 Today is Friday, September 18. This is the education committee in the Vermont House of Representatives. And today we're going to be taking a look at the budget that is going to is on the Senate floor today. It is past second reading and we are looking at the changes that they've made to the work that we did so that we can be better prepared to advise the House Appropriations Committee going forward. So if we could start, that would be great. I think that the key issues we're interested in are higher ed and pre-K12. So I'm not sure where the first page is that affects us. Jim? Yes, for the record, Jim, I would start with pages 38 and 39. I'm looking at one thing that was on page 37, of course, that had a highlight in yellow, Jim. Oh, okay. Looking at this part, not the language. Well, the language is coming too, but it's the numbers first. Okay, I'm just, I've got a different page 37, so never mind. Keep going. Yeah. Is there a place we can find the document, Phillip, that you have up? I was sent a link this morning, so I've brought up this link. I didn't post the link. It's on the Thursday set calendar. It's the addendum on Thursday. Set a calendar. Yeah, calendar, addendum one for Thursday. Right. Thank you. Phil, I just emailed it to you. You should be able to then email it to your committee. Okay, thank you. So I'm probably not the best person to talk about these numbers, but I thought maybe you should see them. So maybe Mark or Rob Fagan or whoever is more familiar with these numbers, maybe. Yes, Jim. So there was no change in any of the numbers in the page 37, 38 or, and that's the end of the, that's the end of the higher ed. There's no change in the base appropriations for any of these organizations, be it UVM, the colleges, et cetera. And certainly not for the Morgan horse farm. And the language is going to change. There is language issues, yes, but the numbers remain the same. Okay, thank you. You might scroll Phil's page there just to show what the numbers are to remind people from actually colleges at the top here. So those are the numbers. And then I would go to pages 52 through 54. Yeah, these are one time. Yeah, can you go up a little bit further there. Phil. This one time your time list so go down to the very bottom sub three is where it starts stop though, go back up to something perfect. This language and I sure it has changed actually, because I wasn't about that involves with it initially, but just to say what it says it's a $10 million appropriation for so called equitable distribution for the independent colleges. So it's determined in consultation with the AVIC terms of the equal equal distribution of these funds. Fastest to be considered include not limited to curbside funding guidelines and being a floor to protect smart schools. And then you have to be accredited and chartered in Vermont. I believe that was in your bill. That's fair. This changed I believe, I guess I'm finding the green copy with the green on it significantly easier to read, but I'm not seeing the green. I thought they added something about seismic down it but I'm not now I'm not seeing that. That was struck by Senate appropriations. Oh struck by okay. I think I sent the copy that I had with the green markings in it. This is the bill. This is the document that that house appropriations is also going to work with, and it's a little bit easier to follow than this because it actually identifies the changes. And I think Phil and Jim, I sent that to you. You did madam chair, but you were asking whether or not that was the appropriate document and I didn't bring it up until I got that confirmation. Okay, sorry, yes, I did get confirmation from from the chair of house appropriations but I really she said it just to me. If you if you like me would like me to I can stop this share and bring that up. I think that's an easier share and I think it's just easier to see the changes. And if you could email that to the committee as well. While you're doing that I can email the copy to the committee. You, you sent us one in an email that has the green Senate changes in green. This is the new the new ones that was sent Senate. Yeah, that's right I did send it to you thank you. Yes, yes you did. That's how I have it up and it is easier to read in green. Yeah, what's what's the date on that that it was sent. Oh lordy be yesterday I think it said yesterday. I have too many things opened here. Madam chairs this what you're looking for. So, so that is 744 in the morning before it from three days ago. It's, there are things in there that are no longer in the bill. Oh goody. What did I women. Okay, so then we, I guess we do need to go to send me a little bit hard to follow the changes then. Okay, if we go through it through the older one. Representative Fagan can point out to us what's been stripped out which might be good to know actually. Yeah, that'd be fine. I've got the I've got the addendum open so I can all work from the addendum. Now I'm a little confused which one would you like up. Welcome to our world. I think that perhaps it's easier to follow the one with the green markings. Is that current. No, I didn't think so. But