 So it's not in the point where we're distributable yet. I think I told you Friday, there is some cleanup that's going on right now and we expect to have it tomorrow. I don't know what, are you meeting tomorrow or you're not? We are not meeting tomorrow. Yeah. Put it this way. We will pass our best work to appropriations tomorrow. And then if it turns out we need to send them an addendum. Yeah. No, I think the numbers that Mark gave you are correct. I just, I just, I just wanted to make sure that it's correct. And it's just, there's some checking we need to do. So. Our goal is to have it by tomorrow. Okay. But it's consistent with what Mark said. All right. So. Talking a significantly higher number on that side. We also had testimony around the HVAC. And I did get an updated email from. Efficiency Vermont. They now feel that they could, um, That they could conceivably use a higher number than they offered us last time. So they sent me an email talking about. What they could do with, um, Different amounts. And if you'll hang on just one second. I can probably post it. Um, yeah. Okay. So in their email, they say, uh, That if we put in an additional 5 million, um, They can, uh, for sure do that. An additional 7 million would leave 2 million for the 24 enrolled schools and the 100 schools still out there. Given participation levels so far and average project sizes, They are very confident, quote unquote, That they could distribute those funds by the end of the year. And then they say, if we were to give them an additional 9 million, Uh, they are less confident that they could move every single dollar, but that would ensure they would not have to turn anyone away. So it's, It sounds to me like. They would very confidently say they could use 7 million. More. Um, so taking the two things together. If we were to offer, um, The appropriations committee and a recommendation of 45 million. For the general CRF. And then, uh, Move the 5 million from the nutrition program that was unused, But put an additional 2 million in from. The fenced off 100 million. Um, That would be 47 million of. New allocation. Um, I, I just, when we jump on that, I think the, The number Mark was talking about was, Was designed to be a total number. So I don't know that you need to go to 47. I think that that includes, well, I may not include it. It would be added a million dollars and actually Chloe can jump on and give the number. She's got him. He's on the phone call too. I think that included a million extra dollars for. If you want to go up another million, I might put she could tell you where they would push the number. But I think it's 47. Okay. Maybe we should go to Chloe then. Hi, everybody. I serve from the joint fiscal office. Um, I have been working on, uh, sort of trying to nail down, you know, A reasonable estimate for, um, For schools at this time. So the house did put in. An additional 5 million. So you are correct. That if, if you want, if they are asking now for seven, that would be an additional $2 million pressure. Um, we have. I'm sorry to stop you so soon, but same question for you as Mark. Both of you use language that suggests the 5 million is new. Haven't we already appropriated the 5 million. In the form of the nutrition. Sure. It, it, um, you know, I guess it all depends on how you think about that. I mean, you can say, um, You can do use that as a direct swap. You can say, we already have this 5 million. We're going to give it to HVAC. Um, I've been thinking about it more globally in the sense of like, you know, You know, You know, You know, How much is the total amount that I need and then I subtract the 5 million that I already have. Um, The math works out the same understood, but wouldn't it be less confusing to talk about what we've already appropriated. And then what we need to appropriate. Sure. Yeah. Um, that money wasn't directly appropriate. You didn't directly appropriate the $5 million from some summer meals. We appropriated the 12 million to summer meals. And then using flexibility that the agency already has. They will move it. Yeah, absolutely. Uh, it's fine. It's all, it's at all ends up working out in the end. Um, So sure. Um, use using that logic. Um, you have the $5 million already for HVAC. You want to add an additional, um, $5 million to that is what I'm understanding. That's my suggestion. Okay. Um, so quickly factoring that in, and again, these are, you know, we're still refining these, but that would get you to, um, Let me plug it in. Um, I think that would get you if you, uh, you know, that would get you to adding an additional. Um, I think that that would, I think that would make marks. Previous statement of about $14 million that looks like that's a 14 to 15. Uh, so sorry. Um, I'm doing it in comparison to the house. That would make it so that you adding 44 to $45 million. Would be reasonable. Okay. Even with that $2 million add for efficiency Vermont. Senator Hardy. Yeah. Mark and Chloe and Steve, I know you guys are doing the best on the fly, but it's really frustrating for us to try to make a recommendation when we have nothing in front of us to look at. And you know, you're, I can hear you adding Chloe as you're talking and it's, it's, it's really not a good way to make public policy and allocate funds when we don't have data in front of us. Um, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I really just want to say we, I don't feel comfortable making a recommendation to the appropriations committee until we see these numbers. Fair enough. Um, Even in our discussions, um, to this point. We just keep having endless confusions because we're, we're not sure which pots of money you're talking about, but I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point that we put out there. Um, Yes. Here's the dilemma and it and I, I'm just to see if I'm going to jump in and you're on YouTube. We're all on YouTube. And, um, when we have a spreadsheet that's not totally done. And I know you're on a, the lemma is you're on a, you want to do it today. You want to have it for tomorrow. You know, I also, what we don't want to do is put out a spreadsheet that we think needs some fine tuning. And so it says dilemma. You know, the words draft all over it and just, you know, put it saying subject to change and then, you know, we'll discuss it with you, but I, but I guess my concern is, um, the public nature of the documents before they're really ready for prime time. So I understand your, your concern. And it's a very valid one. I'm just saying there's a, yeah. So maybe Chloe, I don't know if you want to. Yeah. I mean, you know, what we, what we do on our language is we have draft 1.1, 1.2. I don't see why you couldn't do a similar thing with the budget. Just make it clear it's a work in progress and it's as accurate at any given moment as you can make it. Um, with that said, and with the point noted, I still would like to try to reach a general figure today that we might, after examining the spreadsheet, we might alter next week. Um, because I would like the appropriations committee to be apprised of the fact that we're going to be asking for significantly more than the house did. Um, so, uh, with that said, we'll, we'll put draft on what we hand them and maybe a little noted at the top saying this is subject to revision when we get the spreadsheet from JFO. Um, okay. Uh, so Chloe, Steve, Mark, anything else you want us to know? Okay. So I, I think I understand, um, uh, where the. Significant differences, the divergence with the house. Um, I, there's a whole other set of considerations that will be for Senator Kitchell and that is Steve's