Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Hello, Ways and Moon Committee. It is Thursday, April 2 still, and it is 02:30, and we are taking our first walkthrough of PH95 with Beth St. James. We are a great fit for her service and that she's with us today. What I would like us to do today is to really just walk through the bill. If folks have brief clarifying questions, that is great. We can do them at the end of sections. But we are really just seeking to understand. Tomorrow, we will have more time with the whole staff crew and the language to go deeper into understanding and opinions. Sound like a plan? Great. Thank you. Beth, the floor is yours.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you. Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel. There's a significant portion of this bill that is words interpreting maps. How much time would you like How would you like me to address that? Words describing maps? Yes. Skip over it, mention it. You could say, these words describe this map in the top Okay, great. Okay. But do you want to go into the membership details of these groupings?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think just showing us the map would work.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, the map.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that you don't have to I didn't make the map. So let me see. Is it let me see. It's the map that is posted, there is one okay. I'll figure it out in real time.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm sorry to have had no time to process since the second before re presenting. I don't know if that's a hard thing.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I would never think for my brain. So I appreciate doing it. My pleasure. Okay. I will pull up maps when we get to that language, and I will point out what has changed. Thanks.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Good. It should refresh.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Should I post all the maps around the page?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, I would say, well, I'm not

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: the chair. Whatever she says.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm only gonna refer to the map that says districts with seesaws map, but I do think they're all three are relevant.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think just the one that Beth is referencing.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is a hybrid of the other two. Perfect. But it is not accurate. Even better. I'm just going to work with it. Am I sharing my screen? I'm not.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Not at present.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. We're going to skip over statement of purpose.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Oh, no. Let's do the whole Why? We're kidding. Oh

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: my god. Sorry. We do want to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: know why we're doing that.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You have no say over this language. Why do you care? It's like an area of control. I don't know what you think.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: There you are. I'm so happy to be back with you all. We're so happy to have you This

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: bill proposes to, one, rename boards of cooperative education services to cooperative educational service areas, BOCES to seesaws. Get used to it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We even actually voted on it once. We voted yes on this move once.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's right. Oh, you've already seen that. You have seen that part, yeah. He saw. He saw. So the bill proposes to assign each supervisor union to a seesaw. It proposes to require all school districts to participate in a study committee to study the advisability of forming a unified union school district. It proposes to amend the contingent effective dates of Act 73. And it proposes to require JFO to hire a contractor to make recommendations regarding how to account for the provision of pre kindergarten education within Vermont's education finance system. And it is entitled An Act Relating to Next Steps in Transforming Vermont's Education System. Reader assistance headings are going to be particularly helpful, starting with Section one, Legislative Intent. Do you want to read through this line by line or just know there is intent? We would like to read it. Subsection A, to ensure each student is provided substantially equal educational opportunities that will prepare the student to thrive in a twenty first century world. It is the intent of the General Assembly to work strategically, intentionally, and thoughtfully to ensure that each incremental change made to Vermont's public education system provides strength and support to its only constitutionally required governmental service. Where have you seen this language before? Three. There you go. It's right out of Act 73. The General Assembly recognizes that Vermont schools anchor local economies and community identity, connecting young people to their homes while supporting workforce development and long term stability, and that different regions of Vermont have different needs, challenges and opportunities. Further, it is the intent of the General Assembly to ensure that local voice and community input retain an important role in Vermont's evolving education landscape. New Reader Assistance heading, Cooperative Educational Service Areas. So sections two through

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: 12

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: are the sections you pulled out of the miscellaneous education bill that changed BOCES to Seesaw. But this bill also makes additional changes. So just know, anywhere that there was the term BOCES or the term Board of Cooperative Educational Services, that term has been replaced with Cooperative Educational Areas, or CSOCs. I'm only going to talk about substantive the changes that education made to these pieces of current law. So remember, we're in Chapter 10 of Title 16, our Seesaw laws. The policy was kind of redrafted. You'll see when we get to section six zero three, current law seesaw formation is voluntary. There's no mandate that anyone form a vote user of seesaw. Section six zero three of this bill mandates that formation. In fact, it puts it into statute. You are creating seesaws in statute. So we had to play with some of the language in the policy area because we're no longer allowing and encouraging folks to get together and form these voluntary organizations. It is now the policy of the state to create cooperative education service areas. And then, the formation of a Board of Cooperative Education Services shall be designed to Again, there's no organic voluntary process happening anymore, so the language has just changed to reflect the intent of the general assembly that cooperative educational service areas are utilized by member SUs to maximize the impact of available dollars, reflect the funding, reduce duplication of programs, personnel services, contribute to the equalization of educational opportunities for all pupils. So the basic policy there has not changed. Adding, and so we're in the definition section, section six zero two. Adding a definition for cooperative educational service area means an association of supervisory unions created pursuant to this chapter to deliver shared programs and services to complement the educational programs of member SUs in a cost effective manner. A seesaw shall be a body politic in corporate with the powers and duties afforded it under this chapter. What does that sentence mean? Same to you, from that question. The last sentence. It is legalese. Essentially, this is the language we use when we're creating political subdivisions of the state, essentially. So you'll see this language related to school districts. So in the Union School District formation chapter 11, which we're gonna talk about extensively, you'll see that when a new union school district is formed, it shall be a body politic incorporate with the powers and duties afforded to it. It is an entity. It is a political subdivision of the state. I cannot get any more specific than that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Does it have any powers and duties beyond what's afforded it for the chapter? No. Great. Doctor. Ode. Do its decisions have the force of a law, like a school district's school policies? School policies, I would say, are not the law, they're still just the policies of the school

