Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Good afternoon. Here we are in Ways and Means. It is Tuesday, March 17. We are beginning our work for the week, which will be many brief moments with many bills from other committees. Really, again, encourage folks to take

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a look at the bills that

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: are in committees that you are the liaison for. And if you identify something that you think will need amending, please let me know sooner rather than later. Thank you. So we have everything that we're going to need to cover for crossover on our agenda, to the best of my knowledge. There'll probably be one surprise. But right now, there are no surprises. Shouldn't have said that out loud. So today, we're doing school budgets updates. As per the usual, we're going to look at some amendments to the Medicaid School Based Services Program language and ideally vote and move that on to the Preparations Committee. And then we have H. Nine thirty one, which is another education bill, which we have quite limited jurisdiction over in terms of why it was sent here.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: And then the yield bill. We're going to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: wrap up by 04/23.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: With that, Kelly, would you

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: like to join us? Thank you.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Hello, everyone. Kelly Murphy, Education Finance Director. I'm just going go ahead and share my screen. So I've got the memo that's included online for you queued up here. So I just want to start off by saying that we get most of the budgets in at this point. I'm happy to report that we've got 116 cubes in of the 122 that we were anticipating. So I'll get sort of the report out on that. But the bottom line is things changed ever so slightly. We were at 4.2%. We're now at 4.15%. So there wasn't really a dramatic change adding those budgets in. We are still monitoring pretty closely for the thirty day petition period. Also, just taking into account the failed budgets, which we still have in this presentation for update. So just getting along into the bullets. But before I do, I also want to note another change that we didn't hire. There was a change to the long term waiting file. It came to our attention that we had not captured Newberry census data correctly. And so what had happened is when we got that census data and we included Wells River in that number. And as a result, it was throwing off the sparsity and small school weights. We have corrected for that. And thankfully, there was time enough for them to be able to warm their budget appropriately. So the impact of while there's a change in the weight can still be accounted for in the full process. So I did want to note that.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. My understanding from

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: the superintendent is there was also an adjustment in the Oxbow budget? Yes. So I did not pull the details for the budget, but there were changes based on sort of they even ended up getting the sparsity. Was it the same error that affected the OXPO budget that affected the vote? And they did already vote. They made substantial cuts and voted. And then how did that change affect their weighted count? So the Newberry then became eligible for the Sparx City Small Schools grant, which they were not with the census data that

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: we had booked previously. And how

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: did that affect the OXPO budget? The OXPO budget, I don't believe there was as much of an impact, but I can double check that.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: That would be helpful if you could. Right, I understand because we've talked about we're seeing what adjustments to Blue River, but I'm just

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: trying to figure out,

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: because that budget is already voted, it's not included here, but I'm curious how it's going to change or affect the long term moving the ADR tax rate.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: So I believe that's correct, right? It will include their budget. The amounts

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: have been made, the proposed budget.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: It Incorrect information. Right. So we had gone through the certification process with them and then realized in the in between years that it was not accurate. And they had certified the data? Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And then I'm going to finish my full sentence. Thank you. And then after this, just want to make sure I understand the timeline. You all certified the data jointly. They weren't a budget based on the incorrect information. The information got corrected. And then they've corrected the warrant budget? Correct.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Okay. So we got it in time, basically.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Okay. Or Woodman, but not for Oxbow. So I will clarify, I'll double check on that and come back to you with that. But I'm under the impression, based on the changes, that there is still time to mourn appropriately and to catch them in the tax rate process.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay, so can you look into it and sort of clarify timelines for us? Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That'd be really helpful. Thank you

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: for that. Appreciate that. And that data error, is that, you checking is that widespread? Are there other places where there might be data errors?

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: There was only one other place, but it was not impactful. It did not change the budget outcome. Are are you identifying errors because districts come to you? Or are you identifying errors because you're looking at data and saying, that make sense? In this particular instance, they came to us. Like I said, we had already gone through the certification process, which did capture this error. That said, we did look into it. We have identified it within the file to prevent it from happening again.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: And the reason I ask is I'm concerned about the certification process because we've had numbers of districts on our side of the state, including my own, that went to budget with an asterisk saying we've been told we have to sign off on this. So I don't know that certification means they necessarily agree with the count. And my understanding is they actually had concerns and found that, and that's why it came up. And the reason I ask is I'm also looking at table five, and just barely just jumps out at me as a district that is a pretty high poverty district should be experiencing a growth in long term weighted ADM and had, per the data you're providing here, a pretty significant decline in student counts. And I'm just wondering how a district of that size, has anyone looked into whether they've had an error there too, because it's a pretty significant decline in student count for districts we'd expect to be increasing its long term weighted ABM. So I'm just wondering if part of the process is just looking at the data to try to identify if there's patterns that ought to

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: be investigated. Sure. We'll be up for investigation. And also appreciate the questions so that we can look at them and make sure that we come back with answers. I think for the purposes of today and with this presentation, it's sort of in summary form, but if there are questions, we are most certainly happy to bring them back and also validate and make sure that we're going through the certification process appropriately. And then if there is something that's not correct or that we need to address, we will. This

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: has happened in past years as well. I think it's just for getting to really good data integrity, I think there's a real question about how I think it would help us to better understand how districts come from a decision to agree and certify and how much attention they're giving to it on that side, as well as how you're sort of scanning for anomalies before you finalize the batch. Like, in full tax tax world. Right? Like, we have all of these measures of inequity in the datasets that we can run to look at, and I, you know, I imagine there are ways to sort of scan for errors or anomalies. Yeah.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Definitely didn't scan in the process, and there were anomalies or large discrepancies. We gave a list and we reached out to those scissors, and and they also saw the issues. And so it was the two way process. We got them and they got them.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: They them. They got got

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Thanks.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Anything more on the waiting that we want to talk about? So just we'll bring back, and I've got my headphones, or we'll bring back more detail in terms of just process elements and certification. Great, thank you. Perfect. So, running through just the projections and what they represent. So, five districts now are using the projected average increase of 4.15%. We have been contacting districts to get that information in and are working through the certification process to make sure that they have signed off on those budgets. So, I guess what I would say at this point is that these are preliminary numbers. We do have most certifications, but there are a few that we don't yet have. So we're closing the loop on that as we build towards the final collection. I'm happy to report that we're almost there. We've got 97% collected and then we've got 96% of weights and the education spending. So we're really coming into focus now with having it be pretty good estimate based on warned and voted budgets. But then just moving along, there was some interest in talking about excess spending. So this next table that we've prepared are the districts that we're capturing at this point that do have excess spending. I will note that these districts are not those that are projected. So, this could potentially still change as we get additional budgets in. But what we've done here in this table, and I can provide a little more detail if needed, but the blue shaded columns are the change and the purple shaded columns are the adjustment. And so what you can see is these are the eight districts that are above the threshold. So the threshold is 16,470. That is 118% of the state average adjusted for inflation. And then when you apply that, that's where you're getting this total amount over threshold. So applying it to the weighted ADM. And then we've adjusted for education spending and then adjusted for the after you cut the adjustment in there.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Sorry. Danville was $493 in their

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: total budget over the threshold? Yeah.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: So there was one. Danville was very, very close. It's 98 over the threshold point 98. So it's yeah. They're right there. But the others are not as close. That's

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: This just strikes me as bizarre, and I don't have any explanation for it. Yeah. Because I know the Superintendent's Association, School Boards Association, and everyone I've ever talked to who does school budgeting has talked about how closely they watch that line. I imagine the tax impact of $193 is also not that much.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Yes. So we did publish the threshold when we sent out information to the districts. So, there was an awareness of what it is. But it is one of those where you're like, really? I mean, it's pretty, pretty low in the whole scheme of things. So this is where we stand today. We'll keep updating this table as we get more information. And I'm also happy to add columns. I just wanted to provide a summary for you. So then moving along with the questions. Observation,

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I think, relates to Representative Burkhardt's bill. It's interesting that four of those are on the Connecticut River in the Upper Valley. One of them, Jay, can't make cuts without forcing Westfield to cut, then it's Cain and Woodstock, which is also Upper Valley.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: I guess that's a question for me as well maybe is, J Westfield is a combined school, is there any reason it isn't addressed in that way? Just saying j.j/westfield? Separate districts just for the elementary school. There are separate districts at

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: just the elementary level, and then they're in unified districts at the middle and high school level. So this is probably driven by the elementary Okay,

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: yep, got it.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Yeah, Representative Ode. Thank you. So, I heard you say it's probably driven by the elementary school, does that, do have a commentary editorializing about what's happened here? What do you see? Are there themes? What should we be looking at? What do you have to say? I don't know these areas enough to know what's happening here.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Well, in a future presentation, I'll come back with more detail, but at this point, I don't know that I would want to editorialize until we have them all in. I'd like to talk to the districts independently just to see what maybe some of the decisions or factors are that are playing into their budgets. So I don't have an answer for you right now, but I will look into it.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Thank you. I think that would be good. Trying to

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: make policy. Absolutely. Thank you for the questions. Okay, so this next section, when I was in last, I did hear you in terms of wanting to compare education spending and also total budget. So this first set of bullets is just taking a look at the ranges for total spending, So not taking into account the offsetting revenues. And so just looking at total expenditure, there were 12 districts that decreased in total expenditure averaging downs of 4.2%. You can see what the ranges are here within the budgets, and they're pretty extensive. I do have an email or two out just to kind of understand the upper end of that range and sort of what the spending is in their budget. And then the second bullet is just showing who's up over the 5.8%, much like we were showing the education spending below. There are 34 districts that have an increase of more than 6%. You can see what the range is there. So it doesn't really tell you a whole lot. I think that probably in a future iteration of this presentation, we'll bring back more detail so you can see the trend in graphic form. Are the 12 part of

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: the 14 and the 34 part of the 38? Yes.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Of the, say 38 then, with increased ad spending and overall budgets, are those all past budgets? Like say, past the voters, they've approved?

