose what do we choose to reject and why? What do we choose to accept and why? And at the end, how do we move through those to achieve lightness and peace? I ask this body to give a very warm welcome to former representative John Kalacke and his husband Larry Connolly, two of the absolutely most gentle people you could hope to meet to the state house.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the former member and guest member from West Windsor please rise and be recognized? Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified Representative from Burlington]: Madam speaker, we just heard about the critical importance of the tourism economy to Vermont. It is important for economic vitality, and it is important for attracting new residents to Vermont. And now, if you will please join me in welcoming many of the humans involved and thank them for their hard work, their commitment, and their contribution to Vermont's vitality.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest, the member from Burlington please rise and be recognized. Member from Westminster.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: Thank you madam speaker. Today the democracy alliance coalition is visiting the state house. They include more than 30 member organizations including over 15 individual chapter chapters from every corner of the state. Also VPERG, ACLU, VCV, third act, league of women voters, migrant justice, Vermont asylum seekers project and the rights and democracy, group as well as others.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest member from Westminster please rise and be recognized? Member from Cornwall.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure when folks travel from Addison County to the Golden Dome, and even more special when they are good friends and former neighbors. Would you please help me welcome two of those, Jonathan and Kim Heskock of Shoreham.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest member from Cornwall please rise and be recognized? Member from Brattleboro. Thank you madam speaker. Based on information about our floor schedule today, I think it is wise to cancel the art social that was scheduled for 04:00 today but we have another date rescheduled for two weeks from today, Thursday, April 30 hoping that that time and date will be clear. Thank you. Are there any further announcements? Member from Linden.

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Lyndon)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We just heard a resolution honoring the federal trio programs in Vermont. Representatives from my district, including Linden Institute students are with us today. Please join me in welcoming them to the people's house.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest of the member from Linden please rise and be recognized? Are there any further announcements? Member from Weitzfield.

[Rep. Dara Torre (Waitsfield)]: Madam speaker, I'd like to introduce my legislative intern from the University of Vermont, Emma Watley. Emma hails from Maryland, but has embraced her northern home in Vermont so much that she learned to ski this past season. You may all recognize her as a young woman who has been crutching around the State House for her skiing journey did lead to an injury of the tibia plateau in February. But Emma was undeterred and continued her internship on crutches, catching rides because she could not drive, and continuing to learn all she could about Vermont state politics. She has sat in on many committee rooms hearing testimony and taking excellent notes among other tasks. Emma is a double major in political science and history and has an interest in pursuing law. I'm grateful for the many ways Emma has helped me this session. Madam speaker, could you please help me welcome Emma Watley to the People's House? She is sitting in the gallery.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest of the member from Weitzfield please rise and be recognized. Are there any further announcements? Member for Middlebury.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, because we're not in an unheated drafty barn, I move that we suspend our rules to allow members who wish to

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: do so to remove their jackets.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, is this for the rest of the session?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Middlebury moves that we suspend our rules to allow members to remove their jackets remainder of the session. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have suspended your rules to allow members to remove their jackets for the remainder of the session. Will the house please come to order? Are there any further announcements? Are there any further announcements seeing oh, yes. Member from Colchester.

[Unidentified Representative from Colchester]: Please join us for an informal drop in reception to learn more about catamounts and the growing interest in exploring their potential return to the Northeast. This will be an opportunity to connect with colleagues, hear the latest science, and engage in a forward looking conversation about the most current research history and vision behind the vision and this opportunity for wildlife restoration. Light appetizers and beverages will be served. It is hosted by Mighty Earth and Bring Catamounts Home. And I just wanna say that I truly believe that the tourism economy would explode if there were catamount watch tours across Vermont.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, orders of the day. Members we will begin with House Bill two thirty seven which is an act relating to prescribing by doctoral level psychologists. The bill passed the senate in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. The pending question is shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Member from Essex.