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: district. I

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: knew after I said that, say, all right, do they have any sway outside of

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They have not been given rulemaking authority. I think once we walk through a little bit of what they are, it might help a little. So section six zero three, I'm on page four. All of this language that was struck through was how to form a BOCES under current law, but it's no longer a voluntary process, we're creating it. So establishment of cooperative educational service areas, jump down to line 15. Supervisory unions are arranged into the following cooperative educational service areas. And this is where I'm going to refer to a map. So what the next several pages do is there's a subdivision one through seven. Each subdivision one through seven has a name. So for example, number one is the Champlain Valley North Seesaw. It's formed of the member supervisory unions of And then under each Seesaw will be their member supervisory unions, because membership on a Seesaw is at the supervisory union level, not the school district level. And we also list the member school districts of the supervisory union. So it's one stop shopping. If you only know what school district you're on, you wouldn't have to then figure out your supervisory union. It's all there. And it's not a geographically bounded, it's an organizationally bounded I don't think I understand what you mean.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: If the Franklin Northeast supervisory union suddenly, know this is not going to happen, included the town of Hartford, that town of Hartford would be part of the Champlain Valley North Seasaw? Yes. Thank you.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It Yes. Would only happen if the general assembly takes action because you've set these boundaries and locked.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Does that include the sub supervising under its security or your theories? Yes. Thank you.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: This is obvious, but following your question about Hartford and Northwest of Advisory, Hartford in this theoretically part of the seesaw could be part of quite a different

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: school district. Yeah. I was just picking a random sound. Yes. Yes. Thank you. So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the seesaws, you will see on this map that I don't have up. That's great. You can see

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: the blue bar. I'm gonna take a little breathing break. This drafts, the map drafts, three one. Yeah, they're posted under John Adams too. Okay. That's kind of nice.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: It feels, yes. Do Okay,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: here we go.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this map shows you two things, and it's wrong.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Okay, good place to start.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I can't even begin to explain to you the process that it took to create this. There is a new map coming that will be in alignment with the language. I would encourage you not to pay any attention to the District 13, District 17, first of all, use the word district as part of the software, and then the numbers are a little off. But what you are looking at, and I'll zoom out so you can see the whole thing ish. What you were looking at is those black dotted lines, those thick black dotted lines, are the seesaw boundaries. They keep supervisory unions intact, with one exception and we'll get there. The colored chunks within those black boundaries are what this bill refers to as guide regions for facilitators to use to form study committees later on in the bill. So those are sort of recommended districts. Recommended guides. Yes. For the facilitators to use to form those study committees, yes. They are just recommendations. The colors within the black. The colors within the black. And this area right here is the Orleans West or Southwest. If you don't have one of these, you're gonna need one. It is the Orleans Southwest Supervisory Union. This pretty blue right here, that actually should be brown to go along with this area. And the gray ones are the interstate districts? The interstate districts belong to a seesaw, but they do not belong to a region for which a facilitator would be making study case.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: That was part of yellow, but part of the

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That is what we are getting to. Okay. So you have one BOCES in existence now. It is the Vermont Learning Collaborative. It is made up of the member supervisory unions of Mountain View SU, Springfield SD, Two Rivers SU, Windham Central, Windham Northeast, Windham Southeast, Windham Southwest, and Windsor Southeast. This was a voluntary process. The Vermont Learning Collaborative, as we keep walking through this draft, is going to play an integral role in hiring the facilitators that will be forming all of those study committees, facilitating the study committees and overseeing the study committees. If you changed the membership of the Remote Learning Collaborative, then you would essentially be creating a brand new entity, and you would be running into a time crunch with who would be doing the work to hire the facilitators, because there would be no entity already formed to be hiring the facilitators. Hartford's not part of it currently. Hartford is not part of the Vermont Learning Collaborative currently. So this bill keeps their membership the same and assign Hartford to a different CSO.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Future.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: In the future, that could change. And I have already received feedback and anticipate strong thoughts on some of the appropriations that we're making later on in the bill, and I'm already working through different contingency plans. But I do think it behooves you to keep BTLC intact, what you are asking them to do throughout the bill.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Folks, ready to move past this chunk of language? I imagine we're all in a to spend a lot of time looking at the map. Yes? I