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: I will double check, but it is the full projection. Some of them Actually, it will include failed budgets. It will. So this, again, will change once those budgets change.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: One thing I want us to be cautious of is when budgets don't pass, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next Warren budget's gonna be lower. I know that there are some pretty serious conversations happening about rewarning the exact same budget and just having a different conversation with voters. That So happened in the area.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I'll go back and just validate that they're in

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: the same groups. I wish I say yes, but I'll make sure. So then just getting into education spending, you saw this last time. So, there were 14 districts that had an average decrease of 3.7%. You can see the range there in spending. And then there were 38 districts that were above 6%. There's a little bit of a typo there. It should be 456,968 for. And so I did reach out to this district on the upper end of its range because there was a question last time in terms of what that is. So of that, 4.5, almost 4,600,000.0. In fact, there was a large bond, $2,300,000 bond that was associated with that. So would put them in a different spot within the range. If there weren't sort of a one time they do anticipate that that will carry, but then clear in '28. So within the next budget cycle, you'll probably see that higher budget change, it'll be just more operating personnel expenses rather than a one time cost associated with that one. So moving down into sort of the district by size and long term weighted AVM, the last time I did share sort of the budgets within range here. And I can do that again, if you'd like. But I also did full sort of the education spending so that you could see or hear, show it here. But just for comparison sake, so in this first budget, these are compared based on education spending. But if you were to take the long term weighted ADM of 100.5 and below, education spending is at 8.5% on average. Whereas if you took a look at the total ad spend, it was at 3.5%. So just moving through the bullets, and again, I'm happy to provide ranges of budgets here, but I'm not going to do that today unless if you'd like me to.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: That small category of districts with 100 and fewer students long term weighted ADM, what proportion of them tuition at some or all levels?

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: That is an excellent question. I will come back.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Wondering which one's at the high end. I know the high end. I guess I just didn't hear your whole question. Can you?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I just want to know of the smallest districts up here. The smallest district.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: The smallest. Thank you. Okay.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Definitely. Great. Good questions. Lots to come back with to talk about. I appreciate that. So just the next bullet, and I also should note that within this first bullet, there are 11 districts. The second bullet has 62 districts, you get 3.6% on average increase in education spending. If you took a look at the education total expense, it was at 3.8%. So, closer than the previous bucket. And then moving on to this third bullet, there are 23 districts here. And you can see that there is the increase of 4.2%. And the education spending in this bullet is at 5.1%. Actually, here, is 5.1%, 4.5 in this bucket. And then moving on to the next one, there is 4.2. They're about 3.3 in this bullet here. And then the last one is at 3.93.3% of education spending. And there are 12 districts within each of those last two bullets, respectively. So I'm happy to show this detail a different way or graphically just so that it's not

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Even just a table that had the one column was the long term weighted ADM range and one column was the average increase and then one column was the percentage change and the last column was the number of districts in that range? Much better. Yep. That would be easier for my brains.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Yes. I can definitely bring that back in that form.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Yep. It would also be interesting to, I don't know, the first one I'd be curious to know how many in each bucket have tuition at some level proportion, but I would also be curious to know if there's any way to look at demographics, particularly if you're breaking out and spending and weighted spending separately. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: So this next chart is focused on education spending. We do have something similar for total education budgets. But just focusing on the spending, this is percent change in spending compared to percent change in per pupil or long term weighted ADM. So the blue line is the education spending, and then the orange lines are the per pupil. So you can see how things look in that way. So moving on, we have the same chart in here for just the failed budgets, just to show you where they show up within the whole scheme of the districts. And so the bulk of them are in this middle column here. And then just getting on into our tables that we've been presenting week over week. So this first table or second table now, it's just showing where the budget expenditures stack up year over year. So it's 3.59% increase. The offsetting revenues is below a percent. And then the education spending is at four fifteen. 15. And those do not include the projected budgets at this time. And the second or third table, you can see what that looks like with the projections in there. And then this fourth table provides the details of the failed budgets. You'll note that only two are highlighted, three were highlighted last time. So we at least got one of those budgets in to kind of book even though it'll change. And then you can see some

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: of the

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: changes year over year, especially in the long term weighted ABM column.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Can you help me understand what's in that last column? Because it has what looks like pretty much the same header as the table by last column, but their numbers are very different. So it's

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: the way they're sorted. So this is the percent change in long term WAVE ADM, and scrolling down, let's take a look at this table. These are a little bit different. What I was trying to show in this table was just taking the random sample of the failed budgets just to show an understanding of the change in education spending and the change in long term weighted AVM. So just sort of demonstrating that there is an increase in education spending, but then generally a decrease in long term weighted AVM, which is what we were seeing. I'm so thick, I did not understand

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: It has almost identical titles. One is percent change in long term weighted ADM, and one is long term weighted ADM percent change. I'm trying to understand. Let me just give a definition of each of those so I understand why they're different. Yes. So

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: I think what I was trying to show here is the change in long term weighted ADM, That's what we're seeing up here.

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There was a carryover here.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: I'll look at the back end data for this one just to clarify. But what I was really trying to do was show the changes in long term weighted ADM year over year.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: I think recognizing my ballot language from the various school districts, this table for the change in spending per long term weighted ABM.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: And then the second table, you'll see

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: a percent change in long term weighted ABM itself. Yes. Yes. Thank you for saying that. I appreciate that.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Was too coincidental for them both to be.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Yes, there was an intention here. And then this table was much larger, and then I shrunk it down. I just Just trying to figure out because we're using the same headers. Okay. That makes sense. Okay. Yeah. So just trying to provide a little bit more detail in terms of what those budgets look like. And then the purpose of this this last table, is really just to show the changes in spending versus the long term WAV ABM percentages.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And where it says change in long term weighted ABM in the second to last column, that's

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: So these are the actual counts. Okay, that's what I'm saying. Representative Branagan had asked in the last session about her home district, and I just wanted to show the number. So there is a change of 37.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I was scanning through that recently, and some of the percentages that were very striking to me were also

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: 10 sometimes.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And so it was it's helpful to see them next to each other. Thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I think that's a really important observation. The reason I'm perseverating the fair is it has between 3,500, 3,700 students, but it's got a one year change of two sixty, basically, long term weighted AB Act. And I think the premise of the larger districts has been that it would provide stability, and this just seems to fly against that. And I'm just curious about if there's must be an explanation for why this district lost 262 kids in one year in long term weight baby m, but it would be helpful to know just as we think about our conversation. That seems like a very large one year, and I noticed Windham Ski was another one that had big year to year swings. It looked like they were high, then they were low, and then they bounced back to where they've been the previous year in terms of total count. So it's just curious to figure out what's causing those big swings and what we think of as bigger districts. Makes sense.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Thank you. Go ahead. Two questions. They go in different directions, perhaps. One is representative Holcombe asked a few minutes ago about which school's tuition. And it would be good to know that because it may give us contrary experience. We have different answers, you know, a different perspective, and I'm just curious about that. And then the other one is rural versus urban, which is there's a lot of discussion about about rural schools. Yes. We can assume First question is that they're generally small, but I don't know for sure. I mean, I could someone someone could go down the list and check small, small, small, not small, small. Yep. I'm just curious to know how that

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: plays out. Okay. Is there

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: a way to do that easily or relatively, but it's not tuition, also, some some small schools end up small towns tuition and others don't. And we don't have in front of us enough information about the cost.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Happy to bring

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it back.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Sounds like $10.95.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Your life more interactive.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Wanna caution. So we have that information on the table, the rural urban thing, I think we have to get clear on how we're defining those two terms. It's open fuzzy question. Yeah. Is if you're putting open fuzzy questions into tables, open fuzzy answers come that we think are definitive. Which brings me to my I it's very easy to draw conclusions from scanning a table and thinking that there is something statistically significant there, thinking that there's a definitive conclusion there. And I just sort of caution us to be careful. I think scanning the table helps us understand what questions we want answers to. I don't think it provides us answers. That's great. Yes. Thank you.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: That's right.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Kristen Burkhardt.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: One thing that might be helpful is, and I know we're trying to simplify, but adding a column or two, it sort of says this change in long term weighted ADM, how much of it is change in actual students and how much of it is change in the weights of those students? Because that's what I've been hearing anecdotally from districts in my area, that especially when it comes to certifying whether kids are considered to be in low income households, has become more complicated since we went to universal school deals. And I know that we've had testimony that that shouldn't be a problem, that there's a certification process that can be done outside of that. But I didn't get a clear answer from the two business offices that I worked most closely with. I think they could probably use help in laying out how much has changed in student students, or how much has changed in rates, and which rates we're seeing those trends in. And probably not just for the failed budgets, because there were lot of budgets that passed that just barely passed. And have some of these same issues of big swings in long term weighted ADM driving part of that, because you're seeing your ad spending for people go up, which of course then makes your dad's rate go up. And we did

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: ask Rosie and the school nutrition team when they were in about how the impact on changes in Medicaid are going to affect the direct certification process. Because I think there's places where there might be errors, but there's also places where all of the ways that we are counting students might be changing because of federal changes. We need to move to a new agenda item fairly soon. So I just want to flag that for folks and representatives.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I appreciate this. And I think that's part of my request. It's just that there's a lot changing right now. And if we don't have the information, I'm really curious to see the weights for tuition students, for example. Because if we don't know what that information is, I don't know how we anticipate and plan for a transition. I think that's why you're getting all the questions. In terms of the variability, whatever, the balance, it worries me more when it goes against what we'd expect. So when you see, for example, Springfield and Barrie having huge declines in long term weighted ADF, when we know that we're phasing in, I would expect my district to be losing tax capacity. I don't expect Barrie and Springfield. So that's where I just wanna make sure we're being careful with those children.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I don't know what also don't know what to expect with Barrie. I know that Montpelier has gotten really expensive, and a lot of folks who might have previously lived in Montpelier have moved to Barrie. And so Barrie is I don't wanna use the g word for it, but incomes might be going up in Barrie, and that is, you know. But to