[Rep. Alyssa Black (Essex)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, you may recall h two thirty seven, an act relating to prescribing by a doctoral level psychologist from last year. This bill passed this body right before crossover in 2025 on a unanimous voice vote and now has been returned as a strike call amendment from the senate that's printed in today's calendar. H two thirty seven came to us from the former member of Barrytown who had found that in his region, some folks suffering from mental illness face barriers to accessing critical medications in a timely fashion. That is the problem we're trying to solve. This bill will allow certain doctoral level psychologists to prescribe medications. The bill contemplates a scope expansion and because psychologists are regulated by OPR, OPR wrote a sunrise assessment in January '25. OPR's recommendations are this bill that's in front of you. The former member from Barrytown spent many years working on this bill and he was deeply passionate about it. He was so passionate that I made him the reporter of the bill, something that he was loath to do. But because he was the reporter, I unfortunately don't have access to his previous bill report and his large folder that he kept with all the research on it. So I hope even though it's a strike all amendment, I hope you'll allow me to just walk through the changes that the senate made. There were only four, and they're relatively small changes. So in section two of the bill, three b, they added, this is the rule making from OPR around this profession. They added that in rulemaking they would establish the minimum requirements for curriculum of the postdoctoral psychopharmacology program. In section three, b three, regarding they clinical rotations that providers had to qualifications that providers had to have before licensure, We had had it as eighteen months. The senate shortened it to fourteen months. We had previously had nine different clinical rotations. They removed three of them, specifically OBGYN, peds, and surgery, and that's because, doctoral level psychologists prescribing will not be treating those patients. And they added section four, which is just a report from OPR that comes back to us in 2032. And they're just gonna report to us the number of psychologists, with prescribing, the status of available collaborative practitioners, and whether or not any updates to the qualifications need to be made to expand access to care. They changed some effective dates, in section five because we had passed this bill in this body a year ago. They changed July '25 to July '26 since we are past '25 now. And then in b, all remaining sections, they extended from July 2028 to July 2029. Here in Vermont, as in many parts of this country, the mental health crisis is coupled with a provider shortage, making treatment and care even harder and more elusive for those struggling with illness. H two thirty seven is just a step in alleviating some of the stress on Vermonters and health care practitioners. I wanna be clear. This bill will not completely solve the problem, but it's just one more tool in the toolbox to ease the potential harms of provider shortages. Your committee on health care heard on this amendment from our legislative council as well as the office of professional regulation. And on a straw poll of nine zero two, we vote to concur with the senate proposal of amendment, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Next is house bill nine fifty five which is an act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont's education system. The bill was introduced by the committee on education. The member from Cornwall, representative Conlon will speak for the committee. Affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Brattleboro, representative Kornheiser will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means. The member from Bennington, representative Negro will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Rep. Charlie Kimbell (Woodstock)]: H nine fifty five, an act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont's education system.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Cornwall.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Madam speaker, about eighteen months ago, I was appointed to the commission on the future of public education. The goal of the commission was to address many of the same goals of act 73. Equity of opportunity for all students in Vermont so they would receive a world class education, to address declining enrollment, and address the growing cost of education in a time of declining enrollment. Over that year and a half, we met in every corner of the state, debating how to address our challenges and listening to Vermonters. Meetings and public forums took me to Newport, Wilmington, Randolph, South Hero, Rutland, Dorset, Middlebury, and points in between. We had big crowds with lots to say and small groups who had plenty to say. Additionally, we commissioned a survey that yielded thousands of responses from thousands of Vermonters. Then last year, the legislature created the redistricting task force, which was also a mix of legislators and others with deep knowledge of Vermont's school systems. They too met around the state and heard from hundreds of Vermonters while engaging in their own deep analysis and debate. Both of these working groups produced thoughtful, invaluable work that reflected a commitment to a strong public education system that continues to respect its importance in all of Vermont, from the most rural parts of the state to the most populous. The work of these two groups then flowed to the general assembly, and in particular, your house education committee, as it worked to create the next steps in education transformation as called for in act 73. H nine fifty five represents the results of that input, plus the hours of testimony since the session started. The results of the aforementioned survey that thousands of Vermonters responded to before the session, the countless emails that have rolled in, and the valued contribution from all house members and particularly members of the house education committee. With that, let me put in broad strokes what h nine fifty five does. First, it creates mandatory shared service regions called cooperative education service areas, or CISAs. You will hear me refer to CISAs occasionally in this presentation. The bill requires the state be divided into seven CISA regions. The role of each CISA is to provide services more economically and efficiently at a larger scale. Examples would include highly specialized services for students with specific needs, back office administration like payroll, coordinated transportation, professional development, just to name a few. CESAs were a strong recommendation of the redistricting task force as a proven way to provide services more economically and to get savings quicker. Most other states use them, and Vermont actually has one about a year old that is already proving to save its member school districts money even with its currently limited offerings. CESAs can also help school districts bring in more money through public and private grants. One major challenge Vermont's small do school districts have faced is no capacity to apply for large grants with complex applications, especially federal funding. CESAs can bring needed expertise for that process and bring together multiple districts to stop leaving money on the table that larger districts in other states win frequently. Second, the bill brings together Vermont school boards in all regions of the state to study whether to seek a formal merger into a pre k to grade 12 Unified Union School District. Similar to act 46 and using men mainly existing statute, h nine fifty five would fund seven facilitators in all parts of the state to create those merger study committees. I wanna emphasize the bill requires that merger study committees form and discuss the advisability of becoming a merged union school district, but it does not require them to merge. Just to investigate whether merging is advisable. Should those school districts choose to pursue a voluntary merger, the bill provides financial support for that work. And state statute in chapter 11, title 16, which this body updated five years ago, lays out the process in full detail. We are not reinventing the wheel. Before we get into the meat of the bill, I wanna emphasize a few things. One, CISAs. Again, these are shared service agencies, and they are mandatory, and the bill envisions seven of them in the state. Two, merger study committees are also mandatory, and this bill envisions about 20, each supported by a facilitator. But merging itself is not mandatory. It is a local choice. Also, the bill provides guidance as to where those 20 merger studies could take place, but allows flexibility to adjust based on what the facilitators learn on the ground. We have a visual organizer in the form of a map that shows CISA regions, the boundaries which would be set in state statute, as well as suggested merger study groups, which are guidance only and are designed to be to help the facilitators focus their work faster. These maps can be found on the House of Education page under today's date. Alright. Let's talk about the bill. Section one is the legislative intent, which I'm gonna read. To ensure each student is provided substantially equal educational opportunities that will prepare the student to thrive in a twenty first century world. It is the intent of the general assembly to work strategically, intentionally, and thoughtfully to ensure that each incremental change made to Vermont's public education system provides strength and support to its only constitutionally required government service. That same language can be found in Act 73. Second, the General Assembly recognizes that Vermont schools anchor local economies and community identity, connecting young people to their homes while supporting workforce development and long term stability, and that different regions of Vermont have different needs, challenges, and opportunities. Further, it is the intent of the general assembly to ensure that local voice and community input retain an important role in Vermont's evolving educational landscape. Moving on to section two, it is the creation of the Cooperative Educational Service Areas or CISAs. Again, these are mandatory and designed to create scale across a greater geographic region than current school districts in order to provide many specialized services at a lower cost to the member school districts. The bill lists the member school districts in each CISA. These boundaries are drawn to respect existing school district and supervisory union boundaries. Much of the rest of section two plus sections three through 11 is simply changing the name in current law addressing CESAs to reflect the name. We created enabling legislation in 2023 that allowed but dot did not require the formation of CESAs. But at that time, we called them boards of cooperative education services or BOCES. BOCES as a name is confusing as they mean different things in nearby states. For example, in New York, BOCES is mostly the term for career and technical education. Thus, much of the rest of section two through section 11 is simply reflecting that name change. These CESAs would be supported by $15,000 startup grants and $50,000 grants upon hiring their first directors of the CESAs. Beyond that, CESAs would be funded through membership dues, fee for service work, or a combination of the two. Moving on to section 13, h nine fifty five calls for school districts in all parts of the state to form merger study committees based on guidance provided in this bill and or the recommendation of the facilitator on the ground. They would be made up of school board members. Again, the goal is to study merging into unified school districts offering pre k to grade 12 education. Many of you may remember merger study committees from act 46. This is similar and governed by state statute that was largely built from the eight act 46 process. Merger study committees would be brought together by facilitators to investigate whether it would be advisable to merge. Again, should they decide to merge, current statute, chapter 11 of title 16, has a clear process for this that includes a vote of the electorate in each school district that has proposed to merge. Should a merger study committee decide it is not advisable to merge, the process ends, and it is status quo for these districts. Again, merging is voluntary and requires a positive vote of the electorate in each district to move forward. Also wanna repeat that the groupings listed in the bill are guidance only for the facilitator. They are not required groupings and can be changed based on discussions facilitators have with school districts in the region. For example, a facilitator may learn that two pre k to 12 districts have already reached out to one another informally but are not in the same grouping. The facilitator has the flexibility to adjust groups based on information like this. Another example, a district with a small high school with declining enrollment may want to talk with another district with a high school about merging but are in different groupings. The facilitator has the flexibility to meet these needs and readjust the groupings. The guidance map is just that. Guidance only to help focus the early work and get moving on voluntary mergers. Looking at section 13 in more detail, subsection a lays out the hiring and training of facilitators using the state's existing CISA, the Vermont Learning Collaborative. Section b lays out the guidelines for the facilitators to create the merger study committees, including specific reference to the process laid out in current statute. Sections b and c lay out a series of dates by which this work takes place. Most notably, the merger study work mostly completed by 02/01/2028. So the proposal can be reviewed by the secretary of education and the state board of education to provide findings and recommendations before their proposal in the form of articles of agreement goes to the voters on election day, 11/07/2028. Section 14 lays out the guidance for the facilitators by school district. Again, this is designed as guidance only and as a way to focus the work of the merger study committees as quickly as possible. Section fifteen and sixteen outline a number of reports required from the facilitators on the outcomes of the merger study committees and from the agency of education on school district and CISA boundaries based on the same outcomes. Section 17 outlines the appropriations mentioned earlier and will be subject to further instance of amendment by ways and means. Section 18 is the effective dates, and this section adjust contingencies for the foundation formula to match the dates, Most notably, when newly merged districts are operational and due dates, for reports that are laid out in the previous sections. Section 19 addresses work still to be done for funding pre kindergarten when the new foundation formula is implemented. This is also subject to further instances of amendment from ways and means. Madam speaker, getting here was a long journey for our committee, filled with robust discussion, plenty of disagreement, and ultimately a fair amount of compromise. I mentioned in the start of this report that I was an original member of the Commission on the Future of Public Education whose charge it was to map out a future for Vermont's public education system. While act 73 changed our charge and also created the redistricting task force, I firmly believe the end result of the commission's work would look would have looked very much like what is in front of you today. A plan that can save money, provide more students in a cost effective way, a plan that respects local voice and the many differences across our state, and a plan that helps Vermont continue to adjust to our changing demographics and enter the coming years with a stronger student focused education system. The committee on education heard from dozens of witnesses, including from the agency of education, our experts from legislative council and the joint fiscal office, dozens of school administrators, experts on cooperative educational service areas, school board members, educational researchers, school construction experts, members of the Commission on the Future of Public Education and the Redistricting Task Force, public school advocates, special education experts, the Campaign for Vermont, and EdWatch VT. I will leave several copies of the complete list of witnesses on my desk for anyone interested. Madam speaker, the committee vote for h nine fifty five was seven four in favor. We greatly appreciate the body's interest and contributions to the discussions of h nine fifty five, and we ask for your support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from Brattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: My microphone doesn't anyway okay. It doesn't seem quite attached to its little compartment today. Madam speaker, the Ways and Means Committee voted out h nine fifty five favorably Friday afternoon. While we received the bill earlier this month, most language in our amendment was drafted as stand alone language earlier in the session and is the product of work we began at the beginning of the session to continue the work past next 73. We use specific instances of amendment that you can find on our committee page rather than a strike call so you can see specifically where we added to the work of the House Education Committee. One word of caution. When following along, whether that is in the calendar or on the committee page, the contingencies and effective dates are remarkably interconnected and confusing. Staff drafted a timeline for us that you can find on our committee page as well as a section by section that also has effective dates on each section, in order that might be an easier place to follow along if that works for members. We are here today because we want to live in a state with an education system that works for all of our kids, where families can care for each other and care for their communities, where schools can support all of our children, and all of those schools can be supported by a tax base and a tax system that is fair to all of us. And right now, madam speaker, our tax system has, over the years since act 60 passed, become more and more unfair. Our funding for our schools has become more and more unfair. And importantly, the bills that we each need to pay, whether that's monthly through escrow or quarterly as in my household, those bills are different year over year. They're hard to anticipate, and for many Vermont families, they're higher than they can afford. And so that while we are here today to support a quality public education system throughout the state, your Ways and Means Committee was focused on creating this stable finance system. As I said, we've been working on our components of the education transformation bill since the start of the session and received possession of the bill late last week. Our work took a few specific tax. We added planned updates to components of our property tax changes made in act 73. We made necessary changes to components of the future education finance system to enable the foundation formula to work fairly and efficiently. Both of those sections were anticipated. And then we did great work to adjust act 73 and the new policy to support the thoughtful work of the education committee's work to listen to our communities, to listen to our neighbors, to listen to the hundreds and maybe thousands of stakeholders that we've heard from, to shift to a system of CISAs, to increase quality, consistency, and cost in our communities, and to a community driven state state supported system of district mergers. Madam speaker, for the tax components of the bill that we changed, that included updates to our tax classification system. Act 73 set in motion division of our nonhomestead properties, which right now are higher in some those taxes are higher in some districts than their homestead rate and other districts lower than the homestead rate in some districts. Act 73 set in motion the division of our non homestead properties into two categories for the purposes of taxing second homes at a higher rate. We received a comprehensive report from the Department of Taxes that recommended next steps for legislative decisions from form development by tax and how rates could be set in the future to cover the costs of lowering all homestead rates in the state to the current lowest rate in the state. The committee here and in this amendment is moving forward with next steps regarding definitions so the tax department can move forward with form development. We are not yet able to set rates, and we don't do so in this bill and until we understand which properties in Vermont fall into this new classification and can create an estimate of the full tax base. So while we do not yet have the processes and data needed to successfully implement this tax, we are taking the next step in a multiyear process of finalizing language so that the tax department can do the administrative work and the data collection necessary prior to this being a feasible tax to implement. It is very important that our communities understand what we're doing, that we accurate data, and that we move forward with everyone aligned. The final these final reports that we'll need to implement this new tax type are aligned simultaneously with the foundation formula and property tax credit changes that we put in place last year so taxpayers don't experience whiplash in their bills. Madam speaker, in the course of doing this work on tax classifications, your committee on ways and means went through a remarkable number of hypothetical situations with everything from making sure that summer camps, unweatherized buildings that are not lived in year round will absolutely not be subject to this new tax classification, but also to understand what happens in mixed use properties, whether that is horse rings, as we heard about in our devotional today, or a large, garage on a property that is running a commercial business. And if anyone has questions about various hypotheticals, I think anyone on the committee would enjoy answering those questions for them, as will I today. The second part of our follow-up work for our new tax system is changes to our reappraisal system and our regional assessment districts. We set this in place last year because once we have a statewide education tax and functionally a statewide grand list as we have right now, it's very important that our properties are valued consistently across the state, and right now, they are not. Regional assessment districts will create savings, efficiency, and equity in our reappraisal process, and Act 73 tests the Department of Taxes to set up a working group so, again, we can make sure that we're listening to our communities as we go along with this work. And we have done that by setting in place a multiyear process to identify the scale of those regional assessment districts and make sure that each of our properties is appraised fairly and at scale so that we can have consistent bills year over year and from community to community. Then, madam speaker, we set in place a number of next steps for how to fund our school system, how we're gonna fund our school system, and that included a new school construction program after a series of task forces that many members of this body have participated in. It became very clear the absolute detrimental state that many of the school buildings around our state are in and how much harder that will make it for communities to come together in the careful and thoughtful merger process that was set in place with this legislation. Our state school construction program ended in 2007, and construction maintenance has been woefully inconsistent across the state since. Much of our education reform work in act 73 is only able to be fully realized with the construction of new regional high schools and the rehabilitation expansion of many existing school buildings. School construction work is set to happen in this bill in a few different ways. We carried the recommendations of the school construction working group of twenty twenty four into Act 73, and we are carrying this forward and requesting rulemaking to complete that work so that we are making sure that as the state invests and supports both the technical work that's needed and the fiscal support that's needed for new school construction, we will be doing it thoughtfully statewide with an emphasis on making sure that we are supporting the policy decisions that we are setting in place with this bill. The agency of education has made recommendations regarding the structure and staffing of school construction decision. We affirm those recommendations in our amendment. The state aid for school construction advisory board created an act 73, created a comprehensive study of construction debt carried by school districts, and we take those recommendations one step forward to make sure that we are prioritizing the buildings we need in this moment that we are in. And then finally, in order to restart this process, we are directing we are trying to better understand the state of our state bonding and have directed CDAC to offer us recommendations in how much date how much debt in general obligation bonds we can take on. And so when all of these pieces come together, madam speaker, districts will be able to form a capital stack that consists of general obligation bonds from the state, locally voted bonds at the district level that is funded through a combination of grants from the state and locally raised revenue. We also, madam speaker, in supporting the work of your house committee on education and the transition to new districts and the support of CISAs, we took testimony that the blunt tax penalties and incentives that we had in effect in act 46 weren't as effective as we might have wanted them to be. And so rather than putting in place something that communities might experience as tax increases or tax penalties, we worked to remove disincentives to mergers by covering the school debt, any existing school debt, supporting school construction, and bringing clear technical assistance and clear information to districts. The bill carefully aligns the timelines of the foundation formula, the tax changes, information to districts, and the school construction program to make sure that we are best supporting the work of the merger committees and the savings that can be realized through our CSAs. In order to have the foundation formula that we set in place Act 73 work and the contingencies that we put in place there and support the work of a study that the Joint Fiscal Office has contracted and will be with us in December, We've changed contingencies and time timing to align with the completion of the brokered voluntary merger process and to include the funding of special education, transportation, pre kindergarten, and other essential education costs. We've also set in place rule making related to reserve guidance, special education, trench a study on transportation equity, and other aspects of education governance. And lastly, madam speaker, before I go on to the section by section because I haven't even started that part yet. Hope everyone will bear with me. The foundation formula that we set in place that we continue here will work best to deliver opportunities around the state if and only if we address the underlying cost drivers that have led to some of the increased spending around the state and the increased and inconsistent tax bills that communities are feeling and paying. Those cost drivers that we spent a lot of time and testimony on this year, last year, and most of all, three years ago, actually, include health care costs, mental health costs, school facilities costs, special education costs, and the cost of a declining enrollment. And so I wanna draw attention to some of the work that might happen outside of tax policy to make sure we understand how the tax work in this bill can be fully realized through the foundation formula. We lowered the cost of health care through the work of this body, through a number of pieces of work, but specifically the passage of reference based pricing last year and the changes we made to pharmaceutical billing at hospitals. And there are significant memos on our committee pages to, if folks wanna dive into the numbers on that. The work that your House Education Committee did on CESAs is gonna allow us to reach scale, increased opportunity, more access to resources, and cost savings for both students' mental health and special education. The changes to Medicaid billing that we made in the budget, madam speaker, will also contribute to us drawing down more federal dollars to support this work. The class size minimums that were put in place last year at x 73 are already bearing fruit, and we will see more of that in the years to come as we complete rulemaking attached to that. And then finally, school facilities, which I addressed when I was describing school governance. This legislation is step two or three in a multiyear process, and frankly, that is hard to do in a biennial legislature. We are addressing a wide range of large and small details here, and it is hard work and impacts each of our communities differently. Frankly, madam speaker, there is something for each person to love and hate in this legislation, and I think many of the conversations of this body and each of our committees have borne that out. And so as I move through the section by section, I ask members to keep that in mind, that it is the collective whole of this legislation and the collective whole of our work over these last few years and these next few years that will make a difference to make sure we have the schools and the property tax structure for our communities to thrive. So our first instance of amendment is in section four, and that is a change in appropriations to make sure to that our education transformation funds that we set in place in last year's budget are able to pay pay for a CISA startup grant program instead of having that funded through a new appropriation. Our second instance of amendment adds language to make sure that our study committees are looking at the consolidation who are looking at consolidation are also taking into account grand list values so we can make sure that we have socioeconomically diverse communities and school districts, as well as a fairer tax structure. That's in section 13. Our third instance of amendment is in also in section 13 and adds language to require that the facilitators bring legislative fiscal modeling activities to study committees. And I have a follow-up amendment that I'll be offering that, ensures that the tax department is making those resources as easy to find as possible for those committees. Those are all effective, on July 1. The fourth instance of amendment is also appropriations related to study re committee reimbursement grants, redirecting funds for the hiring of facilitators, and establishing grants to hire CISA executive directors. We made amendments to the House Education Committee, that were not substantive, but that were just designed to make the appropriations flow a little easier out of the general fund. Those are also effective on July 1. Our fifth instance of amendment strikes out the entire section 18, which is effective dates and establishes new effective dates for education transformation, which as I said, contains many contingencies, and I will go through them, as I go through section by section rather than at the conclusion. Our sixth amendment. And, madam speaker, I started with such a comprehensive summary because our instances of amendment, despite, our incredible staff's desire to help us tell a consistent story through our legislation because of the structure of the statute that we are amending, frankly, are a little bit all over the place in order, and so I tried to share the big picture with you before I go into some of the details. So our sixth incidence of amendment strikes out section 21, which is a joint fiscal office report and replaces it with a very similar report, about understanding our prekindergarten costs, but does that by building on work that our building that Building Bright Futures is doing through a federal preschool development grant, directs the joint fiscal office to contract with an education expert to provide estimates of those costs once we have the numbers from the federal preschool development grant numbers, and appropriates a small sum of money from that that's included in the budget and then directs our joint fiscal office to provide some recommendations to us. So we can make decisions about how we can best fund prekindergarten to best align with both our foundation formula and our overall education goals next session. The Seventh and Sixth Amendment helps us further realize those goals by requiring school district districts to report to the agency of education the number of hours of pre kindergarten education received by pre kindergarten children attending their school or who they have tuition to another provider. That added a new section 21 a to the bill. A number of our instances of amendments are just making sure that we're counting the kids properly. It's an important part when you're attaching, dollars to those numbers. Section 22, I just described. In section 23, we are adding safeguards around our special education funding in the form of legislative intent to make sure that we are following federal law regarding maintenance of effort as we move towards a new funding formula for special education next session. Section 24. I'm all in the same instance of amendment for all of this. In section 24, we make sure that when the foundation formula is enacted, 07/01/2030, that tuition to any school, public, private, in state, out of state, that those schools are prohibited from receiving extra tuition or extra fees above the foundation formula amount that is paid by the sending district. That is because as we are moving towards a consistent tax rate across the state and a consistent sum across the state, we want to make sure that that meets the needs of all kids fairly and all families fairly. Section 24 a adds legislative intent to that to make sure that it is, focused on being effective when the foundation formula takes effect. Section 25, back to an effective date of July 1, is more on approving a study committee budget. Right now in statute, the underlying language from act 50 from act 46, madam speaker, says that if a study committee wants to spend more than $50,000, which is essentially raised by all of the districts who are working together, coming together and putting money into a pot, they wanna spend more than $50,000. They would need to get that approved by the electorate of each of their districts. We heard testimony, two years ago, madam speaker, that actually a school district election can cost more than $50,000. And so we want to make sure the districts weren't spending more money for an election than they might need to be asking the electorate for, and so we increased that number. We don't expect that the study committees will spend that much. We just want to make sure that they could do it if they needed to, but they would need to do that within the existing budgets of each of the districts. Section 26 requires the State Board of Education to update rules in the education quality standards around the definitions of small and sparse schools. They started this work this year, and we asked them to finish it so we can make sure that our funding formulas, as we finalize them next year, will align with this. In section 27, we add more rulemaking, but this is to district quality standards to make sure we are adding to district quality standards, intra district budgeting guidance so that within a district, especially a larger district, resources are getting to the schools where the kids need them rather than where the loudest voices are. In section 27A, we require completing rulemaking on reserve fund accounting standards, Again, to make sure that we have consistent budgeting from district to district as we move towards more consistent funding. That's effective on passage. In section 27 b, we move to, request the agency of education submit to us a follow-up report on school transportation to make sure we understand how they're funded now, so we can set how they are funded in the future. In section 27 c, we continue our work on developing accurate data and counting children accurately and youth and, require the agency of education to develop a student profile form to make sure that any youth who are not already, able to be counted through existing mechanisms, under federal law regarding Medicaid matching, are collecting the appropriate forms, so that we can get the full demographic details of all students who are, being educated in the state with public dollars. In section 27 d, we require rulemaking regarding the length of a day. We have rules right now about the number of educational hours required, but not the number of hours that children, should be in school at a minimum, and that's important for us to compare apples to apples in funding. In section 28, we repeal section seven of act 73 because we are replacing it with other similar language that is updated. In section 29, we are moving to essentially, since we had to repeal this language, we need to replace it with very similar language that reenacts the small sparse schools grant, but we're able to do that once we have that rulemaking completed. There's a lot of funny things like that in this bill, madam speaker. We need to repeal language and essentially entirely replace it in order to change just a little bit. And as we continue the work of implementing act 73 into the future, likely we're gonna see more language similar to this this coming year. And then in section 29 a, we are amending 16 VSA 11 to add a number of definitions used in session law around class sizes, class content, full time equivalent class school, the length of a school day, all kinds of things related to fully implementing act 73 and this follow-up legislation. And then we move into property valuation and regional assessments. In section 30, I these regional assessment districts enable us to value our properties accurately and consistently. We establish a practice that we already set into statute in previous years of assessing districts every six years according to schedules and guidelines established by the property valuation review division at the Department of Taxes. We established an appeals board for regional assessment districts drawn from the municipal members of that regional assessment district. We established an appeals process to make sure that the folks who are hearing the appeals are those who are making decisions and going up from there. We set conforming changes related to the coefficient of dispersion as a reason to order new new municipal appraisals. And in section 32, we add a clarifying provision that all municipalities, women, and RAD should be treated as a single municipality for the purposes of the regional assessment district. Section 33 are more conforming changes related to how property valuation and review are gonna provide listers with valuation of public utilities, and that municipality that is related to legislation we passed a number of years ago and just carrying that forward as we amend the statute. Section 34 repeals sections related to the regional assessment districts, that were replaced by sections thirty and fifty three of this bill, including the appeals chapter that I just described. And in section 35, this covers that when a municipality is prepared to start a reappraisal, we want to make sure that that municipality has the resources that needs to do so, and the commissioner is estimating that cost and remitting that amount given that the amount that we've been paying municipalities for this work has not changed over the last many years, and we wanna make sure they can afford to do this very important work. In section 36, we would have created a position of the Department of Taxes to do this, but they do not need that position yet, and so we've removed this section. In section 37 sections 37 to 52, we have more conforming changes related to the appeals chapter. In section 53, we have a transition in our annual progress report to make sure that this work is going well and to make sure that the director of of property valuation review is essentially, all the timing for the current ordering of municipal reappraisals is paused as those municipalities join regional assessment districts. In section 54, we ask the commissioner of taxes to recommend reasonably sized regional assessment districts of 10,000 or more parcels that ideally include one or more school districts. In section 55, we make sure that if errors by listers and computing values, that any amount that is paid by taxpayers related to this and sent to the is abated if there are mistakes on the part of the listers. And in section 56, we ask the director of property valuation and review to issue guidance regarding the consistent and accurate appraisals of manufactured homes in a limited equity cooperative. If folks remember what feels like years ago, but I think was just a few weeks ago during crossover, madam speaker, we moved a piece of comprehensive legislation related to manufactured homes with much tax policy in it, and this language was originally in that bill. We struck that from that bill and moved it into here because it included comprehensive property valuation review work. And then, madam speaker, we are moving into section 57, which is property tax classifications that is the new second home tax category. In section 57, we amend 32 VSA forty one fifty two. This section is effective 07/01/2027 for grand lists and is lodged in 2028. We add a separate column listing the number of dwelling units. Madam speaker, in section 58, This is amending 32 v s a forty one fifty two a. We get really to the heart of the updates requiring that parcels of land be assigned one or more general classes for the purpose of taxation, homestead, nonhomestead, nonresidential, or nonhomestead residential. Essentially, homestead is not changing. Nonhomestead, nonresidential is everything that was once nonhomestead but does not include the second home category, and nonhomestead residential is the second home category, madam speaker. We defined a dwelling unit as a building or a part of a building that's designed or intended for occupancy with living facilities for sleeping, cooking, and sanitary needs and is fit for year round habitation. However, madam madam speaker, if something is declared a homestead by someone living in it for the vast majority of the year, that is the definition that essentially trumps all the others. So if something is not fit for year round dwelling, but someone is living in it year round as a dwelling, then that counts as a homestead because we're gonna trust the people who are living there. We make sure that a long term rental is a dwelling with the right of occupancy for at least thirty days and that those pieces of thirty days are combined into rental periods of six months where there is a bona fide landlord tenant relationship that includes employee rental housing. That nonhomestead residential means a parcel with a dwelling unit that is not a homestead and not a long term rental or a mobile home, and that mixed use parcels, of which there are many undercurrent law, madam speaker, are classified proportionally on a percentage of finished square footage used, and that the underlying land shall be classified the same as the percentage of finished floor space, and that all improvements in land for a homestead will be classified as such. Grievances and classifications shall be placed with the commissioner as they are under current law. In section 59, we amend 32 VSA fifty four ten to go deep into the dwelling use attestation form, which is similar to the existing homestead form that I imagine most of us file here in this body and adds a system for appeals, changes, and penalties. In section 60, we create forms in 2028 and require the Department of Taxes to collect information from property tax owners in preparation to implement a tax classification system in the following year. That is also contingent far off in the future and on the foundation formula. In section 61, we repeal several actions several sections of act 73 that were related to this because we replaced them in section 62. We continue our intent that the tax rate multipliers will be reevaluated when the general assembly, is able to set those tax rates, but that they will be used to lower the homestead property tax rates throughout the state. Section 63 is a prospective repeal for if we do not meet our contingencies, the sections relating to tax classification system will be repealed in July for and do not use them to set multipliers that entire section of statute would be repealed. Section 64 is more conforming provisions that clarify, more about nonprincipal dwellings and established that any dwelling use as a homestead is a homestead, as I said, even if it's not fit for year round hap habitation. Our next section is section 65. I'm a little jealous, madam speaker, of the representative from Cornwall who had sort of a consistent story to tell because your Ways and Means Committee added a bunch of policy that wrapped all around it, and I'm I feel that I'm leaping here, so I hope folks are following along. In section 65, we had comprehensive findings on school construction. That is our intent section. I'm gonna read some of that to you. Actually, I'm not. I feel like I've been talking long enough. Folks can read it if they would like. That's all effective 07/01/2026, but I will say that the point of our school construction program is to make sure that all the rest of our work here to provide quality, consistent, meaningful opportunities to our kids and their communities can be realized at a cost that we can afford. Section 66 authorizes four permanent positions at the Agency of Education School Construction Division to assist in this work and to make sure that it is done well, efficiently, and effectively, and asks the agency of education to request that staff funding in f y twenty eight. That's effective on passage. Section 67 is rule making related to school construction that I've described previously. That's effective 07/01/2020 Section 68 is this asks the school state aid for school construction advisory board to identify the regional high school and rehabilitation opportunities that are before us to align with the rest of the intent of this bill so that we can understand how much money is needed, madam speaker. And then in '69, we are clear on the intent of this policy to prioritize school construction projects that align with the creation of new school governance structures and leverage additional state bonding capacities to support these projects. That's effective 07/01/2026. Section 70 clarifies that the agency of educations should make an annual school construction funding request that includes any state bonding needs. That's effective 07/01/2026. Section 71 is 16 VSA thirty four forty three clarifies that the advisory board shall have the assistance of the school construction division's program director to make sure they are getting the best possible information and help. That's effective 07/01/2026. I'm so close to the end. Section 72 includes the a system for approving the funding of school construction projects through all the mechanisms that I described before, and the capital stack that it once a project is approved and identified as aligned with all of the goals of this legislation, then it allows for a combination of general obligation bonds once we have passed those in a future session, amends the awarded provision of the program to provide for aid of 50 to 90% of the total approved cost of a project that can be in the form of debt service subsidy that would be included in their education payment from the state and could cover locally issued bonds. And the next section and the section after that, allows for a change in the supplemental district spending that we passed in Act 73 to make sure that it does not include school construction spending. In section 73, we repeal 16 VSA thirty four fifty four because it repeal because of the existing prohibition on state aid, we wanna repeal that because we're making a new system for state aid. Section 74, very importantly, madam speaker, makes available annual aid to cover the existing legacy debt of districts so that no district will be in a position, when they are making friends with another district for the purposes of joining. They will not be prevented from doing that by carrying their debt along with them, essentially. It provides a grant, an annual grant, to cover the cost of that debt given that that debt is not included in the foundation formula so that all districts are beginning this process as close as possible to the same, financial page at least. Section seventy five and seventy six amend 16 VSA forty eleven a to, make sure that education payments, which is a term of art in the education finance world, includes the entire aggregate education payment, which is state school construction aid, other education related payments, and the education opportunity payment that we passed in act 73. Section 77 amends 32 VSA fifty four zero one, excludes, as I said, the cap on supplemental district spending That is effective 07/01/2030 if all the contingencies are met, aligns with the foundation formula contingencies. Section 78 amends the type of school budget ballot vote that would happen for the supplemental district spending related to school construction aid. That is also effective 07/01/2030 if all the other contingencies are met. And that brings us to the end of the school construction section. And then finally, we have section 79, which repeals sections of act 70 three's transition measures for the for the foundation formula and statewide tax rate so that they can be updated to reflect the foundation formula rollout timeline that we've shifted to make sure that districts have time to form, to meet, and to set new budgets before the foundation formula takes effect. That is effective on passage. Section 80 updates the educational opportunity payments to change the fiscal years of when those take effect and adds contingencies and, a time line and transitions to align all of those dates. Supplemental district spending in section 81 and that cap also changes those transition years forward to make sure they align with the time the districts need to get this right. Section 82, which is effective 07/01/2030 if the same contingencies are met. Upstate updates the homestead tax rate transition measures that we put in place in act 73 to just make sure those dates line up with everything else. Section 83 does the same, delays a report to make sure it lines up with all the rest of our dates and times. Section 84 is a second report from the Department of Taxes that is also pushed forward a bit to align with the time that districts need and that the tax department needs to do their work. Section 85 amends statute that create an education advisory committee many years ago, many sets of statute and change ago in a previous yield bill. The Education Advisory Committee is essentially a standing committee outside of the legislature made up of six members of the public with expertise in public in education financing that will serve, like CDAC or the Vermont Pension Investment, Commission to make sure that we have folks with a deep expertise advising us on matters of school finance. And madam speaker, section 68 is the effective dates that I have described throughout. I wanna spend just a brief moment before I wrap up on the contingencies and the effective dates. They are best seen in the education and transformation timeline that folks I'm sorry, madam speaker. Think I just used a prop. That is color coded, representative, that we handed out during the caucus of the whole and is available on our committee website. That is the easiest way to see these, but I just wanna emphasize that the contingencies in this bill include the need for us to receive comprehensive report from the joint fiscal office in December to take action next session on significant work on special education, on school transportation, and on the foundation formula, and for these new districts to have the time that they need to be voted in in, November 2028. I really lost track of what year it was right now, madam speaker. So all that said, this is really hard dynamic work. Our committee heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses that I think fall into some very similar categories to the types of witnesses that, the education committee heard from. I have a four page witness list on my desk. I have a few copies if anyone would like to come take a look at it. This is really difficult dynamic work, and our committee vote of six five reflects that dynamic difficult work that we've been doing and we've been doing with all of you, madam speaker. And I encourage you for the future of Vermont, for the future of our tax base, for the future of our kids and our communities, I encourage you to vote yes on this amendment so that we

