 still Thursday March 31st and we are continuing with our walkthrough on 287 with Jim. Hi Jim, welcome back. Hello. I actually have a question about I which was the last thing that we I think covered before we are going to go into section 6a. I'm autumn of 13. Oh and did folks catch that sort of deleted one of the versions you might be in the wrong version you need to refresh. Okay. One of them was wrong. No, it was just one of the lengths. So and this was actually Carol's question and she's not here but I'm going to ask it anyway because we're in the section. So the updates to the waiting factors. There's this language here about sort of intentions around recalibration and then there's another section about updates to the weights with a sunset provision. Why are they in separate places? Well, the one I is in statute. So this is an ongoing statement of intent every five years to update the weights and to give a year delay. This was time to adjust to the new weights in their budgets. That's like a prophylactic ongoing statement of intent. We'll come to this yet but 6b the repeal is very specifically saying if you don't do this in the next five years, then the weights will be repealed entirely and it's just a force action within the next five years. So once more we're kind of prophylactic broad ongoing that there's more specific and time bound. Thanks. That's ready for 6a on page 14. Okay. Back to you, Jim. Okay. So again for the record, Jim Damer, that's console. We're walking through S287 as passed by the Senate. We are on page 14 on section 6a. 6a amends the section that you just amended. So this is confusing but this provision goes into effect in fiscal year 29. So this is saying is that we'll come to this later on. There's a transitional period of five years where equalized pupils for any given year is an average of the current year in previous years and it's a five-year average initially, then a four-year average, then a three-year average. That's the transitional period which ends in fiscal 28. And with this is saying, a story in fiscal 29, you're going to stay with the three-year average going forward. So this says that the equalized pupil count should equal the average of the equalized pupil count for the year of calculation current year with the equalized pupil counts that precede two fiscal years. So going forward, it will be a three-year average as opposed to a one-year current. Someone on the side? Yeah. Why are we going with the three-year average and most of the time when we're trying to do producing a two-year average? Why in this case, we're talking about a three-year average? It's like a Passover Seder question. Jim. I'm sorry, what? Sorry, you sounded like you were going through the Passover Seder the way you phrased your question. Sorry. Jim, do you have a? Oh, that's a policy that was what the Senate wanted to do. So I can't answer as to why they picked two versus three. I think they wanted to smooth out the effect over a longer period, but I'm not sure what the magic is and the number. Jim, I think you said this, we'll see later, this takes effect not for a few years, but is it already, I'm wondering if we're already using an average equalized people are based on ADM at that point still? So we're taking average of an average? Correct. In the sense that in order to get to equalized people, we're using a two-year average ADM which defines launcher membership. So that's how you get to equalized people. What this is saying though is that the equalized people for any given year won't be just the current year calculation of equalized people. You're going to average the current year over the past two years. So in a sense, yes, it's the average of an average. And this is new then. We're not doing anything like this now three years or two years. Correct. Now it's the current year equalized people is used without averaging with past years. Okay. I'm curious to know what the thinking was there, but I will ask somebody else. Caleb? It seems like one effect of this change is it is interesting, Dave, to have something where you've got an underlying two-year ADM and then it's into an EQP and then you basically average a three-year EQP. That is complex. And yet we kind of think back to some of the treatment and this wasn't the same construct, but when we did pre-ADD 46, things like phantom students, that was mostly the kind of slow, the precipitous drop of students. It could also in the case of, say, a district like South Burlington, which tends to be growing, kind of mitigate those changes because, and this is just my take, but I know that our system favors stability over time. It doesn't seem like this change would add a little more numerical stability if there were sort of, yeah, just postulating on my mind. Yeah. Yeah. But it's not just transition. It's ongoing. It's ongoing. And I'll just mention that I had a sort of a similar thought looking at the whole harmless provisions earlier that we've got sort of level upon level of smoothing going on here. Okay. So there is a transition period in the bill, but we haven't gone over it yet. Is that correct? And so before I can understand what the post-transition language means, I at least need to understand what the transition is all about. And that's later in the bill. Correct. Yes. Okay. So thank you. Carol. And just to go follow up with what David was saying, and Kate was saying, is I would like to see some examples of how this numerical stability that's ongoing impacts numbers. Yep. We will ask Brad for that. Thanks, Jim. Okay. Keep going. Okay. So we are on page 14, 6 and 6B, Perspective and Conditional Repeals. So it says, if on or before July 1, 2027, which is five years out, the joint assembly has not revised the weighing factors to reflect changes in cost factors from which the weights are derived. After receiving a recommendation of the new committee, which we'll come on to, to do so, then the weight weighing section is repealed in 6A, which amends that weighing section in the future is repealed. So