phrase, what the house can afford, um, seem to indicate that the rest of the hundred million on the house side had already been theoretically divvied up. Um, I just want to say upfront here publicly that we committed to school districts and school boards that we would get them the funding they needed for the emergency. So I don't, I don't want to be in the position of saying to them, we project your need at 45 million, but unfortunately we can only afford 32. You're going to have to go to your voters for the rest. That's not right. Um, so if we put 45, then my way of looking at it is that there's 55 million to be distributed from the hundred that people didn't really have any right to expect. Um, so we are in that sense donors of 55 million rather than takers of 45. Um, so thanks guys. I appreciate that. Um, and if we could move to Jeff or I'm sorry, Jeff Francis with, with that fiscal situation laid out, Jeff, do you want to tell us where you fall? Yeah. So, um, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I did benefit me immensely to hear that conversation. I, for the last three weeks or so. Have on a daily basis been trying to keep track of all this. And I have, um, worked closely with the joint fiscal office as I've sought to understand what they were coming up with. Uh, Steve Klein talked about the fact that the superintendent had a lot of information that was going from the districts to the agency. That the agency had not fully formed yet. So here we are with, um, numbers that are evolving. They're coming close to final form, at least with regard to predicted costs. And Senator Bruce, when you and I spoke briefly yesterday, you raised the good point that we still here are only in December and we've got months to navigate, um, in total, but even through the end of December, which is the, um, eligibility period for the CRF money. So I would say. Based on the comments I just listened to. That both, uh, the committee and Senator Hardy are absolutely correct in terms of, you want as good a picture of this as possible. And I also understand from watching the JFO work. That things are changing and they're trying to perfect the numbers. So the, I think that's a draft, um, explanation and writing in the form of a chart, a table, or a spreadsheet is going to be helpful to all involved. The, the, um, just to add emphasis to that point, there are conversations about this going on all over the place. And to the extent that there is a document to work from, I think it's going to be very, very useful to people. So I wanted to make that comment. Um, first, secondly, um, Senator Baruch, your understanding of what the school districts believe to be true is absolutely on point. So since the beginning of the, um, navigation of the funding around, um, response to this, uh, public health crisis, school districts have been under the belief that they would be reimbursed for their reimbursable costs and that they should be investing in a manner that would allow them to have the best educational model, um, that they could, um, for districts and that while they ought to be paying attention to what they spend, they shouldn't have to worry about the fact that they would ever be on the hook in terms of, um, uh, going to taxpayers that is property taxpayers, um, in their own communities in order to cover it. So your explanation of your understanding is consistent. Well, we believe to be true. Um, and that is what the local school districts have done. They've, they have invested in a manner that would get kids back into school. Um, and, um, in the best, uh, educational model. And I think that the last two days have proven at least to this point that school districts have done a good job with that. Um, so I wanted to, to thank you for that comment and tell you that we agree. Um, a couple of specific pieces relative to the language that you were working on Tuesday. Um, there is a reference in that language to, um, uh, I think that the, that the, the determination by the AOE in terms of the way it would allocate monies when it made determinations about what, um, where the money would be net needed. I think that the, that the spreadsheet that Senator Hardy was referring to was going to be particularly useful when people try to contemplate the movement of money. Um, I think that the, that the AOE ought to have unilateral authority to move money. Um, because this is complicated and there are different determinations that need to be made about where the money might be. I trust that the AOE will have information and an understanding of the allocation of funds, but it seems to me in a system of, um, checks and balances that the general assembly through whatever mechanism it can apply ought to have a say in final determinations about shifting of money. And I don't know whether that could happen through the joint fiscal committee or some other form of observation, but I think it would be useful if it was more than just the determination by the administration that money ought to be shifted even within that spreadsheet and a total allocation from one place to the next. Um, the next point I wanted to make speaks to an observation that I've made that I think is correct. Um, we have 55 school districts or supervisory unions in Vermont. Three of them are technical center, independent technical center school districts. Those school districts are made eligible for Corona virus relief funds through the language that you looked at on Tuesday, that is destined for the appropriations bill. Um, the information that I have is that the tech center districts and there are three were not surveyed like the other 52 districts with respect to what their predicted costs would be. Um, so I checked with them today and it's not a large amount of money, but in some, and this is came to me from one of the superintendent slash tech center directors with my work who talked to his two colleagues. It's less than $200,000 in total. So I think that falls into the category of it could be handled in the overall appropriation that you're speaking about, but I wanted to go on record informing the committee that there are the three districts that the language that you considered would make eligible that were not formally asked to estimate what their costs were. I think that that could easily be addressed by the agency of education, but I wanted to make sure that those three independent tech center districts, if they're included in the language are also included in the estimates that sought. Um, and, and finally, two more points. One is the language to address the ADM issue was not included in the language that you considered that came over from the house, the so-called HEC to HAC, um, uh, language that, that, that you looked at on Tuesday and again today. Um, the ADM issue is still very important to school districts in terms of stability overall in the context of this crisis. Um, there are conversations that are going on in the house about the potential. So wait to address that and some other issues. Um, that's something that we want to continue to work on and assist with because, um, the count of enrollment that will inform ADM that will inform equalized pupils is going to take place in October. There's a statutory requirement that, um, equalized pupils be announced to school districts on December 15th to inform their budget process. Um, there are upwards of 4,000 homeschool applications that are backlogged at the AOE right now. So we're not even able to estimate which districts are going to see more homeschool, um, applications than others. Um, this is really an appeal for, um, the Senate Education Committee