 Hello and welcome. This is Wednesday, September 2nd, 2020. This is the Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives. And we're delighted this afternoon to welcome Congressman Peter Welch, who's going to talk to us today about what's happening in Congress related to schools in this COVID period. So welcome Congressman Welch. Thank you for joining us today. Well, I want to thank you very much. A couple things. First of all, Madam Chair, I really appreciate you convening your committee along with your Vice Chair. Mr. Coopley, it's very good to see you and your colleague. Nice to see you, Peter. Yeah, it really is. I mean, we are all in this together as legislators trying to figure out how to make our way from where we are to where we need to be. And my goal today is two things. One, in all candor, is to focus attention on the enormous challenge that Vermont has and where you have significant responsibility about how safely to get our kids back to school. You know, we know that the virus has got its own power and we can't just pull our way through it. We have to take the appropriate health care guidance about social distancing. But as your committee knows, probably more acutely than anyone else, it's really important that our kids be back at school. That's really, really important. And but they have that has to be done safely. And working that out is very, very challenging. So I want to talk a little bit about that. And what I see is the federal role and acknowledge what I think is the state role. And then secondly, to give you an overall just a report on where things stand in Washington. First of all, on the question of opening schools, you all have been to many of our local schools and I have as well, most recently up to the school in Gilman, in the school in Lunenburg. And the resources in all of our schools vary enormously. The size of the class, the HVAC systems, the number of students. Every single one of these schools in order for it to open safely requires an immense focused effort on the part of our local school leaders to answer very practical challenges. And I think we've got to all give real respect to that challenge that our school boards, our teachers, our principals and our parents face. And in talking to parents, what I've been told by many of our educators, but also my own experience, it's like a third of the parents are really nervous about the health care risk of kids going back to school, understandably. A third are desperate if the kids don't go back to school because kids need school, but parents need school. You know, that's a time parent and some parents are not able to work if their kids can't go back to school. And of course, a lot of other kids or other parents just they don't know and hope that the leadership, your committee and state leaders will figure it out. So my view on this is that we have to approach this with an objective where we're going to do every single thing we can to make it as safe as possible so that there is a realistic option for kids safely to return to school. Now, the federal role in this is money. It's really money. And the reason I say that is that in order for a school that has bad ventilation to open up, they've got to get good ventilation. That's not in the budget. In order for the schools to safely have the kids, there's got to be adequate personal protective gear. In order for the schools to function without this being an enormous burden on the local property taxpayer, we're going to need some additional resources for the instruction, for mental health counseling, for also some of the technology that may be helpful in making it possible on a flexible schedule for schools to open. Congress initially responded to the virus back in March in a bold way with bipartisan support. And under that initial legislation, the CARES Act, it was about $4.6 billion that came to Vermont. And some of that was for that $1,200 check that was helpful, but it doesn't sustain things at this point. That's in the rear view mirror now. It helped, but it's not helping now. Some of it was extended unemployment. And that was that $600 that's become controversial and has now expired. That was helpful, but that's in the rear view mirror. Some of it was the payroll protection plan that was so important to so many of the businesses and the communities that you represent. And that's still having some effect, but much of that is in the rear view mirror as well. And of course, we had the coronavirus relief fund that was about $1.25 billion that could be used for COVID-related expenses, including K-12 and some higher education. And I know your committee was involved in using $6 million of that to help upgrade the HVAC systems in our schools, although our superintendents tell us that we probably need two or three times that amount. So that kept us afloat. And when I talk to some businesses, they say if they didn't have PPP, they just wouldn't have survived. When I talk to Vermonters, who got that $1,200 checker that was really made a difference. And a lot of folks, by the way, who in the past, a lot of Vermonters are self-employed. Or they're independent contractors. Under prior law, they would not have been eligible for any unemployment at all. So that $600, which does have some controversial elements to it. For those folks, it was literally that versus eviction in paying the rent. So all of that has helped us stabilize and help stabilize finances. And of course, the health care response in this state, as a result of the leadership from Montpelier, the governor's office, the legislature, and I think cooperation and trust among citizens. We have the lowest COVID infection rate in the country. And there's a lot of credit to be shared for that. But and this is I'm going to make a statement about my deep affection for the Vermont General Assembly. There's trust there that where I am doesn't exist at the level it does in Montpelier. And I say that not just as a sentimental observation, but I actually think trust is so under assault now, but so necessary to the successful capacity of a community to overcome a challenge. So I just want to pay a tribute to your committee and its bipartisanship and focus on how do we help the kids. Where we're at now is that bipartisan cooperation that was so wonderful to see Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi negotiate in about a week that $2.2 trillion carers package. Unfortunately, that's in the river of mayor as well. And where we stand now is that the house has passed. Let me just pause for a minute. That was what we did was useful. It was important. It's helping Vermont. But it's not time to tap on the brakes because the virus is not yet contained. We've got to be incredibly vigilant. And my view is that in my role in Washington, I'm an advocate that we should err on the side of doing too much to soon rather than too little too late. And too much too soon means we do pass the Heroes Act. It was passed in the House 100 days ago. And that, as you know, is about a $3 trillion package that would bring over $3 billion to Vermont. And it would do two things that are really important. Number one, that money that comes to Vermont and to our local municipalities would come with great flexibility. Number two, it would provide flexibility for the money that came in the CARES package. As you remember, in the CARES package, there's real restrictions on what the money can be spent on and when it has to be spent by. So it handcuffs you. And my operating premise is that my role as your federal representative is to get the resources back to you. Your role is to make those tough decisions on how to allocate them to best protect Vermonters. So I am a very strong advocate of flexibility, both with any new money that may come if we can work out to deal with Senator McConnell in the Senate, but also to give you flexibility with the money that's already here and where your hands are tied. I know there's a great deal of interest, for instance, in funding the Vermont State Colleges to help them through the situation they're in. But you need flexibility in order to be able to make that decision. My view, that's a very wise decision for Vermont. So I hope we can get you that flexibility. So in the legislation that we passed 100 days ago, that is, we in the House, it was $100 billion that would be available to help local school districts with reopening. And I'll tell you, the money in there, it's all important for small business, for individuals on employment. But I really believe getting our kids back