Henry Raymond
Fairfax News => Current News & Events => Topic started by: Franklin West SU on September 05, 2014, 12:25:27 PM
-
Please see information for the following items to be discussed at the Fairfax School Board meeting on Sept 8, 2014.
BFA Transportation Consolidation – Discussion
Vaughn Altemus from the VT Agency of Education will attend the meeting to discuss how BFA can comply with the transportation consolidation mandate and answer questions from the public. Act 153 & 156 (enacted by the VT Legislature in 2010 and 2012) require school districts to consolidate transportation at the Supervisory Union level. This means that schools will no longer be able to contract or manage bus services directly at the local level. BFA received a one-year waiver from this provision and is required to be in compliance with the law by July 1, 2015. The Fairfax School Board is beginning to plan the transition of transportation services now.
White House – Update
Over the summer, Fairfax School Board has been exploring options for the White House which was vacated by the Town in February. In June, the Board sought interested parties to purchase the White House. The Board will now offer financial assistance for interested parties to fund the move of the structure up to the cost of demolition with the understanding that the project must be complete by July 1, 2015. Letters of interest must be received by October 1, 2014, and can be sent to fxboard@fwsu.org or mailed to Attn: Elaine Carpenter, Fairfax School Board Chair, BFA Fairfax, 75 Hunt Street, Fairfax, VT 05454. The Board will consider letters of interest at its regular meeting on October 13, 2014.
-
Didn't we just have a couple years of debate around bussing and I never remember hearing this.
-
Exactly what I questioned when this was brought to my attention on FB. Seems a bit more notice would be nice as this meeting is scheduled to have a rep from the Agency of Education there. Why does the state needs to be involved on this issue? Why should they be able to make decisions on a local level what is best? Why should there be monopolies on bus transports~ that is where we are headed. Once there is, the sky is the limit on what they charge, just as we see now with our power company!
-
Hopefully you both can attend the meeting tomorrow and be part of the discussions.
-
Giving this notice a bump so we can all remember to attend tonight.
-
I hope so but with need to be @ a mtg @ 6:30 & a WANT to be at this mtg... not sure. Just seems so unfair that this has been in the works 2 yrs? now & with all the past busing discussions it only is posted 3 days prior to the meeting, wonder why?
-
Is there a transportation consolidation mandate and does it require compliance. What do Act 153 and 156 have to do with it?
I have found information. here is a brief bit. "Previous attempts to consolidate school districts have been a nonstarter. Act 153, passed in 2010, offers incentives for voluntary school district mergers. Act 156, passed last session, expands those incentives and makes them available for school mergers even in supervisory unions where some towns have opted out. But so far, neither has spurred consolidation in districts statewide."
-
The closest thing I could find on this "mandate" comes from Vermont Digger.
H.883 would eliminate 282 school districts, along with their school boards, and reconstitute the school governance structure to include roughly 45 to 55 supervisory districts with a minimum of 1,000 children. (Vermont has more school districts than towns; nearly every district has its own board. The state has the highest school board member to student ratio, 1 to 56, in the country.)
Either way, they are faced with a lose-lose political situation in their home districts.
Taxpayers are in a balky frame of mind going into the 2014 election season, and as time runs out this biennium, school board consolidation plans have picked up support as lawmakers come to grips with the realization that they need to show voters they’ve made an effort to address rapidly rising statewide property tax rates.
On the other hand, lawmakers are also feeling heat from school board members who oppose the elimination of local authority over management and budget decisions. They fear that nixing some 1,440 school board positions could spell their doom when they go back to their home districts to campaign.
It’s not an unreasonable fear. School boards are a training ground for local politics, and many school board members oppose the idea of eliminating local jurisdiction over budgets and management. They say that creating a supervisory district board with members who represent different towns (similar to existing unionized high school boards) will destroy community involvement in local schools. Ultimately, critics of the plan say consolidating school districts is tantamount to closing schools.
Some Republicans say there is nothing wrong with Vermont’s small school district structure, the problem is with the statewide property tax formula.
While Smith and Shumlin back education governance reform, the Senate is less than enthusiastic about supporting the realignment of districts. Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, chair of the Senate Education Committee doesn’t see the need for restructuring because local school boards already have the option to voluntarily merge with other districts under Act 153. With the tacit support of the education committee, Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, is giving over a portion of the property tax rate bill to consolidation of school district business administration at the supervisory union level.
