 So good morning, everybody. This is a joint meeting of House ways means and House education and the subject that we're going to be looking at over the next hour is the question of how to deal with the 19 school districts that haven't yet adopted their budgets either because they were defeated or because they haven't yet been presented to the voters and glad that everybody is able to do this again jointly seem to work well last time so it was good to give it another try. Kate, do you want to say a couple words before we start. Sure. The Senate will will originate a bill. We are working on this at the same time so that we can have agreement between the two bodies before anything leaves. They are working on a bill that Jim will present today. And Janet and I have looked at some other options and some other information that might help us determine the best way to go in this challenging situation. Thank you, Janet. Yeah. So, Mark, do you want to get us started. I know you, you and Chloe have been working on some I've lost you on the screen here. There you go. You and Chloe have been working on some information so that's one of we go ahead and set the stage. Okay, so, Sorsha, if you can bring up the first document that Chloe sent you this morning. On the school budgets requiring votes. Okay, great. There it is. So can everybody see that and hear me. Yes. I think so. Yeah. Okay. So, this is a document that Chloe Wexler actually put together over the last couple of days and included having to go out to some websites for districts that hadn't posted their, you know, board approved budgets, and that kind of stuff. So that's one of the recent information that we have. There are on this list, there are actually 20 districts that don't have budget chat if you include Wintem down at the bottom and Rivendell which was just added recently. So what this table shows you will have to do it in pieces I guess for showing on the screen. Mark that it's, I don't know if other people are able to see it. It's very tiny. So it'll take a lot of explanation. Are other people seeing it okay. Yeah, there's a lot of information on here I think I can direct you to the portions of it that are relevant for you this morning but, and I don't think it's any way to make it any bigger. Sorsha is there at this point inside. There's lots of explanation will work. Okay. Alright, so there are two groups of districts on here the first group are those districts that have simply just not had the opportunity to vote yet because their votes were scheduled after the stay at home orders were our directives were issued. There are 11 of them. What you can see here is the change between FY 20 and FY 21 in their proposed budgets. And I think you can focus on, I guess, can you see my can you see my cursor. Moving around or no, yes. I can't because I've got the participant list up but let me see nobody know Peter can't see it. I'm looking at other people. I don't. Okay, so out of this initial group of 11. There are two districts that we just don't have any information for, because they just haven't gotten to the point yet where they've finalized their board approved budget and those are Granville and Rochester down at the bottom. But for the remaining districts you can see the percent change between FY 20 and FY 21 in their budget, their education spending, their pupil count and their spending per pupil. So this is the column here where you want to focus it's the change at spending per pupil and you can see that it ranges from as low as 1.4% in Windham Northeast up to about 13.1% in win in the Rivendell interstate district. So, is everybody okay on the so far. Yes, I can I'm checking to see if anybody's raised their hand and I don't see anybody so that's good. Okay, you know this information was provided along this these lines, even though it's a little bit more detailed than you know it'd be ideal, because districts have changing numbers of pupils, which also affects their pupil count so you can see for example, in Windham Northeast, their budget went down by 2.4% but because of the reduction in their equalized pupils, their spending actually goes up by 1.4%. So this enables you to see what's driving the growth in per pupil spending, whether it's their budget or loss of pupils. And I don't know if that's helpful to people or not but the information's there. And then social can you can you page scroll down to the next section. Mark, can I just get a clarification. The Ed spending per pupil is the figure that that affects the local tax rate they they percent they, while the local tax rates, right. So that's a critical figure for taxes. That's true. Education spending per pupil is what we determine tax rates on difference between the budget and education spending is the categorical aid that comes out from the feds in the state. Plus some other things that are districts are enabled able to use to reduce their education spending. If you drop down to this next section, this is an additional nine districts that were able to set their board approved budgets and get them in front of the voters, but they were defeated. All of them were associated with bond issues slate Valley and South Burlington, but the others just went down. And in this case you can see that the per pupil spending increases range from a high of 16% down to about 2.3%. So all 20 of these districts have increased budgets. But they range from quite a quite a bit. And, you know, you got to keep in mind this is a really mixed bag of districts, Wyndham, which has the biggest increase, for example, has a very small number of kids that said district with 18 kids in it. So, you know, one or two kids makes a big swing in the, in the percentage. So, although there's a lot of information on this sheet. It's there to sort of help you navigate these kind of questions because when I first look at this and see a 16% increase, I think, oh my God, that's, that's just huge. How did that happen? And you realize that, you know, it can be retributable and I just took that size to adding a kid or two. Peter Conlon has a question. Yeah, and I apologize if I'm jumping the gun here. Do you know mark if slipped out Burlington in their budgets that it include their bond payments. Well, I don't believe it did because I think that the bond the bond payments wouldn't have started to kick in and kick in by 21. Yeah. So that was a proposal to approve the bond. Okay. Okay, and just a clarification in the first group. I'm just wondering about how spending was going up and what you really meant was spending per pupil was going up because in some of these towns spending is actually going down, or would be if their budgets had been approved. That that's true. And again, that's that's the that's the interplay between your budget and the number of equalized pupils you have. And again, I think what the one district that flag that jumped out at me was Wyndham northeast, which is number four on that list which has an increase in education spending per pupil, even though they've reduced their budget by 2.5%. So, right, but they're but they're looking for presumably fewer state dollars to fund their education. Yes. Okay, thank you. So, um, I, you know, there's a lot of information on this sheet what's what's in the columns to the right are the FY 2020 figures. The year we're currently in FY 21 shows you what was initially warned or proposed. I'm happy to answer any questions on this I know Chloe's online. I'm happy to answer any questions together so she could also answer any questions that you might have for it later this but I mean this this is basically just where we are. These districts do not yet have budgets, there are default budgets in the law. There's the proposal that you're going to hear later on from Jim about how to set a default budget. As an alternative default budget to the one we have right now in current law. I'm not sure what else I can do on the sheet but I'm happy to answer any questions. Mark, the the you probably already said this but it is the sheet divided between the districts that rejected their budgets and the districts that just haven't had a vote yet. Yes, the first 11 districts are those