 From everybody's Senate education, May 5th, 2020. Cory, parent, apparently has a incredibly funny story. So go ahead, Cory. Wow, we were just talking about swapping talent and fitting a hole not being the most talented, but I went to college with a kid who made it to the NHL and he just made it as the fighter on the team, but he won a Stanley Cup and made a ton of money and he hardly ever played in the hockey game, but he got his face beat in a few times and he gets a Stanley Cup and all the money. So it goes to show there's slots on teams, not necessarily about talent level. So Ruth, you were the fighter that they wanted on the one team. Yeah. Yeah, that's right, I'm the fighter, but then you got the slot, you're gonna get the Stanley Cup and all that. Yeah. No, no, no, no. You're gonna get your face beat. Yeah, I'll get my face beat. That's great, I hope not. Okay, if anybody from outside the legislature is watching, you might be wondering, what are we talking about? We're talking about two committees that have been created within the last few days by the Senate President Pro Tem, one to look at how we transition back into a normal services delivery model for government writ large, so including education, and the other four, what are the lessons learned from the pandemic? Are there things that we can be doing better next time because of our experience here? So I had started that little discussion by asking Ruth which one she was on. So Ruth, is there anybody else on our committee on that new committee with you? The Transitions Committee, Senator McNeil and Senator Ingram and I are all on that one. Okay, and then Corey and Andrew are on the other one. Correct. Okay, so I am not, I have to say 100% clear on how these committees are operating what their function is, what they do with their... You're not the only one. I was wondering that myself. Yeah, what they do with their work product, is it meant to, I think maybe Chris Bray asked this in the All Senate call, are they meant to pitch ideas to committees of jurisdiction or are committees of jurisdiction passing things to them for a report? So all of that will become a little clearer. But I did wanna start, we have that language that we asked Abby to produce on the tax credit, but I wanna hold that discussion for a little bit and I wanna instead start with with the email that we got from Brian Campion and Rich Westman. And I'll just, I'll read you the relevant part of it so you don't have to work bringing it up. Wait, I don't think I got that email. Oh. I didn't either. Oh, I'm sorry, it was to committee chairs. Oh, okay. So I will forward it to committee members, but the relevant part is this. It says they've listed four categories to consider and under education it says, what do our pre-K through 12 institutions need as they open next fall? How do we assist our institutions of higher education and guarantee they have strong enrollment and programs? So in other words, going forward, what are our recommendations immediately for returning to normal life, robust life, including things like enrollment, childcare, et cetera and so on. So what they've asked in this memo is that we give them some feedback by Friday morning so that they can review the list. So first order of business today, more or less spitballing from our discussions going back to last year, this year and then what we've seen in the pandemic. What things come to mind in terms of what we need to make sure we come back to in-person delivery of instruction in K through 12 and what things do we need in terms of higher ed that might help them. And I'll start with a suggestion. So this goes back to our discussion last time about the tax credit and the fact that parents have been called on to prop up during the pandemic, the childcare system so that it doesn't disappear and then we have no infrastructure when it's time to go back. So that's been bumpy in this way or that but in the main, I think it's work to preserve the system. So if we imagine just for the sake of argument that in a month, let's say June 5th, June 10th, June 15th the go ahead is given to go back and nobody should mistake that for coming from any place of any intelligence. Hypothetically, if we went back one of the things that I think we should be looking at is making sure we don't need this system again because this system was a stop gap given that otherwise the healthcare system or the childcare system would collapse but I don't wanna in the future depend on parents to pay to prop up a system that they are not using because they have their kids at home. So the reason I bring that up is let's say kids went back June 10th and in late August, the governor said, oh my gosh, we've had a spike in cases again. We're gonna have to have kids go home again. At that point, I don't want parents on the hook a second time around because we have our eyes open now. We know the problem exists and it might exist again. So what I was thinking of is something that I loosely in my mind called a childcare stabilization fund. So that there's money put aside in the event that we over the next year hit the same point again so that the state can pay 100% of the childcare or 80% of the childcare instead of this 50, 50 arrangement that we've been talking about. Thoughts on that, not necessarily that solution but that problem. If in fact, we have another stopout of childcare how should the system maintain going forward? And any, just show of hands if you have something to add on that, Debbie. Thanks. Yeah, I totally agree that we should try to be, you know, look ahead to problems that might rise again. I mean, I would like though to the system before the crisis also was inadequate to meet the needs of my families and we need to put more money in even in good times for subsidies for families but also to the people who are actually running the childcare facilities and to people who would work in them to get trained. So I don't, you know, the stabilization fund that you're talking about sounds a little bit like a savings fund for a rainy day but I wonder if it would make sense to put active money into the system to make these stronger. Yeah, and let's, because I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do that because I think ideally we would but let's say we doubled the amount that we're using for the childcare subsidy or that's never gonna happen but we substantially increased it. We'll still run into the same cliff if parents take their kids home. The question will be, will the state pay 100% or will they not? So I would be all for increasing the childcare subsidy. The question is, would we put the onus on parents in this next go round if there were one or the state? And if it's the state, will we have the money unless we've created a fund beforehand in the event that we need it? Does that make sense? Yeah, yes, but I think there's another way to look at it, maybe we're, if they're in better shape to begin with they don't have to be short up so much. Like I was saying about like my own nonprofit, I mean, we raised enough money that we can keep going and we're working remotely. I mean, there might be an opportunity for some of the people who work for childcare to help parents, even if they have their kids at home to occupy them and expand their thinking remotely. And that's going on now, I should add. Okay, I think just overall, I mean, yeah, I don't know all about the fine points but I guess I'm just advocating for making sure that they're in a better position. And I don't know if having the kind of rainy day stabilization fund is, yeah, I just don't want that to take money away from what we want. Yeah, and again, I think the idea of increasing the childcare subsidy is one idea that we should pursue. I'm just thinking in addition to that, if we just bumped it up, realistically, would we bump it up more than 10%? Probably not. If we bumped it up 10% from where it is now, we'd still hit that point in the case of a potential second stopout of childcare where we would be forced to ask parents to step in even after the