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: the extent that declines in rates in historically higher challenged communities are declining, I think we want to do due diligence. We just want to make sure that we know what we're doing.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: And even with those incomes coming up, we have lost probably There are a lot of folks who called it after the second flood. Sorry, there are a lot of folks who called it in terms of living in Bay Area after the second flood and said, This just isn't worth it anymore. And there are folks being priced out. So I would not, even if the average income of folks in Barrie is going up, I would not be surprised to find that the overall population has gone down. And I know that early college numbers in Barrie have increased as well.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: And Springfield was another higher challenged community, which is a little farther away, and I don't think has had flooded. So again, that's another one where we want to

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: go up.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: That's all. So yeah, definitely warrants more.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you have any final

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: thoughts for us? Thank you for all your questions. This is

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: really what think Ted and I were hoping for, so that we can bring back useful information, and so as we get on, bringing it into focus for you and also bringing back things that you can sink your attention. So I really, really appreciate it. Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So we're not going to go right from school budgets update to the yield bill today because of schedules. And so we're going to move to H-five 58, an act relating to Medicaid school based services program. We took testimony on this a few times, including from school business officials and the Agency of Human Services. Last we worked together, we were talking about an amendment, which I've asked Jen Carvey to draft. And so she's gonna share that amendment with us. I don't even remember if you walked through the original bill with us, Jen. You did? Great. Okay.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Great. Look at us on it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay. So Jen's going share the

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: amendment with us. And then

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Morgan Daybell, who is a member of the School of Business Officials but from a more rural district, is going to join us as well.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Afternoon. Jen Carvey from the Office of Legislative Counsel. So I would put this language up. It was posted on your web page, and it is draft 1.6. Lots of various versions going around. So this is a strike all amendment to H five fifty eight and act relating to the Medicaid School Based Service Program. This would add a new section one that's amending an existing statute in definitions in the Medicaid chapter in Title 33 that would add a definition of supervisory union and say that it has the same meaning as in 16 BSA Section 11, the same meaning as in education title and includes a supervisory district. The definition at the beginning of title 16 says it includes a supervisory district and when the circumstances clearly intend so or something. So I'm making it clear. Then we have what was Section one becomes Section one a. We're still in the Medicaid context here, Medicaid chapter. This is the language we've looked at before on the Medicaid School Based Services Program, giving legislative intent that the state maximize its receipt of federal reimbursement for medically related services provided to students who are eligible for Medicaid. And also that Vermont School Based Medical Assistance Program comply with all federal Medicaid requirements, making Agency of Human Services as the state Medicaid agency solely responsible for determining and maintaining program compliance. Then in subsection B, this takes out one of the subdivisions, it just becomes one sentence. The agency of education shall be responsible for coordination of the school based medical assistance program with statewide education policy and objectives and for communicating with supervisory unions. And this would strike the language saying that the agency may specify the use of program funds received by state education agencies. And you'll see some changes in that statute that is cross referenced there. So that would come out and the role of the Agency of Education would be coordinating the school based medical assistance program with statewide education policy and objectives and communication supervisory unions. Then it would direct the Agency of Human Services to adopt rules to identify the services that are available through the program and set the requirements for supervisory union participation. And a bunch of things in the language we've looked at before that would be included as far as state and federal requirements in the rules around Medicaid reimbursement. This would add in as a request from the Agency of Human Services, participation in a random moment time study, which is a term of art, and an electronic health record system, and then continuing on with Medicaid cost reports, provider enrollment and trainings, service documentation, Medicaid eligibility, and anything else needed for compliance with the Medicaid program. But then in the bill, as you've seen it before, the Agency of Human Services would support supervisory unions by funding and providing the technical elements of the program needed for federal compliance. And this would add language requiring supervisory unions delivering medically related services under this program to participate in a random moment time study and an electronic health record system as directed by the Agency Services to enable Medicaid billing of Direct Health Services and Medicaid administrative claiming activities. This was language requested by the Agency of Human Services. Section two does not make any changes to the School Based Medicaid Reimbursement Fund. I don't believe you mentioned it. So it's still established as a special fund. Actually, it's moved over from Title 16 to receive federal reimbursements for medically related services delivered under the Medicaid and School Based Services Program. And money that the state receives pursuant to this section would get transferred into the fund to be administered by the agency of FEMA Services. This would direct the Department of Home Health Access to pay 55% of the federal reimbursement monies generated by the services delivered in each supervisory union under the program to that supervisory union based on Medicaid cost reports, service claims, and Medicaid administrative costs, and then submitted by the supervisory union. And here up to 25%, and you'll see a new section coming up afterward that modifies that. But to start, up to 25% of the federal reimbursement monies generated by the services delivered pursuant to this program would be available for the administrative costs of agencies of education and human services related to collection operations and reporting of the programs. Requires the agencies to enter into an MOU, setting forth the processes by which the Medicaid reimbursement monies for administrative costs and statewide programs are allocated to each of the agencies. It allows the secretaries to expend monies from the Fund only as appropriated by the General Assembly, and any remaining funds at the close of each fiscal year would get deposited into the or transferred and deposited into the Education Fund. Section three is a new section. This would amend that 25% of funds that go into that would be going into the fund and available for the administrative costs of the agencies. This would reduce that percentage to be up to 20% starting in fiscal year starting in calendar year, sorry, 2027, so fiscal year 2028. Section four makes some changes in the Title 16 provision. So this is where the special fund and use of funds currently lives. And this takes out a lot of the language and just leaves it with legislative intent. So it has similar language as far as stating the intent of the general assembly that the state maximize its receipt of federal reimbursement for medically related services provided to students who are eligible for Medicare. And it is further the intent of the General Assembly that each supervisory union identify special education and other students eligible for Medicaid reimbursement, and to the extent possible, submit Medicaid compliant cost reports and service claims, and that the Agencies of Education and Human Services work with local school districts to maximize reimbursements, including services to non IEP students. And the rest of this would be struck, including language that was not struck in the bill as it came over from House Healthcare, directing how supervisory unions would use funds received under this section. And under current law, it says they can use them to pay for the reasonable costs of administering the Medicaid claims process. And school districts and supervisory unions must use the funds for prevention and intervention programs in pre K through grade 12. And then the bill was going to add some language and instead this provision would just come out. Along with adopting rules, there's really nothing to adopt rules on here if you're not dictating how they are using the funds.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: The idea of being, just to add some context for folks, there are a lot of rules for what can be built in the first place. And so there's no need to control it on both ends. It's already been tightly controlled.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Section five would require some stakeholder engagement and implementation. This would require the Agency of Human Services to collaborate with the Agency of Education, the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, Vermont Council of Special Education Administrators, and school district officials in implementing changes to the Medicaid School Based Services Program in accordance with this Act, including both providing structured opportunities for input during the phased implementation process in order to address challenges and risks in a timely manner and minimize disruptions, also focusing on geographic diversity to ensure that the implementation process is responsive to regional variations in needs and capacity. This would move the effective date from July 1 to October 1, which had been, I believe, the request from the agencies, except that that reduction in the percentage of reimbursement monies available to the agencies would take effect on 07/01/2027.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: One

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: piece that sort of the amendment that isn't in here that we're I'm trying to figure out, Jen's trying to figure out, Rebecca should figure out, is sort of all of the conversations that we've had with the agency, that FASBOs had with the agency of human services, not IUE, is that this will be for money coming down from Medicaid than under current law. And cannot figure out exactly what that is yet, because there's a lot of work to do to get there. Would like to put in some reassurance that it will not be less money. We can put that in intent language, but we want to make sure that we aren't running afoul of federal Medicaid rules by putting it in statute. And so Jen's looking into that. We might need to have that get finished in the appropriations committee. They're gonna need some time with this. So that's sort of the oh, so we could put it in intent now and not have it have teeth and ask the preparations to have it be finalized and sort of send them that sentence. They're gonna need to do a little bit of work on the bill anyway in order to have sort of all of the numbers shake out and match up with the budget. So that's a question on the table that I hope you can figure out before we're done with this today. Does anyone have any questions for Jen about the language? I have yeah.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I'm so very concerned about this bill, really, just because we have a terrible track record of implementation of complex change. And at the same time, I realize it's important that it has to happen. One of the things that it still doesn't do is address or at least consider a phased implementation. And I don't know if that's because of the urgency of the transition, but one of the advantages of doing it in a phased way, it lets a smaller group of districts troubleshoot before you try to push to scale, including into districts that may have less capacity. I don't see that here. I appreciate what the chair is saying. I think there's a couple concerns around the fact that this is more work districts, possibly, potentially. And also, it's assuming that they will pick up revenue from non IEP services, and that will cover whatever may happen on the IEP side. It may end up coming out positive for districts financially, but we don't know that assurance. And particularly given that there's such a tight timeline for the rules, but there's no tight timeline for any of those other Medicaid and non IEP related services, it's an exercise of faith. And just given our propensity to mandate very rapid change without attention to all the other things that we're asking, I am extremely concerned about this.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Is there something else you would like to change in the language in order to have more assurances?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I think I recognize it's phased. I think increasing the percentage for school districts potentially, because if this really is gonna be more revenue, we should be able to do that and still hold AHS harmless.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So this is increasing the percentage for I wanna take this one at a time just to make sure we're working through it. So this is increasing the percentage for school districts.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Would bump it to 60. If it really is going to do what AHS says it's going to do, there should be more capacity. Then the I just want catch up with

