 Welcome. This is Friday, September 11, 2020. And this is the Education Committee in the House of Representatives. And today we are looking at a couple of things. One will be a draft letter addressing the challenges that school districts are facing in developing their budgets, given the number of unknowns at a time that they're required to be putting those budgets together soon, and will not have all of the information. So we are looking at ways to address this. We had looked, as you may remember, we were looking at three different options, and then a fourth option appeared, which was actually to help get prepared to send a signal to the school districts that we intend to do something when we get back. And also to make sure that the information that we will need will be gathered and ready to go. So that's what this letter's intent is to do. And I do see that we are joined by Mark Perrault from the Joint Fiscal Office who drafted the original letter with some help from Jim Demere, a little bit of cleanup from Jim Demere. So Mark, perhaps you could just sort of go through where we were and a reminder of what this letter's intent is to do. Hopefully we'll have Brad in the committee at some point as well from the agency. So welcome, Mark. And we can't hear you. We know we can't see you, but we can't hear you either. Perhaps while Mark is trying to reconnect, Jim, you viewed this letter recently and you could just talk us through that letter while we're waiting for Mark. Sure. So for the record, Jim Demere of Edge Console. So this letter is requesting various information from the AOE on how federal funds were used, about average state of membership, about special education service plans, and the operational status of schools as they reopen. So that's the thrust of it. I want to go through the language, Chair Webb. Yeah, that'd be great. So it's from, it's to Secretary Branch, it's from the Chair's Ways and Means in House Education. Just to read through it, it says when the General Assembly adjourns at the end of this month, considerable uncertainty about the condition of education finance in, it should say, fiscal year 2021 will remain because the General Assembly will not reconvene until the beginning of January. We are requesting that the Agency of Education provide the following information to the House of Committees on Ways and Means and Education before January 15, 2020. This information will be allowed to the General Assembly to make informed decisions on how to address specification finance issues in January and to act expediently necessary. So first is the use of federal funds. We'd like to see a full counting of the use of the following federal funds received by the state for coronavirus costs incurred by public schools and prudent independent schools. And that's the, the Sierra Funds appropriated in the fiscal year 2021 budget, the ESSA, ESSA funds, and the air gear funds. And then it says in order to assess the impact of this federal aid on the projected 2021 deficit and the Education Fund, we would also like to know how much aid will be used to reimburse schools for the previously budgeted costs. You may recall that under the Sierra Funds, funds could be used for previously budgeted costs in some cases, in which case it would reduce great surplus and reduce the Education Fund deficit. Next is run average data membership. We would also like to see an analysis of the change in ADDM by school district between October 19 and October 20, including a report on a number of students by school district who enrolled in a home study in the 2021 school year, one, but had not been enrolled in their home school district in the 1920 school year, and two, who after the 2020 census period and before January 10, 2021, re-enrolled in the home school district. Next is on special education service plans. In addition, we'd like to see a report on the special education service plans submitted by school districts to the agency of education in October of 2020, and the estimated cost of compensatory services for students on IEPs. And then lastly, operational status. Finally, we would like to receive an update on the operational status of all school districts and the status of any school district that fill out the path in school budget for the 2021 school year. Okay, Mark, do you have something to add to that? Um, I'm sorry about the glitch this morning. Can everybody? Yes, we can. I'm on a different computer, so it's a little strange. The only thing I'd add, I don't know if Jim touched on it before I got on, but the date up in paragraph one should be January 15, 2021. Oh, okay. And I may have tripped over some... the compensatory services language, maybe in terms of art that I wasn't aware of and tripped over. What I was trying to get at there is that there's a concern that if districts that are operating fully remotely or partially remotely may have additional costs associated with fulfilling the IEPs of special needs students, they can't deal with school being taught remotely completely. So I don't know if you want to make a change there or not, but that's what was my thought. I want to get a little bit of the distinction. Compensatory add is that that's required because the school district didn't provide the... it has to do with requirements. School didn't fulfill as well. I'm wondering if schools may not be able to fulfill the IEP if they have to go fully or partially remote and the cost that may incur. Right. Yeah, there's a thing that's going on in the agency at the moment that has to do with COVID-related regression as well as compensatory add. So it gets into some fine discussion of special ed law. So I think we can just we can get that sorted out probably. I don't know, Jim, you're aware of that bit of breakdown that happened between the agency and the special ed administrators. Somewhere. Sorry, Mark, one question for your technical. On the second line, that reference to fiscal year 2022, is that correct or should be 2021? I'm sorry, where are you, Jim? The second line of the error, that reference to fiscal year 2022, is that correct or should be 2021? I guess it could be either. We're uncertain in both years right now. We're more uncertain in FY22, but you're right. FY21 is still up in the air. So maybe in FY21, FY22. Scott back. Thanks, Kate. So my comments are mostly regarding the first paragraph, their use of federal funds. And I think what we're really trying to get at here is what what unbudgeted expenses did districts have in FY21 for which they have not received reimbursement from either CRF or SR or maybe some other fund. And I include in that. I think this is a conversation about net means school districts definitely have expenses because of COVID, but there are definitely budgeted expenses for which they're not, they don't have to pay right now, energy, trash disposal, contract the services. It can vary wildly depending on whether the school is operating remotely or if they're in or if they're on a hybrid. And I think what we really need to figure out for FY21 is when you take all those savings and you take all those