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: can

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: continue the good work that we've been doing. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Cornwall.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Madam speaker, your house education committee very much appreciates the long hard work of our colleagues in ways and means. Their tweaks and adjustments to our sections are helpful and thoughtful. And we would also like to thank them for their work addressing the need for school construction aid in Vermont. There is no easy solution to this challenging and complex problem, but the Ways and Means amendment moves us closer to addressing a vital need in our state in a way that also promotes the goals of act 73. In a seven four straw poll, we supported the amendment, and we asked the body to join us in voting yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Bennington.

[Rep. Michael Nigro (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, the fiscal note for h nine fifty five has a helpful table on page two that covers the direct costs, direct known costs incorporated in this bill. I should note that most of these are already funded through existing appropriations and most of those appropriations were from the FY twenty six budget appropriated from the general fund in that budget. Section four has grants to CESAs for startup costs of $90,000 Section 17 includes funding to reimburse union school district study committees for incurred expenses. That is $210,000 Also in section 17 is funding of $442,000 for facilitators for the study committees and for there's an additional $300,000 for grants to assist with hiring CISA executive directors. Those total costs that I just outlined come to $1,042,000 and again those are all through previously appropriated funds. The one new appropriation is $75,000 to hire a contractor to complete a cost of care analysis to provide estimates for the current full cost of providing pre k education. And that $75,000 I would remind the body that we did have more than that left on the bottom line of the house's FY '27 budget and that is where that would come from. Section 35 on the state payment for full reappraisals. In using the current number of parcels in state, the maximum cost for this would be 22,500,000, but it should be pointed out that there would be no payments made under this until the year after the regional assessment districts begin and that this cost would likely be spread over the first six years and then into the future. And the school construction sections, sections 65 through 60 or 78, Although the fiscal impact will depend on outstanding policy decisions, increasing the general obligation debt service from school construction bonding would reduce the amount of the annual general fund transfer to the cash fund. The appropriations committee supported this with a vote of seven four zero. We thank the education ways committee ways and means committees for their work and ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now the member from Brattleboro, representative Kornheiser, and the member from Woodstock, representative Kimball, offer an amendment to the report of the committee on ways and means that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Brattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, as with any bill of this scale and despite how extraordinary our staff team is on this, there are a few little pieces that we left out and that we are offering by way of updates. So the first amendment here, the first instance of amendment is a new section to be 16 section 18 a that creates it is described in the statute as an interactive education funding calculator, but I like to call it a little widget and that will be on the Department of Tax's website so that the committees that are studying school mergers, district mergers in the field will have access to all the great work of our joint fiscal office, the agency of education, and the department of taxes as we come to more final numbers on the funding available to schools and school districts so that they can, for themselves, be supported in figuring out how the different configurations will might affect their members fiscally. And so, the Department of Taxes will do this by 10/01/2027. We'll be publishing this widget on their website, and that will be reviewed by our joint fiscal office, by the agency of education, and by the joint fiscal committee in advance of that being published on their website. The second instance of amendment is a technical change. That was just something that was slightly wrong in our original drafting. And the third is to we really appreciate the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions for this suggestion is to update the report that we are receiving, from the treasurer in consultation with the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee, CDAC, to make sure that it explicitly describes how any state bonding support for school construction might over might affect the overall capital budget's capacity and sends that report to all of us. Madam speaker, I think this is maybe the first time I've given a floor report and not referenced the fiscal note, and so I want to explain why, though my committee my colleague from appropriations did a great job on that. The tax impacts of this work are fairly far off in the future. We know that we're gonna see savings from CSAS moving forward as we transition to the new foundation formula and to the new tax structures. But despite the really incredible work of our joint fiscal office and the deep wishes of really many of us, they do not have magic balls to or crystal balls to see that far into the future. And so our joint fiscal office does not predict spending or taxes in a very dynamic universe, you know, more than a couple years out. And so that is not included in the fiscal note. However, I would like to both say that our committee vote on this amendment was affirmative, ten one. We ask for your support. And to take this moment to thank my committee, all of the members and all the members of the public who have provided really significant feedback and guidance on this work and especially our really just absolutely extraordinary staff team who have I think, all like become best friends for life because of this and done really extraordinary good work for us. Thank you. Ask for your support on it.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on ways and means be amended as offered by the member from Brattleboro and the member from Woodstock? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the report of the committee on ways and means. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means as amended. Member from Castleton.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you madam speaker. I'd like to interrogate the presenter of the amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Ways and Means is interrogated.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Actually, madam speaker, let me do this in reverse order. I'm gonna make some remarks first, then I'll move to the interrogation if that's alright with you. Thank you member for the the quick response there. So to begin, the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee or CDEC as the member mentioned annually reviews the size and affordability of the state tax supported general obligation debt and makes a recommendation to the governor and the legislature about the maximum amount of new long term general obligation debt that prudently may be authorized for the next fiscal year. The estimate of the committee is advisory but historically has been adopted by the state legislature as a bonding limit. The most recent recommendation made in September 2024 and reaffirmed in September 2025 is for $50,000,000 per year this biennium. That recommendation was made for various reasons but they are the experts and they are tasked with assisting the treasurer to guard the state's bond rating. The school construction aid proposal in H955 would double the amount CDAC advised was prudent.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Our

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: borrowing would go from $50,000,000 per year to $100,000,000 per year, and somehow we are told that the additional borrowing would have no impact on our credit rating or our borrowing costs because we would remain barely within the box CDAC uses to measure us against other states that share our credit rating. This doesn't pass the smell test. If you go to the bank and ask to double the size of your mortgage with no change in your income or assets, is it reasonable to assume you'll get the same credit terms? I would pause it no. At this time, I would like to interrogate the presenter of the amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Brattleboro is interrogated.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Member, I'm curious if you can tell me if the corrections committee took a straw poll on the state bonding and and why and if so, why not?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, the I think I have a point of procedural clarification, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: What is your point of inquiry?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Thank you. That's what it's called, the point of inquiry. I there are some statements in the question that I would like to restate, and I just wanna make sure that I'm not going too far off because I'm not sure I'm able to answer the question given the context that was given.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, you may ask the member from Castleton a question.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, I am unclear, about sort of the basis of your question given that the language being offered does not actually set in place $50,000,000 of new bonding capacity. It affects c dac and the treasurer to offer a report on how much bonding capacity we have in order to move forward with this work.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I'm sorry, madam speaker. Was there a question there? I just don't wanna go into the realm of debate.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: I'm I'm trying to understand the reasoning for your question given the information I just shared or if that's still the question you want to ask.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I I absolutely still wanna ask the question, and I'm curious if corrections had any input or did a drive by, on the state bonding.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Corrections and institutions did take two blocks of testimony and heard from, I believe, the treasurer's office on this, and that is why, they offered clarification to the language that was included in the amendment that we just voted on from Kornheiser and Kimball?

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I thank the member, but was the straw poll taken? I

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: don't believe so.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Why not?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: I'm not sure I'm the appropriate person to answer that question.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Would the member like to yield to someone more appropriate?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Would that I would love to yield to the member from Springfield.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Brattleboro yields to the member from Springfield.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, your house corrections and institutions committee did take testimony on this. We had a walk through of the amendment from our legal counsel, and we did talk to the state treasurer. That is why we have offered that amendment that you find on page nineteen forty three. It was we did not take a straw poll, but the committee was unanimous in offering this amendment that when CDAC comes back with recommendations, it not only talks to send the report to Ways and Means and Education, but also includes corrections and institutions committee. And also the last sentence to recommend an analysis of how the use of state bonding support for school construction affects the overall capital budget capacity. We supported that unanimously and we offered this amendment on behalf of corrections and institutions committee to the Ways and Means amendment.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you very much member for that very direct and very thoughtful answer. I'd like to continue the interrogation of the presenter of the amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Bridal Burrows interrogated.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I'm curious, madam speaker, if the treasurer's office, given that their intricacy to all of this, has taken an official formal position on the amendment that you're offering.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: The treasurer's office came in and gave regular testimony and is in regular contact with our ratings agencies to understand the relationship between us investing in our demographic future, handling crumbling infrastructure, and taking on new debt. The preliminary numbers that we were discussing in our intent were based on their information and their recommendations, and that is how we came to the conclusions in this amendment.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, member. But my question is very specific if the treasurer's office supports the amendment that you're offering.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, the treasurer's office was not able to take a formal position on this because the treasurer was unable to weigh in on it because of personal considerations.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, member. My next question is going back twenty years, what's the highest amount CDEC has recommended the state borrow per year?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, I am gonna answer that and then yield to the member from Springfield. My understanding from the testimony that we took was that there is a combination of CDAC's recommendation related to bonding capacity and CDAC's recommendation related to the speed with which capital construction can happen and available projects to be bonded. And that was the middle ground that we found ourselves in in this legislation. I can yield to the member from Springfield if she

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Brattleboro yields to the member from Springfield.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, in my time being on corrections and institutions committee, which dates back to 1993. I've been on that committee for that length

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: of

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: time. We have seen capital bills with bonding capacity anywhere from 30,000,000 to about 87 to 90,000,000 per year. And it's all on the recommendation of the CDAC committee.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I thank the member for that range. And I'm curious, from the peak, would you say that the the amount that they've recommended the state borrow has increased or decreased?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, we now do a two year budget, not a one year budget. So it provides a lot more flexibility in our bonded dollars and we now also have general fund dollars that go into our capital budget. So there's a lot more flexibility now than there has been in the past.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: So would you would the member say that it has fallen or increased from its peak?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: I go back to what I just said. There is more flexibility because we now have general fund dollars so we're not so dependent on our bonded dollars.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I I really would I I would really appreciate the clarity of whether it has Point of order.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Dover, what is your point of order?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I think this question has been answered.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Can I see members at the podium, please? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from Dover, I find your point of order well taken. The member, did respond. I believe the member from Springfield will further clarify. Member from Springfield.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, the member that was interrogating me clarified the question. The question was really how much are we bonding for now in our capital bills? We are bonding for 50,000,000 a year.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you very much, member. I appreciate that. And thank you, madam speaker. To continue the line of questioning, I don't know if this is appropriate for the member the chair of corrections or if it is for the presenter of the amendment. But the next question is why is the state's debt typically priced as a triple a credit when we're actually an a plus credit rating?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Brattleboro is interrogated.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Gonna yield to the member from Springfield with apologies.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Brattleboro yields to the member from Springfield.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, those credit ratings are based on our financial institutions, our credit rating institutions. It could be Moody's, it could be Fitch. They work directly with the treasurer's office as well as CDAC. And it's our financial rating institutions that determine our credit rating.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: So is it an aggregation of credit values or is it are we yielding back to one specific credit credit rating agency?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, I would really recommend these questions directed directly to our state treasurer. It is the treasurer's office as well as the debt affordability committee that works directly with our financial institutions. In terms of the metrics in determining our credit rate rating, it is not the legislature.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I thank the member. And the the next question, I I guess I'll continue questioning the the chair of corrections unless she yields back to the percent of the amendment. What is the amount of debt that has been authorized but not issued?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: I'm trying to remember. It's about 400,000,000, but that includes years and years of previous capital bills. When we bond out for capital build projects, those are usually twenty year bonds. And so I'm curious, is that

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: the highest ever that's been issued to the state?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that as I do not know. It could be. I could get that information prior to third reading.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I would appreciate that, member. And as a follow-up to that, I'm just wondering, and maybe this will be answered before third reading as well, why would we authorize more debt when we can't use the debt already authorized?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, that is a question to our debt affordability committee. They they look at all the metrics, and they make their recommendation in the fall for the upcoming fiscal year and for the upcoming legislative session? Those are questions best addressed to our debt affordability committee that is housed within our state treasurer's office.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you very much member. And given the financial sensitivity that Vermonters have given the current tax climate and the affordability crisis that our state is experiencing, if this proposal becomes law, how much of it will add to debt service costs?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Madam speaker, again, we don't have a clear indication of that and that is why the corrections and institutions committee added the amendment to the Ways and Means Committee that the report back that comes from the CDAC committee would include that and also how it would impact or not impact the capital budget.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I thank the member. And my final question is aside from general obligation debt, does the state have other long term liabilities?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Could you repeat the question, please?

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Absolutely. Aside from general obligation debt, does the state have other long term liabilities that should be we that the body should be concerned about?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Those would be issues that answers that may be better addressed if I yield back to the member from Ways and Means.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Springfield yields to the member from Brattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, in the testimony that we took to create a school construction to restart a school construction program, an essential piece of our work was recognizing that all of the debt that is sitting in our districts and all of the future capital needs, including, frankly, our decrepit infrastructure, that isn't what many of our districts are grappling with, sewage in classrooms, buildings with classrooms without walls. All of that infrastructure is also a liability, and the lack of a school construction program is a significant liability for us to meet the goals of the education transformation work as described by, this body, the other body, and the governor. So when we were doing the work in committee and taking testimony of an important part of this additional debt was one related to the fact that if districts take on this debt, given our statewide grand list and as they are doing right now, that is still the debt of the state. This is an effort to get greater control of that debt in order to minimize it and make it strategic. The debt is already happening. And secondly, that some of the, authorized but unissued spending, is related to capital projects which are separate from school construction projects.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: I I thank the member, but one concern that comes to mind specifically is pension liabilities, and I'm curious if you could outline for the body what that potential, area of concern might amount up to.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Madam speaker? Point of order, madam speaker. I'm not sure that the Member I'm sorry. Member from Burlington? Did you say did you call point of order? Yes. I did. I'm not sure that this particular topic is relevant is, germane. May I please see members at the podium? Does the House stand in recess? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Burlington? Member from Burlington, I find your point of order not well taken. However, I will caution the member to keep the focus in the link to the question at hand here, which is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means as amended the ways and means report. Member from Brattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, the CDAC I was gonna call it the CDAC committee, but the last c stands for committee takes our pension liability into account when they make their recommendations.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, member. Thank you, madam speaker. And I wanna thank the the chair of corrections as well and look forward to additional information prior to third reading.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means as amended. Member from Fairisburg.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Thank thank you, madam speaker. I'm hoping that I have a much more targeted narrow question to ask the presenter of the amendment from ways and means. May I inquire of the presenter of the amendment for the Ways and The

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: member from Brattleboro is interrogated.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Thank you. Madam speaker, on on page eighteen ninety one, which is the eighth section of amendment, In section 22, there's a right in the middle of the paragraph, there's a phrase that's added that says, for all resident students in prekindergarten through grade 12. I'll let you catch up to that. To the the eighth section of amendment in section 22 under the banner data collection.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: I'm really close.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Okay. Yeah. So the the added phrase is for all resident students in pre kindergarten through grade 12. So my question is since since we're adding the phrase for all resident students, will will that mean that we're including data collection for homeschoolers and children students that attend private schools that are not funded through tuition?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: No.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: It will not.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: It will not.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Okay. I find it interesting that it's worded for all resident students then. So the plan is not to then collect collect taxes for all resident students or collect data on all resident students, but just those students that are attending public or tuitioned schools. Was that what I'm understanding?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: It's all students who are attending schools funded with public dollars.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Okay. Thank you. That clarifies it for me. Thank you very much. Thank you, member.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex.