districts that haven't haven't had a vote at all. And then the next nine districts are those that have had their budgets presented before their voters but they were rejected. Okay, nine rejects 11 that just haven't voted yet. Okay, I just needed to read it through them closely sorry George, George. Yeah. I'm using two computers and grabbed the wrong mouse to try to unmute me. Mark, the very last one on the second the bottom part of the list, Wyndham it says non member elementary West River. Does that mean that they declined to emerge? I don't know the answer to that. I suspect that Chloe does, if she wants to jump in or maybe Jim Dameray if he's on. I don't know. But it's a really tiny district it's only 18, 18 pupils. And then the follow up is there are others on this list that were asked to merge and didn't. Yeah, we could take a look at that. But I don't know off the top of my head which which of these had the opportunity to merge and declined. Yeah, I asked Jim to also answer the question about why Wyndham is. Oh, I see. Got it. Okay, go ahead, Jim. I answer my own question. Can you help us with that? Jim, you're muted. Yeah, I'm here as well. This is Chloe. I'm from the Joint Fiscal Office for the record. Just confirming that yes, Wyndham is a non member elementary of the West River Unified Elementary District, which is where the vote has not occurred for that district and Wyndham did have their vote and it was defeated. I had a question a minute ago. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Just operate a little context on Wyndham we did hear from some folks from Wyndham it is a small district. I believe that they, they are part of a supervisory district, but not part of a merged district. And so that was just I know that they had some unanticipated and for their size extraordinary costs related to special ed costs and reimbursements and some complexities but anyway just they we did hear from them and I think it is correct that they submitted an alternative governance structure I can't remember whether it was one way or the other but essentially they're not merged in a district there. They're sort of a small elementary district that's attached and under that supervisory structure so to the extent that's helpful that's what I remember from when we heard from some of the members of that board and community. Other questions anyone has. Are you trying to throw something in. Yeah, go ahead. Mark was talking about default budgets in the current law just to make sure it's clear that the law says that if you don't pass a budget, you have to keep voting. And you will on the three payment dates, September, December and April, get a quarter of the Ed spending amount so you get and then you have the borrowing provision after that that allows you to borrow an amount that will give you 87% of the total budget but there's so there's really no default budget current and current law there's only that provision you have to keep voting. Yeah. Unless we do something different which is what we're doing. Yeah, or do something special for this year when people actually can't vote. So I can't raise my hand because I'm a co-host. Oh, I can't. Just jump in. I was looking at the list that Brad had where he showed the failed votes. And then I think six of them had developed new budgets. Do you know if the others have actually developed new budgets that they had intended to put toward the voters, but didn't didn't have time to do that. If you're asking me I don't know, no, we don't know that. But it was Albert Stratford Harwood. We're ones that I see that did not have doesn't doesn't look like they've got any other draft that they were putting before the voters. Maybe that's a question for Sue she might know when it comes to her time. Or maybe for Chloe and this is a point in time. I mean, I know in order to complete this shoot that Chloe had to go to the web web pages of some of these districts in order to find out what their board approved budget was when it wasn't submitted. And there could be changes in the individual districts are things that are progressing that we're not aware of, but this was the most recent information we have available. The other thing I just wanted to raise is I mean this is in response to bill comments. My understanding is that if districts decide to set their budgets after June 30 when tax rates need to be set. They would have to issue new bills. Is that correct bill. So that that's a that's a big deal for district and a consideration that they may want to weigh. So that connects to what the Senate proposed. Yes. Okay. They have to they they give a tax rate that's the base rate. I don't know. Remember how you do that with the yield but then they have to say $1. Yeah, okay. And then you send an additional tax rate based on whatever you finally get to raise the additional funds. Okay. Do you think it makes sense to go to Sue at this point or what is your preference? I think so I think I continue to be interested in how far the districts were getting in their in their process before we come sort of flying in with a big solution. So I'm interested in what status is on the ground in terms of progress on budgets. So perhaps we can go to Sue. Thank you. So all yours. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity to testify this morning regarding school budgets and we're focusing today on the 19 school districts without approved budgets for fiscal year 21. And Mark Mark has just outlined who those districts are. We know that Governor Scott issued the stay home state stay safe order on March 24, 2020, and that that order has been extended to May 15, 2020. The Secretary of State has issued guidance stating that election scheduled for April and May should be canceled. If at all possible. And so under these circumstances then the school districts without approved budgets are facing great uncertainty about when and how their budget votes can occur and also uncertainty about the ability to see a budget approved in the current economic crisis. The VSBA is calling for an approach that would provide these districts without that don't have approved FY 2021 budgets with legislatively granted spending authority for FY 2021 equivalent to their FY 2020 approved Ed spending plus an inflator of the statewide percent increase in Ed spending, which is approximately 4%. The district has already presented a budget to voters that is less than that authorized by this proposal. The default budget should be their proposed budget. Districts with significant increases in equalized pupils should be addressed by a special exception clause to allow the default budget increase to account for this factor. And you can see which ones those are on the chart that Mark just talked about. The VSBA supports extending the June 30 deadline for these districts to present proposed budgets to their electorate. The worsening economy and potential legislative response to the resulting shortfall in the Ed fund is likely to lead to severe pressures on all districts to not stabilize these 19 districts with reasonable spending authority will disadvantage them as they work to navigate this crisis. So draft bill 20-1, excuse me draft bill 20-0955 version 1.1, which provides FY 2021 default spending authority equals. So I'm going to interrupt just to clarify that that's what the Senate is looking at right. Yes, that's not the bill we have been in front of us at this point. That's the one that the Senate is looking at. Yes. Thanks. And I believe you'll be looking at it later this morning. Yeah, okay. I just want people to know that there's not a draft that our committee or how said is worked up at this point. Yes. So that draft bill has spending authority equal to FY 2020 approved education spending, which is level funding. So that that would disadvantage these 19 districts or 20 as set forth in in the information mark just gave you because the West River modified district was divided into two on the information that Mark just presented. This week the Vermont superintendents association hosted a meeting of the superintendents of the 19 affected districts, and I participated in that meeting, and then on Wednesday of