 Hello and welcome it is May 4. This is the education committee in the Vermont House of Representatives, and this morning we are taking up at 66 past in 2019 related to testing for lead in water in schools and childcare facilities. So we are looking to we will start with David Englender from the Department of Health to just give us an update on where you are and the possible need for an extension. So morning, Madam Chair and the committee I'm delighted to be before you in this this interesting time. My name is David Englender I'm the senior policy legal advisor to the commissioner of health. My intention was to give you sort of a brief overview of sort of where we were and where we are and where sort of we think things are going. So overall I want to say and I we provided a as the committee knows a an update in a report in January things were we were running smoothly then they were running smoothly until March 15 when I can't recall what but something interrupted the project. So as of today, I'm just going to look and briefly my notes 451 schools were required to test under act 66 211 schools have tested that represents 48% of schools. And that that excludes the, the, the number of schools that were exempted because they had done there were 46 schools that were exempted because they've done testing within time freight time freight as example none of the act. There are 235 schools either haven't been tested or haven't received their results yet. We did actually have every school in the state scheduled for testing except for six we've had a little trouble with some communications with a handful of schools. And by the end of the school year we worked have completed us, taking all the samples by the end of the school year with the hopes that we would actually, we would complete it all the actual testing by the end of the summer, and therefore have been well ahead of the of the 2031 1231 20 deadline. So that's sort of brought over we've got about half the schools done we had ramped up and ready to go to the second half of the schools. And then, then the school schools were shut. And then we had a reform under that when schools are closed, we can't do the testing because they need to be in normal operation so that we get an accurate view, an accurate snapshot of what's actually in the water at the time when they're being used by students, staff, and teachers. So, we find ourselves in a in a in a state of great uncertainty as we don't know when schools will reopen. It probably makes sense for there to be an extension of the deadline. Mr Gray and I spoke. I communicated to him that perhaps it makes sense that it'd be that the deadline be pushed off to the end of next year 1231 21 as we don't know what, when schools reopen and whether or not there will be interruptions. You know, throughout the next school year. The Department of Health would support that would also be supportive of language if the committee requested, or required the department to to finish the testing, as soon as practical that that intention was clear based on on that we were well ahead of schedule in the original testing period, a brief fiscal note, the Department of Health has spent $767,000 thus far that which includes about $30,000 of remediation based on the current failure rates. The, the original budget would actually cover the entire project. I'm delighted to take your questions. Thank you. So I'm sorry, I'm not sure quite sure if I got that so are you saying that you have enough money to see it through based on based on the the burn rate during the project and on and on the failure rate and my failure rate. I mean the failure rate of I should have been more clear, the failure rate of, of faucets and sinks etc. of any parties. So as of today, yes. So we calculate based on current failure rate that we would have enough money to finish the project based on the based on the estimated budget. Thank you, Catherine James. Yeah, thanks. We spent so much time talking about, you know, projected failures and how much things might cost and what would need to be replaced can you elaborate a little bit David I am so curious to know. What you've spent money on and, and, you know, what were the most common, you know, projects that had, you know, things that needed to be replaced and what what are you guys finding and what do you spend the money on. Yeah, it's a wonderful question. So, to be frank, most of that money was was staff time was Vermont Department of Health staff times that includes, you know, legal logistics epidemiology, getting the rat the lab up and running, buying the all the seven materials sampling materials and send out to schools as well as and all the things associated with the logistics of getting getting the bottles etc out to schools and childcare and then getting them back. The failure rates are pretty much in line with where we thought they would be which was which was nice based on based on the pilot there within within range. There's only been a major problem with two schools where it appeared to be that there were issues related to the water chemistry and the pipes and not to the actual fixtures themselves. Schools thus far have been incredibly responsive and they've been creative about how to think about replacing taps so going from several taps to going to a bottle, a bottle filler station. If I answered your question. Yeah, I was just curious it just sounds like we spent so much time talking about what schools are going to do and so I'm just dying to find out what schools have been doing. Yeah. And I think that we're kind of we are still at the beginning of the term of the, we're at the front end of schools getting there, getting their results backs and taking remedial, remedial actions. So we really won't know more until the fall, in terms of what they're actually going to be doing, as I said, it's only, it's only $30,000 in remediation funds spent so far. So, we have a snapshot we'll learn a lot more in the coming months. Great. Thank you. So you indicated you had two schools that actually had problems that were beyond the remediation that we've been looking at. How did, and we did not provide money for that. I remember, can you tell me with this in municipality. How did they respond. So they that this week that so DC worked with the schools to determine what what plumbing had to be replaced if any, there was a there was one, I'm sorry, I misspoke it was one childcare and one school, and the, the, in the case of the school it was really the particular water chemistry of the that that was coming out of the municipal water system. And how it was interacting with with the piping in the schools and DC even working with that school to correct that. And in the case of the childcare and it was not the bailiwick of this committee, but, but pipes needed to be replaced. And the landlord did that, I believe in the fall. Thank you. Any other questions for Department of Health. Okay, let's go to Emily Simmons from the agency of education. I don't really have anything other to add we agree with the Department of Health, obviously that extending the timeline about one year makes sense. I think that David suggestion of moving the deadline to December 31 of 2021 makes the most sense because it's during the same school calendar time and the cycles of the school here are the same as was originally planned. Thank you. Any questions. Okay, Chloe. It's possible that we've gotten our answer but do you have anything else to add in terms of fiscal issue. I think it was covered. I just wanted to say that the only thing that I could add to the subject is the lack of Chloe Wachler joint fiscal office. The only thing that I would add and potentially David could comment on is in the appropriation that we initially provided there was funding for two limited service positions. sort of flagging that as something for potential consideration if those, if, you know, funds will have to be reallocated or if included in David's estimate was some additional funding if those positions need to continue. It's also noted that they are pretty close to completion of all of the testing. So that was the only other thing I flagged. But it was one time it was funded with one time money. So that money is still available until the completion of the project regardless of when the deadline is Department of