to stay the course on the language that, um, you originally looked at that would provide, um, some stability for school districts through that ADM language. I think that that could emerge as a contest, uh, as a policy matter in the house itself. And we, when I say we, the associations that work with school districts are hoping that, um, there is stability in ADM and that equalized pupils so that the budget making process for FY 22 is as stable as possible. And then the final thing that I wanted to comment on, and then I'll answer any questions if you have them, is that there was a conversation, um, on Tuesday about, uh, the better way to utilize the funds that are, uh, earmarked for HVAC and I concur with the committee sentiment that the best way to handle that is through the successful program that efficiency Vermont is running right now. Early in the development of that program, I had a case in the work closely with, uh, efficiency Vermont to make sure that, uh, school districts were getting information about the webinars that they were running. There were a few process issues that they needed to overcome that I tried to assist with. So I thought that the conversation on Tuesday that I listened to, but couldn't comment on because I was having my own technical difficulties was consistent with what I think you're going to do. And what I believe to be the better approach was to just continue to use efficiency Vermont rather than not and let the district sort of go it along. Um, that program is working and should be continued. Um, to the extent that funds are available to, to continue it. So those are my summary comments with regard to where you are, um, today and I'll pause and actually complete my testimony. And be prepared to answer any questions that anybody has. So thanks for the opportunity to retry today and come in by telephone. Well, we appreciate the renewed appearance. I will second what you said about the language. I wrote it down when I went through it. It's based on its view of relative priority. Um, so it basically gives the agency. Um, I think it's a good idea to, um, I think it's a good idea to, um, Carp launch once we're out of session to do what they like based on their own, uh, views. And I think they should definitely have a certain amount of flexibility, but the legislature, when we leave, we will have expressed various statutory, um, uses for that money. It shouldn't be possible for them to just ignore those. Um, I think that's a good idea. Just a little bit. Um, questions for Jeff Francis. Senator perchley. I have a question about section seven of that language. I don't know if now's an appropriate time. Sure. Why not? So if everybody wants to pull that up from. The, uh, documents part of the. It's the last page or page six of seven. I don't really understand why we need a, and about B, I have a district that doesn't like this. They kind of wanted it to expire. They want the select board. To elect if this is the position, basically, because these are people that are not happy about act 46. They don't like the unified board. So if their town has a person on the unified board, they don't want the unified board to fill the. Vacancy. They want this to stick with the select board. So I guess one of my questions is why do we need this? If we didn't pass it, well, what would happen? Would it be the select board that would fill that vacancy? Well, if I, if I could just give a little context before Jeff goes. So, um, this. Unless I'm mistaken, I think this, uh, Jim correct me if I'm wrong. I think this is a good question. I think the last one was originally Martha Heath's. Language. Um, and the house has several times put it into bills and we've, we've gone ahead with it. I believe this was not anything that we looked at. It took that same route. Uh, back into the house bill. So we haven't, um, This has come to us from the house. We haven't looked at it or expressed any. Um, Um, Um, I'd like with your permission, uh, chair to defer to suicide. The school board association. They've been doing all of the work on that issue. Okay. So do you want to jump in? Sure. Thank you. Sousa. I could just give you the background. I think it sounds like you already, um, have an understanding that this language has been. Um, um, um, Precision law with an expiration date, I believe twice. Um, so I think it's been an effect for three or four years. And, um, We. Were in support of continuing. Um, Because it's just the system that everyone is now familiar with. are issues with it. So that's the background on this section. So it does need to be a process in place for something to happen here. Andrew? What would happen if we didn't pass it? The answer to that. Yeah, go ahead, Joe. Yeah, so the answer is in statute. The step board would decide who the replacement would be. So this flips it around having the school board decide in consultation with the step board perhaps this and be up to the step board to throw the vacancy. And this expire, like that's the way it was going to do, like we said, it was going to expire. And then we've postponed it a couple times. So we've, we've, we actively put it into law once and then we continued it once. Right, Joe? Yeah. The reason why it's temporary is because you may recall that Chapter 11, which is the chapter that governs the formation and governance of union school districts is hijacked and used for the formation and governance of unified school districts. But the fit was very poor. So the age of education wants to rewrite Chapter 11 and create a new chapter on unified school district governance information. And this should be permanently part of that. But they haven't, they came forth last session, but this was made by Chair Webb not to bring it forward because there's too close to that 46. I don't want to get separation first. Ruth, did you, or Andrew, were you done? Well, I just, I'm not, I'm still not clear why, I guess, what the purpose of it is other than if you just don't want the slack board to do it. Like if you could still rewrite that Chapter 11 later, like even if we let this expiration expire. Well, the one perspective that I would urge us to look at is, so we're in a very constrained time frame now, our ability to speak to witnesses, we have two weeks left at most, our ability to speak to witnesses is a little bit curtailed. So passing this keeps the status quo as it's been for four years. If we don't pass it, we're in essence, making a change to a different system, which we haven't taken testimony on. So I suppose for that reason, I'm more comfortable passing this, which continues the status quo from the last four years with the idea that Chapter 11 will all be looked at next year, including this provision. Does that make any sense, Sandy? It makes sense. But just as a counter to that, this school district was counting on this expiration. So they feel like this would be a change. Like we said, it would expire. Now we're changing it saying, well, it's not going to expire. So the way they would see it is that we are changing the status quo. Okay, fair enough, Ruth. Yeah, I just wanted to add two points. Thanks, Jim, for mentioning the Chapter 11 rewrite, because that was one of my recollections. But also, I think we have as a committee passed this at least once, maybe twice, in our miscellaneous ed bills. And so we are on record as a committee, I think supporting this strange, strangely drafted convention. And it does make these districts consistent with the other districts in the state as to how school board members are replaced. So I agree. No, I just want to say I agree with you that we shouldn't