this week. VSA and VSBA hosted superintendents and board chairs of the affected districts in a virtual meeting. The 14 representative superintendents were present and 14 of the 19 school board chairs were in attendance. Overwhelmingly, superintendents and board chairs expressed the dire consequences of a default budget based on level funded education spending. For most version 1.1 of the bill would cause a substantial shortfall requiring a significant reduction in force and or cuts to programs and services. They are gravely concerned about their schools ability to address the increased and very significant needs of students returning to school in the fall with a decreased workforce. The magnitude of this once in a lifetime crisis has shown us how heavily our society relies on our schools as hubs of our communities to provide social services well beyond traditional education. These services are in jeopardy in the 19 affected districts if default budgets are level funded based on FY 2020 education spending. This later is critical because it addresses at least partially the increased cost school districts have every year in the area of salaries and benefits. It is particularly important in FY 2021 because the arbitrator's decision in statewide bargaining for health insurance for school employees goes into effect during FY 2021. According to an expert witness, the arbitrator's choice of the employee commissioners last best offer will result in approximately 25 million of additional cost, which will be approximately 10% of the overall cost of health care benefits for educational employees. This figure does not reflect the annual increase in premium costs for health plans. The 25 million reflects an additional cost above and beyond the 14% increase in health care premium rates for FY 2021. Providing a default budget without an inflator in a year where there will be such significant increases in the cost of providing health care benefits would be devastating to nearly all of the 19 districts. One superintendent captured the dire consequences of level funding this way. Students will be returning to their schools with nothing but bare bones education. No field trips, no extra curriculars and minimal enrichment and support at the very time these kids are going to need it the most. This will be especially evident in districts in rural communities and those with high proportions of economically disadvantaged families. Simply put, equity in educational opportunity will not be addressed, but will instead be tremendously exacerbated. Finally, I want to be clear on behalf of the board chairs and superintendents with whom we have been working, as well as for the Vermont School Board Association, that we are not seeking any unnecessary dispensation or special advantage for these 19 districts. On the contrary, our goal is to see these districts placed on comparatively equal footing with those districts that saw budgets approved before the onslaught of operational challenges and fiscal deterioration resulting from the COVID-19 crisis. These districts have been subject to the same challenges of every other district in Vermont in the early days of navigating this crisis, and they will be striving to serve children and communities in the same diminished economy under the same state and federal policies that are established to contend with this tragic event. On behalf of these districts and the students and communities they serve, I ask your consideration in putting them on stable financial ground as they work to navigate the long and challenging road ahead. Thank you. Thank you very much and just to let the committee know that your testimony is posted on our website if people want to go back and refer to it. Kate has a question, then I'll wait. Go ahead. When I look at this list, this very little that these different districts have in common. I mean they're only on this list because of voting. There's very little relationship to South Burlington which has very little relationship to Harvard. And yet and I'm also looking at the range of spending per pupil ranging from looks like 1.4 to 16%. I'm, I'm wondering if this needs a more surgical instrument rather than just a broad 4%. That's easy and swift but doesn't really get to what the districts were contemplating. Just your thoughts on that. Well, you are right that they are that there are, there are differences and each of these situations is unique there. We may be able to take a look at at the data. Some, some of this is that having all of this in front of us is very, very helpful. And we may be able to take a look at it and, and group some of them together. And take an approach that is more targeted. But the information that I have from JFO is that the, the increase. The inflator, the 4% inflator is already baked into their modeling and projections, and that that would not necessarily move the needle up on the statewide average. So that's a factor to consider as well. So the question I was going to ask is why, why wouldn't we use the budgets that are proposed by the boards, the school boards in each instance. And certainly another approach that there are some that have budgets that are proposed that are lower than than the state average at spending and there are some that are higher as well. I mean, it just strikes me that the school boards probably have a better idea of what's needed than than I do. Yes, for sure. Just throwing that out there is a different way of thinking about this and that five people, Robin, Emily, Jim, Joey and Serita. So Robin, you go ahead. Thanks, thank you. I'm so you've answered some of my questions already. I'm wondering if are we the first group you've presented this. Oh, I'm sorry. 4% to or did the Senate also hear this and what was their reaction. The Senate also we did also provide testimony to the Senate. And they decided to go forward with a with with this proposal. We, I should say we provided them with a memo. Yes, with which proposals to the proposal that you are going to hear about after I think it's right after me. Okay, so the one without an inflator at all. Yes. Okay, thank you. Emily. Thanks. I'm curious about. I'm concerned about our ability to have enough information to be surgical. And I appreciate, and I appreciate the idea of existing budgets but wonder if that works with sort of the failed districts and I'm curious. If it's possible even or what districts would think of us allowing them to do this on their own and just giving the authority to them temporarily in this emergency. You mean to the school boards. So that the boards that know that sort of their budget might need to shift slightly in these times would be able to do that and those who feel like they have the confidence of the voters to keep on spending could do that. I think one of the concerns that I have heard is that they really right now don't know when they're going to be able to hold a vote. They're waiting for information from the Secretary of State's office. The option of having a vote by mail right now that's not. That's not really an a good option because it's under current law. Ballots have to be requested in order to be mailed. They don't just automatically get mailed to every single voter. So they're there. I think districts are concerned about the ability to to pass the budget that they need in this economic climate but also concerned about how their election vote is actually going to be conducted. I guess I meant giving them the authority to do it without a vote just this one time in this emergency. I understand. Okay, thank you. I interrupted somebody but I don't know who. Well, or somebody was me just I'm curious about what a clarification with that clarification what do you think the districts would think of that. So what you're asking is what what they would think about their default budget being the budget that they proposed, or what or that they would propose that they would propose. I, I would like, I probably like to get some feedback from them about that that's not something that we have discussed, but it certainly is. That could be an option. Yeah. Jim Joey Serita. Yeah. And I'm in favor of doing something. The inflator