Health might be looking at that money. So we would be, we would, for whatever period of extension, the limited service position in the Department of Health and at DC, we would need to extend those times. The person who was working on this has now been moved into COVID response and is receiving money from a separate funding stream. My understanding from our business office is that can be handled through the budgeting process and that there wouldn't need to be anything in this bill if that made things simpler. Okay. Does that make sense to you, Chloe? Yes. Hold on. I think I'm muted. No, you're not. You're good. Oh, okay. Sorry. Yes. That's a good sense to me. Okay. Sarita Austin, do you have a question? You're muted, Sarita. I'm all set. Okay. Okay. So, Michael O'Grady, you have been in conversation with these folks and looked at some language. Sure. So, I don't think I'm a co-host, so I don't think I can share anything with you if, but the language that's been proposed. I mean, Avery, do you have that language that you can share? It's on your committee's website. Yes. I'll pull it up right now. Okay. Thank you. So, just generally, it's a very simple change. The act last year required the testing to be done on November 4, December 31, 2020, that each school district supervisory union, dependent school or childcare provider shall collect a first draw sample and a second flush sample from each outlet in each building or facility adones or controls or operates. The only change here would be changing that 2020 year to 2021. And that is the only change. That's, that's pretty simple. We don't usually get them that simple. I'm going to look to see any comments or questions. I just lost my participant list. Any questions on this? We don't usually get things this clear. I, unfortunately, I've moved the Act 173 delay already. That's on its way, I believe, up to appropriations. So we could tack this onto that or we could find another place or just simply pass it as its own bill. But are there any other questions or concerns about this? Anybody need to hear about anything else? Or are we comfortable so far? Kate, may I, may I offer just two things? I'm just curious. There were some other deadlines that were specified in March. I think that was on March 1st, 2021, and also there was an adoption of rulemaking for continued testing. So I just don't know if the committee wants to maintain those dates or if the department of health has any comments on whether they would like to see those extended as well. So the department has indicated that the rulemaking deadline does not need to change. And I believe that with the posting, it was kind of, I'll look at that again, but I don't think it necessarily needs to change. David. I need to unmute myself when I speak. Yeah. So the proper position is that need to be changed. Chloe. Nope. That was the, I just wanted to flag those two other dates in there, but I'm happy to hear that they don't need to get changed. Peter Conlon. Did you have a question? No. Madam chair. Yes, please Dylan. I'm just wondering this is purely on the staff side here. I understand there's a hiring freeze for certain employees. I know that's probably not consistently applied depending on position and that there's probably a process to get special permission to hire someone, but in terms of extending a limited service position, is that an issue at all? It is not because that person has already, that person has filled that position. Michael. No. I don't have a. Okay. Is there anybody. Comments from the committee. Are we comfortable with this? Why don't we just do your little blue hands to see who's comfortable with this. So far. Oops. We have everybody here. So, okay. Kathleen, do you have a problem with this? Kathleen, I'm just checking to see if, if you're, you're okay with this as written. Okay. Good. Thank you. Kathleen. Okay. Everybody put. Put the little blue hands down. So far. Oops. We have everybody here. So Kathleen, I, I'm not showing that you're. Yeah. I'm trying to raise my hand here. Yeah. Okay. I've lost Kathleen. Kathleen, do you have a problem with this? Kathleen. I'm just checking to see if, if you're, if you're comfortable with this. Is there anybody that has a problem with this? Okay. Emily Simmons, my question to you, are there other delays that you're seeing. That we could address here. Are there other delays that the agency will be looking at that. We might want to put together with this. Yeah. A bit of can missing. Our division director. So I'm checking on that for you. I found one potential so far. So I think if there is another issue that needs a delay, it will relate to some career, technical education pilot programs that are currently in process. And any delay there is going or that we would request. You know, I'm not sure if that's the right approach. But I'm not sure that's the right approach to the general assembly or reporting dates back to the general assembly. But I'm still consulting on that, whether the parties think that a delay is the best approach. So I just have one potentially in the pipeline for you other than this and act on so many. So, okay. Well, let's, let's, let's take a formal vote. I miss. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's to the first, I do think that. As I said, last time we met, if Emily thinks any other delays might be forthcoming. It might be nice to keep this open. As a. So we don't have to do a couple other subsequent tiny delay bills. I just kind of feel like. I'm totally on board with this, but. It's not so urgent. Maybe we just keep it open for a week. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how to incorporate any other. Strictly just kind of reported, you know, delay, delays of this nature into one bill. I don't know if there's a problem with that, but it would feel. Like a reasonable approach to me. Yeah. Make sense. It does open it up for. Amendments. If we're delaying everything related to education, COVID-19 with the only reason I would think that. I'm certainly happy to wait. Why don't we, why don't we hold it for now? Emily, if you could get back to, back to us. Hopefully much sooner than one week, but thanks for the time. Yeah. Okay. That's great. Thank you. And thank you, Michael O'Grady. Thank you, David Englender and Emily and Chloe on that. And with that, I will close this portion of the, of the meeting. Thank you so much. The next thing I did want to talk about. There's a lot of discussion going on right now related to. The 19 districts that are. The 19 districts that do not have a budget. As we know, the Senate put forth a bill. In 1.1 that we've seen. We've seen a lot of discussion. Related to using. Setting default budgets at last year's. Budget. We worked with the committee. Ways and house ways and means on another option. And. So, so that's out there. And it appears to, to not be, be. Providing much interest. So. So, so that's out there. And since I'm now getting requests from people, could you send us your, your draft? Could you send us your draft? I thought maybe we should put this one out as well. And just give, give people an opportunity to see another option. I'm not necessarily promoting this as an option that we're, we're ready to move on, but I think it's an option that we might want to at least have the committee have a chance to take a look at. And then put it out for feedback. So I think it's a good idea to, to present that as, as another option where the committee has an opportunity to, to hear this. So, Jim, Jim Ray. And it's supposed to refresh, I think. The agenda. No, that's okay. So, so Jim, you have written a draft that is 7.1. And you've also done a side-by-side comparing it to the current bill. So I think that would be great. Present this to us. That would be great. What's your preference? Going through the side-by-side or the bill itself? I think, I think go through the bill and then let's pull up the side-by-side so people can really see exactly what the differences are. April, do you have that? And Serita Austin, do you have a question? Just wondering. So this wasn't on our agenda. It's on our agenda now. Oh, it is. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So let's just read the purpose. There's a short bill, uh, three pages. So, um, it says, uh, this proposed is due to the COVID-19 save emergency. To establish education spending. For fiscal year 21. For school districts that do not have. Provider approved budgets on or before June 30, 2020. A school district's education spending. Would be the same amount as the education spending. In the school districts most recently warned budget. However, a school district may obtain word approval of its own budget after June 30 as under current law. In which case the amount of education spending. In the voter approved budget should be in lieu. Of the education spending under this act. So we scroll down further. Uh, section one. And further. Great. Okay. That reads, um, notwithstanding any provision of law at the contrary. If the fiscal year 21 budget of a school district that has not been approved by voters on or before. June 30, 2020. The agency of education show authorized an amount. Of education spending. For that school districts equal to the amount. Of education spending under the school district, districts proposed fiscal year 21 budget that was most recently warned. Provided, however. That the school board, that if the school board warned a fiscal 21 budget that was defeated. The school board shall. Approve a budget. After June 30 2020 warrant another budget that is less than the amount of the budget or is defeated. School districts may after June 30 vote to approve a budget. Or vote to reconsider or rescind an approved budget. According to the law. And if the school district. District approves a final budget. The amount of education spending in that budget should be in lieu. And then. B just says that the amount authorized by the agency will be the education spending as defined in the statute. That's important because that sets the tax rate for the school districts. And sets the amount of funding from the education fund. So that's tying into a legal definition. And this is unless or until. The school district passes a final budget. And then lastly, the school board of the school district shall determine how funds shall be expended under the section. In addition, the school board shall have the authority to expend any of the funds received from the sources, including endowments, et cetera. And I think that's it. It's going on further. Yep. That's a little bit confusing. It's a little bit easier to see it when I'm sure everybody's familiar with it. I think it'll help if we look at the side by side. So we can see how this compares. So we had Austin, did you have a question? So what, what your bill is. I'm sorry. Sure. Keep going. Yeah. Serena. I wasn't sure if you had a question or not. I've got three ways to hands, but I can't see them with them. Okay. Serena, did you have a question? Nope. Sorry. I'm just going to get my hand down. Sorry. Chris Meadows, did you have a question? Yeah, I just have a quick question. Jim. Basically what this bill is saying is that we're just going to accept whatever the school board put out there for a worn vote. What this bill is saying. There are 19 districts that haven't approved artists yet. Some of them have saw approval and hasn't. Defeated. Some of them haven't saw approval yet. So, so if, if you, if you have warned the budget. This is saying that the amount of your education is funding. Spending will be equal to what you want. Okay. And let me just pause. It was education spending. And this is new, new information for me too. Education spending is a subset of a school districts budget. So, um, education spending has to find a statute, um, covers various categories, but excludes like special education payments or reimbursements, um, parental fundraising, uh, category of grants like small school grants. So, uh, the budget for school is the whole thing, everything. So it kind of counts for special ed, ed spending and everything they anticipate spending and receiving. The education spending is a portion of that. Okay. Okay. So what I'm going to just blow up saying is that wherever education spending, uh, amount was in your one budget, uh, for fiscal fiscal 21, that will be your, your budget for fiscal 21. But, uh, the voters still have the opportunity to override that. So you're not taking away any rights. So the voters can then come after that. Uh, the budget for fiscal 21 is the amount of education spent. And that was control. So you're not taking anything away. Where you're giving is a backstop. And the backstop in your bill is the amount of the warm budget. If the school districts have had a budget defeated, then they have to be warned budget. For an amount less than the amount that was defeated. Okay. So. But wherever the warm budget is, uh, would be the amount of education spending unless the voters. I think it's going to be easier to have this conversation if we see the side by side, because I think that we're going to get into some weeds I think the side by side shows exactly what the differences are. So I'm going to hold questions for a minute and go to the side by side and then from there I think that many of your questions will be answered. Okay, so except my side, the house language is on the left and the senate language is on the right. The only major difference between these two bills is your bill provides funding at the level of the war and budgets in the sense bill provides funding at the level of last year's budget. There's no no inflation on that so that's the difference. So some of the languages different I've updated language here and there. So it looks more different than it is, but the only difference between these two bills is your backstop is a different different one. So I have orders to vote. And that would override what these bills would provide. So both bills don't take away any rights and orders, but they do use a different backstop. Again, house education at the level of one budgets for fiscal 21. The senate version would use level funding from fiscal year for fiscal year 20 budgets. The college on the left side and highlight says says the school districts education spending would be the same amount as it is spending in school districts was recently one budget. The senate version as default budgets will be level funded from fiscal year 2020 20 school budgets. Okay, if you go further, just to see any further differences. Jim real quick sorry. Um, the senate bill allows for the last voter approved spending amount, or they can get one passed before June 30. In ours is just taking the board's warned budget education spending amount and using that or they can rescind it after the 30th of June by the board or does the school voters do something what happens there. Yeah, so so the way that works is under law currently. The requirement is that you can borrow up to a 7% if you have a budget in place between 30, you can borrow up to a 7% of your last year's budget. But if you don't have a budget approved budget, you have to keep warning budgets and keep having the voted on until you get an approved budget by voters. Um, so that's what current law says. The neither of these approaches here change current law, you can still borrow is up to a 7% you can still have a very approved budget. All this does it says if you don't have a very approved budget by June 30, your backstop will be in your version. So that's the amount of your last one budget, the education spending amount in the last one budget on the set side, it's your last years. Education spending amount. So, you're using different different defaults if you will, but the mechanisms otherwise right now. Thanks question on the same sort of thought process. So if a school board says under our version, you know, we don't think we can get this budget passed. We're going to use the backstop and take our warned 2021 education spending. Do the voters still have the right to petition to vote on it. In other words, the school board is the one who calls for a vote. And if, if they sort of have said we're done voting, we're going to just adopt FY 21 education spending. At that point, do the voters have any power left or is it, is it done. That's a really good question. This is not addressed that point. Usually what happens is, if you have an approved budget, then it can be rescinded or reconsidered by petition, right, or by by the motion of the board on its own, but within 30 days of approval of a budget. If the petition that submitted to reconsider or rescind it, then that will happen. There will be