Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Realize. Okay. Welcome back. This is the conference of age nine forty nine, the Yale bill. And when we left, we had given you our finance, 15.5, down 1% a year until we had either the foundation formula or a 112% perspective spending. That's open. And after working with staff, we have a proposal, and Scott, I'm gonna let you flush that out. Actually, we actually got it drafted. Do we?

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: I think we do.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: You do? Can you share it? I'm gonna come up the chair.

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: Yes. Give me one second. Let's set it up.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: It's pretty

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: rapid thunder. I would wish you all if you're going in the basement. That's the.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yes. Yeah. I've never

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: been there far. Yeah. Well, you gotta go.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: It's a little thing. I've only been once.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: There is a basement. I think I'll be getting back. Yeah. Which is where the noise is. Okay.

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: So I have tried for a with the office of legislative council, And I haven't really had a chance to review what I just sent. So I hope I hope that's right. It is in the form of a conference committee board, so it tries to include all of the elements that you can see all of them. And then at top, Wi Fi, we'll turn to Batsburg.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: My computer responded.

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: Okay. Hopefully, this will be larger. So I'll form of a premise meeting report. Start with your yields. I think this is already agreed. This is the senate construct, the latest budget data. Slides that have yields in the yield bill. Yes. So that's good. Excess spending exemption

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And, actually I'm sorry. While the yield is up, I just want to, like I don't know how much we didn't really have as much conversation and or political theater about this as we could have. Like, it was a big deal for the house just switched to the single year buy down. And I did not, like, make as much of a demonstration about it as I probably should have for, you know, propriety and strategy's sake. And so I just wanna name that, like, that was a huge benefit. We know that this is important. It's also important to know how, yes.

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: Excess spending exemption, I just can't even recall what drafts we've shown in here. If we have shown, because we've talked a lot about concepts, I got frustrated at how many sessions I was having to re amend the statute, so I've switched to trying to do a session law approach that just sets up a schedule of excess spending penalties across the years. You will have an initial reaction to this, but I will get to a session law provision that will make sense of what's happening. So for the excess spending extension, this is the extension to bill I-one twenty twenty six. So something that's very Chittenden brought up before, so I think that that is where folks are. And then for the excess spending penalty transition, this uses the current law concept base of FY 25 statewide average district per people spending, but it tries to clean up the section that had this. So it's using the same kind of format that you saw for switching to the foundation formula base, but this is really important. Just stay with average teacher or people spend. So this is the current law concept. It's just cleaned up. And before you react to this 112.5, what this is doing is setting what is envisioned as the in perpetuity permanent excess spending threshold if there is no foundation for a loan. This would not be until f y thirty one, I believe. And so the real place to see the schedule of the proposed excess fitting threshold transitions is here. It now stands that section we just went through. It says, beginning in FY '28, threshold shall mainly decrease by one percentage point according to the following schedule until reaching that statutory and suspending threshold in FY '31. Of course, that statutory threshold would be repealed if the foundation for what comes to effect. Another advantage of having this obsession law, I don't think you have to create any weird contingencies that tie to act 73 or whatever's happening in 1955.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And so if the foundation formula follows the schedule in 1955, we would never even get to 113.5.

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: That's correct. Okay. You would end at 114.5. You'd have an FY '27 current law, 01/2018. In FY '28, 01/2005. And in FY '29, 114.5. To try to draw out what I recall comparisons against if you had used alternatively the formulation of the foundation formula base, the comparable figure to the base, I think, was 114.2%. So you're at one fourteen point five the fiscal year before rolling into the foundation formula. And that the FY '30 and FY '31 are only that that that issue doesn't happen. So I can pause here if it's fine to digest.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: And then the default that's above that 01/2012?

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: Yeah, hundred twelve point five. Just to call out the other pieces of the bill so you have full package here. They should all be familiar about the rent to credit, one year expansion for claim year 2027.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: 12/2005, right?

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: Yep. It goes up to 12.5. That's exactly right. And you have the increased cap to the $32.50. Then it

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: goes back to 10 at

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: the following six thirty Exactly. I think part of why this one confused folks yesterday is that the one year narrowing back to current law happens at the same time that the circuit breaker expansion occurs. You're seeing different things happening in the center of the spectrum. But this is the actual expansion itself. Eight nine. Then you have your circuit breaker expansion in FY twenty eight. The new pieces you have are this was what was discussed this morning related to the Department of Tax. Right. Essentially, think the claim is that 47 k threshold is just one policy lever. There's one lever in the mechanism. Up to this point, the circuit breaker expansion, which I think was already agreed to, had only touched the municipal and the statewide municipal sorry, statewide and municipal circuit breaker 47 k threshold. Now what you see is pulled in updates to that bottom income threshold in the property tax credit itself. So this is what was discussed this morning, and I think there was alignment there as well by this. But highlighted just to show it's new. Otherwise, this is what you've seen before, and I'll scroll down. This is the narrowing of the renter credit. It just happens to happen in the same fashion. That's what Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: That's right.

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: And that's just because both the renter credit and the circuit breaker are in the same statute. So I'll quickly pass these. The thing you do see here, and you guys have already seen this before, but this is the renter credit narrowing, and this is the increase of the statutory caps for the circuit breaker expansion. So they're happening at the same time.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Which is permanent, not temporary. Yeah.

