Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: We're live.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Education Committee lead)]: Okay, we're back. We have another short break and hopefully the last forced one that we like. So we're continuing.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: That's good. I'm John Gray, I'm subledged to the council. We left off at the bottom of page 80. I was last describing section 77 where there is no difference, this is the exempting school construction expenditures from the supplemental spending path, no change there. The Senate added at the bottom of page 80 the new section 77A. You'll recall that the House had included language to update the ballots for supplemental district spending to address some of the sequencing of bond authorization, then a one time authorization for supplemental district spending, getting a separate ballot for regular supplemental district spending to distinguish between school construction expenditures and other kinds of expenditures covered through supplemental district spending. The update that the Senate made is to amend the section of statute that actually spells out some of the valid language and process related to authorizing that bond. So separate from supplemental engineering training itself, this is that bond authorization and it ties back to the seek of safety problem we were talking about that's resolved in the aid application section. So what you'll see throughout are a couple of strikethroughs and updates to AOE cross references, some cleanup changes to reflect the new state aid program. And then the big changes really begin bottom of page 81 and reading on to page 82. There's a disclaimer that goes out with the ballots. Currently it talks about state funds not being available and that the district would be on the hook if that page is not available. At the top of page 82, see new language added to that. It's gonna be in bold text on the ballot. And it says funds to cover annual debt service costs on the bond shall be raised through the supplemental different spending tax and any bond of indebtedness incurred for school construction shall constitute an ongoing obligation, not subject to annual authorization outside of the long term spending. So it's trying to draw out the interesting sequencing for doing school construction in one area in the world where you need to do separate long term spending. It additionally provides at the bottom of page 82 separate from the ballot itself, but as part of an informational hearing, language estimating different possible supplemental district spending tax rates, making a number of assumptions based on different aid scenarios. And so the idea is that information is being made available to voters at the time that they authorize the bond, which again is not the time that they authorize SDS. So this is when they're voting on the full, they would be voting on the full authorization, not knowing what state aid is coming. And it's letting them know you might receive different kinds of aid and this is conceivably how it might affect your central pension tax rates. But as you see at the top of page 83, you would also clarify to the voters that these are estimates, it is based on assumptions and future rates would vary based on current conditions at that time. But it's slightly different than the current structure where it's almost, you can't really estimate what future tax rates would be under the current structure. Section 78 is the supplemental district spending ballot language that I was just talking about. And I would say that the way to explain the differences between the chambers, really the core is the same. It's trying to create two different ballots, one for regular SES and one for sole construction. And the Senate just kind of simplified the language, and that's what you'd see at the bottom of page 84. The kick in for your regular vote is if the board determines that the district should raise funds to cover expenditures other than annual debt service obligations on outstanding capital indebtedness, then this ballot. And then it says what the ballot is. And one thing that does on page 85 is you see that it clarifies to voters that even if they don't authorize supplemental district spending in that year, they would still be subject to whatever supplemental district spending tax rate is required to support any ongoing annual debt service costs.

[Unidentified legislator]: It continues to keep the sort

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: of two separate. Exactly. And that you see a different lead in, it's the same concept. It spells off some of the timing for the one time authorization. It says if the board receives a determination of aid and prior to issuing any bonds for school construction, so before incurring that actual bond of indebtedness, present for a one time authorization SDS to cover those annual debt service costs. And similarly on '86, it does kind of a converse of what we just described. It says that if you separately approve any SDS, note that the rate you receive in that ballot will be the total rate required to cover that vote, plus any annual debt service costs. So it's making clear to our voters that they're kind of a special kind of something you want to submit. Section 79, we are now at a full conforming sentence and we're jumping to quite something to explain, correct things related to the direction from our transition measures and reports. There's just a conforming change in section 79 to repeal section 41 from Act 73. This is the valid language for supplemental spending. There are now sufficient changes in the Senate proposal that you need to repeal and replace. That's what I put in there. But it does, preserve the ACCE-seventy three language. It just updates for the additional pieces we just talked about. The remaining sections I'll speak to, sections 80 through 82, I think are all transactionary metrics and blue resolve bits, these are continually effective for FY30, which is what the Senate proposed. So it's a one year evaluation and that's what you see reflected in the high level in each fiscal year's come '30 through etcetera, etcetera.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: It's your EOP transitions. It's your SDS CAT transition. Your homestead property tax rate transition, I can Except for the foundation formula goes into effect on 2029 incentive version. Exactly. Exactly. So bottom of page 87 and section 81, it still says 30.