expenses that are related to COVID and you mash them all together and then you try to figure out what haven't districts been reimbursed for from CRF or SR monies. And we need to know that for FY21. And we also need to know what is the projection right now for FY22. So when they're, you know, so as they're putting their budgets together in November, December, January, what amount of money are they going to be asking for an education spending that is really COVID related? And are there funds that they can tap into for those COVID related expenses? Can we work that into a into a sentence? That's a request. Can I reply? We're just reply to that. Yeah, sure. The only information we're going to have from school districts is what they've reported to the agency and their applications for reimbursement from CRF funds. Otherwise, I think we would have to go out and do a completely new survey. We just, we just don't have that information. Well, I know we don't have that information. Yeah. I mean, I absolutely agree with you. But we need to know that we need to know, you know, in FY21, are there expenses that are still on the day COVID expenses still on the table that districts are taken out of, you know, probably borrowing for that they haven't been reimbursed that they're not going to get reimbursed for? Well, if the only way they wouldn't get reimbursed for COVID related costs is if the appropriation in the in the restated budget is insufficient to cover the amount of reimbursements they've requested. Otherwise, by definition, if it's COVID related, it's eligible COVID related and spent by December 30th. Okay. Well, then if they can, then if we can be confident that they have received full reimbursement for all of those COVID expenses in FY21, that would be a great thing to confirm. Well, but we're talking different time periods, right? Because FY21 goes through June and the funds go through December. So there should be some, your point, right back. I mean, there should be some anticipated un-reimbursed expenses. I would think for the January through June period. Depending on whether they can use ESSER for that money. But yeah, you're right. There could be on it. There could be un-reimbursed COVID expenses. Yeah. I can work on that. Thank you. And also, you know, what are they, what are they projecting for FY22? And how are they going to cover those costs? CRF monies won't be available. ESSER monies could be dried up by then. But we need to know that because if it doesn't come from those two spots, then, you know, they're going to ask for it in their education spending, which is property tax rates. This report is due though on January 15, 2021. You think they're going to have insight by then into what's going to happen in FY22? No. I mean, they'll have to make those decisions based on what the virus looks like in December and January, which I recognize is not perfect. But certainly they're going to have to budget based on what they think is going to happen in FY22. It'll be a shot in the dark. Kathleen, James. Oh, I'm sorry, Sarita. I missed you. Thanks, Kate. Yeah. I continue to have concerns about the ADM question just because I'm continuing to hear from my district and from neighboring districts that they are going to need certainty on this that goes beyond what we're providing in the letter. And I mentioned this in our hearing yesterday, but by the time we receive a report in January and then take legislative action or include it in the tax bill toward the end of next session, it's not going to provide any certainty or concrete, I guess, information for districts who are going to be working on their budgets way earlier than that. So for districts who are experiencing a drop in enrollment because of homeschoolers or because of students who are maybe leaving temporarily for private schools or for even a non-operating district like Winhall, I just don't think what we're proposing here in the letter provides them the information they need to do a concrete budget. And I'm really concerned about that. Mark Perot, can you just remind us where the effect shows up in terms of the lower student count for this year? What years that shows up in? Can you hear me? I'm still having some issues here. Yeah, can you hear me? Okay. Can you still hear me? Yes. My microphone will be detected. So, okay. So I'm sorry, can you ask that question again? So in terms of the Kathleen is raising a question about the concern that we're not giving the information on an account for the for the for ADM, and I was asking you to just remind us what years are affected by the count in October this year. So it will be FY 22. It would be the budgets that are going to be preparing this fall. And if and it goes on to FY 23 as well? Yes, because the impact would be spread out over two years because we have a two-year waiting average. You know, I just wanted to point out on this topic, the other thing going on is that, you know, we have we lose kids every year, we've lost kids every year for the last 20 years. We also have kids moving between districts. We have kids moving out of state. We have kids moving to private schools. And we have kids opting for homeschooling. So this has always been an issue. The question is, you know, is it is it a prop? Is it a problem this year that hasn't been in place in other years? And it very well maybe. But even with the 2400 additional homeschoolers that we've identified so far, only 1200 of them would be affecting this. And that boils down to only about 1% of the, you know, the 87,000 kids that we have in the system. So again, I'm thinking that this is largely a problem for individual districts. And we won't know that. We don't know now where these kids are, but we may be able to have AOE do some work on that and provide information on that later. The other point is on setting budgets. School districts are always a little bit in the dark as to what their budget and spending is going to translate into in terms of the tax rate, because the yield is not set until well into the legislative session. So they do not know that when they even when they're presenting their budgets to their voters, they don't have full assurance that they know what their tax rate is going to be until the end of June when you leave at the end of the session. So I don't know if that helps any, but did I answer your question? What about some of the options that we had been considering? Like, you know, setting a floor, you know, we had talked about three or four options that, you know, would not allow, I think one of the options that we had considered would have maybe not allowed a district's ADM to drop below last year's. And what about some of those options that would simply reassure districts that they couldn't drop below a certain level? Yeah, we had up until this year, we had a provision in law that did that, which was the three and a half percent on whole timeless. It was more than three and a half percent of the kids in one year, but that that was repealed as of this July one. So, but in the secretary of administration had proposed doing something similar, which