to school, as long as we can do it safely, is really important. It's important for them. It's important for their parents. And it's important for their well-being. But that can't easily be done under the best of circumstances. But we do need resources that are available if we can get an agreement with the Senate to get some money back, in this case to Montpelier, for you to help get it out to our local school districts. One other piece of legislation that we passed that is installed in the Senate is an infrastructure bill that has $100 billion for broadband. And how many of you have been hearing from your constituents about how essential that is? I mean, we're not talking about surfing the net. We're talking about going to school. We're not talking about doing homework. We're talking about going to school. We're not talking about surfing the net for parents. We're talking about them working at home. So that is really, really important. And by the way, the health care appointments have been really enhanced by broadband. So we've got to get that. And I know you know that. And again, I think my job is to try to get resources back here so you can do the hard work of implementation. But there's also in that legislation the infrastructure bill, $130 billion that would be available for infrastructure improvement of our schools retrofitting everything from the HVAC systems to the boiler systems to following apart systems. And I mentioned to you earlier that I went up to Gilman and Lindenburg. And the people up there, they're tough. They're resilient. They care about their kids enormously. But in Gilman, of course, they had a factory closing years ago. And it's tough with jobs and property taxes are high. They need some help. They're working hard. And they've got these kids in the school in Gilman where there's like water in the basement and it was built on a swamp. And somehow, some way they managed to cobble it together. But that's not sustainable in the long run. And it really isn't within the capacity of many of our taxpayers to be able to pay all of these bills. So I believe part of infrastructure has to be helping communities revitalize their schools. I don't have any optimism that'll get passed at this point. But what we are doing is laying a foundation for action next year when we return in January. So I wanted to report that to you, because I know that you're among the pressures that you face is how to help your schools that each of you cherish. You know, that part of being a state representative is the schools in your communities that in you see the kids, you see the parents, you see the teachers and you see how they cobble things together. Well, we've got to get some help so they can upgrade those schools. So step back here a minute. Will we get the Heroes Act or some version of the past? I'm discouraged about it right now, you know, the House passed it 100 days ago. And the provisions that are in it, they're expensive. There's no question about it. But this is a once in a 100 year event that you are contending with that your school boards are contending with. And the old rules, you know, I'm a pay as you go guy and we're pretty frugal here in Vermont. But my view is that in view of this emergency, the federal government is the only entity that has the fiscal flexibility and the fiscal capacity to help you help the people you represent. So it's a matter of great urgency, I think, for us to pass it. It's caught up now in politics and we've got the presidential campaign under the underway and that makes it tougher. But when I talk to my Republican colleagues and I tell them about going to the school in Gilman in Lindenburg, they talk to me about rural communities they represent. And it's the identical problem. When I talk to them about the challenges that their schools have for reopening, they want them to reopen, but they those schools need PPP, just like we do. They need some extra help for broadband, just like we do. They need extra help for some technology to facilitate teaching, just like we do. So this legislation that is on the table, by and large, has universal application that it doesn't matter if you're a kid who's in a red district or a blue district, you need to be in a safe school. So that's the aspect of this, where I continue to have some optimism because the things that we need here in Vermont, you know, Kate, you need it in your district for your kids and Larry, you need it in your district for your kids. It just doesn't matter what party label you have. And the challenge that we have in Washington is that we don't have that level of cooperation that you enjoy by your hard work in Montpelier. But the need here is universal. Every single one of our kids in every part of the country deserves to have a fair shot at getting the education to move ahead in this world. So I'm going to keep at it, but there are political forces here now with the presidential race that are a factor and beyond your control or mine. But I want to end by again, where I started thanking you for your work. You know, I'm pretty proud to represent Vermont where, because of what you've done, you in the large sense, and your fellow students, you in the large sense and your fellow citizens, too, we've got a low infection rate. And I also am very appreciative of how you've made good use, I think, of the money that did come from the CARES package, making hard decisions about allocating those resources to best help from honors, get through this. But there's more that we need to do. And I go back to the principle that the federal government is the one that has the fiscal capacity to get aid back to Montpelier. And that then the decisions, the hard decisions about how to allocate it should be made between the governor and the legislature. And then the hard work of actual implementation has to be done in the case of education at the school level. So thank you for allowing me to visit with you today and try to focus on this enormous challenge that we have here in Vermont to safely open up our schools so our kids can get the education they need and be safe while they're getting it. Thanks, Kate. Thank you so much. We only have about 10 minutes for questions, and I know this is going to be really hard for us. So if we have questions, let's try to keep them or comments of keep them focused because this is a rare opportunity that we have the congressman here and representative Dylan June Batista. Yeah, well, thank you so much, congressman Welch, for being here. We certainly appreciate all you do and how present you are both in each of our communities, but also at the statehouse in Montpelier. So thank you for being such a resource and thank you also for focusing on infrastructure. I know that's a concern of this committee and that you probably heard from some of us about the need to rebuild our school. So excited to learn what's possible there in the future. I do want to share one piece of feedback I got from my school district that I assume other districts are contending with. And this is the ability to share resources for providing meals to students. So currently we are providing free meals. And I understand that the USDA just extended flexibility for those dollars through December 31st, but certainly anything you can do and others to ensure that there is flexibility going further so that we can provide nutritional meals to our students would be welcome. So thank you for your advocacy. Just want to share that feedback and we're grateful to have you in our corner. Thank you. Well, thank you, Dylan. And those meals have been a lifesaver and isn't it amazing how creative our local school boards were? You know, they put the buses back out on the route to deliver meals. And I've been to a couple of the places just out of Bellows Falls awhile ago where they were in there making all the meals. People were picking them up there and they were delivering them. And by the way, people are hungry. So this is not abstract. This is really, really critical. So thanks, Dylan. Um, one of the the first. So I want to thank you and your office, you and your office and you and I have been in conversation about infrastructure for some time. And we had actually been working on getting an inventory of our of our school infrastructure. And then we ran into this thing called a global pandemic and had to had to stop that. And it was our hope to be able to be better prepared should federal funds come forward. So I hope that if not this year, next year, about 130 billion can become available. I see Casey