this is designed to force action to either change the weights upon the recommendation of the new committee, or if you don't do that to repeal this repeal, because otherwise the whole system blows up. Well, trust in our ability to take action. Carol? Well, I would like to flag that because I like that. And then the other thing is, if the whole thing were to disappear, I noticed when we were going through the walkthrough that parts of it would not disappear. Parts of this wouldn't disappear. So would you, we get rid of that, though I'm going to have to worry about all the other places, but if we don't, then there are a number of places that I would have to go back and flag to deal with. All right. Okay. Back to you. Okay. Okay. Now we're on page 15, 6 and 7. And this is the English language learner section. So first we have some definitions. So ELL services means instructional and support personnel and services that are required under the Equal Education Opportunity Act for ELL students and their families, which shall include licensed teachers, paraprofessionals, translate tours, and cultural liaisons, high quality instructional materials such as books and digital resources, family support, and education with assistance from cultural liaisons to speak the student's native language, and community outreach, education, and engagement. ELL students means students who are English language learners, and for whom English is not their primary language. So B goes into the substantive requirements. So B says that each school does each. Jim, before we go to that, where does this definition come from? Came from um, set education or set finance? Did it come from their imagination or did it come from like a, was it, is it like referencing a federal definition or anything like, I don't know why it's about it. I'm just curious if you, yeah. The federal definition is very vague and broad, so it doesn't have these specifics. And this slide was just given to me to use. Thank you. Emily, I'm sorry. Are you talking about one number one under section seven, a sub one, the ELL services definition? No. Yes. Yes. I was asking about the ELL students. All of that. Those are both. And that's true for two as well, Jim. That is, that is a typical definition that I think we use now in statute or as a reference point for this, but with a lot less consequence. Okay. And so here I will bring up a question that I put off earlier. I wonder if Jim, you could tell us what is the, for how long in your life can you access the technical centers? I think I know what the answer is, but I'm asking. CTE? Yes. Oh, I don't know because it goes into adult education services too, which is less than a wheelhouse. So certainly through grade 12, but I think beyond that as well, under the adult programs. Okay. Then I'll say what I think it is. And I might not. I think Brad has an answer. I'm more confident of answer because he's popped up. That's usually what he wants. Essentially, if you don't have a high school diploma, you can go to CTE anytime at public expense. And whether you're enrolled in a high school or not. So do we need to take that into account in this situation? Because we have a cutoff of 17 years of age in this statute regarding how to wait. I would have to think about that. But off the top, my head, I would say no because I mean, I think I'm not sure where the 17 years of age came from that. Maybe our current statute or maybe federal. I don't know. But I what the students that I was just talking about for CTE who are unenrolled, but don't have a high school diploma, they are their only cost going back to the school district is a partial cost from this from the CTE tuition. They're not counted in their ADM. So therefore they do not roll into equalized pupils. Well, okay, so I'm thinking it might be a policy question because if it's the only cost is their enrollment, that's not the only cost if there are translation services and other things needed for those students, as opposed to somebody who already was just coming in and without the need for translation services or any other things having can they actually read in the language to follow the instructions to be to do what it's needed to do for car repair or whatever else is it happening in the CTE? Yeah, I don't know enough about the CTE programs and such and how they how they put their monies out or how they put their tuition bills out how they pay for things that I don't know enough to answer that specificity. Brad, do you know if when a student hasn't graduated from high school but they're over but they're 18 and over if they then are considered adult ed and they're funded out of it? Where is the funding for doesn't part of that come to the general fund? Yeah, some of that some of that does. I think a lot of I think a lot of them are considered that I think it depends how they choose to go about things. Generally speaking, most students who are out of school and are and are trying to get their diploma in one form or another are working through I why shouldn't say most because I don't know that but a number of them are using I can work through the adult ed program and that has been moved to the general fund. I wonder if you want to do some more research. I know there's something also about IEPs until you're 25 and I don't know the details of that. And another question would be not even connected with CTEs would be how many students are staying with us and for how long they can do that till 22. All right, I'll look up I will look into the entire thing. All right, back to you, Jim. Okay, we are on page 15 at the very bottom of the page subsection B, which has a typo. Just say each school district shall one provide ELL services as defined to budget sufficient resources through a combination of state and federal categorical aid and local education spending to provide those services. Report expenditures on those services annually to the AOE through the financial reporting system as required by the agency and report on educational outcomes of