I can, I can tell you what's that what was changed from the time of that document to the senate addendum that past 30 to nothing on a reading so. Okay, thank you. Does everyone have the green, the marked up one. Everybody has Thursday, Thursday, 1031 a.m. right. Oh, I've got 744. Right, I have the 744 one. That's what I have. Yeah, no, I'm just it was sent by Kate at 1031 in the morning. Oh, okay. Yeah, but you can find it in your email easier. Yep. But the green, it's the greens time stamp at the top is 744. Okay. There's three possibilities for me to post I think the one that Jim de Marais sent the one that Kate sent and the one that representative Fagan sent. It's called representative Fagan. Okay. That's the addendum. Okay, that's the same as Jim de Marais then then go with the one that I sent you and, and, and I do apologize to everybody this just passed yesterday and we don't have a, we don't have an easy copy to work with yet. So I sent you a copy that was marked in green and Peter Fagan can go through the, the changes to the portion of this. And what page would you like me to move to 36. No, excuse me, we're going to do higher ed first. And for section B 110 1.2. Not there. Not you passed it so it's going to be before that. I have no idea where it is on this 109 keep going. Page 11 is where the a big stuff is and page 36 is the K 12 stuff. Okay, so go to page 11, please. I'm going to decrease the magnification here it's hard for me to see the. I don't understand. Page 11, so start down slowly then please. Agency of industry. There's the first one. Number three. So the only thing that was dropped from this language and it was dropped by Senate appropriations of the two words endowment size right there in the middle of that paragraph representative web. There's a copy of this language to Susan cannot remember her last name from a big. Yeah, who like the language without the words endowment size as it as it appears in the final draft that the Senate will vote on for the third time today. So, I think it's in, you know, it's in pretty good shape it really I think some of these words are not necessary like. Distribution factors cares act funding guidelines we put that in an earlier bill so everything all the all cares act funding that are in all the bills, the federal funding guidelines apply and create a floor to protect smaller schools. I, you know, at any rate, but it doesn't matter. You will let you were Smith that between those two committees but we will just get, I'll let the committee here from Susan. Yeah, next week. Yeah. Just again the only the only thing and I'm not, I'm personally not inclined to try to wordsmith anything else. If sac removed endowment size then I think that personally, I think that we're good but I would like to hear what you know confirming what she has to say. Okay. And then your thoughts. Yeah. And I have heard a little bit of a challenge on the next one for UVM. Yes. We could scroll up a little bit and stop the need to fill can you go can you make it a little smaller we can see the whole thing like. 125. Try 125 please. Perfect. So the kerfluffle here is a full specific quarterly accounting of all funds appropriated and expended during the span of time that the emergency orders and effect, the, the massive amount of work, and of work that that would require to put that together, you know, a company's goals is what they're asking for. And so there's, that's the kerfluffle there, the, the revenue loss projections upon which I have no idea the documents and the, the emails back and forth and the etc, that went into would go into trying to put that on paper. We'll get Wendy in on that. I know that there's some things that there's there was an assumption that some of this information wasn't already available anyway, and I believe that's just a question of why are we just asking it a few VM and nobody else. Thank you. That's the other question. Yeah. So, so we'll, we'll invite Wendy and to review that with us. Thank you. Did that come from appropriations or did that come from from from Senate ad I wasn't sure about that. I am not sure. Not sure. I am not sure I think that she'll know but I'm not sure. Okay, thank you. I mean I have my, I think I know but I'm not going to put think I know it's okay. That's always wise. Okay. So, I think that is it for you then correct. No there's a little, you might might be. Oh, yeah. There's Oh, and then there was a reduction in the amount of money for and I don't remember what page this is on I think it's a little further to the bottom hang on to let's see here. Well, well we're still back on number four. Yes, the actual $10 million isn't that was in there right. Correct the $10 million is unchanged. Yeah, it is in there. So, Phil, if you would go to the bottom of this section just above section be 1102 maybe two pages down. If you see 1102 then stop. Okay. Oh okay this was a lot was struck here so alright. Was that related to us. Yeah, stop. Okay stop and go back up a little bit. Little more. Yeah, that's right there. So to the Vermont State Colleges in coordination with Department of Labor workforce training that was $3 