 Hello and welcome. This is Tuesday, September 22. This is the Education Committee and the Vermont House of Representatives. And today we are going to be reviewing the budget bill as past the Senate. And I think we're going to have Chloe from JFO go through the numbers with us looking at the difference between the House and Senate proposals. Chloe, if you're speaking, we can't hear you. Oh, I was muted that whole time. Good morning, Chloe Wexler from the Joint Fiscal Office. Philip, thank you for pulling up this sheet. This is supposed to just be a quick depiction of the appropriations as we left in the Q1 budget in the House restatement and in the Senate restatement. So in the first line, you'll see the HVAC efficiency of Vermont appropriation, which initially was 6.5 million. This was increased to 11.5 million by the House and the Senate further increased that to 13.5 million due to, you know, testimony from efficiency Vermont and their ability to utilize those funds. And we then come down to the K-12 schools appropriation. And this is a little bit tricky just in how, in how there was a couple of sub appropriations within that but what you'll see is that in total in the Q1 budget there was $41 million appropriated to K-12 schools. The House further increased that to 68.4 and then one more increase in the Senate restatement to 88.3 and that was really based on, you know, as information was coming available from the agency on the applications that schools had submitted. It looked like there was, you know, there was that need in the schools. In the initial Q1 budget, there was an appropriation for summer meals. And so that was up to $12 million. That remains the same. The program actually closed in August and AOE has indicated that that program has used about 2.2 million. The CRF and that they also noted that they have additional eligible expenses related to meal service. And so for a sub appropriation of up to $4 million was passed in both the House and Senate version. We then come to the final two appropriations for independent schools and accounting. The independent schools, they were eligible to received a capped amount per people per publicly funded people at $422 per publicly funded student. And they, you know, that actually ends up working out to be a funding request of about 1.17 million. So the Senate decreased that appropriation to 1.2 million. And the same goes for accounting and technical assistance. It was noted that that money was not being used and was available actually just for direct reimbursement to schools. So that appropriation was zeroed out. There was a, in the house as it left, there was a provision that allowed for reallocation of the funds. So sort of recognizing that there may be money available in some of the house appropriations. But rather than changing those appropriations, they just allowed for flexibility of funds through to move throughout the appropriations. And then it decided that they would rather just adjust the appropriations and to their suitable level and, and, you know, not get into the reallocation language. And that is the general summary of what was done. Any questions. Can you speak about the gear money and CTEs. Sure. So the gear money was a, the governor's education emergency relief fund. There was about $4.5 million available. The administration and I believe they've actually sent over this grant to the joint fiscal committee for approval. But they stated that these funds would be made available to career and technical institutions. And it was this sort of coincides with also one change that I did forget to address, which is that both the house and Senate have added language to amend the definition for a K 12 school. And it was amended to include regional technical centers, because there are actually three technical centers that are not directly affiliated with a school district. And so they were initially inadvertently left out of, of that definition. So, yes. So it felt that fell under K 12 and not under independent schools for those three. They just got swept in. Yes. Yes. Okay, I interrupted you. Did you want to finish that? No, that. It just is a note that they, they are exactly like you said now included in that K 12 schools line. And treated similarly as the other career and technical centers that are affiliated with the school district. Chipped on class from appropriations. Thank you madam chair. So Chloe it says with that double asterisk at the bottom that that the administration says the gear money will be available to the career tech institutions to support new initiatives. I'm wondering. So the, you know, the intent as I understood it in the, this house had committee when they were discussing it earlier was to make make them available eligible for CRF money for all the kinds of purposes that schools might use CRF money is this limited to or has the administration indicated that this is really specifically for new initiatives and not Well, I actually think that Bill Bates is here so we can ask him, I, I, I don't think it has to be specifically for new initiatives but I think the governor did maybe mention something about that in the beginning. But I think the important sort of delineation is is that the gear money is a little bit more flexible than, you know, a straight CRF dollar. And so it could be it could support, you know, other other, not, you know, 100% you know, PPE or CRF expenses but I would happy I would be happy to hear you know what what bill and the agency has in mind for that money. Bill Bates. Bill Bates you're here I believe. Yeah, I guess I defined the meat button. Yeah. And I think you had some other questions so why don't we, why don't we shoot right now. Thank you for the record Bill Bates Agency of Education. Thank you for having me this morning. Let's talk about the gear fund. First, that $4.4 million. Originally been slated for new initiatives, which is what we were originally thinking of using the funds for has changed over time as we have seen the numbers come in for K 12 schools and the other CRF requests. We're focusing that money on the CTE centers to ensure that their, their needs as far as COVID-19 are met. And so it would not just be limited to support new initiatives but it would include those costs that we've heard from K 12 schools the independent schools, needing as well. And then just, just to clarify, this is another 4.4 that's going into into the tech centers and I'm wondering, I can't remember I don't have Jim here is as I remember the secretary has some discretion on how this money is divided up. Is, is he able to include that fact that it just got hit with an extra 4.4 million as he's looking at the needs of the other K pre K 12 schools. Yes, so. Thank you for asking the question, we have taken a look at that. And so we, we are factoring all of that information in when we put together the, the application for gear. And I see Jim Demarra is here. I had this meeting in my head 10 o'clock night. Surprise, surprise. We trick you. I'm here though. Yeah. So the language. So with the additional 4.4 from gear, the gear funds that