The bottom line? The voluntary consolidation program under Act 153 has been a failure. There is no appetite to change Act 60, the education financing law this year, despite a growing realization in the Statehouse that property tax rates are going up in districts where spending has been reduced because of pressures on the Education Fund.
Taxes will continue to go up unless lawmakers take action, according to Bill Talbott, the chief financial officer of the Agency of Education.
Education spending has continued to increase over the past 15 years as the public school student population has shrunk by 20 percent from a high of just over 100,000 to about 80,000 students. Meanwhile, staffing at local schools, which represents about 80 percent of school spending, has stayed relatively constant, at around 18,400, Talbott says.
Unless districts reduce staffing levels, Talbott said budgets will automatically go up 3 percent a year to cover contractual obligations. A 1 percent reduction, he said, would be the equivalent of $11 million and would mean the elimination of 184 school positions statewide. Even small savings from restructuring, Talbott says, would be worthwhile. Transition costs for the realignment would be between $3.6 million and $5.3 million a year for a three-year period.
“The question is, does this current structure allow school boards to do that (reduce staff)?” Talbott said. “Would H.883 give them more options? It certainly looks to me like it would.”
Talbott says if small local school districts joined forces as part of larger supervisory districts, they could share teachers, administrative costs and transportation contracts, and eliminate layers of unnecessary management, ultimately saving additional money.
“If we keep doing the same thing, we’re going to get the same result,” he said.
The hammer is year over year property tax rate increases — even in many towns that have cut spending. That’s in large part because statewide rates are going up (5 cents last year, 4 cents to 7 cents this year and another 7 cents to 9 cents per $100 of assessed value next year). The rate hikes reflect average spending increases across districts statewide, the erosion of the Education Fund (The fund is used to pay for an assortment of non K-12 programs such as adult basic education, preK, dual enrollment, schooling for prisoners) and a reduction in the General Fund transfer to the Education Fund of $27 million (the transfer was “rebased” in 2011 and was not increased by inflation as statutorily required).
Taxpayers in many towns are starting to balk at the increases. This year, 35 towns rejected budgets, the highest number since 2003.
House Speaker Smith says if the Legislature doesn’t take steps now, schools will close without a plan in place. Smith is determined to “look at every possibility.”
“I believe something has to happen,” Smith said. “If you asked most Vermonters, they’d agree. The challenge is whether there is a common understanding of what needs to happen. People believe there should be fewer districts, they’re just not sure whether theirs is the one that needs to go.
“We are going to see changes over the next couple of years, the question is whether we can help manage those changes,” Smith said. “I don’t think this issue is going away. We can’t continue to have the challenge of increased spending with fewer students. The consequence is pressure on the Education Fund and property taxes.”
Pressure will continue to build on the property tax rate, he said, “until we get some changes in place.”
Still, the end of the session is nigh and the bill has a long way yet to go. It must move through both the House and the Senate in three weeks. Smith said if it’s going to move, it has to move soon, “otherwise we won’t have enough runway.”
House Appropriations is expected to vote H.883 out on Tuesday (it has been massaged by the House Education Committee in the interim, and significantly altered by House Ways and Means) and the bill will go to the floor on Thursday and Friday. That gives the Senate just two weeks to review the proposal before the estimated adjournment date.
The latest iteration of H.883
The House Education proposal has morphed since it passed 10-0-1 out of committee in late March.
The original version of H.883 gave districts flexibility with respect to voluntary mergers, gave the State Board of Education a role to play in vetting a statewide plan for consolidation, required legislative involvement, offered broad public engagement around the changes and set a deadline for implementation of the plan no later than July 2018.
House Ways and Means struck all the language in the bill (usually a move reserved for the Senate), and moved up the implementation deadline by a year. The plan calls for a set number of hearings (10), the drafting of a preliminary plan by April 2016, followed by the creation of a final plan that would be brought to the General Assembly by January 2017. The realignment would then automatically go into effect by July 2017 — unless the Legislature rejects the plan. The committee approved the strike-all language 9-2 (Reps. Patti Komline and Bill Johnson, both Republicans voted no) 10 days ago.
Since then, H.883 has bounced back and forth between House Appropriations, which has to approve funding for the transition costs, and House Education, which got another bite at the apple last week, and spent several days tweaking the House Ways and Means language. The new version of the legislation extends the deadlines for the plan by a year. The preliminary plan would be due in April 2017 and the final draft would be submitted by January 2018. The Legislature would be required to vote affirmatively to support the plan by July 1, 2017.