million it's now two point trade. Everything else here remain the same. And at the bottom you'll find wording highlighted that says if it's unspent by some time in November. That's right there. November 15 it's going to refer to a CCD to to help out businesses that are that are suffering I just heard from a wedding venue today that lost 95% of its of its revenues during this period for for example. The issue here of course is that we've got two months to deploy those funds October and November and that's it I just, you have to wonder, can workforce training programs be be applied for and used in that. I'm sure that that's what the Senate was looking at when they when they did this, they took 700,000 from the the 3 million so it's still 2.3 is still there. It's still available, but they're also making sure that that it's going to be swept a little bit earlier because the only option that we have if we wait until December 20 is to an all probability move the funds into the UI fund, and thus we will not need to send them back to the federal government but we're not going to apply them to businesses. The Senate here wants them applied to businesses if it doesn't work for workforce training. So, you might want to ask someone from from DOL to come in to speak to that. Right. Thank you. And that's it for higher ed. Okay, I don't believe we have chip in the room. So, so committee. The question is just to have Susan Stitely and UVM in to just respond to that. Could I could we take the document down for a minute we're going to want to break it back up again. So just checking with committee does that that sounds good that will that work for everybody. Yep. Okay. So let's let's get them in. I don't know if we've got a slot yet, but if we could get we could find a slot for scheduling and get them in would be great. And who is the name again Madame chair, Wendy conic from UVM. Susan Stitely. I don't believe there was an association of Ramon independent colleges. I don't believe there was anything here that changed substantially for them on state colleges. That correct. I think changed. You're correct. There's there's really nothing that is substantively changed. The only thing is the one I just pointed out and it's that's not, you know, I don't see that as a, as a big issue personally. So I will refrain from using their time. Yeah, that's fine. They have a lot of things they're trying to work on. Everybody just a little busy. So thank you very much. That was really, really helpful. We're kind of trying to look at this document standing in midstream, which as we know is not always a good idea. But I think it's also a document that you don't normally look at from its totality. It's a huge document this year. And you know, and we think that those appropriations really, really are thankful to all the committees that have done a lot of this work with us to be able to move this along in a very quick manner, but a very thoughtful manner. So thank you. Thank you. Kate before we lose representative. Yeah, I just did a more global question. I know that since we don't have chip here. So the Senate basically added $22 million to the K-12 funding. Yes. Where, where, where's the ship? Where did the money come from? I'm not trying to remember. I've only I've read the document front to back once. You know, some of it was that is was there was a $25 million reduction to the healthcare stabilization grant fund from 275 million down to 250 million. That was part of it. But there was also $17 million added to, to unemployment paycheck. So you'll probably remember the joint fiscal committee accepted two weeks ago, probably one and a half, maybe three, I don't know. It's from the federal government to, to extend unemployment for five weeks, $300 per. We did not have to do anything, but the Senate added $17 million to that so that we could add $100 to that paycheck from Vermont, such that the unemployment paycheck will be $400 a week instead of $300 a week. So really, you're looking at it almost $40 million now, and I can tell you where 25 million came from. So it's, it's still to be determined as far as, as where the rest of it is. Now, one of the things we built this budget on $20 million of FEMA funds coming in to supplant the use of CRF money that we could then spend elsewhere. That was an extraordinarily conservative amount. We anticipate we will get more, but I can't tell you how much more. So it's, this is going to be a moving part right until moving, moving target right until the 30th of December. Thank you. I have a quick question to I'm sorry. Just as we go through this. So the yellow highlights are just sections that are still being discussed or there's a lot of yellow highlighted stuff. There's a lot of yellow highlighted stuff. And I, I don't know if that was, if that was someone in our joint fiscal office going through and highlighting changes, typically that's what it means. Okay, but I'm not going to tell you for sure that's what it was. Okay. Like I said, I'm, I'm working off of the Senate addendum. Okay, we each we should like for instance the green highlighted thing. I'm color deficient there are certain I can't see