Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kate McCann]: We're live.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Okay. So as Beth is coming up, just a couple of things to say. We appreciated your response or your offer of 1.1, and found it to be a good fit to move things along. We accepted what you have When you speak about the map, your changes, we accepted, except we moved Mill River back up into Rutland. What's that? He moved Mill River, as you and I discussed. No.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: The SU? Yeah. The whole SU, all the towns, everything. Or just The four it's a four town SU. Who's in that? Tidmouth. Whatever's next to Tidmouth. Tidmouth?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: No. No. Let's stay here. No. Yeah. Think the other

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Well, we can look at when did we get to it?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We can look at that. I'll But here. Then we just did some we just made some language changes to your suggestions. Beth to keep this, but

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Patient's got a speaker.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We wanted to make sure as we

[Rep. Kate McCann]: I'm sorry, my earrings seem be beating throughout the day. I don't know

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: what that No, people say that I'm It's

[Rep. Kate McCann]: not just you. I need a

[Tina (Committee staff)]: hand to speak up really well.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Okay. And it is me. I don't speak loudly enough. So we talked about the map, and we'll take a look at that in particular. And then if you go to page So page one, we didn't change anything, as you can see, because there's no yellow highlighting.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: No, no, we did actually. There it is. This is Yeah.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Didn't get highlighted, okay. So instead of little on eight, I mean, line eight.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: I have no idea where we are.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Page one, line eight.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: There's no highlighting.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: It should be high, just

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Okay, so little ii?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yes, yes. And we wanted to make it clear, so we're thinking about the examples of districts on the border between the two, and they really wanna be over in the other one. And this is just making clear of them, to them that they can do that. They don't have to ask the facilitators permission. If that's where they want to go, they can go. And that relates to the email, for instance, that we just got from about then

[Rep. Kate McCann]: I think we should bring down the speaker. I think we should just carry

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: the hall

[Rep. Kate McCann]: conference later. Okay. Do you guys feel that? Don't know. We have to go.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Oh, I was

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: trying to match. Was trying to match her.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: The last time.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: The with regard to the average class size, the the What about average class size? Minimal class size. So, we wanted to make sure that we're not just gonna end up with all general classes.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: I'm sorry, didn't we do this already? This is a repetition of what's in Act 73 for exceptions. Thank you. There's more to it. So,

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: repeated what's in there for the average class size in this definition section. But then we added, again, wanted to make sure that there's room for more, we added C, specialized or targeted academic opportunities. So that those would not be countered against. Can I

[Rep. Kate McCann]: add a little bit? So A the and B are already included in Act 73 as exceptions to the class size. The class sizes don't apply to those. And what we were trying to come up with was to address some concerns about seminar courses that may be intended to be small or specialized classes that may be offered for short time or that are not part of the regular curriculum, but maybe for lack of a better word, seminars. But we didn't feel like that was exactly what it is. So specialized or targeted academic opportunities. And we came to that language by looking at what's already in here for special ed, which is Supplemental

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: or targeted.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Supplemental or targeted academic intervention. And this is not intervention per se, but specialized opportunities for students. I think there was a concern that we didn't want to exclude the possibility of a school district doing a special class that maybe is for example, in our area, Virgin's high school offers German. And it's a pretty specialized class and it's fairly small. And we didn't want them to have to cancel their German classes because of it. So that's what this is trying to cover. And if you have a better idea of how to word it, but this is what we came up with to try to get at that idea. Is that fair?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yes. Okay. And then the other parts are really just moving the districts around. And I want to think about, and I hadn't thought about the Windham or to the Mill River, but we have tried not to break up districts. Okay? Move all

[Rep. Kate McCann]: of that. Was Was it up or was it down? I can't remember.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Up until the couple. Because the old time has happened to me.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: I'm sorry. I mean, can we backtrack just for a second? Did

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: you

[Rep. Kate McCann]: are you accepting the language that we gave you on the definitions? Yes. Something on page three? The definitions I guess you jumped to page four. Right? Yes. The definitions are your language on definitions. But we didn't have Beth add the specific language that you suggested on definitions. But yes. Yes.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Great. This

[Rep. Kate McCann]: was just our proposal of other things. But yes, we were comfortable. And the class size language that you have in here

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: is, I'm assuming, saying we're okay with the current schedule of class size minimums coming in,

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: but we'd like this language added to it? Yeah. Well, I you know, we're really nervous. But, yes, if we're defining minimum class size this way, but we're not, then we're just defining average class size this way.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Act 73 uses the term average class size. Is that right?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: That's St. James, Office of Legislative Medical. That's the question.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Act 73, when it talks about class size payments, does it use average class sizes? I'm pretty sure.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: So when we're talking about Act 73, we're actually talking about

[Tina (Committee staff)]: Section 165. Subdivision A9 reads,

[Rep. Kate McCann]: this

[Tina (Committee staff)]: is what you have to do to comply with education quality standards.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: The school complies with the average class size and minimum standards.

