UPDATED: Senate votes to repeal part of Act 46; House wants more testimony - VTDigger

UPDATED: Senate votes to repeal part of Act 46; House wants more testimony

Dave Sharpe, Mark Perrault

Rep. Dave Sharpe, chair of House Education, and Mark Perrault, an analyst with the Joint Fiscal Office, talk about tweaks to the school spending cap. Photo by Tiffany Pache/VTDigger

Editor’s note: This story was updated 12:20 a.m. Jan. 20.

An effort to reverse a controversial part of last year’s education law sailed through the Senate on Tuesday. Meanwhile, a bill that would have softened the caps on school spending stalled in the House.

The Vermont Senate has voted to repeal the spending threshold provisions in Act 46 that penalized communities for spending more than allowed under a new cap.

The repeal passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote in less than half an hour Tuesday morning.

The House, which was set to take up H.566, a bill that would have given school districts more leeway for unanticipated education costs, sent the question back to its Education Committee. Some House members favor repeal, others want to soften the penalties, and others want to keep the cost containment measure in place. The total cost of penalties to communities is estimated to be $7 million, lawmakers said.

Inaccurate information from the Agency of Education led to renewed calls for repeal in the House on Tuesday.

Agency of Education officials misinterpreted the spending cap provisions of Act 46 and unintentionally provided school districts with erroneous per pupil spending figures. Lawmakers thought some spending — including special education costs over $50,000 and capital construction — did not count toward the cap, while the agency thought those costs did. As a result, some communities cut budgets more than necessary in order to stay under the penalty threshold.

The impact of the “confusion” on school districts statewide is $1 million, a Joint Fiscal Office analyst told lawmakers on Tuesday. But that gave lawmakers little comfort, and a handful of Democrats in the House held a press conference in which they questioned whether a “tweak” to the spending caps is enough to protect schools from the agency’s mistake.

Rep. Dave Sharpe, chair of House Education, said he hoped his committee could sort out what to recommend by the end of the day Tuesday and that the full House could vote Wednesday on what to do next. But it was not clear what direction the House would go Tuesday evening. At that point, Sharpe was still trying to rebuild consensus for a 0.9 percentage point tweak that would help school districts stay under the spending cap.

What is Act 46?

Act 46 is the state’s school district consolidation law. The state statute requires each school district to consider merging with neighboring districts. The objective of the law is to help communities share resources at a time when many rural districts have seen dramatic declines in student enrollments.

The law, enacted in May 2015, also included a controversial spending cap provision known as the allowable growth percentage.

The allowable growth percentage assigns each school district an amount it can increase spending, ranging from 0 to 5.5 percent, based on the previous year’s per pupil spending. If a district votes to spend more than the allowed amount, it is penalized with a double tax on each additional dollar.

The provision penalizes communities that spend above a state-designated threshold, called the allowable growth rate, and are double taxed on amounts above that level. Some communities have said the measure is too restrictive.

The House Education Committee is proposing to increase every district’s allowable growth percentage by a 0.9 percentage point to help accommodate an unforeseen 7.9 percent rise in health care premiums.

The Senate Committee on Education has introduced a repeal of the allowable growth mechanism. The administration also favors delaying or repealing the AGP.

The confusion over how to interpret the law and the continuing debate over whether to adjust the AGP or repeal it is happening at the same time that school boards are finalizing their budgets to meet deadlines for Town Meeting Day on March 1. This has led some to side with repealing AGP and reverting back to the former excessive spending thresholds for fiscal 2017 in the interest of time.

“We had no choice” but to send it back to the Education Committee to try to figure out the impact of the miscommunication on schools, Sharpe said. “Every day we delay creates a bigger problem for communities.”

House Speaker Shap Smith, D-Morristown, said he was confident the House would ultimately come through, either by increasing the threshold or through an outright repeal, like the Senate.

“I’m sure it will all work out,” Smith said Tuesday afternoon.

“There is still a substantial group of people who want to either keep it the way it is or adjust it by a 0.9 percentage point, and I think we need to just go back and do a count to see if that has support. And if it doesn’t have support, then we’ll just repeal it,” he said.

The speaker also said he would support waiving the excess spending penalties that would kick back into place if the thresholds in Act 46 are scrapped. He said it would be unfair to penalize communities that might meet the Act 46 spending caps but fail to meet excess spending limits under the old law.