seems like a reasonably good option at this point in time. Kate asked the question of could we do something more surgical and I'm wondering of the practicality of doing that in whether it would make things better or just more complicated. I'm being a little sarcastic cynical today but I apologize for that. The idea of putting in an inflator doesn't assure that all the schools would spend all that much money. They still have voters to contend with they still have elected school boards and and And that is basically the way we generally do think so I am tending in that direction, unless we can think of something else that is plenty straightforward. Everybody understands it, and it's not too convoluted. Thank you. Joey, hear me. We can now. Okay, I'm okay. My answer, my question was covered. Thanks. Okay. So, and then Scott, I'm wondering about the federal funds from the cares act. I mean, how is that in play in terms of that going through the agency to the schools, what are the guidelines for that and is that at play at all and kind of looking at the solution. I think that is in play and looking at the solution, probably mark has some information about that. I, I know I heard secretary French testify yesterday, and it sounded like the agency is waiting for more information about those funds and and determining how those are going to be distributed. But I do know that they are going through. They're not going into the education fund. Right, I know. But if mark is still on he might be able to provide a little bit more information about that. If it's okay, I can just jump in. There's 27 million dollars available. That money, the distribution of that money is dictated by the title one allocations, so the state doesn't have control as to how that money goes out to individual supervisory unions. But how it might affect the Ed fund or not, if we can get creative, like we just don't know at this point we don't know if it's going to show up at FY 20 or FY 21. And we also don't know if that money is going to be used to offset some of the additional costs that school districts may have occurred during this last part of the school year in terms of providing the other services that we've asked them to do. So that's all up in the air. Thank you. Scott back. Yeah, I may have missed this and if I did I apologize but has the on this plan to for dollars for the districts that have not voted as the secretary waited on that. I don't think he has weighed in in testimony on that. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. He has not reported in on any specific plan. So just I apologize for the word surgical I think that got us to the wrong wrong direction. It really probably meant more personal in. Yeah, yes, in other words, Wyndham that has 16 students has a 16% increase, or they're now they're going to a 15. That would be what they would get this South Burlington that has 4000 students. They have a 4.4 increase you get that until you vote. That's your budget until you vote, which is at least something that that the districts that the school boards are considered the only challenge I have Sue is that we're missing whether some of these districts, Albert Stropford. When hardwood had actually come up with with new budgets. On the other hand, if the if what we do is push the decision to the school boards which is what Emily was talking about, then they'll have to whether they've done it now or not. And, you know, I'll just weigh in. I would feel much more comfortable if we're going to impose a budget that we impose a budget that's been developed locally. I just not comfortable trying to pull a number out of the air that that we think represents what they need. And the only thing that we have that's been developed locally are the proposed budgets, or if a budget's been defeated, whatever the school board would come up with as an alternative. That's, I don't know how else to do it locally I think that's sort of what Emily was putting out there so if it would be possible for you to go back and think through a construct like that I think that would be useful for us. I think a flat percentage makes sense when you look at the range of percentages whatever whatever flat percentage it is whether it's inflation or something else that we've dreamed up. But I think, I think it ought to be more individualized set the right word Kate. Yeah. Peter Kathleen and Caleb. Thanks. My internet, my internet cut out. We're talking about a 4% that was a 4% increase in the bottom line spending proposal. It was 4% increase on Ed spending on Ed spending. Okay. I'm just looking at because if it was a budget increase. We've got some who are proposing a percent. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, thanks. I wasn't sure if I was fully understanding Emily's suggestion. But I will just weigh in that if the idea would be to give school boards the opportunity just this one time in an emergency to go ahead without a taxpayer vote. I don't think that would go over very well with the taxpayers and that's probably not something that I get behind. Thanks. Anyone else wants to jump in. I guess, I guess, if I can jump in the, the reason why I prefer that if we can't get voters to vote, I would rather do that than have us decide. It's really, you know, we're not in a, we're not in a situation where we get to do the best choice, which is frankly to have taxpayers weigh in. Robin George and Caleb. So on the same topic, I thought I heard one of you say, give them their budget that they have proposed until the voters actually get a chance to vote on it. So maybe they could start the year with that budget and then ultimately vote. I don't know if that's too crazy or not, but it's opposed to voting for the whole year. I don't know if I'm explaining myself, but could they, could they vote say in September that they go ahead with the budget as proposed. And then if they vote in September, they might have to do some backtracking around. Mark weigh in on that, but there are timing issues with tax bills, but I think more challenging than the we would get. Mark, do you want to, do you want to just say would require reissuing tax bills, which is a hassle for the towns, but you know, it could be done, but sometimes do that every year, but it's a big deal. George Caleb, Larry Scott. On that March list, we have two groups. We have the group who hasn't voted yet. And for them, to me it makes sense to, even though taxpayers might not like it makes sense to me for that group that that we go with the proposed budget. Then we have a group where people have voted no budget for a budget. And in that group, it kind of makes sense to me to have the school boards propose, make a new budget proposal to go with rather than one that has already been defeated by the voters. And that's basically what we've asked Sue to go back and see what people's reaction is and understanding Kathleen that that there are certainly people on the two committees who are not happy with that outcome but it's worth looking at anyway. I think that really my point was going to be along the same lines as George so I can probably not make it but but just that idea that that we really are looking at the really big difference between scheduled votes and never got a chance and votes that were and if something was developed locally that they were going to take back to voters as a second draft. That's very different but yeah just that to get to even for a short term put into place a budget that was voted down as a non starter. And I would just jump in to say that in South Burlington's case for example, they have done a reevaluation of their budget, had a date scheduled for voters to, you know, to weigh in on that, and had to have that vote postponed. So in some cases school boards have recrafted their budgets. They just haven't been able to get and get them in front of their budget so that information may be available most districts. Larry Scott bill. Yeah, I just, I just need a little clarity. If we use the inflator if we do the inflator. That will not require a vote is am I correct. Nothing that we're talking about is requiring a vote, because they can't. So, um, well I guess okay