mess with it now. Okay. Yeah, I mean, it's it's a tough one because it's really a highly political piece. It's just either way, I think 99 times out of 100 a qualified person is going to be appointed. It's just where does that appointment originate? Who has the power? So that's, you know, it's going to be endlessly debated. But I think Ruth is right. We've we've taken this direction before with the House. So at this point, the path of least resistance and greatest consistency would be to leave this in. So I do want to get to Jeff Fanon. Jeff, are you ready to weigh in on these things? Yes. Good afternoon. So specifically about what you just talked about. Well, it's it's the whole grab bag. So it's it's primarily the CRF funding and the discussion as it's developed around that. And then the policy pieces to the extent you want to address them. Yeah. So for the record, Jeff Fanon and Vermont and EA, thank you for having me this afternoon. I missed House Ways and Means and the House Education Committee testimony this morning. So I was next door in Senate economic development. And so it was good to hear Chloe and Mark and Steve Klein give their assessment. I generally agree. I also where they're going with this, I also have to agree with Jeff Francis in as much as it does provide a great deal of authority to the agency of education, just sort of stepping back. We've talked about the possibility of I don't know what you want to call it, maybe an education oversight committee after you adjourn to the time before you January, when the next session begins, because there's a there's a window there in which there's a lot of money that's at issue, particularly as December 30th, not the 31st, the 30th approaches, and money has to be spent. And I think it might be good for the House and the Senate to have a joint oversight committee that would then make recommendations to the Joint Fiscal Committee or something like that, because these are these are there's a lot of money at play here. Just giving it all to the agency. I think well of them. But I think it's, well, we could have a say some say I see the point. We will have the Joint Fiscal Committee operating and the way it's been working is they get requests for funding. They put out to the whole Senate. I don't know what happens on the House side, but we get an email saying we've been asked to do this and you have a chance to weigh in on the process. So I guess I like the idea of just doing that, having the agency have a certain amount of flexibility, but if they want to move money entirely to a different purpose, they have to go to the Joint Fiscal Committee and make a case to do that. In which case we get notified. But we'll we'll look at how to replace that, you know, perhaps excessive flexibility on AOE's part. Ruth. Yeah, I just wanted to note that we had this similar conversation in the Agriculture Committee with the CRF money that we allocated to AG. And we came up with some language that provided flexibility with walls or barriers based on legislative intent. So I guess I would suggest that maybe Jim have a conversation with Michael Grady about how to draft it similarly, that, you know, make sure that it stays within the parameters of what we as the legislature wanted, but also provide some flexibility. I think there's a way to do it and then also to have dates in in it to about when they would have to make certain decisions and then reporting to the Joint Fiscal Committee. So I think there's a way to draft it that it's tighter. And Michael Grady may have some ideas for you, Jim. OK, great. Jeff, we interrupted you. Keep going. No, that's fine. That's that's a it's a good conversation. Thank you, Senator Hardy. I was not aware of what's going on in AG. But, you know, in the what I'm looking at is draft 6.1. I think that's the draft that you're discussing. Certainly the right at the top, the air quality language, we know now in particular, given some recent events in the last 24 hours that air quality is really important. And as we as you did your work in the I guess it was June, adding money there, we certainly think there's there's the need for more HVAC money. And I think that I don't know if it's the right amount. It's five million or or what. But I think it needs to be increased. And the more we learn about the virus, the more we know that air quality is a primary focus of everybody. It should be a primary focus of everybody's attention. So we we support the increased language or funding there. It's it's all the more important, as we know. We support the school meals. Again, the authority to the AOE to redirect it based on the previous conversation that was standing the 175 and 170 day reduction. We support the revised student, the reduction to 170 for the student days. I've heard some rumors and discussions about converting those into professional development days. And and I just think a lot of that was done at the start of this year when it probably was more appropriate and to speculate as to what days will or won't be needed next summer. I think it's awfully speculative at this point. So I think you would out. Yep, I'm sorry. So you would keep in the reduction in school days, but get rid of the language around professional development. Yes, that's correct. Or or. Yeah, OK. And allow the flexibility that would happen locally. They may or may not need PD on a particular issue or something like that. So just to give them the flexibility that they might need. OK, so that would be ours. As for Section 5, the Australian ballot. We is supporting the inclusion of the bill, the requirement to vote by mail in March, as you're doing in November. So yeah, so I just wanted to update the committee. I did have a conversation with Jeanette White and Betsy and Rask about they're coming out with a bill that addresses this and it allows municipalities, including districts, to administratively or or with a remote vote themselves, they can extend their ability to do Australian ballot. So I think that renders this superfluous. And so I told her that once we assure ourselves that that's the case, we would eliminate it from our draft. But I take your point that you support it. It's just I think it might get done in this other gov ops bill. Sure, I guess we support it in and I'll certainly look at the language. We're certainly also supportive of vote by mail. Yeah, happening in November, right? I don't think there's that much is going to change with the virus between November and March, frankly, not withstanding some reasons. Pergnostications on some folks in DC as to I don't see that happening. So I think voting by mail is going to be around and all the more important again in March, as it is in November. Also support the online waiver endorsement, the one time waiver of the online endorsement for licensed teachers. So this is for only licensed teachers who don't have an endorsement in online teaching, but just give them a temporary online endorsement. Other for up to otherwise licensed teachers. So we support that. Heard some discussions and we're having him here in our office about testing protocols of covid. A lot of the colleges have I think all the colleges have testing of students and staff as they're coming back. The K-12 system doesn't have that. And we think it ought to have that, frankly. So we're suggesting maybe this is a place for that to allow schools and require schools to test more and establish some protocols around testing for coronavirus. OK, the problem there is we have done no testimony and haven't seen it as our jurisdiction to weigh in on the public health questions like testing. Senator Hardy