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: have a question to put out that you can answer.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I said, woah, woah, I really want us to keep us clarifying questions about the language in front of us, and we will get curious about the meaning of it all tomorrow.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: We will, thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay, thank you.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, so we're jumping out of the Seesaw Region formations. And we're going to No longer would they be creating articles of agreement, because it's not a voluntary process. So who knows if there's agreement? It's bylaws, bylaws. The requirements for the bylaws remain largely exactly the same, except on page 12, we're repealing the requirement that bylaws include a method for termination of the BOCES and the withdrawal of the member supervisory unions, because these are now statutorily created bodies and only you can change membership. And it's the same concept for striking admitting new members. Board of directors remains the same as in current law. And we've repealed the language that does not allow for any more than seven BOCES statewide, although that's the magic number that this bill arrived at anyway. Section six zero four is the last section I'm going to talk to in the BOCES section, because it's the last section about a substantive change. This is the powers of seesaws. Current law basically just says you have the power to provide educational programs, services, facilities, professional other staff that serve your members. This bill adds some more specificity to what those services should be and then what those services have to be. So should be on line 16, page 13, including professional development, curriculum coordination development, and transportation. And then on lines twenty and twenty one, at a minimum, a seesaw is required to offer services in the following areas to its members. Special education, including implementation and maintenance of tiered systems of support and the provision of low incidence, high cost services, business and administrative services, and union school district creation consultation and facilitation.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Sorry, at some point, did we hear what the amounts are that we are gonna pay for this fallback?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, but it's the variant. Okay. And just so I'm clear, when you say business and administrative services, are you saying that all business and administrative services go through the CSAT, or that's just there's another layer potentially of business administrative services and some of the things that districts are doing now go through the CSOP, or it's the same thing? So if we look at page 13, lines twenty and twenty one, at a minimum, CSOF shall offer services. So I think just as it says, here are some things we can do for you. Would you like to buy these services? And then that's the last substantive change in all of this seesaw language. So I'm gonna take us right to Represent Masland.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: So clarify, we said, would you like

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to buy these services? What does buy mean? Just that. See, the way that the current law operates, and it hasn't been changed here, is that they are funded through fees for services. And then they can decide if they're going to charge member dues.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: This is with the facilitator or something that they're working out with?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, the facilitator comes into play in a little bit. They are hiring facilitators. Thank you. Section four on page 19 amends the Seesaw grant program. So currently, it's the BOCES grant program, and it's a startup grant program. You appropriated $70,000 in twenty

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: five, Four.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: AOE for startup grants to BOCES as they came to be. There's only been one BOCES formed. There is still $60,000 to my knowledge within the agency of education for these startup grants. $60,000 Current law is that a BOCES or seesaw is only eligible for a $10,000 startup grant. This bill amends that to $15,000 It's the original appropriation the same. There's 60,000 left of that. And so they added an appropriation of $30,000 from the general fund to provide additional funding for the Seesaw grant program. So that's six times five. Because you already have one seesaw that's already up and running that would not be eligible for the startup grant. And then we're going to jump to section 12. Everything that I've skipped over is just the name change from BOCES to SISO. Everywhere it appears in the BSAs. Section 12. I'm on page 25, line 16. This language, or I should say this concept, I borrowed from how supervisory unions get started. So within thirty days following the passage of this act, each member SU board of each seesaw, so the supervisory union board of SUs, according to their CSO membership, have to appoint a person to serve on the board of directors according to applicable law. And then within forty five days following the passage of the act, the superintendent of the SU with the highest aggregate average daily membership of each seesaw calls the first meeting to occur. They elect a chair and other necessary officers, and then they're off to the races. And then subsection C, I hope, is meant to clarify that the Vermont Learning Collaborative doesn't need to do any extra work related to their operating agreement. So the articles of agreement of the Vermont Learning Collaborative in effect on 06/30/2026 shall serve as the operating agreement of the VTLC unless and until amended.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Isn't that saying the existing agreement is the existing agreement?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. So because you are essentially adding them to a list of state created entities, I am basically trying to say through this language at the direction of the House Education Committee, that they don't need to change what they're doing just because we've now changed how BOCES or Seesaws are formed.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Okay, all right.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They can keep going.

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

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: So how many districts are in

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: a Seesaw? Does that vary?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It varies. Membership in a seesaw is at the supervisory union level. So the number of supervisory unions vary. And then the number of districts within those supervisory unions will vary.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: How many people are gonna be on the board?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Each member oh, let's see. Do you want me to go into this much? No. Wait. So

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: you okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm gonna go all the way back up to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: six zero three.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So this is all current law. Board of Directors. CSOC shall be managed by a board of directors, which shall be composed of one person appointed annually by each member SU board. Appointed persons shall be members of a member SU board or the superintendent or designee of the member SU. So one person from each member of supervisory union.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Not district.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not at the school district level, correct.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: So potentially, there'd only be a few people on the generator. Am I missing?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, if we look at the map, see this map is not arranged by supervisory unions. Another interactive map that if and when you would like me to, we can use that lists out the SUs. There's 52 let me put it this way. There's 52 supervisory unions in the state and there's seven seesaws.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Well, that's a good start. Thank you.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We are about to move out of the CESA reader assistance heading into the Union School District Exploration Information Reader Assistance heading. Are we ready?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yes? I'm sorry. The members of the Seesaw board, are they board members of the Supervisory Union? Yes. Can they be appointed by the board of supervisor union but not on the board of supervisor union? Go back up and look at the language. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's options. So one person appointed annually by each SU board. Appointed persons shall be members of the board or the superintendent or designee