are going with the secretary has flexibility to be able to use it because that just got a boost that they might be able to take some of the other funds that he might have sent to the CED ease and use those for the pre K 12 schools. He's got fairly wide ability to use those funds within the CRF guidelines to distribute equitably based on need. That is correct. Good. And then we also have Essar, which is another 30 some odd million dollars. And what's the, what's the end date on that. The absolute end date is September of 22. Okay, so we've got the entire school year and summer. Yes, that is correct. And going back to the spreadsheet that Chloe walked through I just wanted to highlight that under the summer meals line. Where we've appropriated up to $12 million. In the notes you see that the actual ask was $2.2 million. And so in addition to that, the, the, the food program team has asked for an additional four, which is the line below that. And as you can see all of those numbers roll up into the 68.4, but I did, I did want to highlight the fact that we only expanded 2.2 of the 12 million. So, that makes the rest of the, whatever it is. Yep. And we also highlighted the accounting and tech technical assistance at the at the bottom of that worksheet that Chloe walked through. We don't have any to ask at this time for that. Because I remember that was added at the last minute. Based on the, the accounting systems that that everybody has been waiting for to be the chart of accounts. And the other one that has, I think six letters in it that I remember when we're talking about it and I forget. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. How far along are we with those programs? So we are currently done with the chart of accounts. We're implementing that. So the work of building a standardized chart of accounts is done. And those are being implemented across the, the LEAs. How many have implemented. I don't have the answer to that question on the off the top, but I can certainly ask the project team and get back to you. That would be great. Yeah. It's the implementation that. Then maybe necessary. Right. And then we're, we're in round six of the E finance plus that's SSD DMS. We have 16 LEAs that are in flight right now. They started seven one. And they all have a year to implement. Okay. So should that be then by this time next year, are we expected that that's going to be up and running as well. We'll have a few LEAs still remaining for around seven and eight, but we'll be pushing close to 70% completion after round six. Okay. And one, one good note to highlight to it with the. E finance plus project is the fact that I have worked with our vendor power school and they have named. John Dawson, I don't know if the name rings a bell for anyone on the committee, but he is going to be the program manager overseeing the entire implementation on the, on the power school side, which I think is a good move by the vendor. I think that'll ensure that when LEAs have questions, they, they get answers from, from the vendor. I do remember that that was lacking in the last round. Okay. So, as we're looking at this then. Basically, if I understand this Chloe that. And Jim that this money also to got pulled to pull together. And rather than, then I think the 12 million kind of gets rolled back into the, the broad picture correct and then the 4 million is pulled out of that is that correct. So the way that the language is written in this, in the current Senate budget. All of the funds are sort of it appropriated to K 12 schools, and then there are two sort of sub appropriations of one which was up to 12 million but now we know for a fact that only 2.2 has been extended. Up to 4 million for CRF eligible meal service equipment. So if you come down to that, well, pointing, pointing at my iPad, if you come down to that light beige box at the bottom. That is based on, you know, those two current estimates of 2.2 million for the summer meals and 4 million for the meal equipment. If you subtract that from the 88.3 in the total that you know the total. I think it's like a 50 C one. Then you end up at 82.1, which is the money that's available right now for the direct K through 12 reimbursement. Thank you. No problem. Any questions chip conquest. Just one more for Bill Bates probably the answer money. I think we've heard that gone out and and if so how much is left and and what's the, is there a plan for that particular money. Making sure I'm off mute. The answer money we have used our grants management system gms system to administer those grants, the application out and we have to date receive for requests. It's our, it's our belief and understanding that the leas have focused their attention, rightfully so on CR the use of CRF funds because of the very short tail associated with those. And the fact that any funds that are left unspent as of 1230 20 need to get returned to the Treasury so the the thought, the thinking at the agency level is the fact that we will start seeing additional applications coming in and request for the answer money, but no money as of today has gone out as far as answer is concerned. Okay. And is there a particular use that the agency is considering that money for or haven't made that. And there. No, the agency does, does not do that it's spelled out in the, in the language of the, the bill that was passed and the, the leas have very broad flexibility and in their use I think there's like 12 different uses categories that they can use those funds on. And the, the thing to point out is that CRF has a very short tail that ends this year of December 30 and then the ESSER funds and the gear funds have a longer tail they go out to September of 22. Thanks for the reminder about, I forgot that they were, it was spelled out in that bill. Thank you. Yep. Thank you for the reminder on the HVAC. My understanding is, is if equipment is ordered but not yet installed that that's still is reimbursable. So if you're, you're planning an HVAC, you know, redo, and you've got your contractor and you've invested in, you know, purchasing, but have yet to install. I'm sorry, is that a question. Yes, it can't, is that is still eligible. Those funds are still eligible for reimbursement through CRF. I've got it. I've got ready to go. I just haven't fully installed because I can't right now. But I'm ready to go. Okay, so the, the, the HVAC, again, that that's part of CRF so those, those funds, if they have not been spoken for as a 1230 would have to go back to the, to the Treasury. There's obviously a period of time where you have to invoice and pay those invoices, but the work needs to, I believe the work has to be done I will get. Yeah, I think so. I think we did get some different different and I'm trying to verify. Yeah, Brad, please. Brad James agency of education just to clarify what the what the CARES Act language says about CRF money is the cost have to be incurred by December 30. If they've ordered the equipment that is incurring the cost paying for the equipment have installed later is fine but has to be within a reasonable amount of