to representative to. Yeah, thank you. I just want to thank you again, Congressman, for coming in today. The committee knows this, but I just wanted to share my story. I'm not only a representative, but I also have a five year old that started kindergarten next week. So I'm trying to watch this as close as I can. We're excited to get him in school, but we understand how the safety precautions that that we have to put in place. So it's really hard on on families in Vermont, but we are all working on this together. And I think that you hit the nail on the head when you said it's all about working together. I think this legislative body has done a really good job working with the administration as well as the leadership. So I really want to let you know that we are doing everything we can together to do what's right for the people of Vermont. So thank you for coming in. Well, Casey, good luck to you, you know, the five year old. I know you're a little young, so you haven't had to be doing all the homeschooling, but my head is off to the parents who are juggling full time work at home, full time educating, you know, like a seven year old and a 10 year old. That that is hard. And I'll add that I have a four year old as well. And we're working on all that together. But, you know, when I have meetings here, I have a tough enough time with my broadband to access the video on. So I couldn't imagine what it's going to be like when I have a kid trying to access it as well. So anything that, you know, any improvements that we look at in broadband capability is really important. Yeah, thank you. Kathleen James. Yeah, thanks, Congressman, for being here. Hi. So it sounds like the odds of getting the Heroes Act passed anytime soon are dim. What about the thought of getting any greater flexibility around how we can spend Cares Act money specifically, maybe to replace lost revenues? Is there any chance of that or is that a lost cause as well? Yeah, you know, Kathleen, I think there's a chance that we'll get some version of the Cares or the Heroes Act pass. OK, the opposition on the from the president appears to be on state and local aid, which I think is unfortunate because we know that if we impose on the state, we don't give the state's help. It's a brutal hit on your revenues. You've been getting briefed on that and it is a huge hit on property taxpayers or reduction in education and health care services and other things. The president's objection appears to be that, you know, the way he puts it is to bail out of the of the of the of bets of blue states and some states have pension problems. I mean, we have our own challenges on that. But I actually think that whatever the pension issues are in the state, that should continue to be the responsibility to state the COVID money is to help the states deal with the impact of the COVID virus. So when I talked to a lot of my Republican colleagues, they know and support getting aid to the states. So this could change, you know, but the one who's in charge here is President Trump because he and Senator McConnell work fairly closely. And my hope is that a lot of my Republican colleagues who are facing the same challenges you are on your committee, your counterparts in various states are making the case to my colleagues and and maybe we can reach a compromise. That's one of the disputes. The other is the six hundred dollar issue and there's room for compromise on that as well. And on flexibility, you know, it's it's generally been a Republican point of view as well as Democratic point of view that local decision making is probably better because you're closer to the problem. So I see that as something where in the past, I found myself on the same page with a lot of my Republican colleagues. All of that is to say that this could change fairly quickly, but it's going to be the way we are right now. It's really going to be up to President Trump. And then if he makes an offer, will we be willing to compromise? And the answer to that is yes, because we've got to get back to the state, some of the revenues that they need to address this problem and help the kids. So I haven't given up hope at all on either the flexibility or some some aid. Thanks. Thank you. We have a couple more minutes. I guess one thing that I would say is when the CARES Act came out, there were funds to be available to schools through the ESSER funds, as we call them. And they were to be tied to Title One. Then Secretary DeVos came in and said, don't forget the independent schools. So we got a little bit tangled up in the use of ESSER funds. And then, of course, there was a court case saying, and I've forgotten it in another state related to not requiring states to send the funds to the independent schools. So just I guess I ask you to keep an eye on that. There's one of the things that we saw is you want to see an equity close schools. It's an absolute clear dividing dividing line as to who's doing well and who isn't. Right. So well, no, you know, I'm glad you said that, because it really is about the children. I mean, we cannot COVID pandemic. Stunt the educational growth and the emotional well-being of our kids. We can't we can't do that. And nobody knows that better than the members of your committee. And you know what? We don't have to. It's tough. It's hard. But I think our local education leaders and our teachers and our parents, you know, we're up to it, but you can't do it if you don't have safety. That's the thing you're not in control of. We can take the steps we need to get safety, but we have to have the resources to do it. And that's why this aid in the Heroes Act, I think is so, so important to help you be successful. I I have one more question from our Representative Austin that would obviously take a very long response. So I'm going to hope that that we can keep it a short response. It's a very large question, but I do want to give Representative Austin the chance to ask the question. Thank you, Congressman Welch, for being here. You know, your time is limited. Anyway, I'm just wondering this kind of is a little bit shift in the conversation, but can you update me where Congress might be at in the Justice and Policing Act of 2020? The Justice and Policing Act. Yes, that's the question. We've passed it in the House. We've passed it in the House and the way it works is Senator McConnell has the authority as the majority leader to decide when, whether, and if that legislation will be considered by the Senate. I'm a strong supporter of it. We had some bipartisan support for it in the House. And I think it's very important for us to pass that. But it's in the Senate, and that's going to be a decision that Senator McConnell is in control of. But thank you for that question. Yeah, thank you. I thank you so very much for taking the time to join us in our little Hollywood Squares room here. Well, again, I just want to thank you and I want to thank all our educational leaders. I mean, this is so, so hard. It's always fraught, you know, local education we all know is really important. And parents are always really concerned. And we're all anxious, including parents about the well-being of our kids. Our educational administrators have been a immense challenge because they are committed to getting those schools open safely. And they have to work with the parents and the teachers to try to make that happen. But it's really important for the federal government to do its part and get back to the school districts, the resources that are absolutely essential for the safety of the schools as we try to get our kids back to normal. So thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman Best of Margaret. Yeah, thanks, Larry. She says hello. Our former colleague, Chris. And with that, we're going to switch to a conversation about how to spend the CRF funds as well as any changes we need to make to statute for schools going forward in this this period. So I'm going to start with Mark Crow. And who's going to give us a start on some recommendations that are coming forward related to use of CRF. I know these folks have been burning the midnight oil. So I appreciate your work in trying to get it organized for us. OK, so here we go. Screen sharing. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm going to just sort of walk you through this sheet. Stop me if you have any questions as we go along. This was done kind of quickly. So there may be questions that come up as I go through it. So just to remind you where we were. Section a 50 of Act 120 that you passed back when you were and we were still in session allocated or appropriated 50 million dollars out of the state's one point two five billion dollar coronavirus relief fund allocations from the feds. And that appropriation was intended to fund CRF eligible costs for both 2020 and 2021 for school districts and the 50 million dollar appropriation. I've shown how it was broken out here. So 20 million dollars was made available for reimbursements for school districts with CRF eligible costs. Six point five million dollars was made available for indoor air quality through efficiency for my 12 million dollars was made available for the summer school meal program. And the remainder was a million and a half the independent schools and a million dollars to for administration of the program. Now, since the amount of CRF eligible expenditures was completely unknown at the time Act 120 passed. Legislature also indicated that it intended to set aside a hundred million dollars of the state's remaining CRF allocation to be appropriated when you came back in August in September so that districts could be assured that they would be fully reimbursed for any expenditures that they've made their CRF eligible. So coming up with an estimate for you has been difficult for a bunch of reasons mostly timing. But applications from districts for a share of the twenty nine million dollars available for district reimbursement have to be sent to the agency of education as of today. However, the agencies indicated that they would not be able to provide a good estimate of the statewide total of CRF eligible spending until September 10th or 11th. We'll still be in session then, but it's beyond the time that the House needs to move ahead with this in the restated budget. So in order to come up with an estimate for you, we've my office, the joint fiscal office has been working with the superintendent's association to come up with a a best estimate that we come up with at this point of the additional amount on top of the twenty nine million dollars that you've appropriated that may be necessary in order to assure schools that they're going to get fully reimbursed for all their CRF costs. So the superintendent's association and I think Jeff is here to speak to this as well, but the BSA surveyed 52 supervisor unions and they obtained as of this morning, they had 29 SUs reporting estimates of their CRF eligible spending. The average for the district's reporting was about six hundred and fifty dollars per equalized pupil. All I've done for this estimate is just to scale up that per pupil estimate to the state level, and that would produce an estimate of a total estimate of about fifty seven million dollars needed to reimburse school districts for CRF eligible costs. That is about twenty eight million dollars more than the twenty nine million dollars that's already been appropriated for this purpose in act one twenty. So total amount that's estimated for this purpose would be fifty seven million twenty twenty eight. It's already been appropriated. You have the opportunity now to make a recommendation to the House Appropriations Committee for the additional amount that we're anticipating maybe needed that amount to the best we can come up with right now would be an additional twenty eight million dollars. And any questions at that point before I go on for the next couple of pieces. No. OK. Indoor air quality. There was also the demand for air quality we think now is going to it's likely to exceed the six and a half million dollars that was appropriated. In the quarter one, the first quarter budget and it looks now based on requests that have come in that that appropriation could be short by about eight or nine million dollars. The problem with this one is that even though that even though there's demand for that money, which could be as high as fifteen million dollars, it's very unlikely that school districts would be able to utilize that money and get their expenditures completed by December 30th. So rather than a full eight or nine million dollars in addition, we're recommending that an additional appropriation of five million dollars will likely be sufficient to cover the costs of CRF eligible expenditures. And by CRF eligible, in this case, I mean expenditures that can get completed by December 30th. So that brings us up to twenty twenty nine twenty up an additional twenty eight plus an additional five bringing us up to about thirty three million. A more complicated issue is the summer meals program. In the quarter budget in the fifty million dollar appropriation, there was in the House version of it, there was no money carved out for the summer schools meal program. So when the bill got over to the Senate in a separate bill, the Senate provided and it ultimately passed the legislature a provision that said that up to twelve million dollars of that fifty million dollar appropriation could be used for the summer meal program. However, rather than having that this appropriation run through December 30th, this appropriation required that the money be spent by the end of August. So that's obviously gone by. A O E's indicated that of that twelve of the appropriation of up to twelve million dollars, districts were only able to draw down three million dollars of that money. So that would leave nine million dollars sort of orphaned. It can't be it can't be used anymore or the summer schools meal program because of the additional constraints that the legislature put in when you appropriated this money. However, A O E's recommending that up to four million dollars could be in CRF money, could be used to assist district in the purchase of basically food service equipment, supplies and equipment that would be necessary to provide meals to kids. I think Jim will show you a draft later on that would incorporate that. But that means that out of that 12, three has already been used. If you decided to do this additional appropriation for equipment that would use up four million to bring to use seven million. So they'd be about five million dollars left from that program that is unspoken for at this point. So to cut to the chase at the bottom of the sheet you're looking at, I've just showed you how we arrived at a recommendation of 32 million dollars in additional CRF appropriations that you've sent to the House Appropriations Committee. It starts out with the 28 million dollars that I talked about for an additional reimbursement for LEAs, then there would be the five million dollar additional appropriation for HVAC Enduriary Quality spending which would bring us up to 33 million. Then credit the remaining amount of money that's available from the summer meals appropriation. So that's the original 12 minus the three that was used and minus an additional four potentially to use for meal service equipment which brings you to 28 million. I then calculated a five percent cushion because you know we're only in beginning September. It's likely that districts are going to be able to identify additional costs between now and December 30th. So that five percent cushion would be an additional four million which would bring the total up to 32 million dollars. I know that was really quick but anybody have any questions? Let me just prep preface this by saying that we asked Larry and Peter and I asked JFO to work with the agency and to work with the Superintendent's Association on a recommendation for us recognizing that this information is not complete however we still need to be making a recommendation to appropriations. So we're making we're doing kind of the introductory recommendation to approach that it will look exactly like this as we saw in June is unlikely and I realize this is this is complicated and I know that our committee usually likes to go a little bit deeper into this but basically we're looking at the money that was appropriated. We're looking at what everybody thinks that they're going to need based on the information we have at the moment and trying to find out what that that difference is and then put it all together in a bill that deals with all CRF funds. So that's pretty easy. We're just very appreciative of the folks that worked on this so far. Sarita Austin. Thanks Mark. Um I know we covered this and I apologize but I know we set aside a hundred million dollars in the spring for educational needs. Just if someone could just review one more time where that money is and can it be used at a portion of that can that be used? Can this this recommendation be used taken out of those funds? So when you