Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Rep. Emily Long]: And you're on.
[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Once again, back to h h four fifty four conference committee on May 30. You'll have to wait. Alright. When you have okay. Trying to do a little bit of a bit of a reset here from our recent journey that departed fairly dramatically from this, while acknowledging some of the concerns that came up on that. So sort of getting down into the bargaining part of this whole process, We've some proposed language and just overall proposals for you to look over. Emily will talk about the first bunch here to lead off with. Why don't you go ahead?
[Rep. Emily Long]: I know there's significant concerns about pieces of the formula that have not been explicitly accounted for and policy decisions that still need to be made, such as CTE. And so just being really clear that as we study career technical education and figure out where that money needs to go, that we're not exceeding current spending levels on the system as a whole. And then on special education. And this is something that I know is really important to the administration. And I think should be important to all of us. And we've talked about to be clear that when we are studying special education and looking at those weights, that we're exploring different ways to do it. And that those new weights only take effect contingent upon a real look at making sure that they work essentially. And I can sort of detail the three sub bullets, but it's, they're all just sort of various ways of making sure it works. That we're reducing the extraordinary special education costs that have grown exponentially over the last few years. I'm really, you know, year over year. Whether special education weight should be enacted. In a separate study, we're studying various ways of doing special education weights and an analysis by the agency of education about maintenance of effort and maintenance of financial obligation requirements. My understanding is actually those federal rules, I think just changed today. And I've become more flexible, which I'm not sure if it's good for kids or not, but it is perhaps easier for the financial analysis needed here. Section three.
[Rep. Peter Conlon]: So section three, we are proposing to accept the language that you proposed on page 17 of the side by side. We had previously proposed adding in the the going before the state board. We're going to remove that and accept the language you proposed in your in the first round of proposals. The concern over secondary weights, adding it to the larger draft of 4.1 to include a study of secondary weights in the Foundation Formula Study, specifically calling out secondary weights. We are willing to accept the faster timeline of one year, assuming the enactment of the house property tax classifications. Emily, why don't you take number six?
[Rep. Emily Long]: And fully appreciating everyone's concerns about how all of these different pieces are gonna fit together and what that experience is gonna be for household budgets. There is a study pages one hundred and seven and one hundred and eight already in the proposal, asking the Department of Taxes the year before this is enacted to really check back in again and see how all these different pieces are fitting together, and whether promoters will be better off on the other side of it. And adding to that, examining the effects of allowing voters to approve spending more or less than a district's education payment would be calculated. And if any town's tax rate is predicted to change significantly, which my understanding is either your top concern, then the Department of Taxes should recommend a solution to mitigate those changes, which the General Assembly would then consider. We discussed various, like more extreme contingent options and could not come up with one that felt right. But if you have one that feels right, please feel free to offer it.
[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We have the same discussion.
[Rep. Emily Long]: Okay. And so
[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yeah, it's kind of steering us back to the center here, recognizing the concerns you've brought up, adding some concessions, and I guess it is there for your consideration.
[Rep. Emily Long]: Want And to sort of just add separate from this, while we've all been working in this room all day, all the people from the administration and JFO and all the various consultants have all been sitting around large spreadsheets projected on the wall together to try to make sure that we have consensus on numbers that are going to work for everyone. And there might be we might need to make some policy clarifications and tweaks in order to get to that. And those are pending. Okay. Are those likely to come in this evening? Yes, indeed. Everything's coming in this evening, Senator Cummings. I would say fourth whip. My pizza's being delivered at 08:30. I love that for you. At my house. I do hope that your husband can walk it over. I can also order you a pizza directly. Okay.
[Rep. Peter Conlon]: I think let's take a few minutes. Say 08:30?