time. Okay. Cost incurred is reimbursable. Any other questions regarding the funding. I know that we're going to have some questions on language. Catherine James. Sorry, I thought I hit unmute. Just to clarify. Bill, did you say the gear and ester funds both extend all the way out to September 2022. Yes, that is correct. I have, I have, I have to raise my hand on that one. I'm not sure that's right. I want to say it's September 21, which is an FY 22, but I don't think it goes out to 22 we'll have to check on that because I'm not 100% sure. But that's, that's what I recall seeing. We do get tangled between our years and our FYs. We do. So I will check on that and get back you all. Okay. All right. Anything else on the numbers. We'll go to the language. Amy, excuse me, Amy and Holly, what's your time. Limit. Hello, Madam Chair, Amy Schollenberger here. I can stay as long as you want. Holly needs to jump off in a few minutes because she's presenting at a conference. Nine o'clock. Yeah. I think nine oh five she has until. Can we just quickly and Holly, if you have to go go, but if we could open up, go to the language and jump right to that section of the bill. And Holly, I'm just going to give the microphone to you because I know that all that was changed from the bill that came over from the Senate with the dates and just wanted to give you a minute to speak. Madam Chair, this is Holly more house with Vermont after school. Thank you so much for the time I believe we're looking at page eight of election of 11 section B. Last one. Yeah. 1120. Essentially, this is the language from the Senate. Keep going. Oh yeah. Yeah, it starts about midway down the column to create the task force for universal access after to after school. And this is the language that Amy and I testified in your committee on the other week, and we support the creation of this and the language as written. Any questions from Holly, I know that you've heard this. There's always this question we have a question always is how come there wasn't a student put on this, and do you have access to students. Yes, we do we have. I don't know why there wasn't one added here. There is sometimes concern for tokenism and placing one student on an adult committee, but we do have access to use after school ambassadors that come to the State House every year we have 60 or 70 youth that have done that and putting a number that have done it multiple years. And we also have a youth statewide advisory group of 50 young people that have been meeting all summer to work on a State Youth Council. And our programs have access to young people. So we could definitely incorporate youth voice through those channels as well. And we do and and all of what we do at home on after school we could advocate for that on the task force. And you're in process of doing much of this. Anyway, is that correct. I chaired the expanded learning opportunities working group that came up that wrote the reports that are cited in section C, number three. We have that data and information up to date. Since that time, we also ever month after school have a current grant of from a national funder to continue to work on expanding access and underserved areas of the state and we could use some of that money, as in order to support the data needs of the task force in updating that work and and any other data information they would need from the field. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Holly, she has a gigantic window of time here of about one minute. Chip conquest. Okay, so I was, be honest, I haven't had a chance to look through this closely but I was asked to see about a report back to House and Senate approach and human services committees. I was just looking down here to see there are some reports already. So, I wonder what, if you had a suggestion about a good time timeframe for a report back to those committees would be the current I believe it's in section. Page 10 under meetings, there is a report to the governor and to the House and Senate committees on education with findings and recommendations do honor before April 15. 2021. Not up to speed on this section and I was just asked to ask you about that so but it looks like there's already a report back in here. Thank you. Yes, and I realized that the time is short but we do have all the data, some of the things that are listed in here we have in place we have maps on our website. So I think that the task force could sort of could start ahead and get up and running pretty quickly on that piece. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thank you. So, Kate, I just I just went and talked to ledge council along with joint fiscal office regarding the expenditure timeline for coronavirus relief fund monies. So everything must be installed and usable by the end of the year. If it is not installed, it will not be eligible for CRF now the bill may not yet be paid that may still be, you know, going through the machinations of billing but, but it does a an HFAC system must be installed and usable by the end of the year. I didn't realize that. Well, that's unfortunate news. I can, I asked Jen Carvey and Steve Klein at the same time both concurred with both said that I wasn't sure what it was. I wanted to make sure both said that. Okay. Any other questions and for Holly and Amy. Thank you. Your passion for this material comes through loud and clear. Thank you so much madam chair and as Amy said she is able to stay on if questions for the questions come up. Thank you so much. Thank you. Jim, can you go through this language for us. I see you conveniently made it so that we can truly find the areas of disagreement. I appreciate this. All right, so for the record dim dim where this console on to the green is where the language is the same in both the house in San Francisco amendment. Yellow show differences in the blue sections that are in one, but not the other. In the first page here on B111. You'll see the beginning is the same but the appropriation amount is different. So, you had 324 million and said has 23 million. And then we come down to one. That's quite different actually. So, in one on your side says the funding is allocated to the categories under subscriptions BC and D. They have struck out D. That was there on but the struck out is a million dollars that was appropriate for technical assistance in administration. So that was there. That was there. That was the Senate's in the beginning anyway. Yeah, so it's been struck out by this reference to D has been deleted on their side. And then it goes on. I can't do the left hand compliment you've got a couple of higher there. Under one a you have language that they've struck. So, it says if the agency determines that any allocation to a category is likely next before you like by December 20, or based on a few about the part or maybe should be reallocated to another category and maybe allocate that funding to one or more other categories. That was your language and there's been dealt with what happens between December 20 and 30, 30, 30, and then see as a report to the physical committee about any