I guess that pretty much answers my question. Thank you. Robin had an idea of voting later but there's nothing that we can require that would happen before July one. Thank you. Scott bill. Yeah, I actually I would like to explore Robin's idea a little bit more. I think that that is doable. I think if they did ask for more money than the, the estimate that they were given that we're not talking about huge huge sums of money, and those could you know rolled into their calculation for FY 22, so they wouldn't pay the tax rate this year they paid and then the next year. I think the Ed fun can as a self balancing fun can, could do that. And I think it would preserve the local control which I think is is very important at these, this time for these districts. Yeah. Yeah, I look forward to hearing back from suit. Consider a district whose budget field that was less generous than the 4%. So, yeah, I look forward to hearing back. Are you saying you would rather go with the with a proposed or an alternative budget than a 4% and later. And to see if the, if the districts have proposed their next budget. Yeah. Scott. Yeah, to that point by bill if, if that in fact was the case for a district, then they would effectively have a reserve they would have reserved money that they could apply to FY 22 and lower their tax bill in the next year if that, if that came to pass it was not like they would lose the money. Bill, you're back on. Yeah, Scott, where's this money coming from that they're going to be able to keep for another year. I'm back. Well, it would just come out of the Ed fund. And it would certainly you know it all floats it up to self balancing fun. But in the end, if the district pays a tax rate for the funds that they took, then it makes the Ed fund as whole as it would have been just, it just occurs over two years instead of one. Emily. I just want to add that wall. I don't think any of the proposals that we're going to be able to do are going to be the ideal will of the voters because the voters won't be able to express their bill, their will. So by looking to the school boards rather than our decision making will be at least closer to the voters. Because it's those are the people that the voters selected to make those decisions and that's sort of for me like as close as we can get to the type of democracy we want in this situation, even though it's not. I mean, nothing about right now is ideal. Peter Anthony. I would just remind everybody, if the folks who have no budget. If their voters get a chance, ability to vote whether it's in November or sooner, they have the privilege of knowing what's a foot in the economy, which of course puts those kids and after all, we're talking about students education. That's my old problem with taxpayer equity versus student equity. We are really acting on behalf of the students, albeit in the in the most just manner, respecting the taxpayers participation. So I just think we're talking about two groups one who know what's happening with the recession, and those who don't know or didn't know when they voted. Thank you. And it is your point that if voters with that knowledge they're less likely to vote an adequate budget. Is that what you're. That's usually the concern my community yes. Okay. Just want to be clear. Caleb. Thank you. Yeah, I've fallen upon Peter's point, I think. I think that potentially in in what voters are are inclined to vote for now is what they would have been, you know, prior to the revenue shortfalls that we're seeing, and also just specifically the yield which I know we'll be talking about. We have to be very careful when we sign voters up for a budget they haven't explicitly authorized. We're clearly going into a year where we know I think close to know that revenue shortfalls will be a reality to and we we've talked more about the specifics of that for the year ending. June 30th we've talked less about it for the year beginning July 1. But I just think that we have to bear in mind that we have taken some testimony that would suggest that could be some really big impacts on property the property tax portion of school funding and so I think that keeping that in mind in this whole conversation is really critical and I know there's some provisions on the books or I think there are for if you don't pass a budget you can borrow up to 87% of the previous budget. Something like that knowing that it could get you through, you know, the first quarter or two of operation might be good because any really good have a better chance of getting voters in person to vote on a, on a real budget that's more informed by what we see with revenues and everything. Sorry that's poorly expressed but basically I'm just wanting to bring up the point we would need to really be very hesitant to even sign voters up for a flat budget of what they've had before, given the new environment and the revenue shortfalls and just to Peter's previous point. So thanks. A couple more questions or thoughts Scott and George. I think to this probably not politically correct but that's okay. I'm going to push back on the paradigm a little bit that at this point in time or I'm not probably not talking this point in time in a month or two, that it is going to be impossible to vote. There's mail in voting. There's, anybody could do curbside I mean, there are a lot of ways that a district could organize a vote. And people can do it safely maintain their distances. And I think that we're giving up on the idea that they could actually vote a little too easily. George. You know, we really don't know how long this is going to go on at the current level. It looks like it's going to be a while, quite a while. And so I would not bank on people being able to vote. You know, sometime soon enough to get tax bills out to people. So having sat on a board where we've had a budget defeated a couple of times so we're getting to that point of looking at an 87% of the, you know, past year's budget as, as what we would be operating with. You don't have the luxury of saying this might get better later. You have to act like it's going to be 87%, which means a bunch of layoffs. You know, you just can't count on that, you know, that later on something will good will happen. And so I'd be very hesitant to leave boards and districts in that position because I think it's a prescription for real disaster. So my jump in, you know, the point that I think Peter was making, if I understood it was that most districts have voted under the world as it used to be. And we've got a group of districts here if we hold a vote, who are going to be voting under the world as it is now. And those kids are not getting the same kind of the decisions about their education are not being made in the same environment and there's an equity issue I think that arises with that that I hadn't thought about a whole lot before but I think it's an important one. Anyone else want to weigh in. I'll just add that. I was looking for something that that was more individualized and I think the idea of passing it back to the boards works. I think that that that is a cleaner way. I think it's an appropriate way to address this issue. And it also keeps us out of a, I think it's, I think it's an appropriate way to go. Robin. Thanks, I was going to say the same thing I think it's, you know, as Emily said it's the closest thing we get to the voters by having the school boards they've done all the work they know better than we do and I do worry about our students and them. I think it's the opportunities that they would if they'd been able to vote. You know, under the old in the old world order. Yeah, I'm inclined to go to agree with that as well. Thanks. We will be inviting the superintendent's in next week to talk to us and it would be nice if we had some idea that we could present to them that we're thinking about. So, that's a good idea. I, we haven't actually gotten to the point of presenting the Senate bill but I'm not sensing that there's a lot of support in this group of two committees for that. So, I guess I'll, I'll throw out the idea of at least asking Jim to draft something along the lines of what we've been talking about, also asked