a Robin unless it's moving. So, so there are certain colors I can't see in green is not helpful at all. It appears blackish to me. So I work off the, the, the Senate addendum because doesn't have any colors on it and I can, you know, well, I go to the areas that I know and then everything else I just read so I'm not going to tell you what it means. There's a really good note to, to ledge council blue. I'm like, well, I've, you know, I've told them that important and Maria says I think every time I see this coming out green I think of you and so sorry. And if you've seen me I'm holding it up like this trying to figure it out. All right, I won't read too much into it then. Okay. Thank you madam chair appreciate it. Thank you. And by the way Peter one more question. Are you hearing any about any amendments that are going to the Senate floor today. I have not heard of any. Again, 30 to nothing it kind of sounds like it's it's pretty, you know, locked as far as what they're going to do, but I haven't heard of any so what one would usually assume yes. Yeah, yeah. You know, and the amendments may be very, very, you know, just just little technical things there's always a technical amendment on the budget it's just it's so massive and it's doubly massive this year. And need be, you know, the parts you've got coming up for for K 12 I'll see if I can get chip to get in here very quickly. There appears to be some real changes in there. So, so, you know, that's going to need to be looked at. Yes. Thank you very much Peter. Thank you. Take care. Come down and join us anytime. Well, please invite me and I will come back down when you have Wendy and etc. Thank you. Unless it's Monday morning at nine where I'm already double booked. I'm going to do it Monday when I think it'll probably be Tuesday, hoping today and and Phil will just make sure that you're invited. How about today? How about today at three. Now that is not going to work. I'm not going to be able to drag these clubs around very many more times this year and so you know I intend to enjoy myself a little bit, especially the 19th green. Thank you so much, Peter. Okay, this is not going to be as easy as I had hoped I'm afraid. I was thinking that this was the copy that had the Senate appropriations was sending to the floor. So we don't actually have the highlighted copy that is being sent to the floor we've got. I don't have chip, I believe. And Jim, where are you and your understanding of where we are in the cave. We should do is move away from the green version because that changed a lot when you come to 12 and move back to the addendum that we have that doesn't have the different colors. Okay. What page, what page Jim. Well, I'm sure the page exactly because I'm looking at the green version now, which has different pagination but the section looking for in the addendum is be be 1111. Okay, thank you. Approximately on page 63 I think of the addendum version I'm not sure. So, sorry, where do we find the addendum version that's the Senate calendar calendar for Thursday. Yep. It begins on page 62. Senate calendar Thursday page 62. You can use the link that Phil emailed all of us this morning. Okay. Yeah, here we go. So, should I walk you through this is that I can that be helpful. Yeah. Okay, and I'm just going to suggest I know that for me I find it a lot easier to also be following my own where I can actually make it larger. So, just make sure give people a minute to be able to open it up on their own if they'd like. And then, if you want you of course will start marking it out. On there. Okay. Let's go for it. Okay. So, subsection a, the appropriations the same. So that's $53 million. Well, I say the same same as I reviewed with you a couple of days ago. That's the same as we reviewed on subdivision one has changed. So, we have the intent language here which we reviewed the intent being to ensure safe opening of public schools and have them use the maximum amount of money permitted. So, the first language in here before around you have language here before about given the agency and some discretion to reallocate based upon relative priority that have been taken out of the draft we went through a couple of days ago, and they had some other allocation language in there. They've taken out the allocation language entirely. Because the bill has other sections allocation language will all have other provisions. Is this perhaps what representative Fagan was referring to. I'm not sure. Okay. Yeah. I think in the higher ed stuff, but yeah, there was kind of a global statement about reallocation. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm assuming it's to just to clarify in my own small brain then Peter, you're seeing that this is was changed to make the adjustment that Peter Fagan was talking about throughout the bill. Yeah. That's my understanding. Okay. I see it here. The CRF eligibility for the three independent technical districts that's in a that was in the miscellaneous bill that is different from this right. It should be in here. Sorry. Here. Yay. So let's go there. So you see that the efficiency for my allocation is the same 13.5 million that's the subject can be. And then C, they've increased the allocation, you had a seven, they had had a eight. Now we have a three, and the additional three comes from independent schools which will come to momentarily. So they transfer some money from independence to publics here. And then I says, as used in this section, school district means a school district, I have to find or regional career technical school districts, those are the three independent ones. Okay. So that language is there. And then they had a whole separate section. There are three money sections before another two, because the section that dealt with the money going to equipment food equipment and supplies. That's been taken out and the text has been moved up here. So it says now of these funds, which is the eight point three million of these funds up to four million. Um, maybe use for eligible supplies and equipment for food for vehicles reasons, et cetera. You just could just tell me what page one. One page 62. We're still, we're still in this subdivision one here, public school. Public schools couple changes here summarize increases the allocation by 300,000 taken away from independent schools keeps keeps the coverage for the three independent tech centers, and then moves into this area of the bill. The four million dollar allocation for food services, equipment, et cetera. So Jim, the, the regional career technical center school districts are the three independence. Okay. And then you see under approved independent schools the allocations decreased from 1.5 million to 1.2. So that's where the three million can't 300,000 came from to shift up to public schools. Jim, can I just ask one question. Yep. Thank you. This is Serita in section the section above where we're talking about. In section one in terms of funds for meals to school districts or at least one of them that didn't pass budgets talked about if their budget didn't pass they would have to cut funding for providing meals for the children. Anyway, this may be an item I have no clue but is there any way these funds could be used to at least pay for the that portion. So they won't have to cut that. It's not designed for that now is designed as you can see from the language here. So for the purchase of carers act of supplies and equipment. The vehicle's freezers other capital assets necessary to provide meals. So it's not the meals themselves. It's the equipment that supports meals. Their gross dollars could be used for that. I'm sorry. It's a very, very answer web that I have. So the, the 8.3 million is for a COVID really cost, right, right. So that portion of that might could be used for food. Carers eligible. Right. So that's a very answer that I had. Okay, so they the schools could apply at least for the food portion if they had were considering cutting that from their budget. I believe so. Okay, that would be carries eligible. Okay, and how would they would they know about that would they know they would be able to apply for that. I believe they would because the agency of education has issued guidance to school districts as well as eligible. I haven't looked at the guidance for the specific point, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't part of that because already this was covered for the seven minutes program. So we know it's eligible. Thank you. Okay, going down to proven to school if you talked about that, the reduction in the allocation there. The, we talked about this last time we went through the version a couple days ago they struck out the million dollars for county and technical. And then have new language here, which says, if the appropriate cares act funding proves to be insufficient to cover all reimbursement requests. Any costs for new pandemic expenses shall be fully covered to the extent to the extent. I should say to the extent of appropriate funds that's the type of this is if probation is necessary. It should be on request from school districts of repurposed expenses that free of previously budgeted funds. It's a year 21. So that's the question of priority. And what this is saying is that the allocation for 12 will be on new unbudgeted costs, as opposed to costs that have been budgeted to be repurposed. That's what that's saying. And then next section is B 113. And that's the same as you have before just a cross reference to the new appropriation for HVAC. And you'll see that B 114 has been deleted. And that is because they moved that $4 million allocation for food service equipment up into section we just reviewed. They took out section B 114 altogether and discovered it in a different way. Could I go back quickly just for clarification under D where they took the where they deleted the accounting and technical assistance. Was this to just ensure that they weren't using it just to do. So this has to be something that was unbudgeted and not so not something that had been budgeted, but they no longer needed it. And now they're going to use that person, for example, for a different cause is that addressing this or is this in my misunderstanding this. So what happened here you're correct. So what happened here is that that the $1 million is he hasn't used that yet. I'm not sure they had plans to but they decided to move that $1 million to pre K through 12. So you had an allocation initially of $87 million. They had an allocation of $88 million. And then if it's at 300,000 more from independent schools. Right, we hadn't that was not one of our things was the $1 million was not to put it into this, but I just was trying to get clarification on the cost piece here, but I think I just need to look at it a little bit and I'm not going to slow us down while I'm trying to figure that out. So we can keep going. Okay, then so let's do B114. And then the rest of the policy provisions, I don't believe have changed. The school year, I believe is the same. The online teaching endorsement waiver. It's to be the same elections to be the same. The ADM adjustment, obviously that came from the side, not from you. And that's basically holding districts harmless from a decline from the previous year. And that's the language we had three options we were looking at this is the one that was recommended by the agency. Correct. Yep. Okay. We talked about reimbursement compensation expenses a couple of days ago, I believe that's unchanged. I think teachers waiver again for pre-qualified programs that they lose a teacher. That looks unchanged. Task force for a universal after school and the only difference here from I talked to you about last time, whereas there are two sections before, one with the findings. And the second was the creation of the task force. They've taken out the findings altogether and just left the substantive provisions around the creation. Okay. So that's the end. I think that will do it for this section. And the other was everything and this is the same. They just changed the dates from the bill that we have on our work. It's going to be April 15, 2021. It's a reporting date. Do you know if they took testimony to just check on those days to see if those days. Don't recall hearing testimony on that. Okay. Okay. That's it. That's it. Okay. Surila, did you have a question? No, I just, I'm just wondering why we don't have a student on the after school program task force. I mean, it's after school programs for kids. I think it would make sense that maybe we could recommend a student beyond that committee. I think they would have a lot of good information and input as to what they would consider an after school program should consist of. So I'm just advocating for that again. I just think it would make it a really better committee and, you know, get some, you know, real voices in there. That's all. No, I hear you. I think it's a point we'll take him. So I think it's a good question. I'm just going to start with leadership on. On this. The question is, would all this be better in a bill or in the budget? Um, And any questions, thoughts at this point? Sure. This is the moment when we get to say our happy things. I'm really happy to see the ADM solution in there. And I hope it remains. Do we have a, just a committee. I'll be asking you on Tuesday. I'll be asking you on Tuesday your opinion on these straw polls on these items. And I will get testimony from the relevant characters. I've already got UVM and Susan Stitely. We'll get our usual suspects. Is there anybody? I will. I'll see if we can get someone from AHS. I thought we were going to have a joint meeting with House Human Services. But I think when Human Services saw that language in there, they didn't schedule the meeting. So we didn't follow up on that. So I'll check on that. And anything else anybody would want? And then this should bring our work to a close. So Kate, you think Tuesday might be our final? Yeah, our final work. Chip Conquest, anything that you would want from us? Just your final work. Yeah. Is Tuesday an OK date? Does that meet your needs? I asked my chair that when I should ask you all to have stuff for me, and she sent back Tuesday with question marks, which I don't know how to interpret, but I'm saying that she would like us to have our committees report back to us to our committee by Tuesday. I will see if I can get that in the morning. If we can do that, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd be happy to bring the committee in on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday, but I have a feeling that I might be the only one there. So I'm thinking I'm seeing nods that, yes, you can see it. So we will get together on Tuesday, and I think that we'll be able to give you some answers to this. So I came in when Jim was part way through the pre-K to 12 section. I just want to, was there anything I missed? Was there anything in there that you all were opposed to, or I mean, I don't think there were only additions, I believe, above that in terms of dollars? In pre-K, 12, I don't think there was anything glaring, there are some policy pieces that just wondering if they're in the right place at the moment. And I need to have a conversation with the speaker about that. So if there isn't anything else, you have a 40 minute break until the floor. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. See you on the floor. It's OK. Bye-bye.