Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: We're live.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Okay, we're back. We have another short break and hope for the last forced one anyway. So we're continuing.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: That's good. John Gray, absent legislative counsel. We left off at the bottom of page 80. Was last describing section 77, whether there'd be no difference because it's exempting school construction expenditures from the supplemental spending path, no change there. The Senate added at the bottom of page 80 the new section 77A. You'll recall that the House had included language to update the ballots for supplemental strict spending to address some of the sequencing of bond authorization, then a one time authorization for supplemental district spending, getting a separate ballot for regular supplemental district spending to distinguish between school construction expenditures and other kinds of expenditures covered through supplemental district spending. The update that the Senate made is to amend the section of statute that actually spells out some of the ballot language and process related to authorizing that bond. So separate from supplemental engineering training itself, this is that bond authorization and it ties back to the sequencing problem we were talking about that's resolved in the aid application section. So what you'll see throughout are a couple of strike throughs and updates to AOE cross references, some cleanup changes to reflect the new state aid program. And then the big changes really begin bottom of page 81 and leading on to page 82. There's a disclaimer that goes out with the ballots. Currently it talks about state funds not being available and that the district would be on the hook if that page is not available. At the top of page 82, you see new language added to that. It's gonna be in bold text on the ballot. And it says funds to cover annual debt service costs on the bond shall be raised through the supplemental district spending tax and any bond indemneness incurred for school construction shall constitute an ongoing obligation, not subject to annual authorization of supplemental structure spending. So it's trying to draw out the interesting sequencing for doing school construction in the world where you need to do supplemental structure spending. It additionally provides at the bottom of page 82 separate from the ballot itself, but as part of an informational hearing, language estimating different possible supplemental district spending tax rates, making a number of assumptions based on different aid scenarios. And so the idea is that information is being made available to voters at the time that they authorize the bond, which again is not the time that they authorize SDS.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: So this is when they're voting on

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: the full, they would be voting on the full authorization, not knowing what state aid is coming. And it's letting them know you might receive different kinds of aid and this is conceivably how it might affect your supplemental petition pending tax rates. But as you see at the top of page 83, you would also clarify to the voters that these are estimates, it is based on assumptions and future rates would vary based on current conditions at that time. But it's slightly different than the current structure where it's almost, you can't really estimate what future tax rates would be under the current structure. Section 78 is the supplemental district spending ballot language that I was just talking about. And I would say that the way to explain the differences between the chambers, really the core is the same. It's trying to create two different ballots, one for regular SES and one for sole construction. And the Senate just kind of simplified the language, and that's what you see at the bottom of page 84. The kick in for your regular vote is if the board determines that the district should raise funds to cover expenditures other than annual debt service obligations on outstanding capital indebtedness, then this ballot. And then it says what the ballot is. And one thing that does on page 85 is you see that it clarifies to voters that even if they don't authorize supplemental district spending in that year, they would still be subject to whatever supplemental district spending tax rate is required support any ongoing annual debt service costs.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: It continues to keep the sort of two separate.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Exactly. And that you see a different lead in, it's the same concept. It spells out some of the timing for the one time authorization. It says if the board receives a determination of aid and prior to issuing any bonds for school construction, so before incurring that actual bond of indebtedness, present for a one time authorization SDS to cover those annual debt service costs. And similarly on '86, it does kind of a converse of what we just described. It says that if you separately approve any SBS, note that the rate you receive in that ballot will be the total rate required to cover that vote, plus any annual debt service costs. So it's making clear to the voters that they're kind of a special kind of something you want to extend it. Section 79, we are now at a full conforming sentence and we're jumping to quite some of the explaining, correct things related to foundation for transition measures and reports. There's just a conforming change in section 79 to repeal section 41 from Act 73. This is the valid language for supplemental spending. There are now sufficient changes in the Senate proposal that you need to repeal and replace. That's what