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: what you're saying. So I'm asking you to slow down. So the first thing you said about a phased approach. So AHS said they were doing a phased approach when they told us about this in testimony. That's how it's described in the presentation.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We did add some language around input during the phased implementation to address challenges and risks in a timely manner.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: There more language you'd like to add to address that?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: The reason I was trying to put a phased approach into statute is I'm not sure collaboration to them looks like collaboration to everybody. We were told also that they've been collaborating with districts about how this would roll out, what services were involved. And what we heard after the fact is that districts have had a chance for some of them to preview the platform. That is not collaboration on an implementation plan. So my point is, if you really are worried about a high stage transition on a very consequential program, people really need to pay attention to implementation science. And I don't see that in here. I just don't. And so putting in a phased approach is a chance to just really say, we're very serious. You need to run this through a subset of districts and figure out if it's going to work and make adjustments before you go forward. Because what we don't want to do is rush it, right, as we're trying to rush through all this other stuff. Can you bring up the language about the phased approach? Okay, so then maybe that's it. You're just very worried this program. And then I would love to see attention to the piece that you're talking about,

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: that you mentioned that you're saying may be worked on in appropriate issues. So I think the question is,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: just wanna so getting a follow-up CMS is, like, definitely not the thing to do in this moment in history.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: And so

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I was wondering is percent agree. So what I'm wondering is, do we wanna put in intent language, or do we want to just ask appropriations to more add definitive language where we can get more feedback from AHS on that?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I think we need to get feedback from AHS.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Do you want to ask appropriations to do that? However we can do it.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I think my point is, I'm not saying we should put bad language that hasn't been vetted in here now. Just saying we have to take this seriously because falling afoul of CMS can happen in two places. It can happen at AHS, it can also happen in the field. And if we don't pay attention to implementation, we will follow-up that in the field.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Anyone have any other questions? Any questions for Deb? Yes. I just want

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: to say, I was very concerned about this, the update that we're in the When the basketball came and I just said, Oh my goodness. Then I asked some questions. And so between what you're asking to make some adjustments with and what I was able to ascertain, I feel that going forward this would be appropriate. And I don't know, I hope that maybe informally, can ask house appropriations to let us know if I'm in Scotland.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yeah, we can even ask them formally. I mean, with email or something. An email rather than it's in the

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: wall. Absolutely, thank you. That sounds good. And even if we ask them, they may find out something from the madness and we don't get what we're hoping for. And I'm just saying, I'm very concerned about the sheer volume of transition we're imposing right now from the very high level of potential risk that comes with that. And so I just want to make sure that this is critically important. It involves huge amounts of money and we need to do it right. Yeah, agreed. I just want know what's planned from beyond that. Not aware of everybody.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: History is telling us anything,

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: so it's easier to break something than put something back. That's an easy point.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you very much, Jen.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I appreciate that. If you could remove the highlighting, I think that would be great. Yes. And we're going to

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: hear from Morgan about I'm actively trying to get an answer. I know they are. Everyone's doing

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: the best. I know they are. Yeah. Thank you. Hi Morgan! It's nice to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: see you, it's been a really long time.

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union)]: It's nice to be back.

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm sure you really missed us.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: for having me.

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union)]: I, for the record, Morgan Daybell, I'm the CFO for Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union. We are a union of two districts nestled up against the Canadian border. I know that you heard from Heather Bush and Nicole Lee last week, and I am happy to see that with the amendment that you just went over, that has largely addressed the concerns that they brought up. So I'm thankful for that. I will also add, it's a theme that you've just been discussing, that there is certainly a lot of agenda around this in the field as well. We, in addition to what had been brought up, and I know Heather spoke about the challenges of a billing software change from her experience, want to put on the table that the AOE folks on the Medicaid side in some of the easiest interactions we have at AOE. That's a really smooth working relationship there. So I think people are worried about losing that in addition to the timeline of the change and what we think is going be a big lift in terms of training up our staff. And we do appreciate the increase to 55%. We would be happy to support Rebecca Holcombe and giving us more. Not only that it has more coming into the district, but less kind of going into that big Ed fund bucket, which is an easy target in some years is also appreciated. I think that you had some questions about the program with rural districts perspective. So I'm just happy to take those if they're still on the table and do my best to answer that.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Yeah, I think that part of that came from me, and it wasn't actually so much about rurality as there's differential capacity, for example, designated agencies, for example, to support some of these needs in different parts of the state that may not be a function of morality, but may be a function of something else. And I also know that there's been a change from bundled rates to bundled services and the change in how people contract with DAs in some regions. And I wonder how those changes will feed in or interact with this transition as well. I don't know if that's an experience you have in your region.

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union)]: Yeah, I can't speak to the second part. Certainly, we have had struggles with the designated agency, and I think it's largely a struggle up here just in terms of personnel capacity. So we know that we're all having trouble hiring folks. And in the past, we'd often been poaching staff back and forth between the education and the mental health agencies. And it's a pretty limited pool that we are working with up here. So I think that's certainly a bigger challenge than the Medicaid program. That's really a structural challenge for Vermont.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, that staff pushing back and forth between the two happens in my region when we have a much sort of wider multi state employment pool event.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Yeah, I don't disagree. I think that when you systematically underfund designated agencies, you create a shift into school districts. When you are simultaneously in some regions and there is some correlation between school based Medicaid and poverty level districts, and we are also increasing the weighting with the funding available, you are also creating an incentive to pull all of those services into school districts. That may be good for kids. It may not actually be good for the state. And I think that's my concern.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And I know that the health care committee took some testimony on that last year, and I don't know how much more they'd taken this year. It might be worthwhile for someone to spend some time talking to them about it. Yes, Representative Lee. And I want us to focus ourselves on Morgan while Morgan is here. I

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: understand if a school district is serving those needs, they serve the child only, but if it's a designated agency, they can work also with the families. That is my understanding correct.

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union)]: I think that's the theory, but I think where you have weaknesses in the system overall, we are the, let's say, building of last resort. We're the ones that are not going to turn those students away. So we are focusing on a lot more than school and the school day with some of these kiddos.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: And would you say that this is exactly one of the reasons why school spending seems to be going up?

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union)]: It has certainly been an impact in our district.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yeah. And when we took testimony about that comprehensively last year, the year before, that was definitely one of the big, it was sort of the post COVID, one of the big drivers. No, thank you. Morgan, so can you summarize your remarks in closing for us, Sure. Seeing that I have no other

[Morgan Daybell (CFO, Franklin Northeast Supervisory Union)]: I will say that the reason for the change here is way above my pay grade, so I don't want to wander into that. I appreciate the changes with this amendment and keep your eye on making the transition as smooth as possible because it is a big deal for us and it is a not insignificant part of our budgets.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you very much for your time today. I really appreciate it. It's nice to Sure thing.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Thank you. Julia, are you able to share some instances about the physical and toxic stuff? Sure.

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Afternoon. Julie Richter, JFO. So there aren't any documents about this on the committee page under my name. Just wanted to share that we, JFO, myself and a number of my other colleagues, have been in close communication with both AOE and AHS to understand the overall fiscal implications. I would say that the primary implications from our understanding is really from a budgetary perspective, in which, because this program will be moving into AHS, but the Medicaid dollars are being used within AoE's budget. At the moment, there needs to be some accounting shifts from the budget perspective in order to ensure that both AHS and AOE remain whole following this change. So I would say from that perspective, in the very short term, it appears to have a de minimis impact at the overall picture to the budget. As to if additional funds may be able to come in from this change in the random moment time study, I defer to AHS on that. That wouldn't be happening in FY27, so we wouldn't be booking any of those additional revenues to the education fund. Guess I would say the final piece, which gets to the Medicaid monies going back to school districts, the stronger the parameters that exist around those monies going back to school districts, the stricter the use of those funds and how they can or cannot be used within the district's budget. So it's just something to keep in mind. Happy to answer any questions if anyone has any.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's really wrecked a record. Thank you.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Sorry, as I'm looking back at my notes, I'm a little confused. Representative, all of them said, Better to have it be a greater percentage, maybe up to 60%. And our last witness said, well, he likes that idea. Where is the rest of the percentage going to HHS if they're administering the program? So that's probably a good question for Jen. Some of it's going to She can maybe come back.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So some of it's going to HHS for administrative. That's why there's a one year delay in the implementation of the percentage changes. And then some of it's going directly to the Ed Fund, and some of it's going directly to districts.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And Jen Carvey, legislative council.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yes. So one other thing I would say as you're pulling it up, Jen, is that what we're seeing here is a pretty significant it's an increase in how much is going to districts over current law. It's just not as Is

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: it 5%? Well, that's what we'll Board votes?

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Jen Carvey, legislative council. So 55% would go back to the districts, up to 25% for the first year, and then going down to 20% would be available to agencies of education and human services related to administering, collecting, operating, and reporting on the program. And then any balance would go into the education fund on an annual basis. In the existing statute, this is why I said sort of, under existing law, you can see it crossed out, the supervisory unions get 50% of the funds, not the 55%. And and then there's a whole additional amounts. If they exceed $25,000,000, then some of that can go elsewhere. And it's a it's a bit more complicated in current law, so I'm not sure it's as easy to say. It just goes from 50 to 55, but but it goes to 55 for the districts, 25 and then 20% will be of up to will be available for the administering agencies, state agencies, and then the unspent amount of so was that seventy five seventy five to 80% depending on the year. So 20 to 25%, I think, automatically goes to the Ed Fund, and anything unspent from the agencies, the state agencies up to administrative percentage would also go into the Ed Fund.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I guess I'm concerned about the Ed Fund getting so much.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: I mean, this is actually supposed, I would think, supposed

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: to really be targeted to the children who need your services to the schools who are providing the services so I can see that you have to have some administrative costs so I don't know if this is a reasonable amount compared to other states or not or compared to what? I just don't know how to compare those administrative costs to what they could be. And I don't know why any has to go into the education.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: For the AHS administrative question, I'll say that that is sort of the minimum amount that they feel comfortable with. That's they're just starting to administer this, and that also is sort of more of an appropriate Appropriations is good at shaking that part out. For the split between the Ed Fund and the districts, I'm gonna have Julia jump in.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Yes, please.