when the legislature broke when you were last in session you indicated intent to reserve a hundred million dollars of this money for K-12 all together there's about 198 million dollars available but in the governor's restated budget he uses almost all of that money for purposes other than K-12 education. I can send you a sheet that shows you the breakout if you want but none of the remaining money was appropriated in the governor's restated budget for K-12 for this purpose but that's the governor's restated budget you have the opportunity to you know to weigh in on this you have to money has to be appropriated so this is an attempt to identify the amount of money that you may want to appropriate out of the money that hasn't been used yet for K-12 to assure that districts get what they're expecting which is full reimbursement for any CRF eligible costs. Francis and Chelsea I wanted to check in with you because you had a you spent a great deal of time on helping to bring this forward. Hi this is Jeff Chelsea's watching. So as I mentioned yesterday the role we played was to try to advance the pace of information to the Joint Fiscal Office so they could advise you. So in communications that went to the field from me over the course of the last week or so we asked school districts when they completed their Coronavirus Relief Fund grant program application for the AOE to advance that data to us so we could give it to the Joint Fiscal Office and specifically mark for the calculation that he's provided before you. So what I would say is that the recommendation or the information that JFO is providing to you to make your recommendation is the best available information that we have at the time. It's reflective of information that has come to us from school districts. I'm in agreement with Chair Webb when she says that we're in a preliminary phase here doing the best we can based on the timeline and the information and believe that Mark is characterized the current need based on our current knowledge at this time. We know like you know that things will change we'll continue to monitor it. We're going to continue to update JFO as we hear more from the school districts even over the next 24 hours or so and we'll all hang tough and do the best we can but at this moment I think Mark's been a nice job with his characterization and I at least would support the recommendation as he's recommended it to you. Secretary French. Hi yeah I think it's good analysis you know I had a just from our team just want to share with you as of this morning you know work today is the day when those CRF applications are coming in. As of noon today we had 17 LEA submit requests and the total amount is 13,000 or excuse me 13 million ninety two thousand forty two dollars. I think we can endeavor to provide a similar sort of rough summary for you tomorrow morning or sometime tomorrow. Okay great and this will be this is going to be a work in progress as we go forward. Sure Absolutely. We do know that we needed to make some language changes which we will address in a minute. I just wanted to see if there's anybody else that will have a question or wanted to speak to this. I don't think we have our our oh Kathleen James excuse me. Thanks I did have a question I just want to make sure I'm understanding the physical reality here. These are the costs that schools are required to spend in order to follow the health and safety guidelines and open safely correct. So if these somebody has to pay these costs so if if CRF doesn't cover these costs I assume will float to taxpayers. Yes correct these aren't optional these aren't optional frills these are these are funds that are going out the door to open our schools safely. Yeah and you know to the extent that school districts make these expenditures with the understanding that they're going to be reimbursed for it and they're not that's going to create you know problems in local local budgets. Sorry Mark you cut out from. Oh okay um lost my train of thought there I guess to the to the extent that districts make expenditures to reopen that they believe are CRF eligible if they don't get that money. In other words if we have to prorate the amount of money they get for their CRF eligible expenditures that will leave them with deficits in the individual districts which will ultimately flow through the education fund and to taxpayers yes. That's I just wanted to make sure I was understanding that correctly thanks. You know Conlon could you say something? I will ask I sort of took it back because I didn't want to get going down too far Rebel but I didn't know the Secretary was with us and I guess I'm curious to know what the administration's view is on why the governor's proposal really didn't allocate any more money for CRF needs in public schools. Yeah I think you know we you know the larger theme is it's an estimate we don't have any other information to suggest that what's been appropriate is insufficient. We also have ESSER funds you know on the table as well and certainly the gear act for CTE so you know if the food service is any indication you know it's it's going to be hard to project and I think you know I think as I mentioned I think yesterday drawing a distinction between reopening costs versus what are the longer financial impacts as Mark said about HVAC for example you know there's there's going to certainly be longer tail financial impacts from the emergency but I our thinking was a sufficient appropriation between what was already appropriated in CRF and then plus ESSER would be enough to reopen schools and that was you know it's more generous than what the national model pointed to. Any other questions? Okay if you could stay in the room I'm going to invite I'm going to invite our Ledge Council Jim Demeray to pull up our miscellaneous Ed bill which addresses issues we've talked about before as well as language changes that we would need that we would like to recommend to that we would recommend to the Appropriations Committee on on use of these funds. Okay so for the record Jim Demeray as console we're looking at draft 3.1 of this bill. Chair Webb do you want me to go right to those sections in CRF funding or why don't we start with I think that's good and we can we can back up and do the others but since we're on that topic let's go to the last the last sections on that. So if people having trouble seeing this pull it's on the website as well. We're here actually great group to section seven that's one more page yep okay right here okay we have three new sections seven eight and nine seven deals with surprising equipment for meals for children um so act 120 appropriate 41 million dollars to AOE for pre-K312 schools then act 136 took 12 million of that 41 million and then available for reimbursement for some of the rules uh but not all of the 12 million was used before the end of august therefore what this does is it takes four million of the remaining 12 million dollars of funding takes four million of that to allow the purchase of carers act eligible supplies and equipment uh which will include vehicles freezers capital assets etc that are necessary to provide meals to children using the federal child nutrition programs during COVID-19 state of emergency so that's what that does it's basically redirecting money that was directed for meals to uh supplies equipment from yours any questions on that part so far this this this was the access to those funds ended at the end of august and this is a way of um using some of those funds that are still food focused and these these came from i believe that the agency and cerita did i see you yeah can you hear me yeah go ahead nope you just muted yourself can you hear me now yes oh there you go okay sorry jim is this equipment specific to address COVID-19 in terms of the type of equipment that we're asking for like with you know shields or how to how to serve the food is that is it is it kind of specialized equipment or is it just kind of uh updating equipment it's not designed i believe to be specialized it has to be um carers act eligible uh but uh inclusions like like capital assets so we're talking about freezers and vehicles and equipment things to make food basically or deliver food okay but it is eligible under the the funds the federal funds yeah this this makes this conditions the use of these funds and being eligible so the a we could not use these funds for these purposes unless it was eligible okay thank you and to clarify everything coming forward to us has been reviewed to be crf eligible