to talk to the affected towns and her members and the final thought is, if there I don't know what time you're going to be, Kate, but if there are members of this committee who want to participate or listen in whichever however you want to do that. I'd like to, I don't know that we need to do the meeting jointly necessarily but I'd like to keep the connection between the two committees on this if I can. Avery, it would be great if you could just include an invitation to the ways and means members when we set that meeting, which I believe Tuesday or Friday. Okay, Sam, you had your hand up a minute ago you all set. Well, I was just going to say, I mean, we wouldn't want to pass budgets that were higher than ones that had already been defeated just because the board came up with a new budget right like, I mean, I mean, it may be what I was thinking is it'd be maybe if all of the budget, the new budgets were actually proposed and we could like pass them as a slate at the state level I don't know. Trying to think about it. Or we could say whatever alternative you come up with but no higher than the defeated one. Yeah. I mean I assume that's usually why they get defeated not because they're too low. Well, yeah, right. My district anyway, sorry that one one more. So and we've got to shift gears because we're going to we've got another agenda 11 but we've got another minute or two. I'm hearing a lot from my town manager and Colchester about the municipalities ability now that our budget is passed to be able to collect these taxes now that people, you know, don't have jobs and have very limited income and I just want to say that I think municipalities are going to have to make up that money somehow either or be penalized if they can't make those payments so I think this I'm just advocating a little bit in terms of the fallout on municipalities that did pass their budgets. Yeah, so maybe you can clarify for me but I think Colchester is already collected all its all its property tax installments. I think to for July 1. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, everybody is going to have a problem in fiscal 21 but the ones that haven't collected have a different problem but Colchester I think is already collected all of its money. Peter Anthony. Just to carry on what Sam was talking about I think it would be very dangerous if we insisted or allowed a school board to propose a budget that was even equal to never mind higher than one that was defeated. Well, the only exceptions that I can think of but South Berlin 10 is already done an alternative, maybe a slight valley has to but the those two budgets went down mostly because of those bonds that were next to them so hard to second guess my feeling is that the school board is going to have to answer to its voters for what it does so. All but three have proposed budgets and those three may have proposed budget. Yeah. So it's just about 11 we haven't heard from Jim I, I'm sensing that we probably don't need to but Kate what do you think what's your pleasure. It would be as interesting as they had a whole thing on the timing. So we're talking about not just a default budget we're just saying, here's your but here's your budget, we're not talking about a default that you're the voters are going to be voting on later. They had a default budget with the opportunity to vote later. So a couple of people, at least in my committee I'm not sure about yours wouldn't would like to think about a subsequent vote. I don't know whether that can, you know, be a piece of whatever we end up looking at so that we have, I don't know if there's two versions or something. I have some misgivings about it but but I've heard people say that they'd like to see something. So it's it's up to the committee if they want to hear the Senate bill I can so we can certainly do it in our committee. Yeah, I've got witnesses at 11 on a different subject. So I'll have to shift gears shortly but Jim. Just we're walking through the bill just to mention, make sure that committees are aware that the bill does not mandate or impose budget upon school districts it gives them another option. So allows them to approve their own budget or revote their own budget or whatever. So first, the difference of opinion here between rep, back and rep tall in terms of the ability. In terms of whether they can actually use that ability to revote or to vote but just to mention that both this down pose at the fall budget it just isn't the option of using one. And that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much Janet for organizing this with you together and we aren't done yet. We will we will hear we're done with this. Yeah, so thank you everybody will stay in touch and we'll keep inviting Peter to join us when we meet and and maybe we can participate in your next meeting. All right. All of us anyway. Thank you very much. So, so you're going to shut this off and for ways of means don't go away. We're going to be right back on in a minute we're just going to do this in two segments so she's going to stop the live stream and then start it back up. And then the live stream on the joint hearing now. Okay, this is the house education committee at the bond house representatives on April 17, and we are looking at the draft bill related to delaying the implementation of act 173. Jim, can you speak to us about that the current draft that is the Senate is looking at right now is that correct. Correct. And you have me. Yeah. Okay. So, so I'm going to go for the record, Jim, Dan, where let's console every did you post the on the charts, the space space. The chart that shows on my look at this. I believe that we reviewed a chart like that in testimony last week. I updated this for this week actually on the Senate, it's in the Senate website so maybe you could pull that up every. I'll pull it up just a moment. Okay, terrific. Thank you. Okay, so on this chart. The pictures of people set to see the chart. Okay. This chart shows in red, the changes that are being made in the draft we're about to go through so just to reorient us as what this chart does is the timeline for implementation of act 173. And if you pause, if you look at the boxes here, where it says fiscal 19, fiscal 20 across the page there. Originally, when 133 was passed, the census grant would have started in fiscal year, fiscal year 21. That's the third box and then last year on that was delayed by one year to fiscal year 22. I was delayed in the budget act. And so we're talking about delaying it further to fiscal year 23. So, keep you on those boxes from it. What we're saying here is that the first year of the grant funding would be fiscal years 23. And remember that that first year of grant funding is an average of what Supervisory Union is received. So fiscal years, 18, 19 and 20 plus an inflator so the fiscal years year 18, 19 and 20 have been updated in the draft to those dates from fiscal year 17, 18 and 19. So we move those dates forward a year in the draft. Wherever those years are they are inflated so they will get a amount of funding in fiscal year 23 that essentially equals their historical level of funding for special education. The next year, fiscal year 24, 25 and 26, that's three years is this transition period, moving to the uniform base amount and fiscal year 27. So, again, it's kind of confusing but let's go to the end here, fiscal 27. Let's start with fiscal 23 with new grant funding that they shortly received by 27, they're getting funding based on uniform based amount, multiplied by their average daily membership. So they have 100 students, for example, that's the idiom, they're going to multiply by uniform amount. So everybody will be using the same uniform based amount so it'll be the same everybody on the same platform. And that calculation is basically the average of fiscal years 18, 19 and 20 funding plus an inflator. So that's what the uniform based amount will be then. Remember that in fiscal 2023, when we start, the funding amounts per student are all over the map because the school university unions are getting what they historically got divided by the number of students. So what they got historically