is to say that you could use your last year's ADM count again for FY 22. And unless you had more students in which case you could count them, I guess that would provide some assurances to districts that think they're going to get hit hard by this that they would not be. But again, you know, if this, if this loss of enrollment is spread out over the entire state, it's really, it really doesn't have any, ADM doesn't have any impact on how much districts receive. It doesn't have any impact on how much we raise. It just has an impact on how the education property tax burden is distributed among districts. And at this point, we don't know what you see a little bit in the dark, because we don't know at this point how any of these options for, you know, recalculating what ADM is would be in FY 22. And what about what about a non-operating district like Winhall that's seeing a huge spike in families moving in and there to have suddenly having to tuition out many more students than they had budgeted for. I guess. Yeah, they're in a little bit different situation because they have to pay for those kids. And if they've already set their budgets that that can create a deficit for them. Right. That's a situation they're always in. And the question again, then is, you know, is this year so unusual in terms of the number that it's going to create a real hardship in the district? And I think, but again, we don't know. We don't know that at this point. Is there any point in talking about, I thought we had talked about in the meeting the other day having some of this information do earlier or gathered earlier. I mean, I know the legislature won't be in session. Yeah, so I mean, normally the AOE collects this information from districts in October. And there's some back and forth and reworking the numbers. And they usually, I think Brad said yesterday that he thought he could have numbers available as of November 15th. So the letter right now states January 15, 2021. Brad thought that you could require them to provide this information earlier than that, possibly by November 15th. Would there be, and I guess I direct this to Kate now. I mean, is there any value or any use in having at least the enrollment information come in earlier? Is there any point to that at all? Before October? No, I know it's gathered in October. But if Brad says that the enrollment information could be available earlier, is there any point in doing that? I'm sorry, we don't have Brad in the room quite yet. Would there be anybody around to look at it or to try to start looking at solutions or? I think part of the reason we, just to remind folks, part of the reason that we moved to this letter is because we are trying to, there's a lot of anxiety around it. I totally get it. At the same time, we are asking if the legislature acts prematurely. We, one, said a odd precedent. Two, we're open to amendments on the floor. And three, I think if you go back and remember some of the things that the legislature had tremendous pressure and tremendous anxiety to address, we didn't address and it turned out to be better. I think about what we did with what we were looking at for the school districts that did not have budgets. And we ended up in the end doing nothing and 17 out of 19 made it through. So I just, I just want us to, there was a point where we were looking to delay all of the Act 46 mergers and in the end, it's quite good that we didn't do that. Because as you remember, if they were in last March working on trying to merge versus dealing with a pandemic, might be different. So I think that the question that we're trying to solve is what is the best way to indicate to school districts that we are very much aware of the challenges that they are facing. We are prepared to act if and when we need to. The problem that we're having may not be quite the problem that we think it's going to be. It may be that it's just, just typically you're almost where enrollment is down. All right. So I guess that's why I'm, I guess that's why I'm saying if legislation might be premature and there's no appetite for moving a bill or no chance of moving a bill for all the reasons you just discussed and I hear that, then is there any reason why it wouldn't be a good idea to at least get that enrollment information gathered and submitted earlier if it's available. Because then if there's no problem, there's no problem. And we know that in November instead of January. So we can probably put that in the letter. And if that's not a good, you know, if that's not useful information to have earlier, then it's not useful to have earlier. But what I'm hearing, unless I'm misunderstanding, is that a lot of this information is available in October and could be submitted as early as November. So can I jump in here for a second? I'm sort of playing Brad's role here. I wish he was on. He'll be here soon. But the October census and the providing those numbers by November 15, that's the sort of the normal course of things that would be available in any case. And we could provide that information to you, I think the question about the other question is the homeschoolers stuff and that normally would not be collected. So we would not know homeschoolers by district and that kind of stuff. It's what the agency hasn't been able to do so far for us. And that that information may be available. They can collect it at the same time. They're doing the census and make that information on November 15. But I want to defer to Brad on that when he comes in. I don't want to volunteer the agency for doing something. I'm not sure if they can do so. And I'm fine in taking down these ideas on what you'd like to see done. And then we can go through them and you know, say yes and no. Serita Austin. And just Serita, I'm just going to wait one second to see if it's go ahead. Why don't you just go? It's just two things. One is I was wondering if FEMA funds were could be included in the federal funds. And number two, the special add service plans. I just wonder if the October 2020 date that's two weeks away for the agency to create this report. I wonder if that is going to give them enough time. And again, just to chime in on the ADM, I remember Chair Ansel was concerned, you know, she was arguing to wait until January. And some people were arguing to be have school boards more certain. And I don't think we ever resolve that. But I just remember her saying she would like to wait until January until we have more time. So just want to throw that in there. And that's it. I think FEMA, let's put that on the list. But I think in terms of we're getting the report of the information that will be sent to the to the agency. So that's not that's just that's just saying agency. Let us know what that report is report on that, please. Okay. Okay. Peter Conning. I'm going to yield to Dylan because he's actually next in line. Okay. Dylan. Tim Batista. Yeah. Thank you. I'm just trying to size this all up. And I really, you know, I do appreciate the perspectives on this that we're hearing about needing to act with legislation. The utility of a