ELL students as required by the agency. Subsection C says that the agency education shall provide guidance and program support to all school districts with ELL students as required under law including professional development resources for ELL instructors and support personnel, information on best practices and wider language development standards and prescribed collect and analyze financial and student outcome data from school districts to ensure that districts are providing high quality ELL services and expanding sufficient resources to provide these services. And then next page 17 changes subject to bit, moving away from required services to categorical aid. So this says that in addition to the wait under the waiting section, a school district that has as determined annually on a double one of each year, one to five ELL students enrolled shall receive state aid of $25,000 for that school year or six to 25 ELL students enrolled shall receive state aid of $50,000 for that school year. E says that the appropriation for for this will be part of the appropriation for statewide education spending. So it won't be a separate line and the payment would be on before November 1st of each year from the education fund. What is the reason for this? Why are we getting we've waited the students at very high weight already something that could be over $25,000 per student. Why are we what's the purpose of this additional and that doesn't even consider federal money. So what's the what's the question? Why is what is this addressing? Jim, do you want me to get that one or do you want to answer? Yeah, it's a policy question. The task force had a number of conversations about concerns that districts with a very small number of ELL students didn't have the capacity to stand up a program that was robust enough to meet the needs of those two to those very small number of students, especially since it's not, you know, say, you know, a district with 10 different schools might have one ELL student in each school that are, you know, 20 miles apart. And the federal money for ELL only goes to districts that have actually a certain critical mass of ELL students. And so this was the way I sort of like covering sort of matching the federal aid money for districts that weren't eligible for the federal aid money. Caleb? Yeah, I mean, and this is a mini grant. So I think we're a really good idea that came out of the task force and waiting the weight of 2.49 is a great it works really well for districts that are at scale works really well in a lot of cases, but you have a really small cohort, there is still there are still some kind of stand up costs that I think can be really helpful by these mini grants. So anyway, I think that both the work of the task force and then some of the testimony that they took in with Senator reinforces I think it's a nice it's a nice add on. The other thing I would add is when we were planning on having a joint hearing with House Ed for this walkthrough and then couldn't find a room for it. But the ELL services and eligibility and all of that stuff is something that they're going to spend more time on than we will. Do I understand that this is a yearly state aid? It's not says to set up your program. Jim, is that right? Yeah, it's an annual payment. And I believe the payments designed to be able to hire a teacher. So it's an annual payment if they meet the requirement. And then Jim, on F, I feel like I've read a bunch of the other state grant statute and this looks like a slightly different language than is usually used. It comes from another portion of Tal 16. It's used in a different place. Okay, so on the subject I was on. Do we have any idea how many districts fall into these one to five ELL students or six to 25 ELL students? I mean, I didn't get it with the one to five. Six to 25 is where we got six students and you're getting somewhere over $25,000 a piece already for those. Not with the 25. A lot of money is. It's not per student though. It's not per student. It's one single payment. The student is the waiting. Yes. We're getting up to a student with the $2.49 waiting. So that's somewhere over toward the $25,000. It doesn't have an amount. Well, you can take the average spending and multiply it by $2.49 and it gives you an idea what the wait will be. And so what the amount will be with the wait. It's going to be a big number. So can we find out how many districts have one to five ELL students typically and how many have six to 25 typically? I believe that Julia has an answer to your question as does Brad. Julia popped up first, so. Sure. Hi. Julia Richter with the Joint Fiscal Office. Brad might have those specific numbers right in front of him. I don't have them pulled up at the moment. I did want to mention that the fiscal note that's posted on the committee page under my name does cite the overall estimated impact that we estimate for only these grants. So in FY24, if the ELL categorical grants were to result in increased spending, JFO estimates this would result in approximately 1.75 million fiscal impact to the education fund, assuming that there's no phase in. And there is a table that has just the information you're looking for, George. Someone just needs to find it inside. I have that table and I can send it to you. I can jump off my screen for a moment and give you some quick numbers. Between 25 and 6, there are, whoops, if I knew how to use a computer, I'd tell you. 25 and 6. There are 18 districts. And between 5 and 1, there are 66 districts. And then there are nine districts that have more than 25. They represent bulk. I can send you something that has that broken out with kind of grass. That's fine. That's my question. Thank you. And Julia is working on a table that has every district and sort of what the poverty percentage is, what the ELL count is. And so we can have sort of a sense of how the weights are going to the data that feeds those weights that we'll look at at some time in the near future. Caleb? Brad, when you said 66 between 