bump. So I'm thinking of maybe a two-pronged thing where we're strengthening the system with more money but we're creating some kind of fund that we can draw on over the next year so that in the event, and what we could say is, if that fund isn't used in the next year, then we use it for a further increase of childcare later on. I didn't see, was it Ruth or Andy? Let's go Ruth and Andy. Okay, I guess I would look at this sort of a combination of what you're both saying. Because I think if you look at what's happening right now with the stabilization program, the state money that's going into it that is both helping stabilize the programs and helping parents pay less are the two programs that we already have in place, one being the childcare subsidy program that Senator Ingram mentioned and the other is the pre-K money, the Act 166 money. So students who are the four and five year olds who get that funding right now, their parents are paying the difference between tuition, subtracting out the pre-K money and so their co-pays are like 10 bucks a week because of the public funding that we've put into the pre-K program under 166 which we all know is imperfect but it is something and that's super helpful right now to parents who are able to get that pre-K funding and then similarly the parents who are getting the subsidy payments that Senator Ingram mentioned, they're paying less or nothing if they're full subsidy. So I think the idea that Senator Ingram is talking about about increasing those subsidies or even increasing the Act 166 payments does sort of both what you're saying, Senator Baruth and what Debbie, sorry, I don't know whether we should be using first names or formal names. What Debbie is saying about the sort of ongoing stabilization so that I think we could sort of do both by putting money into pre-K and to the subsidies, it is helping parents to not have to pay as much during times of closure. So that's one point I wanted to make and the second point I wanted to make. It's means tested though, right? The subsidies are means tested but we could change the means for which they're tested. Increasing the income level so that it is, we did that a little bit last session I believe and we could do it even higher. So it captures more parents, more families. So I think that's one idea and then fewer parents would have to pay more. And then the Act 166 of pre-K payments are not means tested. Those are any four and five year olds who are in that program that are through a public school or partner. But that's 10 hours, right? It is only 10 hours but that payment right now is continuing to be paid even though schools are closed. So those four and five year olds, they are able to maintain their spaces in the private programs and in the public programs without having to pay the full tuition. So in many cases, for example, one of my childcare providers, the one who testified on last week, Otter Creek Child Care Center, I think that the amount that parents are paying if they have the 166 payment is like 10 bucks a week. So it's really a small amount because we have funded the Act 166 pre-K. So that I think gets to Debbie's point and to your point about parents paying less if we put more into the system. We the state. But another point I wanted to make in terms of the sort of short term transition of going potentially opening and closing based on what's happening with COVID is that childcare centers are gonna probably have to work with much lower ratios in order to maintain the small groups. And so I just was reading a letter that I got from one of my childcare or the Addison County childcare providers and they are predicting that they'll have to work with much smaller numbers of children, higher numbers of staff. And therefore they're gonna continue to need the childcare stabilization payments even when they reopen because they're gonna have fewer kids. And they're all gonna be, so therefore fewer less revenue, less tuition and or potentially needing to open extra spaces or something like that in order to accommodate the same number of kids because of the smaller group sizes they're gonna need in order to maintain the health and safety requirements. So even when they reopen, they're not, they are gonna continue to need these stabilization payments to stay solvent. Yeah, that makes sense. Andrew. Yeah, I was gonna say some of the same things that Senator Hardy just said, but I think it is smart to think about doing this, doing a kind of stabilization or a crisis COVID stabilization funds differently because basically because of the crisis in the short time, we used the CSFAP money and the preschool of money to help do things that they weren't designed to do and that works. And so I agree that if we just increase those that could help carry us through another time but I think it's worth thinking about is that the best way of doing it? Can we still do that, as you said? And, but at the same time, put some money aside and maybe there's even just around the federal rules around the federal money, maybe it's better to do that where we say instead of paying it through the system that pays for the family's care or the family's costs for the care of the children where we just do block grants to the childcare centers or to the preschools, does that make more sense? So that I think it's worth thinking about is there a better way of doing it? And then instead of kind of forcing these other programs to do something they weren't really designed to do. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, actually I started thinking about this when Jane Kitchell in one of our calls said something about or it might have been in the chair's call, something about in thinking about the $1.2 billion, she's already gotten her mind that we'll put some of it aside for needs in the coming year, which sounds to me like she's thinking about mini rainy day funds that will be targeted to acceptable uses but that will be saved. And so maybe this could just be considered as a decision that the Appropriations Committee would make in the event of a second wave of the pandemic and the shutdown of childcare, there has to be a certain amount. Could it be done in one of these ways? And we might suggest several ways for them to think about the overriding idea being that we don't want parents to need to carry the system again. So I'm making notes and what I'll do is I'll create an answer to Senator Campion and Westman and I'll send it also to you all so that you can see what I send to them. It'll just be the fruit of whatever this discussion turns out today. Debbie. If I could just make one other comment. I've been thinking about this as well. We've been continuing to focus on childcare as if families only have kids that are like zero to five, but a lot of families also have kids that are older and that need activities and things. And we were working on the after school program that the governor was keen on anyway. I think we need to think in terms of what can also be provided for slightly older kids through the after school programs. And I think they've faced financial difficulties. Okay, let's shift to K through 12 and start with after school. So we had that task force, which is I believe now sitting in the house. I don't think they voted on it. That was a kind of slow timeline. So that could continue to run its course assuming that the house ultimately passes it. What about, so you would be proposing something more immediate for after school Debbie? Yeah, I think looking at, we had all these geographic gaps and so I think relieving some of the families without any recourse to have help with their kids. And then some of the existing ones, I'm sure have faced some financial hardship just childcare centers for younger kids have. And if we're gonna do some kind of stabilization program, I think we should include after school programs. Okay, how about K through 12 classroom delivery proper or transportation or food service? Any ideas come to mind about immediately what they'll need in terms of boost in funding or programming, Ruth? Just