Sen. David Zuckerman, P-Chittenden, who reported the bill for the Senate, said it was his understanding there was only one community that would face a penalty under the old law that would not also have been penalized under the new law.

Smith said he thought the confusion between the agency and lawmakers was not intentional. “It sounds like there’s a disagreement between the agency and the committee about what was intended for the bill and those conversations went on in committee and amongst the staff,” the speaker said. “I’m not in a place to really place blame, I can say that the Education Committee felt it was misinterpreted, that its intent was misinterpreted by the agency.”

Smith said he would “not suggest that anyone was deliberately doing anything.”

“I look at the actors involved and take them at their word,” he said. “I think that they’re a bunch of people who try to act in good faith.”

Asked if repealing the Act 46 provision would make a difference at this point in the budget process for communities, Smith said: “I think that’s a good question right now, I think that most communities have set their budgets, so whether you repeal or not I think the impact of the thresholds has already been felt.”

Even with the confusion, positive results have been achieved in trying to slow costs, he said.

“They were intended to slow the rate of growth in education spending and I think that even if they were repealed they would probably have that impact. At least for this year,” said Smith.

The amount of the difference the “confusion” created is roughly $1 million out of a state education budget of $1.6 billion, Smith said.

“So, we’re talking about $1 million, but the thing is, where is that million dollars occurring and I think that’s the big difference,” Smith said. “I mean, if it’s all of a sudden your district, being impacted by the penalty, when they didn’t think the penalty for the threshold was going to be hit, that’s a big problem. And that changes people’s views of what the budget looks like and that’s tough.”

Some districts, however, took drastic measures, lawmakers say, to meet the spending caps under Act 46. At a hastily prepared press conference Tuesday, legislators urged repeal because the spending caps were “patently unfair.” Low spending communities were faced with 100 percent penalties for budget increases they couldn’t control.

Kitty Toll

Rep. Kitty Toll, D-Danville. Photo by Roger Crowley/VTDigger

Rep. Kitty Toll, D-Danville, represents Walden, which would be hit with a penalty even though per pupil costs are only $11,700, while neighboring communities, that stayed under the allowable growth limit face no penalty and are spending $16,000 to $17,000 per pupil.

Toll also rued the impact of the bitter controversy over the caps in light of progress communities started to make toward school district consolidation.

“I also feel it’s very tragic that the good work in Act 46 that has engaged conversations that have not happened in years regarding consolidation, of governance, of how you can share programs among schools,” Toll said. “There’s really encouraging conversations going on and then with the technical spending hit and the budgets came out took away the momentum of the good work being done and everyone is focused on how are we going to stay under these caps, which positions can we afford to lose and my concern is what is the burden on the children in our small schools in Vermont.”

Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington, said it’s not surprising that there are unintended consequences with the cap, which she said was “cobbled together at the last minute.”

“We started considering this issue in November, we’re now toward the end of January and we have not had a fix,” Browning said. “The obvious thing to do would have been to repeal it as soon as we got back here, that’s what I advocated for, the first week of the session, to repeal or to fix it, or delay it for a a year and fix it.”

Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell, D-Windsor, also said the spending caps were a last-minute fix from the House that secured passage of Act 46.

“This is a wake-up call for doing things on the fly,” Campbell said before the vote Tuesday.

The Senate leader said he was leery of replacing the provision with another effort at cost containment, arguing that might be making the same mistake twice, trying to rush through a fix.

If a full repeal were to occur, the spending thresholds and penalties would revert to those in the previous law.

More on the miscommunication

Sen. Diane Snelling, R-Chittenden, questioned how a miscommunication happened between the Agency of Education and lawmakers over what costs to include toward the cap.

Campbell said the Senate is investigating how the mix-up happened.

In House Education on Tuesday, lawmakers reviewed the tape of a November meeting in which the agency explained the change to the per pupil spending formula to House members.

Sharpe said he “clearly didn’t understand” how the agency was changing the calculation until legislative counsel and the Joint Fiscal Office explained it last week.

“I should have asked our staff to work with AOE to help us understand this better,” Sharpe said.

Mark Perrault, the education analyst for the Joint Fiscal Office, said he didn’t notice the change, either, and he should have jumped on it.