letter such as this, the various reasons why we may do one and not the other. But I am very supportive of this approach. I have sat in this body for several years and have worked on staff and have seen the impulse to move quickly toward action legislatively when we think we are in the midst of a crisis. And the really unique moment now is that we are in the midst of an ever changing crisis. We don't know what it's going to look like yet. And from my perspective, time provides more information and more stability to the decision makers here. I understand that there may appear to be a vacuum at the local level as districts try to prepare their budgets with a lot of uncertainty. But at the same time, I suspect that because of the nature of this pandemic, the continued chaos we will see in the fallout, that it will always be a moving target for those districts. And the best that we can do as policymakers who meet for four or five months a year, keep in mind, we would not be in session right now. But for the extraordinary moment we're in, the best we can do is to get the best information. And I think getting pieces on the timeline spelled out in the letter is appropriate and a good timeframe. And to take action as we see fit next biennium. Right now we are in flux. And I understand there may be disagreement with that. But I would rather give this time commit as a body to doing good things for our schools. Schools know we have their backs. We have pumped CRF money in. We're trying to be supportive of the needs of the agency. And across government, whether it be legislative or the administration, we are working collaboratively. So in that spirit, in the interest of providing stability, I would advocate for this letter. I think it's time to set aside legislative discussions. In fact, if you look at the calendar math of getting out of here, two weeks is what's left. So right now I think this is the most elegant solution to a very complicated problem. And I'm hopeful that as a committee we can coalesce around it and move it forward. Thank you, Dylan. Can you take the document down for a minute? I want to see the faces. As we are given that last speech, I would like to ask the committee if they are comfortable moving forward with this letter versus legislation. And if you are comfortable with it, could you just raise your hand so I could just see hands and who wanted to do it as legislation instead? Okay. So we're on course to continue with the letter. Thank you, Dylan, for getting us organized in that way. The committee is on course to put forth a letter. I don't know if Catherine is frozen. So did she have a vote? Yeah. Yeah. And this is a struggle. I'm looking, do we have a majority or not? So Peter Conlon. You know, I think Dylan more eloquently said what I was going to say. I just think about, you know, I'm a school board member. I'm extremely, you know, it would make me feel better as we move into the budget season to know that there's legislation. But you know, in October, we could know how many homeschoolers are there. That number could change by November 15. You know, it's just, it is a rapidly changing time. I have no doubt that the various organizations who are advocates for school boards and for superintendents will be paying close attention to the numbers and they will be ready to roll if action is needed in January. I guess if we're going to do a letter, I would hopefully also get our counterparts in the Senate to be part of that as well to give it a little extra. Thank you. Kayla Builder and then Larry. Yeah. So the, you know, I, I resist the, I'm comfortable with the letter, especially just with it being sent. You know, what I really want to sign on to the letter that doesn't really matter, but I guess just to speak to a little, I have some concerns. I would rather do anything by legislation in a committee. And I think that just sending a letter like this, I guess we're trying to message to school boards in the absence of legislation. I worry a little bit about it because it seems like a kind of a laundry list for the AOE, honestly, and I can just sort of imagine that their response might, you know, be that they've got their hands full and us kind of asking for things that we don't necessarily expect to receive makes me a little uncomfortable. Maybe that's just me. Maybe we fully expect that they'll jump right on this and work down the list. I, on the ADM issue, just also wanted to say I am happy we're not doing legislation for now because I think it's premature on ADM. And I, you know, I heard Representative Ansel say that the other day and happened to agree with it. But I do think that what ADM is kind of driving us against is the excess spending threshold night. I hope that this committee, however it's, however it's constituted and the common biennium does look at the question of is that excess spending threshold doing what we want it to do? Because it seems to me to just be excessively punitive at a time when there are so many factors with spending outside the control. So I think ADM can be kind of, it's like really super wonky and kind of a distraction, but that's like the terrible thing we're being driven against is the excess spending threshold. Maybe they're doing exactly the design to do, but I think that conversation should happen in this committee room at some point. Certainly before we make a quick change to it. So So I would say for now, and I think that those ideas for going forward are important. I think for now if we can keep the focus on what is it we're going to need to be able to make informed decisions when we get back in January? And let's not give them busy work. I'm sure and interested sure would like to know we want to get the information that's going to drive decision making. So if we can be pointed and specific about what we are seeking from the agency and then we can we can hear hear from them would I think is where I'd like people to be focusing on what would you what are the issues that that you would need beyond what is here in going forward. And Larry was and then I want to invite Brad and Larry Coopley. You're on mute. I'm thank you. I'm glad to see Brad here. And the letters, the letters great. But I do agree with Caleb and many respects and certainly with Dylan. My point I guess is whether or not we're really asking the agency to do more than they can in a short period of time I might add. It would be nice to know if in fact that can happen and will happen. Thank you. So Brad, given given the letter as it stands right now, how how reasonable are the requests to the agency? Sorry, I missed the first half or 30 minutes. But the letter as I saw it the other day where the Joint Committee meeting had had four four asks as I recall actually took notes. What one was the use of the how the various federal funds of the CARES Act were used. The other one was on ADM and how homeschooling has been in versions of world and coming back after the fact, special education service plans and and the estimated cost of compensatory services and operational status of districts in terms of remote hyper