reallocations. That's taken a different tax, which is basically there's language in the budget about reallocation more broadly. So if they can take an out language specifically here. And relying on the other language in that budget to deal with the allocations. So what they say is that is the intent of the general assembly that carries out funding, appropriate to AOE be used to ensure the safe opening operation of public schools during the state of emergency, and the public schools use these funds to the maximum except for by law. So they just if we can sort of get this into, you know, user English. I was just saying, this is just saying we're putting all the money together into one one pool and reallocating it is this where that this does this. Basically, you had given more discretion to the agency. And I believe the sample is comfortable with. You said that the agency could reallocate based on your relative priority has been taken out entirely. And this difference of dates between December 10 and 20 is gone now. So the basically, they've taken out that discretion, and they say an attention and said that the funding be used for pre K through 12 to the maximum extent permitted. They're relying on other sections in terms of how reallocation will work. Okay, questions. Okay, so if you scroll down to two, right there. Great. Thanks. So now we are talking about a track, and they have increased the appropriation you have 11.5. They have 13.5. Likewise on C, you had 6468.4, they have a point three. They were taking a million dollars from the administration to get there. And 300,000 from independent schools to get their wish will come to. They've taken out, you have three money sections in your bill. The third of those sections was the allocation for food service equipment. And that was up to four million. They have taken that section out entirely, which will come to, they moved out language here instead. So they basically just just abbreviate the language. So the tent is the same, I believe, which is of these funds up to four million. Maybe distribute the AOE for the purchase of eligible spies and equipment for food. So the substance is the same, but basically they moved into a different spot and shortened it. And then go down below further to number two. You have three, the elliptical on your side means that this language and two, and then D had not been changed in your proposal. So we're kept the impact schools at 1.5, we're kept the accounting and technical one. They have changed that so their side, they've reduced the allocation to different schools to 1.2. They have eliminated the one million going to accounting and technical, and they have put a new language that says that if the appropriate care set funding proves the insufficient to cover all reimbursable requests. So we have a new pandemic expenses show before we covered. And then for a operation for the purpose expenses that were free up from previously budgeted funds. So they have a jump in here for just one second Jim on that one line. I should say that I'm sure my apologies. Jim that that first sentence, there are the if the appropriate cares act funding proves to be insufficient to cover all reimbursement requests. Any cost for new pandemic expenses shall be fully covered to the extent that appropriate funds period needs allowed or something like that. It doesn't make sense the way it's written. Yeah, she said to the extent of appropriate funds. Yeah, that's fine. It's just it's just missing something that's all. Thanks. I will go back and I think that can be changed by the editor. Yeah. And then going down further. So your next section is the same. We've gone through the numbers already so I think we're comfortable just. Yeah, this is a fact this is basically a cross reference. So that's been updated. And then going down to be 113. And then they deleted this language and moved it above in the form. So the substance is the same, but they've dealt with it differently. So they have struck out your, your section B 113. And then moving down further to the next section. Okay, same language for the school year. They have new language you have you had language about the Australian ballot. They have struck that. So does not appear in the dark. So I understand that they sent that over to go up. Do you know what happened to that language from there. I'm not sure we're seeing us now. Hi Kate, this is how it works there from JFO. Okay. So the language is currently in S 354. Thank you. On in section eight. Thank you. And it is in Gov ops and they're going to be taking it up today. Okay. Thanks very much for that. No problem. Can I just ask Kate. S 354. Is that one of your bills? No. Okay. Chloe, what, what. What does that bill pertain to? It looks like an, it is, I just pulled it up. An act relating to emergency provisions for the operation of government. Okay. And is that one. Has anybody want to weigh in on whether that one's likely to get. Through the process. I know that I reviewed this language with the. The committee. I've been in Gov ops at the time and she didn't have a problem with it. As I remember. So. You guys. Does your committee feel strongly about. Having this. The Australian ballot language. I mean, is that a priority of yours? It's, it's. If it's elsewhere, we're fine. I got, I'm just trying to. Yeah. Back. Okay. I'm going to need to sort of review with the committee on that, but I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't know. We did send this language over in our bill. We did send the Australian language over in our bill. It was struck and moved to someplace else. So I guess we just have to see what happens. Happens from there. Okay. I would assume. Isn't it worth saying though that that it's a very important. Piece of language. And if the other bill isn't going to happen. We need to have this in. The budget. Yeah. Yes. That's fair. Thank you. Thank you for that. That reorganizing the question for me. Thank you. And it will just go through that with the committee. And get the committees. Okay. So we can keep going. Okay. Next section is be one month six. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The same. Same. So the waiver of the online teaching doors. It's the same. Yeah. The elections. For vacancies on. Unified union school district boards. It's the same. Okay. And then they have new language. So. B 118 is your ADM adjustment language. Which is the AOE's recommendation. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then. One one 20 is the. Hey, Susan, can you mute Susan Staitler? Can you mute? Thanks. Okay. Go ahead. B. One one 20 is the waiver. I have a pre-qualified program. I do my teacher. Lastly, we went through the task force earlier. With Holly, so, okay. Questions. Did we get sorted out what the transportation. Better understanding what the transportation. Peace was. Scroll back. Right here. Right. Okay. Transportation expenses are reimbursed based upon students being transported. Yeah. Food aid. So this is saying if these expenses have not been reimbursed otherwise by federal funds, they will be reimbursed by the state under the section of law. Through using the CRF funds. If it's already covered by CRF funds. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Yeah. Casey to. Thanks. I just wanted to. I had my hand raised up for the Australian ballot one. Yes. I know we did talk about that. I did hear that it wasn't that, that bill. But just to fill representative conquest in. I don't know if it's anything we can do, but any kind of appropriation for that. And I know I talked Jeff Vannon talked from the NEA. In support of this language being in there. It's something that I think, you know, you have why it's important to me, you know, you have, you have only small towns getting together in a gymnasium. And trying to come together in March, which is not that many months away. And I think it's really important that we, when we look at setting out these. These ballots and having these initiatives on our, you know, something that we could look at right now. Being prepared for for March. And actually giving our town clerks. Some kind of help sending out these ballots. Similar to what we're doing for the November election. So a couple of things. I mean, if that's, if that's something that your committee as a whole, you know, feels, feels strongly about, you should certainly indicate that to us through a, a very brief memo or something. The other thing I would say though, is that it's very likely that we're going to go straight to a committee of conference, rather than concur with amendment. And so if it's not already in what's on the two sides, it's really difficult and perhaps impossible to add something new in the committee of conference in terms of funding. But I would say that, you know, if you're talking about next March, there's budget adjustment, which will, you know, happen early in the session the next year and that, that would be in time to, to provide that funding for districts. Yeah. And thank you for that. I just, you know, I just wanted to just voice my concern on it. Just so you kind of knew kind of where I stood and what, you know, the NEA had said the other day or the other day, I don't even know a couple of weeks ago when they were in here and we were talking about this, but yeah, I completely understand that, but thank you. I appreciate hearing, getting the heads up about it though. I'm Kate, can I ask one question about the transportation expenses? Maybe to Jim. So Jim, is this saying that. If, if those expenses are not covered by CRF. Dollars that they would, that it would be covered with general fund dollars by the state. I believe the transportation expenses are covered by the ad fund. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah, it makes sense. But is that what that's saying then that would be the ad fund would cover it. So you're not understanding that. And did schools generally try to pay for that particular kinds of transportation with CRF dollars? That'd be a question for Brad. I think more than me. I'm not sure what the facts are on that. Okay. But it, but it is saying that if those aren't, are not covered with CRF dollars that they will be covered with ad fund dollars. Okay. What, what, what this referring to our federal congress is the reimbursement that happens on transportation costs two years down the road. It's roughly 45% that is reimbursed while their actual costs. The way the current language is written in, in statute is the food, the transportation of food costs would not be an eligible cost for to count. So they would not be able to, even though they'd be incurring the cost, they would not be getting reimbursed two years down the road at roughly 45%. So what this is doing is saying that those costs will be reimbursed at that point, but it is out of the education fund. And a number of school districts did use for their school buses and they, I'm sure they stopped. Well, I know, but did, did use their school bus deliver food to sort of that last portion of last school year. Oh, it's not really likely to be in a sense adding more to a school budget because they've already appropriate, they've already budgeted for transportation costs. They're just using it differently. They're just using it differently. Accurate. Yes. Yes. But do you know, did most schools. Are most schools trying to be reimbursed with CRF. Dollars for those costs. I don't know, because I haven't looked through enough budgets saying, answer that question succinctly or accurately. Okay. Thank you. We're just, we're just, this language is just saying, Hey, if your buses were running. And they were delivering school food. And I think that would be a good idea to. Picking up kids. If you haven't. If you haven't gotten the appropriate. Right. And then that that will count towards their, their transportation aid in a future year. Is this. I'm just trying to get a sense whether there's. Likely if this is likely to have any. Significant impact on. That cost in the Ed fund. So, so we're looking, we're looking two years down the road. Transportation costs are the transportation aid. I keep saying costing me an aid is roughly $15 million. On, you know, just over the court each year. So my, my guess is that it'll, that it will have some impact. I'll probably lower it somewhat. How much I don't know at this point, but it may decrease at some point. Okay. Thanks. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Well, while I'm on, if, if I may, both Bill and I were talking with Kathy Flanigan, our deputy CFO of who does the finance or the business side of the world. She did specify that Esther funds are good up through September 22. So Bill was right. I was wrong this second time. I was wrong. That's good. You're never wrong. So we know, we know you're human. Okay. Good. I'm wrong quite a bit. But, but so anyway, the Esther funds are good through September 22. And that's because the tidings amendment, which allows an additional nine months or something like that for federal monies. Okay. Okay. Are there questions or comments? Excuse me a minute. Okay. Seeing none. Thank you. We're going to move to higher ed. From here. Hey, madam chair. Yes. I did get an answer on your question about. How many people or how many LEAs are using the, the new chart of accounts. Yeah. So every single one of the LEAs that is live, which is 19 currently on E finance plus is using it. And then our team is also working with all the LEAs to collect the staff book data using the new chart of account. So. We'll keep you posted on that. Yeah. Yeah. I know how much we really want to get this organized. Yeah. Yeah. Is that also interfering with some of the. Or maybe it's the SS DDMS that's, that's interfering with our. Recent. Being put under supervision by the federal government related to our special ed. That. Partially related to that or in data collection or is it. Other other factors. Yeah. SS DDMS and E finance plus are one in the same. Referring to SLDS, which was. Right. You're right. That went live a couple of years ago. Yeah. Okay. That's another question. I'm sorry to open that can of worms. We'll be talking about that though next year. For sure. Okay. So