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: of the Gender's Advisory Committee. And they shall not serve as a member of the Board of Directors of any related for profit or for profit? Correct. I just really didn't know what's context about.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I as you know, I cannot breathe life into legislative intent. That is for you all. I believe the original thought behind that was, if you are a cooperative service agency providing services, having a board member on the seesaw who's also a board member on maybe somewhere where there would be a business relationship, a nonprofit, where there would be a business relationship between the seesaw and the nonprofit to provide services to its members, that might create a conflict. But it doesn't say that explicitly. And so related, I believe, is an ambiguous term.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: There could be a payroll vendor.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: A payroll vendor. Although I believe this is nonprofit. I guess if it's a nonprofit. Oh, it's for profit too. Yep. Believe this is meant to get at conflicts of interest. Thanks. So the next big concept I have one more question.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: A school would not be a nonprofit or a for profit entity.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, if you are a member of an SU board, then Okay, you'd also a member of school

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But that does get to the ambiguity of the term related. So the next big concept we're going to talk I'm just going to generally talk about the concept we're going to walk through to orient you. So the next several sections, everything under this Reader Assistance heading, has the Vermont Learning Collaborative, your only current living BOCES, now Seesaw, hiring facilitators to work within one of the Seesaw regions, so assigning one facilitator to each Seesaw region, and then grouping the school districts within their assigned region into study committees and using current law to drive the study committee process to study whether it is advisable for those school districts on that study committee to form a new unified union school district. So it's requiring school districts to come to the table, and then it relies largely on current law for how that process unfolds. But there are extra provisions built in in the next several sections. On or before 10/01/2026, BTLC shall employ or contract for the services of seven Union School District Coordination facilitators, because we have seven VISTAs, Who shall be responsible for organizing and facilitating study committees to study the advisability of forming a unified union school district. The term unified union school district is important here. There are several different types of union school districts. And the study committees that we are going to talk about as being a requirement for school districts to participate in, what they are supposed to be studying is whether it's advisable to form a unified union school district. Not a union elementary school district, not a union high school district. Unified union exclusion. There is a way for them to study that, but we haven't gotten there yet. BTLC shall also hire one lead facilitator who, in addition to facilitating study committees as necessary, shall oversee the work of the seven facilitators. So eight facilitators in total. A facilitator shall have knowledge of and experience working in Vermont's public education system. The VTLC shall assign one facilitator to each CSO membership region created through what we just walked through at the very beginning, the seven CESA regions. And then we start the study process. When and if you get there, I do have a single document with the timeline of all of this, which probably needs to be updated, but it exists. So on or before 12/01/2026, two things need to happen. The facilitator needs to group school districts within its assigned region onto study committees. The facilitator is required to consult with the school district boards finalizing the study committee membership. And the facilitator is required to use the suggested groupings as guidance when making the study committee assignments. The suggested groupings in section 17 are those colored areas we were looking at on this map. And there is a whole section that lists all of the towns and school districts, etcetera. And so the facilitator is required to group school districts according to the following criteria. Total average daily membership of school districts forming a study committee shall be a minimum of 2,000 students as practical. School districts shall be contiguous. And school districts on the same study committee may be members of different SUs. The second thing that needs to happen on or before 12/01/2026 is that each study committee has to hold its first meeting.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Two totally separate unrelated questions. One is who supervises the facilitator? Who supervises the facilitators? BTLC would be holding the contract. And the contract goes from the state directly to BTLC?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. I think this is the area that we need to work on.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay. And then the I'll hold that other question. Hold the more question. Please.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Why, you might have said, sorry. Why is PTLC hold on the document? That

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is a question for your colleagues in the House Education Department. That is