a further further vote. This language says that if you scroll down a bit every a little bit further. A little bit further if you would. Yeah. A little higher. Sorry. Right here. So it says, after the highlight language. This is May after June 30 vote to approve a budget or vote to reconsider or rescind an approved budget in accordance with law. I think actually giving your comment probably needs to be clarified to say that they can petition to have the approved budget done by the board or to this mechanism. So because that usually there's a vote on the by voters on the budget that is approved. And then as we consider now we're having and done the mechanism so that's worth clarifying I think if you take this forward. Of course we have the continued uncertainty of how somebody actually petitions, given social distancing and all of that collecting signatures. Correct. Yeah. But that's that can be worked around. All right. Yeah, I do think that probably needs some clarification there to what the voters continued abilities are. And that would be the same with the Senate bill as well. I mean what were the options options be if their default budget is 2020 what would they be what what's the role there. The same thing, exactly same the same language to if you look up on the right hand side, it says same language school ditches may after June 30. So those mechanisms are identical. You'll see that I use the sample uses the word budget. You use the word on education spending. And that's just an inadvertent difference. I was drafted a time where I didn't appreciate the difference between education spending and budget so I've got, if the simple goes forward as a clean there's up a little bit to make it look more like yours, and before education spending. But the only real differences here again, is that the, the backstop is different everything else is the same and these two bills, and the only difference backstop is what you're looking to a one budget for you for fiscal 21. And the budget fiscal 20 for them. I'm going to get to questions in a second we're going to have Caleb and then Kathleen and then Serita, but just just to clarify, right, Jim here. So with the two bills. What they say is if you don't, if you can't get to a vote and you don't have a budget by June 30. That's what you can do. This is your backstop. One is, you're going to use last year's budget. And whatever it is, and spending because really what we're talking about is the ad funded and spending is the ad fund. Yeah, all the other stuff title one, that's other money where we don't have an opinion about that we don't, we're not thinking about that we're thinking about the ad fund. So, with, with the Senate bill, your, your default is last year's budget, you can continue to vote until you can get one that's passed by the voters. In the Senate in the house, the house bill, I'll just call it my bill because it's not a committee bill at this point is just an option that I'm putting on the table for people to consider. This is the same thing, only instead of it being last year's budget, it's the currently warned budgets and all of the, all of the failed districts with failed budgets have newly. They all have revised budgets, and they're all lower. I don't know if there's a way to get to that. And all of the districts that had not voted have budgets except for from Rochester stock which is, you know, just just clarifying what that difference is. My understanding that's that accurate. That's correct. Yeah. Okay, so Caleb. Thanks Jim escape. So, I do. I think some of the questions that Peter and Chris already asked spoke to some things I was wondering about. And my understanding of the 87% rule is that that comes into place when you do not have a budget, you can borrow that amount but you do not have a budget and anybody who you're contracting with as a teacher knows you don't have a budget. So I think the provision to supersede well not to have a budget which is then allow you to borrow for the full 100% in anticipation of revenues that's, if I have some part of that. Do I basically have that right of how in the normal circumstances how that 87% rule works. Yeah. Yeah, okay. So, um, the difference here that seems really different to me is we are not saying you can borrow 100% of your old budget but you can't have a budget. We're saying the a we is going to give you a budget without any voter approval. And here's the size and shape that's going to be. So that is a horse of a very different color and I'm not saying it's not the appropriate solution, but you I think cannot therefore sort of pretend that that 100% or if it's the budget they warned whether it's a house or Senate version, you can't pretend that's the same as an authorization to borrow 87%. In fact, it is a budget. It is a full on budget as I understand it. The division I had with language which is, this is not a budget. This is education spending which is a part of the budget. Okay, excuse me. Yeah, so I guess it's, and yet, education spending is only ever authorized by voting on a budget. So it's, it's, you know, from voters standpoint. They say hey we're going out to vote on education spending this week they say we're going out to vote on our school budget this week so you get into some nomenclature issues but I think that that that is correct in the bill but in the conversation I think we can kind of colloquially colloquially call it a budget. I just have a concern that it is not a similar situation where a school district or a board would warn a vote to come back over that 87% because everybody knows that barring 87% you're trying to run a whole school year is not going to cut it. Whereas some of the amounts we're talking about could very well cut it. And so there wouldn't be that incentive that there normally would be so I just would say it's not really the same context as the current law exists within. So that's kind of a statement I want to say that when we say this is current law. Yeah, I get it, but the context is pretty radically different. And I, I have a separate point that I just want there's a question I want to ask if you could just talk a little bit about. I cannot imagine a situation in which a budget is approved and then rescinded after June 30 that sounds illegal to me. Can you just explain the part of the current law whereby, let's just say our district which passed a budget, we're under contract we've got letters of intent out to all our teachers. How could our community ever vote to rescind that budget that I feel we're now contractually obligated to that's a part of the current law that I feel really confused by. Yeah, so current law does allow approved budgets to be reconsidered and or rescinded. So obviously that's a different thing so we send it means as if the vote never happened, right, we started fresh. We consider it is that the budget was approved is in place, but it's going to be a different version will be considered again. And that has a mechanism in current law that exists, and they can be triggered either by petitioned by the voters, or by the board. And I imagine what could happen is, they can approve a budget in March, and circumstances could change directly between March and June, or, and they might say actually we need to have more budget less budget or whatever. Not because they can spend less but they need more budget. They might want to reconsider their budget. Right. So that's why I assume it's there. But after June 30 if you'd be reconsidering it during the operating year in which you have contracts it just seems you'd be voting to take away money that you'd already obligated to employees. But it's only, it's only. So let's say you have a budget for June 30, and you have a vote to reconsider on July, on, on, on August one. Okay. That budget that was approved still is in place for all of July. Right. It's not going away, but this will be considered and see whether it should be changed. Thank you so you're basically, you're re voting a pro rated portion of the budget year. Basically, yeah, yeah. Serita. So just a clarification once teachers have gotten a contract as opposed to a potential riff notice in case the budget doesn't pass. Once I have a contract you can't take back that contract right. Well, so. So no, I mean, there's a contractual obligation that contractual obligation is subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Right. Right. And therefore there might be, and it probably is a process for riffs for reductions in force. Right. So that contract to be since we've reached, right. But I would imagine school districts that haven't passed the budget yet gave everybody a ramp. That's kind of the standard practice so that, you know, in case they have to cut staff or cut teachers they have met the obligation of the contract. But if they've given a teacher a contract for the next year then I, my understanding is that they can't that that they can't change that. That's one question but the other question I have is can all these districts vote to all these districts have the capacity to hold a vote. So in academia to you passed a lot of that great flexibility and how to vote right so you, your lab was trying to start starting votes where hadn't been authorized by the voters, you authorized drive by you authorized mail in. So their mechanism is a place now that could be used. Okay, to more safely go. I am curious about the, you know, the riff and the contracts I was, I wrote a note to find out what districts had already given staff a contract. You know, because that would make a difference in terms of what their options are, if they can't get a budget passed. Okay, thank you. Kathleen James. Oh, I'm sorry Peter. Yeah. Oh, sorry. I was just wondering if this really Peter was a little bit before you Peter did you. I'll just clarify for Serena. We're talking about two different groups of budgets here. One group where the voters rejected it, in which case probably riff notice is worse than teachers and another group where a vote hasn't taken place yet. And so there's no necessarily expectation that you're going to need to riff. At the same time, almost no very few districts have actually done contracts or letters of intent out but because negotiations are ongoing. There actually aren't contracts in place yet. And I am finding sort of the, the, this for you Jim, the whole revote or resending of a budget. There's no time limit on that. You know, usually, you think of a budget is passed. You know, 30 days. The people have to petition for a revote. Yeah. Yeah, so, so, um, 30 days to petition and then the remote has to happen within 60 days after that 30 periods up. And then, I think there's, you have to have a super majority basically to approve a revote. And once you don't once in a year, you can't do it again. So you can't just keep doing it. And so if there never was a vote, a lot of that stuff doesn't apply. Is that correct? There wasn't a vote that stuff doesn't apply. But to, to, um, Rob Conlon's question earlier, here we're basically having the, um, having a budget again. Okay. Um, a budget for next year down through this mechanism in your bill. Right. So the question therefore is, should they be able to reconsider that, that, and the intent is both say yes, you can. Kathleen. Thanks. One of the things going back to some of our earlier conversation about trying to get this as close to the voters as possible. The voters that maximum possible say at a time when, you know, that might be complicated and difficult. Would it be possible or practical to move forward with the bill as quickly as possible that includes both of these options. Thanks. Certainly something for discussion. I'm reminding people why I brought this forward as an option. With 19 districts, we have 19 districts that don't have a budget yet for no fault of their own. With the impact of a state of emergency, they are struggling to be able to get to a vote. So part of the reason we're having this conversation is one, maybe they're not going to be able to get to a vote. If they can't get to a vote, what can we do? So that's number one. Number two is the Ed funds, as we know, whatever budget I passed or your district passed or everybody's district pass affects everybody else's district. So we have 19 districts that are starting behind in terms of moving forward. So there's the question of equity. So how can we provide some equity for these districts and going forward because we know when we get to FY 22, there's going to be some reconciliation going on and it's going to be for everybody. And the point is to make sure that we don't have 19 districts that have already been hogtied by last year's budget, and they have to make cuts and my district's making cuts and your district is making cuts, but they're starting from behind. So the question is, one, what if we're not able to vote? What if they can't get to a vote? Two, how can we provide some equity so that they're on equal footing going forward? And by this probably a third one there, Peter, but I'm forgetting what it is. And districts need to get organized. They need to get organized. We have tough year coming. So, so the question is, is there something the legislature can do if these districts can't get to a vote? And so it's one option is, okay, just keep borrowing. That's there. Everybody can continue to do that and keep trying to get to a vote and that's there. The other thing is to say, and keep trying to get to a vote. I mean, when these places contact me, I say, get to a vote. Do your best to get your district to vote. That's how you're going to get to the voters and to figure out how to get to the voters as soon as possible. That's, that's what we want. If they can't get to a vote for the, we're already hearing, you know, town clerks that are all worried about this kind of a vote. And we also know that there's just the challenge of panic taxpayers who are, is it fair to try to settle the challenges in the Ed fund on 19 districts? Is that equitable is the question. So that's why the reason I brought this, this one forward, and this is, I'm not attached to this is just an option that we've talked about. This is certainly something we can put out the Senate was not interested in our vote in our bill because they were concerned that districts would not have an opportunity to vote. This keeps in the opportunity to vote by June 30. And if you don't get there, here it defaults until you get to a vote. So you can still vote. But if you don't get there, your backstop is not a budget that's going to cripple you is what we heard from the districts all the districts we heard when I asked them directly. I said, which would you rather do be tied to, to last year's budget. Panic voters are going to say, Oh, good. Now I know, you know, my taxes are going to be better. I can handle that. There's going to have to be something to do with property taxpayers but I just am not sure that trying to do it on the backs of 19 school districts is the place to address that. It needs to be a broader across all of us. So I, I bring this forward as an option that might be more acceptable to the Senate, because it allows the vote to continue to happen, but it doesn't hogtie them with last year's budget. So that's right, I bring it forward. I don't know what the response is going to be, but I've been talking about it so it just didn't seem fair for me to kind of keep it in my pocket, without bringing the committee into that discussion. So that's where there's where it is Dylan. Yeah, I just, I appreciate where you're coming from because there's such a small D democratic piece of our process and in approving budgets. And so I get where the Senate is on this that that would be an important consideration is just how our system works, local voters approve what they want. And so I actually, while I'm not, I'm not thrilled with any of our options because we're in a crisis but I'm also aware that if it comes down to sorting this out by putting something together that deals with that need, and then the competing I agree that the equity question going forward is problematic because setting the budget at a level going forward into a difficult year would be extremely challenging, and we don't know if anyone's going to be able to vote this summer. So I do appreciate the opportunity that makes this very challenging but I do appreciate that you are trying to balance that small D democratic need of voting and providing for it because I agree there, we get into some weird murky waters when we start creating the notion that we're imposing something and the education fund doesn't work that way. So somewhere between all these ideas there is an