[Tina (Committee staff)]: And then it says, provided, however, that once class size and minimums apply to content areas, an individual class may be smaller than the minimum average. So, for example, foreign language.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: It would be all of the classes for your foreign languages. So, if your German class was just two kids, it wouldn't necessarily mean you'd have that German class unless for some reason that bumped the average down so much that it took you below the class size average in that content area.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: I don't think we need to go any further. I think my question was more the proposal you have in front of us for letter C, in what context is that being offered, guess I should ask. What do you mean? Well, was no difference in our languages about class sizes. I don't see the definitions, or were we class size minimums?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: I think Class size minimums. Class size minimums.

[Tina (Committee staff)]: Yes. This

[Rep. Kate McCann]: is to try to allay some concerns about the implementation of those in the interim period. So I think And we'll yeah.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Go ahead.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: So the class size minimum delay is out, and this is in.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Is that what the Well, yeah, that's a Yeah, if we have If we're not forcing everybody into just general classes. Yeah. That's what this is about.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Was trying to broaden So that we're feeling more comfortable about it going and staying in effect now if this language has been Which should provides the exceptions.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Is that

[Rep. Kate McCann]: fair to say? Yeah. I know you're still yeah. Don't know that we ever got a paper copy of your proposal or if I missed it in all of the many papers I have. I frankly have absolutely no idea if someone's dirty. Our proposal is a short four pager.

[Tina (Committee staff)]: Oh, it is clear. Have three random on here. That's it. 1.1.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yep, 2.1.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Oh no, this is not. This is our proposal. This I is a house for me, right? Does this have Yes. Sorry, apologies. This is theirs. That's St. James 01:04PM. Is that right? Yes. That's right. That's a lot of hours.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: All right. So then the rest of this is good with you. And yours is the counter to that. So I think it's not addressed.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: It's not really a counter. It's a combo. I think we're offering this to combine with yours. Okay. So you're accepting the things so you're accepting the currencies and the

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Yes, in your language about the tuition going into effect. Those are affected with what people language about. And

[Rep. Kate McCann]: we're So I think then we need to confront.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Yeah, we should probably defer. But I did ask Ledge Council to add in something that we had talked a little bit informally yesterday about, very simple, about when the final reports of the merger committees is complete, that report be transmitted to everybody at the same time.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Right.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Holding on to all of them.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Yes, that's a good Right. Thank you for remembering that. There are a couple other miscellaneous things in the school construction section that we haven't gone over. I don't know if John has that draft ready. John does not have that draft ready. I think John's confused about what draft we have.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: We could probably talk to Ruth if you wanted to talk to them.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Okay. And then we could have Beth to talk about an ad too. So you can

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Yeah. What's your timing?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: We're waiting for editing. Okay. Oh, the language about if a school board member is appointed to a merger committee and then loses their seat on a school board That would be great. Please add that. Yeah, we want to add that.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Oh, and then that school board would get to appoint the next

[Rep. Kate McCann]: That they would have to appoint a replacement school board member, that you have to be on a school board to be on a merger committee.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Okay.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Yeah. Is that what we want?

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: I you know, and this question did somebody brought it up to me as well because it's like, you got you're losing longevity or whatever. And I was just like, oh, you could be a school board member or designee. And I'm like, it's really it's really complicated. Thanks.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Yeah. It should be a school board member, I think, because they're actually elected and can be unelected if they're not doing a good job. Yes. Right? Yeah. Or or whatever.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Did we want to talk about

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: the wards for Dobrovich?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We kind of did. Is that part of it? Think the

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: wards for Dobrovich. Yeah. Think our Did incorporate it?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Well, it didn't incorporate it, but it says that they could, that school board could vote and move over with

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Oh, so we don't wanna change it just so it's automatically layered? That's what they request.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: As long as they can do it. Empower. Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: All right. You guys wanted to confer, and I'm going to We

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: can talk through. Okay. We can

[Rep. Kate McCann]: talk it through. We can talk through it right now. Sorry. Don't have a break. Do you want

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: to talk

[Rep. Kate McCann]: about, John? Yeah,

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: I think so. But do you want to

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Maybe we should take a minute so I can talk to John. Okay. Great. So what do you mean? We're gonna have a quick

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: We're gonna cross them.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Yeah. We're We're back here. I got one. Sorry, guys. We're set up

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: with mute up.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Too many things going on at the same time. Okay.