Rep. Sarah Buxton, D-Tunbridge, said she also missed the change to the per pupil spending formula. “Watching that again, I am reminded that it is really important that we in our committee not become comfortable with terms like minus exclusions,” Buxton said. “I heard exactly what I thought I heard that the exemptions were being used in 2017 data and I can now see arguably when AOE referred to new exemptions they weren’t referring to exemptions in addition to excess spending threshold exemptions. I think this is a great reminder for us particularly when talking about numbers that we remain very clear in our language. It can be tricky.”

The amendments

The House Committee on Education spent the afternoon reviewing a half dozen amendments to the spending thresholds including a possible twist on the 0.9 percent increase to each district’s allowable growth rate. The new language instructs the Agency of Education to apply the old or the new per pupil spending threshold, whichever benefits a school district.

A slew of amendments were proposed after it was revealed that the Agency of Education and the Legislature were interpreting the language around the spending thresholds differently. School districts have been working with per pupil spending limits that did not include exclusions for capital spending, some special education, teacher retirement and some other costs that had been covered under the old excessive spending threshold system. This — along with a 7.9 percent increase in health care premiums — was among the reasons a number of districts are struggling to stay under allowable growth targets.

Sharpe has proposed that the committee consider instructing the Agency of Education to apply either their own formula or the one that includes the exclusions for each district based on what will benefit it the most.

“The law says thou shalt get the best deal,” said Bill Talbot, the CFO at AOE, in reference to what the new version would mean for school districts.

This will be in conjunction with the 0.9 percent increase, and Sharpe believes it will put most places under the allowable growth percentage.

Other amendments included:
• a repeal of the AGP mechanism;
• adjusting the penalties under AGP that now demands a double tax on every per pupil dollar spent over the threshold amount to just 25 percent or 50 percent instead;
• another amendment that would instruct AOE to apply whichever formula most benefits the school district but doesn’t add the .9 percent;
• an exemption from the AGP penalties for Peacham because they combined schools last year in the spirit of the law and reduced spending significantly, from $15,500 to $10,700 yet they are not able to comply with the AGP they have been assigned.

Mark Johnson

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Tom Sullivan

    Keep the caps in place, move educators from the cadillac healthcare plans they have now to Vt health connect which would save money, and raise the ratio of students to teachers towards the national average via mandate.

  • Tom Pelham
    • Ralph Colin

      Isn’t interesting that despite the fact that Tom and others have been pointing out for well over a year that the ONLY way to seriously solve the education cost problem is to address the student to teacher ratio, but as Tom repeats here, the legislators, slaves to the VTNEA, refuse to take that into consideration. Until the Democratic Party leadership in Vermont face this solution realistically, there will be no change in the cost problem and in all likelihood, it will continue to build. Act 46 is no solution; it is more of the problem.

      Face it: this not a riddle seeking a solution. It is simply the refusal on the part of the governor and the legislative leaders to admit that it is a political decision which they are reluctant to accept. What it boils down to is that these “leaders” put a greater degree of concern on their ability to remain in power than they do to face head on the ability for our state to afford to offer a superlative education to our children, one which needlessly breaks the financial backs of our taxpayers! That tells you a great deal about their priorities.

      Isn’t time to replace those who place their own political interests above those who elect them?

  • Jay Eshelman

    Micro-managing education services caused our education chaos in the 1st place. Again, consider the idiom that ‘one size doesn’t fit all and never will’.

    Parents (and voters) should stay out of labor and benefit negotiations (salaries, healthcare, retirement). Let the educators (principals, teachers, nurses, maintenance staff, and so forth) negotiate with the school in which they want to teach or work – – Open Shop or Unionized State School – it’s their business, not ours.

    The AOE should set the Average Tuition Rate the way it always does and provide that amount as a ‘tuition voucher’ to all parents with PK-12 children. Then, let the parents choose whatever school they deem best for their children, be it a State School or an Independent School, or some combination thereof – – the way parents of ‘tuitioned’ students do now.

    Class size is variable taxpayers shouldn’t (and don’t have to) indulge in a School choice environment. Some teachers do better with different numbers of students than others, not to mention the difference between student’s individual needs. Let the parents interview the various schools available to them and negotiate their own deal – – or just take what’s available from a State School as they do now.