one comment on what Debbie just said about after school programs. One of the things that I noted during this is that the schools that had already ready made after school programs that were school run were the ones that were able to set up essential childcare programs most quickly because they sort of already had a model. So that was, but I don't think now is the time to be creating new programs. So I would just caution on the after school thing that we don't wanna be forcing schools to create new programs during this time. But in terms of the other stuff that you just asked about, Phil, the things that I've thought of that I've heard from people just across the board, and this is true for early childhood K-12 and higher education is assurances that they're gonna have the PPE they need. I think there's a lot of concern. I've heard this from all the way from the early childhood, little tiny childcare centers up through Middlebury College. They're just really worried that if something happens, they won't have PPE. So just making sure that educational institutions have what they need. And the same goes for cleaning supplies and cleaning supplies that are appropriate for small kids like excessive use of bleach for little around little children is not healthy. So making sure that they have appropriate and safe cleaning supplies, especially since everybody's cleaning so much. And then on a broader level, there's a lot of concern about kids coming back to any of these programs at any age and having to deal with a lot of mental health and trauma issues. So having increased supports and funding for those kinds of services, mental health, trauma related. And this goes for kids and people who already had trauma, but also now who are newly traumatized because of this situation. Just as an example, I've heard about a student who had seven family members die from COVID and who's a college student from the New York City area. And that person is gonna come back and be super traumatized from this. So just making sure that students who are coming from all over the place to colleges, but also even young children here in Vermont who this has been really horrible for. So yeah, trauma and mental health. Okay, it makes sense. And it dovetails with pushes that were going on before the pandemic. It was reaching a kind of epidemic proportion just in terms of ACEs itself. So to add this on top, I think that's a good lookout. Other thoughts on K through 12? Yeah, Andrew. Yeah, similar. I was gonna talk about the counselors, which goes into what Senator Hardy said about mental health, but special grants to deal with those, all the children coming in, but I talked to some teachers that haven't been able to really contact some of their kids where they're either because of the internet or there's their situation at home. So they may or may not be traumatized by it, but they're definitely gonna be coming in needing some more support and one-on-one with the school counselors. And so any extra kind of special accommodation grants I think will be very helpful for the school. And it reminds me, compensatory education on the special ed side is gonna be a big expense, much bigger I think than normal. So I'm sure Dan French, he's gonna speak to us Thursday, by the way, about their plans for reopening, what they are looking like. He won't, I think it's, might be the end of this week or next week that they're gonna make some kind of announcements. That's what I'm hearing on the ground, but it would be nice to talk to him before they announce anything just in case something doesn't sound right. So compensatory education and mental health counseling, possibly grants, special grants to go along with that. Yeah, Andrew. In addition, because of the social distancing requirement, they might have to like extend the day I was thinking, so I wondered if it's gonna be more staff somehow. Extend the day, what do you mean? So there'll be more time that you'll need the school open or having staff there. Why would you need to extend the day? Well, just cause if you have a school and you can't put all the kids in there if there is social distancing requirements. So you can't have all the kids in there at the same time. So maybe you would have some kids start at eight and others kids start at 10 or something like that. So you're spacing it out. So I'm just thinking this right now that that might add costs, but maybe it goes to this special accommodation grants that deal with all these issues, whether they're remedial education or counseling and mental health, but also it could just be other expenses because they're using their buildings differently. Well, it's a good point. I was talking to somebody at UVM and we were talking about classes opening in the fall. And if you have a lecture class of 75 and they're in a hall for 75 and the seats are right next to one another, clearly you can't do that under the guidelines everybody's talking about. So it seems pretty obvious that in higher ed they may have to go to doing two flights of students. So if the class meets on Mondays, you might have to have two sessions on Monday rather than one. So that there's a seat in between each student which means double the work for the instructor. So I hear you saying something similar that we might wind up having to lengthen the day and do shifts in the building. Yeah, I'm just brainstorming this idea came up and it could be for teachers or just other staff that are in the building and other expenses for the building. It'll be kind of like when ministers have to give two sermons on a Sunday they just gotta do it twice. Well, as Debbie will tell us ministers are not unionized. So I foresee a big fight there if AOE solution is to double in effect double the number of classes and require a longer work day because let's say I'm a teacher I'm upset about going back into a congregate setting at all. And now I'm told that instead of going from eight to three I'm gonna have to be there from eight to six. Right, well, that's why I thought they wouldn't do that. That's why there was an extra expense because you keep the load on the teachers the same but you have to hire other teachers or support staff. That's gonna be fine. I don't know how you find credit to teachers to teach a class but maybe there are other expenses that we're not thinking of that I just wanna make sure are included if they are building the buildings or doing classes differently. Ruth? Yeah, well, just to build on what Andy was saying I think that schools are gonna have to have creative scheduling and it may mean longer school days and accommodating it in some way like that or it could be that certain days some grades are in the building and other days other grades are in the building so maybe high school grades which it's easier to do distance education would have some days at home doing distance education. Yeah. And so to that point and this I'm sure will come up in many committees doing something about our horrible broadband in the state and making sure that we're covering the state so that when we will have to do distance education or Zoom Senate meetings in the future which we probably will have to that everybody has good internet. And I think that the school districts literally have lists of homes that can't get internet at this point. So talking to school leaders about where their holes are would probably be a good idea. Yeah, yeah. And finance is much more active on this front than we are. So I think they already have plans with appropriations for a big chunk of this money to go right into that map that you're talking about. Okay, so let's shift gears and go to higher ed. So I wanna suggest that the state colleges be at the top of our list. There's already been a broad commitment made in terms of a bridge year. You all got Tim's memo this morning and if you had a chance to take a look at it it's still a little bit vague in its outlines but the shape is coming clear. So there's a commitment made that all of the campuses even the three that were slated for closure all of them