has asked for funding for testing, which I think is makes sense. But I understand that you might be asking us to require testing of districts. Well, I certainly, you know, I'm stretching it out there a little bit, but certainly we ought to have a discussion. You're right about testing of in the K-12 system. We have it for colleges and certainly we're bringing back a lot of kids who are gathering now and some are they ought to be tested, give everybody the assurance that we are keeping our schools safe. Yeah, yeah, I'm just, you know, we have two weeks left. Yeah, and I'm leery of jumping in with both feet into a mandatory testing push with the understanding that it might, you know, cost X tens of millions of dollars that it cuts directly across what the administration has stated. Their executive order policy is. In other words, it's a huge fight that would need a lot of testimony. I don't see how we do that in effectively a week. So I take the suggestion and I would be open to thinking about adding money for testing. So it would be an incentive based thing. There would be money there that a district could could tap if they wanted to instigate testing. But a mandate that we test, you know, that would be, first of all, a leadership question, as opposed to a something a committee is going to successfully move all the way through the process, but noted. Let's let's put an asterisk there, noting the difficulties. But I I I take your desire to do it because in a pandemic, it makes sense that you're testing everybody. So yeah, I and I do appreciate the the timing of that request or any other request, frankly, you folks are on a fast track. I'm this morning is testifying about workers' compensation for school employees. I didn't get a chance to testify. I sat there for a good long while and all the tumultuous over there. So thank you, Senator Hardy, for raising that issue that's still kicking around. And but timing is always is the issue right now. And so I appreciate that, Senator Bruth, that the timing is of the essence and it may not may be a challenge in testing. So that's about it. I said, you know, in concept six point one is good. There's some tweaks that ought to be made, but I know you're moving quickly. And and the the money I appreciate so appreciate wanting to see sort of a spreadsheet or something like that. It is hard to keep up. Yeah, I don't envy you trying to do so and make policy judgments thereof. No, with that, I'm happy to happily answer any questions. Senator Hardy, I have a question and a comment. In terms of the testing issue, I was hoping we could have gotten some testimony from the Department of Health about what their thought about testing in schools was, because they have not changed their testing protocols or policies at all with the opening of schools. And it's frankly a little it's worrying to me as both a policymaker and a mother and I don't understand it at all. And so, you know, I've been asking questions about this for a few weeks and not gotten answers. So I appreciate, Jeff, that you brought it up. And I do think if we added money and tried to make it an incentive, that's great, but it just seems to me that we need to be pushing the Department of Health to have much more of a comprehensive answer to this to this problem. And then just a quick question, Jeff, I'm assuming or maybe I shouldn't assume that you're supportive of the ADM change. It's not in the bill now, but I think there's desire from this committee at least to add it in. Yes, we have expressed support for that in the past. You're right, it's not in this your version of the bill. As Jeff Francis noted, there's a lot of discussions taking place over in the House and elsewhere, I guess. So I understand that the ADM does affect budgeting now. There's a sense of urgency, I know. So we have supported the ADM being previously being included in whatever version comes through. Sorry, I missed that, but yes. Thank you. I just wanted to add one thing on testing and the administration's stance on it. So I also sit on judiciary and at a certain point, some months back, there was an open question about our prisons and whether we would have mass outbreaks. And we had Commissioner Baker in and I said to him, what I don't understand is we have 1,400 prisoners with less than 1,500. You could test all of them in a week. Why aren't you doing that? So in the case of students, we're talking about between 70 and 80,000 kids. You'd have to you'd have to test, but 1,400 is such a finite number. And it would produce such great results in terms of knowing exactly where the virus is and isn't. And he said, there's problems getting the test, but also just philosophically, we're against mass testing. And I was I was thinking, OK, you know, nursing homes, prisons and meatpacking plants are the three places nationwide where this is rampant. So but I got nowhere with them for months and months. We've had relatively little infection in our prisons, which they have seen as a validation of the fact that they didn't do the testing. So I think it's not such a different question from how they're approaching schools. Our virus transmission as a state, our positivity rate is very, very low. Therefore, why spend all of the the the time and money and effort to test with the understanding that you'd have to have a regime of ongoing testing to have it be continuing to be accurate. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I think there is a consistency, at least in what they're doing, which is to say, I consistently don't agree with their their approach to testing populations without symptoms. Just one quick response. I had not heard of the philosophical objection. I had heard of the the supply problem. Yeah. But I had heard was earlier on when public schools were opening in the South and we're having blooms. I guess I don't understand all of it, but I know there's a national sort of testing system out there of supplies. And then a lot of supplies are being diverted down south to test for K-12 school systems when they were blooming. So we may not have the capacity to do 70 or 80,000 students. And I certainly hope we have enough to do 1400. I would assume that we do. But I know there's they're trying to level trying to prioritize who gets tested because it's shorted, frankly. OK, committee, if nobody has any further questions for Jeff, we have just about a half an hour left. What I'd like, thank you, Jeff. What I'd like to try to do is give Jim enough direction that he can put together our revised version of the house language with the understanding again that we've yet to see the the fabled spreadsheet and we also the house has not passed the language that we're looking at. So, you know, there are some asterisks, but it would give the Appropriations Committee an understanding of the not just the general, but with some specific direction about where we're headed and how much we think we're going to need. I can pass that over to Senator Kitchell and then we can next week if we need to update or change, we can. So with that said, let me let me ask you a question as the committee. We looked at six or seven policy pieces and we were of the opinion that they were all COVID related and that we were all in favor of them. The House has forwarded about three or four of those. So what I would propose is that we replace their language with our own. In that two or three cases, they would be identical, but then we would add our pieces around ADM, the piece about waving the qualified teacher requirement if you were already pre-qualified, the things that we took testimony on. Is there anybody who would oppose