can we get the side by side on higher ad? Okay. So, Jim, can you. Go through this. So this is the same color scheme as before greens. The same, you know, it's different. So the first difference here. So you both have. Appropriate 10 million dollars in three. For the independent colleges. So we have added this language on the right-hand side. And yellow that says distribution factors to be considered include. For an element to care that funding guidelines. Creating a floor. To protect smart schools. Should be an end in there too. So they have some. Factors to consider here in terms of allocation to the 11 colleges. And then there's a number of ways to consider that. Where you don't have that factor. And then. You've got language on your side. This is the funds are for specific purposes. So you're talking about technology remote instruction. Their version of that is, is for basically anything that meets the guidelines. Do they have less restriction. On the use of these funds. Then for UVM and for. You each have a 10 million dollar appropriation. And then for. They have a digital language. With this is below it says the duration of the governor of state of emergency. The university shall present to the house and second place. Appropriations and education. As well as UVM community. Full specific quarterly accounting. Of all funds appropriate. Expended during the span of time covered by the. The state of emergency order. And to the revenue loss projections upon which the university, university is present and future budget cuts are premised. And how those projections were out as actual bad becomes available. You know, where this came from and what the reasoning for it was. I don't. I'm not sure. I wasn't part of that discussion. Okay. So this happened. It happened in. Senate appropriations. Cause this, I don't think this was in the. The recommendation from the Senate education committee. I don't remember seeing this. It was not. It was not. Okay. So this is new. Okay. So. Let me just see if there are questions here for us. Did you want to comment on this? Yes, madam chair. Thank you for having me today. Thank you. So the Senate felt that we should have some. Sense of what an equitable distribution meant. So that we included that language so that we could make sure that the smaller institutions were adequately taken care of. That's why we added some distribution factors in there. And we also made it broader to include anything that's eligible. We also made it broader to include the additional version, which had, you know, PPE, cleaning, remote instruction. You heard from SIT. They don't have many, most of those costs or even room and board. So we needed, and each college is different and has different costs. So the broader language keeps it in compliance with the federal guidelines, but allows the institutions to, um, You know, the state has to change the language, whether it's the language that's available in the smaller institutions. We may not have some of these costs. We'll still have other costs that apply. Okay. Great. So this, this works for your. Yes, it does work for us. Um, And then, um, Wendy coning. UVM. Maybe you, maybe you were following this and know where this came from. was not part of the discussion, so I'm not aware of the origins of it. But did wanna say thanks for having us in this morning to speak about it. And first and foremost, want to thank both House and Senate appropriations and education for this additional appropriation, which will be very helpful to the university, particularly in helping fulfill some needs via financial aid for Vermont students whose families have had some revenue loss during this time. As to this language, I think that the university does not have any problem at all sharing an accounting of all funds appropriated and expended for CRF dollars. I think that our expectation was that we would have to do that anyway. And obviously, we're very grateful for all of the appropriations we've received for CRF funding, and do you feel that it's appropriate to give the legislature a full accounting of those dollars? I will say that where I find this somewhat confusing is that I don't know why it's only inclusive of the University of Vermont. I would imagine that the legislature would have an interest in having all institutions that receive CRF funds do the same. It seems that you would want to know how all of us are spending these dollars, not just the university. And I'm not saying that this was the intent behind it, but by only singling out UVM, it could seem to some that the legislature has doubts about our ability to appropriately spend the funds. And I think that that is not warranted. If I'm looking at sub B in the language where it says revenue loss projections upon which the university is present and future budget cuts are premised and how those projections bear out as actual data becomes available, I do think it's somewhat unusual and different for the legislature to be asking us for information about how we create our own budgets. That has not been something that we've done for all of you in the past. And it seems to be delving a little bit into the way that the university does its own budget and projections. So I am concerned about that sub B. And I think- This is unrelated to, this B is unrelated to COVID, correct? Or is this related to COVID? Well, if we look at the language at the beginning for the duration of the governor's state of emergency orders, my assumption is that the intent is that it's related to COVID, but the language doesn't specify that in sub B. And so that does concern me a little bit. Again, the other thing that everyone should be aware of is that as a public institution, our financials are public information already. And the other thing is that since we receive public funding from the legislature for our regular annual appropriation, we do report to the state on a monthly basis and I believe the term is, and Representative Fagan, if he's on, can correct me if I get this wrong. But there's warrant language that says that with our appropriation, we need to provide financial information monthly to the state of Vermont about how we spend the appropriation and how that fits into our financials. So we're already currently reporting monthly to the state about our financial situation. So you don't know where and when this language came from. Hi, Peter, you're joining us. No, that's correct. We're just, so you heard this, we're just trying to understand where this- I've been here the whole time, Kate. Yep, I've been here the whole time, yes. Oh, good, good, good. We're just trying to understand where this language comes from, why it's necessary and I can't say that I'm totally getting it. Maybe you have some- I have no insight. I'm right there with you, I have no insight. Yeah. Okay, and so, Jim, you didn't write this language then. I didn't write this language, no. Okay. It was just dropped in some moment. So, but it appeared, when did it appear? I'm just trying to see which YouTube I should watch. We don't know, nevermind. It'll keep me from watching YouTube so that I