[Tina (Committee staff)]: Can you meet?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: We are live and unmuted now.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: All right. Do you wanna do your thing? Say something, and then I'll take us through these? I can Through the The things that John has drafted on. Go ahead and

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: move on to the discussion.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Yeah. One thing, we were, to bring us back to class size minimums. In sort of the shuffling around, there was language originally in the miscellaneous education bill about delaying class size minimum sort of clock ticking until rule rule making was completed.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: But that's what you were talking about. Okay.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: And if nobody has any objections, I've asked Beth to put that back in.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: It's funny because Seth was telling me this, was like, I don't remember this at all. It was all in between our two teams. Okay. Okay. Great. Awesome. Perfect. Good middle ground there. Okay. School construction, if anybody wants to follow online, starting on page 70 of the side by side, these are the changes that I have asked John to make, he's drafting them. So I'm walking through them. On page 71, section 66A, changing the appropriation from $900,000 to $800,000 for the school construction aid special fund for the Facilities Master Plan grant program. Was that a sarcastic one? No, it's not. It's we shouldn't change any of the numbers in here. I was asked to Oh, great. Thank you. Great. Thank you. It's a daily budget. I was like, my god. We are changing this. Yes. They're all on board. Came to me and asked me if we could take $100,000 to get a budget. And I said yes. Is that in the table that I approved earlier today? I think everyone jumped up and down. Thank you. Okay. Sorry, I panicked. No. No, you're Okay. Then if we flip to page 79, this is the legacy debt aid section. Is Section 79 or page 70 Page 79, section 74 Thank you. Legacy debt aid. There will be added section about an appeal to the Secretary of Education about a facilitator identifying a bad faith participant. The appeal, and it's a May appeal to the secretary by 02/15/2029. So that would be their report, the facilitator report is due in December 2028. So they would have until February 15 to appeal. And then the secretary would have until 05/15/2029 to make a determination. Then In forty five days? I don't know. It's just months and middles and 15s.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: You said February to May, right?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: February to For the first one, you said December 2028. It's December 1. February 15. February 15. February February 15. Okay. It was mainly because there are holidays in there and there's lots of stuff happening. Okay. We need the determination That's more than seventy five days. Thank you. It's a lot of time. Okay. Good. But we need the determination made by July 1. So we needed to have dates in there so that nobody took too long. Yep. And there would be language that says that the appeal, the secretary's decision is final, and there's no appeal after that. And that the secretary would be required to create policies surrounding how it's done so that there would be some guidelines about it. And then also changing this date. Yes. The date would go to 12/31/2024. Thank you. Okay. And then in terms of the legacy debt aid, the 25%, what John and I thought was the most elegant way of doing it is just changing the definition of supplemental district spending to include the 25% of legacy debt that is not covered by state aid. And it would just change the definition. It would be that way from the very beginning. There would be no vote. Everybody knows that that's the definition. The debt has already been approved by voters in a previous vote years before. So we don't want to risk the possibility of no vote, but it would just be included in the definition. And it would reference this section, Legacy Debt Aid. Thank you. Okay. And then there are two cleanups. One is there was a study committee reference that needs to be changed to merger committee. And then there was a reference to the treasurer and debt authorization. And we need to change oh, that's on page no. It's not. Anyway, I can't remember where it is, but it's changing it to CDAC Perfect. Which was what was requested by the administration. Yeah. And also just. And also the way of addressing to tests. So those were the changes. And I don't know if I missed anything, John. Okay.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: Give me one minute. I can put the word up that has these things.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Does that leave anything else? Do we have any other open issues from there?