will be delivering services in the coming year. So according to the state colleges estimate Chancellor Spaulding's estimate that was $25 million but Tim made it clear that he and Mitzi have agreed that there should be an independent examination of the finances. And then from that the trustees and the appropriations committees and the joint fiscal committee will work out the exact funding for the next year. But as a general figure let's take $25 million to the state colleges. And that's designed to get us into a place where we can have a larger conversation about what higher ed delivery looks like in the state. UVM as you remember has also a $25 million request on the table. If you remember their $25 million request includes some things that were on the table beforehand like there was $2 million for a, I'm forgetting what Suresh Garamella called it but it was an office of community engagement or something like that. And so that was a couple of million dollars. There were a few other things. They had expenses that were taken on to move to remote learning. And then they had a decent chunk of money as I remember about somewhere between $5 and $7 million to invest in moving to the next stage of online delivery. So I think their numbers are debatable as are the state colleges. We won't be in those discussions really because that'll be appropriations but that's $50 million right there to those institutions. They've got detailed requests about why they need it. What of it can come out of the federal funding? So my suggestion is that we forward both of those requests at $25 million with the caveat that those decisions and the fine grain will be made by those other committees but that we understand the urgency of their need and we in general support those requests. Does anybody not wish to do that? To go in and try to create smaller asks? Yeah, Andrew. Not smaller asks but I just wanna make sure that we're talking about this is the additional federal money and it's unrelated to their underlying requests for appropriations for the fiscal year. These are in addition to their normal requests. So UVM is still asking for their normal appropriation which is 42 million and then this sits on top of that. State colleges same, they're asking for their normal appropriation and then saying on top of that they need this money. So my thinking about this is really that there has been a really long standing, I won't call it a tradition, I'll call it a modus vivendi in the building where the state colleges and UVM have been given roughly similar appropriations each year and that's kind of been the rubric. I could see somebody arguing that the state colleges in this instance need more than UVM and that may be the case. I could see UVM arguing that the work they did in terms of helping out with the pandemic was at a greater scale than the state colleges. So my suggestion is since we have a lot on our plate is to forward those detailed requests to those committees with our support, understanding that those committees will winnow them out and do what they do. So I'm not seeing any opposition to that really. Yes, Ruth. Well, I'm not necessarily a poster, I just have question or the expenses that UVM has for having helped out with the COVID pandemic in this short-term really urgent situation. My understanding is that a lot of those would be reimbursed separate from their request like setting up that gym to be a promise center and obviously the work that the UVM medical center and hospital did. I think those are already would be reimbursed by the federal money and that was separate from the 25 million that. No, that's part of the 25 million. So in other words, what they're saying, the 25 million that they put out was a way of saying when the 1.25 billion comes in, we wanna make sure that whatever can be reimbursed from this list is, and then whatever remains, we still get, that's the way I read it. So in other words, we could take the time to look into which are reimbursable and which aren't, but I think it would be a waste of our time because that work will be redone by the money committees. And if we thought something was reimbursable and they didn't, their opinion is going to carry the day anyway. So both 25 million numbers contain things that can be reimbursed with federal money and both contain requests that cannot. But I don't think we need to worry about which is which is what I'm saying. Because in a way, it doesn't matter. It's, we could do all the work and put it in different categories, but their big block request is still the same. So I think we leave that to the money committees to figure out where the money comes from. What they wanna know from us is, do we support these lists? Does that make sense? I guess I would just like to get clarity and I can look in my email. I don't have them pulled up right now with the clarity on what those lists were to as to whether or not. I mean, we don't have a specific, well, maybe we do the list of state colleges, do we? Yes, in, I'm trying to think of in what form but Jeb did break down the state colleges was really a slightly different thing because that was what we need in order not to go bankrupt. Whereas UVMs is more like this is reimbursement and looking forward to positioning ourselves stronger going forward. So President Garamella sent Phil Scott a memo. Which I believe we all got that laid out the $25 million for UVM. And did you all get that? Take a look at that. If not, I refined it and send it out to you. Did Wendy send it to us? I remember seeing that. I think Wendy did send it to us. And she sent it the day after he testified in our committee. This is probably on the committee website. It's probably on our website. And I think Jeb's $25 million number is equally public at this point in terms of where it will go. But certainly we could have a hearing where we sit with those requests and look them over but they in my read of them, they all seemed like fully understandable investments and expenses. And what we would be saying to the committees that go forward with those is that we think UVM and the state colleges are gonna need significant investments up to $25 million each. We support the broad outlines of what they've done. So that's my way of simplifying that aspect of it. Then are there other specific things that we think higher ed might need? Debbie? Where are we with the students' complaints that they didn't get enough reimbursement or I was following that in the news for a little while Yeah, there's a class action suit that's been filed on behalf of two students, one a foreign student and one from New York. And they are making the argument that they paid for in-person delivery and paid a premium because at this point in time you can get an online degree if you choose. So they paid an additional, they say $25,000, $30,000 a year for in-person delivery, they were denied that. So UVM owes them, people have now gotten, I think $1,000 back, but I think they're arguing for something more in the five-digit range as opposed to the four-digit range. So do we need to set aside any funds for any of the students or has President Urmillo say anything about being concerned going forward? I haven't heard any word from them on their stance on that suit. It would have to be certified by a judge. If it is certified, then it, I think, automatically includes everybody who was enrolled. If that suit was successful, you'd have to expect one at the state colleges too because there would be a similar logic if you were signed up for dorm life and in-person instruction. So I don't think we can, we can't really read the cards on that one. It's a fair lookout that UVM might say on down the road, we think we have to settle on this and pay more back so we're gonna need $5 million more to make us whole. So again, the idea that we would have funds parked somewhere. So maybe I will just make in this note I send to Campion and Westman, maybe I'll just make a note that we're assuming that appropriations will be creating some form of rainy day, mini rainy day fund for on down this