learning or in class. So I'm going to kind of go from that. So if I go with the first one, the use of federal funds, both ESSERS, CRF and GEAR, which is still in the planning stages, I think, and how it's affecting the Ed Fund. I think we can do that without a problem because that's that's critical to what we're doing. I was just talking with business managers and that was some of the questions they had to. So we're working on that. Again, I've given you rough numbers the other day as to as to where we stand in terms of in terms of the unbudgeted request versus the repurposed request that can offset the Ed Fund. That was about 27.2 million dollars at the moment. The question and I'll give you I'll tell you what the business manager just asked me is is they're concerned that there's not going to be enough money to cover all their costs that they're incurring right now. And I know that there's legislation working through both your your chamber and the Senate that's increased the amount of money. But that's that's one of their key concerns because they've been told there is money. But going back to what you requested, the letter is is that I don't I don't see any issues with getting me in that one. The second one, ADM and the question the questions that I had down there were were how many homeschool students are there going to be this current year FY 21 who are enrolled in schools last year? We should be able to do that. I'm speaking for the data team who doesn't know that I'm saying this at the moment. But I think I think they should be able to do that because they each student has a has a unique ID that follows them for the years that they're in the public school. So if they were enrolled in one year and then we're not then they turn out not to be enrolled the next year and they show up on the homeschool list, I think I think they can match. I don't know if the unique ID follows them onto the homeschool list. I'm not sure how the homeschool list is gathered. And I'd hope to get that information where I talk to you guys again, but I failed at that. But that's the question. We do have homeschool data. We do have the publicly enrolled data over time. And so I think there's a way to do that. It would take some time for people to do it. They'd have to probably develop, you know, spend a day or two doing it. But I think I think it can be done. And if you're if the time block is big enough, like you're talking about from a letter now through early January, I think I think they could probably do it. Having said that, ADM is really not finalized till mid December. So that cuts the time down a little bit, but somebody could get that in preparation. So I think that could be done. The second one on that question, though, was I don't think it can be done. And as I heard it yesterday, or whatever day it was, it was the question of the number of homeschool students this current year, FY20 returning to school after the census period. I don't know as we would have that information. The census period is over and done and data not collected again for students until the end of the year. So that could be something that the individual, each individual district would have and it is possible something the superintendents could yes, yes. I think I think that'd be the case. My understanding from how what I've heard from schools and I haven't heard from that many, but one of them districts is that that if people are choosing remote learning, which is different than homeschooled, they're doing remote learning for that whole semester. They're not split it. In terms of homeschooling, I think current law allows them to come back into the public system anytime they want to. So there may be people coming back if things work out well with the schools. But again, I think that'd be information that could be gotten. I don't think we will have it, though, at that point. So just to clarify what you just said, the way it was designed right now is if a family says they're given an option between in-person, hybrid, remote, and they choose whatever they choose, that's considered their permanent line. And there's no switching on that, is that right? That's my understanding. What I've heard from, I haven't heard from a whole bunch of school districts, what I've heard from some, including off my own, is that if you choose the remote learning and are not doing the hybrid system that most schools are in or the in-class in-school system to some are doing, then that's what you're going to do for at least that semester. That's what I've heard. I don't know how widespread that is, but that makes sense to me intuitively for everybody. All right, if you're interrupting, please. Then the third one was the special education service plans, which we should have by then, and the estimated cost of compensatory services. We're now a little bit out of my realm of understanding, but what I've heard from a variety of people in the special ed field is that they're not going to have a real clue about compensatory services that are required by kids until they've had them for a little while. And so I know some of you guys are far more familiar with special education provision than I am, but I don't know if we will have any estimated costs at that point. We might. We can certainly ask. It would be a rough number, I think. Yeah, I think we're looking at the ones that the kids who are on IEPs who lost ground in the 1920 school year. Yeah. And again, my understanding is that's going to take some time for people to figure out how much I don't know. I don't have any idea. But I mean, it's the type of thing where you could certainly ask the question. If we can't give you the answer, we can't. We would certainly try and see what we could find out. If you wouldn't mind, if you could just check with your folks and see if there's a way that we could define that question that might be more relevant to what our interests are and what they can actually provide. Okay. Okay, go ahead. I was just jotting that down because I know that I will. No, please jot away. I'm jotting too. Yeah, you jot faster than I do. And then the last one was the operational status. And my understanding from that was kind of wondering which schools, which and how many schools are doing all in class for how long, what you're doing remote learning fully and what you're doing at some hybrid system. I think we can get that information easily enough without any real problem. And then the last thing that I think that was mentioned was the status of any district that failed the FY21 budget. That'll be straightforward. Hopefully by then they will all have budgets there too that we're talking about, which you've heard about. Today, I mentioned to you, I think last time we talked about failed budgets is that there were four or five in the 30 day reconsideration period that ends today. They had votes on the 10th or 11th of August. So their 30 day period ends up today. So we'll see what comes in. I haven't heard of any, any petitions for reconsideration coming in. Although some of those votes were close, but I haven't heard of any. So we'll