this is not something our committee needs to to worry about correct this has been addressed at at higher level uh well i'm not sure about that for this this is came in from the aoe today so i put this in uh but i did change it to say that has to be carers act eligible okay anything else on that okay thank you okay uh section eight is um amending uh don't go so far down feel uh to go back up please to where you were right there thank you section let's go back to line seven please okay so section eight um amends section 50 of the bill you passed um with the appropriation of 50 million dollars uh for education purposes so you have 50 million dollars appropriate before as you know what this does is it adds an additional appropriation 32 million dollars to that earlier earlier appropriations and now we have 82 uh million million dollars appropriate okay that's the first thing it does and then in line 17 and down the page basically remember that this out this uh appropriation is divided into four buckets pre pre k through 12 uh HVAC uh independent schools and kind of administration and technical uh advice uh so what this is saying here in line 17 is that if the amounts allocated to those four areas aren't used up uh or aren't expected to be used up by the end of the year then AOE is to redirect the funding to other other categories that have need right related to it related to education as opposed to the transportation yeah just within those categories just four categories i mentioned okay um and then the appropriation for efficiency from month on line five is increasing from 6.5 million to 11.5 million uh the appropriation for pre k through 12 is increasing from 41 million to 69 million um and just a note on line 13 the appropriation for uh approved independent schools is unchanged of up to 1.5 million and in line 20 the appropriation for accounting and technical assistance is unchanged up to 1 million okay those are the same and then to conclude um section nine um is um just just update another section you passed uh which is 851 which was the amount for for efficiency for month uh there's a whole section on how that was going to work uh which cross references to 6.5 million that we just increased to 11.5 so this section has to be updated to to reflect the increased appropriation and that is it so what this does is it uh provides language our recommended language that appropriations will would review um ultimately change as needed as as more information comes in we know that i think september 10th is a date where there should be more information coming in but it basically looks at what has been appropriated and what else is needed and making sure that if uh an area does not use those funds that it can go back into the pool for other uses is that correct all right everybody clear clear is day here right everybody totally understands this right any questions on these get my hand up quickly i i i just a quick question um probably for the secretary uh um do you know what the approved independent school 1.5 million dollar what the um requests are from that at this point uh no i don't believe so i think brad had said that there was a number of applications but he didn't mention an amount that they were applying for yeah we can we can take a look at that uh might have an answer during this meeting but i'm not sure we have a firm figure on that okay and we came to that number by doing a little math calculation of cost per per uh you know publicly funded student yeah so actually that does regulate it you're right yeah it it does but i don't know if it caps it at 1.5 this is language cap it at 1.5 to 1.5 okay i imagine that someone's going to take a look at that um going forward as it goes goes through thanks anybody else i think jfo or if mark or chloe's on the line she had a question some of the figures here okay chloe yeah oh yes and then Kathleen and kasey sorry chloe um i'm uh jim we can discuss offline okay okay um Kathleen james thanks yeah i had been emailing a little bit with secretary french so he probably knows what i'm going to ask i had just checked in briefly with um southwest tech um in bennington and i know i'm not an expert on how the different tech centers are organized but i just want to make sure that the necessary funds will be available to the tech centers i know that they're organized in different ways secretary french um yeah representative james and i were going back and forth like and i don't see the the language i think is in the miscellaneous bill that you were going to speak to well just to point out yeah yeah that's why i think it's it's not here yet um but in terms of i think what you were intending this this amount that's on a screen the approved independent school amount of 1.5 million i think you are contemplating uh expanding the use of those funds to include the three tech centers that also our school districts right um kc2 yeah thank you um can i bring up something about section four i we didn't really go over it with jen but um section four we're going to get to that okay okay yeah we're just finishing those those two sections then we'll go back and start with section one again all right thank you any other questions here on this it's moving fast um okay why don't we anything from um superintendents or school boards or teachers hi chair web this is jeff ranta j nickles j nickles of the vpa suzibowski of bsba and i met this morning to discuss the bill in its entirety so are you are you now going back to section one are you looking for comments on the sections you just discussed just just those two sections first okay no no um i haven't conferred with them on that but i'm okay i'm i for vpa i'm fine with that okay um thank you for principles kate we're all set with the the additions okay and i think we have um do i have jeff bannon in here i don't think so so you all feel that this is something you can work with going forward supporting it at this point okay um let's go back to the top then and start with section one this is our miscellaneous ed bill um which probably isn't going to pass as a bill but the language sent up to appropriations to include in their bill okay so should i walk through yes let's start start with one section one section one on line nine just uh decreases the number of required school days from 75 to 17 i want to do section by section so um secretary french does this meet the need that you're talking about the regional taxes defined shall be considered school district i think this is too broad i think the way i i see this i'm just doing section one first which is the 170 days oh i'm sorry yeah as i mentioned yesterday i our thinking was that it would be um reducing the number of student days and adding to the number of in-service days um you know once again all all four of the issues that we brought forward are ones that were expressed by administrators around the state and one of the common themes was a desire to have additional in-service days available and i think it's just mechanically it's important just to underscore that these uh this language really just addresses the minimums that are in the law it's hard to hard to predict how this would actually be acted out in the state i suppose for those districts that had master agreements that only referenced the minimum number of days there might be some change but i was thinking about this how you have it worded now where you're lowering the number of student days the minimum number of student days um teachers are contracted to work in x number of days uh if the law were to change to describe a new minimum i'm not sure it would necessarily uh and be enacted uh because districts you know if they're say you're already contracting with teachers to work 175 days and second that that's the express language in their master agreement as well as their individual employment contracts which are already signed and put to bed if you lower the number of days i'm not sure to what extent a district would actually go back in or reopen our master agreement uh or uh then seek to redo all their employment contracts which have to be done in triple kit so i think there was not clear to me i think there was a general understanding that this would simply mean that um of your 180 days um instead of having five in service days you're gonna have 10 in service days and 170 students is that what we're trying to get to there that was my suggestion to change those minimums but i only see half of that here this only speaks to the student days not the in-service days um peter conlon and