[Unidentified Representative from Essex]: Madam speaker, I first would like to thank the members of the Ways and Means Committee for their incredible work on this amendment, and I rise to support their amendment to h nine five five. This amendment does the careful necessary work of aligning our education transformation goals with a financing system that is fair, transparent, and actually workable. It builds on act 73 by addressing known gaps and setting us up for a smoother transition so we don't create unintended instability for taxpayers or our schools. Importantly, it also takes a careful approach to complex changes, whether it is a second home tax classification, regional assessment districts, or school construction financing. This amendment ensures we have the data, administrative capacity, and timelines in place before implementation. That matters for both equity and public trust. This amendment aligns the timelines for governance change changes, funding reforms, and school construction so districts aren't navigating competing systems at once. That kind of coordination is essential if we want this transformation to succeed. This is thoughtful policy. It reflects collaboration across committees and a commitment to getting this right, not just fast. For those reasons, I urge a yes vote on the ways and means amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means as amended? Are you ready for the question? Member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I have a few questions. I just wanna make sure I understand the regional assessment district sections. Think may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Brattleboro is interrogated.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I just want to make sure that I understand the timing of these regional assessment districts and the governance. It's my understanding that these are contingent. Is that correct?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes, madam speaker.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: K. And they are contingent on what?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Us moving forward with the vote for the new districts and the next steps for the foundation formula.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Okay. Great. And, madam speaker, what can you tell me now about how these regional assessment districts will be represented and how they will govern themselves, handle appeals, those sorts of things?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, speaking conceptually for a minute, if I can, they are composed of the members of the individual towns that are participating in them. Folks are appointed to them from each regional town, and they will govern themselves with the assistance of the office of property valuation and review.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: And so it it's proportional, is that right, According to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes. How was I'm sorry.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: The representation is proportional to the number of parcels?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes. And because we want to make sure that the membership is proportional to the number of appeals that might come and the best way of measuring the proportion, the number of appeals is through the number of parcels. However, we made sure that there would always be one representative from every town even if it only had a few parcels, say Somerset.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, we are, I believe, in here, moving to or in the companion bill that that moved with us, moving to have, reappraisals themselves funded from the general fund. Is that correct?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, appraisals are already funded through the general fund, but they're sent out in per parcel payments to towns annually, in a sum that is, we have learned not close to enough to cover the cost of reappraisals. And we've also heard testimony, I believe this was last year, so I'm sorry, that one of the reasons that some towns are taking so very, very long to reappraise is because they have not been able to save up the sum of money needed. And so, yes, the state is going to take some of that fiscal burden off of the towns since it is so important to the health of our education fund to have these properties appraised fairly and regularly.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Okay. And madam speaker, I just wanna be very clear on this point because we did spend a lot of time talking about these I believe that they're grand list maintenance payments previously when we were talking about the budget and the use of pilot funds. I think we have some temporary use of pilot funds for those payments, which used to come from the general fund. I think we are envisioning those continuing to go forward, but we are, I if I understand correctly, adding additional funds on top of that

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: for Yes, madam speaker. There is day to day, year by year grand list maintenance work that is still done absolutely at the municipal level and that is still being funded in a per parcel annual payment. And then there is the every six year regional assessment district reappraisal that is a separate funding stream.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Okay. And so is it fair to say, though it may be a small amount, that if we are continuing or returning to those continuing to make those grand less maintenance payments and adding state funded additional state funded reappraisal funds that is in some, at least small way, taking some pressure off of local property taxes?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, yes. It is.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Okay. Great. Thank you, member. I also have one follow-up question on a different section. I believe it's section 26 and related to small schools. We talked about this during the caucus of the whole. I I just want to make sure that I am clear on what if there's anything compelling us to take up the study work that is being done by JFO to reexamine our weights?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes, madam speaker. The contingency in the bill requires us to address the issues that are brought to us from the joint fiscal office study, And we will have the final rulemaking and so be able to do that.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: And so this is really important to me, madam speaker. I just wanna make sure I understand that if there are things that make me a little uncomfortable, and I've highlighted the two, that we are this is still ongoing work that we still have process that's gonna be happening in this body and opportunity for debate on. Is that right, madam speaker?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Absolutely, madam speaker. And if I may offer an additional comment, given how important and controversial issues of morality can be in this body, we thought it best to move the final definitions to rule making instead of doing them ourselves and encourage anyone with a deep interest in this issue to get engaged in that rule making process where there'll be plenty of time for public comment as well as the final LCAR.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank you, member. Madam speaker, last year, I supported the work of act 73. It was not perfect. There were it's it's very large conceptually. There are things in it that make me really uncomfortable. I said that last year. I think the committees have moved that forward this year. There are things that are making me uncomfortable still. But when we have something of this scale that we are trying to improve, make sure is accountable, make sure is serving our students and our taxpayers. I think the amount of time that we are taking and all of the process that is going into it. This ongoing debate that we are having is really, really important in order to get buy in from Vermonters. As we know, education is always divisive in this body. It is something that people hold very, very dear and feel very passionately about. So I wanna thank both of the committees for their hard work and for keeping this big enough that we can continue to move forward. I will be supporting this.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now members, the member from Starks Borough, representative Olsen, and others offer an amendment to the bill that is printed on page nineteen forty three of today's calendar. Member from Starks Borough.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The two amendments, sequentially, being offered by myself and representative, Jacoboni, together with the co sponsors are designed for a single purpose, and that is to ensure that Vermonters have a meaningful voice before their community school is closed. To that end, this first amendment proposes to ensure that Vermonters can vote before their community school is closed. The amendment is to be found on page, nineteen forty three of today's house calendar. Why is this amendment important? Community schools, especially smaller schools in rural towns, are the lifeblood of their communities. Without them, a town faces a downhill spiral in terms of population growth, fewer homes, and vitality. Without the continued sustainability of our towns, Vermont as a whole is a much diminished society. Community schools are incredibly important for the education of their children. Parents know that this, and the educational research supports it. What does this amendment do? Subsequently, says that before a school that operates grades pre kindergarten through 12 or any subset thereof, a union school district must obtain the affirmative vote of the electorate of the towns served by that school. Single district municipalities single municipalities school districts, I'm sorry, are not affected. And if a single school serves multiple towns, they are afforded a vote. Subsection B is designed to make sure that voters have good information before they make their vote. So at its core, this means that the voters will have information so that they know whether the school where their students are proposed to be moved is going to be able to offer them a better educational opportunity than the schools where they are educated now. That's a core principle. In addition, the information provided to voters would include issues such as equity, the impact of closure on low income students, special education students, and other marginalized students. Impacts on transportation costs and busing times, very important. Staffing impacts. It's important to distinguish between administrative and support staff and the direct classroom teaching staff that may be lost when a community school is closed. Impacts on finances, capital costs, taxes. We must find ways to lower education expenses so that we can lower taxes, But the savings from closing a single school pales in comparison to the magnitude of savings that we need to achieve through the other some of which is I I hope will be achieved through the other provisions of h nine fifty five. Madam speaker, I believe in democracy. I understand that voters don't always make the right decision, at least the first time. But I trust that voters are best situated to act in the best interests of their children in terms of where they go to school. Higher authorities should not impose these existential decisions on the residents of a community. Not all smaller community schools should remain open, but not all larger schools are better for these kids. The voters are the best able to sort the wheat from the chaff here. Some might say there's no need for this amendment because after all, committees required by h nine fifty five are voluntary. And to the extent that's true, but the reality is that this act, act 73, act 46 before it, are all designed to achieve, quote unquote, scale. And scale, we've heard, means consolidating districts and closing schools. Furthermore, in a larger district, the interests of a small community may be overwhelmed by the majority voting power of larger districts. We have seen recent examples of this. Madam speaker, many Vermonters feel beleaguered. They are threatened by certain aspects of land recent land use legislation and now by legislation that puts their community schools at risk. Let's tell all Vermonters that we are listening. Let's give Vermonters hope that they can chart their own future. Madam speaker, I'd like to lead yield to the member from Mooresville.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Starksboro yields to the member from Morristown.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, may I interrogate the member from Cornwall?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, we have not heard the straw poll yet, from the member. So you are presenting your amendment at the moment.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright. Member from Cornwall. Thank

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: you, madam speaker. We appreciate the members presenting their amendment and their steadfast commitment to local voice. H nine fifty five is a bill that strives to respect local voice and decision making. It is designed to let those school districts that choose to merge to do so on their own terms. Terms that must then be approved by voters in all of the districts. This amendment would depart from that and dictate terms that may not be the choice of the merging districts. This bill lets merging districts decide if they want school closure votes as is suggested in the amendment or not. It does not mandate them as the amendment does. I also would just like to point out that in h nine '55, there is no mention of school closures. It does not change current practice on how districts address this issue and deal with this issue, and nor does it propose any changes in the future. Again, it is left to a local process with voters being in charge. Madam speaker, in a straw poll, the committee voted ten one zero to find the amendment unfavorable, and we urge the body to vote no.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Starksboro and others, member from Morristown?

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'll try again. Madam speaker, may I interrogate the member from Cornwall?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Cornwall is interrogated.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Madam speaker, would the member share with us his view as to how significantly the bill embraces the concept of local control?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I you're asking me for a description of how it embraces local control. I would say that at the heart of this is really decisions to be made locally. If you look through the various steps as to what it takes to merge, it is first a mandatory discussion, but it is a voluntary merger. It is up to the merger study committee as to whether they feel it's advisable to merge or if it's not advisable to merge. The next step in the process, if they decide it is advisable to merge, is to develop those articles of agreement that would cover many issues, including procedures towards school closures. And those articles of agreement would then go to the voters in the districts that are voting to merge. So I would say that this that h nine fifty five really bends over backwards to respect local voice.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, can the member explain if the bill bends over backwards and embraces local control in such a significant way, why then do we deny the voters the opportunity to vote on such an enormous issue and decision?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Just as the situation exists today, it leaves the decision to have that local vote on a school closure up to the districts that are merging together. Currently, I would say most, close to all merged districts that came together under act 46 have articles of agreement that have exactly that contingency in their articles of agreement. Not all, but but they do. Those articles of agreement were approved by the voters in those districts that came together to merge.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Madam speaker, I thank the member from Cornwall. Madam speaker, in in my communities, if you mention the words act 46, it causes a great amount of stress, a great amount of uncertainty, and the notion that communities might yet again embark on such a process does not set well. Madam speaker, our state model of freedom and unity, to me, the underlying pillars of freedom and unity in Vermont hinge on consent of the governed and local control. I worry that this bill will not abide by the notion of consent of the governed, and it is weakens the notion of local control. Members should ask themselves if months from now, some months from now, a school in their community is being considered for closure. And voters walk up to the members and say, why why don't we have a vote on whether to close this school? Well, you'll be left with either, well, my leadership, didn't want me to vote that way, or some articles of agreement were supposed to protect us, but they didn't. I I as I travel around Vermont and I travel around my district, sadly, I find so much disdain towards the government. I believe the way this bill is currently structured without the consent of the govern, it will be very divisive, and it will cause a great amount of anger in our communities. I want people to embrace the good in government, but I can understand if they're not allowed to exercise their voice fully on this issue, we will diminish that. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Starksboro and others? Member from Cornwall.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just would like to point out one difference between the act 46 process and what is envisioned in September. At the end of the act 46 process was a final determination by the state board to force mergers in areas where they deemed they should be forced. Nowhere at nine fifty five does it say that. It is in fact the destiny of each district is up to the governed. The merger the merger study committee can decide that it is not advisable to merge. And then if they do decide to merge, it is their decision whether to have language that would protect or not protect school closure via a town vote. And then that that article of agreement then goes to the voters, to the governed, to make the choice as to whether they wanna move forward with that. Thank you very much.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Starksboro and others? Are you ready for the question? Member from Starksboro.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. There are a great variety of school districts throughout the state, and I'd just like to point out one sort of category where the notion that ultimately with these new study committees, voters would still have the ability to vote in terms of whether or not they want protections for their community schools is is in my view a little flawed. If you are if if your community is part is in a town that originally, merged under act 46, you might have had articles of agreement there that specified, hey, before a school is closed, you have to have a vote. Now those towns are in a unified school district, and the question is when they get into a study committee, what's the report going to say? And it might very well say, not it might very well delete that provision that the town relied on when they came together in a unified district. You know, that they would get an opportunity to vote before the school was closed. But in this next step, they could, especially if they're smaller town, they could very well be outvoted by a much larger group. So I would say that in a lot of cases, I think the merger study committee makes sense. It goes back, you know, and the districts can vote. I think that works very well, for example, in a supervisory union structure. I think in a district that's been formed as a unified school district, I very much fear that those smaller towns that agreed to be a unified school district, because they have that right to vote, are gonna be deprived their right to vote at the very end

[Rep. James Masland (Thetford)]: of the day.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Starksboro and others? Are you ready for the question? If so

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Division, madam speaker?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Who I've heard request division. Yes. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by division. The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Starksboro and others? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, rise. You may be seated. Now all those who oppose, please rise. You may be seated. Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 27. Those voting no, 113. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the bill. And now the member from Starksboro, representative Olsen and others offer an amendment to the bill that is printed on page nineteen forty four of today's calendar. Member from Starksburg.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, the second school closure amendment offered by representative and myself together with the cosponsors is designed to achieve the same goal as the first, which is to ensure that Vermonters have a meaningful voice before their community school is closed. Madam speaker, after consultation with the clerk's office before this debate, I am offering at this time subsections a and b of the amendment, but not offering subsection c. I hope that's clear. So, again, same goal, same purpose, but a different manner in trying to achieve the aim of making sure that, Vermonters have a a voice before their school is closed. Not all smaller community schools should remain open, but many smaller schools provide a good education for their students. As we undergo a transformation of our education system, we need to be mindful to keep the good schools open and distinguish them from the others. While the first school closure amendment focused on trusting voters to decide what's best for students, the second amendment focuses on making sure that when a school board makes a decision to close a school, that decision is rational and accountable. The decision should be made on facts rather than arbitrary assumptions. In the absence of due process protections, such as those found in this particular amendment, Under existing law, a school board may close a community school without any legislative, statutory, substantive, or procedural limitations. So what does this amendment do? Subsection a says that before a school district closes a community school, it must hold an administrative hearing in accordance with the normal statutory standards and procedures for the decision by any gun governmental agency under title three chapter 25. Subsection b identifies the types of critical factors that are needed to make a good decision, and that the hearing process would be focused on take evidence on, take the facts, and then the school board would make a decision as to whether or not closing the school is in the best interest of the students. After all, that's what we're trying