House Appropriations is expected to vote out H.883 on Tuesday; the bill is slated for the floor on Thursday and Friday.
Passage won’t be easy. The House Democratic leadership has been counting votes — of members from all three parties. That’s a sign that many Democrats are expected to break ranks.
Steve Dale, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, says his members have not taken a position on either version of the House bill. Dale says the consolidation plan is a “massive undertaking” that will require legal and financial support. He worries that the plan would not be “adequately resourced.”
Senate passage doubtful
If the bill passes the House, the Senate would have just two weeks to review the complex proposal. Senators say they do not have enough time to deliberate on the merits and flaws of H.883.
Sen. Tim Ashe, chair of Senate Finance, is floating a provision that would be added on to the property tax rate bill, H.889. A draft of the bill requires that supervisory unions act as a centralized administrative clearing house for local school districts. The provision requires that supervisory unions offer the following services to districts: supply and equipment purchasing and distribution, contract negotiations, administrative and business management, special education services, data management and transportation.
An early draft of the Senate’s version of H.889 also eliminates the excess spending threshold anchor to inflation and includes an expansion of preK education.
CORRECTION: The VSBA has taken no position on H.883. The article originally stated that the association didn’t support the bill.
-
OK, so in simple terms, we really do NOT need to do this??? & if so, is this yet another of the fearless leader we have pushing his opinions/desires/wants on us??? If so, let HIM go & keep our buses!!!
-
Just to be clear, The Consolidation of Transportation is listed on the Agenenda as a discussion item and not an action item. Vaughn Altemus is coming to speak to the board about the consolidation requirements. This will provide the board with the basic information to do further research and in the future make an informed decision on future courses of action.
-
If memory serves, this was discussed at length by the board and town members and was determined that keeping the buses was the preferred/most economical option. I guess as with all things, when you don't get the answer you want, you keep at it until you do. This seems to be the case for someone, regarding BFA Buses!
-
You said it mirjo!!!
We have petitioned, gotten many signatures, presented, spoke our reasons, had it proven & still...... time for a change!
-
Was anyone able to attend the meeeting last night? I got out of work too late and wasn't able to go.
-
Yes, there were a few of us there to see for ourselves: bottom line & BLUNT: Fairfax is screwed all the way around & we will lose our OWNED bus system. Guess that is thanks to lawmakers thinking they know what's best for all, & we do vote them in. It will be up to the supervisory union to do what is best both efficiently ($$$) & effectively. The state ed rep really danced with his words a lot, from my view, as he said it was up to the supervisory union to make the call but when asked if they could decide it would be best to stay as is now...ahh, NO that can't be done. Good questions & points were raised: $$ we get from sale of buses needs to be ONLY Fairfax $$ as we have paid for them & not go in a general fund for the whole supervisory union; how can we add a middle man & still come out ahead?- we OWN our buses, garage & now get rid of them & pay another company for what we do ourselves, especially as at that point, they can set rates to what they want; since this has been in the works since 2010, why NOW are we the community hearing this, especially as so much was done last year to ensure the board/S.U. knows we want to keep our buses, Why did we have to purchase a new bus for this year, knowing we will NOT be able to keep our OWN system, WHY was there so much language to make sure we got on track to keep bus purchase on a schedule to bring our OWN fleet up so we didn't have so many aging buses. It was even brought to light that Georgia & Fletcher have used & paid for our buses for their own purpose (why did they ask us if they could get it cheaper from the ones they have the contract with, THEY CAN'T!) As you know, there was an answer for every question asked... or a dance around with words to make an answer. Even more questions will come to light, or should: what is the future of the bus garage & do we still have a bond payment on it? Our bus mechanics also maintain our field equipment (mowers), so now that will have to be sent out, what about the driver's ed car? What about the tables/chairs that our mechanics are able to weld here. It was even stated if we didn't get a new bus this year, field trips took a chance getting cancelled... so we NOW will hand that over to a company that will have the ability to charge whatever... so maybe NOW there will be trips that are cancelled due to BUDGET!! Please, there will be a supervisory union meeting this month & this will begin to be discussed, stay informed, call your school board members on this committee: Elaine Carpenter, Jasen Boyd, Rachel LeVau & let them know your feelings on this!
-
If it's the most cost effective choice for us to keep our busses, how is it not the best option for the Supervisory Union? It makes no financials sense to hire a more costly alternative. There is no way we couldn't keep our system if the Union chose it. I'm wondering if we're just not pushing hard enough at the Union level. Maybe if they dug in our behalf some of these "mandates" wouldn't move forward.