then jeff francis peter do you do you want to go to jeff first or yes you want to go ahead to jeff first yes jeff what i said was the intention that we're looking for and i'm not sure what the language is together yeah i i would like to defer to susa glowski we talked about this specifically this morning she actually uh made some inquiries of some of the um attorneys that work on collective bargaining agreements with school districts so i'm hoping sue will um pass on the information we discussed this morning so are you available to talk about that today yes i'm here and can talk about that so um i i actually have spoken to some attorneys who um work with school boards on collective bargaining and um what what what their um take on it is is that mandating more in-service days will not eliminate that issue from local bargaining and that um that we support the language as it is written here without the additional um language that's being requested by the secretary um for districts that are below 10 days now if you mandate uh 10 days of in service um the estimate is that the cost of teacher salaries could increase by at least one percent on a statewide basis um so we are in favor of leaving this to the local school district and not um mandating in statute okay um peter cousin i kind of have a more general question that maybe jeff fan and if the best person to answer and that is a sort of how do i this is a complex issue members of the public sort of say to me the kids start late why can't they just donate and i'm sure there's a simple way to explain why we are reducing the number of days kids need to be in school well um i'll say this i think that first of all like sue we support this language is drafted uh i'll say it's simply that way um and you know what we're what you're talking about is adding days in june and i don't know you know i think for us to begin to understand what's going to happen in june of 2021 now uh i think it's is really speculative and and i don't i don't want to try to do it um there's a lot between now and then and i think that i think this gives the schools and staff the flexibility they need which is you know just reducing the 175 to the 170 given all you know the governor delayed the start right there you know those were some days and uh i think this makes sense of school boards and teachers agree on this language as written that works for me yeah i was just looking for an easy public way to say when somebody says well if the kids start late why can't they go late why are you shaving the number of days kids are in school down well you know i think you know my thought is we're gonna have to figure this out come cold and flu season anyway if not sooner so i think uh we'll see what happens come say november uh what really uh what we're going to want to do in june like and we can say in system january so we can take this up in january if we need to but this just some comfort i think to just just something about the magic of the numbers 180 175 and 170 that is a little challenging to the public yeah yeah i was if i could madam chair i was i agree i think that's why you know we were looking for the keeping the 180 hole into the point about we don't know how the year will end i mean that's precisely uh why the waiver language is there um in this language uh mentions that so we do have the ability we used it last spring uh to adjust the calendar based on the second half of the year as events unfold and that's that's authority that the state port has and the state port gave that to me more broadly last spring to enact the waiver as necessary okay action two this is where we added in the uh independent um tech centers into go ahead jim why don't you do it yeah to just say exactly as you were saying Joe where this is basically um when you passed uh the appropriation uh earlier this year for kpk 12 they used to term school district but for some reason in 2016 school districts is defined to include lots of types of school districts but for some reason not these um career uh tech centers which are independent the three that we have in the state but this does is says those tech centers um which are independent will be uh considered to be school districts for this purpose so there would be the funding there the 41 million dollars down increased uh would be available to them uh as well if you go with the chain to section eight I would actually take out section two and just put it right into section eight uh just just to find there but okay that's question for that substance so yeah and then there's just a little bit of a worry that we factored it by um per pupil but we've capped it and we're now adding these sections as well so there's some concern there Madam Chair could I the if we could go back to I uh want to express concern that I think as worded it's it's much more uh general than what your intention is um a regional tech center as defined um shall be considered district that includes all I read that to include all of our tech centers not just the three that are school districts and the issue is they're not independent per se they are school districts there's three of them that are school districts on their own right so the other tech centers are covered uh under the lea the crf lea because they're part of an lea they're part of a school district these three are not leas for for the purposes of crf so we're trying to address their needs I think as worded now you're you're including all of them not the three and then secondly maybe it's a jim's point about form versus substance uh the reference to section a 50c I think you also need to be more specific there to go to c point two uh under the previous organization which is the 1.5 million for independent schools I think it's as worded now it's very general and could refer to all of the crf funding including uh the lea funding that you just are proposing to increase and I would I'd lastly I just say that um you know I appreciate the need and that's a need that we have or a priority we have as well to address their needs we do think their needs will be addressed through uh the gear uh appropriation which is 4.4 million dollars um so I would encourage you to maybe think twice about doing this because I think it's going to get very complex if you're not careful and I do think the needs are going to be met adequately through gear okay that was the question that we had earlier so it is likely that these centers can be addressed without using these crf funds but actually using the governor's funds so it's yeah the governor's been very clear he intends to focus those funds on the needs of ct centers so it's possible that we could remove it and they would still be funded just to clarify um we don't necessarily need to single out then the three independently governed technical centers would section two be helpful but it would be would it be good to keep it we said a regional technical center or I am sorry an independently governed regional technical center or are you feeling like that's unnecessary at this point if you firstly I would say I think it's unnecessary I think gear is going to cover it so I uh recommend that you could eliminate this and address the need if you weren't still inclined to include it I think you want to be very careful about defining this and I would recommend actually including the three of them by name the CDC um Panaford and Springfield yeah yeah I was just going to say the um the crash reference here is to 16 vsa 1571 which is the one section that creates these independent critical centers so I don't think that reference is broad I think it's narrow I think it's targeting just the three um I'm happy to talk to uh sort of French about that further um the other thing that Secretary French mentioned is is capturing this under uh the appropriation for independent schools and the intent of the current language is to capture them under pre-k through 12 which is a 41 million dollar appropriation not the 1.5 so it's meant to be what I do obviously we're extracted now my intent at least is for just the three independent schools that are censors and covering them under the K through 12 appropriation of 41 million that's the intent here um obviously they might be done in another policy direction okay okay that makes some sense and again this is going to another committee um so so we can make this as a recommendation and there'll be plenty of time for people to to review going forward but you're saying that this language does identify specifically the independence uh it doesn't name