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Julia, gonna jump in? Not at all. Under current law, there is a portion that is going directly to the Education Fund. So if you look at the Education Fund outlook, you literally see a line in the sources section that says, I don't remember what it says for beta, but Medicaid reimbursement or something. And that's that share that's automatically going to the education fund. The other portion that's going to districts, can also think of as going to the education fund because it's reducing the amount that the school district needs to draw directly from the statewide district fund. So I would say it's really a question as to under current law, how those Medicaid dollars are impacting the local district's tax rate rather than where they're going strictly from accounting perspective. It's how the Medicaid dollars are going to districts and how that filters through.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Well, I'd say, it's really sad that I'm very happy to have people disabuse me of this notion. I don't really like this so much going to the end, but it's supposed to be to help the children in the district where they live, supervise the union where they live, put

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: it into

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: the Ed Fund then we use it in the end, does that eventually just drop down to extra money and then we use that to

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: lower property taxes? So the Medicaid transfer, which is that, I don't recall if it's being changed in Milton Ridge, the Medicaid transfer to the Education Fund.

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's just the sweeping. I mean, have Ashley's slide, if that's helpful to I put up think

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: that helps

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And Bonnie's for them.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I don't

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: know if

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's helpful to show. I think it's not a big change. Some of it's not a big change from the way it works under current law. I'm uncomfortable

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: with this.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So I guess what I wanna offer is given that the administration of this is very the ability to administer this is very, very different from district to district right now, both just like under current practice. Are working to part of this is about making really reducing the friction for districts and making it easier. Under current law, I don't think it would be fair to essentially send all of the Medicaid dollars we're able to pull down to districts just based on really how well they can manage the paperwork side of this. As this is implemented better, I think that would be a very different conversation because we could create more equity in how it's spent. The money is spent regardless if this is for the good of the kids. Well, maybe then.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: And so in a future year, would love to shake it up. What I might suggest is that the amount over the next four years or five years that goes into this, into the Medicaid reimbursement line decreases each of those years so that at the end of a certain number of years, it's all except for the administration going into the schools. So no matter how, if it

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: goes to the schools directly or it goes to the Ed Fund, it's still going to

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: the schools? Yeah, after you accept Because if you had, yes and no, if you have 100% of your kids are eligible for Medicaid, but you don't get 100% of what you could be getting, and in another district, it's a made up district, 0% goes to kids qualified for Medicaid, then everyone is helped and everyone takes advantage of that extra, may I say slush fund that falls down into that line and gets used by the ed funders lower taxes. I think that the reason I would think that we would have that money is to directly give services to those kids. We're losing a lot, we're losing, I'm not telling you, I'm saying, the more I'm thinking about this, the more I'm thinking that it's money to administer, maybe we should have in this law a declining percentage, and maybe we have an increasing percentage that goes to the schools and doesn't go into that line. And that if I would like solve the problem, I would say, can we put that language in here? Then people could always come back to us and tell us how this is impossible, but if we have the expectation, it's more likely to be met and the funds will more likely to be going to where the need is.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm feeling very like final hour, we need to move the bill's air traffic controller right now. I'm just naming how I'm showing up in this conversation.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: It's not long.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: No. I'm just staying where I'm coming from. And that this is all very new and a lot of transition. And so doing something like that next year or the year after might make more sense once we actually have any idea how much money we're talking about.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I felt like it was risky that we

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: were into changing the percentages at all, given that we're not sure how much the new work may be

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: able to draw down. Representative Holcombe? Just one last, to me, this isn't about the percentages or anything. It's about the main overarching, what's your vision and mission here? And if your vision and mission is to get the money to the kids who qualify, then I think this is not right.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So the kids who qualify get the money regardless. It's whether it's how the reimbursements are going back to districts afterwards.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: That's a big deal. Yes. Representative Holcombe?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I'm comfortable with waiting. The reason I had suggested bumping up at least my transition to 60 is because this is a lot of work. I mean, there's a lot of retraining and it can always be revisited. And the challenge, there's two challenges that I see. One is we are, don't know what's coming out of Calc Ed, but some of the things they've been talking about might support regional shared services. This is a case study and the kind of thing that ought to be done regionally, not at the local district level, and we just don't have that receivership for it currently, but we may have it in a little bit. The other piece is that I think the challenge around this is if it's not in districts' interest to bill for Medicaid, they just won't do it. I mean, I sat there, we ran the numbers, and was it cheaper to try to get Medicaid reimbursement or cheaper just to hire, you know, do it in house? And they will make that financial decision. Do they stop it's percentages? They pay attention to all of this, and I think we don't know, the problem we have is we don't know the regime we're going into, because we don't even know what services are gonna be eligible. So we don't even know what that's gonna do in place. So I think the thought, I think what I hear the chair saying is, we know we're gonna have to revisit this, And maybe what we need to do is start the transition and then see what those services are and have a better sense. If we can bill back for all kinds of non IEP related services, we could have more money than we have currently.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think we're imagining we're gonna have more money. And I think at the point we've realized that we have more money, then changing those percentages makes sense. But we also don't wanna increase, this is, I don't think a year that we're looking to reduce the amount of revenue going into the education fund either. I just, my question is, is it

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: a year to slightly increase it because we've seen over there driving up education? This bill will increase education spend. Will, it has to, because they're going to have to hire someone to support this transition. Somebody has to do this work. Everything we do costs money.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Representation. Jen, you don't have to sit there.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, did that. That's okay.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Well, maybe I didn't sleep well or had a bad weekend or something. I'm following the witnesses on the representatives on on your side of the table very clearly. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: But but at the end of

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: each section or something, I'm still unclear why we're doing this. Of the whole bill? This section or seven sections or something like that I can follow, I can see more money for kids, I can see costs going here and there, I can get reimbursed. If it doesn't, what's the benefit at the end of the hour?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: The benefit is that it should significantly reduce the friction for Medicaid billing for districts, which is very high right now, and should be able to draw down much more federal Medicaid dollars when it's implemented. Should also increase our compliance. That makes sense. Yes, it does. I

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: get it.

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So, Ode, are you

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Of course, I'm gonna support this, but it's not my favorite, and I prefer to have something built in here with Burkhardt. Would too. Not just language, because it will force them to come to us, whoever they are, and say, can you help us? But leaving it like this, now it's to me just easy money falling to the bottom line, and I don't appreciate it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think it's still hard money falling to the bottom line, but I hear what you're saying. Hard money falling to the bottom line. What I would like to do in an ideal world, if the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: committee is happy and willing

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: to do this, is we move this bill as amended, and we work on a few things that we're asking the preparations committee to put a little more tightening around. How does that sound?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I'd like to see it again, though. I mean, not now, I mean, in future. A future legislature, I'd like I think it we

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: are absolutely gonna need to, yes, we will absolutely need to continue to check back on this and monitor it very much. Absolutely. Okay. I can just make note

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: of this. I am not sure. I need to see some work out of appropriations, but I know how to

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: put it the floor. Appreciate that. Doctor. Masland?

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Yeah, taking these last few minutes, would help, What would help me, for example, or some other people in the room or outside of the room, is we're going to do this because, just explain. But when we, you know, bits and pieces from JA, I mean, it's sections from from JAFO. It wasn't clear in spite of clear sentences. You know? We're doing this because.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So we have another bill scheduled. I know that Beth needs to be in another committee after she walks us through that other bill. Are folks able to vote on this now, do you rather wait? I can vote that right now. Okay. Great. Okay. Can someone make

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: a motion then? Madam Chair,

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: I would assume that we find H5A8 favorable as amended.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Want to amend five fifty eight.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Five fifty eight.

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: Five eighty eight.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Excellent. So

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I second

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Teddy's motion to amend H558. Thank you. It's draft one one.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Draft 2.1. Thank you. So representative Waszazak moves that we amend H558 with version 2.1. Representative Burkhardt seconded. Any discussion?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: There's some great reservations about my idea. Thank you. Great reservation. You may not.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We're amending now.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Understand. It's difficult for me even to evaluate this without knowing what else we're gonna put on districts for next year. We're still dealing with a law that says we're gonna merge 119 districts into 20 something districts by a year from that. That's absurd. And so like, if we do this and that, we're toast for The States, I guess I'm a no.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: I don't remember

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: the discussion like this when we first presented the BIPOC, and I realized that we have amendment. This is all new discussion, isn't it?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: It's all been there all the way through.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: But it didn't seem though that it came out.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I brought up a reservation the first time.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Few days ago.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: First reservation was the hospital coming at that time and being concerned about that. Then I did some work outside the committee and said, all right.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm sorry.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: And then the second time, then I'm looking at the numbers and saying, Oh, okay, wait. And that's what you heard me talk about just now. And I did hear

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that that vote appreciates, Sam.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: They also asked for the, to be very clear, they appreciate the progress, but they did also ask for the kinds of insurance for us and house appropriations to make, which are not the course at the moment. So we are voting on something that the students say they support. 100%.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Seeing no further discussion, if the court pleases federal.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Representative Branagan is not here. I will vote yes. Is Representative Burkhardt? Representative Higley? Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Holcombe? I'm gonna vote no now, but if any votes in court, we make those changes. Representative Kimbell is not here. Representative Madeline? Sure. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page?