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I put on there.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: But it does preserve the ACT 73 language. It just updates for the additional pieces we just talked about. The remaining sections I'll speak to, sections 80 through 82, I think are all transaction 80 metrics and the blue resolve bits. These are continually effective for FR30, which is what the Senate proposed. So it's a one year evaluation and that's what you see reflected in the high level in each of fiscal years from 30 through etcetera, etcetera. It's your EOP transitions. It's your SDS cap transition. Your homestead property tax rate transition, I can

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Except for the foundation formula goes into effect in 2029 incentive version. Exactly. Exactly. So at the bottom of page 87 and section 81, it still says

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: 30. The blue is off, and I can update these.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Oh, you just is that

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: It's Okay. Yeah, you're good. Mean, best to clarify. I can update those. Okay, sorry about that. So that's your current ethnographic fee. No subsequent financial data exactly as in Act 73. It's exactly the same separately across both chambers, just accelerating that year. Similar concept for the homesick property tax rate, transit and reporting. While you see this underlying, this is technically the same substantive language as is in Act 73, it's just pulled out into a new section to be separate from the transitionary measures. And that report of the homestead property tax rate transition would now come 12/15/2027 in the senate proposal. Similarly in section 84 and on page 89, the homestead exemption structure report could come 12/15/2027. Those are updates to timing in all cases just accelerating by year. Section 85 does have one substantive tweak. These are the changes to membership and direct roles to the Addison Advisory Committee and the changes on page 91. It adds as a new directive for the committee to annually recommend Subdivision 6, the appropriations required to fully fund each school district's educational opportunity payment under the family formula for the current and upcoming fiscal year. This is essentially a check to see, has the general assembly followed the math of the statute? And so you would just multiply the most up to date student counts by that base amount and you could check the work of the legislature and say, you fully funded the foundation formula has contemplated in set you or alternatively, if you didn't, it would say you didn't. And then you see that update to timing, accelerating the first meeting by one year. This comes a little bit after the foundation formulas kicked into effect. So there's not aids in the transition to the pilot program, it's something that comes in after work, that kind of technical assistance. On '92, we have the effective dates, and these have been spoken to, I think, throughout the presentation, but the accelerated effective dates. It really touches the tax policy pieces outside of regional assessment districts. So property tax classifications related provisions, and then it touches the foundation formula and the onset exemption all accelerated by year 2021 with FY '30, 07/01/2029 as the big date.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Ask you about the date change here?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: The date change, all the date changes? For transition.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: I don't know if

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: we want to do that right now or not. But have we? Did we? We have not. We've

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: discussed the big date change.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Do you want me