see. I'll let you know what we want to hear from them. Well, are we identifying the critical issues that are going to be affecting budgets that we, are we, do we have here the issues we need to address? I think, okay, so, so just having come back to the business manager meeting. They are, they are concerned, they are concerned with the unexpected costs that they're incurring. They're concerned that, that they're, they may have more that are going to crop up that, that they're not planning on right now at the moment. They will try to use their ester funds for that. They're going to try to maximize their CRF funds right now. But their concern is obviously the deficit in the ed fund, and then not being fully funded for the costs that they are incurring. And so, you know, one of the conversations I had with them is I, I look at it slightly different than they do. They look at it at their level, which is the supervisor union level and the district level. And so they're looking at what's happened there. I tend to look at it a little bit more globally across the state. And globally across the state, I think regardless of how they approach it, it's going to work out to be the same result in the end. But from their perspective, if they have unbudgeted costs that are not fully covered by federal money, then that's going to create a deficit for them that will impact their, their tax rate, the following whatever year that comes in. Whereas if they put money, if they put all their money into, into the unbudgeted stuff, don't put anything to the repurpose that wafts at the education fund. And when I'm going too deep and into the weeds to much, let me know. When they, when they, when they don't put anything to the education fund, the education fund will then have a deficit that will roll forward into the following year and increase everybody's tax rate accordingly. So it's, so from their perspective, it's a question of which is better for their district to have everybody share in the pain or to have them do the best they can and that kind of share in the pain, not necessarily equitable, because they didn't help and other people did on the end fund. So that's kind of the discussion that they're having. So, so it really all boils now to how much CRF money is going to be available for them, which, which you guys all know. I do know from earlier conversations, we didn't talk about it this time around, I do know from earlier conversations that most of them are looking at making some pretty dramatic cuts, and I shouldn't be dramatic, might be developed for some cuts in their budgets. They, my guess is education spending will not be increasing as much as it has in the past based on what I've been hearing, but we shall see. Going to Representative Valder's question about the excess spending threshold, that was brought up by someone too. And the, the, if, if they have unmet unexpected budgeted costs, they're not covered by the, the CARES Act, you know, COVID related costs, then that would, unless language is done, I think I mentioned this the other day, unless some type of session law is done, that would tend to push up probably more people up and over the excess spending threshold. That can easily be addressed by, by session law adding another exemption for, for a one-year or two-year period, whatever the case may be. Which could wait until January, correct? That, that could wait until January. That is correct. Yep. But, but yes, it could wait till January, but they're, they're going to want, I think they would want some type of signal because that's going to impact their, their budget decision making, because they are looking, one of the things they do look at, and this kind of, again, going back to Representative Valder's, one of this question was, is it effective? Yes, it is. Districts pay very close attention to the excess spending threshold. So, so, so it is effective. So I think if there was some type of signal to them that if, if the CRF funds do not cover all these unexpected costs and they, they go into, you know, they, they have these additional costs that they're, that they're incurring, that, that, that you will look at that and, and kind of make sure that's not push people over to the excess spending threshold. Is there something that we can put in the letter that provides that signal and, and sets up some kind of a plan? Yeah, I think, I think if you addressed it, I think if you just simply addressed it and said, we, we are aware this is a potential issue and we will not allow unbudgeted expenses due to COVID to push people over to excess spending threshold. Some, some generic language like that I think would, would get the message across to Okay, we'll put it in the budget. Jim Demeray. Well, a couple things. I'm not last point. I hesitate to put that in the letter because you can't predict what you will do in the next session. I mean, you might decide as a body to exclude this from excess, excess spending, but you might not. So to send that signal now is a little bit, you know, only I have rewritten the letter to the set that you've had comments and I was going to send that to Phil just to repost to consider changes I've made. And it includes an additional ask that Brad probably to see that, that Rebecca asked for. So shall I send that to Phil and get that up for you guys? Yes. Thank you. Phil, it is sent. If we could post it too, then I can see it in bigger font. I don't have it yet, but as soon as I do, I'll bring it up from my email and then meanwhile post it to our webpage. Okay. Hey Brad, Madam Chair, if I may. Yes. I'm going back to Scott Beck's comment regarding some of the savings that districts and SUs may have had with having not spent money, whether it be sports activities or other activities. Is there any, did you talk about that with your business managers or? I did not. It slipped my mind. I forgot about it. I do know that in the past, though, what they have said is that they were, that any savings that they're, that they received in 2020, they worked too. But I did not ask them specifically today because I forgot. Thank you. So before we go to this letter, I see that Mark and Peter and Sarita and I want to see if this, this is the right time, Mark. I always go to you first. I just had a question for Brad about the costs that districts may incur that they don't get reimbursed for. Are you talking about the pro-ration that may have to happen if the appropriation for the CRF eligible class is not sufficient or costs that the districts have not yet identified? I think it's both, Mark. That, you know, let's assume there's enough money to cover 90% of their, their costs. We're pro-rated 90%. That means 10% is falling right onto their, is deficit spending for all practical purposes. And that will roll into a future budget as a deficit. And again, my guess is that they will probably find some costs that they had not identified. Again, that that's, and they did say, a lot of them did say that they're trying to maximize the use their CRF money and saving there. That's why they have not applied for ESSER yet, because they