-
Karen brought up a good point that was passed over quickly. We own the bus garage...if the SU decides to get rid of our buses, they should have to find another place to keep and maintain the contractor's buses. I don't want to see a private company use our garage to run their business at our expense. The really frustrating thing about this issue is that most of the people making this decision don't live in this town, they don't seem to care what we really want.
-
Here is some information regarding the "mandate".
Mr. Woodo:
In the 2010 legislative session Title 16 (education law) § 261a, Duties of supervisory union board, was amended so that (8) (E) reads “provide transportation or arrange for the provision of transportation, or both in any districts in which it is offered within the supervisory union.”
The Agency of Education interprets “provide transportation” to mean the supervisory union operates the buses to provide transportation and “arrange for the provision of transportation” as when a supervisory union enters into a contract with a vendor to provide transportation for students in the SU. In each case it is the supervisory union that pays for the transportation.
Section (8) provides that “if a supervisory union determines that services would be provided more efficiently and effectively in another manner, then it may ask the commissioner (now Secretary) to grant it a waiver from this subdivision:”
The relevant pieces of statute can be found at:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=16&Chapter=007&Section=00261a.
In summary, while district boards decide whether the students in their districts need transportation, the transportation is provided in one way or another by the supervisory union unless the supervisory union obtains a waiver. The Agency has granted waivers to allow supervisory unions an extra year to comply if, for example, they were able to demonstrate that allowing district transportation contracts to run out in the future produced greater efficiency and effectiveness than buying out of existing contracts immediately. It would take an unusual set of circumstances for a supervisory union to justify a permanent waiver to this section of law. Thank you for your interest.
Vaughn Altemus
Education Finance manager
From: jwoodo@aol.com [mailto:jwoodo@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:21 AM
To: AOE - Info Ed
Subject: Question?
I have what I hope is a simple question. Is there currently a mandate to consolidate bussing/transportation at the supervisory level? Please provide information if possible. Thanks,
-
7f24,
Karen's point about the bus garage was noted and I will make certain that it is represented as things move forward and while I cannot speak for the entire board, I will do my utmost to assure that should an outside contractor be utilized and should they desire to utilize the bus garage it will be done so at no cost to the town/school. They would need to rent that space. The board will be informing the SU board that we want to build a case for Fairfax to maintain the bus fleet. I believe there could be some creative solutions that make our bus fleet cost efficient and effective for the SU but they will need to be researched and compared. The SU board will then decide what is best for the entire SU.
-
OK, for the "effective", I care for children whom take the bus from here, but they have a varied schedule. Yesterday when I saw the bus wasn't coming this way, I called our elementary secretary, who quickly called the driver of the bus that takes them home, they weren't there but were on the bus to come here, just haven't been here in awhile & the bus only needs to come this way for them. So, the bus turned around & delivered them safely here! This has happened a few times over the years, usually the child has boarded the wrong bus, but with our effectiveness of our own, all has turned out very well. As to the comment above, that "they would need to rent that space" in reference to another company taking over, NO they do NOT need to rent that space as they have a huge facility already!! If we have no bus fleet, we need & should use that space for our own use! Where is the driver ed car stored??
-
Karen, I agree there is effectiveness for Fairfax in owning our buses, but the effectiveness that will be the deciding factor will have to be what is most effective for the SU. I am certain that we the Fairfax board, will make the best case possible to maintain the buses but we are only a portion of the SU. As far as the bus garage, I think we are putting the cart in front of the horse, let's see where we end up and if we do end up with contracted buses, let's see if they have any desire to utilize the garage. As you said they already have large facilities and I doubt they will want to rent a space from the School when they already have their own facility.
-
F.Y.I. kpplus2 IS NOT Karen Hebert!
-
F.Y.I. kpplus2 IS NOT Karen Hebert!
I know, my reply was to your earlier post about the call to the school and turning the bus around.
-
I'm confused I was talking about state legislation and how it's filtering down
-
Ridgerunner...wasn't referring to you here, I was just saying kpplus2 is NOT Karen Hebert ONLY because it has been suggested in a few conversations that it is.
