Committee debates draft allowing receiving schools to charge up to 110% of base; adds CTE 'safety valve'

Miss Carpenter's committee met June 12 to review draft language tied to a proposed statewide education tax and a parallel tuition-setting mechanism for receiving schools, lawmakers said.

“for the intent of the general assembly to ensure the imposition of the new statewide education tax rate contemplated by this act does not result in an increase in education property tax bills relative to Vermont's current education funding system or municipalities across Vermont,” Committee member 1 said as the group read aloud the proposed intent sentence.

The committee discussed a provision that would allow receiving schools — public or independent — to charge tuition for grades 9–12 of up to 110% of the base amount; independent schools that operate career and technical education (CTE) programs could charge up to a total 120%, described in the draft as “10% for the high school weight and 10% CCP weight,” staff said. Committee member 5 explained the change is intended to ensure independent CTEs have a funding mechanism comparable to public CTE centers.

Committee members clarified how the amount would be set. Under the draft, the receiving school would notify the sending district of the tuition percentage it intended to assign rather than the district setting the price, Committee member 5 said. Several members questioned the mechanics in districts that do not operate schools. “So in a district that doesn't operate any public schools ... how would that district be able to pay the 10% or 20%?” Committee member 2 asked.

Staff answered that districts typically cover receiving-school requests either by reallocating operating dollars or by seeking supplemental spending approval from voters; in many places the supplemental cap is 5%, the transcript shows. Committee member 5 noted the bill’s proponents view the provision as a “safety valve” to prevent independent CTE programs from losing the resources they need to operate if the broader funding changes move forward without a separate CTE financing solution.

Members also debated whether secondary education costs more than elementary education. Committee member 1 asserted, “It costs at least 10% more around high school,” and referenced previous internal cost work that suggested a roughly 12.5% differential; other members cited outside studies (APA and academic work) that did not find the same result and said they wanted more peer-reviewed analysis before settling weights.

Separately, committee members pointed to the bill’s effective-dates clause: the foundation-formula changes would not take effect unless comprehensive recommendations are received and acted on, Committee member 2 noted. The draft also narrows property-tax classifications to homestead residential, nonhomestead residential, and nonhomestead nonresidential, a staff member said, aiming to simplify administration and clarify impacts on partial properties.

No formal vote was recorded in the discussion. At the end of the session members agreed to take the draft language away for further review and to return with proposals for revision, Committee member 4 said.

The discussion combined budget mechanics, statutory timing, and operational concerns for both public receiving schools and long-standing independent CTE providers; members asked staff for diagrams, additional fiscal detail, and options for how nonoperating districts would handle supplemental requests.