[Rep. James Masland (Thetford)]: to get.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: When going through that public hearing, the school board would be required to take in account certain considerations. First, to make sure that the school where the students are proposed to be moved is actually a better education for them, as well as issues around equity, low income students, specialized students, others, staffing impacts, impacts on transportation costs, busing times, impacts on finances, capital costs, and taxes. True savings sufficient to significantly lower education expenses and thus lower taxes won't come from closing a few community schools, but rather from the savings we are hoping to achieve through the other provisions of h 99 nine fifty five, excuse me. Madam Speaker, the key to this amendment is accountability. Let's provide Vermonters due process before their community school is closed.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Cornwall.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Madam speaker, the change in the amendment, I the committee has not had a chance to have a straw poll on its new form. If we could recess for a few minutes while I consult with legislative counsel and then have a quick caucus of the committee in the well of the house, I'd appreciate that.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The house will stand in recess for a couple minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from Cornwall.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thank you, madam speaker, and and thank you again to the members who brought the amendment to our committee and for the consideration of removing section c, which required our committee to have a crash course in the rules of civil procedure, which was something we were unfamiliar with. Madam speaker, in my experience and the experience of many of the school board members I've talked to both on the committee and off, the generally, the procedure for closing a school written into today's articles of agreement are in fact far more robust than what is envisioned in this amendment. I can tell you that in the district where I'm in, where I've been the chair when the articles of agreement were approved, it requires not only hearing, but also meetings within the community, majority votes or super majority votes on the board, and and many other requirements. And I I think that, again, those hearings and procedures for it can be robustly created in articles of agreement by merging districts, and that is probably the best place for for them to take place. I would also just remind the body that nowhere in September does it contemplate school closure or speak to school closure. Again, it is left to local merger study committees to take that up. Those who decide to proceed with merging and proceed with creating articles of agreement. And again, those articles of agreement go to the electorate. So, madam speaker, on a vote of ten zero one, the House Education Committee, found this amendment unfavorable, and we urge the body to vote no.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Starksboro and others? Are you ready for the question? Member from West Windsor.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am rising at this moment feeling lightheaded because I think I rose a little bit too quickly, but I'm rising in support of more information and advised decisions. I don't think it's a bad idea for for decisions that affect communities, big or small, to be forced to be informed. I do not understand what the harm is in forcing a closure to be backed up by data, which provides a rationale. I I don't understand why information is bad. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Starksboro and others? Are you ready for the question? With division? Division has been called. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please rise. Are you good? You may be seated. Now all those opposed, please rise. You may be seated. Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 22. Those voting no, 106. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Now the member from Norwich, representative Holcomb and others offer an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 11:24 this morning. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Norwich.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. And as a former US senior history teacher, I know and I apologize in advance for making everybody sit through this at the late hour. This particular amendment adds to the transition mechanisms in this bill and I appreciate how tough these conversations are. And I hope you will understand that I'm here on behalf of a number of communities on the Western side of the state right now. We came to this amendment in response to several motivators and others have their own reasons. I will discuss three of them here today. We now in house ways and means has heard twice, two years ago and again this year, from the American Institutes of Research that this body incorrectly applied weights in the current formula, which means we have artificially lowered the weighted spending of some districts in a way that shifts costs to others. I want to be very clear. I am not asking to change the weights right now. We would just hit and potentially harm another group of kids at this point, and right now we need stability and we need to be focused on how to help our communities in through this transition. I am disappointed that after bringing this up two years ago, we still have discussed it or evaluated the impact on other districts, and I'm equally concerned that we are now contemplating other legislation that could actually amplify the impacts of this this error. In anticipation of the review of s two twenty, which has now been added to the yield bill in the senate, I did review data provided by JFO on district poverty rates, district practices, school practices, weights, and exposure to the excess spending penalty. And as I looked through this data, I realized that this error was driving disproportionate penalties in my region, a region that is close to some of the greatest job density in Northern New England in perverse ways, including penalties on an operating district with a 72% poverty rate. And I'm also here today because the chair of the Thetford School Board wrote to me and my seatmate, Jim Maslin, to ask us to please, please, please gather information as to why our town is so impacted. Besides blaming I'm quoting him right here. Besides blaming district boards for poor management. I will address these three concerns to explain the reasons for this amendment, which is an amendment purely related to the excess spending penalty as well as to why we are pursuing this amendment as a more constructive and compromised bridge to whatever future state we find ourselves in. First of all, the error in the weights. When I reviewed the American Institutes for Research Work or the report and subsequent communications and testimony, I realized that this body had made serious errors in the application of weights in act one twenty seven that are distorting how they impact our communities today. Applying penalties on these weights will lead to additional errors. The purpose of this amendment is, again, not to change the weights, we are where we are, things happen, but to avoid further punishing other districts based on faulty weights. If this body wanted to follow the science, it would not have applied those weights to tuition students or at least not unless we also weighted tuition, which we did not do. I don't know why Vermont did not follow the guidelines. I'm here today to plea for that you that you understand that applying aggressive penalties to a formula with errors will likely lead to more errors. I did consult with JFO and confirmed that there are several possible and unexamined effects of this error. Spending per weighted pupil may be arbitrarily lower in some districts than it would have been. In turn, this may distort incentives to merge because overweighted districts may have lower tax rates than neighbors so fiscally benefit from not merging. Overweighting of tuition districts shifts costs onto other predominantly operating districts and larger districts, and it lowers the excess spending penalty threshold by lowering the floor for spending per weighted long term weighted ADM in a bunch of districts. And that because of that, it can distort which towns are affected by the excess spending penalty. The second issue is the practical impact on the ground, including on the western border. In the past, as a dis and I'm I'm finding it very bizarre, madam speaker, to be here because in the past, as a district leader and as a citizen, I supported an excess spending penalty partly because it put some guardrails on expenditures and many of the other reasons that people in this body have discussed. But in every district I worked, including when exempt, we discussed the penalty as a way to benchmark our effectiveness and budget with that threshold in mind. But with the help of JFO, I was able to evaluate the impact of this era and the distorting impact it is creating in some places, including cases where districts with comparatively low levels of poverty are overweighted such that they have lower weighted spending per people than higher poverty districts that operate public schools that serve all of the resident children from those towns that tuition. For example, the tiny k six tuition district of Morgan, which pays tuitions for all students, has none of the variable costs of operating a small public school, and it sends its students to Derby for school. It receives proportionally more weights than Derby and has a weighted spending per pupil that is almost 20% lower than Derby even though Derby has a higher level of poverty. This translates into a lower tax rate for a wealthier town for the same education. Under those incentives, why would merge Morgan be interested in merging with Derby and lose that benefit? It also creates a fairness issue for districts that are not next to each other but scattered across the state. For example, Fairfax, which operates at every grade level, has a rate of economic disadvantage that is over 5% higher than Windhall, spending per ADM that is about $3,000 lower than in Wind Hall, but spending per weighted student that is about 3% higher. This is the effect of those weights. In fact, the data suggests that systematically the distortion in the weights distorts who is penalized by the excess spending penalty, including in my region of the state. So I want to go back to my board member's questions because we are here to serve all of Vermont, and we are also here to serve our communities. He asked how could Thetford reduce its tax exposure and the imposition of the penalty given the extraordinary pushback they're getting from the communities, but also what that says about us as a body. He and the Thetford board are desperately trying to figure out where to trim costs, all the more so as they continue to lose tax capacity under act one twenty seven, and hitting the spending penalty is an increase in your local tax rates. I did look into what made Thetford different from some other districts with similar structures that are even wealthier but which are not hitting that penalty. There are a few things Thetford and Thetford Academy could do right now that would shield it from the excess pending penalty. These are all things done in some other districts including some that are wealthier but not subject to the penalty. Some of these things would also lower the tax burden in other districts that pay tuition to Thetford Academy and which are also subject to the penalty including Heartland. TA could practice selective enrollment so that it served a smaller number of students who are harder and more expensive to educate. That's something it has steadfastly refused to do. This would however lower its operating costs and facilitate lower tuition. TA could also stop complying with the education quality standards that apply to public schools and it could stop hiring licensed teachers and paying enough for teachers to be able to live in the community. That means it would not provide the full range of services that public schools are required to provide. However, Thetford Academy currently has some of the higher test performance in the state and the narrowest achievement gaps, and that's something that would be threatened if Thetford decided to make this change. The Thetford School District could also designate and reduce its payment to Thetford Academy. That would force parents to top off tuition in order to enroll in what until now has functioned as a community school. This would shield the district's tax liability, and it would also shield the tax liability of districts that continue to pay that full cost of education at Thatford Academy. It might have the effect of preventing some Thetford students from enrolling at TA, and that would be the economically disadvantaged students whose parents couldn't afford to pay the balance, but it would probably also shunt economically disadvantaged students in the region towards other schools, further concentrating disadvantage. The community in Thetford Academy could also engage in aggressive private fundraising to offset costs at Thetford Academy. This would reduce tuition costs for Thetford School District and also for towns that pay tuition to Thetford Academy. But in reducing the tax exposure here, it does affect redistribution and it distorts our state's estimates of the real cost of education in our region. What I realized is that by continuing to try to treat education as a public common good and as a shared responsibility, which are behaviors I believe we should be supporting and which I believe are consistent with our state's constitutional obligation to give every child a fair chance. Thetford and Thetford Academy are putting themselves in a position in which they are now heavily fiscally penalized. Thetford and others in the Upper Valley are already being crippled by high cost and high tax rates. Adding a penalty on top just layers on harm to districts that are scrabbling for ways to bring down costs faster than they are losing tax capacity. They know change, but they can't keep up. Thetford is free to do all of these things and could avoid the excess spending penalty. Other districts, including operating districts, could do the same by closing their schools. I am grateful to the Thetford community and to communities like it for trying to protect equitable access for every child despite errors in the current weights and despite inequitable practices elsewhere. As I look to the growing impact of this penalty, I worry about the people who are struggling with cost beyond what they can manage and the impact on Theptford and surrounding towns as well as to our children. This penalty raises their tax burden. Again, I am not saying we should just strip the mistaken weights and potentially harm a different group of kids. It can't be zero sum. It can't be us versus them. All of our children are Vermont's children. But I would hope I would really hope that this body could show the same courtesy and regard for the children of our districts and districts like these that are penalized by this error. In our area, some of the district's harms have much higher proportions of students in need than some of the overweighted district, and that makes this application of penalties even more concerning. This amendment is designed to ensure that districts are not unfairly harmed by our mistake by suspending the excess penalty for the fiscal year '28 and '29 knowing that we're moving into some kind of future state, that this would be a bridge to that, and they're well aware of what's coming. I hope you will vote with me to support Thetford's commitment to make sure every child has a fair chance at their schools, and I hope you will vote for this amendment, madam speaker, to avoid layering error on top of error in a way that incentivizes and rewards inequitable behaviors. Thank you, madam speaker. Member from Rattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, this amendment entirely removes the excess spending penalty across the state, a significant amount significant piece of policy at a time that we are all, in fact, in this room for the very purpose of making sure that we are managing education costs throughout the state. It is, in a lot of ways, the antithesis of the goals of the underlying bill. The excess spending threshold and penalty is one of the few tools that districts have to compare themselves to appropriate spending in the state and to manage their costs in relationship to their communities. Understanding the impacts of removing the excess spending penalty would take a great deal of testimony and a great deal of staff work. We received this amendment very late this morning, and given both the policy concerns and the real time concerns about our ability to take the kind testimony that would be required for this significant policy change, we voted to find it unfavorable on a vote of eight three zero, and we ask for the body to join us in voting no.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Norwich and others, member from Thetford?

[Rep. James Masland (Thetford)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I would like to provide a little, local context, I guess, to this amendment. I live in Thethford, as you know, and it's Thethford Schools and Thethford Academies that I am concerned about. For the record, my four children all went through Sefford Schools. They're all thriving in their own way. They got an excellent education there. But really what's at issue is how will

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: the

[Rep. James Masland (Thetford)]: excess spending threshold penalty affect people in my town? And I would say also that issue is in many other towns in Vermont. The excess spending threshold is an effective way of forcing down property taxes spending. We understand that. But the excess spending penalty in Theford this year would be $1,600,000. $1,600,000. And so the issue is, how can a small town or any town absorb that money in one swell foop? It's just not possible, Madam Speaker. I would point out and follow on the member from Norwich's comments, Theffin Academy is an independent school that plays by all the rules of Vermont's education quality standards, everyone. It takes all comers. It does not discriminate against any people from the town or others who come there. There are some sending schools from the neighborhood. Has, from early times, relied on students from other areas, even across the river in Lyme, New Hampshire. Thepherd used to have an outstanding ag program and all the farmers' kids, I know many of them, from Theford, excuse me, from Lyme would go to Theford to get their agricultural education while some of the other kids would go to Hanover High School. So, it goes. But what I need to point out, Madam Speaker, is during this entire time, and speaking very much in support of the Thefford School Board, during this entire time, during Act 60, Act 68, which have changed things considerably, the Thifford School Board has always been very supportive of the schools and fully in compliant with all applicable requirements, and basically has done its job, excuse me Madam Speaker, I'm supposed to be addressing my comments to you, has basically done its job on behalf of the taxpayers of the town in full compliance with the law, which is to say the school board has continuously been doing its job as it understood it, within the confines of Vermont educational law. They've never tried to bend the rules, they've never tried to step outside of bounds, and the result of that is providing a great education for the students of Zephyr and others that have tended there. School spending has gotten a little high. Well, some people would say much too high. But I would say, Madam Speaker, they've done that. School board, separate voters, doing exactly what they understood they were supposed to do as taxpayers and parents and educators in Thethford, and so the excess spending penalty this year, $1,600,000, on voters and taxpayers in Thethford is just too much, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Norwich and others? Are you ready for the question? Member from West Windsor.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I would like to inquire of the presenter of the amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Norwich is interrogated.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, this amendment was written in response to or is amending the house ways and means amendment. Madam speaker, in house ways and means, was the definition of spending ever discussed?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Madam speaker, I think if you're asking in the context of this amendment, was spending discussed? And no.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Madam speaker, may I inquire of the share about the underlying bill or underlying amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, do you wish to interrogate

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: the member? Madam speaker. And madam speaker, may I inquire of the chair of ways and means regarding the underlying bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Brattleboro is interrogated.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Was the definition of spending, discussed in your committee?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, we did not discuss the definition of spending in committee in the context of this amendment, I don't think. However, we do discuss the definition of spending fairly regularly in committee and other contexts.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Okay. I'm I'm sorry, madam speaker. But to clarify, when in your committee, when you talk about excess spending, what does the spending part of that mean in the context of excess spending in school districts?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, are you asking me for the definition of the excess spending threshold? Madam speaker,

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: I am not asking you for the definition of the excess spending threshold. I am asking you whether in your committee, you discuss now or on regular basis or an annual basis? Do you discuss what spending means in a school district?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker Yes. We talk about education spending. We talk about spending on education. We talk about spending as it relates to district budgets. We talk about spending in the context of the education fund. We talk about spending growth. We talk and we took testimony on s two twenty for the first time last week, and that has, quite a bit of excess spending language in it. So we discussed it there.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, in your committee, do you discuss the difference between spending and cost?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes. One of the pieces of, confusion in, less in the Ways and Means Committee, but more when the Ways and Means Committee communicates with the wider world, is the difference between education spending, which is a term of art to tech and a technical term, in statute, and spending on education, which can be, both a broad term and a technical term and, we also regularly when we have, recently we had the agency of education in, we have them in every Tuesday morning for the first half of the session. We spent a lot of time talking about spending that happened, versus budgets, which is where education spending comes from.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Okay. Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I am talking about, the difference between spending and cost in educational decisions. What I'm referring to is in my own experience this year as a school board member, long standing, in a district that was forced to merge or that did merge, I should say, we were forced to we did not increase $1 of spending this year, not $1. But we did have to cut four and a half full FTEs, teachers from our high school this year because the costs put us over the excess spending threshold, and we couldn't get we could not get underneath it. We still were about a half $1,000,000 roughly half $1,000,000 over the the excess spending threshold based despite our having cut four teachers and several programs from our high school, which I, you know, is contrary to the initiatives that we say we support in trying to improve our education. We were forced to cut those positions based on zero spending, but based on an increase in cost. And so when we when we talk about the cost drivers, they are things that over which the costs over which we have no control, but also the excess spending penalty is sinking. And we don't have a district that should be sinking. We don't. But the excess spending penalty will sink our district. And so, madam speaker, I am extremely supportive of not instituting an excess spending penalty until we do have under control the very things that you say will become under control in the CISAs, in the other in the health care, in the other initiatives that we that are supposed to be lowering some of those costs without spending, I support a a an amendment that would prevent us from having to cut more teachers because costs have risen even though we didn't choose them. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Norwich and others? Are you ready for the question? Member from Norwich.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Madam speaker, may I speak a second time?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: I because it's your amendment member, you can

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: speak Thank you. I just wanted before people vote, I wanted to clarify one thing. This does not get rid of the excess spending penalty. It simply suspends it for two years as a transition into our future state. This is not an elimination of the excess spending penalty, and every district is going to be compelled to address their costs for all the reasons that the representative from Windsor said, but it is suspending the double taxation until we are in our future state.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Norwich and others, member from Starksboro?

[Rep. Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm act I'm sympathetic to this amendment. And the reason is that I think a lot of times we try to reduce spending from the education fund by imposing requirements on school districts that have very little ability to do anything about that. I would hope that we would be able to actually do something and take a look at some of the cost drivers, not only the cost drivers, the requirements that we impose on schools on how they need to spend money, which increases costs, increases taxes. Unfortunately, I really don't have enough information about the impact of this particular amendment on other districts, but I I'm very sympathetic, and I hope that this body can take a look at what we're actually requiring school districts to spend that are out of their control. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Brattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, this amendment runs the risk given, the lack of analysis and, frankly, the quite tentative tenuous and I mean tenuous nature of our education system and our education finance system right now of driving up education spending in ways we absolutely cannot predict, I would strongly encourage members to vote no.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Norwich and others, member from Pulteney?

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, may I inquire of the presenter of the amendment?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Norwich is interrogated.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Member, do you have a sense of how many districts in the state may fall above the statewide average threshold thereby needing to pay the excess spending penalty?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: There is a wonderful handout which I encourage people to go to the Ways and Means website and look at. It it was created to support the discussion around s 02/20 and it shows how many districts hit that or trip that penalty at various levels of the excess spending penalty threshold. I can't remember the exact number. It is a smaller number disproportionately along the western border of the state, which probably reflects the regional effect. But if and as these conversations around excess spending penalties and s two twenty continue, it is possible it will pick up an increasing number of districts. And I'd be happy to provide you with that or encourage you to look at the House Ways and Means website for testimony provided by Julia Richter that identifies the various thresholds at which various districts trip the penalty. Okay. I could look now if you wanted, but I'd have to open up my computer.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Thank you. Are there any districts in this state that are exempt from an excess spending threshold?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Absolutely. And that's part of the reason I'm here. My own district is exempt because, constitutionally, the state has not figured out how to impose an excess spending penalty on districts that predominantly operate on the New Hampshire side of the border. And as I said at a public forum a couple weeks ago, in Hartford, it is patently unfair that we're looking at putting a very significant excess pending penalty tax or burden on Hartford when we aren't on Norwich. It's another reason to reevaluate this until we figure out how to apply it fairly.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Do you know the number of districts that are exempt?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: There are a number of districts that are exempt. Again, if you look, I think it's two that are completely exempt, both of which are New Hampshire, Vermont collaborations that are the interstate districts. There are a number of other exemptions that apply but they don't relate to they don't provide blanket exemption. The issue is that we have not figured out how to appropriately assess penalties for districts that operate because you can't impose cuts on New Hampshire districts and New Hampshire students. Again, I don't think that we should be let off the hook when other districts, including higher poverty districts around my district, are being penalized very significantly.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Thank you, member. I guess I'll look at the website on the ways and means to, figure that out. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Norwich and others? Member from Derby.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, earlier, the presenter of this amendment mentioned Derby and Morgan. Townsend, my area, Derby is where I'm from, and I'm on the North Country Union High School School Board. So I got quite a bit of knowledge about this. And we voted Morgan voted a number of years ago. They made the hard choice to close their school. As did the town of Holland, they made the hard choice to close their school. And, yes, they received some benefits by not being a part of our district, and they have a break on sending their kids to school. Prior to that, prior to the break right after the Brigham decision, and the representative for Morgan can attest to this, Morgan was a gold town and paid astronomical taxes. So they're getting a bit of a break right now. But if we were if we had gone ahead with that 46 and formed districts and we are talking now at our SU of forming districts, we will impart those savings at Morgan And Holland enjoy to the whole district. And if we did our whole SU as a district, our whole SU will operate at 90% of base. Thank you. So I I can't support this amendment, madam speaker. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Norwich and others? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Now the member from Montpelier, representative McCann and others offer an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 01:22 p. M. Today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Montpelier.