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: a policy choice they made. Thank you, Vincent.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So 12/01/2026, study committees have formed and they've held their first meeting. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, school districts are required to participate in the study committee assigned to it. Means you gotta come to the table and have a conversation. And there is language in there about what happens if your conversation falls apart. A study committee formed pursuant to this section shall adhere to the processes and requirements of 16 DSA Chapter 11 Subchapter two, which is current law in Title 16. Chapter 11 is your Union School District Governance Chapter. Subchapter two is the Exploration and Formation subchapter. So current law is, this was the first bill I worked on in this job, and what a nightmare it was, was rewriting chapter 11. And I'm very grateful for that experience now. It wasn't actually me that it was Donna Russo Savage, but it was the first bill I shepherded through the legislature. Chapter 11 is very specific in the processes that need to happen for both the conversations and processes that need to happen to study formation of a union school district, to create a union school district, and then once it's up and running, how to govern the union school district. So subchapter two is the exploration and formation subchapter. So I'm gonna guess that many questions you may have about processes is in current law. A study committee formed pursuant to this section may identify necessary or advisable school districts. So necessary school districts and advisable school districts are defined terms in Chapter 11. Necessary means a school district has to be a part of the Union School District in order for it to form. Advisable means it'd be nice if you joined us, but we're going to form anyway, regardless. So the study committee can form pursuant to this section. The facilitator puts them together, they start their work, They may realize, Hey, in order for this to really work, we think it's necessary for you to join us, and it would be nice if you joined us. So they can make those determinations once they're underway, and they can kick out necessary or advisable school districts that are not members of their study committee and are not members of the seesaw or both. And they would work with a facilitator to adjust study committee membership as necessary. This is language that is meant to allow for enough flexibility requirements that the facilitators are required to follow is providing the facilitators with enough direction to form study committees while meeting your intent. And then this language is meant to say, but if you start working, you realize that there were circumstances that the legislature didn't anticipate and factor into this guidance. Hey, facilitator, you can adjust the study committee membership. Is contiguousness still required? I would say that is not addressed here, so no. Notwithstanding some current law language related to study committee budgets, a study committee formed pursuant to this section shall be funded through appropriations made by the general assembly for this purpose. Provided, however, that if a study committee's needs exceed the appropriations provided, it may revert to current law and follow the budget process. So current law budget process for a study committee for a union school district study is everyone kicks in, all of the school districts on the study committee kick in their fair share and it's prorated according to your ADM. There's actually some outdated equalized pupil language still in there, but we'll say ADM. If the budget is less than $50,000 you do not need voter approval. If it's more than $50,000 you actually need voter approval for that budget. So this language is saying, we're gonna give you some money. We're also gonna give you a facilitator. If you need more than what we have given you, then you gotta follow current law for how you get that money. In addition to the requirements of chapter 11 sub chapter two, a study committee shall also explore the advisability and feasibility of a contemplated new unified and union school district operating a regional, middle or high school or both. A regional, middle or high school contemplated pursuant to this section shall offer resident students increased educational opportunities and access to career technical education.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Is that written in a way that we're allowed for two union schools in one of the new districts or is it limiting it to one?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't think it limits it in any way. It's just a contemplation. Subsection D is what needs to be in a report. So study under current law, study committees, if they determine that it is advisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district, then they have to draft a report. And so subsection D is saying, if the study committee formed pursuant to this section determines it is advisable to post formation of a new unified union school district, then the current law reporting requirements are triggered. And also, they need to add the following information to their final report. An analysis of the following: educational advantages and disadvantages likely to result from the formation of the proposed Unified Union School District Financial advantages and disadvantages likely to result from the formation of the proposed Unified Union School District. The likely operational and financial viability and sustainability of the proposed Unified Union School District and anything else. That all needs to be in the final report if a study committee thinks it is advisable to form a new Unified Union School District. Subdivision E is what needs to be in a report if the study committee finds that it is not advisable to form a unified union school district. So before they vote to dissolve on the study committee, they have to prepare a report with the following details: The names of the school districts participating in the study committee and whether the participation was formal or informal, an analysis of the strengths and challenges of the current structures of all necessary and advisable school districts, the reasons why formation of a new unified union school district would be inadvisable, with specific references to any state law or rule the study committee found to be an impediment to the formation of a Unified Union School District, with specific analysis of why such rule or law is an impediment. And if the decision of the study committee was not unanimous, an analysis of the minority view of the committee outlining the ways in which a unified Union School District promotes the state policy set forth in Section seven zero one of this chapter. I shall also say in subdivision D, along with the reporting requirements, if a study committee determines that it is advisable to propose formation of a new unified school district, they also have to formulate articles of agreement. So in addition to the report, the articles of agreement are gonna have a whole load of information on membership and all kinds of things. But obviously, if the vote that it is inadvisable, there's not gonna be any articles of agreement. Okay, so we're still in the inadvisable reporting world. The study committee is required to transmit its report to the school board of each school district that participated in the study committee, which is the secretary, the state board of education, and the facilitator or facilitators assisting the study committee. And here is language that I was alluding to. Members of a study committee that determines it is inadvisable to propose formation of a new unified union school district may form a new study committee or committees and may pursue any union school district formation option available under current law after the study committee members vote to dissolve the study committee formed pursuant to this section. So theoretically, the facilitator could group folks together. They sit down, they decide at their first meeting, there's no way this is happening. They write the report, they dissolve the study committee, and they go on their separate ways. They could do nothing, or they could come back to the table or form different study committees and use current law to study the advisability of forming whatever type of school district they want it for. Okay, so this is language applicable to all study committees, regardless of whether they have found that it is advisable or inadvisable. On or before 12/01/2027, each study committee is required to complete its final report. So this draft or this bill gives them a year to do their work And transmit that report along with proposed articles of agreement as applicable to the school board of each school district that the report identifies as either necessary or advisable, if the study committee determined it was advisable, or to the school board of the participating school districts if it was determined to be inadvisable to form a new school district.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Clarifying financial question. If the group meets and they there's two scenarios. Either quickly or halfway down the ride road decide that it's not gonna work. I presume they can sort of claw back the money that's not spent. Can they get any more Who

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is they in this scenario?