don't need to watch, so okay. Just to read Austin. Yep, I just wanna share when I read that language as well. It just kind of struck me as odd as well and I feel like it implies an underlying unwarranted concern and I would be really curious to see, you know, what the intent of that language is. Okay. Anybody else? Kate, I have a quick question and this is really probably for Representative Fagan and that is at least in terms of accounting for all funds appropriated. Here it's really designed to ask that of UVM but in the language for the state colleges, is there a similar requirement? Not at this time. And I'm trying to remember what we put into the Q1 budget as far as reporting requirements. I don't think that there was anything so extraordinarily specific as the language that you're looking at that was in there. It's, but there may have been because we need to, in three years, typical timeframe when an audit comes back to look at you, be able to pull something up and read it and then remember and say, I remember what we did with it, it's right here and this is how we used it. To be able to then prove that we were in accordance with the CARES Act guidelines. So having the accounting which UVM, they do provide because of the warrants and the Vermont State Colleges also do the warrant process is fine, duplicating the need is probably not a bad thing. You know, it's just a reminder and probably not a bad thing. Thank you. Okay. So I'm sorry I got distracted by that conversation during that conversation, Peter. So if I repeat myself in here, please save the committee and interrupt me. Could I, let's take the document down. I just want to look at the committee. So in terms of the higher ed portion, is it fair to say that we have questions about the additional language in the UVM portion? Okay. And is it fair to say then that you're okay with the AVIC language or the independent college language? Okay. So that's what we'll be saying to you, Peter Fagan. Send that to you. And if we go to the, if we go to the, pre-K language. Thanks for having us. Thank you. Madam chair. Yeah. Question. So if I understand where you're coming from, you have a problem with the language, are you going to be recommending language, which you'd like me to work with UVM to come up with something different? What's your pleasure, please? Yeah, sure. Why don't we, why don't we talk? Why don't you and I have a chat? Yeah. Go ahead and start a conversation with, if it's going straight to committee of conference, then we can work on that through there. Otherwise happy to have a flat conversation with you. I believe that's the direction we'll go. That was what I recommended last night in a committee chat. So I can't say that is absolutely what we're going to do, but that's where I think the committee's heading. Okay. Thank you, Peter Fagan. We really, really loved having you join us. Well, I really do appreciate the committee digging in and I've said it time and again, you've been of extraordinary help. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. If we look at, no, where did it go? Here it is. So in terms of the numbers, anything glaring on the numbers that Chloe sent out, we are going to basically be okay with the numbers as written so far and we'll let appropriations deal with any. Yeah. So we'll be okay with that. So I think the only thing that really stands out for us at this point is making sure that the Australian ballot language exists somewhere. And if not, then it should stay. And keeping in mind that it probably would be something to flag for either flag for the Joint Fiscal Committee or just remind appropriations that it might cost something. And then the ADM language. This is what the, this is basically the, it's basically just as we know it's a zero sum game but Kathleen James. Yeah. Thanks, Kate. I just want to raise it because it's an issue in my region that's come to my attention and I know that there are really legitimate points to be made on both sides but we've talked a little bit about Winhall which is a full choice district in my region. And they've seen a kind of an unprecedented population explosion due to the pandemic and are facing a $1 million budget shortfall in the number of kids that they need to tuition in. And I just wondered if we could have a quick talk about whether there might be any options for them. And I don't know what ideas are. I don't know if anybody from JFO has any ideas but I just wanted to raise that because it's been brought to my attention as a problem of a $1 million unexpected budget shortfall that a school in my region is facing. So I at least wanted to raise the issue. So Chloe, that could be eligible for CRF. Is that correct? Nick, they could put in for CRF. Hi, Chloe Wexler. That would be a legal interpretation but it is possible. I would imagine that at least for from September to December they could possibly request reimbursement for those unanticipated tuition costs. It wouldn't cover the full year but I do think that could be an option and if Brad is still on maybe he can speak to that as well. Yeah, Brad. I'm still on but I don't know the answer to that question. My initial thought is I'd be a little bit surprised if that was eligible but I don't know. I'll try to figure out who to ask about that. I do know that Winhall and a few other towns down in your area, Representative James have had this issue before where people have moved up unexpectedly. What this language currently does says that our count will be no less than the current number so that means that any inquiries will be counting so that will help too. But that doesn't address the deficit issue that you're bringing up. So I don't know what this BL is for CRF or not. Now I will check in. I have a couple of questions. I just see Jim Demeray is raising his hand so he might be able to answer part of that. So let's get that and then get to your second question. Okay. Okay, Jim Demeray. Yeah, so to set that these costs are being incurred due to the pandemic. So whether you're an operating district that has kids moving in after your budget has been approved you have a digital cost or a tuition district which is paying tuition and is incurring non-budgeted costs due to people moving in because of the pandemic. I believe there's a good case to be made in both fronts for operating and tuition districts. That CRF funds could be used for these purposes. However, there have to be some control to pursue this district to know the best reason these kids moved into their district. So it might be checking with parents or whatever but I would say too, it's for only the first half of this year if it is eligible. And where every is done or not done the ADM will catch up. So next year when we do the two-year rolling average ADM to calculate equalized people the increase will be counted and they'll get a tax benefit next year. So if you were to provide funding for these students this year you also have to make an ADM adjustments and they'll get a double benefit for all funds and the benefit of the ADM adjustment. Thank you. That's really helpful. Kathleen. Yeah, I