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: to walk through it? Yeah. Sure. Is that the sorry.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: That helpful? Yeah. Okay. Well, as I said on the floor, and as most people tell, the date for the start of the foundation formula, the governor has, in our negotiations with governor related to the forced mergers situation and the contingencies, the governor wanted to not have voluntary mergers and also wanted to remove all the contingencies. That was not a feasible option for the legislature. The contingencies, as you all well know, are very important to many people in both caucuses and both houses. I think it's important to Vermonters. And, yes, and to Vermonters. And similarly with not forcing mergers, we heard that loud and clear through lots of testimony in the education committees, but also the redistricting task force and throughout our conversations with constituents. So pushing back on those requests, what the governor requested was to speed up the timeline for the transition to the foundation formula so that it would go into effect on 07/01/2029, which is what it originally was in Act 73. Or what is in Act 73 is starting that foundation formula. And on July '29, doing so means that we needed to change the timeline for the merger committee process and all of the associated things, and also the vote on when communities would vote on their proposed mergers. So this timeline, which is the combined timeline, I think we can look at this. So in order to make sure So the vote in the House version of the bill would have taken place on November 2028, which is the presidential election and general election for 2028. The in order to make sure that we still had a election date that would have maximum voter turnout, but also be able to accommodate this change in the foundation formula effective date, we moved the vote to town meeting day of March 2020 So any of the proposed mergers would have to have a vote on that day, so that everybody in the state whose communities have recommended merging would be voting on that same day. Ballots would be mailed. So it would be universal mail in ballots. And it would be a local election, which is when we're used to voting on school issues anyway. But it also would be a presidential primary election. So there would be a lot of incentive for people to go out and vote from across the voting spectrum. So that changes the timeline to make sure that and this is a really detailed timeline. So passage of the bill, hopefully soon. And then the CISAs become effective with appointments made within thirty days and the first meeting held forty five days starting in July. So there's CISA work over the summer. Starting September 1, the facilitators for the work of the merger committees would have to be hired by the one existing CISA so that they would be getting that up and running. School districts would identify members to participate on the merger committees. And the people would be assigned to merger committees. And the first merger committees would be held by October 15 of this fall. And then just talking about the merger stuff, they would have until just 09/01/2027 to submit their final reports to the agency of education with their recommendations. In between that October '6 and the September 1, there would be a lot of work happening. There would be various reports. And I can go into more detail if you want. But various reports, there would be work being done by the tax department, of course, as we're moving toward that. Work being done on the district quality standards and rules and the grand list and merger committee status reports. And of course, the merger committees themselves would be doing a lot of community meetings and analysis and trying to figure out what their path forward is. Of course, if somebody wants to come in early, with their merger study report, they can come in as early as possible, as early as they're ready. And that is hopefully what will happen so that there's not too much of a crunch. The merger reports are due. They're first reviewed by the Secretary of Education. She would have thirty days to review them. And if she doesn't make a recommendation, they still would go to the State Board of Education so that there wouldn't be a holdup. Also local school boards would also review them at that time. And they have, I think, sixty days to review them. And then by 12/15/2027, the State Board of Education would have to issue its final findings and approval of the new merger proposals, as well as the articles of agreement, because the proposal comes with an articles of agreement and who are advisory and, necessary districts in the whole merger. And in the case of the districts that have the four CTEs districts that are independent, a recommendation on what to do with the CTE district as well. So it's a pretty tight timeline to get that all done in the fall. We're gonna have two really, really busy falls, let's just say on this work. And then once that's all approved, the ballots would need to be printed and gotten ready to mail and the warnings for the election dates, the voting dates. I believe it's 03/07/2020. Yes, 03/07/2028 is when the vote would take place. After the vote, there would be the normal thirty day, I think it's thirty days where somebody could petition for a revote, just like any other election. On March 7, the new school board members would also be hired. So after that, board members would start to get their new district up and running while the existing school boards also are present and working on running the existing school districts. So there would be this year of overlap with multiple boards, just like what happened in Act 46. This is not a new process. Wanna reiterate, this is something that school boards and local communities have gone through before, and it's using the existing statutory process for merging school districts. On 07/01/2029, if all the contingencies have been met, as we discussed earlier, we've passed legislation that meets the contingencies, and we are clear of the intent, or we being whoever is here in this building, then the foundation formula would go into effect.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Can you talk through the so between when the new board is formed and elected, how and the new superintendent is hired, how much time do they have to develop the budget for the new project? The Is it like a year?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yes. Yes, they would have the next year. The budget for FY for that current year would already be in place. So for FY 'twenty nine would already be in place. And then they would have a whole year to develop the budget. Hire a superintendent. Sorry, I skipped. But yeah, hire a superintendent and work through the new budget. So we would have to have the foundation formula set so they know what they're budgeting to. Essentially by July 1, we would need to know what the foundation formula is going to be so that districts can use it to make their FY30 budgets. And we would also need to know the tax stuff so that we can anticipate the tax rates and everything as well. So that's all embedded in the timeline. And then there's some regional assessment district stuff that happens after, as Kirby noted. That's always been the last thing that happens. So it is tight, but there is There's still a budget cycle. There's still a full budget cycle between when the votes happen and the new formula goes into effect and the new budgets happen. Yeah. And by the way, there's a mistake on this because under 07/01/2029,