[Rep. Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Madam Speaker, I offer this amendment to align public funding for education with existing law and expectations. The amendment would require publicly funded independent schools to meet the education quality standards adopted by the State Board of Ed. This amendment does not make any changes to the underlying work that your house education and house ways and means have done. It adds three new sections that combined together would require all approved independent schools eligible to receive public dollars to follow education quality standards. The first section, 21 b, amends section one sixty five. Anywhere there is reference to public school or a school board, This amendment proposes to add approved independent schools eligible to receive public tuition and for school boards adding governing body. Section 21 c amends section eight twenty eight to require that approved independent schools eligible to receive public tuition meet all education quality standards. And section 21 d requires the state board of ed to update the rule 2,000 series on or before 03/31/2027 to require approved independent schools eligible to receive public tuition to meet education quality standards. The introduction to the education quality standards reads, the purpose of these rules is to ensure that all Vermont students are afforded educational opportunities that are substantially equal in quality and are equitable, anti racist, culturally responsive, anti discriminatory, and inclusive, thus enabling each student to achieve or exceed the performance standards approved by the state board of Ed. Vermont's constitution requires substantially equal educational opportunity as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Education quality standards are the state's mechanism for defining and enforcing those expectations. If public dollars are funding a school, those expectations should apply rather than continuing to operate two separate systems. If a school receives taxpayer dollars, it should meet Vermont's education quality standards. EQS is the rule adopted by the state board to define what a quality education must include. It is explicitly designed to ensure all students receive educational opportunities that are substantially equal in quality, and it translates a constitutional obligation into real enforceable requirements. This does not eliminate independent schools. It does not dictate mission, culture, or pedagogy beyond baseline standards. It simply requires that schools accepting public funds meet the same minimum expectations as public schools, and I ask for the body's support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Cornwall.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thank you, madam speaker, and and thank you to the member of our committee for being a stalwart in supporting public education and the debates that go around with it. Madam speaker, this amendment is one that stirs a healthy debate about taxpayer dollars and accountability for how those dollars are spent in a system where there are two sets of rules. It is an important debate to have, but one that requires time, thoughtful testimony, and a detailed plan for the future. If adopted as the presenter pointed out, this amendment would require all approved independent schools that receive taxpayer dollars to follow Vermont's education quality standards just as public schools must. Conceptually this may make sense for many in this body, but details are important. For example, those educational quality standards require any school with 10 or more teachers to have a full time licensed principal, and it would further require that all teachers be licensed as well. That is not currently a requirement. Making teacher and administrator licensure a requirement should take place in a thoughtful, clearly articulated multi year transition plan so that the education of publicly funded students at an independent school is not disrupted. That is not done in a floor amendment, but rather in the focused work of a committee and given the time needed to get it right. And licensure is just one facet of the multilayered transition that comes with the requirement for meeting education quality standards. This may be a debate worth having, but let's do it using the process that respects all voices, leans into doing it thoughtfully, correctly, and with all the needed information. The committee's draw poll on this amendment was seven three one finding it unfavorable, and we urge the body to vote no. Thank you very much.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Montpelier and others? Member from Montpelier.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, we've heard a lot this session from the governor, from the secretary of education about equity, about outcomes, and about making sure every student in Vermont has access to a quality education. And I agree with that. In his state of the state, the governor said plainly that the way our system was built has led to deep inequity. He also said our goal should be to ensure educational equality for students across the state. This amendment takes those principles very seriously because right now we have a gap. Public schools are required to meet our education quality standards in full. But independent schools receiving public tuition funded by the same taxpayer dollars are not consistently held to those same expectations. That means two students supported by the same public investment can receive different baseline project protections, different levels of oversight, and different guarantees of quality. This means teacher qualifications. This means nondiscrimination, and this means the safety of our students. And in a time when Vermonters are facing rising property taxes, I think there's a simple question we should be able to answer. Shouldn't taxpayer dollars come with a clear expectation and accountability? If we believe the system is inequitable, and we've heard that it is, then this is one of the places we fix it. This amendment does not eliminate independent schools. It does not dictate mission, culture, or anything beyond baseline standards. It simply says that if a school receives public dollars, it should meet the state's established standards for a quality education. That's not unreasonable. That's consistency. That's accountability. And that's how we begin to deliver on the promise of equal educational opportunities for every student. In Vermont, We've heard the time isn't right, madam speaker. Today, we are voting on generational education reforms. Now is precisely the time we should ensure we have equality throughout the system.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Montpelier and others, member from Weston?

[Rep. Kelly Pajala (Weston)]: Madam speaker, this amendment builds upon provisions in act 73 and h nine fifty five to dismantle, erode, and otherwise undermine the ability of our fine independent schools to educate our children and ask I ask the body to vote against it. The number of independent schools has decreased from 44 to 18 with the passage of Act 73. H nine fifty five effectively makes a number of the remaining 18 schools unviable by eliminating the ability to charge for tuition above the foundation formula rate. This amendment would simply further degrade the quality of education for our children by undermining the very basis of what makes schools independent, their ability to pursue excellence as they see fit. Recall we can recall that our conversations about education last winter began with a property tax revolt, not a sweeping chorus by Vermonters for wholesale education reform. Are independent schools a cost driver of our current system? The answer is no. Districts that tuition students to independent schools consistently demonstrate lower spending and slower cost growth compared to state averages. You've all seen the list of debt burdens taken on by public school districts across the state and heard the astronomical numbers associated with the needed upcoming public school construction and repair costs. In contrast to these extremely large burdens placed upon the taxpayers of Vermont, independent schools raise their construction funds through private donations. For example, I sent my daughters to Burn Burton Academy, which has raised over $40,000,000 in the last twenty years for facilities construction. And as a reminder, Burn Burton accepts all students, all students from the 13 official sending towns and benefits many other students from from choice towns in the region. You might think that independent schools are not regulated in Vermont, that there is a need for oversight. The public school governance rules addressed in this amendment, the Equal Education Quality Standards 2,000 rule series, is 23 pages long. But there is another rule series that applies to independent schools, 2,200, which is 43 pages long. Unlike public schools, independent schools undergo a formal review and reapproval process by AOE and the State Board of Education every five years, which includes a site visit and an assessment of the school's facilities, finances, curriculum, culture, and academic and safety policies. This has been more than sufficient to maintain quality. But, what if a student or parent is dissatisfied, you may ask? Well, as opposed to public schools, under rule two thousand two hundred twenty six point two point one, there is a formal mechanism to lodge a complaint about an independent school with agency of education that allows for the suspension or revocation of their approval status. The point, madam speaker, is that there is ample oversight of independent schools. There is an educational ecosystem in parts of this state where students flow seamlessly from public to independent schools, and they receive an excellent education in both systems. There is no need for discrimination. Coexistence is in the interests of our children's education and should be our guidepost. I'd like to ask the body to acknowledge that the children in my district and similar tuition districts across the state deserve the same attention, opportunity, and support as the children in the rest of the state. Harming them does not solve our spending problem, does not solve our equity dilemma, and does not solve our governance issues. Please join me in voting no against this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Montpelier and others, member from Cornwall?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This is a major issue of great debate. I'm not standing to to weigh in one way or the other on that, but I am here, thinking about students, and thinking about disruption, and process. The, the requirements under EQS, many are easily adopted, others are far more challenging such as making sure that every teacher is licensed. That would I would that would include those teachers that are also teaching in the independent career and technical education schools. I don't know what it would take to to make that happen. I don't know the capacity of our licensure process, How that would how that would happen, what would be the process, how long it would actually take. The amendment has all of these rules coming into effect basically one year from now. So again, I urge the body to vote no and have this debate in a more thoughtful, planned way with the information that is so important in order to do this, if that is the will of the body, but in a planned thoughtful way so that there is least disruption on the students involved.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Montpelier and others? Are you ready for the question? Member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I rise in support of this amendment, and I come from a district that has a lot of tuitioning happening in it. So I can attest to how important some of our traditional academies in particular are to making sure that all of our students are able to access a high quality education. I think something that we lose sight of really often here is where the obligation lies for ensuring all of our kids have access to high quality are provided with that opportunity. And that was in Brigham. And that obligation is here in this in this building and in the building next door. It is our job. We are moving forward with transformational education reform and trying to do that in a way that respects local voices, local process, which is really important. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the obligation to make sure all of this is happening is on us. I've heard and I respect, you know, that floor amendments are not the great way to do things. This work, trying to ensure that we have similar standards for all of our students is not a new concept, madam speaker. This is something that we have been debating here in committees at the State Board of Education

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: for

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: years. And, you know, we this is this is difficult, very big work that we're doing right now. I actually think this is the time now. We need our independent schools to be part of this system. We need them to have the same accountability as our public schools, and I think this is really imperative. I think it is so imperative, madam speaker, that when the vote is taken, I ask that it be taken up by role.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Dover request that when the move the vote is taken it be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken it be taken by roll. The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Montpelier and others? Member from Essex Junction.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, I appreciate the conversation this amendment brings, but as was shared by the chair of your house education committee, this is not the right way or time to fully examine such an important issue. H nine fifty five represents a carefully crafted balance of policy to move Vermont's education landscape forward. Taking the time now to fully examine how to implement this amendment successfully could jeopardize the balance and timeline that is in place to move this bill. I look forward to future conversations on this topic, but for the reasons I

[Rep. James Masland (Thetford)]: just

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: shared, I urge the body to vote no on this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Norwich.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Thank you, madam speaker. There are bills in house education that have been on the wall for now two biennium that asked us to have this conversation, and we have not had this conversation. I spoke earlier in support of an independent school that chooses to fully treat and accept and enroll all students. It chooses to have certified teachers. It has chosen to meet all education quality standards. It is one of the highest performing independent schools in the state. It has smaller achievement gaps than actually many of our public schools. Overall, the test data say that these education quality standards do matter. In fact, if you go to the tax task force report, we did get education data, assessment data from the agency of education that says on average if you're not economically disadvantaged, you do better in a public school. And that matters because our independent schools are not serving the same diverse population. We have to have this conversation. These are not fiscally independent schools. Our historical academies, most of them are in the teacher pension system, which reflects their long standing incredibly important role in many of our communities to provide basic access to high quality education. That's why this body appropriates an annual required contribution from the general fund in support of those teachers in their retirement. We have to have this conversation because our education fund is for all children and not for some children. And when we choose to penalize those independent schools that choose to meet the education quality standards and choose to welcome and embrace every single child regardless of whether their parent can pay additional tuition, we are sending a very, very powerful message to Vermonters. My community and the two independent schools in my community both meet education quality standards according to the agency of education. They are living proof that you can meet public school standards and do a good job. Many things in our bill are half baked. They aren't fully developed. That's why we have partners in the senate. I encourage people to support this so that we can really have this conversation. I'm sure there are legitimate concerns. We need to get those on the table and have that conversation, and I'm confident members of the senate will do so.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Arsenault Williston. Austin at Colchester.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phone or type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call. And when the clerk calls your name please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Montpelier and others? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax, Rebecca Obonusky, Birong of Vergens, Bishop of Colchester, Black of Essex, Bluemle Burlington, No. Boslin of Westminster? No. Pasha Clarendon? No. Putnamary City? No. Boyden of Cambridge? Yes. Brady Wilson? Yes. Branagan of Georgia? Brigham of Saint Albans Town. No. Brown of Richmond. No. Bridget, West Rutland. No. Burkhardt of South Burlington. Yes. Burrows in West Windsor.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Bridget Cabot. Campbell Saint Johnsbury. No. Canfield for Haven. No. Carris Duncan and Whiteingham. Casey Montpelier?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Casey Hubbardton? No. Tiffany East Montpelier? Yes. Charlton Chester?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Christie of Hartford? Gina of Burlington? Coffin and Cavendish?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Cole of Hartford. Yes. Conlon and Cornwall. No. Cooper Poundell.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Corcoran of Bennington. No. Critchlow of Colchester.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Demar of Venusburg. Dickinson of San Juanstown. No. Doverville, Williamstown. Dodge of Essex. Dolan of Essex Junction. No. Dolgin of St. Johnsbury. Donahue of Northfield. Duke of Burlington.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Durfee of Shaftesbury. No. Eastes of Guilford. No. I'm in Springfield. No. Feltus Blenden. Galfetti, a very town. No. Garifano of Essex. No. Goldman Rockingham. No. Goodnight, Butterborough. No. Northfield. No. Granny Of Jericho. Greer Bennington.

[Rep. Charlie Kimbell (Woodstock)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Greg War Fairfield. No. Hangover. No. Purple Glover. Yes. Harvey Castleton.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Patrick Burlington.

[Unidentified Representative from Pownal]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Michael Buebl. Holcomb in Norwich? Yeah. Cooper Randolph? No. Potomac Junction? Howard or Rutland City?

[Unidentified Representative from Essex]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Holland or Rutland Town? No. Wood Hartford? No. Hunter Manchester? No. James of Manchester? No. Cassandra Burke? Keyser, Rutland City. No. Kimball Woodstock. No. Krepner, Burlington. No. Corcoranagan. Labor Morgan. No. Molly Shelburn. No. Alone to South Burlington. No. I'm on a Morristown. Yes. The Russia Franklin. Lipsky of Stowe?

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Logan of Arlington? Yes. Long and Newfane?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Still open.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Long and Milton?

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Leaders of Lincoln? Uno, Saint Owen City. No. Maguire, Rutland City. No. Malay, Pittsford. No. Marcon of Coventry.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: As in a Thetford. McKenna, Malpelier. Yes. McCoy Pultney. No. McGillip Report. Yes. Nicholas of Milton. No. Mollie of Callis. Mollie of Callis. I'm sorry. No. I'm in South Burlington.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Morganella Milton? No. Morganella Milton? No. Or Springfield? No. Morrissey, Bennington? Or a Weston? No. Marwicki, Putney? No. Nelson, Derby?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Nielsen at Brandon? No. Nielsen at Brandon? Michael Buntington? No. North Of Pittsburgh? No. No. New Jersey South Burlington? O'Brandonton Bridge.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: O'Brandonton. No. Sheldon. No. Wilson of Stark Sparrow. No. Page in Newport City. No. Parsons in Newbury. Has a Pulchester. No. Vincent on the Dorset. No. Hutchinsburg. Yes. Powers Waterford. No. Priestley Bradford. Yes. Richard Paulette. No. Columbia Linden. Rachel's in Burlington? Seco, it's a Randolph? No. Shy at Middlebury? No. Scully at Burlington?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Sheldon at Middlebury? No. Sebeliad Dover? Yes. Susie at Barrytown? Southworth of Walden? Yes. Squirrel Of Underhill? No. Steady Mill Penn? No. Stevens Waterbury?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Stone of Burlington? Sweeney of Shelburne? Yes. Yes. Of Mendon. Yes. Thomas and Winooski. Yes. Torrey Morgtown. No. Walker of Swanton. Wise of Zacchaverse City.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Waters Evans of Charlotte. No. Wells of Burlington. White Oatesfield? No. White Bethel? Yes. Winter Ludlow? No. Waterbury? No. Jacoboni, Morristown?

[Rep. James Masland (Thetford)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Arsenault of Williston? Yes. Christie Hartford, Gina at Burlington, Deborah Debbie Dolgin, Donahue Northfield, Granny of Jericho, Madeline of Thetford, Nielsen of Brandon, Parsons in Newbury, Rachel Stone of Burlington, Stone of Burlington.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: For purpose of explanation, member from Essex.

[Speaker 33]: Madam speaker, I vote no out of respect for the committee process and to help shepherd the reform of our school system, but I support the standards as a past educator who saw the need to meet diverse demographics and an educator workforce that would benefit from attention to the education quality standards. And I say this with full respect and recognition of just how challenging it is to work in schools.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from New Thing.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, while I voted no in order to allow our legislative process to play out on an appropriate timeline. But make no mistake, I fully support what this amendment seeks to accomplish, and I look forward to fully engaging in that process.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Derby.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Madam speaker, I vote yes for all the educators in my supervisory union.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Jericho.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Jericho)]: Madam speaker, may I vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Granting of Jericho.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, may I vote? You may.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Stone of Burlington. Yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: You may. Rachelson of Burlington.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Madam Madam member from Burlington. Thank you. Madam speaker, may I explain my vote? You may. I understand the committee needs to take testimony but I voted yes because it is a discussion that we absolutely need to have. Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 33. Those voting no, 109. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Please listen. Nope. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? Member from Ferrisburg.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Thank you, madam speaker. I had to put my jacket on before I feel comfortable speaking.

[Rep. Zachariah Harvey (Castleton)]: Madam speaker, so

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: the the voluntary merger process that h nine fifty five includes is is about a dozen steps over four years with with off ramps at every available juncture, and there doesn't seem to be any incentives for districts to merge included in it. Therefore, I don't see any any guarantee that a district will actually do so that is that is merged with another. Given that context, madam speaker, may I inquire of the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Cornwall's interrogated

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: So so member, how do how do we know that this voluntary merger process in h nine fifty five will actually produce the strategic mergers that we are looking to accomplish to achieve the goals of improved education quality and reducing costs?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Madam speaker, the process that is envisioned is voluntary. I think the hope is is that as districts come together, look at the future of education in Vermont, they will make those decisions that will help them be strategically ready for those changes as they come to the future. I would remind members that the bill continues to have implementation of the foundation formula. The foundation formula is really the the tool that will help us bend the cost curve moving to the future and allow for districts to, frankly, more strategically budget. There is no doubt they will understand that they can probably have more tools at their disposal to strategically budget as a larger district than if they don't.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Okay. So we at least I my understanding is that the agency of education did provide some testimony and and actually addressed this exact issue of perceived obstacles to a more state directed merger, which is different than a voluntary merger. And they, I believe, included in their plan things like managing school choice, maintaining a local voice in larger districts.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: But I

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: don't see any of those provisions included in age nine fifty five. So how was the agency of education's proposal considered?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: It was well considered by the committee, as were many other options that were put on the table. We went through the process of the last few months with a very open mind to all options, and they were all considered very carefully.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: But none of this This

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: this proposal that is in in front of us neither it it it provides for newer larger districts if that is the decision of those areas coming together. How they choose to manage within that district is will be up to them.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Right. So so one of the effects of the additional studies that are being proposed in as part of the voluntary merger or even to inform the voluntary mergers is really ultimately just pushing back the implementation of the foundation formula by if I'm if I'm reading the educational transformation timeline correctly, it pushes it back by two full years, from from what we just agreed to less than a year ago. So if every year we push it out another two years, that's you end up pushing it out ad infinitum. So do we have even if we just look at this one two year delay, do we have estimate of the cost to taxpayers of this additional two year delay of the foundation formula?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: If you're asking me what the additional cost would be for the the process laid out of the in the bill, Certainly can't answer that question because that is gonna be up to the voters as they vote on school district budgets over the next few years.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Yeah. It was okay. I I I thank the member for your responses. Thank you, madam speaker. So, madam speaker, if act 46, which did provide some incentives, didn't produce the sufficient level of scale, how can we expect this to be any different when we're invoking the same language? We've already had a redistricting study committee, which was the redistricting task force that met this past summer, and that failed to produce a recommendation for actual consolidation. Why would we expect the study committees in plural now in h nine fifty five to be any more productive? For these reasons, madam speaker, I I find h nine fifty five flawed at its core and unable to achieve the necessary goals of improved educational quality and reduced cost. Thus, I cannot support it.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Glover.