1 and 5, you're not counting the districts that have zero students, right? Because that's also a significant number. You're muted. That's correct. Off the top of my head, well, if you give me a sec, I can tell you. But no, I was not counting the zeroes. Before I just throw a number out there, let me just play with the numbers in the background. I'll give it to you shortly. Thank you. You can just send it to us when you're ready. It's okay. Okay. Well, actually, I take it back. What I was talking about here, when I was giving you those numbers, I was not talking to school districts, the data I have are by town, because that's how we were talking about it at the time. That's how I was seeing ELL data. We would have to change it. But the numbers I gave were by town, not by school district. I'll have to... Oh, I know why. Because the data that I had at that point, the ELL data were not by grade. They were just a count. And so in order to go by school district, I'd have to go talk to our data people and see if we can pull it out by grade, which I can do. I'd have done that. But to give you a quick answer of the number of towns, now I got the right word, the number of towns that have nobody, have no ELL students is 165. Well, hasn't it to go back to this, but I guess I'm going to ask it anyway. It's the definition of ELL students. And my first question is that something I've said is going to figure out, or is it something we're going to figure out, or we're both going to work on it? But the question I have is I try to think of a student who is an English language learner for whom English is not their primary language. And sort of who that... I have a grandson who spoke Spanish, but he came from Guatemala, so he spoke Spanish when he started school, but so he was an English language learner, but he certainly had learned it second grade. So how does that... Is there a common understanding of what we mean by English language learner? And is there a moment that you stop being one, even though English is not your primary language? Again, we're out in my field of expertise now, but my understanding... We're always out in my field, it seems. My understanding is that the school districts test their students, and again, I don't know what the proficiently levels are, but at a certain point, they test out of being that, but they're out of being considered ELL, but they stay within, but for other purposes, they're considered ELL for the following two years to make sure that they're okay. So they're still receiving services, and I counted as ELL students, is my understanding. There's an identification criteria that's in some way sort of similar to what an IEP process might look like. I mean, not exactly, but just sort of parallel to that. And then there's three different levels of it, and I think... I sure hope so. Yeah, thank you. But this is broader than many of the other definitions I've seen from around the country, because it doesn't include them sort of three separate levels. Treated differently. Yeah. Kelly. Well, I think the kind of heterogeneity of remarks of English language-language population may play into the breadth of the definition, just because we have so many different kinds of situations with different kinds of... It is interesting this all of our students at school are continuing to learn English, right? You've seen some about literacy and other stuff. It's not, but like you said, there are criteria in terms of the nature of the instruction. Is it considered remedial at that grade level? Things like that. But I do think the breadth, just to my point, is Vermont has a very interesting mix where we do not have just a few kind of groups where you may have non-English speakers without resettlement programs, just some little schools with 10 languages. So we may need some of that breadth to encompass our situation. Okay. Well, that's making me think that back at the categorical aid help, would you want a portion of categorical aid to be attached to each separate language spoken? Because that's a whole other setup. I am hoping, and we'll be figuring that out. Yes. That seems very... I mean, I think part of what's exciting about this conversation on this bill is that we're paying attention as a legislature to ELL in a way we haven't before. And so I think the more committees are thinking about it, the better. That's another thing. But maybe this is really more about ACEs. But if you have a student who's ELL in a situation where they are not a refugee, it's really a refugee thing. Question, which is, I guess after presenting our bill on the floor regarding help for refugees, for the people who are taking in refugees for their property taxes, then I had to read a lot about what is a refugee and so forth. And then asylum seeker and so on. Refugees, by their definition, have experienced trauma. And so I wonder, at least in some way, their family has. So I wonder if that's how to take into account that for providing services or providing help or providing leave? I know Professor Colby will say, and we'll have her back in, will say that one of the reasons that our wait for ELL in Vermont is so high compared to some other states is because of the proportion of refugees that we have in our English language learning population. And I also know that there's a bill that left the Senate, and it's now just got referred to house that a couple of days ago, that's grants for trauma at schools that's fully separate from all of these conversations, but moving on a similar track. Very beginning of that sentence. Yes. What was what did you say that there's something moving through there's a bill that left that came out of Senate health and health and welfare that was put it out of the Senate and got referred to house at that is for trauma instruction or trauma support grants in schools. And I hope we've finished our walkthrough by noon, so I'm going to go back to Jim. Yeah, sorry, Scott. I'm on the top of page 15 section 74013 a sub one sub ABC and and I'm trying to look at this