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

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: Oh, you just is that

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: what JASON It's Okay. Yeah, you're good. I mean, less to clarify. I can update those. Okay, sorry about

[Unidentified legislator]: that. So

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: that's your current lithium ion therapy. Those subsequent financial data are exactly as an act 73. It's exactly the same separately across both chambers, just accelerating by year. Killer concept for the homesick property tax rate transition report. While you see this underlying, this is technically the same substantive language as is in Act 73. It's just pulled out into a new section to be separate from the transitionary measures. And that report of the homestead property tax rate transition would now come 12/15/2027 in the Senate proposal. Similarly in section 84 and on page 89, the homestead exemption structure report should come 12/15/2027. Those are updates to timing in all cases just accelerating by year. Section 85 does have one substantive tweak. These are the changes to membership and direct roles to the Ad Fund Advisory Committee and the changes on page 91. It adds as a new directive for the committee to annually recommend Subdivision 6, the appropriations required to fully fund each school district's educational opportunity payment under the family formula for the current and upcoming fiscal year. This is essentially a check to see has the general assembly followed the math of the statute. And so you would just multiply the most up to date student counts by that base amount and you could check the work of the legislature and say, you fully funded the foundation formula has contemplated in statute or alternatively, if you didn't, it would say you didn't. And then you see that update to timing, accelerating the first meeting by one year. This comes a little bit after the foundation formula has kicked into effect. So I get paid from there's not aids in the transition to the foundation formula, but something that comes in afterward, that kind of technical assistance. On '92, we have the effective dates, and these have been spoken to, I think, throughout the presentation, but the accelerated effective dates. It really touches the tax policy pieces outside of regional assessment districts. So the high carbon tax classifications related provisions, and then it touches the foundation formula and the sub exemption all accelerated by year end FY thirty, FY 01/2029 as the big date.

[Unidentified legislator]: Ask you about the date change here?

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: The date change all the date changes? Date changes? For transition.

[Unidentified legislator]: I don't

[Unidentified legislator]: know if we wanna do that right now or not, but have we did we We have not.

[Unidentified legislator]: We've discussed the the big date change.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Do you want me to walk through it?

[Unidentified legislator]: Yeah. Sure.

[Unidentified legislator]: Is that the sorry. Helpful? Yeah.

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

[Unidentified legislator]: Can you I'm sorry. Can you talk through the so between when the new board is formed and elected and the new superintendent is hired, how much time do they have to develop the budget for the new foundation?

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

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Education Committee lead)]: way, there's a mistake on this because under 07/01/2029, the senate does not have prohibition on fees for tuition. So the senate version gets doesn't has an excellent match. Right.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Correct.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Education Committee lead)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: So that and then this is the order where that just has some school stuff on it, not all the tax stuff.

[Unidentified legislator]: But

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

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

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: Yeah. I think that's that is a good point that

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: we

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: want to give them more than two weeks to do their work.

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

[Unidentified legislator]: Yeah, the secretary of the

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: state board and local school boards should be all reviewing them simultaneously, Yeah,

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: and we can do that.

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

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Education Committee lead)]: Yeah, I think the big- You close. In some ways, the big move on our part was to adopt your framework. Yeah. Because it was very different than ours. Well, not very different, some different. And for our committee, for the head committee to move to CISOs was kind of a major shift. We moved in that direction and be interested in the company.

[Unidentified legislator]: Appreciate that. And again, much of this, someone gave a lot just of things that were caught that are great, and appreciate that as well. Without the visual here, I'll get some copies of the map I had created and made for us tomorrow. Like to just sort of talk over some of the differences in those areas.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Just to get some wise. Anyway, we wrapped up.

[Unidentified legislator]: I was expressing appreciation for many of the smaller parts that had been picked up on.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: Yeah. A lot of this is some of our the best work that

[Unidentified legislator]: can jump in between two chambers in terms of you guys added a lot of polish.

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

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, I

[Unidentified legislator]: think that might be helpful to, do we want to come back together tonight?

[Unidentified legislator]: Yeah. Well, I don't know what our

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: I mean, were there areas that you you had mentioned areas that you had questions of. Do you want to do those now?

[Unidentified legislator]: Yes. I mean, we basically I sort of flagged them as they came along. Okay.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Education Committee lead)]: But you have to go to the floor about five?

[Unidentified legislator]: Yeah, I'll get a text at some point. I'm not sure when that's gonna be. There's a long list of bills in front of us. So from a timing point of view, just come back at six When we say 05:30, it's only quarter to five Are

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: we gonna will you have the maps to look at then?

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

[Unidentified legislator]: Yeah, that would be strange.

[Unidentified legislator]: We have a we don't have a print shop, I don't think at

[Unidentified legislator]: this Can I just make copies in the large lounge?

[Unidentified legislator]: I don't know if you make it that big.

[Unidentified legislator]: I did. That's where I made it.

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

[Unidentified legislator]: That's where I got this one from. That's pressure. Okay. So Okay.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Alright.

[Unidentified legislator]: Okay. I just did this in the Ledge Lounge earlier tonight.

[Unidentified legislator]: I will send those to you to have Richard.

[Unidentified legislator]: Okay. Okay. Cool. So when did we do that? 05:30.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: 05:30? 05:30? 05:30.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Education Committee lead)]: Yeah. It's

[Unidentified legislator]: gonna. Okay. So we'll come back after 05:30.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: And I will say for the record, I'm covered

[Unidentified legislator]: on childcare this week. My

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: wife's leaving the state with the kids. Oh, okay. Call me back? Yeah. Okay.

[Unidentified legislator]: Sweetly. TV day. Maybe that's not

[Unidentified legislator]: so bad.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Right. Okay.

[Unidentified legislator (likely Senate Education lead/negotiator)]: So in this room at 05:30.