-
Ridgerunner,
I stopped at the SU Monday morning and discussed the buses. I was told they would be kept in the same place as our buses, just like the rest of the SU. I don't think this discusion is premature....if the SU is even considering cost for comparison, storage is an issue. I really don't care what is good for the SU, I only care what is good for Fairfax. I would like to know though...if people knew we were just on a one year waiver then would have to give up our buses, why did we have a new bus in the school budget?
-
Ridgerunner,
I stopped at the SU Monday morning and discussed the buses. I was told they would be kept in the same place as our buses, just like the rest of the SU. I don't think this discusion is premature....if the SU is even considering cost for comparison, storage is an issue. I really don't care what is good for the SU, I only care what is good for Fairfax. I would like to know though...if people knew we were just on a one year waiver then would have to give up our buses, why did we have a new bus in the school budget?
I am not certain who told you that but I am not aware of any decision on storage being made. I will look into it and try to determine their reasons for saying this.
Regarding the waiver, new bus issue, while we were aware that a waiver would be required there was nothing that lead me to believe that we couldn't continue to waiver this and through this waiver be able to maintain the busing Fairfax clearly stated it wanted. The legislature also updated conflicting laws this summer which I believe changed the ability to keep this at the district level and the ability to continue the waiver. We could not have continued operating the bus fleet we had, We needed to purchase a new bus this year to continue to provide safe and reliable busing for our students.
-
The guy from the state that tried to explain what's going on made the comment that they would rent at the going rate(whatever that means)...or something like that. I'm against anyone but the town of Fairfax using that garage and parking area.
-
The "conflicting laws" that were updated by the legislature were updated in 2013, so seems to me someone should have known this prior to now. That information was given by the man from the State Education at the meeting Monday night. I do not feel the SU has the authority to decide what happens to the bus garage that has been paid for only by Fairfax taxpayers; yes, the wonderful legislature gave them authority over transportation, but NOT the building. I think as townspeople we all need to voice that LOUD & CLEAR to the SU that the garage is NOT part of their decision. Sorry Ridgerunner if you are out of the loop with what the SU will do in the end; bottom line someone has the last say & that someone does not live in town nor ever paid a cent to the purchase of the buses or garage. I agree with 7F24, only FAIRFAX should utilize that facility.
-
Regardless of SU/State leg/Whatever, people still have a voice and only need to use it loudly enough to get the right things done. The population at large in this country have forgotten that and pretty much just roll over on things--then complain. What has taken place re: the buses is bogus and everyone needs to stand their ground.
-
I am 100% against the SU renting the garage out as well...That is our building and is on school property and I do not see how they can rent to a business....
-
I keep thinking about this issue...who owns the buses? With the exception of the last school budget, the buses have always been a separate vote. Does the school administration have the right to sell our buses, or should they go back to the town that actually paid for them when they start contracting busing?
The person from the state at the school board meeting said the company that gets the contract would rent our garage at fair market value. This makes no sense to me. If they are renting our garage they will just include the cost of the rent in our contract...so they rent it for free.
-
I think we, the town of Fairfax taxpayers, own our bus system! We have paid for this over the many years & sincerely hope we are allowed to keep them. I spoke with our board chair & she said as of now, 2 companies have been asked to bid the busing for the SU. She also said IF we can show it is both more cost effective & more efficient, the SU can chose to keep our buses just as they are! Now, when I asked that question to the state ed rep that came to the school board meeting, he really "danced around" with his reply! We also spoke of the bus garage & I was told that NO way will our garage be rented out IF we contract busing, that our custodial supervisor has said we will fill that garage with our own school equipment & vehicles. She noted the contracted busing for Georgia parks those buses @ the school & the Fletcher drivers take their buses home with them. I think we need to be clear the buses, if contracted out, be parked @ the facility that owns them; let their insurance cover cost of damage rather than have them on school property where we would be responsible. Besides, if we don not own our buses in the future, let them run them someplace else for a half hour to get them going/warm up rather than our neighborhood; 1st student has a huge facility just a little over 2 miles from our garage. So, with that said, the next SU board meeting is Nov.19th, 6:30, @ the SU office; guess we have work to do before!!!
-
If I remember correctly, the company that has the bus contract in Georgia keeps them at the school for registration reasons. I believe (and could certainly be wrong. It happens occasionally) that they were able to avoid paying sales taxes on the buses (and potentially having a lower bid) if they were registered under the municipality- which requires that they be stored on town property. I could be way off though with my comments.
Also, if the Town of Fairfax owns the current buses then is it possible to setup a Municipal Transportation Department (separate "division", similar to the water and sewer department) that could bid on the service?