US code 1703 but a B and V especially that if I was a business manager, I would look at that I would say all of my licensed teachers and professionals and all my materials that they're being used for ELL and ELL student that I could I could assign that to that ELL category. But the reality is is that ELL student, many of them, they will be in general education classes with a teacher that is not an ELL licensed teacher, they'll of course circle back to a class where they do have an ELL licensed teacher, but that language right there looks to me to be so broad that a district could almost assign any expense to an ELL category. So I'm just kind of looking at that. It looks really broad. I'm just wondering though, the context of what we've got in front of us whether whether it matters whether the school is going to get the grant and they're going to have the weights regardless of how the code that costs. Well, ELL is a protected category. And I think their requirements are a little bit steeper than just giving them a later, giving them money. And that we actually keep it, say Vermont, we actually keep track of how much money districts are spending on ELL service. It's about the only thing you keep track of to be honest with you. But in terms of what we're looking at here, I agree with you, but in terms of what we're looking at here, would it matter? I think it does because I think it creates a loophole where a district could just assign all general education expenses to ELL, which may short change the kid on ELL services. Let's flag that for now because we're going to have more time this afternoon to have a discussion. And so I want to, if we can keep discussing that. Okay, Joe, and you're muted. Sorry about that. We are on page 17, section eight at the bottom of the page. And this is taking out small school grants entirely. I'm leaving in merger support grants. So if we go to page 22, so page 22, it's just striking out the small school grant statue. And now on page 22 is replacing that language with what's here, which says an A that a school district that was voluntarily formed under F-46 and received a merger support grant. So continue to receive that merger support grant, subject to subsection C, which I get to. B says if you were involuntarily merged, you get your merger support grant as well. So whether you're voluntarily or involuntarily merged, you get the merger support grant, except you don't get that if you get a weight. So if you get a small school weight, you don't also get the grant for that year. Maybe it's a Brad question. Do we have counts? Do you have counts at your fingertips, Brad? How many districts would fall into these categories? Not at my fingertips. I certainly can get it, but I don't have a handy. And that table that Julia is working on will include exactly which districts would get the small school weight. But we can see who's getting the merger support. These are at the district level, not the school level. The small, sorry. The small school. Wait. Is that at the district level or the school level? At the school level. The sparsity is at the district level. The small school is at the school level. And that's why we do that funny enrolment counting thing that we talked about. The grant, however, which I'm not sure if this is your question. The grant goes to the school district. And just even though they're counted at the school level, so you would only get that weight if you had a small school. Of course, the EQP are ultimately counted as district level. So those small school, those kids in a small school, ultimately, their larger weights, which only they get, will be aggregated into an equalized pupil number that will apply for the whole district. So it's kind of a mix because ultimately the rubber hits the road in the district budget calculation, but that additional small school weight is only accrued under that certain schools according to the categories. But ultimately, it's all the EQPs locked together and handed to the district during their budget negotiations. Jim or Brad, do you have anything to? No, I think what Representative Elmer said that is correct is that the weight itself is calculated on the two-year enrollment, two-year average enrollment of the small schools. But then that weight gets brought up to the school district level and goes into the equalized pupil count. Thank you, Jim. Okay, we are on the top of page 23, still with this Mergers Support Grant. And all this does in Subdivision 2 is the Mergers Support Grant goes away if a small school upon which it was based is closed. Okay, so section 9 and 10 are just conforming changes to get real references to the small school grant. So that takes us to transition at the bottom of page 24. Section 11. So this provision reads that for fiscal years 24, 25, and 26, so the first three years of this transition to the new weights, the number of equalized pupils in a school district shall be determined by averaging the equalized pupil count for the year calculation with the equalized pupil counts for the preceding four fiscal years. So for the first three years of transition, you have a five-year average equalized pupil count. For the fourth year of this transition, fiscal 27, it moves to a four-year average. And then for the last year of transition, fiscal 28, it moves to a three-year average. And then as we talked about earlier, for fiscal 29 and thereafter, it stays with a three-year average. And Brad has a table of this that we can look at after the walkthrough because I don't know about you, but it's pretty hard to visualize that. Okay, section 12 is another transitional section, providing that for the transitional years, those five years, the excess spending penalty is suspended. And for those five years, the 3.5% whole Thomas provision is suspended. We skipped two sections of current law, I think. And section one. Jim, just two sections. I'm just reading the current law, and I have a five-plus two. Fascinating. Well, it affects my district. Back to you. Oh, okay. Okay, section 