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Okay, so a study committee meets, and they have a facilitator, so there's money that's fee for service, and you said it's going to be but it's gonna be

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The facilitator is hired by a separate entity.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And is not part of the study committee budget. Okay.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: But the study committee, well, it'll become apparent, I guess, over time, but I'm concerned about there being money not spent, not wasted, that kind of stuff like that.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There is an appropriation for study committee budgets and it is a reimbursement model.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Okay, that's good. Thank you very much. Good enough for now. Very good, actually. Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: school boards of all of the study committees are now looking at the reports of the study committees. They have until February to complete their review. The next step along the way in current law is that if a study committee determines that it is advisable So if the study committee determines it's inadvisable, the report goes to the school districts and then the process in this bill stops. So now what we're talking about is only study committees that determine it is advisable to form a new Unified Union School District. So the next step is that the report and the proposed articles of agreement go to the secretary for review. And this bill gives the secretary sixty days from receipt or no later than 04/01/2028, to complete the review of the report and the proposed Articles of Agreement and send it to the State Board. If the Secretary fails to submit the report and the proposed Articles agreement within those sixty days or before April 1, whichever date occurs first, then the study committee bypasses the secretary and goes straight to the state board. State Board findings. The State Board shall issue the findings required in current law on or before 06/01/2028. Vote to form a Unified Union School District. If a study committee formed pursuant to this section determines that it is advisable to propose formation of a new Unified Union School District, the voters of each school district that is identified as necessary or advisable shall vote whether to form the proposed Union School District in accordance with current law on or before 11/07/2028, which is election day twenty twenty. So the vote could happen any time before then. That's the last day that it should be happening. That's a long ways away. So you're gonna get a status report in February on what's happening. So the AOE is required in consultation with the facilitators to submit a written report to the House and Senate Education and Money Committees with information regarding the membership and status of each study committee formed pursuant to the section. So you should know by February, what is the makeup of these study committees and what's the status of Section 14 is another mapping section. So this is guidance for study groupings. Facilitators shall use the school district groupings contained in subdivisions one through 21 of this section as guidance when forming study committees. Facilitators may form study committees that differ from the guidance contained in this section, but they have to explain their rationale to the lead facilitator so that the lead facilitator can include that rationale in a final report back to you all. And then we have groups. So groups one through 21 are school districts listed. And that's the colored areas on this slide, with the exception of this blue periwinkle, whatever we're gonna call it, color, should be part of this brown color. And this is just guidance. And so that's groups one through 21, that's what the words represent, is this. There are some school district or there are some groups that are single school districts. Just as an FYI. Study committee results and analysis facilitator report, section 15. I'm on the very top of page 36. On or before 01/01/2029, the lead facilitator shall submit a written report to the education committees with the results of each study committee overseen by each facilitator employed or contracted by the VTLC, and information regarding whether, and if so, how the following issues impact or influence the final outcome of each study committee overseen by the facilitator, along with recommendations for legislative action needed to remove identified barriers to the formation of new union school districts. So how did these things impact study committee conversations? Differences in staffing costs and costs associated with moving from several different collectively bargained agreements to one collectively bargained agreement for applicable staff, differences in operating factors, geographic and topographic barriers, enrollment patterns and projections, and anything else. Section 16. At the same time, on or before 01/01/2029, AOE, in consultation with the study committees and the State Board of Education, is required to report back to the education committees with recommendations for SU boundary adjustments and seesaw boundary adjustments that take into account the new union districts formed pursuant to this act. This is my vote. AOE. In consultation with the study committees and the state board. So the state board retains in this bill the authority to change supervisory union boundaries. So absent any legislation, they could just do that on their own. But you all, as long as you keep seesaw membership in statute, are the only ones who can change seesaw membership. And we get into money finally. Section 17, study committee reimbursement grants, CSO executive director grants, reports appropriations. So subsection A is the Study Committee Reimbursement Grant. So the agency of education shall pay up to $10,000 to its study committee form pursuant to Section 13 of this act to reimburse participating school districts for legal and other services necessary for the analysis and report required pursuant to current law and Section 13. The study committee shall forward invoices to the agency on a quarterly basis, and the agency shall reimburse one half of the total amount reflected in each set of invoices upon receipt and the remaining one half upon completion of the final report, provided, however, that no payment shall cause the total amount of funds paid to the study committee to exceed the $10,000 limit. This language is lifted directly from Act 153 from 2010 that traveled along to Act 156 and to Act 46. And then there's an appropriation for $210,000 from the general fund to AOE for the purpose of awarding the study committee reimbursement grants, that is simply 10,000 times 21. You could have more study committees formed, you could have less study committees formed. Facilitator appropriation. And this is, I think, an area that needs some work. The sum of 442,000 is appropriated from the general fund to VTLC in fiscal year twenty seven for the purpose of hiring or contracting for seven facilitators or one lead facilitator pursuant to Section 13A of this act, as well as for administrative costs. BTLC may use up to $32,000 of the funds appropriated pursuant to the subsection for administrative costs. And then beginning on October 1 and every three months thereafter, PTLC is required to submit written, reportedly reports to the Appropriations Committees, the Education Committees and the Money Committees with a detailed accounting of the funds expended pursuant to the subsection. Seesaw executive director grant appropriation. This bill gives Seesaws, in addition to the startup funds available under current law and then the bump of the extra $5, to 15, yep. This subsection also gives every Seesaw $50 towards hiring their first executive director. So there's the $15, there's the districts kicking in if they vote to do so. On Seesaw membership. Seesaw bylaws may require membership dues, yes. And then there's the $50,000

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Not

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: anticipating it's the executive director would take the job for $50,000

