Sen. Ruth Hardy outlines strike‑all amendment to H.454, tying any new foundation formula to new districts and a JFO study

Sen. Ruth Hardy, sponsor of the amendment, told the Senate Education Committee she had been asked to draft a compromise change and introduced a strike‑all amendment to the House version of H.454. "For the record, I'm Senator Ruth Hardy from the Addison District. And, before you is, strike all amendment to the house version of H 454," she said.

The amendment keeps the House bill's overall structure — including the House's school construction program provisions and a cost‑based foundation formula previously developed by Professor Tammy Colby — but adds two explicit contingencies before any new foundation formula would take effect. First, the amendment requires the legislature to create new school districts; second, it requires a comprehensive analysis of a cost‑based foundation formula to be produced before implementation, with a target effective date of July 1, 2029, contingent on those conditions.

Why it matters: supporters framed the contingencies as safeguards to allow time for mapping, analysis and transition so local taxpayers and districts are not moved immediately to a new funding model. Opponents and several senators pressed for modeling of tax impacts on low‑spending districts and asked for clarity on how the proposed timeline and districting would affect property tax rates.

Major provisions described by the sponsor

- Foundation formula study and JFO contracting: the amendment directs the Joint Fiscal Office to contract with an expert to produce a comprehensive report on an empirically based foundation formula. That study is to include recommended weights and options for English language learners, special education and career and technical education (CTE).

- Contingencies and effective date: the new foundation formula would not go into effect until the General Assembly enacts new school districts and the foundation‑formula report is received; the draft identifies an effective date of 07/01/2029 if the contingencies are met.

- Redistricting task force: the amendment would create a school‑district redistricting task force whose membership mixes legislative designees, school board members and geographic and data experts (including a chair role for the Vermont Center for Geographic Information director and representation from the Vermont School Boards Association and regional planning agencies). The task force would be asked to return three map options with pros and cons.

- Transitional boards and grants: once the legislature adopts new districts, transitional school boards made up of members from current boards would be authorized and eligible for grants to perform required legal, contractual and financial transition tasks.

- Class‑size standards: the amendment would set average minimum class‑size standards by grade range: kindergarten–grade 1, 10 students; grades 2–5, 12 students; grades 6–8, 15 students; grades 9–12, 18 students. The standard would be measured as an average over three consecutive years before the Secretary of Education may recommend further action.

- Tuition eligibility for independent schools: the amendment moves the threshold for independent schools to qualify for public tuition from 51% (House baseline) toward a middle ground of 40% enrollment from tuition students for the referenced school year, an increase from the 25% level the Senate had earlier proposed.

- Sparsity weight correction and ZIP code caveat: the amendment adjusts the sparsity weight to apply correctly to schools (rather than school districts) and defines a sparse area as a ZIP code with fewer than 55 persons per square mile. The sponsor noted Vermont ZIP codes are imperfect for population work and directed that the foundation‑formula study should recommend better measures.

- Tax and transition provisions: the language conforms tax classifications to a uniform homestead and nonhomestead rate (rather than multiple nonhomestead classes), includes transition language for homestead tax rates and a four‑year transition for education opportunity payments (80, 60, 40, 20 percent steps), and asks the tax department for indexing and reporting recommendations.

Fiscal and implementation details

The amendment adjusts appropriations to fund the foundation‑formula study and the Agency of Education staffing requested in prior work. The sponsor said finance committee staff and JFO assisted with late drafting changes and that further appropriations or tweaks would be needed if additional bill language changes.

Committee concerns and next steps

Committee members repeatedly asked for concrete modeling of property tax impacts under a range of district scenarios and from varying assumptions about the number and configuration of new districts. "The way that the bill is currently drafted ... have a uniform homestead rate and a uniform non homestead rate," said Julia Richter of the Joint Fiscal Office during the committee's discussion, describing the tax structure the amendment leaves in place. Several senators said JFO modeling previously presented to Finance compared current‑district spending with a uniform tax rate and urged additional models that incorporate proposed district configurations.

Actions on the record

Sen. Hardy introduced the strike‑all amendment to the House version of H.454 and walked the committee through the proposed changes; no formal committee vote on the amendment appears in the transcript.

Discussion vs. formal action

Committee discussion in the transcript focused on options, clarifications and requested analyses. The only formal action recorded in the transcript is the introduction and sponsor walkthrough of the strike‑all amendment; no motion vote or formal adoption is recorded in the provided excerpt.

What remains open

Senators asked that the JFO and finance staff produce additional modeling showing tax impacts on low‑spending districts under multiple districting scenarios before any floor vote. Members also discussed whether to strengthen the contingency language around the study (for example by explicitly requiring tax‑impact modeling) and whether to reinsert a statewide school calendar provision that had been removed from the draft.

The amendment and the requested studies and reports remain subject to further committee work and to the General Assembly's later decisions about district maps and legislative timing.