JFO presents FY25 equalized grand-list analysis for five proposed school districts

At the same Ways & Means meeting on Feb. 13, Julia Richter of the Joint Fiscal Office presented a preliminary analysis of equalized grand-list values for the administration's five proposed regional school districts and compared those values to long-term average daily membership (ADM) counts.

Richter said the analysis used preliminary FY25 equalized grand-list data and long-term ADM to estimate property value per pupil in each proposed district. "This is really solely reviewing the 5 districts in the proposal," Julia Richter told the committee, adding that the presentation did not include other pieces of the administration's proposal such as the homestead exemption.

The Joint Fiscal Office estimated total state equalized grand-list value for FY25 at about $122.4 billion and used that dataset to allocate value to each of the five proposed districts. The analysis found substantial variation in shares of statewide property wealth: the Champlain Valley region would contain roughly 39% of the state's total equalized grand-list value, while the Northeast region would contain about 9%.

Richter and staff also compared grand-list totals with pupil counts. The state's long-term ADM used in the analysis was about 83,368 pupils. Under the proposed boundaries, Champlain Valley would hold about 41% of the state's ADM, while the Northeast region would have about 12% in the FY25 snapshot.

To combine those measures, the office calculated equalized grand-list value per long-term ADM (value per pupil). Depending on classification, the range across districts varied: - For total equalized grand list (homestead + nonhomestead), the highest district had roughly double the grand-list-per-pupil of the lowest (ratio ≈ 1.99). - For homestead-only values, the highest-to-lowest ratio was smaller (≈ 1.6). - For nonhomestead values, the spread was larger (≈ 2.5).

Richter emphasized limitations of the single-year snapshot. The analysis uses preliminary FY25 values and current ADM counts; it does not forecast how valuations or pupil counts may change over time or show within-district parcel-level variation. "We're using preliminary FY25 equalized grand list values," she said, and added, "We are nonpartisan. So this should not be interpreted as a recommendation of the administration's proposal, rather just some information for you."

Committee members asked for additional analyses. Several members urged longitudinal and demographic analysis to understand how pupil counts and property values may evolve; one lawmaker warned the data risked being "shortsighted" if it examined only one year. Richter said the Joint Fiscal Office will continue work, including examining alternative district sizes and shapes and returning with updated framing and additional context.

Ending

Richter concluded by noting the presentation was an initial step; the Joint Fiscal Office will supply additional rounds of analysis and the committee will revisit grand-list and ADM comparisons as it reviews the administration's education finance proposals.