will differ by SU, number of students will differ by SU. So in 23, the spending per student, the grant per student will be very different per SU. So fiscal 2027 will be the same in between we're moving toward that uniform based rate so wherever you are in 23, you're moving toward using uniform based rate rate and 27. I know it's confusing, especially for people who weren't there when this result put together, but that's how these, the process works broadly. So some of the dates have been changed in the bill we're about to go through if you look up where it says SBE rules adopted. Originally that was in 133 those rules had to be adopted by November 1, 2019. Last year was changed to August one 2020 normally four by year to August one 2021. And lastly at the very bottom of the page, there are rules in 173, 173 that require certain approved independent schools to accept students on IEP. Originally that was set to come in force in fiscal year 22. Sorry fiscal 23 and that's being moved to fiscal year 24. Okay, so that's the chart. Before I go on, are there any questions on the timeline. Just if on the bottom the independent schools it looks like it's FY 22 instead of FY 24. Oh yeah. Sorry, originally, I'm having trouble seeing that actually. Yeah, so originally it was FY 22. Now it's been moved to FY 24. Yeah, sorry. Okay. So if we can go every to the bill itself. Okay, so I see now that the timeline we just read to you is incorrect. Because the independent school requirements are moving from fiscal from July 122 to July 123. So I have to fix that in the timeline for that. Okay, so we have the bill there on this bill poses due to two things delay the changes special education funding from reimbursement to census based from July 121 until July 122. And to delay the requirement that certain approved independent schools and most students, I piece from July 122 until July 123. If you move down every one of those is not in the same purpose but there are certain technical changes as the AOE have requested, which are here as well. And they were in your bill last year as well. So the first change here, just clarifying that the definition of lunch or membership, which is used to compute the uniform based amount. And that is for the most recent three years, three school years for which that are available. That is a technical change from the AOE. We scroll down to the next language has been underline they're struck right here on like 14. This is just now using using that definition of lunch or membership. So we're going to be stating it again. And then are going on further. Now we're getting into date changes so this says that for fiscal year 23 now. This is the first year of the grant funding. So it's been moving from 2123 to the average amount the SU received in three fiscal years, moving from 1718 19 to 1819 20 so average those three years. And then moved on further every few would, and I increased by if you could try to go back up every right there. So thanks. So that that's increased by three to six by an inflator. So the amount determined on there is then divided by the SU's ADM count on some membership. So that's how you get to a place where the first year, you've got basically grant funding equaling the last year, or the average the last three years. And then you divide in that by the your student count to get to a grant per student for the SU, which again will be very different across the state. And then if you go down further every to line 11. Great thanks. In 27, that's the very end, end of the phase then so in fiscal year 27 and subsequent fiscal years, the census grant should be the uniform based amount. Most of by multiple applied by the SU's on to membership. So again, that's now getting us to a place where everybody's got the same amount per student. And that carries on going forward and there's no inflator on that. And the reason it's not fair on that is that's where you were over time. There could be some savings, fiscal savings in this area. Then line 14 says what happens to those years in between the first year. In 2023, and fiscal year 27. That's when you're moving toward the uniform base rate. So for fiscal year 242526, the amount of the sisters grant should be determined by multiplying the SU's suit and count by a base amount established under this subdivision. The base amount for each SU under this subdivision will move gradually the SU's fiscal 23 base amount to the uniform base amount in 27. So if we go on further every keep going if you would get those good. Yeah, and that's all that's saying at the top of the page. So that's the key key provision here in this bill is how those mechanics work. So section section two is making changes to recommend by a we these are technical changes because we're not operating under the reimbursement system but under their grant census grant system. So rather than referring to expenditures, we're referring to funding. This is the technical word change throughout this section. So move forward a retail section three. Yep, great. This is the unusual special education costs so historically there is been a 2% bucket that the secretary can use unusual circumstances. And now that bucket that 2% is being tied to the census grant amount, as opposed to the amount that was sent out in reimbursement. So languages change to reflect census funding here. And again I came from a we as a technical change section four. We're making you see in the chart that this was changed so we're making has to be in place now before August 1 2021. And it's going on further if you would section five, keep going if you would. Yep. They changes here so there are some transitional requirements that an act 173. So, usually, issues have to give a service plan to the secretary. So they have a sense for how much reimbursement to expect, but that that's going away. So no service plan is required. So it's going to be a year 23. But they are required to have a given sector information by November 1 2021. So that says that can estimate the projected extraordinary special education reimbursement that still exists under the census grant, and also to report for IDA IDA. So section six below. That is positive if you would, in a person with three there is a transition that allowed teachers to teach a prior group of students who work on IEPs, so to combine them with other students who are struggling. So that was a temporary measure until we went to the census grant that's being repealed right before the census grant comes into place. So that day it's been moved forward as well to July 1 2022. That's a lot further, if you would, Avery. Yeah, to the end. So now, the effective dates in aspect three being changed to section five, which is the whole heart. So that's the data set now in July 1 2022 for fiscal 23. And then the requirements for impact schools as being moved from July 1 22 23. And that's it. Sorry, and nothing about awaiting study. No. No. Sorry that was like swearing. So in terms of people that are here that could respond first of all, are there any questions from the committee about this? Just where does the waiting study fit in, maybe not to this bill but what happens in terms of a timeline or has that been thought out or do we discuss that, or have any idea at this point or does that need a much. So I can tell you two things. One is there was a bill proposed in the Senate, which would have required that we work in conjunction with other parties to develop an implementation plan for the new wait. Using one of the scenarios in that report. Was that the task force. I think it was, it was a task force. It was I believe it was, I think it was a we working in conjunction with the number of other people other interested parties. I think it was forming a task force. Okay. I left you on that but I think that's the way it went down. But more broadly, the way I did talk about whether the census grant should be increased for on districts to have particularly high level of students who struggle. They should be using poverty as a proxy. But, so there is there's an aspect there. That hasn't been determined yet the recommendation that Sam was going with, in terms of having implementation plan