was just also gonna ask, I mean, I raised the issue of Winhall just because they're right next door and they've brought it to my attention. So I don't know if I'm not trying to be inequitable. I don't know if there are other districts around the state that are choice like that that are in a similar situation. Skihomes. Yeah, and I also don't know whether, if, you know, I know I'd heard, I mean, they're, you know, in different conversations I've heard about this, I don't know whether, you know, I mean, this is not a new situation for Winhall. It's just, it's just worse than ever before, right? So, and it's pandemic related. So if they were to take out a loan to cover and some portion of that were to be attributed to COVID, I'm just trying to think of some fair way to acknowledge that something happened to Winhall this year that is COVID related that was truly beyond their control that happened after March. You know, I mean, from talking to their board chair, you know, Winhall passed a responsible budget that included a responsible number of ghost students based on historic trends. And then, you know, then COVID happened and they had, I'm not looking at the numbers right now and they had 50, you know, 50 tuition students either move in or move to their vacation homes or buy homes in the area. And, you know, they're in a region of our state that's gonna attract a higher number of new homeowners or new families just because of where they're located. You know, people from Boston or people from New York are gonna be maybe more likely to buy there or move there and these are new families coming to our state and that's good then. So I don't know, I just, I bring it up. I don't necessarily know what the answer is, but you know, I don't want the session to end in the budget to move on without us at least thinking about it. And I know it's late in the game, but there you have it. Peter, come on. Yeah, the challenge of course with Winhall as Jim said is that if you fund the tuition that they're paying because they don't operate any schools and then the ADM catches up and they get a serious tax rate change, how do you balance that? Because they will benefit from a higher enrollment. Well, I don't know if it benefits the right word since they don't operate any schools, but the ADM will catch up in terms of their reimbursement. So to me, it's a short-term deficit problem that they have and it is a little late in the game, but you know, if they need to borrow money I would certainly think it'd be a good idea to at least try to get them interest-free money because this certainly is a COVID-related issue. Larry Copley. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Kate. Is it, it's been my understanding that COVID funds cannot be used to correct or balance budgets. I could be very wrong, but maybe Jim or Brad can chime in on that. Yeah, so this is a case where you're back-to-own revenue. This is a case where you're incurring unbudgeted costs. So if there's back-to-own revenue for the state or maybe for our locality, that could be an issue. But here we have unanticipated costs due to COVID-19. I believe this cost could be eligible for reimbursement, these are our funds. In terms of the loan, just by rough calculation, if you have a million dollar loan to cover these costs, let's say you have a 5% interest rate, that's 50,000 bucks at interest, you can only use that federal fund to cover a portion of that interest because they can't go beyond December 3rd, so maybe it's a 25,000 dollar use of federal funds to cover interest on that loan. So just to put that into perspective, and I believe that might already be eligible. So I'm not sure that there needs to be more to be done on that because the CRF funding usually comes with no strings aside from being eligible. So it might be that they could use the funds already for that purpose. Okay, we'll come into the end, we're due on the floor in 10 minutes. And I did see, Phil, did you send out a meeting on Wednesday? Do we have a meeting Wednesday? I didn't. We have not talked about having a meeting on Wednesday. There was talk about maybe having a meeting on Friday. Right, oh, okay. I thought I saw something come through on Wednesday and I was going, I don't remember that, so. Okay, yes, we will have a meeting on Friday. This will be a meeting related to masks. We passed a resolution last week celebrating mask day and there are a bunch of students who are gonna come and speak to us. I thought it'd be nice for us to actually hear from some students on the last day of our session, what I'm assuming is the last day. And we will, that should be it. So, and as I understand the task force, likely to possibly not have a problem with that at this point. And I will confer with appropriations on that. So I think with that, we can end the meeting. And I thank everybody, thank you, some of the people. I bet I won't see for a while. Oh, Jeff Francis, did you have anything to add? I'm sorry, the ADM issue might be the thing that you're most interested in. And Jeff Fanon, Jeff Fanon to up. Yeah. Good morning. The ADM language is important. I like to send its numbers, but I think that's just based on information that we've gathered since you folks passed the budget and it gets important to acknowledge. I did ask the question about, the representative Toof mentioned about the Australian ballot. I thank Chloe for clarifying. It's an S354, I'm gonna have to look at that. I've been juggling a couple of things. And so I haven't had a chance to look at that, but I will. It's section eight, I think Chloe said. And I will look at that. And the ADM, I tend to agree, we've got to do something about, the sentence language looks to be helpful in that regard. And I think just something has got to be done to address the issues that we know are out there. So just hold people, essentially holding people harmless is the important way to go. However we do it, I think we support that. I'm trying to keep this quick because I know you folks are heading to the floor. All right, I think I'll just keep it as simple as that. Thank you, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Jeff Francis, did you have anything? I just wanna thank you for your work in its entirety. We support the proposals of amendment from the Senate, not in any way, shape or manner because we don't honor your work. We think that they had the benefit of more time and the ability to respond to what you had created for them to respond to. So I thank you for your work. We support the Senate's proposal of amendments. We think the ADM language is important. And I think the money allocations are reflective of what the need is. So in summary, thank you. And we do support the Senate's proposals of amendment. Thank you. It's unfortunate since some of these things have to go into the budget, but we are in the middle of a global pandemic. So things are not being done and it's usually highly organized, the well-structured end of the session. It is even more chaotic than usual. Okay, so I think that's it. Thank you everybody and thank you Brad. Good to see you.