answer. And that at least that we have this in front of us it's a good opportunity to think about that. Peter come. And matter to Matt and Chris Matos you also have a district that's affected by this so so your input is is important. I just want to remind folks is this is a one year only. This is that we're not setting policy for now going into forever this is just to get through this one budget cycle. And one thing I've sort of been thinking about as a school board member myself is, how would I feel having this power to just essentially adopt a budget without having to go to the voters. And, you know, that might make me a little bit uncomfortable as well. And I think that a lot of districts will try to get to a vote if they can. So, one thing that I thought about I just saw this out there for folks to mull over not discuss today but we, you know, because ours does allow a board to sort of authorize spending authority above, they don't have authority and maybe there should be an additional level of approval. To do that, maybe the State Board of Education you'd have to go before them go before some other type of committee, Secretary of Education, although that that'd be a one person making a decision, I'm not so comfortable with that. Anyway, I throw that out there is just another wrinkle we could put in a people are uncomfortable with sort of the authority that this gives to school boards. I think themselves aren't necessarily going to be thoroughly comfortable making that move. So I just throw that out there. Thanks. And again, whatever's going to happen is going to start in the Senate so that this is this is the conversation we're having this is not necessarily a bill that we're talking about Serena Austin. There's no proposal to as well. You know, I think I like the equity issue and I like, you know, we're, we're school boards and school districts will be going into 2022. So again I want to my concern is do town clerks have the capacity to towns have the capacity to hold the vote with a primary coming up. So that would be I'm just curious about I have no idea I mean maybe they can do both of these I don't. I don't know what the workload is but I think I, I would like to know if they, if they could they have the capacity to do these two votes. Yeah, the bill, the bill is here in the event that there's a problem with that that's what we put what they should be talking about. Let's see Caleb elder. Thanks. So I, I guess that I last week kind of heard somebody saying or we heard this matter because we're saying that actually the Senate subversion with the 100% might be worse than the status quo the 87% in some ways. I think that was characterized as maybe boards be tempted to fall back on that amount or something. I started thinking along those lines and now I'm starting to wonder if maybe the existing law is the best option overall. And the reason for that is I really want to see these local votes happen I want to see them happen safely. And I think the Secretary of State's guidance was helpful. I know it's a push and the last thing I wanted to do is pin communities into a position where they need to have an unsafe vote with that said, the authorization of local spending for schools is is a pretty sacred thing with within our within our system I'm really very leery to authorize any amount not approved by voters and I'm afraid that either the Senate's version and even more this version is a disincentive to ever have a vote I don't see it as any other way I think it disincentivizes the school board and the superintendent to warn a vote that is only going to be lower than what they've already got approved that to me is is a really hard policy for us to put in place that I would have a hard time supporting it. Sadly, Kathleen James. I just wanted to underscore sort of a growing concern I'm having the more we talk about this with the Senate version, which is that you know in the wake of this crisis, I feel like we see time and time again. The problems that systems have when you underfund them, and then the years roll on. And if, if multiple districts around the state start this school year with budgets that reflect FY 21 realities, and then 19 districts get stuck with last year's budget, they're going to catch up. You know, the next year comes and they're working off a last year's budget and, you know, things are going to get harder and harder. I just I'm starting to really think about, you know, having, having 19 schools that are stuck within. You know, last year's funding forever without, without ever having the ability to get caught up. And that's starting to feel really really unfair to me. Thanks. Thank you. I wanted to just make this an option I'm happy to provide it to our usual suspects. Christmas. You're an effective district. Yeah, I was just going to follow up on on cats statement there that they'll be behind if they still go to vote in they pass their rate where they would be anyway, because that's what was warned. And if they failed in the beginning, and then rework the budget, like Melton did, they'd still be in the same spot so I'm not sure that totally would come true. I guess if they're unable to unable to vote or if it's too complicated to vote. So, again, we're bringing this up in the event that districts are struggling with the ability to vote. We have budgets, we have school districts that start July one. School districts typically borrow. More than anyway. But again, this is this is not in in response to just but the school districts that couldn't get a budget. This is in response to the fact that there are places that may never get to a budget. This is in response to the fact that the whole educational environment is going to be changed in the next school year. Casey, you haven't heard from you yet. I just have a question about. Have we received a fiscal note, fiscal note any sooner than like two weeks ago I haven't seen one since like the 28th or whatever. Have we seen one sense. Do you mean on the current Ed fund. Yeah. And Chloe, I had actually Chloe's Chloe's with us and I had actually asked Chloe to say what are what are the, what's the fiscal impact of these three proposals. One, well, not three, one is the, you know, if the default budgets are 2021 if the default budgets are the current worn budget, and one if default budget plus 4%. Chloe. Hi, yeah, I am available I haven't had a chance yet to do the actual numbers but I can talk about it in sort of in broad terms based on, you know, it just won't be, you know, down to the decimal. But so essentially, the way that, you know, we are all we're always to some extent we're always sort of guessing what districts are going to spend until we actually receive their final budget and they have been voted and, you know, we're going to, I mean, even usually when we set the yield in in May, sometimes we'll even still have a couple of estimates in there, just based on district responses. But, and those typically those all get finalized June 1. So, right now. So what I'm essentially coming to about to say is that right now, our education spending number that we have that we're carrying in the balance sheet right now. And, you know, working on our tax rate estimates are on is on about 77% of the districts. We have about 92 districts approximately. I've asked Brad James to see if he's had any more come in in the past couple of months and he's working to try and update that information. But so, for these districts that haven't voted we currently have an estimate in there for them. We might even have had, you know, some of those districts, as part of those 77 that submitted, you know, a board approved budget essentially, prior to town meeting. But those budgets are included, or estimates of those budgets are included in that current education spending number so we're assuming that they are going to spend about the statewide average, or we have their actual budget in there. So now what we're talking about when we're looking at different proposals is if they don't go with their warned budget, which is essentially what we are estimating or have a proxy for it would be a reduction to that education payment number for people, if we held them level at FY 20. Based on the districts that we're looking at and they make up approximately 22% of education spending on the whole. And if we look at