year for something like that that might come up. Yeah, I think that makes sense. Okay, so it's a little hard in this format to understand where people are on. I don't wanna move forward with saying the committee supports those $25 million requests if people aren't comfortable with that. So I'm only going by the fact that nobody's said don't do that but Ruth and Andrew. Yeah, I mean, I guess in general, I'm almost always supportive of funding for higher education. I can't say that I'm supportive of every single little thing that are in those requests. I remember there were certain things that President Garimella had on his list that I thought were more legit than others. So I wouldn't wanna give the impression that the blanket approval of the full package but just sort of the general support of, we need to be taking care of our institutions of higher education. I guess I would put Vermont State Colleges as much more urgent than UVM at this point given that they were almost gonna close and that we need to find a longer term solution for them. And I would just also mention again, the PPE thing and that's for all institutions of higher education. I think we need to be careful to include the private colleges in that, that they're gonna have extra PPE needs and might need state assistance in getting that because there's such a shortage nationally. And then as you heard me ask the commissioner of health last Friday about testing. So students coming back to the state for higher education will be considered out of state returning Vermonters and they'll need to be tested and quarantined for hopefully by then only six days but there still will be added costs and logistics for that whole procedure at the beginning of semesters. And my understanding is that the state would be getting federal money to pay for all of that testing but just making sure we're aware of what the higher education costs for testing and quarantining might be. They might have additional housing costs because of quarantine measures and also, can you have four kids in a quad or will they have to have additional housing costs for that? And I can't remember, there was one other thing I thought of but now it's escaped me, so. We'll come back to you for Andrew. Yeah, I think it's a good idea to send that. I just don't want to overstate the case that we did a whole month to do diligence or anything on it, just like, yeah, in general these are good things to do, these $25 million chunks and it might be more for the state colleges. I don't want to say that we've done enough work to know that that's the right number, but yeah, this in general, I feel comfortable saying that the committee is supportive of these kind of sums of money for these entities. Okay, what if I do this? What if, because I agree with Ruth, I think state colleges need prioritization to the extent that there is going to be prioritization because they're facing an existential need as opposed to a need to become stronger going forward. I think UVM is still in a strong place. So what if I make it clear that that's our first priority but that we support the range of spending that they've put forward and the kinds of things they've put forward, but things that are less directly related to COVID reimbursement or preparation would be down on our list. So the example that I gave is the $2 million that the president of UVM wanted for this new office of community was engagement or something like that. That was an idea that he came and sold to us in person prior to the pandemic. So to the extent that the appropriations committee sees something like that, that's more general and run of the mill, those would be further down on our priority list. Okay, so with that said, other things for higher ed that stand out to you? I thought of my other thing. Okay, student scholarships. I think VSAC has $20 million appropriation and we have very little money. So I have no idea if we have enough money to even put more money into scholarships, but this was something we talked about specific to community colleges earlier, but now just sort of general increasing our commitment to student scholarships across the board, specifically in my opinion, for students who are going to college here at one of our institutions in state, but given that we need to support our in-state institutions, so that would be on my list if we had enough money, I think we need to report scholarships. Corey? I think not only an investment in state colleges, but I think we need to look for agreements, reached out to me and I for it to you, Senator Bruce, if we don't come to a solution and there are college campuses that do close in the state college system, I think we have to have some kind of agreement with transfer of credits in place. But I also think as part of a recruiting tool because kids are making these decisions now that we don't need to put the state colleges in a worse position by having people not commit to the state colleges because they're worried that starting this year, they may only get one year at their institution. We don't think that's the case, but I think we should have something in line that gives a little bit of confidence to those parents and those students who are sending their kids to those institutions that there's gonna be a reasonable expectation that they're not gonna lose any value for going there for at least a year. Good point. I had an email from somebody who teaches at Johnson who was a horrible email in many ways. It was very sad, but this person's number one request was, she took a job five years ago so that when her kid got old enough, they would be able to get free tuition at UVM. And so now if her institution closes with her child just coming up to college age, she's worried that that benefit that she was given when she was hired won't be there for her kid. So grandfathering benefits to a certain extent or recovering benefits is something to be thinking about. So this was a person who was making $40,000 and who kept that job even though it was badly paid as such jobs go because it included tuition for her kid. Okay, so I think we've got a really good list. And so I will, after we get off this call, I'll put something together for Senators Campion and Westman. Those of you who are on that committee will be in the discussion of these lists so you'll be able to explain what our thinking was. And I will include everybody in the committee on the email that I send to them so that you can all see what went out to that new committee. With that said, we do have Abby Shepard here and she very efficiently drafted a tax credit draft. So I wanted to make sure we took a look at that in our discussion just now. We didn't include a tax credit but I would like to continue to think about it. I would also like to hear from JFO what their numbers are on it. Abby, have you heard anything from JFO on the numbers? Sure, so I have spoken to Graham Campbell who's aware of the proposal and I believe he is looking at an estimate but I haven't heard what those numbers would be. Okay, can everybody pull that language up and we'll take a look at it. And Abby, if you wouldn't mind walking us through it. Sure. So for the record, Abby Shepard Office of Legislative Council, both Jim and Katie McClinn who are also on this call helped me with some of the language particularly relating to the childcare pieces and definitions. So just I might defer to them or if you have some questions about childcare to go. So this language creates, it's two sections so it's fairly brief but it has a lot packed in for the credit structure and what sort of expenses are eligible and really the parameters for who would be able to take the credit. So it is a one-time tax credit against personal income tax. It's only allowed for this current taxable year so 2020, which means it would have an impact on fiscal year 21. It's for childcare expenses that are paid during closures due to COVID-19 only for those taxpayers who were not able to receive childcare because they were not deemed essential workers under the governor's executive