want to see what's happened and what they're going to need that money for. So that, because that money is more flexible. So, so you will, you will know in the first place. I didn't hear you say that, please. If there's pro-ration, you will know that the amount of costs that aren't covered. Yeah. But there's no way that we're going to know. Is there how much of the future costs that they may ran into? We're not going to have any way of knowing that, right? It's going to be rolled into their education spending and their budget next year. Yeah. Or it'll be covered by ESSER, hopefully. That's their job. But you're right. We don't know at this point if they have an estimated cost that will show up. Thank you. Just a quick one, Brad. Also, there was a question about the FEMA funds. Okay. So, so FEMA, I'll tell you, I'll tell you what I know, which is not a lot because FEMA has not given out a lot of information to the best of my knowledge that that is finalized. I have heard that FEMA said they did not think that that personal protective equipment PPE was an eligible expense for FEMA for school districts. They think that's just part of operating business. That was on maybe somebody else in the Wall Street Journal summit a week and a half or so ago. It is still unclear what FEMA may consider to be an eligible cost. We did have all the districts put in, if put in all their FEMA costs into their CRF application so they'd be covered by that in case FEMA doesn't come through. If FEMA does come through with certain costs, then we will reduce the CRF grant application, grant money that they're getting by that by the equivalent amount, which would free up additional money, CRF money for whatever purpose. But right now, the people working within the group hired by the agency administration guide house, and they're working with FEMA and it's still unclear as to what the end result of that is going to be. I just have a question. Does the CRF funds have to be spent by December 30th or just invoiced by December 30th? They have to be incurred, which means they have to be spent. So they need to receive the service by December 30th is really what it boils down to from what I read from the U.S. Treasury guidance. They can invoice after the fact, but they need to receive the service by the end of December 30th currently. Thank you. Okay. So let's, okay, Caleb, should we do this draft? Look at the updated draft, Caleb, and then kind of. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, I had a question kind of back to a comment or two ago, but we can look at the letter first. Okay. Okay, Jim. Okay. So it's just a few changes. So obviously we're talking now fiscal year 2021-22. Now, we have certain keys about them. And then we change the date to 2021. Then what I want to brag to see is this highlighted language under the use of federal funds, which now says we would like to see by school district projected, unreimbursed coronavirus costs for fiscal years 21 and 22. That was Scott Beck's request. And then going down further. When fiscal year 21-22 or was it 20 and 21? I think it's. It would have to be 20. It has fiscal year 2020 and 2021. Yeah. They're doing the 22 budget right now or will be. Well, I went back to ask for 2021 and 22. That's why that's there. Really? Yeah, I asked him, isn't that too far out? And he said, well, we have to do the best. So that was his request. And then just to complete this next page, going away from the work. Pensatory says the estimate of the strong cost by school district are providing IEP services due to remote or high weather models. Okay. Canna Belder. Yeah. I just going back to, I don't know if this would be Mark or Brad, but I imagine maybe one of you could answer this. So we did the HVAC grants. And I know those have been a little challenging to spend, but it seems they're going out. Those are sometimes in the ballpark of a half a million dollars. To say a district did one of those, they would get additional revenue for that, but would the spending as rules are currently written go under the category of education spending? In that case, just say that they did a half a million dollar HVAC construction project. Does that essentially go towards their education spending? Or is it somehow because it's from a different revenue just to the side of that calculation? No, it's part of their budget. I'm going to come to education spending in a moment. It's part of their budget. So they have a budget, it would increase by $500,000 in your case. They have offsetting revenues. They would add $500,000 to their offsetting revenue. So the cost of the HVAC system and the revenues would wash out to zero. It would not impact their education spending. The question that I heard from business managers today about that was that some of the grants will not cover all the HVAC work that they need at this point because some of their systems will not cannot do the required standards that are now being asked about in terms of what filters they can use, the amount of air they can push and filter, the amount of turnover they have, etc. So the question that came to me was if HVAC is giving us $100,000, but our system is going to require $700,000, what about that additional $600,000? And my response was if that is COVID related because you have to meet certain criteria now for safety purposes, then that can go into the CRF application, excuse me, which will push that $71.6 million request up that I talked to you about yesterday. But going back to your question, if they have the revenues from the efficiency of Vermont that equals the cost, it does not impact education spending. If the revenues are short, it does impact education spending. If they have given the money to the company who is paying them in advance to get the work done, a little bit hard to do here in the middle of school, someone has to have a picture of the completed job for the federal government to say it's... I don't know the answer to that. I assume that efficiency of Vermont is keeping track of the money they're spending and the progress of their projects. I just also wanted to just point out that in the budget that's working through the house today, there's an additional $5 million appropriated for HVAC systems. So it's up to 11 and a half now. Yeah, yes, we were part of that conversation. Okay, folks, are we getting to the questions that we need to have answered? I will reach back out about the excess spending threshold issue. One thing that occurred to me is that if it's necessary to prorate because the districts have asked to be reimbursed for more CRF eligible costs than there are appropriations to cover, you could exclude that portion of their spending when you're calculating the excess spending penalty. And that way they wouldn't be penalized for something that they didn't anticipate. I suspect there'll be a lot of talk about excess spending thresholds from January. Well, and Representative Conlon's suggestion from earlier this year would take care of the whole issue. Basically, if you treat all construction as we treat construction bonding, which is to say