those and so those districts don't experience the same increase as everybody else, you're looking about a 13 or $14 million reduction to that education payment line. So essentially, you know, they will be those that districts will be working with $14 million less dollars that we already are estimating that would in turn lower education spending, and, you know, lower tax rates. So when we look at using a 4% inflator. That's just slightly less than the statewide average, which is about for currently estimated at about 4.7%. So that would just be, you know, or a reduction of 0.7%. So approximately, you know, a couple of million dollars. That would be a reduction of three max maximum, probably more like one or two actually. So that's sort of what we're looking at and I know it's sort of confusing. So if you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you for that. I was just to clarify, if they were held to the money for those districts that would be a reduction of about 13 million to the Ed funds. Yes. So, so we'd all benefit a little bit from that huh. I feel like that's a trick question. Yes, it's great. I would say that Dylan's is perhaps not by that. And then if we went with the 4% inflator that would look at a, about two to $3 million reduction to spending that right. I would say probably maybe even more in the one to two range one to two range and yeah, we went with this it would basically be pretty similar to what's already what you're already planning because you're working on your own budget. Yes, so pretty much knowing exactly that was a much more succinct summary. We need you to help us get to that. Peter Calvin. It's not about the ability to get to a vote and that's really a logistical matter with town clerks, but we also have to keep in mind the reality in which people are going to be voting. You know, if you take a district that has a lot of tuition students, and they have an increase in the number of students, yet their school district has 20% unemployment. And that increase, but the people are not going to pass a budget because of the economic impact. So if you think about the reality in which many of us had our school districts approved up here. And then we've got the rest of this 19 that may get there is approved in a different economic environment. We have inequity there. I mean eventually the deficit in the education fund is going to have to be addressed by everyone. And I think when we keep talking about the equity issue, what we're talking about is the economic realities in which budgets were approved. And there are just some places are going to say, our voters no matter what, we're not going to get a budget approved yet we still have 15% increase in health care costs. We still have to have the same staffing levels or in districts that have a lot of tuition students. They don't have any control over those costs. I just wanted to bring that up as we talked about the importance of having a public vote. I think we also need to understand the reality in which that public vote takes place. Oh, I won't. I don't need to respond, I guess. Dylan. Yeah, I mean this is this is a really good discussion and I'm glad that we're having it at this length because there are a variety of opinions and I think they all are really valid. Particularly because we have this hybrid local state decision making process. You know the piece of this that I'm trying to sort out is the equity question and it is because the votes are taking place in essentially different worlds, and we need to acknowledge that and policy needs to acknowledge it. And I don't have a great answer there because it's always sort of confounded me that some districts do vote later when most go on town meeting day there's a whole chunk of us who go later. It appears to be about you know 20% or so here of the money that is authorized so I just you know I'm looking at this and I'm saying, are we going to approach this decision with the facts before us which are pretty clear we're in a different or are we going to go about business as usual and provide a process that checks all the boxes. And I'm not sure I'm comfortable doing anything other than acknowledging that we are in a different moment. And that we need to provide some flexibility for these districts and it isn't me playing for the home team here. And certainly that's something I'm weighing but it's also about the larger circumstance we're talking about 22% of the funding in the Ed fund we're talking about a potential reduction of capacity of 13 to 14 million, where we to assume that those budgets had proceeded that to me is very problematic and when we have a statewide funding formula in a crisis I think we have an obligation to ensure that whatever decisions we make. We have to put those districts on their heels, because they're not going to have much flexibility. The other piece is, I have no certainty that votes are going to be able to take place. I know it's aspirational that we do it I know we have upcoming elections where town clerks are going to have to adjust. But can we be sure when those spikes are going to occur and how it changes behavior. We don't have any certainty. So I just want to continue to keep front and center we're in an emergency and this is not business as usual. So thank you all for the feedback I mean it's really helpful I appreciate where everyone's coming from. Chris matters. I'm just going to respond to the, the voting thing I mean we go to Haniford, and they allow 150 people into the store. And we, I feel like we have a means to be able to get a vote done, whether it's, you know, drive through voting where you do it outside under a tent, or you can still do it in the town clerks and just limit the amount of people that that come in. I'm hopeful something can be done I mean it might be a question for Secretary of State, or you know town clerks themselves, but it might be a good next step to figure out where we go for the voting. We could, we could hear from the town clerks of Secretary of State. Jim, were you going to say something. No, okay. Peter, come on. Sorry, I didn't lower my hand, but I will reiterate that this is a very good discussion. Kate may I make just a final quick comment, because I heard a couple things from Dylan Peter that I agree with which is they were in a totally different world, and I hear that a lot right now. I just want people to keep in mind that the people who are voting now are voting in the same world we're living in, and the people who voted in March are the ones that voted in a different world. And we don't know when we're going to get back. And there's nothing we can do to change that bifurcated reality right like we can't, we can't take it back but what you're saying is, I don't want to have a vote because I think I know what voters are going to vote and it's going to be no, that is not a legitimate reason to not have a vote. Anybody else. Yeah, please. You know, I'll go back again to what Peter was saying. This is, these are very different times and you know, how did we ever get to a position where we have all of these different votes in all these different towns voting in different dates. I think you brought it up maybe a while back. Why can't all of these districts just vote on March 3 or 4 or whenever we vote on that Tuesday. It just appears that it would allow these districts that in issues or whatever that have voted their budgets down would allow them more time to get their acts together if that's what you want to call it. So I'm not sure where that is in law, or if that's something that happens in town charters or whatever but just doesn't seem, maybe it's time to really change I mean it's something's got to happen here. I mean it's pre act is what it is and we really haven't updated that when we move to it to the Ed fund the way it is now. And I think that that's a good question, I would expect that we're going to see a bill. I think that's a good answer in relation to that I know that there are some districts that have not yet collected the last payment for their 2020. Okay, this is May, and they haven't collected for 2020. Whereas other districts have collected that and given the money to the Ed fund or paid their districts and others have not. So, there's, we are not equal in the way that we collect the money, and we're not equal in the way