12A is the next transitional provision. The ballot language for budgets has specified language and statute, and this suspends that requirement for the five-year transitional period. Section 13, page 26, just requires that the Vermont Center for Geographic Information work with the agency to determine the number of persons per square mile in order to figure out that weight. Jim, I'm a little bit behind you maybe explain this, but section 12A suspends the ballot language requirement. What's the thinking behind that? I have to speak on behalf of another member. To answer that, my understanding is that the way that's done now on the ballot, there'll be a lot less control of school districts in terms of where the tax rates are going and the reasons why they're changing during those years. And to use the current language that's required in the ballot, I believe Senate Finance, that would be confusing to people. I believe this would leave up to the local school districts to determine what they put on their ballot. I have that thought personally, I think that maybe can use some, yeah, a lot of the, yes. So listen to the four report, Senate four report, and basically the report was that because there would be swings in per people spending that were that were part of this and not that were because of this bill, that they didn't think it would be fair for the districts to have to report those percentage changes basically. And then Jim on section 13, do you know if the Senate had the GIS folks in? I don't recall. You're back to you. Yeah. Okay. Okay, so page 26, section 14. Are we through this? This is the requirement. So it says on before December 15, 2029, the state auditor shall submit to the House of Senate, Community Education, Ways and Means, Finance, AOE, and the New Text Advisory Committee, a performance audit conducted under generally accepted government on other standards that identifies the successes and failures of the implementation of this act, including whether and to what extent each of the acts five goals under section two have been met. If a goal has not been met, the reasons why and recommendations to achieve that goal and the fiscal impact of the act, including the cost of implementation requires that before December 15, 2024, the auditor, the AOE and the new committee will jointly agree to the statement of work for the audit, including how to measure whether the acts five goals have been met and submit the statement of work to you. And then B on page 27 says that the audit shall be carried out by the state auditor or a contracted designee who in order to maintain independence has not consulted on or contracted to provide services in relation to the people weighing fastest report or the report prepared by the task force. The art will cover the period beginning on July 1, 2024, and ending on June 30, 2028. So that's the implementation period. The art shall take into account such metrics as the auditor, the agency, and the committee jointly determine appropriate, which may include one school district progress and the EQS standards. I'm sorry, before we jump into that, I noticed that JFO was not included in any of these lists. Was that, you know, if that was considered? I don't know. This was the language I was asked to draft. So thank you. Okay, we're going through the list that the metrics that may be included. Number one, school district progress on meeting EQS standards and other relevant education standards, such as the wider source of standards for English language education, Common Core, and next generation science standards. Number two, student performance progress on proficiency-based learning assessments, graduation requirements. Student performance progress on standardized tests, such as SPAC, new and common assessment program, et cetera. Number four, Vermont Youth Risk Behavior Survey results. Number five, graduation and post-secondary education enrollment rates. Number six, education spending and homestead tax rates. Number seven, education for compensation levels and full access for staff and eight academic extracurricular and student support services, resources across school districts. It requires that the auditor host the webpage that provides transparency to the public on its work for the period July 124 through July 1629, which will include when available the following informational links to this act, the statement of work, reports made to you and other public bodies on its work, and all metrics used in the audit. I'm curious to talk to the auditor about their office's interest in this project and sort of the parameters of it, but I also imagine that the education committee, given that most of these are education metrics and not finance metrics, will have a or educated eye on this. Any questions in the section? Yeah, I wanted to flag that I have concerns about it. I have concerns about it, sorry. And so I want to flag that. Just general. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Back to you, Jim. Okay. All right. We're on page 29. And this is section 15, it's creation of the Education Fund Advisory Committee. Membership, seven members, Commissioner of Taxes, Secretary of Education, or Destiny's, and then five members of the public, all of whom have expertise in education financing, two appointed by the speaker, two by the committee on committees, and one by the governor. Powers and duties are amily on report January 15. The Commission might recommend recommendations to you regarding updating the weighing factors, which may include recalibration, recalculation, adding or limiting weights, or a combination of these actions as necessary. Changes to or the addition of new or the mention of existing categorical aid as necessary. Changes to income levels eligible for property tax credit means to adjust the revenue sources for the education fund, including whether to transition to an education income tax means to improve equity, transparency, and efficiency in education funding statewide, whether and when to reinstate the