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Wazak? Yes. Representative Canfield? Yes. Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have voted the amendment favorable nine-one-two.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Matt? Eight-one-two.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Eight-one-two, yeah, there you go, eight-one-two.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Madam Chair, I would move that we find 558 as amended.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Thank you. Representatives of Waszazak moves that

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: we find H558 as amended favorable.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Thank you. Representative

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Canfield seconds. Any discussion? Seeing none, clerk please call the roll.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Branagan is absent. I will vote yes. Is Representative Burkhardt? Representative Higley? Yes. Representative Holcombe? No. Kimbell is absent. Representative Masland? Yep. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page? Yes. Representative Waszazak? Yes. Representative Canfield? Yes. Representative Kornheiser? Yes. And we have voted to vote favorable as amended eight-one-two.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I'll report this. That's a good idea.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Thank you so much, Representative Ode.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Just trying to look forward

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: to May with the OPR, but I was ready to go.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thanks so much. Okay, we're going to move to H931. I'm saying James, you're not a representative. Would you like to join us in the chair, please? I'm going to step away for a minute, and I'm hoping we can get through all the sections of the bill and then save questions for the end and really keep a focus on our jurisdiction here, even though we all care about education muchly.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Beth St. James Office of Legislative Counsel, do you want me to share my screen? Yes, please. We're going to be walking through H-ninety three as introduced. This is the committee bill that passed out of House Education last It is the miscellaneous education bill. Many pages, there's really only five substantive issues. So reader assistance headings are your best friend in this bill. On page one, line three, you'll see the first reader assistance heading Approved Independent School Moratorium. Section one amends the moratorium on the approval of new approved independent schools that you all created in 2023 in the budget. You can see subsection A was added in 2023, subsection B was added last year, and this bill proposes to add subsection C. The moratorium in general, in subsection A, says that the State Board is prohibited from approving an application for an initial approval of an approved independent school, so they could continue to approve renewal applications for approved independent schools. Subsection C is an exception to this moratorium that states if the moratorium shall not apply to changes in ownership of a therapeutic approved independent school. So if submission of an application for initial approval of an approved independent school is required as the result of a change in ownership of a therapeutic approved independent school, that at the time the change in ownership is approved by the state board, a it therapeutic approved independent school, and then it is going to remain a therapeutic approved independent school after the change in ownership. The moratorium doesn't apply, and the agency and the state board are required to process that initial application according to applicable state and federal law. So this is very specific to approved independent schools where there is a change in ownership that triggers a new initial application to the state board for approval, and the school would remain an approved independent school, a therapeutic approved independent school after that change of function.

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: We have a question from Representative Ode.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Almost at this. So can

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: you just explain it without it? You're just on day one, there's X. Okay. So day one,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you have school A. It is an approved independent school under the state board rules. And it is also characterized as a therapeutic approved independent school, which you now have a definition of in statute. Someone comes along and wants to buy School A. The person who comes along in School A reached a mutually agreed upon agreement, and they decide to go through with the sale of the school. Whatever the State Board's rules are for an action that triggers a new initial application to the school, I believe in this case it's because actually, I don't know. I can theorize that perhaps there is a new LLC created or a new some business organization is new when this change in ownership occurs. The way that the state board interprets their own rules and state law is they would require this therapeutic approved independent school to submit a new initial application to the state board for approval. The moratorium on approved independent schools in subsection would prohibit the state board from acting on that application. So even though the parties agree to a sale of the school, the school could not function as an approved independent school, a therapeutic approved independent school in the state, and have that sale go through. So they would have to make a choice. What subsection does is it says, if you are a therapeutic approved independent school, you have a change in ownership, you intend to remain a therapeutic approved independent school after that change of ownership is completed, if the State Board wants a new application, then the moratorium doesn't apply and they have to process the application so that you can be approved, assuming you meet all of the criteria under state and federal law, to be a therapeutic approved independent school.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: So is there anything in the discussion that committee had where there was any concern about new owners and what a new owner might be seeking when they're running that school versus a current owner?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know that I was in the room for every conversation that happened. They did add this language did go through a couple iterations. And one of the clauses that House Education added was on page three, line two, a requirement that the school remains a therapeutic approved independent school after the change of ownership. So that's the extent to which I can answer your question, is that this language is not contemplating just a change of ownership, and then the school is going to transform into a dressage school.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: But I have a follow-up. So are therapeutic schools approved for particular purposes? Because you said you wouldn't turn into a massage school, but if it's a therapeutic school for X, then all of

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a sudden it becomes a therapeutic school for Y. I think in state statute, and perhaps there is an equine therapy school, and that was a poor choice on my part. Under state statute, no, I don't know the rules intimately enough to know off the top of my head if there is anything specific in the rules related to different types of approvals like that.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Do you think that that's something that we should work with? That seems to me that might be important.

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: Do you have another question?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: No, that's it. Think that that's an issue.

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: Jim, Representative Masland. Sorry.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: How often do these schools change ownership?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know the answer to that question.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: I know of independent schools that could make one up in Littletown or something like that, right? And what I'm thinking about, not by that name, is I know how it functions, how it functions, and that all makes perfect sense to have it essentially reapply under a different name if I understand where this would go. That all makes good sense. I'm just curious to know if these these schools change ownership periodically. And given our concerns out and about about equity shares here, there, and everybody's just curious to know what we might know before we vote on this. Maybe it's not a question for you, Beth, but it's a question that I'd like to understand more about, need a different witness. Representative Burkhardt.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Correct me if I'm wrong, Beth, though. This isn't really changing the process by which the state board decides to approve an application. It's just saying that there 's this big moratorium we put on new independent schools. This is an exception. They still have to go through this process. And the state board still gets to decide whether this new owner is appropriate, if the therapeutic program is appropriate, all that. So that's where I feel like we're getting a little bit outside of our jurisdiction here because we're not really changing the whole process for approving a therapeutic school. We're just saying we're making this little exception to this big rule that we made last year in Act 73 about Mermaiden Pass. Am I correct?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't characterize it as big or little. That is too well to decide. But yes, lines five and six on page three require the state board and the agency to process the application according to applicable state and federal law. So if there's something in the change of ownership and something in that application that would prevent the state board from approving an initial application, regardless of whether there was a change of ownership, then they wouldn't approve the application. This doesn't change anything about whether the board will approve an application. It just changes what applications get through the door to the board. Right now, no one's getting through if it's a new application.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: I appreciate that, Robert. Just want

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: to name for transparency that this language came from a bill that I introduced to the House Education Committee in which I know there's a circumstance in which there's a woman who's been running an independent school under her business forever and a day. She wants to retire and get out, And right now there's no easy way for her to hand over the reins to somebody new, that school would have to close. And I didn't feel that that was the intent of the overall moratorium on two independent schools, because it's not really just new management for lack of a better term. And that new management, as Representative Burkhardt just said, would still have to go through the same process that anyone else who manages one the schools would have to go. But it's not a new tool in that sense.

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: Representative Holcombe?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: It could be a private equity company buying that for

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: long term.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: It could be, but

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: again, that's still a decision for the state Well,

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: their rules would not prohibit that. Mean, that That is where we're is my concern, right, Jeff? And so, appreciate what you're trying to preserve, and I wanna prevent what you just brought up.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: And I think that's a conversation, to our representative for a current point, that's a conversation for people around the state board, etcetera, not necessarily our state

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Because it's actually a house set. It's house set, but the house set is she not the state board.

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Well, not our bailiwick.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: It's maybe

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we should write a letter to them about this.

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: Section two.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section two. Right, we've got a new reader assistance heading. We're going to get through this one in record speed. Section two is adopting the Interstate Compact for Education. It's all brand new language because in the early '90s, we were a member of the Interstate Compact for Education, and then we withdrew. We have not been a member since. This is the Education Compact for The States, who you hear from quite often. This is a compact, the same way that social workers are part of a compact and nurses are part of a compact. Is a compact. So Section two is quite simply adopting the compact. I think we're one of maybe two states that are not members right now. This is the standard compact language for every state that is a member of the compact. It does require an annual fee. The fee is not enumerated. The number of the fee is not enumerated in the compact language itself. My understanding is Vermont has been paying that fee on and off for several years regardless. And you all have been appointing members on and off to the compact for years regardless. So this would be you rejoining. So you would have to pay the fee, but you would have all of the privileges and duties and responsibilities of full members to the compact. And by and large, what the compact spells out in here is that it is a place to discuss, to research, to analyze, to put folks who are involved in education in every state in touch with each other to discuss education related matters. That is essentially what the contact is.

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: Let me just ask you, this is all within AOE, it doesn't involve OPR?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, no, no. This does not involve AOE or OPR. The state itself would be a member of the compact. And there's a provision in here for who think they call them commissioners. Yes. So on page five, line one, section fifteen oh three, the Commission consists of seven members representing each party state. One of the members is the governor, two of the members are state legislatures selected by the House and the Senate, and then four members appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the governor. And then there's further provisions in here, but I think in the interest of time and your purview, it may not be the most relevant to our discussion. But there is a provision for who gets appointed. So there's no one at the state level who's administering anything. We are just members of the compacts. You would have to pay money. So that extent, there is someone administering money. Are we good? All right. Subvert your eyes. Another many, many pages with hopefully something we can breeze over. We're going to jump to page 15, Section three, you can see a new reader, it's just some heading here, Cooperative Educational Service Areas. All Section three and several of the sections after it do, so everything under this Cooperative Educational Service Areas, all these sections do is change anywhere the words boards of cooperative education services are to cooperative educational service areas. And anywhere you see the abbreviation of BOCES, find an example. Anywhere you see an abbreviation for BOCES, we're replacing BOCES with C E S A. It is a hotly debated topic of how you pronounce that. I am going with Ceesaw. We are

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: not entering that debate. They're just moving through. Ceesaw.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: That's it.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's all of the sections in this reader assistance heading do. I took the law that you passed to create BOCES in twenty twenty four, three? Found everywhere in the BSAs where there was a mention of BOCES, swapped out the applicable terms and moved on. Shall we all move on now? Please.