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: The circuit breaker expansion is permanent. The renter credit is a one year changed. We didn't have conforming changes. I do need to clean this up because it's striking the old concept, but this would just be revealing whatever happens to be the suspending statute at the time the foundation formal evolves into effect. So it's truly just confirming changes. This one would technically take effect 06/29/2029, right before foundation formula was exactly. And then these which stepped the circuit breaker expansion once you have the homestead exemption, technically take effect 07/02/2029, the day after the demolition from, like, into effect. But this is just redoing what happened above because you now had a bend into the section. Same here. With that, I come to the tuition section. And I don't know if Beth wants I doubt she wants to speak to this, but I would ask her to speak to this rather than

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Beth St. James, office of legislative council. I can walk through the language, but I will, I think, need to phone a friend on any math concepts involved here.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Beth, I'm so sorry. I can barely hear you for your

[Julie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay. Do you want to steer?

[Beth St. James (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nope. Not a problem. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary for fiscal years '28 and '29 only, the tuition paid to a public or approved independent receiving school shall not increase more than the relative percentage increase in the statewide average per pupil spending between the previous fiscal year and the fiscal year preceding that. So for FY '28, that would be the relative percentage increase between spending in FY 26 and '27, and tuition could go up by that percentage. And then the tuition overcharge or undercharge provisions would still remain applicable. So, the truing up process. And that's only applicable to public schools, yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Can I add, so all these other provisions we've set in place are forever provisions? Why should this one be temporary? Well So and I guess sorry. To be clear, what we offered was temporary, but our excess spending construct was more temporary. So I guess Well If one's going on forever, I feel like it's

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: not very well. Yeah. I mean, we just we worked with. And this was 29. Okay. It's you're

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: gonna find some way. Yep. That's scary. It's a wild ask thing about because I think it is very complex system. But this would put some reflect the downward pressure that would. I think we're gonna need to sort of Yeah. Discuss amongst ourselves and just sort of, like, make sure we're getting our head around what's included here and not included here. Yeah. And likely, we would want the sort of the whole construct to be in perpetuity or with the act like, this should match the excess spending threshold timeline, I guess. Okay. But do do either of you have questions about how this language works?

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Was thinking about relative was, I think, was

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: They're fine

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: for you. I was wondering about the relatives.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Who's who it's relatives too?

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Long cycles.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Year over year.

[Julie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Julie, for JFO, the relative percentage change, that's just comparing to the prior year. It's calculated by taking, for instance, in FY28, it would be taking the relative percentage increase from FY26 to FY27, which is calculated as the difference between FY26 and FY27 divided by FY26. From FY26 to FY27, the relative increase was 4.9%. 4.9% was the relative increase. And what was the need for? Oh, that's a good question. Give me a second. I'll need to fill that out. From add from FY '25 to FY '26, it was six percent. And prior to FY '25, we really can't compare because we were under a different weighting scheme.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I mean, I I read this to '28 and '29 because that's what you guys Yeah. Okay. I I don't have a problem with sending him to Okay. You know, as far as we end up the grandpa and outbard and suspect. So the statewide average per pupil spendings across all grades, all schools, it's the head spending divided by the total weighted student at

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: the school. We use a statewide average per the excess spending. And

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: so can you say the two numbers again? The growth and the

[Julie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure. Average. So the average per pupil spending relative increase from '25 to '26 was 6%. And from FY26 to FY27 was 4.9%. And I'm pulling up NEPA right now. NIPA was 26 to 20 25 to 26, 1.9%, and 26 to 27, 2.8%. And that's the forecast from the economists.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Thanks.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: That would be much higher with.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: That's the fact.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I mean, they don't they don't I mean, they still set their tuition, but they have to be hungry. Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Think we need to go to talk. Thank you for this. Do make sure? I guess I'm just trying to figure out the difference between the this average per people sending. Relative to the announced that we talked about.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: That number show on the Fund Outbook? The average people spend. No.

[Julie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The average per people spend is calculated by literally taking the statewide education spending divided by the long term weighted EDM. You can do that by taking line Is it line 11, which is the end 12. Line 12.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: You're right. Line 11.

[Julie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Line 11 divided by is it d

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: or e? Whatever

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: the long term.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah. So the numbers that make it

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: are different Yeah, from And

[Julie (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: it's different than that line on the EdFund outlook, that's the relative change in education spending, because that's solely looking at the growth in education spending, whereas what we're talking about here is the growth in the per weighted pupil spending. So, it's taking into account both the growth in education spending and the decline in the weighted student count, assuming that those are the directions.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: So just to ask, if you maintain your level of spending but the number of students goes down, per pupil spending goes up. Correct. With our trajectory that number has been going down.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Incorrect. Back up again.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Okay. I think it's also important. We're treating all these skills the same. All proportion of family doesn't. We're all. Yep.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I think we need to take a break and take a class to look back over there at six.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Is there anything else that's differentiating?

[Rep. Scott Beck (Member)]: Six would be That's the product defect. That's the agenda. A pack of those stuff we've kinda talked about.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: Do we wanna have seven? Sure. Do you guys want 07:30 so you can have dinner?

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: 07:30. I should make dinner about three of my.

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: I'm going home for dinner.

[Rep. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Do we want pizza?

[Sen. Ann Cummings (Chair)]: No pizza. No ice cream. Pizza. I know that's your committee rule, but if you want to order pizza, pizza. The non fancy number. Let's