that we vote, and there's the possibility that maybe that conversation needs to happen. And consistency since we're really talking about statewide funding program not, not just a local local program I know I know there's great concern locally here in city hall as to how many people are going to have their property tax money available on the 15th of May. As you just, as you just mentioned, that's the fourth, you know, the fourth payment. It's going to be pretty scary in the city of Rutland is to how much money they're going to collect in property taxes. And that's what I'm hearing from some of our local officials, and that's collecting May 15. For a school year that ends at the end of June seems late. And all of that I would expect that that is definitely as we as we continually say that there's nothing like a crisis to point out the vulnerabilities in the system and that is definitely one. So, I'm certainly happy to bring in the town clerks or the Secretary of State. The other thing is I'm happy to just leave this leave this on the wall, so to speak. And let others come forward and indicate their interest in this or not. It's just something that's been a conversation and it felt like the committee needed to have an opportunity to hear that thought. Just why I brought it forward. So read Austin. I would find it really helpful to hear either from Cal clerks or the Secretary of State. We can do that. And a time for to see if they can come in and just talk to us about about that. Karen horn from the town clerks and Secretary of State, probably will or one of them. Yes, could very quickly. You know the Senate bill. Frankly, I think I think we all realize that's going to leave. I'm going to leave a lot of school districts a lot of communities and in a lot of strife using last year's budget. I mean just health are you looking at health insurance premiums alone. I don't know how they'll do it. I just don't know how though, without having to lay teachers off. They're taking programs away. So I don't know. It's, it doesn't seem that the Senate put a lot of thought into what they're doing here comments. Kathleen James. Well related to what coupe just said but sort of on the flip side. Just about how much testimony we take in the timeline here. There's a lot of urgency around this aren't these districts, feeling a huge sense of anxiety and waiting on us. What, what's our deadline. We don't have to do anything we can just leave current law current law you know what they can borrow and then it actually sets a tax rate of $1. Then when they finally get a budget that gets reconciled. That's a big surprise $1 probably not where anybody's gonna end up being. Yeah. But again, well assuming that you know assuming that current law is maybe not the best way to go. Um, I, I guess I'm just wondering how quickly we're feeling like we want to, or how much time we think we have to maybe try to come to a good conclusion on this. So a very good question Dylan Jean Matisse. I was just going to say I also I mean obviously I shared the urgency I'm getting a lot of feedback here locally and elsewhere and I do think the signals we send from the building are very important. But I mean I view today's proposal is as trying to find a path right and so I'm willing to keep working at it, if we can find a path because it sounds like we reached a point where we might not be in agreement and we might not proceed at all. So I view this is our potential train to leave the station. Of course we need to discuss what it looks like but to me, sharing that urgency, I also want something that can pass or else nothing happens and it's And again, just really trying to keep in mind that we've certainly heard from the folks in mental health that the start of the school year is going to be seeing a really different world. We're going to have teachers who are definitely really have gone through a pretty different semester and we have children that are returning that are going to possibly look a little different from what they look like when they left in March. So we're going to be dealing with a system that stressed we have no idea. The school is going to be starting we, you know, there's so many unanswered questions. There was also some hope to help these 19 districts to just be able to get a budget and start working on the 2022 budget for all of us with this painful. And again I to reiterate at the moment, we're just waiting, waiting for something from the Senate. And this is just an opportunity to start another conversation. Yes, Serena Austin. Just this might be for Peter or Caleb. Is this health care increase. This year is that the result of the state negotiated contract that the teachers and school boards just went through or is that implemented in a year or two. And it's a normal, you know, actuarial increase in health care costs. The added expense that you're referring to doesn't hit until January, I think for teachers. But the statewide agreement is estimated to add another $25 million to the Ed fund in costs and that's largely due to health care being offered to a whole new group of employees, mainly support staff, and opening up the levels of health care to more people as well. We have a lot of no optimism here to sort of bolster the argument for an alternative. We also have the potential that the federal government is going to say, you know, that $1.3 billion we sent you, you can use for revenue replacement, and therefore we might be entering an era where again, we have most districts just fine because they held a vote in these other reality, and then a bunch of ones who held votes in the current reality, who now can't really take advantage of the fact that our problem was solved. Unless they know that's highly unlikely, but it can still pass them one issue. That's a thing they could do the 87% borrowing, have that bailout, give them that money, then go pass their first budget for the full amount. It all depends on when they hold that vote they could have a successful vote in September and we don't know that the rules might be lifted in October. They can also hold the vote on student 15th and it passes and they're in the same boat as everybody else from March. They don't know that that's great. That's all along here is our preference. They get to vote. I mean what we heard from school boards on that so I didn't get so much testimony is they want to have a vote, they want to have a successful vote they don't want to go this route. As a school board member I would be uncomfortable moving ahead without something, but at a certain point there's going to be for some districts probably a point of where two forces come together and you can't find a solution. It's possible we'll do nothing. It's possible we'll leave it will be back in August I don't know what happened I but I do, I do feel for these districts, given the stress Chloe, are you doing. Oh, that's, that's fair. I was like shuffling papers around on my desk and I didn't realize I was unmuted. It was great. Sorry. So, so that's just that's just we're just continuing the conversation. Some of these school boards do mailers to to their residents prior to about explaining. They, they all do it I know we get a thing in Rutland City and every mailbox explaining the, the budget, and, you know, for some reason we don't seem to ever vote down a school budget, even though they increased by four or $5 million a year, but I mean there's a very, very good plan put together by our superintendent's office that explains what's going on what what we need what our teachers need and what our children need. Through all the school board send that out to their constituency or I don't know. I mean, I, we heard definitely heard down and in the window window Mary is that it's really about that meeting. Where they, they, they vote from the floor. And that's when they hear about the budget and they get to ask questions and they get to vote for it on the floor. And then I know that the town clerk down there a little panicked about going to something else. At least that was the testimony we took from them when they. Yeah. Okay. So there we are. Thank you very much. This was really just to keep keep folks in the loop as to what's happening again reiterating that we're waiting for something from the Senate. But to know that that things happening out in the field.