[Speaker 33]: Madam speaker, I rise today in strong support of h nine fifty five. This bill answers the call Vermonters have been making loud and clear about affordability. Through the CSOs, we create a path to shared services and collaboration that can begin saving money as soon as they are up and running. In this plan, we don't have to choose between local control and cost savings because we can deliver both. Some people worry that if mergers aren't mandatory, they'll never happen. I know this isn't true because I regularly talk to school boards, superintendents, and principals who are already having these conversations. They are actively exploring partnerships and mergers because communities understand that change is necessary. They are ready for it as long as they are invited into the conversation. That matters because real lasting transformation will only work if our whole state is in it together. Some school districts will choose to merge with others. Some may decide that their current structure is what best serves their students. That's what local decision making looks like. It is not one size fits all, but a thoughtful, deliberate process that is rooted in what is right for each individual community. It has taken a lot of difficult work to shape this next phase of act 73 into something that can work for all of Vermont. I am proud of the long days and the thoughtful discussions that it took to get this bill onto the floor today, and I feel hopeful that rural communities like my own can win back something that we thought was slipping away forever, a meaningful local voice in the decisions that shape our schools, our towns, and our economic futures. Since this work began, the legislature has heard from thousands of our fellow Vermonters throughout the state on the issue of education transformation, and they all seem to agree on one thing, local voice is a Vermont value. As a Northeast Kingdom legislator, I deeply believe that this proposal brings us the closest that we have come since the passing of act 73 to being able to save our communities, preserve our rural identities, and decide our own fate. This is how I know that I cannot go home and tell my neighbors that when this legislative body finally had a chance to reclaim our small town voices and to fight for our kids and our community values, that I chose to walk away. I cannot tell my neighbors that we had the opportunity to restore local decision making, and I said no. Thank you. We should not force rural Vermonters to stand by and watch their communities fade away. This bill gives us a better and more realistic path forward that reduces costs while respecting local voices and promoting collaboration. We have the opportunity today to revitalize our education system, to show Vermonters that we hear and respect them, and to move forward as a whole state. Let's all seize this moment together. I urge the body to support h nine fifty five.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Berkshire.

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Lyndon)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As a representative of rural communities with small schools, I'm concerned about the effect on smaller rural communities that don't get included in this bill's voluntary district consolidation. It is clear that the committee pursued the voluntary merger process due to concerns about forced mergers. The point of creating new larger districts is to create the scale necessary for every district to provide every student with an equitable educational opportunity grounded in excellence under the foundation formula. Madam speaker, may I inquire of the presenter of the bill, please?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member of Cornwall is interrogated.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: My concern is specifically about smaller districts that aren't merged, perhaps not by their choice, but by the choice of other districts in their area. How will they exist under the foundation formula?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Well, when the foundation formula comes into being, it will be how we fund education. The goal of this bill is to have mergers that are voluntary, but that are also strategic. The the process laid out in the bill using expert facilitators throughout the state is to recognize that we do not wanna have the situation that we had in act 46 where some districts were essentially either orphaned or orphaned by choice due to the way districts came together. One of the challenges with Act 46 was that it written within it was that districts with different operating systems could not merge. That is not a prohibition within this bill. So the hope is is that the districts that are are laid out as guidance, which includes all districts, will be coming together and talking together. And certainly, one of the points of discussion will be making sure that it that everybody is coming together without leaving anyone out.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: Madam speaker, that's really great aspirationally. But if a district doesn't have all of the members voting for a merger, does that district then not consolidate and does that not leave small schools that may need to achieve scale with other schools in that consolidation. Does that not leave some schools out just like the act 46 mergers of like structures only, like governance structures only, left some orphaned, as you said?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I think that's a a fine question. And, yes, this bill is very aspirational. I think that it reflects what we heard from Vermonters about the process for coming together in a way that respects local voice and and sort of local cooperation. And this bill really recognizes that the situation on the ground may not be exactly as we envision and allows the facilitators who are creating these merger study committees to adjust as needed. Really, one of the goals and stated in the bill is that we are creating pre k to 12 districts that include all current member districts, but merged into larger entities. Thank you. I have faith that that process is understood and will be the ultimate goal. And yes, eventually, it will be up to the voters, and we can revisit that in the future. However, I am optimistic about the outcome for both I think that the districts will see the positive benefits of working together, and I think districts will see the positive benefits of being together as they face a new funding system.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Thank you, member. Madam speaker, we were elected by our constituents to represent our communities in the state house. I certainly have communities that may not vote to join emerged structure. H nine fifty five shifts that responsibility to resolve complex structural issues onto others outside of this building and may potentially leave smaller rural communities stranded. If we cannot guarantee that we will have larger districts, the committee had heard testimony that communities will either have to compromise on the quality of our schools, lower expectations and fewer opportunities, or compromise on funding resulting in an even more expensive system than we have today. H nine fifty five does not guarantee achieving the stated goals of improving equity and reducing costs. I cannot support this bill for fear that my schools will continue to have among the lowest education spending in the state yet be able to offer only the fewest educational opportunities at an unpredictable and unsustainable cost to their taxpayers.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Williston.

[Rep. Erin Brady (Williston)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise in support of nine five five, and I'm voting for this bill for three reasons. First, I'm voting for this in support of the process and the power of our democratic process here, especially as democracy is under threat in the country at large. The House Education Committee has been taking testimony on and engaging in deep discussions about our education system pretty much every day of this session and really for three years now. The conversations are hard and they're often described by others as swirl. But as our chair often reminds us, our committee represents all the various education challenges and dynamics in our system. And we as a committee are reflective of the general assembly and that, of course, is reflective of the whole of Vermont. I represent the largest district in our state, while others on the committee represent some of the smallest. There are five current and former school board members and chairs on our committee. There are five career educators on our committee, three who are still actively teaching. Some of us represent districts that operate public schools at every grade, others represent districts that tuition at every grade, and others represent every iteration of operating system that exists in between. Our committee swirl was often frustrating and exhausting, although I do like to remind the committee that we have the easy part here. The hard work is the implementation of change. But it was respectful, collegial, and it engaged the voices of so many Vermonters. From the long list of those who testified to the hundreds, if not thousands, that have reached out to each committee member through email and at events in our communities. I believe our committee's process and especially the sustained and respectful leadership of our chair who let every committee member's concern, frustration, and idea be heard repeatedly is a critical part of such a big and difficult public conversation. This is not just about schools or maps. But to be clear, and you can go back and watch our committee, we painstakingly worked through maps, and we became amateur cartographers. But this is really about the future state of Vermont. Second, I'm voting for this bill because systemic change is a long hard process and this bill takes a more measured approach and a timeline that is more appropriate to the gravity of change ahead. I think we're all vaguely familiar with an education story that's received a lot of coverage lately, sometimes characterized as the Mississippi miracle. Just like last week, I was listening to a lengthy interview with the state literacy director at the Mississippi Department of Education who has led the implementation of their work. And many things stood out in the interview, but perhaps most importantly was her characterization. She called it repeatedly a marathon. The Mississippi marathon has been a laser focus on literacy, instruction, and outcomes that started in 2012. It has been long, methodical work with sustained investment. The literacy director went on to talk about the early years of the work, and it was spent building relationships and creating buy in long before they began sustained on the ground work to change and improve literacy instructions in the early grades. The bill we're considering today is very different from Mississippi's still ongoing literacy initiative. But if we're collectively committed to improve student outcomes, we must also be collectively and fiercely committed to improving teaching through coherent professional development, which I believe the new CESAs will be well poised to do as teacher quality drives outcomes, not funding formulas. But I do see a similarity in that both our large systems changes related to our education system. Our work here is a more community driven process for education transformation, and it is creating slowly and often painfully critical buy in for change. Finally, and most importantly, I'm voting for this bill for our schools and to support the incredible and vital work that goes on every day across Vermont. I would challenge any one of us to spend a full day in any school in this state and not leave with a much needed dose of hope for our future. It won't make the news, but on any given day, over 80,000 kids across Vermont are learning academic subjects, social and emotional skills critical to functioning in our society, and engaging in this critical institution of our democracy. So here's just a very short sampling of some of the incredible, vital work happening in classrooms and schools, school communities around Vermont that we heard just yesterday in the House Education Committee. At North Country High School, students are engaged in projects that bridge academic learning with real world problems. Students are focusing on an array of issues ranging from hunting access rights to environmental concerns to access to affordable health care. And the educator leading this work was just invited by senator Sanders' office to bring his class and other area classes to DC in early May to participate in a mock congress. At Newport City Elementary School, sixth graders are participating in a series of observational astronomy nights in partnership with astronomers from the Northeast Kingdom Astronomy Foundation. They're applying engineering design to develop and build telescopes that can be lent out to school community members to participate in backyard astronomy, and they're developing guides for viewing the night sky in the Newport area. At u thirty two high school, students can engage in a work based learning program that provides paid training and internship opportunities for them to work in a newly established extended day program at the Berlin School as youth community educators. This helps both our youngest students at the Berlin School who need access to enriching extended day programming and our high school students who often also serve as wage and income earners for themselves and their families. I'll make one more and I'll stop, but I could go on. At Virgin's elementary, at least 19 students now have adult mentors that service critical trusted adults. We know that belonging and connection at school are critical to turning around our challenge of chronic absenteeism. Further, many of these trusted adults are community members without children or who no longer have children in the schools and are now reporting that they feel much more connected to their community. My entire first year in this body was spent on Zoom. We never came into this building. And yet the public high school classroom I left that semester continued on in person as it did for all Vermont schools with extraordinary effort and constant adaptability. Teachers and staff measured the distance between desks, toggled between in person and online instruction when classes or entire schools had to stay home because the virus was spreading or students couldn't take the risk to underlying health conditions and attend in person. They packed school meals into bags and brought them to classrooms to avoid large congregations of students, organized food delivery across communities to ensure kids were fed. As adults, the pandemic may feel like a distant past, but as I but as I teach in my high school psychology class, biological relatively relativity means that the impact of experiences differs dramatically depending on our developmental stage. Those years of closures, quarantines, and constant instability brought by the pandemic dramatically impacted our students and continue to reverberate in our schools. At one point in our committee process last year, as we worked on the broader goals of education change and so many of the goals that we all share here, a consultant who joined us on Zoom from another state said something to the effect that Vermont would get to create a whole school system from scratch, from the ground up. But we're not starting from scratch. We must remember, systems are made of real people. Our students, teachers, and school leaders are not aligned that can be moved on a map or column that can be eliminated in a spreadsheet without an impact. Change must be done carefully on a realistic timeline. And therefore, I'm proud to support nine fifty five today.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time, member from Saint Albans Town?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Oh, oh,

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: thank you, madam speaker.

[Rep. Casey Toof (St. Albans Town)]: My apologies. Saint Albans Town is cool too. Madam speaker, may I quote former Dallas Cowboys quarterback, Don Meredith?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Rep. Casey Toof (St. Albans Town)]: If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all be at a party. So we've heard about the savings from the one existing CISA, the Vermont Learning Collaborative, but these savings are limited to narrow opportunities such as professional development. VTLCE claims that supervisor unions and districts have saved an average of 66% on professional development costs, but the only example presented thus far was a conference that saved a few $100. Campaign for Vermont says that Vermont can save at least $291,000,000 annually from ceases, but the report is based on research from district consolidation and not savings from ceases. It seems like districts could save a few dollars here and there with ceases, but none of this is credible evidence that they can meaningfully bend the cost curve. Madam speaker, may I inquire of the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Cornwall's interrogated

[Rep. Casey Toof (St. Albans Town)]: Madam speaker, beyond these minimal examples I've cited, what real evidence is there that CESAs will actually produce cost savings for districts?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Thank you for the question, speaker. Vermont has one CISA, as you mentioned, brand new limited offerings already saving money. However, we received significant testimony from the National Organization of CISAs with some pretty significant statistics about how CESAs have have saved money in other states. I would I would encourage anybody who has more interest in this to, look at some of that testimony, in the form of a slide deck, on our committee website. You. Seasons exist in many other states, in most other states, because they have proven effective at saving money, and especially in areas where building scale is so important.

[Rep. Casey Toof (St. Albans Town)]: Thank you. And one further question. Won't CESAs exacerbate staffing pressures and costs by pulling up district staff into the CESA at a time of high vacancies and turnover?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I apologize, member. I was unable to hear the question. Could you please repeat it?

[Rep. Casey Toof (St. Albans Town)]: Certainly. Won't CISAs exacerbate staffing pressures and costs by pulling up district staff into the CISA at a time of high vacancies and turnover within districts?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I do not believe so. One of the challenges that many districts have in in filling positions is that they only have partial positions that they can offer. And there are not people willing to take partial position jobs, so they go vacant. And they go vacant and students don't have access to some pretty important special services. CESAs allow districts to to work together to create, you know, jobs that previously vacant because they are so part time into one full time job that one person can can do. I would say just the opposite. I believe that CESAs will allow a more efficient use of staff in in our districts that rather than a relatively inefficient use that goes on today with partial full time equivalent positions.

[Rep. Casey Toof (St. Albans Town)]: Alright. I I thank the member. Madam speaker, the goal of act 73 was to streamline governance. These ceases sound like complexity that maintains the status quo. Madam Speaker, may I quote from JFO reporting regarding ceases?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Rep. Casey Toof (St. Albans Town)]: Potential cost savings of ceases are unclear due to outstanding unknowns including the range of services offered, their cost compared to services they are replacing and participation in services. Furthermore, the creation and operation of ceases will necessitate additional expenditures including the hiring of staff. Total staffing levels are unknown and would likely depend on the services operated by ASCESA. In addition to staff, they would likely be non personnel operating costs for ASCESA and its programs. Given this high likelihood and frankly almost a certainty that CESAs will likely increase costs rather than decrease it across the state, I cannot support H nine fifty five.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Manchester.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I rise today in support of this bill. For almost two years, I've been actively engaged with education leaders, taxpayers, and families, mostly families across the Bennington Ford District. They're worried about their tax bills, but they're even more worried about their local schools, their communities, all of our students, and what education reform might mean for the future. In many ways, I feel like Bennington IV represents a true microcosm of the education reform debate that's been raging all across the state. And as we often say in the state house, it's complicated. I represent a small, rural, fully public pre k through 12 operating district in Arlington. I represent a very small non operating district in Sandgate, a tiny hill town with no public school that pays tuition for all of its students to attend schools in nearby communities. And I represent the towns of Manchester and Sunderland where we have public schools for pre k through grade eight, but we don't have a public high school. Instead, we tuition our kids to rigorously approved independent schools like Burn Burton and Long Trail. And the kicker, with strong local leadership from our Taconic and Green board, we're also engaged in the hard but necessary work of closing two of our small under enrolled public elementary schools. Despite this diversity, Bennington IV voters have consistently shared the same concerns at the public forums I've hosted, at the dozens of face to face thoughtful coffee hours that I hold in the towns I represent and by phone calls and emails. And here's what I've been hearing from these folks for months, all session and prior, whether they live in Arlington, Sandgate, Sunderland or Manchester. Number one, they care deeply about our schools, our kids, their communities, and the quality of education that we deliver across a unique education ecosystem. Two, they're frightened by rising property taxes. They're struggling to pay the bills and they know we need to take steps to change the way we pay for our schools. Three, they are staunchly opposed to a top down one size fits all mandatory approach that will force mergers on communities overriding and overruling the local voice. This is primarily why I'm in favor of h nine fifty five and why so many of my constituents support it too. H nine fifty five does deliver fast, tangible cost savings through CESAs that will streamline administration and bring down spending in the short term and over time. But most importantly, and I feel so strongly about this, it asks locals to lead the hard conversations that we need to have in every community about voluntary strategic mergers that make sense from the grassroots up. So I I really think with this bill, did what we're supposed to do as legislators. We listened, we learned, we delivered a bill that meets the moment and responds to what we heard from so many Vermonters. This bill is really focused on building consensus back home. That is hard and that is how we create lasting change. So I urge members to join me in voting yes for h nine fifty five.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Tunbridge.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Madam speaker, I have a question of clarification on construction. So I wondered if I could interrogate the presenter of the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Cornwall is interrogated.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: You may at some point yield to chair of ways and means since it was in the original amendment section 65 under school construction. It references that we need about $6,000,000,000 in total over a twenty one year period spending about 300,000,000 a year just to achieve replacement in kind of our aging and tired school infrastructure. And then further down it says, it is the intent of the general assembly to encourage the efficient use of funds by prioritizing school construction projects that align with the creation of the new school governance structures expressed in this act. So my question madam speaker is, is it the aim of of h nine fifty five to have to incentivize the the mergers and consolidation and have the dollars follow that policy, Construction dollars.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I think that the sort of rules of engagement for awarding school construction dollars are still to be written. In the work in in the creation of the current school construction advisory group, I'm I believe the language does speak to working to achieve the goals of the state. And some of those goals include building scale when it comes to school construction. So what I would I would say is that that goal exists in the language, but that the rules of engagement to specific school construction projects are still to be determined.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: So if we took an example, say, the high schools around Barrie or the high schools around Rutland decided to close and and with a merger and open a big new high school. Is is that the sort of thing where the policy would try to incentivize that?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I I think the the short answer is yes, probably, if it can be shown to meet the goals that that we are talking about. But, yes, I think that in areas of the state, especially at the high school level where we have a sort of short distance, many high school situation, this is an area of great opportunity to not only provide more opportunity for students, but to also, save taxpayer dollars.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: So, madam speaker, would you consider a new high school to be an improved educational opportunity for a student?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I I'm sorry. I I didn't catch the last couple

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: words. I'm sorry. Madam speaker, would you would you consider a new school, a new, you know, state of the art high school to be an improved educational opportunity for a student that would go there?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: I I did you say approved or improved?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Improved or or

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Yeah. Well, I I would I would have to say, hopefully, that the idea of having a newer, larger learning environment that provides more opportunity because it's at scale, and especially if it can if what we're talking about is a comprehensive high school that would include career technical education on-site that a student could move sort of between seamlessly both programs, I would agree that would be an improved educational opportunity.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: I assume I mean, I don't know bring them inside and out, but I assume that per pupil spending doesn't follow, say, new construction dollars. Does it?