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think it's towards the hiring of an executive director.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Right, but it's, yeah.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So AOE shall award a grant the amount of $50,000 to each CSOC created to hire an executive director, provided, however, that BTLC is not eligible for a grant under the subsection because they already have an executive director. And the sum of $300,000 is appropriated from the general fund to AOE for the purpose of rewarding those executive director grants, and that is simply 50,000 times six. New Reader Assistance heading. 2025, Acts and Resolves Number 73. Section 18 amends the effective date section of Act 73. It changes the contingencies for the foundation formula to take effect. I have not touched subsection E because I don't have the substantive knowledge to know how this contingency affects the substance of section 61 A. So I am just highlighting the fact that this may be an area that you may want

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: to look at. 61 A?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Something to add tax classifications. So this bill amends, it does two things. It changes the date and it changes the contingencies. So subsection F is where the subdivisions that contain, we can get there, all of the sections for the foundation formula live. So the sections enumerated in subdivision two of this subsection shall take effect on 07/01/2030, provided that the following conditions have been met. The clerk of each school district voting on a proposal to form a unified union school district on or before 11/07/2028, pursuant to legislation enacted by the general assembly in 2026 that requires each school board participate on a study committee to study the advisability of forming a unified union school district. You cannot refer to this act because you are amending a previous act. And so I had to spell out what you're doing here. Have certified the results. So once the results of all of those union school district votes have been certified, that contingency has been met. Second contingency is the same as current Can

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I go back to the first one? So could there be clerks of school districts that are not voting on proposals to form a unified school district?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, so the way this was intended to read is that if there is a vote, then the clerk of those school districts, once they have certified the results of those votes, this contingency has been met. So if there are no votes- If there's one vote- And there's one vote, then the

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: city- There's only one vote and all the other districts I do nothing. Thank you.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Because it's a voluntary process. Well,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: they have to come to the table.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So second contingency is current law. The expert tasked with developing the cost factor foundation formula has to give you the 45A report. Third contingency is new. And I don't know what this says, to be honest with you. So this is a great area for you to spend some time. JFO has provided the legislature with an analysis that shows the combined approved fiscal 'twenty seven education spending for the school districts consolidated into each new school district compared with the estimated EOP under the revised proposed foundation formula for each district. And fourth contingency, legislation has been enacted Sorry.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I was thinking that those I thought we were about to go to a sub. No, sub. Okay. That's why you paused to see

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: what was gonna happen. Okay.

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Fourth contingency legislation has been enacted that addresses the following: suitable geographic measures for determining sparsity within the foundation formula, whether it costs more to educate a secondary student than an elementary student, and if so, inappropriately How to account for the provision of CTE. How to account for regional differences in operating costs. How to fund special education, school construction, renovation and repayment of school district debt, transportation and universal pre K. And anything else you want?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I think that's six right there. Okay.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's all positive. For the contingencies, there are other sections in the effective date section that have the same school district contingency. And so that language has been replaced with the vote certification language. So I just want to make sure I understand.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So we have to study and deliver all the study things, which are slightly expanded from the previous studying and delivering. It's important. I don't need to minimize it. I just want to get to the rest of my question. There's a date certain and including the date certain, there's a certification from some boats that might take place. Mean, date certain is two years out from the original date certain?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You mean the date that the foundation formula would take effect? Yes, it's two years out, right? Because if school budget's timing. Okay,

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

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that's it for effective dates in Act 73. New Reader Assistance heading, Pre K Education. This language has three parts. Findings Wait, before we go to this.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We're just shifting gears slightly, so I needed to get my brain all shifted. I don't know if anyone else needed to.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask you a question?

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, see. Okay.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Said that the school district has to come to the table. Yes. It didn't say what happens if they don't come to the table.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's punishment or penalty if you refuse to participate. The law is silent on that. It just says you shall do this. You're gonna get a report back in February that would tell you who has refused to come to the table. Okay, Pre K. Everything under this Reader System heading there does three things. There's a finding section, there's an intent section, and there's a study section. So findings. The General Assembly finds that despite being colloquially known as the universal pre K program, not all children three and four years of age in the state have equal access to a pre qualified prekindergarten provider. Vermont ranks second in the country with regard to access to pre kindergarten education by children who are four years of age, with seventy six percent of eligible four year old children receiving pre K education. And then Vermont is one of two states in which more than 70% of children who are four years of age receive pre kindergarten services. Only 11% of eligible children are enrolled in pre K services in Essex County. There is considerable geographic disparity in the state with regard to the number of pre K slots available, And as a result, 95% of eligible children in Windsor and Windham Counties and 93% of eligible children in Chittenden County have access to a pre qualified pre kindergarten provider, as compared to 55% in Franklin County and 61% in Grand Isle County. And while a substantial portion of states provide a full school day of four or more hours of pre kindergarten education daily, less than 5% of Vermont's pre qualified pre kindergarten providers provide a full day of four or more hours of pre K education.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: What full day means in that context? You sure do have. Your question? That was my question too.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's one of my favorite questions this year. Could you say that in