order. So I can walk through the first section as two subsections to it. It's a qualifying taxpayer of this of Vermont shall receive a non-refundable credit in the amount of $500 per child and it's against Vermont personal income tax for these qualifying childcare expenses. This credit is in addition to one of the other Vermont child and dependent care expenses credits which are based on federal credits. So I can unpack that a little bit. There was, I had discussion with you chair Ruth about whether this should be refundable or non-refundable and that would have a pretty significant impact on the cost of this credit to the state. So this is a non-refundable credit which most credits are because they cost less to the state which means it can only be used against the taxpayers liability. So if the taxpayer owes tax, then this would help them. So they will be able to get $500 per child for the qualifying expenses. And then the other two credits that currently exist in Vermont, one is non-refundable as well. It's 24% of the federal credit for child and dependent care expenses. There's also a 50% credit also of the federal credit and that credit is refundable. So it operates more like a refund or a benefit. So the full amount is actually paid to the taxpayer regardless of whether they owe taxes. And that is called the low income child and dependent care credit. And that has maximums for adjusted gross income. So only certain low income for Montes are eligible. It's 30,000 adjusted gross income for single filers and 40,000 for joint filers. So there are a couple of things I wanted to point out in this section that I had taken the liberty of adding to give some scope to what how this interacts with these other credits and other childcare tax incentives. First, that you could potentially take one of these other credits and this new proposed credit but it would only be allowed for those expenses that are not being claimed for another credit. So you couldn't double dip for the same amount that you've paid. You could only use your expenses for one of these credits but you would be able to apply multiple credits against your tax liability for 2020. Another issue that I wanted to point out is that a lot of parents do the calculation between taking the credit and or to using a flexible spending account which allows automatic deductions from a paycheck on pre-tax dollars. So I did not include any language in this version. There's one potential option of saying we need to think through how to draft that first but how you could potentially structure if you didn't want to be giving a double benefit on the same expenses. So if parents right now are paying for childcare using funds from their flexible spending account they've already taken the tax benefit of getting those dollars without having taxing it out. So you could say the amount that the taxpayers saving on their taxes could reduce the amount of their credit, of this new credit for example. That's just one option. And then, so I think I could stop there and take questions, that's just subsection A. I can also move on to subsection B. Questions before we move on from this section and I know the committee has different ideas about the tax credit but for right now just in terms of understanding what's there. Okay, why don't you keep going Abby? Okay, in subsection B of section one this is the definition of both in subdivision one and subdivision two, qualifying childcare expenses and qualifying taxpayers. So this limits who is able to take the credit and for what expenses. So in the first definition of qualifying childcare expenses expenses are required to be a cumulative payment of $500 or more per child paid to a childcare provider or a facility as defined under title 33 per childcare services, the taxpayer did not receive for the taxpayers child between March 13th which was the beginning of the executive order and June 1st due to a closure related to COVID-19. If I could just break in there Abby. I did have an email from a childcare provider who objected to the phrase childcare services not provided and the reason for that is that she pointed out that they are still doing things. They're still in touch remotely with some kids here and there during the week. They are fitting up their place of business. So they're doing valuable work. I think in terms of this particular piece of language it's fair to say service is not provided because we're reimbursing during this period I don't think we need to get into the fact that they did provide some form of remote delivery to some children. I just want people watching to know that the committee appreciates that work but here we're just making a kind of technical distinction between when the child was in the daycare center and when the child was in the home. Sorry about that. Keep going Abby. So the next sentence within that subdivision requires the amount paid to comply with guidance that's been issued by the child development division which includes having paid an amount equal to exceeding 50% of the tuition for the particular billing period that the taxpayer would have paid but for the closure. So this adds us there are two different requirements well there are multiple requirements but two major monetary requirements imposed on the expenses one being the $500 or more paid per child and the 50% or more of tuition paid. So I just wanted to highlight those two. Yeah. And then in the subdivision two qualifying taxpayers and individual who was not deemed critical so their employment was not considered to follow them the essential worker qualifications set out in addendum six so the governor's executive order. So there's that first requirements because they did not have access to physical child care being provided to their children. And then there's a further qualification that for married filing jointly or surviving spouses so any joint filers that they would only receive one credit per child per return. So it wouldn't be thinking particularly the economic stimulus payments. It was considered $1,200 per person or 2,400 for married filing jointly. So this is more of a per filing group credit. And then section two is the effective dates and it applies this credit to the entire taxable year of 2020 although it is limited to expenses that were incurred during the closure period. This applies it retroactively so that it applies to tax liabilities within the current tax year. So again, that this would be an impact on the budget for fiscal year 21. Okay, great. There's that. Questions for Abby about that? Ruth, you're muted Ruth. Yeah, sorry. I had to move the mouse over to the button. Abby, I just had a question about the not receiving services and how it interplays with the essential childcare because there are some essential workers, two cases. There are essential workers who have not been able to get childcare because there are not sufficient slots available. This is true in a couple parts of the state including in Addison County where I am, they just haven't had enough slots. So there are essential workers who don't get the essential worker childcare because there is not available. And then there are also essential workers who do get the childcare, the essential childcare provided and it's paid for by the state but they are also paying to hold a slot in their normal childcare. So they may be sending their kid to an essential childcare program but their regular childcare program is closed and they are paying something to hold that spot. Do you see what I mean? So they might be getting the essential childcare and the way it's drafted I think would preclude them from getting the tax credit even though they are paying the payments. Well, so if I understand, Ruth, in both, in only one of those categories is somebody out any money. Is that correct? Well, I don't know. In other words, the first category if they couldn't get a slot, then, so in other words, it seems like the problem would only be to make sure we cover an essential worker who did pay to reserve a slot. Yes, I mean, I guess, yes, you're right. In