excess spending threshold, and if reinstate, if reinstated at what level, whether and when to reinstate the ballot language, and if reinstated at what language to use, and the amount of the stabilization reserve. That says the committee shall recommend updated weights and categorical aid at least every five years, which may include a recommendation not to make changes where appropriate. And it's first report to you next year. The committee after consulting with the Department of Taxes, AOE, and JFO will make recommendations on the implementation of the education income tax system to replace the homestead education property tax system, including implementing a retro tax, retro tax credit, or other mechanisms to ensure from others who pay rent, who rent a primary residence, participate fairly in the education income tax system, means for a minister during the new education income tax system, and ways to transition from the current homestead education property tax system to the new income tax system. Assistance is from the Department of Taxes, AOE, JFO, this console, and Office of Ledger Operations, meeting to occur first meeting by July 15 of this year, and compensation is usual per DM and reimbursement. 15A is the appropriation for that, which is $2,500 for fiscal year 23. Section 16 is a session law requiring collaboration by the agency. Before we go to 16, are these lifetime appointments? I didn't see a term. There is no term here. Section 16 is collaboration between AOE and JFO. It requires the honor before August 1 of this year. They enter into a memorandum of understanding to share data, models, and other information that's needed to update the winning factors. They have to host the model used to provide modeling for the winning report, and to ensure that's updated and held in parallel, and they need to recommend, based on their consensus view, updates to the winning factors to the Education Fund Advisory Committee on a scheduled imperial basis to accomplish cost changes underlying those factors. Then section 18, these are now conforming and technical changes. Section 18 takes out a few categories of exceptions to the education spending penalty that are not being used. The first one is exception for spending triples of the cost of playing a merger of a school with fewer than 20 students. Second is cost associated with dual enrollment and early college programs, which are not paid by the school district, they're paid by the state. Section 19 is just a small conforming change, equalized pupils, clarifying that it's for the year in which it's calculated, because now it's being averaged over various years, so this just clarifies that the base term is the year for which it's calculated. Section 20 on page 34 is just referencing, let's see, this is in the power of a school board, former vote, it's just referencing how equalized pupils are determined under the section we went through earlier, so it's just a cross-reference. Then effective dates, a number of these take effect on passage, but the parts that take effect until I won next year, which is on page 36, sub B, are the parts that deal with the weighting changes going forward, so there's a one-year lag before those changes take effect. And that is it. Thank you. Apologies for losing my voice there for a while. I realized a moment ago that you, while we were taking a break, you were jumping to another committee, so I'm really sorry, Jim, this has been a bit of a long haul of a warning for you. It's okay. So here we are. So we're going to have a longer committee discussion about this afternoon. I think now it might be helpful, and of course I think we've already flagged the effective dates as something that might need some mapping out on our, so I think switching over to Julia to just take us through the fiscal note might be helpful, and then maybe if we've, if we still have a minute looking at Brad's transition table. Julia. Good morning, Julia Richter with the Joint Fiscal Office. The fiscal note for this bill should be posted under my name on the committee page. Do you want a moment to pull it up or should I start walking through? Give another five seconds here. See them coming up. Okay. To you. Thank you. All right. So the fiscal impact for fiscal year 23, JFO estimates this bill would result in approximately 2,500 to the general fund due to that appropriation for the Education Fund advisory committee. With respect to the Education Fund, it would have a fiscal impact in future years. So as I referenced earlier in FY24, if all ELL categorical grants were to result in increased spending, we estimate this bill would result in an approximately, approximate 1.75 million fiscal impact to the Education Fund. And this, this stems from those categorical, that categorical aid with regards to ELL. And as the committee is well aware absent any other changes in policy, this would result in the base Homestead yield and or the base non-Homestead tax rate to need to be adjusted to account for this anticipated increase in categorical aid. The rest of the fiscal note, the next couple sections just outline how we at JFO generally estimate per DM costs, as well as currently drafted, there are no anticipated transition costs to the Education Fund or general fund. But I really do want to flag this last section of other potential fiscal issue. Sorry, Julia, before you get to that, there are no audit costs in there because there was no appropriation for whatever contracts the auditor would need to issue. Yes, that is correct. And also because the, sorry? Do you know if the auditor weighed in on that? I believe that Senate Finance did take some testimony from the auditor. I am not sure what, what they said as the bill is currently drafted. I believe the audit would occur in fiscal year 2029. I don't know any more details about what costs are anticipated in the future for that. Are there any other questions before moving on to the potential fiscal issues? Okay, so, so this last section is just bringing up some issues that I