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I have one question. There are sections in there that mention supervisory union but not supervisory district as an alternative. Or should I just keep my mouth shut? I can't

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wait until you all make changes in the law. And we don't have to have this. The BOCES chapter starts with a definition section, and in there, state that they supervisory unions is the same definition as in section 11, which is the master definition section for Title 16, and includes supervisory districts.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I mean,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have to worry about it.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: We did that same thing in May, which is the bill we were

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: So super good.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Almost never do you have to worry about where the word supervisory union is used and whether supervisory districts are also included. Almost never. But I appreciate the concern, nonetheless.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Masland, then I'm gonna ask us to hold our questions until we're at the end.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Okay. So the responsibility of the CSOP

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: As we currently understand it, is the is the most change to the CSOP.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Correct. Thank you.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The only thing that changes is the name.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Thank you. I thought I understood that. Just try to ask. Yep.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Avert your eyes once

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: again. Actually,

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The penultimate substantive section here is related to class size and minimums. So we're on page 33, line 12 your next reader assistance heading, Class Size Minimums. Last year, you all enacted class size minimums as part of your education quality standards. Those standards go into effect 07/01/2026. You also required the State Board of Education to update the education quality rule series on or before a date that is not 07/01/2026, that comes after 07/01/2026. There has been confusion in the field over how folks are going to know if they are complying with class size minimums without the rules going into effect. That may provide some nuance to maybe some defined terms, etcetera. Section 13 amends section seven of Act 73, which is a piece of session law regarding failure to comply with class size minimums. Subsection remains unchanged. This bill adds subsection which states that a school's failure to comply with class size minimum requirements shall not count towards the three consecutive school years of noncompliance that enables the secretary to recommend action to the state board until the State Board adopts updates to the EQS rules to reflect the addition of class size minimums, or 07/01/2027, whichever date shall come first. So the statute still takes effect on 07/01/2026. Class size minimums are still in effect. But whether you are compliant or not cannot be held against you until those rules are in effect or 07/01/2027, whichever comes first. And finally, we are at the section that I believe brought this bill to you, background checks. Page 34, line 11, background checks. We're adding a brand new section to Title 16 that essentially I'm just going to summarize it. That requires the agency of education to request a criminal record check for a person that the Secretary of Education is prepared to either recommend for a full time, part time or temporary employment or contractual relationship if the person will have or has the potential to have unsupervised contact with students. Background check for any new employees or contractors who will have unsupervised or maybe have unsupervised contact with students. The rest of this section is taken directly from section two fifty four. So this is 254A. Two fifty four is background checks for superintendents. So it's the same process. There's also I don't know the section designation number off the top of my head there's also a requirement that school districts conduct background checks for their employees. We're adding this language in for AOE employees and contractors who have unsupervised contacts with students. The process is the same as it is for superintendents. And there is a fee required, which is, I believe, why this bill is referred here. Okay, on So page 35, subsection A request made for the background check shall be accompanied by a release signed by the applicant on a form provided by BCIC, a set of the applicant's fingerprints, and a fee established by BCIC that shall reflect the cost of obtaining a record from the FBI. The fee is paid by the applicant.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Is it paid by the applicant at all? Personally have had many a background check to work with youth in schools, and I have never paid the fee myself. I've always had it paid by my employer. This is the

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: language that's used for superintendents. I don't know off the top of my head what it is for school district employees or volunteers. There's also a provision related to volunteers. I suppose this would be a policy choice.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Oh, and we're not asking questions until the end. Look at me. Terrible. Continue on. I'm so bad at following that rule. I

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have summarized I mean, unless you want to get into the nitty gritty of the process of pieces, this is it. There's one update to another section that requires AOE to figure out It adds the agency of education into the group of folks who are responsible for keeping records if they request background checks. And then the whole act would take effect on 07/01/2026.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Any other places in statute where we require background checks say that crime victim services can set the fee and we don't have any? I can only speak to Title 16, so let's just briefly take a journey there.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Someday I will rewrite Title 16, and this language will not live in the Secretary of Education chapter, because this is not an obvious place to look for this language. But here we are. Educator licensure employment of superintendents. This is the language that I was referring to. I modeled the February A language in H nine thirty one right after this. It's almost exactly identical. And the fee is paid by the applicant here for superintendents. Public and independent school employees and contractors let's see. A request for records shall be covered by the Senate and a fee the fee shall be paid in accordance with adopted school board policy.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And the Vermont Crime Information Center is part of state government? Yes.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They are established by statute.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Is that how I'm going to

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: do sayings? Yes, representative Kim.

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: So if you're asking for, is this more than fingerprints, does that cover it?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry, does what cover what? Background check. Oh, is the background check cover? I don't know that I can speak to that.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: You're worried about it, Tom?

[Committee Assistant (name not stated)]: No, but you don't Fingerprints and a fee established, but then you were asking about documentation, you said something about that.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, if the age So this section, I think maybe what you're referring to is there's a statute about the continued validity of criminal record checks and maintenance of records that talks about what you do if you are the entity that requested or paused to the background check to be requested, so basically the employer in this situation. What do you do with those records once you get them? This statute talks about that. And since AOE was not doing background checks, they were not included in the list of folks who need to have these policies. So all this section does is add AOE in there.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm going to request that Ezra, if you find out how much the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services charges for fingerprints, and we actually put that number in the statute, and that we have it paid by the employer. Because I think having people pay out of their pocket to do things for their job is weird. That is my Representative Ode, I see that you I want to say

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: just respectfully disagree. It's a corporate school board policy, and I don't want to decide. So this is

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: for people who work at the Agency of Education. Oh. Okay.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Agency works with very few people. Did this come forward around the state board and the students on the state board then?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, this came from This

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: is a request by the agency. I understand.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: But did they specify account meaning agency staff and Oh, no. I am No.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: But maybe Ezra can share that with us.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: I Yeah. Would like to say, don't you put a number in here? Because it might go up by a dollar and up by a dollar, and then we'll be in this position of having a number in there, and then we have to deal with that. So because that's what we do with fees. What? That's what we do

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: with fees. We put a number in statute. We don't delegate that authority unless we absolutely have to.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Okay, then can we say this is So we can put an inflator

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: on it if you want.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Yeah, that would make me happier. Cool.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: But not me.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: But not me.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Is there any provision for someone who applied for a job at AOE and they just had a background check somewhere else for a certain amount of time? Would they have to go through and pay the fee even yet again?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Under this language, yes.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: In my personal experience, that's unfortunately how it works.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know how much work Ezra has done on this. My limited work with the BCIC is, depending on who is responsible for paying the fee, if it's a government entity, may be different provisions. I don't know.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: It's helpful in anticipating how many people are affected only because every time we change policy and expand the class of people who are required to undergo printed printing, we create a traffic jam at PCRE.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Very much so, and I think they're just clearing up that traffic jam right now better than they have in the long time, so certainly don't want to jam it further.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Others, they handle this, and I actually did some research around this because of some of the pre K childcare things, they actually preapprove both for the sector, and then Google is portable so we can work continuously within the sector. We have chosen a particularly

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: complex way of doing this work. That is also my personal experience. So we're

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: going to hear from Ezra about maybe how much

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: money we're talking about, how many people we're talking about. Thank you, Beth.

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Alrighty. For the record, as our whole team joined fiscal office. Is it alright if I share my screen? Alright. So since Beth went ahead and gave you all great overview, we will just hit the fiscal impacts. So I have the fiscal note up here, and the joint fiscal office estimates that this bill would have a net neutral impact on state expenditures and revenues. So on the expenditure side, this stems from the payment of dues Beth talked about from Vermont joining the Interstate Compact for Education, otherwise known as the Education Commission of the States. So member states pay dues to the compact. However, Vermont currently pays these dues through the AOE budget, and they are currently within the fiscal year 2027 AOE budget. So this would not represent a new expenditure. This bill does not introduce a new revenue source nor an appropriation for this, so the general assembly would need to continue to appropriating the AOE for this purpose. Annual dues are about $53,000 Like I said, they're within AOE's budget, and they have remained unchanged over the last several years from what I've heard from the field. So on the revenue side, that's the background fingerprint check fee that we were just talking about. So we estimate that this bill would raise a de minimis amount of revenue through this fee. The fee would cover the cost of obtaining AOE employment applicants' criminal records if they are in a position where they are or could be having unsupervised access to students. The BCIC estimates that this fee would be about $12 per applicant and that this covers the cost of retrieving those records from the FBI. So in my conversation with them, brief conversation with them, essentially, they receive a bill from the FBI for all the record requests that they've submitted, and then they request that funding from the entity that they received that request from. And so they just take that $12 and send it to the FBI.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So for these 34 people, if we have the state general fund pay another part of the state general fund in order to cover this $12 fee, That would be revenue neutral, yes?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, so it'd be about $400 as it's written. It's the applicant that would be paying this fee to VCIC.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm asking if we amend it.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Sure. Well,

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it would be moving from AOE to VCIC. However, it sounds like the VCIC is then taking that money and paying it. Actually, that would be removing.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: About $400

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, so it's about $410 rounding up for the 34 individuals that AUE estimates would pay this every year.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay, so that sounds like doing this would not be a huge burden to Vermont's criminal information center, and would also not cause the state an undue burden. And $12 you said is the fee they charge now?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. So they believe that $12 is the so that's for the background check from the FBI not to take a new set of fingerprints. So there are that gets confused with section two fifty seven Beth referenced that this is 254, so just clarifying that. So yes, dollars 12 is the fee for the background check.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: One second. Just one second.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: $12 is the fee for the background check. That's not how much it costs crime victim services?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No. I'm sorry. That is what it costs crime victim services.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay. Beth, I know you have to go. Can you draft an amendment for tomorrow that sets the fee at $12 and asks it to be paid by the state?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And would I need to cover the appropriation?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Or would you be

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Representative. Someone's later in that request. Will you add another like a lot of it sounds like the billing's gonna be tricky. The FBI bills someone, they You have the amount of dollars, but the amount of effort of somebody's day, I don't know. Just

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: I feel like we do this, let's take

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: over this kind of thing all the time, they move money from one department to another to pay for personal services.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: I heard your answer say that $12 for basically the paperwork that goes into the FBI, but then you said, what about the fingerprinting? Is there another dollar amount?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm sorry, I was just clarifying that this is only for obtaining those records from the FBI. I just meant to say it doesn't include any related work that VCIC would be asked to do. This is just the cost that the FBI charges BCIC to police records.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Beth, we're gonna get a good number from BCIC, BCIS, and we'll send it to you, and you can go have fun in the activity. Thank you so much for your service.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Used to be something like $34 just to talk, didn't it?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I mean, that's I also yes, somewhere in the of my email.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Do we do this every year? Did I hear you say that correctly? This background check, it's done every year?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, so the background check would be for a prospective new AOE employee, and the Agency of Education estimates that every year, 34 individuals on average would meet this criteria. That's the new individuals.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: And it's re accomplished every, what, five years or something like that?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I would have to defer to the agency on that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: said maybe that said our state dues are $53,000 a year. Is it appropriate to ask you or somebody to put it and get that?