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Currently, under the current system that we have, school construction dollars are part of a district's annual budget, which they budget for. In the future state, you have a foundation formula. However, how we handle school construction in that sense, I would, in fact, yield to the member from Brattleboro.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Cornwall yields to the member from Brattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Under our, the member from Cornwall, is right. Under the current financing system, school debt and school construction and school, facilities costs are included in education spending, which becomes per people costs per weighted people costs. And under in the future finance system, the education opportunity payments, is the foundation formula, does not include the cost of school construction, which is why we have created this updated school construction program in three parts.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: So as an example, Burlington High School has a new high school. Those students the cost of that, the 180 to 200,000,000, whatever it cost, that wasn't included in per people spending for Burlington High School students.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: That is included in per people spending for Burlington high school students, the debt service on that under current law.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Okay. But I'm what I'm just wondering is if the policy incentivizes construction dollars, whether there'll be winners and losers in the education construction world that the potentially districts that are not gonna merge for whatever reason, not voluntary, will not get new schools whereas the construction will be used as a carrot for the districts that do voluntary voluntarily consolidate. Is that inaccurate?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Under current law, there are significant winners and losers with regards to school construction. Only a few districts around the state are able to gather the votes necessary to increase their spending at a scale that would be needed to move a bond, and so there are only a few areas of the state where we have been able to see any school construction in the last many, many years. However, the cost of that school construction, despite being included in that district's per pupil spending, is also carried by all the other taxpayers around the state. In the future, school construction costs could still be carried at the district level under the education opportunity payments, but they are not designed that way. So a district could choose as they can in current law to essentially balance the educational needs of a student with the school construction needs of a student. But under the future construct, we would, it is not designed for that optimally. It is not not optimized for that. And so we have created this additional school construction program to be funded as a wraparound to the education opportunity payments. But given that we have limited resources, always, we wanted to prioritize those school construction projects that are either the rehabilitation needed in could be small and geographically necessary areas to reach the best scale possible, or it could be these new regional high schools as the member from Cornwall described.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: So if you're a high school that's in in need of infrastructure improvements or even maybe a new high school, but you're not part of a voluntary consolidation, will it be very hard for you to to get bonding for example? Or they won't you won't be incentivized to do it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: A district under the future laws of this would always be able to still do their own bonding. We are not changing that. However, the new state incentives that we are adding will be receive significant technical assistance, significant guidance, and prioritization from a statewide body. The final rules for that prioritization are recalled for under this bill, and so we will have more definition for that when those once those are completed, and I do, encourage members, the public, to pay attention to that rule making process and participate.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: Thank you, member. Madam speaker, just I think this is an area of concern and that it's pretty clear to see that where where it works for districts, supervisor unions to consolidate that they may get new schools, and I think it's pretty clear that that new schools are an improved educational opportunity for students who go there. So if you if in our example, if we said Northfield High School became part of the Greater Barrie New School Regional School, but Williamstown did not and say they're both equally tired schools, it seems to me we're we're actually creating inequity for certain students in certain towns and districts. And that I think most of our schools are very tired and after the moratorium, I think, right, since there are no extra dollars out there, chances are especially rural schools, small rural schools, schools like the member from Morristown said who already have gone through act 46 and are have PTSD from merging, they're not going to want to do this again. So it already puts them behind the eight ball. They're not going to get a new school. They're going to have to stick with their tired old school. And then when we look at Burlington, Burlington got a $200,000,000 new school and then we ran out of money. So I mean I'm really happy for Burlington and their high school students but it also seems like how did that improve educational opportunities for the rest of the high school students in the state in the rural towns of Vermont. So what I see here often happening in this body is that we between act one eighty one and and this bill, we're just making life a lot harder for rural Vermonters. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Woodstock.

[Rep. Charlie Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Just to speak to the last representative's point of view, There's envisioned in the process with the house ways and means amendment to nine fifty five, a prioritization process of school projects, not only for ones that may result in fewer schools, but also to address the health and safety condition of a school, educational opportunities, and the opportunity to provide a better education in those schools without any kind of predilection for rural versus urban. This is a very thoughtful approach. I can speak from personal experience for a school that does need to be rebuilt. It is not in a major district and that is in the Mountain Views District. And it's a crumbling school built in 1956. The boiler just had to be replaced from 1958. Would it rise to the top of the priority list? Not yet. Those priority items have to be developed by this by the advisory board recommended to the agency of education. So I really think this is a fair process in absence of anything else. But aside from that, madam speaker, I wanted to I really wanted to voice my support for the entire bill. This plan for Vermont's education transformation and this bill is not what the governor requested last January. Nor is this plan reflective of the bill act 73 that we passed last year. Frankly, it's better than both. This bill establishes paths to achieve education transformation in a measured way that will result in better student outcomes and cost savings for resident taxpayers. We have an opportunity to embrace a better future for kids in Vermont. And the amendment from Ways and Means gives the state important tools to better manage the process of raising funds to fund education. More frequent reappraisals of properties in a more streamlined system. Tools to tax second homes at a rate different from homesteads and other properties. It provides capital for the construction of new schools that helps us address our aged portfolio of schools and provide incentives for the creation of regional schools that do help increase educational opportunities for students. An important aspect of this bill is to give room for critical decisions to be made at the local and state level. It is critical that we get this right. And so the bill is intentionally measured in its implementation schedule. We would all like to see a faster timeline, but doing the right thing often takes more time. We are far from done. It is truly a journey we are on in education transformation. Next year, this body will have to make important decisions based on information we get back from various study committees and outside reports. Overall, I'm in favor of this bill and I urge your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Westminster.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Westminster)]: Yeah. Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanted to mention very quickly as a person who lives in Southern Vermont where the only existing oh, what do we call it? CISA is located. We actually, in my district, WNESU, we have noticed substantial cost savings from having the CISA in place and it hasn't even been a year, I think, that we've been operating. We have one full time employee. She's extremely helpful in advising the district around how to do purchasing, how to share services. She actually advised her advice can result in cost savings just from her wisdom. But in addition to that, the special education savings have been significant in our district. As we all know here, that's one of the cost drivers in education is special education costs are so high. And when you can share those resources, when you have one specialist who can work with three different kids, as it was mentioned by the chair of the education committee earlier, that's gonna be more efficient. Somebody's gonna want that one full time job working in a shared situation through a CISA when they might not want it if they're only a one third time position or something like that. So, I just wanted to say if there are concerns about if this is going to result in cost savings from our experience, even though we're just barely getting started, we already are noticing substantial savings. And I can also say as a person who lives in a rural district, I have voted against the last two education bills because I thought they did not serve the the interests of rural rural districts. And I think this bill does. And so I think we got it right and I hope we support this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Cornwall.

[Rep. Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Madam speaker, h nine fifty five is not just the next step in education transformation in Vermont. It's also an opportunity to show Vermonters that we are listening to them as we contemplate changes that will be felt throughout the state. With that, I request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Cornwall requests that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Feltney. Member from Fulton East.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, just about a year ago, this body found themself itself in the same situation as we are in today. It was the April. The end of the session was within sight. And while many of us had spent months on education transformation and months before that listening to constituents tell us that they can no longer afford annual property tax increases, we could not come to agreement on how to move forward, building a system that better educates our kids no matter what town they live in at a cost Vermonters can afford. But then enough of us came together to pass act 73, which sets us on a path towards achieving these education transformation goals. It wasn't easy, but we did it. Those of us who have been around here a while understand just how big of a deal that really was. I was elected in 2014, another year when property taxes were at the top of the minds of most Vermonters when they cast their ballots. During that session, act 46 was passed. Act 46 was not perfect, but it came with spending caps that were supposed to put downward pressure on taxes and costs to offer Vermonters tax relief and encourage schools to work with each other to increase opportunities for students. The very next year, the legislature eliminated those caps. And twelve years later, we are in the same place we were then. I bring this up because last year, we passed act 73 that required us to do hard work, pass maps, and approve a foundation formula, just to name a few. And we have not done any of it. Instead, we are kicking the can down the road again. H nine five five proposes a voluntary merger process and it and includes a dozen steps over four years with off ramps at every juncture. This bill does not provide any incentives to districts to merge, and there is no guarantee that any district will do so. Act 46 did not realize a sufficient level of scale even with incentives. How can we expect this process to be any different? And I know I sound like a broken record when I talk about study committees after study committees. However, this bill stands up yet another, and I believe it might be the forty second since the year 2005. I've lost track. But we're coming off a study committee from last year, the redistricting task force. The task force failed to produce one single recommendation for consolidation. Why would we expect the study committee in h ninety five five to be any more productive? This is not a new problem, and it's not going to go away by ignoring it, adjourning, and hoping it solves itself. And it's not for lack of trying on our part because the governor has put forth the following ideas that have been dismissed. Enacting variable growth caps on per pupil spending, tying school spending to student population changes, capping statewide property tax increases, adjusting excess spending thresholds, meaningfully reducing excess property tax adjustments, asset testing the income sensitivity property for certain earners, making the university meals program progressive, aligning student to staff ratios to be more in line with peer states through natural attrition, implementing a multi vote structure for districts with lower student to staff ratios, and I can go on and on. There's probably about seven or eight more that he offered, and we did not listen. But no matter how bad the test scores get or how many kids have to go without art, music, sports, foreign languages, CTE, or after school programs, the status quo will remain and real change is left for another day. No matter how high the yield rate or how many Vermonters cannot afford to pay their property taxes, our failed system remains, and the work to find real solutions to this issue is yet for is left for yet another day. I know this is not the end of this conversation, and the governor has made it crystal clear on what needs to happen before the end of the session. And while the media begins to cover the details of this bill and the give and take between the house and the senate, I want Vermonters to know that there are many of us in this chamber that want and are working hard to ensure improved test scores as well as the availability of art, music, sports, foreign languages, CTE, and after school programs that will be considered among the very best in the nation in each and every school in Vermont. We want our kids to have opportunity pass every opportunity possible, whether it's to play in a concert band, learn Chinese, or learn a trade, whether they live in Burlington or Barton, Westhaven or Hartford, Bennington or Brattleboro. And all Vermonters should know that there are members of this body that want to lower your taxes and understand the challenges and fears of the affordability crisis that many of us have been working for to solve for years. This bill will not accomplish any of that. And while I am sure it will pass today, we are not done championing for you, your future, and the future of all Vermont students. After all, our children are our future. Why not give them the very, very best Vermont has to offer? They deserve nothing less. I simply cannot support h nine five five.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Essex Junction.

[Rep. Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, I rise in support of h nine five because this bill takes a thoughtful community driven approach to strengthening Vermont's public education system. We listened to thousands of Vermonters in all 14 counties. It creates regional coordinated education service areas to improve efficiency, expand student opportunities, and reduce duplication of services while also providing a clear path for voluntary district mergers supported by local input and technical assistance. Just as importantly, it aligns the financial and governance timeline so that reforms are realistic, equitable, and sustainable for districts and taxpayers alike. I urge the body to support this important step towards a stronger and more affordable education system for all Vermonters. H nine five five puts kids first, keeps costs under control, and listens to local voices. I ask the body to vote yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Arsenault, Williston.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call. And when the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey Pye Park. Bartholomew Hartley. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. I'll. Rebecca of Winooski. Yes. Byron River Gens. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley in Burlington.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Springfield)]: Yes. Boston

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: at Westminster.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Basha Clarendon. Putnam City. No. Boyden of Cambridge. No. Brady of Williston. Yes. Running in Georgia. Brigham of Saint Albans Town. No. Bridgeman. Burt West Brutland.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Burkhardt, Brattleboro. Yes. Burrows, West Windsor. Windsor. No. Burkhardt. Campbell, Saint Johnsbury.

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Canfield at Fair Haven. Carris Duncan at Whitingham. Casey Montpelier. Yes. Casey Hubbardton. Chapin at East Montpelier. Charlton and Chester. No. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. Coffin and Cavendish. No. Cole Hartford. Yes. Conor Cornwall. Yes. Cooper Conlon?

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Yes. Miss Mason?

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Corcoran of Bennington? Yes. Gritchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Venusburg?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Dickinson of St. Owenstown? Dobrovich of Williamstown. Dodge of Essex. Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction. Yes. Talking of St. Johnsbury.

[Rep. James Masland (Thetford)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Donahue of Northfield. Duke of Burlington.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Durfee of Shasbury. Eastes of Guilford. Yes. Evans of Springfield. Yes. Feltus of Linden. No. Galfetti, Berrytown. No. Galfetti, Garifano of Essex. Yes. Woman of Rockingham. Yes. Goodnight. Butterborough. Yes. Ghost in Northfield. No. Granting of Jericho. Yes. Greer Bennington. Yes. Greg Fairfield. Gregory Burditt? No. Burlington? Yes. Higley of Lowell? No. Holcomb of Norwich? Cooper of Randolph. No. Potenavess Exjunction.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Howard of Rutland City.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Hallander Rutland Town. No. Hoyte Hartford. Hunter Manchester?

[Rep. James Masland (Thetford)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: James in Manchester? Yes. Kasinski? Burke? No. Keyser? Rutland City? No. Kimball Woodstock? Yes. Kutner, Burlington? Kornheiser, Butterburrow? Yes. Cresno, South Burlington? Yes. Labour of Morgan? No. Lallie Schauburn? Yes. Malone, South Burlington? Yes. Lamonta Morristown? LaRussia Franklin? Yes. Lipsky of Stowe?

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Logan of Burlington?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Long and Uffin? Yes. Long and Melton? No. Leaders of Lincoln? Uno of Saint Albans City. No. Maguire of Rutland City. No. Mollie of Pittsburgh. No. Marquardt of Coventry. No. Aslan of Thutford. McKenna. McCoy. No. McGillard. Yes. Nicholas of Milton. No. Mollie of Callis. South Burlington. Yes. Morgan Ela Milton. Ela Milton? No. Morris of Springfield?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Morris of Bennington? Moro of Boston? Yes. Roeke E Putney? Yes. Nelson of Derby? No. Nielsen of Brandon? I grew up Bennington? Martha Fairsburg. No. Moise Wilkert. No. Newton of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Tonbridge. No. O'Brien of Burlington. Oliver Sheldon? No. Olsen at Stark Sparrow? No. Page of Newport City? No. Parsons in Newbury? Haso of Colchester? Yes. Pintinol Dorset? No. Potts of Hunsburg?

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Morristown)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Carris and Waterford? No. Bridget Burditt? No. Bridget Burditt?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Tunbridge)]: No.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Quinby of Linden? No. Rachel's in Burlington? No. Secooitz and Randolph? Shy at Middlebury? Yes. Scully at Burlington?

[Unidentified Representative from Ferrisburgh]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Sheldon at Burlington Middlebury? Yes. Sibeli of Dover? Yes. Susie at Barrytown? No. Southworth Of Walden? No. Squirrel of Underhill. Steady Milton. Stevens of Waterbury. Yes. Stone of Burlington.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Sweeney of Shelburn.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Gregory Greg Burkhardt. No. Taylor Munden? Tomlinson? Tory Morton? Yes. Walker Swanton? Watts of Secondary City? Yes. Waters Evans to Charlotte?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask, House Clerk]: Wells Of Brownington? Wells Of Brownington? White And Weitzfield? Yes. White Bethel? Yes. Winter High Blood Low? No. Woodwater? Yes. Morristown Casey Hubbardton, Christy Hartford, Gina Burlington, Deborah Debbie Dolanagan, Donahue Northfield, Nielsen and Brandon, Parsons in Newbury, study Milton.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: For purpose of explanation, member from Burlington.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: This bill shepherds strategic iterative change over a realistic timeline instead of employing a blunt instrument that is unlikely to produce the outcomes we desire. The process it outlines authentically engages Vermonters in charting their future. H nine fifty five puts kids first, keeps costs under control, and listens to local voices.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from panel.

[Unidentified Representative from Pownal]: Madam speaker, the biennium begin with an exhortation to shock our public education system, creating five supervisory bodies and mandating school closures in our front to both rural Vermont and good governance. Its severity was based on one year of school budget votes, and that legitimacy was later on validated by performance data that turned out to be faulty. Fortunately, x 73 in this bill, nine fifty five, knew this process more appropriately, measured and not panicked, thorough, not slapdash, informed, not presumptuous within our towns and not just within our capital. In h nine fifty five, we have a comprehensive alignment that leans on each of the resources we have in the legislature, the agency, and affiliated state boards to proceed with our eyes wide open and our process secure because transitions take trust and trust takes time. I am voting for h nine fifty five because nine fifty five puts kids first, keeps costs under control, and listens to local voices.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Rockingham.

[Rep. Leslie Goldman (Rockingham)]: Madam speaker, I voted yes on h nine fifty five. I represent Wyndham 3, which is in the Southeastern part of our state and part of the Vermont Learning Collaborative, Vermont's first CISA. This collaborative is new, but already showing savings for districts involved. Is very encouraging. In addition, it is important to me that the bill does not mandate mergers, but gives money to support facilitators for discussions for mergers at the local level, and those discussions will proceed with deliberate slowness slowness from the bottom up and not top down. H nine fifty five sets the path to establishing the foundation formula, addressing our school construction problems, and revising our tax system. H nine fifty five puts kids first, keeps cost under control, and listens to local voices.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Jericho.

[Rep. Edye Graning (Jericho)]: Cooperative education service areas reduce cost. Coordinated professional development is better for our teachers and students. Regional assessment districts reduce the tax variability between neighboring towns. I'm proud to support h nine five five, a bill that puts kids first, keeps cost under control, and listens to local voices.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified Representative from Burlington]: Our goals are to ensure every Vermont kid gets a good education and to reduce costs. Act 73 was a hypothesis that the foundation formula and forced district consolidation would do that. We tested the foundation formula against the data and it passed. We tested forced mergers against the data and against Vermont public opinion and it failed. So we swapped it out for a different system that stood up to that scrutiny. H nine fifty five is a good bill that I am proud to support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member for Middlebury.

[Unidentified Representative from Middlebury]: Madam speaker, I support h nine fifty five because it creates a thoughtful, deliberate roadmap for changing our public education system. Real change is hard, and this bill does a good job of moving us forward together without the forced mergers the governor is insisting upon so we can have a public education system we can be proud of. H 90 nine fifty five puts kids first, keeps costs under control, and listens to local voices.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Waterbury.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Madam speaker, I vote yes. As someone who's partaken in this process before, I can say with confidence that h nine fifty five along with the preceding act 73 represents the most thoughtful deliberation our on education reform since act 60. Lowering taxes and improving outcomes won't happen overnight nor should it. Adjusting our education policies and reforming our funding system will take time and this bill is another chapter moving it forward. It puts kids first. It puts taxpayers first too, and it gives us the best chance to keep costs under control and our standards high.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Moretown.

[Unidentified Representative from Colchester]: Madam speaker, I voted yes to move forward carefully and collaboratively as we construct a secure future for our schools, students, and taxpayers. H nine five five puts kids first, keeps costs under control, and listens to local voices.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And member from Charlotte.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Madam speaker, I voted yes because I'm optimistic that facilitating voluntary mergers will lead to accomplishing our goals for Vermont students. H nine fifty five puts kids first, keeps costs under control, and listens to local voices.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 79. Those voting no, 62. The ayes have it and third reading is ordered. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Are there any announcements? Member from Burlington?

[Speaker 33]: Cabaret's in one week. Get your skits to the member from Charlotte or else. Thanks.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Member from Polkney, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Friday, April 17 at 09:30AM?

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Friday, 04/17/2026 at 09:30AM.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You have heard the motion. Will the house please come to order? You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes of Peter have it, the ayes do have it and we stand in German until tomorrow at 09:30AM.