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: terms It's just what a full day means in that context.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's actually one of the funnest questions of the year. I think what this language is trying to say is that a full school day is for or more of purposes of this five days section. Legislative intent, section 20. It is the intent of the general assembly to ensure that pre K education is included as an integral part of Vermont's education system, as the right to education is fundamental for the success of Vermont's children in all grades pre K through 12. It's the intent of the General Assembly to determine a locus of responsibility to ensure there is access to pre K within all school districts. It is the intent of the General Assembly to provide access to licensed teachers in the classroom of both pre qualified public and private providers, including access to support a provisional status. And it is the intent of the General Assembly to equalize financial resources for all pre qualified providers of pre kindergarten education. Section 21 asks JFO to hire a contractor to make recommendations regarding how to account for the provision of pre K within Vermont's Education Finance System, including the consideration of use of categorical aid or the inclusion of pre K within a foundation formula through the use of a weight. The contractor's recommendations shall be designed to provide funding for pre K education that supports achieving access for every pre K child with equal payments and equal educational standards for public and private providers, ensures the cost of pre K education is included in the full cost of education, increases access and participation in areas of the state where access or participation is limited and continues to support a mixed delivery system. The recommendations from this contractor report should align with your 45A report, and the contractor for this report is required to submit a written report to you all on or before January 15, and there's $50,000 appropriated to JFO to hire that contractor. And finally, the effective date for everything that I just said is 07/01/2026.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Do you want to show us the timeline, or would you rather have time to

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I can timeline it.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think it needs to be updated. Let me see what conditions are.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I didn't give a moment for questions. And next week. There's 50,000 allocated to a contractor, but schools get much less than that to do the work that they're doing, and then they all have to contribute, and they're all having people working, and I'm not saying it's about you, I'm just saying I'm frustrated because it's another thing we're asking them to do, and it doesn't look like it's really sufficiently funded for the time that people who are working to do this have to take away from their jobs that they're also trying to do. So, can you I would love if you channel your frustration into a planspreadsheet of how much you think would be sufficient to do the work that needs doing by the people who need doing. Thank you. It strikes me that when we got our presentation on FoodTech, what was amazing was how little data we had so that we were actually unable to make informed decisions. And I'm just hoping that next week we can spend some time both with definitions, but also if we're actually gonna evaluate this. We're gonna have to specify some of the data collection, or we'll just be in the exact same place next year or something.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, I have found the timeline. I can't promise you that it is 100% accurate, but it appears to be what we just walked through. With that caveat, do you want me to pull it up?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: No. Can you show us tomorrow? Yes. Great. Thanks. We don't need to be more confused. Timelines are good for making people less confused. And I don't want to confuse you by having to correct it on the fly, although.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm 97% sure this is accurate, but

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay, then go for it. Look what you did to yourself. We were all going to recess now, but no.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: It was in '95, we would've said no tomorrow sounds good.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: It's true, actually. Are really true.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: CSA formation. Board member appointments within thirty days of passage. First meeting of the CSAW board within forty five days of passage.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We're going to post this to our website so you don't want

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Facilitator hire, 10/01/2026. First study committee meeting and assignments, 12/01/2026. So this date is wrong. It will be 02/01/2027, the study committee status report to you all. Study committee final report is 12/01/2027. School board review of study committee report should be wrapped up by February. Secretary review should be wrapped up by April. State Board should issue their findings by June. And the vote should occur on or before November. And then the final report to you all with the facilitator's information would be 01/01/2029, and AOE's report with the suggestions for SU and CSOB boundary suggestions would be 01/01/2029. And I will update that and send Sorsha a new draft. Thank you much, Lee.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Beth, another when we talked to Mount Ave yesterday, they talked about their process that had a number to it, studying a merger with Virgins. And they said it was an eighteen month process. So that's about a year, I think, right? Correct. Start to finish? Correct. So the committee talked about that. This is an accelerated time.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That's great question for tomorrow, Charlie Kimbell. That's so good.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I look forward to having

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: that discussion in the model. Great. I'll to check

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: you about it for a little bit.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Indeed. Does anyone have any technical clarifying questions for Beth before we all recess? Great. Thank you, everyone. Yes, June. A compliment.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: It comes in two parts. One is the first half, shall we say, of the discussion of the formation and various other kinds of stuff. Seems to me that we may end up with some disagreement sites, one that well organized happy to work with what we got from how I say it. The last part is really in your wheelhouse and not in mine. So any of the technical stuff that I've And I'd say on my behalf, we rely on your expertise to get that right, and at no point, some people I know like to micromanage that stuff, I certainly am not wowed, so I'm grateful for what you do.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: You very much, Beth. Thank you, Chittenden. And thank you to everyone for all the work today. We will see you tomorrow. We have the floor at 08:45 for our Caucus of the Whole. The Caucus of the Whole is about this bill from the education community. I think it's very helpful for us all to be there and hear what questions our colleagues ask so that we can be thinking about them in this room. And then right after that, right, if folks can come here, we have the floor. We have the capital bill. If things go on for some reason after the capital bill, please come back to the committee. But if things wrap quickly after the capital bill, we'll just start right after the floor.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Before the capital bill, tomorrow's the last day for the pages.

[Beth St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. And Perfect. So we

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: will clap muchly for the pages, and then we'll have the capital bill, and then we will come back here. Thank you. And we will wrap on the earlier side tomorrow afternoon, though we will likely meet on Monday.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Will be some

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yes, Zoom.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: There will be a lot of introductions.