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So I could not answer that. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think the education committee thought it was a worthwhile investment of general fund dollars and the appropriations committee will look into that further. Or I can ask them. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions for Ezra?

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Ready for a motion yet.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Waiting on a we're gonna wait on a number. Yeah. Is representative Ode, do have something? Disagree. What do you wanna do about it? I don't mean I everyone thought that was funny. I'm just like, I I mean, like, do you want a different amendment? Do you not want an amendment? Do you not want us to background check the people at AOE? Don't I know, I just don't

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: know what you mean. I guess I just I think that it's okay for Emilie Kornheiser to pay a

[Jennifer Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: week or month.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Oh, really? I do. I

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: have to think about all the people in the state of Vermont who paid those. More same. I can see Saint Thomas, and I can see Saint

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Rosa Holcombe.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Are you done with it? Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Just didn't wanna cut you off. So, I was I would want to is this is the miscellaneous definitions, and is that the amendment that Beth is working right now?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It seems like you know, Beth

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: is just working on the fee thing, because that's our direct jurisdiction,

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: and it's different than how we usually do fees. It seems like there's some definitions that might

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: be helpful when we're thinking about rulemaking, but it also seems like there are some things that we haven't been able to model because we don't collect the data currently, whether it's, you know, what is a pre k day, how much time are people spending there, what are the demographics of kids enrolled in pre K. So there's a bunch of things that we've talked about over the course of the session, that if we don't request this data somewhere, it won't be available next year. And one of the challenges that we've had as a state is that because they aren't paying attention to baseline data, it is very difficult to evaluate policy impact, and it's also very difficult to anticipate planning for transitions. So I was wondering if we could use the last section or whatever, section four of the spills, to both put in place some definitions that might support rulemaking, but also make some of the data requests that we feel are important to evaluating support and policy decisions that we haven't been able to make this year. I think we need to Yes, maybe. I think we need

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: to figure out how fast we can turn that around so that we don't kill the miscellaneous education bill with the amount of time we're spending, and check-in with the education committee about if it would be considered a friendly amendment, given that it's sort of touching their stuff a little more.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: So what would be the best process?

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: To go talk to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: the reporter of the bill from education and find out if they would accept the amendment if

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: they offered it. Different reporters for every section, so I will do that. You

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: could talk to the chair if there are different reporters for Yeah, didn't realize they have different reporters for every section. That brings us to the next item on our agenda,

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: which is the yield bill. We're just going to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: talk about it again today, because that's so fun. Julia, will you come and

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: share the table again? Thanks.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you, Teddy.

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Lecture, JFO.

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There are a few documents on the committee page under my name. Two of them are the same as you've seen every week. It's the decision points of the yield bill and the annotated guide in case you need a refresher on what a line means. And then the final one is a new education fund outlook. I'm going go ahead and share my screen. So I want to start out before talking about why this is new, by talking about what is not new. And what is not new is that there have been no changes to the underlying data. So this is pretty consistent with every year at this time, we freeze all of that underlying data. Because you're getting close to making a decision, it's hard if the underlying components are changing. So these are the same numbers that we've been looking at over the last few weeks. So this does not reflect any data changes that Kelly was talking about earlier. So what we're looking at here has been winnowed down from the last Education Fund outlook that we were looking at and is reflecting only columns that have a uniform average bill change. The difference is how the one time monies are used for that uniform average bill change. So column A, this is the same of what we've looked at. This is the FY twenty six preliminary. Column B, these are using those December 1 letter modeling assumptions. So no general fund monies, the entirety of the education fund surplus to uniformly lower rates, solving for an average bill change. And we see that to be an estimated change increase across all three classes of 10.1%. Column C, this is at that 105,000,000 in one time general fund monies were to be used in one year, fiscal year 2027, to uniformly lower property taxes. That would result in an average estimated increase across the three classes of 3.8%. Should I just keep going? All right. Column D, this is another construct that you've seen before. This is applying one third of the $105,000,000 in general fund to uniformly lowering property tax rates in fiscal year twenty twenty seven, resulting in an average estimated increase across all three classes of 8%, and then reserving the remaining two thirds in the education fund for future years. And finally, this last column is a new construct. And this is using half of the 105,000,000 of one time general fund money to uniformly lower property taxes and then reserving the other half for the following year. We can see there the half of that 105,000,000 being reserved. And that would result in an estimated average increase across all three classes of 7%.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Any questions for Julia about what we have in front of us?

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Do you want show

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: us that row about Medicaid you were talking about before?

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Just a fun little sneak. What we see here in column seven.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That's a row.

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: In row seven. It has been such a long day. Thank you. That's what we're receiving in row seven, the Medicaid transfer. And so you can see that's that piece that's coming into the education fund as a revenue source. We also know that the money is going back to districts, assuming they can use that as offsetting revenues within their budget, going to be decreasing the education payment, which we see in line 11. So they're in the background of calculating that number, reducing that number.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Any questions about the columns from anyone?

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Representative Ode. All right, so

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: maybe I just want everybody gets the same advantage. Is everyone advantaged the same way by that Medicaid 9,000,000 on line seven down to?

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm going to respond using a word that's not advantaged and say that this Medicaid transfer line, these 9,000,000, are being treated just like all other revenue sources in the education fund, all other non property revenue sources. So when you think about the way that property taxes are set, is it's the sum of all education appropriations, all appropriations out of the Ed Fund, minus non property revenue sources. So that's where the Medicaid transfer would fit in. Then the remainder needs to be made up in terms of property taxes. The reason I'm not using the term advantage is because it could be construed as value laden. And also, there are the really interesting mechanics of the education fund where, dependent on a district spending decision, the impact of the yields in relationship to its per pupil spend is going to have a

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: proportional effect. I could use a value added statement, because I'm not nonpartisan staff, and say that you could say that any of the sources into the Ed Fund actually give more of an advantage to higher spending districts than lower spending districts. And you could say the same thing about the weights, but that adds a degree of confusion to how we think about things that it can be fun some days, and less fun other days, to add more.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: We've really set up a wild system to do all this. Representative Higley.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: May have asked this question before, but under the other sources, wind, solar, and fund interest, they've understand the wind and solar, that's based on production, it's down $700,000 What's the fund interest?

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The interest earned from the components of the education fund.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Which components?

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Like, all funds earned It's a revenue, and that is the interest earned by the education fund.

[Ezra (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Is

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: that easy enough to break out?

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The interest portion, yes, because it's included in the revenue forecast from The Economists. Some of the other smaller pieces are estimates, but the revenue forecast, if you go to I can share the link again with Sorsha. If you go to the revenue forecast and you go to the available education fund revenues, there literally is a line labeled interest, now that you can see it.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: I add all those lines up, that's what I'm going get for the quoted interest. You

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: know, do you want me to just go ahead and share the interest? Alright, give me one second.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Right. So

[Julia (Julie) Richter (Joint Fiscal Office)]: this should look familiar. This is the revenue forecast. I guess I should have scrolled to the relevant page before pulling it up. Just avert your eyes. Way down here at the bottom, the very last page is the available education fund revenue forecast update. And so what that means is this is incorporating the splits that we have under current law. So we're not seeing, for instance, the entirety of the meals and rooms tax all that's raised. We're only seeing the portion that's dedicated to get Jacob and Bunch. And the interest portion that you are interested in can be seen here in this row. So you can see that in FY '27, it's forecast to bring in 1,100,000.0 compared to 1,500,000.0 in FY 'twenty six. You can see how that's decreased, but it was a bump up in 'twenty two.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Good. Thank you.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Any other questions about the Outlook?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay. We're gonna make a decision soon. That would be great.

[Kelly Murphy (Education Finance Director, Agency of Education)]: Every option

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: that we have, there are pros and cons and big implications of each of them. We're balancing consistency and stability with taxpayer relief with educational opportunities. These are hard decisions we're making. Does anyone need anything else in order to have a conversation tomorrow about where we think we all want to be on the yield bill? Because remember, it's just a three sentence bill, so we're not going spend a lot of time actually looking at the legislative language. So I appreciate Don's thinking that he can sit here.

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: Can you talk about putting some things into that yield bill?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: There are a few little things.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Sure, yeah. John Gray, Obstee Blood Center Council, the statewide adjustment correction for the property tax credit issues, there's the Berry TIF overpayment piece. There's, yeah, H-eight zero two, Census Law, Grant, and Flater.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Think about it and let me know. We're going to vote on the yield bill probably on Friday morning. Enjoy the rest of your day, wherever you may go, get going at night tomorrow morning.