think that the committee is well aware of or the adjustment of people weights. This bill will shift tax capacity for most school districts and towns, meaning that with constant education spending, some towns tax rates would increase while other towns tax rates would decrease. In other words, assuming all education spending remains constant, towns that would have fewer equalized pupils with the new weights than they had with the current law weights would have higher tax rates, the converse also being true. This will likely have an effect on the education fund, including the property and income yields, but because total education spending is determined by local votes, we can't, we don't know what will happen. It's potential, it's total education spending may increase, but it really will end up being determined at the local level. So that's why the impact to the education fund remains unclear at this point. The transition costs, we've got obviously the one sentence saying that there's no anticipated transition costs still in this context would mean by transition costs, just to call it as I understand it would be four districts for whom this change would result in a higher tax rate under the change. Transition costs in theory would help to mitigate the pace of that tax rate change. So in other words, for districts who would have their tax capacity reduced and would normally have a higher rate, we talk about transition costs, if they were to put them in, they would basically go to defray or slow that rate of increase. Is that right? I think that that's really a policy decision, that it would be up to the committee to determine the best transition mechanism and figure out if, depending on that transition mechanism, figure out where those costs would fall and who would be affected. And just to follow up, given that it's a policy decision that hasn't been made, how come you've got this section in here? I guess because there's nothing, we're not doing anything and it sounds like it's a little undefined that this is a policy. I guess what's the utility of having this sentence on transition costs at this point? Well, it was decided by the Senate, right? So the fiscal note matches as the bill was voted out of the Senate and so... Did the Senate make a transition cost policy? The Senate made a decision not to have a transition cost as they've, as the bill reiterated now. So it's kind of calling out the absence of a policy, is that right? Is that what this is? The transition is just average and weighty, so there's no dollar assigned to it. So there were some, if I may interject, there were some questions in terms of interest in us clarifying what the transition cost, if any, overall, what that would be. And as the bill is currently written, there has been the decision to use the transition mechanism that was earlier presented by Jim in terms of these averages moving over time. With the different years. So for that reason, there hasn't been source of an additional cost that would be used for that transition. It's up to the committee and ultimately the General Assembly to decide if you want to change that transition mechanism. But as currently written, yes, we do not anticipate there to be any additional transition costs. And so this is referring to the three year equalized pupil weighting. It's saying that transition mechanism of having a three year average does not cost the state money. Is that an accurate way to look at this? It's referring to the transition from current law into the proposed new weights and saying that as it is currently, it's solely shifting the tax capacity within school districts. So there's not, as the bill is currently written, there's not any other provision that would provide additional money or change the cost as it transitions in. It would just be transitioning within the school districts. Julia, looking at the backup to the section on the ELL grants. And you qualified this by saying if. But it also seems possible to me that that money is already being spent. We don't know. But the districts are already including that in their budgets so that it's possible that it wouldn't result in either as much or even any increased spending. Yes. So the reason there is that qualifier of if it were to result in fully increased spending, that would be the cost. That's one of the nuances of the education fund that I know you and the committee are well aware that because of the nature in terms of funding of schools and funding of these different programs, we don't necessarily know what the local decisions will be. So this, so as you as you rightfully stated that that that estimate captures if if it's all increased spending. Thank you. Thank you very much, Julia. Yeah, I had another question. It's back to Jim. I don't know if we want to leave this, but can you save the question? Actually, you know what we're not going to have Jim for the first hour of the afternoon. So yes, ask that question to Jim. Jim, if you are there. Great. Jim, my question is about the annual report or deliverable from the new Education Fund Advisory Committee, January 15th. And whether that would replace or supplement the December 1st letter. I'm not sure if it mentions the yield in here. Maybe that would answer my question. But is it going to be in lieu of that letter? Or in addition to? In addition to, yep. So it's not it's not intended to be used for school districts to set their to help them with their budgeting, necessarily. That report is really to be used is for you as your assembly in order to to make possible changes to the rates, etc. So it's not really about yield. Yeah. Okay, good. Thank you. I'm thinking that trying to look at this table of the transition in 10 minutes or less is not a good idea. I'm listening from that laughter that folks agree with me on that one as Brad. Great. Okay. So we will thank everyone for getting through this together and see folks back here at 115 for to talk through this table that Brad has posted and to have a general discussion of the morning.