one case, they just didn't get any childcare even though they were an essential worker but they still paid to hold a childcare slot. If they did pay, then they should be covered by this. Correct, and then in the other case, they may have gotten essential childcare but also paid to hold a slot and the way it's drafted right now because they got the essential childcare, they wouldn't qualify for the tax credit. I think, I believe, unless I'm wrong, Abby, I see you. Yeah, the way that I've, the way that I drafted it that I read this was, it's a fairly hard line around dividing between people deemed to be essential workers and those who aren't. So there could be some massaging of that language to allow those situations where they are paying and they are also deemed an essential worker and they are paying extra. Yeah, it would be supremely unfair if they were an essential worker and they paid to hold their slot as well and this didn't cover them. So yeah, if we could add a subdivision there that says in the instance of someone being an essential worker who still paid more than $500, then they would be included. Other questions? Yeah, Andrew. Yeah, similar on the childcare services. I wonder if we want to reference that same statute, 333511 has a definition for childcare services. So we don't run into that issue with that. We all got that email from that provider. And I know teachers that are providing services and so I don't know if the tax department in implementing this would have to make a determination but it's clear when you look at the statute definition that it's supervision. So the calls or sending packets or things like that wouldn't qualify. So that was my only question about that wording. Does that make sense, Abby, to add that definition? Yes, I think that could take the appropriate care and supervision for children. I can work with Katie to make sure that makes sense. Okay, great. Senator Ingram. Thank you. So this is probably not for Abby but we are gonna have joint fiscal talk to us about how much this would cost and are we? And then I would also like to know if they can tell us how much, on average, a family is paying to keep their slot if there's any way to know what the creation is. Yeah. Because the only other, I mean, yeah, so there's no distinction. It's just this lump sum, right? So I mean that, yeah, that's just another reason why I don't love tax credits. Well, you know, there's no differentiation between people who are really struggling to pay and people who probably is not such a hardship. Understood. I look at what the Appropriations Committee just did on the hazard grants, very similar lump sums regardless of people's individual circumstances because trying to fine tune it to that level would take so much work and we're really not covering the whole expense anyway. We're saying here's a modest recompense. But yes, JFO is gonna get us numbers and we'll have whoever, who did you say, Abby? Was the person at JFO? That's Graham Campbell. Graham Campbell. So I'm assuming that they'll be in touch with us when they have those. Do you think that's so? Abby? Yes, sorry, I was nodding, not vigorously. All right, sounds good. And again, I don't presume that the committee wants to go in this direction. It's an attempt to partially redress something that seems singular to me. I can't think of another instance where we've asked private consumers to fund an industry and keep it going. I would say if it was either this or that and we could only do some sort of stabilization fund to make sure that parents don't have to do it again or provide this credit, I would go for the stabilization fund or whatever is used to address that potential in the next year that parents might again have to cover the costs. I think that's the more pressing need, but I do wanna have this out there as a possibility if we get it into a shape where we can agree on it. Any other questions for Abby? Okay, Abby, Jim, and Katie, that was what I had been hoping you could help us with. So we'll just have a few more minutes of committee discussion. Feel free to blip out if you'd like. Feel free to remain. We always like to see you, but we'll probably just have some general committee discussion for right now. Thanks very much. Okay, committee. So, let's see, is Jim going? I just didn't... I was gonna just take out my video and just stay and listen, but do you hear? We always love having you in the room. Okay, all right. Okay, so committee, we're being asked to do some general planning now, and we did great work on that today. I'll turn that into the memo we talked about. The other thing is that Tim asked me to come up with a list of what we had going forward that were our priorities as a committee in terms of stuff that we already passed. And he made it clear that he wanted a short list. And so I said to him that I considered our two priorities to be the things that are on the calendar currently. So that would be the... I think there's only two, but that would be the healthcare bargaining language that we worked out and that past second reading that is sitting on the calendar for third reading. I said to Tim, I thought that made a good transition for emergency COVID stuff into non-COVID stuff because it is healthcare related and there is a certain timeline to it even though it's not COVID emergency. So moving that to third reading and onto the house and then the reorganization of the state board which is also on the agenda. I did not list the miscellaneous bill. The library bill had already gone over. The after school bill had already gone over. But I didn't list the miscellaneous bill because as I thought about it there didn't seem to be anything in there other than the Act 173 language which we've done in another form. There didn't seem to be anything in there that couldn't wait until January. Any thoughts on that? Does anybody have a piece of it that they think is more important than that? So just to remind you, it had- Yeah, please do, I can't remember everything. Well, it had the NCAA language which there was some movement on independent of us. I sent that to Corey. It had the women's menstruation products in it. It had the wellness language. So it was all good stuff. It was all stuff that should be moved forward in its time. It's just that none of that seemed to me to be at the level where we needed to have it immediately. The reason why I prioritized the two bills that I did is they were both built on painstakingly raw agreements between opposed parties. And if I imagined those going on into the next session those kind of agreements tend to come apart at the seams and all of a sudden one party doesn't like it anymore. So if we are allowed to pursue a couple of non-emergency bills seemed like the place to put our energy. Andrew. What happened to the Stitely language? Oh, that's still in the miscellaneous. Yeah, that's in the miscellaneous. I just wondered with more talk of colleges closing if there was more importance to having that language or not, I don't, I'm not saying there is but that's the only thing that comes. You know, the Stitely language, I feel bad calling it that because it started as a joke. It did originally come from Susan Stitely. So it is truthful in a way, but she has made it clear she would like a different path. But what I would say is that what exists now is that AVIC has to have a memorandum of understanding where they agree to preserve the records of their members should one go under. What we were gonna add to that was a retroactive piece so that it would be dues paying members going back more than a year so that somebody couldn't drop out just prior to going bankrupt. I don't know that that's gonna be that helpful in this moment. And I think the chances that we'd get agreement from everybody on that language are probably thinner and we're still in an environment where consensus and near unanimity is gonna be necessary. Right, okay, and there was one other, the thing about the school board voting was that in the miscellaneous too or is that somewhere else? That has been