that strategy of just swapping out our policy collection for theirs? Debbie? I don't oppose that. But I wanted to ask a process question. There were there were a couple of things that we wanted to, you know, approach to address. And I'm wondering if we're going to write a memo as well, because we talked about the outright Vermont spending and the direction about EVMs. Yeah, I am still thinking of that as a memo that we draft that we send separately from this revised language. OK, because we're we're not asking for the power to write those appropriations. We're just weighing in on their deliberations. Yeah, OK, OK. So that's a separate thing. So I yes, I do support where you just suggested for this Debbie bill. Yeah, I'll probably be working with Jim between today and tomorrow on the revision of the House language. Would you want to take a stab at drafting that memo? Sure. OK. And then we could look at that Tuesday and get it over to Appropes then. OK, yeah. Sound good? Yeah, let's see. Senator Perchley. So I'm still confused on what this language is. Like, where is it going? We agree. OK, because it's still, you know, so that's fine. So House Education recommended what we've been looking at to house appropriations. So house appropriations is building their budget with those asks in mind and also with the intention of dropping the policy pieces right into the budget. So they were nice enough to give us an early heads up. They sent the language over. But again, it's not it's not language that's come to us in the normal way with a vote from their floor. It's early language. So we are sending matching early language to Jane. That allows House Appropes and House and Senate Appropes to each have a version of that language. So nobody's surprised about where the differences are. The differences in the number of millions that are being discussed, et cetera. And then the two chairs of the of the Appropriations Committees will be working to reduce the differences as we go forward. We'll be as a committee weighing in on that until it is actually finalized. But we're we're kind of operating in advance of the normal process because of the constrained timeframe. OK, so we're talking about sending our language to our Appropriations Committee. Yep. And and, you know, honestly, with the understanding that the House isn't going to agree 100 percent with what we've done. So then they're going to tweak their language. We're going to look at that. We're we're basically doing. Concur with further proposal of amendment and then further proposal of amendment without actually doing those things. On the floor. Does that make sense? Yeah, and I'm OK with that. Just just for the record, I still pose the section seven. I think we're it's a change that we didn't take testimony on. Even though we did prove it in our miscellaneous bill last year, it was brought to my attention after we passed a committee and they were glad that it didn't pass. So. OK, so with that indication of at least mild disagreement, anybody else feel that they would vote against section seven? OK, so well challenged. So we'll leave section seven in there. So if I read the committee correctly, Jim, what what we'd like to do is swap our policy pieces in for theirs. And now if we go to the numbers. It felt. Oh, yeah, yeah, I just ask a clarifying question. Sure. In the swap. Did I hear you correctly that we would be taking out the Australian Ballot language because that would go to GovOps? Yeah, what I told Senator White was that she showed me the language that that they have in theirs. And it it allows for Australian ballots to be used during the emergency. The the language we passed into law says in the year 2020, this extends it to next year. So so I don't think we need the Australian Ballot Ballot language in there. OK. And I'm sorry, I just we wouldn't the ADM stuff. Yes, in our language. Yeah, and we would include the transportation stuff and the early the early child or the pre-K language. OK, everything we looked at. OK. And the one thing that was we just got testimony on that was slightly different was the the 170 days and the five days. So I don't know which which the committee wants, because that was different. So Jeff Fan and I believe said I don't think Jeff was strongly opposed to it. But you you indicated that you thought it was unnecessary at this point. The that is the the professional development days. I think, yeah, requiring the language to be to be restrictive. We we do oppose. We think it's unnecessary. OK. So that was Dan French's suggestion. I believe is Jeff Francis, Jeff, are you still with us? Is that phone, Jeff? Yeah, yeah, yes, I am. OK, real real quickly. Can you just reiterate for us your your position on the 10 days of professional development? Yeah, so I at this stage, I would leave it out and go with the House version. OK, we've been trying to figure out how to address it in a way that's amenable to everybody. I given the pace of your work, I think that that would take a little longer to work out though, I would say my recommendation and Jay and sewer in the call, they can speak for themselves would be to have it proceed just with the student day reference. OK, and I'm fine with that. So yeah, OK, so looks like the committee would be all right with that. So, Jim, if you could make the exception of using the House language for the ADM, or I'm sorry, the yeah, the ADM language. Yeah, I have one more question. Before we leave this area of policy changes on the pre-K teacher waiver, we had a question mark right around a date. So in the bill, it says the private provider was pre-qualified on before March 31, 2020 question mark. So that I'm not sure how it resolved that, but. Somebody, Andy, was it you who had a point about that? Sorry about what? About the date for pre-qualification. If you were pre-qualified by a certain date, then you don't lose your pre-qualification because you lost your qualified teacher for pre-K and substitute that whole issue. Yeah, I'm trying to remember what. What Allie, what Allie's recommendation on that was. Yeah, I thought they said May 31st or something. Yeah, they said May, so like kind of right after. Yeah, I can't remember why she said May, but she did say May. She did, but then as we talked about it, we thought it should go back to before the pandemic started. Right, there was a question of what year was the problem. But suppose we went to March 15th, 2020. Right, that way, you know that nobody was being fired before then. So it'd be as of the status quo before the pandemic. Right, and that's that's where we landed last time we talked about this. Like let's make it at the beginning of the before. Okay, all right, that's vaguely coming back. Anybody have a problem with that date being stuck in there? Okay, let's do that then, Jim. Okay, so I believe I have a note from Jeannie that Chloe has put up the spreadsheet and is ready to discuss. Chloe, is that the truth? That I'm happy to inform you that that is the truth. So, committee, if you want to go to the to the web page and pull up. I have to call it the fabled spreadsheet. I have cheese. Okay, and for and I actually I added myself to the zoom twice so that I could potentially share it on my computer screen. But if you it probably would be easier if you individually pull it up on your computers, so you'll be able to see it. I prefer to do it that way anyways, but one second. Yeah, you have to you have to go out of it actually and then come back in. But okay, just refresh it. Yeah, all right, there it is. So Chloe, go ahead. Okay, well, Chloe Wexler from the Joint Physical Office. So what you