them my name but it's the section that creates the independence as school districts that this refers to okay we've got um 12 more minutes till we need to be on the floor um section three is the ADM question that I'm just going to avoid for now because we're going to take that up on Friday with uh ways of means um then the australian uh ballot language secretary french and susa glowski on that yeah I uh I think I spoke to this yesterday I think uh this language is satisfactory to address what we had identified as a concern okay I just realized kc2 but I'm sorry I missed you well we can listen to um sue in as the I would defer to her right now okay susa glaski thank you just a short statement that vsba supports section four as written thanks thank you um can I ask now um my only concern with this is I know money's tight I would be um happy to talk to I know times tight I'd be happy to talk to um secretary uh of state condos see what he has for money for this because I would love to see some funding behind this and I personally don't like that it's just um you can apply for it or whatever um I would I would like to see this be an initiative uh not much I don't I don't believe much is going to change between now and march and I think this is something that you know if we look at town meeting day getting 150 people into a small gym into a small community could if we don't have anything uh figured out by then with this virus COVID-19 um could be really hard for um small communities um so I would be in favor of actually pushing this more where we could put money behind it I know we don't have a say in it but that's just something that I would um be behind thank you Jeff anon yes uh represent two if I I I agree and and I think that uh uh we're we're there's not going to be much changes from November to town meeting day we're in November we're mailing out everybody about a ballot and I think we ought to do the same here and I don't know if it's a uh I think it's probably you're right represent two if it's probably the secretary state's office that ought to be doing this but we think it makes infinite sense to do a universal vote by mail as we're doing in the fall here uh so I I I think that's what we ought to do I I know uh representative Jean Batista spoke about this in May in Essex and I think it's a it you know it makes infinite sense so we so we would support that as uh going forward okay um then we have uh section five which is the waiver of online teaching endorsement secretary french so uh this issue um and particularly uh addresses the uh number of virtual academies that school districts have created um in response to the uh pandemic and the uh standards board uh has been navigating this issue uh to a certain extent and they've provided a waiver of the online teaching endorsement initially in the spring and then extended that through December um a number of school districts have come forward and said it would be really good to understand that waiver availability for the rest of the year firstly then secondly the standards board has not expressed as much interest in providing a waiver for those teachers that teach in the virtual academies um my understanding is they believe those teachers should be required to have the online endorsement which is going to be very impractical considering it takes several months to obtain that endorsement and uh very well could lead to lead to a significant bottle that come uh second semester if we don't address this issue now so I'm noticing that there's you meant this to be just for this current school year because at the moment it's 2021 to 22 and you're just you actually just mean through through this current school year that's correct okay so we can we can fix that the questions on that um and the elections of the unified this is the ongoing thing we do this every year well why do we do this every year Dylan this affects your district do do you want the explanation yeah that the the one that's you can do in one minute yeah essentially uh we had to pass this after the enactment of act 46 because some of the language in chapter 11 of title 16 was recycled um from uh the union school districts and so in practice it created issues both uh with appointment of members um after their terms had expired but then additionally how the municipality would consult with the school board um and so this was one that we put into session law its sunset on july 1st uh my hope is we can extend the sunset because the goal of the agency working in consultation with ledge council and me at the time was to actually work on a redraft of this section and last i knew um donna russo savage at the agency was working on that and was willing to in the future i don't want to speak for them um but this would be a stopgap measure and some other set of legislators will need to address it permanently to ensure this part of law functions properly okay and probably next year when we do chapter 11 if we get to do that okay so it's now we've got uh five minutes to four um and what i'd like to do can get rid of this screen sharing for a minute um we are going to meet tomorrow but i need to get i need to get a sense of if we can live with the crf funding as it was as we know at this point in time the way it was outlined by um jfo and let's try some blue hands okay so everybody get ready um i'm looking for support for the allocation of crf funds as noted on the um the document from jfo and if you can support that we erase your hands okay hands down and those against okay so i'm seeing some people are voting twice okay okay those those against you can only vote yes or no you can't vote yes and no sorry this binary so those against okay i am going to um let the appropriations committee that that we would support that use of crf funds i know that we have to do more with the language um which i we're just out of time to to deal with the language um and we'll be meeting tomorrow and if i could i could get folks back so that we can work on the language of our bill but at least have the numbers for them uh serita just what time are we meeting tomorrow kate do you know uh what time is it fill is it 10 30 tomorrow is 12 30 to two 12 30 okay um and we'll figure out how that's going to work yes i've got yeah that would be great we're going to look at some higher ad uses for serif funds tomorrow and we'll follow up with this as well i appreciate the committee's um flexibility in in this and um jim and uh secretary french there are a couple of issues that you folks are talking about um kasey and jeff fanon i'm not sure what to do here this is a little bit out of out of my world in terms of addressing this with the secretary of state um and funding for that um it's also possible that there's going to be more coming in relation to voting i'm not sure um kasey yeah and i mean if it's something that we just put in the in their ear now and it's something we can deal with the next legislative body can and can take care of but i think it's something that we should really focus on because i don't think this is going away in the next six months so it's important to remember that um we vote on a lot of other things besides uh school budgets on town meeting they sell it goes beyond the education today this issue for sure yeah yeah about this at least puts it puts that on the list it'll appropriations and then it'll start on its journey you know as it stands though i mean the bill talks about australian ballot uh on town meeting day and i think that makes sense i most of the schools are doing it already frankly given act 46 but the larger question is the bigger question that secretary condos make want to weigh in on i'm sure okay i think what i'll just do is include this language for now and can certainly flag um kc i'd encourage you as well to flag maybe flag your leadership on that as an issue um certainly happy to have someone on the democrat side to flag it for for leadership um and i we've got two minutes so i just think we're gonna have to stop um thank you so much everybody really appreciate the work that that you've done today um did not actually get to you on the i'm sorry i just remembered i did not say anything about the um outright are you okay if i just tell them a range of three to eight percent can we deal with that well they're gonna make up their mind anyhow they're gonna make up their mind anyway right i just figure we're the ones that are representing education and they're gonna represent taking money away not giving it back proof okay see you on the floor thank you