picked up by the house because if you remember that was Martha Heath's language from Westford and Martha Heath, long time much beloved house member. So not surprisingly, it's resurfaced in another bill in the house. I don't know yet what their priorities are or what they plan to send us. But theoretically, Kate and I will have a conversation once she's picked her one or two bills and she understands what our one or two bills are. We'll have a conversation about how easily we can just concur with one another. Maybe that we can, maybe that we can. In one, this isn't a bill that we pass for a priority but the issue of the budgets that those, whatever, 18 districts that don't have budgets. I know we have our proposal in the house is dealing with it, but I don't know if that, if that those kind of bills are added to this kind of list that Tim asked for, is that or if that's a different thing? Well, so that's already pre-prioritized because we already have permission from the rules committee to vote that out. It's just that the house adopted a much more generous version than I've told them we could do. So I told them that what we can do is much better than what's in statute now and we can't add an inflator and we're not going to empower those districts to spend whatever they want. So that's where it sits. My feeling is that they would be wise to recognize that it's a distinct improvement. If they do and they signal that they can go with it then we can very quickly have a meeting, vote it out and get it over to them. Okay, so Corey and then Debbie. I don't think they're going to feel that way. I was talking to a colleague in the house, Ed and they think our proposal is unfair to those districts and you know what's really unfair is what's there without our proposal. Yeah, and I think the other piece, it was a comment that I heard in that meeting and someone was, well, we can't put it out to the voters because they went past budgets in this environment. So I think it shows the strength of our position that we do realize that a level funding is probably, I think, I don't think voters would pass level funded budgets maybe in some of these districts. So I think it's the most fair option, but I just think we may want, I don't know if what I wanted to avoid though on this is we get to like June 16th and we're trying to jam something through is, and I'm sticking to our guns, but is there a way Tim can talk to Mitzi or let him know that the Senate is kind of stuck on this because I just think, I think, I don't think Kate, I won't say anything. I don't think they understand the seriousness that we're still gonna have to talk about with the Ed fund when it comes to funding the rest of it. And I think they're gonna get caught in this small fight. I mean, the colleague that I was just telling me, they were told that our plan saves the Ed fund $13 million. Their plan would increase the Ed fund $2 million. So it's like a $15 to $17 million delta at a time when we are $200 million short. So they're arguing over that $17 million. I think they're giving a lot, they're not seeing the forest or the trees through the forest and understanding where we are. Well, two things. So on the chair's call yesterday morning, I think, we talked about this. Tim asked me to clarify the differences between the committees and all of the chairs unanimously supported our position very strongly, had we not been on YouTube, it would have been very, very strongly in terms of the language used. So the general feeling among that group of the Senate was that making an end run around the voters to spend more on the Ed fund this time around is just a non-starter. The second thing I'll say is we, at one point we were the committee of awkward metaphors and I wanna just go back to that. So it's like there's a storm, it's like there's a storm of rocks and the default language says that you get a beret to wear to protect yourself. Our language says you get a hard hat and the house is saying no, we wanna build a structure over you. And we say we can't afford to build the structure, but the hard hats a lot better than the beret. That's kinda how I look at it. So I, all kidding aside, I think after a while they'll realize that all we're doing is making a much more generous default and currently exists. And what we're offering is the last contact with the voters. So what we're saying is we're gonna use the last budget that your voters saw, even though it was for last year and that's better than having the voters have no participation at all, the legislature inflating at a level we think or allowing their boards to spend whatever they want. So I think that ours is fiscally responsible and fundamentally more democratic than what they're offering. So that's all I can say, Ruth. Yeah, I just wanna add that based on my off the record conversations with a couple of House members, I think there's more support over there for our proposal than maybe they're willing to say right now there are members who think our proposal is the way to go. And when I was explaining it to a couple of people, they particularly liked the fact that it was bipartisan and that Senator Parent and I were the two that made the pitch for it to begin with. So, if Corey and I can agree on it, everyone should be able to agree on it, right? So I think that they'll come around eventually, we just maybe need a little patience right now, but I do think ours is the stronger proposal and everybody will see that whether they want to or not. It's not like we don't want to give school districts the budgets they need during a crisis. It's just that there's some reasonable measures that need to be taken in the big picture of our student finances. Yeah, Debbie, did you have your hand up? Yeah, yeah, I wanted to change the subject, but I don't know where there will be room for this or if there will be room for this in this session, this legislative session. But is there any talk of trying to analyze where we've seen gaps in our systems because of this crisis and then really trying to look at long-term solutions in the way that we maybe changing sort of the way we do things? I don't know if the task force is supposed to do that. Yeah, the one is. One is, okay. And not the one that I'm on, I think it's that right, okay. Because my universal school meals bill, I mean, essentially that's what the schools are doing now is they're fighting breakfast and lunch for every single kid in their district. And that was exactly what that bill says. So we can do it in a place when we decide that this is the thing to do. Why can't we really seriously consider it moving forward? But apparently people could get swapped back and forth on these committees. So maybe you should look at getting switched. I'm sorry, I bat left handed, is that good? Okay, well, we're at time and I thought this was really productive today. So you can look for that memo for me some point this afternoon, the one going to Campion and Westman. And there was a suggestion in Tim's memo this morning that appropriations and Ed have a joint meeting later in the week. I haven't had a chance to speak to Jane about that. So I don't know if that was just a casual suggestion or if there's some thinking there, but I'll let you know. Otherwise, two o'clock on Thursday and President Caramella won't join us. I'm sorry, Dan French won't join us until 2.30. So from 2 to 2.30 we'll have a discussion maybe of one of your committees is meeting today, right? One of those meetings this afternoon. So maybe we can- No, they changed it, we're meeting at 8 a.m. tomorrow. Okay, well, in other words, at least one of the committees will have had a meeting. So maybe we can get a readout about what that's looking like, general discussion, then we'll pick up with Dan French. So be thinking about questions you might wanna pose to him about the reopening, not just when, but how? What is their thinking on social distancing? How does that interface with, for instance, the union contract, et cetera? And I will, if not before, see you 2 o'clock on Thursday. Have a great day.