are going to be seeing here is a so basically a summary of the appropriations that have been given to K312 schools. The reference number and then what was initially appropriated in the Q1 budget in the first column. What the house is proposing right now. And then I think what you guys will be most interested in is this middle section here, which is the current fund distributions. So basically an upper and an upper and lower bound of the information that we have been able to collect based on, you know, everything that you have been hearing. So this does include the request that you guys just made for seven million dollars for HVAC for Efficiency Vermont. So that would bring their need up to thirteen point five million. Yeah, this is just talking. So this is just going to be like right here is forget about what we have or what we don't have. This is what our best guess of what these programs need. Right now. And then we'll we'll we'll compare that to the to the Q1 budget. That's just past the house or is hasn't passed may pass the house. So we see I think you could you could still have this lower bound for HVAC Vermont is five. But if for for this purpose, because you guys did state that you wanted to bring that up to seven. I I made them both thirteen point five so that you could. So that would be incorporated in your totals. OK, so then you see. So based on conversations that we've had with Rosie Krueger, the summer meals program ended up expending two point two million dollars. So you see that in in the middle column. We the house has appropriated an additional four million dollars which was requested by a we which would cover. Basically what they believe to be need for. You know, equipment to deliver food services is my understanding. So you see that incorporated. This is the big ticket item here this next one. So the amount of money that. Districts have requested for K-12 reimbursement. And so based on information provided by Brad James as of yesterday. Forty eight supervisory unions had submitted information and they were requesting seventy one point six million. So that means that there's four school districts that are for supervisory unions that we're still waiting on data for. So I did inflate the estimate to include to include an anticipated application from those districts. And also I did hear Jeff Francis earlier and I added 200 K for those CTE districts. Because the house version it was correct when you were discussing it earlier. They did amend that language to include regional technical centers. There are three regional technical centers that are not directly associated with a school district. And so we inadvertently. Left them out of the language initially. And that language would correct for that. And I did add in the cost that they think that that Jeff has determined. They are looking for. So then based on information that I just received from AOE. Before this call the independent schools have requested one point one seven million. So you see that. And. And they have not had to use the million dollars for. Accounting and technical assistance. So that's another. So similar to. The funds that are available in the summer. Meals program. There's one million dollars available in accounting and technical assistance. So that's another. So similar to. The funds that are available in the summer meals program. There's one million dollars available. In accounting and technical assistance. So all of those changes. And you know the money is available are then taken account. In this final column. Where you see the additional. Additional needs. Or subtractions based on. The current appropriations from the house. And that eventually brings us to. The. The current estimate of. Additional need over the. House restatement budget. That is included in that smaller table below. And so we are actually quite spot on with a range of. 45 million to. About 53 million. Okay. So. Your. Your best. Estimate is that actual needs. Very between 45 and 53. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I love what they have already received. Yes. My estimate of actual need is, is exactly it would just be that plus 50. So 95 million to about 103 million. Okay. Well, great. And I appreciate the. The look. With things placed in context. Questions for Chloe about this. Okay. Thank you for that, Chloe. And as you update it, as I'm sure you will. You can just send a new one to Jeannie and Jeannie. You can just swap it out as it comes in so that we always have. The most up to date one on the website. So committee. In terms of. Revising the house's. Language. What, what number are you comfortable with giving that range? 45 to 53. I'll speak first. I would like to err on the side of caution and a higher number, especially because I'm concerned about testing protocols and hope that we can. You know, potentially get something going. So I would be more comfortable with, with Chloe's high end. So I would be comfortable with that. I would be comfortable with that. I would be comfortable with that. I would be comfortable with that recommendation. So I'll just set that as the first comment. Okay. Does anybody have a. Philosophical or practical objection to using the highest number. Because, you know, the experience has been that the estimates have been low ball estimates. And then we've. Spent more. The other thing is there is the recapture mechanism. It's not, it's not money out the window. If it turns out that it's 46, and there's an additional 7 million. That that goes on spent in the middle of December. There is a way to, to have it come back into use. So the other thing is that. These are basically. Negotiating figures that we're giving to. We're going to be negotiating with a house budget that we'll use. Probably a significantly lower number. All the way of saying starting high is not a bad idea. So what if we use the 53. Number in the revised language that we send. Can I go to our fiscal conservative? Yes, that's you, Corey. Your thoughts on that. Can you repeat the question? Sorry. So, so the range that we're looking at is as expressed on the spreadsheet, 45 to 53 million. An argument. An argument's been made to use. The higher number of 53. So that we don't. Short change districts. But also with the understanding that this is a negotiating. Posture as much as. A number that will wind up in statute. So what would you think about using 53? That makes sense to me. Okay. All right. Not hearing any objections. Jim, do you want to, as you. Revise the house language, if you can. Pop out their number and put in 53. Yeah, I was going to be fear. The way this works is quite specific in this. Language here. So if. You're my looking at the house language that my two appropriations. On page one line eight. They added. I just show 32 million dollars to the earlier $50 million appropriation. I think what you're saying now is add. Change the 32 to 53. Is that correct? Yeah. And then elsewhere. Their number for the HVAC. Is on page three. Yep. Is 11 five. Yep. And we would be going for 13. Five. Yep. Um, and then. I believe we agree with section three. Sorry. I'm 15. It's the allocation to public schools. So. Line 15 on which page, Jim. I'm 15. I'm patient. They have 68 million going to. Pre case is 12. And the three independent tech centers. That's going to be much higher now. What's that number going to be? Right. So, um, Chloe. Yes, Jim. I can get you that number. Um, it's going to be, uh, if you're adding 50, three million. Uh, It's. And you're only pulling off two for. Um, H back. Um, it should be 51. Um, Oh, you have to add it. Yeah. No. Um, Oh, it's going to be. 92. I will make