exempt it from the excess spending thresholds, that would solve this issue right there. Mark and Jim and Brad, if you could pull something together for us in that regard to address that issue, that would be great. I just a reminder that this is a letter that's going to the AOE and not necessarily the school boards. So it might not be the place for in the letter. Yeah. Yeah, right. I'm just looking at is this something that you might want to take to the Senate to put in the budget? Serita Austin. And this may be a long shot, but one of the concerns I had when we talked to the superintendents of Chelsea and Tumbridge and Orange Supervisory was the fact that if they had to cut their budget, they would cut funding for school meals in the fall. And I'm just wondering if there's any funding available through these funds that would supplement that line item. Okay. So this is in relation to a different topic. I think this is in relation to this. I didn't know if this was the use of the CRF funds. I know it was for summer programming, but I just didn't know. And I'm just that concerns me that children would not be fed. And I didn't know if there was any way or any funding source through the federal government that would cover that. That wouldn't be related to this particular letter, though. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Maybe take it up another time or something. We can talk later about uses of CRF funds. We did put 4,000, 4 million more into it. I want to keep us onto the topic of the letter at this point. Yeah, we can. So are we comfortable with what we're seeing so far? Do you want to take the weekend to think about it and get back and make a decision on Tuesday? Seeing a few nods. Seeing some eyebrows. I'm fine with the letter. Okay. Okay. So you're fine as is at this point? Yes. Who else is fine? Well, you have to check out one thing with the representative Beck, but are people otherwise comfortable with the language as written? Who is not? Raise your hand if you're not comfortable. Of course, I can't see, but if you, if I can't see you, show me a blue hand if you're not comfortable with this. Okay. I think the one thing that they can't do, you could choose to remove, but it didn't sound like that was, Brad's response seems pretty reasonable. So that's good. Okay. Sorry. And I put my blue hand up just to say. I know I keep bringing up the same thing is that, you know, if I, you know, I know we had a letter of testimony from all the V's saying that they would prefer, you know, legislation around the ADM issue. And I've heard a lot of great comments today indicating why that maybe that is not the best path and it's premature. And I just still remain a little torn. I, you know, I'm not going to die on this hill. I just, you know, when I hear, I guess when I receive letters from my district saying that they feel significant concern about their budget and that they feel that they don't have the information they need to put together a responsible budget that concerns me. And I guess I just want to go on record again saying, saying I'm still worried. And so, you know, I'm glad we're taking the weekend to think about it. And I heard everything everyone said on the committee. I, you know, I hear you, I think we're all in a similar place. We're making decisions. And the schools schools have been open for, you know, this is day four. So there's so many unknowns. This is just trying to prepare. Believing that over the next three months, we're going to have a lot more information, including an election. Okay, so then I'd like to put that topic aside for a moment. Would like to do a couple of other topics. One is our conversation that we had yesterday regarding age 663. We do not have possession of that bill. But it does have, it does affect our area of jurisdiction. And I just wanted to, given our conversation, we have options are we can say that we want control of the bill. I am going to suggest no on that. Two, we can say, fine, we don't have any input for you. Or two, we can recommend another option. So could one option be wait and see what they do with it and then weigh in in a dry fashion. Yes, excuse me, that yes, that's exactly what I said the other day. That is the other thing to see what they will do with it. And then if they do something with it, then we do what we normally do, which is go huddle in the hall, take a straw poll on whether we support it or not, or we ask for it. So we could do that as well. Taking the temperature of the committee. I'm perfectly happy with waiting to see what they do with it. Others wait and see. I think that the chair would probably like to know what the temperature is in our committee. I would recommend waiting as well. And so we'll breast our cards until we see them move. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I mean, my sense of their committee was that they're going to take testimony and perhaps make some significant changes. So rather than us sort of debating it in its current form, I'd rather wait and see its next form. Okay. Is that the sense of the committee? Everybody wants to wait. Okay, 10-1. The one that wants to say something right now, but okay. I will let that go. The next thing is the afterschool, which was an issue that we were interested in that the bill as written doesn't necessarily really speak. It speaks to afterschool, but not necessarily COVID related afterschool. I have spoken up the chain and it would be possible for us to bring in people that are on that list and say what is your plan once the hubs are closed? So my plan is to invite the two secretaries next week to find out what is the plan once the access to the hubs changes. And that would be next week. Okay. Anything else that the committee wants to discuss at this point? Okay. Sumit Austin? Just real quickly, just the funding after the funding stops for the hubs as well. I don't know if there's any funding for it or if that's just going to come out of people's pockets or what. I'd be curious about that. Yeah. We want to know what their plan is. Right. With perhaps not pulling together a work group so much as asking what the plan is. Yeah. Okay. Then I think we can end early. We really are closing in on anything, any work that our committee needs to do. We get our work on the budget. We're looking at this letter. The letter actually wouldn't come from the committee at this point. The current thing is the letter would come from the two chairs. But I would not want to do this without the support of the committee. At least at currently and I'll see if that wants to change. And Madam Chair, going back to Caleb's comment, would it be advisable to have the Senate say return that letter? That would always be advisable. It's a possibility. Anything else? I just want to thank Mark and Brad and Chloe and everybody else that have worked with us. I mean, I'm hoping I'll be back here in January. But I don't know. So I don't know when I'll get or when I'll see you again. But just I really appreciate your responsiveness and your effort with helping us navigate this. How's all? Okay. We can go off.