would not have increased the census grant for students to struggle. So that would have excluded that part of it. So, but of course that's not moving forward to the stage either. So nothing's happening at this stage that I know. I'm going to try to get us through. And I think what I'll do is just we'll get testimony we're going to bring this up again on Tuesday but we're going to have more people in for testimony and Jim you're going to be able to join us I'm assuming. Yeah, yeah. So, do we have here to testify we have Megan Roy. Yep, I'm here. Thank you. Your response to this bill is drafted from the. Sure. Yeah. Yep. So, I'm here as the chair of the act 173 advisory group. Just as an aside Kate, the written testimony that you have does cover a couple of other things but I'm going to stick to the 173 parts since I know this is the end of your conversation. So the act 173 census based funding advisory group has not formally met to discuss the issue of delay. However, they've all had an opportunity to review the draft legislation, as well as the agency of education considerations document that they had shared last week in senate Ed. So what I'm sharing today is a summary of the individual feedback of the group. The advisory group does support a delay in the shift to a census based funding model as outlined in the committee's draft. Given the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 crisis for the foreseeable future districts are singularly focused on managing through the various and significant implications of the school closure and the significant financial implications that will follow the enormity of this unexpected impact on both the programmatic and financial workings of schools makes it nearly impossible to simultaneously manage act 173. In particular, the members of the group have considered the following. The first is professional learning. The committee has heard previous testimony from the advisory group about the significant professional learning impact on schools to effectively implement act 173 programmatic parts. The legislation has already been acknowledged to be landmark legislation requiring significant change at all levels of the educational system. The advisory group was already concerned about a lack of available professional learning opportunities about the systematic implementation of MTSS, and was already advocating for the agency to clearly identify a coherent and sustained professional development plan. None of that is has changed that's all still true. But what has changed is the unexpected and fundamental shift that's occurred in schools, due to the school closure. They have undergone a complete redesign of the delivery of education, including special education in a matter of weeks, and they'll continue to iterate redesign and adjust throughout the course of the next several months and into the next school year. It is possible for schools to simultaneously continue that professional learning alongside what would be required to implement act 173. So this delay in legislation will ensure more time for districts to implement as well as more time for the agency to support that implementation. The second consideration is financial act 173 was already poised to have significant impacts on the amount of state funding for special education that districts received. In the lead up to the statewide calculation of the grant amount, roughly half of Vermont schools stood to receive less state funding in support of special ed and some cases significantly less. And further, you mentioned the waiting study that prompted early discussion about possible changes to the calculation of the census grant. Modeling in the waiting study illustrated other significant impacts on special ed funding and overall tax rates. Both of those realities now coincide with the additional and more severe financial impacts of the COVID-19 crisis. And this shift to a census based funding model would provide additional time to consider both of these financial impacts simultaneously. A couple of specific things that we would that we would like to mention for the first is around rulemaking. The group supports the identified delay in the effective date of revised special ed funding rules. And she is probably aware that the 1300 series and 2623 60 series are currently open for public comment. The group has communicated to the state board about the importance of that public comment and the impact that the current stay home stay safe order will have on the ability of the public to participate in that. The advisory group feels it's important to make sure that public comment period exists. So, hoping that the delay in implementation that's in this bill would allow the state board to be able to extend the public comment period. One piece that's not in this version that we would want the committee to be aware of is the existence and function of the Act 173 advisory group. The current bill doesn't address this given the myriad of issues facing districts as they implement on a delayed timeline. The advisory group remains an essential voice for stakeholders. It's essential that the proposed legislation include language that sustains the advisory group and adjust the frequency of meeting so the group has the time that they need. This was actually something we were going to come to your committee with irregardless of the school closure. So our group would recommend that the committee include language from a previous bill that directed the group to meet up to 12 times per year, provide funds to support reimbursement for that amount of meetings, and to continue that until the implementation date, which is what the original bill intended was that the group would exist until the grant is in place. So we would recommend that. There's one more thing to add that was that was actually, it's, you can read it in more detail later but this has to do with the waiting study. It's really important to recognize that we have the fundamental shift of moving to a census grant. The implications of the waiting study were already understood to be potentially a redesign of our ed funding system in Vermont, or at least it raised those questions. And now we have a critical challenge coming related to education funding and what's available to schools and it. And the individual perspectives of the group members that that I've connected with is just to recognize the magnitude of those things together. This isn't just this is no longer just a conversation about how we calculate special ed funding it's potentially a conversation about how we calculate, or how we consider ed funding in general so we would just emphasize that the would not be about each one of those pieces but that it's the pieces we were dealing with before and the, and the pieces that we're dealing with now. So happy to take question questions. Okay, I have a quick question. Yeah, go ahead. It's just Megan brought up the an earlier version of the bill that did have a continuation of the of the committee with funding attached to it. There's more for Jim than anybody else was curious to know what happened to that. That was part of a different bill, I believe it was a different bill. Yeah, the advisory group was being used for a different function. Thank you. Thank you. That's right. That's right. Okay. I think what I'm going to do is we're going to take this up again on Tuesday. I think we're going to be working on that so the people that are here. I think what I'm going to do I just, is there anybody else that's outside of the legislature that wanted to testify. That's here. I know I can get Tracy I can get Jay, I can get you guys on Tuesday I think I'm just conscious of the time and request to end and on time. All right. So, with that, I think we're thank you so much Megan. Have you spoken to the Senate yet have you testified before the Senate. Not yet. Okay. I'm going to speak with the senator this afternoon so we'll see what what happens. So I guess with that. We can end the meeting. I just want to do a little, a little check in after so. But the formal meeting this is over. So thank you. Did we want to hear from Dylan for a moment or two. Yeah, yeah. I think we do.