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Maybe we can ask the table if there are any anything that's clear.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Did we lose any details, Tina? I don't think

[Tina (Committee staff)]: that we'll definitely obviously, we'll cancel.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: I don't think that we'll be able to give

[Tina (Committee staff)]: you a final answer on that until we actually put something together

[Rep. Kate McCann]: for a checklist. But you don't have anything in your top of your list? I literally don't have any in my head. Okay, great. Okay, thanks. So I think then all that's left is the

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Yeah, I mean, first of all, it's been, I would call very

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: collaborative and great.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: We remain, as I think many folks, accelerated timing of adding a year, picking off a year from the time to make this process happen. And I say that understanding the political, sometimes there are political necessities, and we're willing to accept that. And also understanding that this is a multi year iterative process that we'll always be needing to be

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: working on as we go through.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: But I think we've got ourselves in a full agreement here, and really glad that we were able to put it together without much else besides just good collaborative talk.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Thank you. Yeah. Thank

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: you. So probably should have a

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: nice little shake on it and then we can come back and sign.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: And we need to go through a draft. Don't want to shake on it, but we have a draft.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: That's And we can

[Rep. Kate McCann]: have a-

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Thank you.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: That's great. So

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: we can go off, Daphne.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Do we want John to show us that Word document just for

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: when ready. Oh, okay. Not off.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Hello.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: Again. I am with the Apple Sports account. Just

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: a second. Make sure I got this right. So these will obviously be renumbered, they'll be part of a full package but just for purposes of building the school construction language. Section 66 A which is your facility's master plan grant program, this replaces that $900,000 appropriation with the $800,000 appropriation. Thanks for doing that. Leads up the reference from study committee to merger committee. Section 68A is the intent language that sets out the general assembly's intent not to provide aid until a number of conditions have been resolved. One of those conditions is the report on state bonding support. Previously that was offered by the treasurer, now for conformity it's offered by CDEC. The legacy dev aid piece, this is probably the most substantive one to talk about here. You have a cleanup from study committee to merger committee. We have the change to 12/31/2024 to align with the excess spending exemption that's been talked about, which is technically worded differently, but the dates perfectly aligned. The new pieces are here on page two, and you see that on or before 02/15/2029, a school district that is identified as a bad faith participant in that facilitator report may appeal the facilitators determination to the secretary of education in order to receive aid under this section. And then on or before 05/15/2029, the secretary of education shall determine whether each school district that submitted an appeal shall receive aid under the section. That determination will be final, not subject to appeal. And the secretary shall develop written policies to implement the appeals process under this subsection. I think the dates were chosen to ensure that this information is out there sufficiently in advance of the foundation formula rollout and to provide the secretary more time to review any appeals, assuming the school districts will have every incentive to submit this appeal as soon as they can, if any school district is subject to this determination. The last instance is the amendment to the definition of supplemental district spending. It's the existing law or in the future, simple non district spending is that spending that voters approved in excess of VEP for the fiscal year. But now it will be plus the annual debt service costs on any legacy school construction debt, not covered by legacy debt aid pursuant to 16 BSA 4,033. So we have a cross reference to the legacy debt aid statute. The hope is that that tie in means you can leave this term legacy school construction debt without further definition. But if you wanted to substitute a pluck the annual debt service cost on any school construction debt that exists as of such and such date, you could do that. But I think this is the tie, it's your legacy debt aid. Your legacy debt is not covered through the legacy debt aid provisions. And the advantage of this, as you guys have already discussed, is that it pulls it in for the math. So it doesn't subject it to any further authorization.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: And this would also cover if there is a bad faith factor and they get no aid, all of their debt service would have to be done on their supplemental district spending. Thank you. Yeah. And that's it. I think I got everything. Great. Thank you. Cool. So we're all just going to wheter about until editing.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: So one more thing just to I'm sorry. Yeah. Just to note that he had agreed on this almost, I think, but Beth forgot to put in this this draft, that the fee study goes adheres to the foundation for middle.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Yes. Just in the beginning there. Yep.

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: And she's doing it now.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: She has it. Thank you.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: I also have one more. I was just thinking about it. I couldn't remember if we had done it in some of the findings with the numbers.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Oh, yeah. The one that finding out. I think it's two findings actually.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: Yeah, was two.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Oh, was it two? Let's take them out. I can't verify those numbers. Which I'm only aware of 120. Oh, okay. Was one with two numbers in it.

[Tina (Committee staff)]: Okay. Yep. Yep.

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Number four is fine. Just take care of it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So just to, like, traffic control, we're gonna mill about. This is going to drafting they're drafting and editing. Yield is in editing. So if you can't find me, it's probably because we're over there. Senate plans. Yeah. Getting close on that one.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate conferee)]: And so then we'll just await Daphne's official emails saying, come on back. Does that sound good?

[Rep. Kate McCann]: Yeah. Yeah. Can you hang on to it?

[Rep. Peter Conlon]: And we will be knowing about talent and easy to find. Thank you.