    In fact, when my wife and I ‘tuitioned’ our children, it was amazing how open to accommodation the local State Schools were. Unfortunately, as soon as ‘choice’ was removed from the equation, so too was the State School’s willingness to accommodate individual needs. But make no mistake about it, even State Schools can accommodate individual needs if they have an incentive to do so.

    If the State or a local School District should do anything across the board, it’s provide transportation (as it does now or as best it can) to the various schools parents choose … but no guarantees above and beyond what is currently provided, as it is now. Our school district, for example, provides a plethora of school bus routes and schedules, often to only a few kids on a bus that can handle 50 or more. And the transportation costs per student (inefficient as they are) are about $1000/student for the whole year. So, let the school districts run their bus routes as they do now and any student wanting to take advantage of it can do so. If a parent wants to send their children to a school outside the designated transportation area, the parent can make that choice and provide transportation – – as it is now with ‘tuitioned’ students.

    Our school district currently saves more than 25% when students are ‘tuitioned’ and parents and their children thrive in the education environment, as evidenced by significantly lower Special Education costs. If even a fraction of that savings can be realized by all school districts in Vermont, imagine the savings. The ‘tuition’ model exists in more than 90 Vermont school districts for everyone to see and analyze.

    If my small school district adopted ‘tuitioning’ in its K-6 program, as it does in its 7th & 8th grades, the district would save $3/4 Million per year. Why, then, don’t we do it? Good question. I suspect, judging by comments I see on this forum, that most folks don’t realize what ‘tuitioning’ governance can do for them. All I can say is – – please, check it out.

    • Jay Eshelman

      I’m impressed by the proportion of ‘dislikes’ to my missive and, quite frankly, don’t undertstand it given that School Choice has received significant support in all of my previous posts. In the interest of understaning, would anyone care to comment on why they disagree with this commentary?

      • Tom Sullivan

        Hey Jay,
        I disagree with school choice. Taxpayers would still be on the hook for all of the cost associated with running your local school in addition to the tuition you will have to pay if a student chooses to go to school elsewhere.

  • Katherine Silta

    I am not sure they can blame this all on it being a rush job. Frankly, I am not convinced they can get anything right no matter how much time they spend on it. In fact, the more they insert themselves into any issue, the more likely the result will be a dismal debacle. Zero confidence.

  • Jay Denault

    Well this is just the beginning folks. Wait until the Legislators find out a criminal complaint was submitted today to the U.S. Department of Justice. It states that Act 46 sections 10,13,and 16 are in violation of 18 U.S. Code 594 “Intimidation of Voters”, and attempts to influence the outcome of a public vote, with bribes, threats, and coercion. I’ll say this I think the Legislature is definitely making history because I don’t think I have ever seen this level of incompetence in Montpelier!!!

    • Dave King

      May be a bit off topic, but boy, can you imagine what they will do when they get their hands on the carbon tax? How long can this go on before the people of vermont say enough is enough?

  • Dave Bellini

    The best way to control property taxes is to CAP THEM. Cap the taxes period. It’s not complicated.

  • mark Moye

    Plain language that can be understood by all involved would help.

  • Bill Dunnington

    We need a sign to be draped over the Statehouse – inside and out – that says: “IT’s THE PROPERTY TAX STUPID. “

  • Keith Bronson

    Twin Valley School District,the consolidation of Whitingham/Wilmington,supposed to save money yet both towns in the penalty box.

  • Jackie Folsom

    Really annoyed that NOW the House Education Committee wants to take “more” testimony. Can’t they hear the cries of frustration from the School Boards? Towns are taking different approaches to dealing with the mis-interpretation and mis-information coming from the Statehouse – nobody will be able to determine if Act 46 actually held down expenses, since various schools are handling this in many ways and it will be apples to oranges to grapes when compared. Towns are ending Spanish, music, art and busing to get below the caps – this will do nothing to affect the size of classrooms or the number of teaching staff. It will, however, affect the quality of education. House Ed was not paying attention when this exemption issue was raised – they’ve admitted it. Please take the high road, move forward and repeal it and then fix it for next year. You have put school boards in a horrible situation.

  • Megs Keir

    Our bread needs to be baked before we eat it. This loaf is not done. More time in the oven, please. Better a good loaf than a half-baked one.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "UPDATED: Senate votes to repeal part of Act 46; House wants more test..."