sure that Jim has the correct number. To put in there. Okay. No, everyone's yelling numbers at me. Jim. I'll get you the perfect number. I'll never want to leave an English major in charge of you. And before we leave this, leave this page where it's not here. Cause it's abstracts. Uh, a minus 20. In the act you passed earlier, the first quarter budget, you had an allocation of 1.5 to. Improve the impact schools. And 1 million for technical assistance. Those. Especially we just saw. The 1 million for technical hasn't been used. And the. Use of impact school money is below the 1.5. So we adjusting those down. Or keep them. Keep them the same. Um, What did the house do? I think we keep them the same with the agency having the. Flexibility with the money. Okay. Isn't, isn't that the, uh, but don't they, aren't they going to have ongoing needs, Jim? Uh, I'm not sure. Uh, was that projection for. I think it was 1.17. Um, They, uh, currently are existing within their appropriation. Um, and if anything, they're actually with the language that the house is proposing to create flexibility within the funds. We're actually counting on that. Um, 330 K that that frees up to get your, um, additional ask down to 53 million. So in the same way that we're, we're, we're freeing up, we're using that 5 million in summer meals. We're also using that 300 K from the independent school appropriation and the million from accounting and technical assistance. Okay. So we'll just leave the house language there. Okay. Yeah. Um, Can I ask a question? I'm confused cause. Yeah. It doesn't look like from Chloe's spreadsheet that the house did change that language. Chloe. Chloe, do we change the language about the technical assistance from the act? Um, The technical assistance. Um, no. So, uh, they didn't change any of the language surrounding those appropriations, but they put in language that, um, allowed AOE flexibility to, if they knew that funds weren't going to be expended in a certain program, move those funds, um, to essentially the K through 12 reimbursement program. Um, and so that's what they'll be doing with the $5 million of additional money available in summer meals, the $1 million available in accounting and the 300 K available in independent schools. But to our original, you know, this conversation we had with, with Jeff Fannon about, we want to make sure that AOE has flexibility, but they also have clear guidance in the statutes or in the bill, um, about how we want them to spend it. So I think we might want to change that appropriate appropriation language from act 150 or whatever it was, um, to make it clear to them that we, we know that they don't need the money for technical assistance and we want to make sure it goes to schools. Um, I've spoken with Brad James and he already was like, told me that he was planning on using that $1 million of accounting and technical assistance for schools. Um, but I understand I can see both sides. Um, I guess that's what I'm saying. Hey, just to take, you also put a max number in there for, um, the efficiency you want. If they don't use all that money, we'd assume that would get reallocated too. I think there's a lot of uncertainty in what's going on in the schools. As you pointed out, the, there's for all we know, the needs will just balloon in testing and things like that. And I think there is. Well, on the one hand, it's up to you. I mean, the legislature can be very absolute about what the money's used for or give the flexibility given the uncertainties. The rules are basic. I'm okay with leaving the house language as regards those things. Um, the HVAC number is actually in, in the language because it's, it's it's listed at 13 five. So, um, I'm confident that that money will go there. The money that was for administrative on the independent school side. Um, I'm also confident that that money will, will be repurposed in, in ways that make sense. I think it boils down to seeing the language that Ruth asked Jim to look for. Um, Or, or whatever you come up with Jim to, um, Replace the phrase based on its view of relative priority. Yeah. So I did, you know, Michael great. And, uh, he got back to me with different language that didn't actually relate to this. Okay. So I'm not sure what's going on there. Um, well, you, you know, uh, what our concern is it, it seems to give the agency carte blanche. Right. We want to give flexibility, but assert legislative intent to a greater extent. I guess I need more directions to what your intent is though, in terms of, um, how you want to buffer this. Okay. Well, I think that's where your policy decision is not so much a legal. The, the, uh, The things that, that we've outlined specifically. Like HVAC, um, school nutrition. Uh, So in other words, moving the, the money from school nutrition. To HVAC. Um, I think that makes sense because it's moving from one of our expressed priorities to another. Um, but if they developed a completely different. Set of sprinting priorities that threw ours out the window. Um, Well, the, the fuck's really two-fold here. Why not go two-fold? If you look on language here, page one. Uh, nine 16. Um, Um, If the agency determines any allocation to a category, it's not likely to be equally used. It can move it. Well, so maybe we should. May should. And tell me if this works. Why don't we just get rid of the phrase. Or based on its view of relative priority. Yeah. That's right. I was going to say that. Yeah. Does that make sense to folks? Yeah. I think that's a good idea. And we won't be around to say how they use it. But our priorities stay. In place until December 20th. And then there's 10 days where they could, but they would also have to be able to show that it wasn't going to be able to be used. Um, That works for me. Anybody have a problem with that? I think it's unlikely that AOE is not going to spend this money on schools, but if we wanted more boots and suspenders or what belts and suspenders or whatever the phrase is, I can look on the ground, boots on the ground belts and suspenders and whatever. Um, I'm out of practice cause we're on zoom and not in the state house, but, um, uh, Jim, I can look and see if I can find the language that I'm remembering from the bill that Michael had and see if it works. It may not work. He may have sent you what I'm thinking of and it might not work, but it, I'll send you, he sent me, but it's not really in relation to what you asked for. So Jim, why don't you do this? When, when you prepare the bill, um, do both. So eliminate that phrase. And then if Ruth sends you the language that she's thinking of, put it in brackets in that spot so that we know we have. The two options. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, okay. I think that's the, the, I think that's all the sets of decisions we would have to make. Um, so Jim, if you want to, uh, tomorrow, when you have the send me a copy, I'll try to look it over relatively quickly. And then we can send it out to members of the committee. Um, and I won't think of it as, as formal as taking a vote, but just think of it. If you have issues with what's there, get back to me. If you don't have any issues, I'll assume you're okay. And if I haven't heard issues from people as we get to the end of tomorrow afternoon, I'll send it to Senator Kitchell. And we'll have made good on that timing with the idea that we would be able to, um, be forced to revise next week. That's on a right. Okay. And that works, Jim, for you. Oh, sure. Okay. Great. Uh, thanks all our witnesses. Um, we appreciate the work and. I will see the committee, uh, in the Senate floor tomorrow. See you soon.