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the senate does not have prohibition on fees for tuition. So the senate version has an x on that. Right.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Correct.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yep.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So that, and then this is the border where that just has some school stuff on it, not all the tax stuff.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: But

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: it will be a lot of work for local communities and new school boards and the tax department for that matter. But it seems to be feasible to make happen. And I think our communities, they asked for, they wanted to have voluntary mergers. So hopefully, they will be up for the process of working toward those possibilities.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: One of the areas, it's just the more detailed one, and this something we may just need to make more explicit in the language. It sort of reads like the state board has from December 1 to December 15. Yeah. I think we just need to make clear that the the reports could go to both parties, and then, of course, the secretary isn't going to just sit on all of them until December 1.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yeah. I think that's that is a good point that want to give them more than two weeks to do their work.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: They can just become because the reports are due September 1. Yes. So one would hope that they'd be sort of reviewed by the secretary in batches and they can go to the state.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yeah, the secretary of the state board and local school boards should be all reviewing them simultaneously, Yeah.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: And we can clarify that. Great.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thank you. Emily just stepped out for a very quick moment. Yeah. I just would like to echo what Emily said earlier and some appreciation for a lot of the work you've done. She noted some areas in school construction. I look at things like process for adjusting CISA boundaries, which we did not have included. And then there were some other smaller areas, but just sort of like, if you picked up on this, picked up on that, found solutions for it, and definitely appreciate that. I think we've got a few things to work through, but as we were flipping through the pages, there's a lot more commonality here than there is difference. So probably we're ready to, at some point, dive in. I don't if we sort of caucus first at this point, I'm playing it by ear. But anyway, you know, we can sort of go back and revisit some of the things as well, or take the things

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: that were- I think

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the big, you know- You close.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: In some ways, the big move on our part was to adopt your framework. Yeah. Because it was very different than ours. Well, very different, some different. And for our committee, for the head committee to move to CISOs was a of a major shift. We moved in that direction and be interested in the company.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Appreciate that. And again, much of this, someone gave a lot of just of things that were caught that are great, and I appreciate that as well. Without the visual here, and I should I'll get some copies of the map I had created made for us tomorrow. I could just sort of talk over some of the the differences in in those areas. Mhmm. Just forget some some wise.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Anyway, we wrapped up, I

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: was expressing appreciation for many of the smaller parts that had been picked up on.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Yeah. A lot of this is some of our best work that can jump in between two chambers in terms of you guys added a lot of polish.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Is there an area that you all or we all would like to address first or talk about? Or maybe we need to do a little talk and just say, hey, let's check off this, this, this, and this, the things that we finally can agree on.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Yeah, I think that might be helpful to come back together tonight.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I don't know what our

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: I mean, were there areas that you you had mentioned areas that you had questions of. Do you want to do those now?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. I mean, we basically sort of

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Wait.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: That's all

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I I sort of flagged them as they came along.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: But you have to go on the floor

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: at about five Yeah, I'll get a text at some point. I'm not sure when that's gonna be, if there's a lot of bills in front of us. So from a timing point of view, just come back at six Let me say 05:30. It's only a quarter of five Are

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: we gonna Will you have the maps to look at then?

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Oh, I'll try to get those, yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yeah, that would be very helpful.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We don't have print shop, I don't think at

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: this Could I just make copies in a

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: large lounge?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I don't know if you

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: can make it that big.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: I did. That's where I made it.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Oh, yep.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: That's where I got this one from.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: That's perfect. Okay. Okay. Alright.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: just did this in the Ledge Lounge earlier tonight.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I will send those to you to have my trip.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. Okay. Cool. So where did we jump? 05:30.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: 530?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: 5530?

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. It's yeah.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. So we'll come back after 05:30.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: And I will say, for the record, I'm covered on childcare this week. Certainly. My wife's leaving the state with the kids. So

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. Call me back?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Oh, okay.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Sweet. TV day.

[Jana Brown (Clerk)]: Maybe that's not

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: so good. Alright. Okay. So

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: in this room at 05:30.