 This is Wednesday, June 10th. This is the Education Committee in the Vermont House of Representatives, and we are looking today at COVID-19 responses, education funding related to CRF funding. And a question came up yesterday. There were some concerns about summer lunch programs for families and in conversation with the chair of human services, they are taking pretty strong role in this area. So I invited Katie McClendon who's been drafting the legislation there to just give us an update on what they are doing so we can see how that fits with our concerns. So Katie, thank you so much. I know your time is limited. Thank you. It's nice to see you all. So I have a document that I think really can pop up on your screen but I should just say as a disclaimer that while human services has been talking about a lot of these issues, I haven't looked at the language yet they've been talking about the ideas and concept and I've been kind of tracking their conversation and putting language together as we go. So this is language that is likely subject to change once the committee has a chance to take a look at it. Thank you. So Julie, if you could bring that up. Thank you. Okay. So this language probably follows the format that you've been seeing where in our first subsection where we're adding the appropriation. So right now we have the sum of 12 million again that's a placeholder. And there's going to be further discussion about the particular monetary amount, but 12 million is appropriated from the coronavirus relief fund to the agency of education for distribution to a summer meal sponsors and fiscal year 2021 for the purposes of continuing meal delivery services to children during the summer months June, July and August. Subsection B we have the rationale for that particular expenditure. So, the general assembly determines the expenditure of monies from the coronavirus set forth in this section as necessary to provide meal delivery services to children, including the preparation, packaging and delivery of meals, and is due to a resulting from COVID-19 because food insecurity has increased significantly during the pandemic and settings otherwise available to provide meals during the summer months may not be available. The appropriation shall assist in the payment of costs incurred by sponsors to address one or both of the following. So first compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions. Secondly, accommodations of to accommodate increased participation in the program due to the increased number of people eligible participants who are impacted by the negative negative economic effects during the public health emergency. So that was subsection B the rationale. And then in subsection three there's been a conversation about the possibility that the state might be receiving federal funds for the summer meals it depends on whether or not we're able to get a waiver for certain provisions required under federal law. So there's this language about, I guess, not double dipping so provision of summer meals to children is not compensable under this section if the same costs or expenses or portion thereof have been or will be covered by a federal grant so that if the federal money comes in that we're not we're going to use the federal money for that purpose we're not going to rely on the state money. And then just just before I get on this call. There's another kind of side conversation of maybe adding language to the subsection C maybe as a subdivision C one has said something along the lines of the agency of education to continue to work on getting the waiver so we could draw down some of those federal funds. So that is language that may or may not be added as we continue to move forward. And that's it for the language right now. That's right. Thank you. And I'm going to Peter get a begging and just a minute I just wanted to clarify also understand that the trade transportation committee is looking into some funds for transportation is that your understanding as well for food. Okay, I did receive word that there is some portion of transportation's 5 million that would be put towards this particular proposal to pay for the delivery of meals. I don't know what amount yet and I'm not sure if the committee itself knows the amount yet. Thank you. Peter Fagan. Good morning chair. So, Kate. Good morning. And Katie, thank you. I'm sure who this is for but this, I'm talking about deconflicting of because I absolutely agree with do it with continuing to do this I just want to make sure that we have two meals for the same same child at the same time to the same household. And I'll give you the reason why I am asking this questions I had an opportunity to I inquired of my local meals on wheels group here and they invited me down to take a look. I was stunned by the geographic area that they serve because they are in Saint Albans. They are in bellows falls. And I can't remember where else they don't cover the whole state but they go a long way. The meals were fabulous. They actually gave us two meals to bring home and the lasagna we had I would I would eat that you know I would expect to get that in a restaurant. The marinara sauce was wonderful. I'm going to plug for for meals on wheels. I talked to one of the drivers who was was delivering meals to folks that are being housed in hotels and Roland, who are otherwise homeless, and said how's it going and he said you know it's going pretty well Monday through Friday is okay. But on the weekends. Most of the meals that I deliver without even opening them and consuming any. So my I'm what I'm wondering is are they but are those individuals where there are children involved are they also getting the meals delivered from school at the same time that meals on wheels was delivering. I don't know if anybody can answer that, but it's a question I just want to pause it and, and see if we can get answered at some point in time because one of the things that the speaker charged us with was deep conflicting. Making sure we only spend $1 to do one thing and not $1 from here and $1 from there both trying to do the same thing. I'll leave it up to somebody if anyone can answer that one. We do have some meals and we'll excuse me we do have some of the folks from hunger Vermont here I don't know if they have an ability to answer any of that. Yes, madam. Madam speaker if you want me to answer now I can answer that question partially this is a nor horton from hunger free Vermont. Thank you. You want me to proceed. Yes. Yes, so Representative Fagan, you are accurate that there has been a bit of a challenge in organizing who which entity is going to be providing meals at which times to the folks who are being housed in hotels. Who who are normally homeless, and that does include some homeless families with children, but I've been involved with other other key organizations and the state emergency folks in in sorting that out and I think in most places in the state, any duplication of effort in those programs has been alleviated. There, it was just a bit of a challenge about which entity was going to get a contract with the state SEOC to cover those meals. I do think it, you're absolutely right that it's so important to avoid any duplication of effort with these precious funds that that we have and that and that's critical. In terms of the summer meals program there will not be any duplication of meal provision that that cannot happen because every sponsor must register with the agency of education and be approved and they will be covering a very set geographic region and our challenge at this point is to get the state covered I mean we're gonna, you know, that's going to be a huge issue, and it's getting greater, a greater challenge every single day that that we delay but there won't be any duplication of meals I can guarantee you that. Thank you and or my, if it had come down to it I would have said I'd rather feed people and risk that the food going to waste. I really hate to say that word out loud because I work very hard in my own family to make sure we don't waste anything, but you know if we can deconflict all the better so thank you. Peter Collin. I thanks. Just a couple questions. Paul is the agency of education, okay with being the ones in charge of this money distribution. My understanding is that summer meal programs are generally federally funded programs that operate independent of kind of the regular year school system and I know the pandemic has thrown everything into a bit of a different situation. There's no sort of the interlinking between the agency of education, federal programs, what's already going on in schools, and then I basically hope and there's nothing in here to to address this but that we will not be delivering meals during the summer, using giant school buses. Yes, so you are correct representative Collin that the summer food service program is a federal program and I do want to be very clear that that we will be getting there'll be a significant amount of federal funding for that program coming to Vermont, most of the waivers that that we needed to the FDA the agency of education has successfully obtained. And so the costs of food, the cost of much of the labor to prepare the meals will be covered by federal dollars. And what is never covered by the federal program is the cost, it would be cost of delivering meals because normally the federal program congregates kids in a place and gives them all the meals in that one place that's how it's normally works. And there'll be additional costs for PPE additional costs for packing me packaging meals to go which again is not the normal way the program works at all, and some additional labor costs so I just want to be clear that this will, there will be a significant portion of this program that will be covered by the federal funds and the agency of education administers those federal funds for the summer meal program. They also are the agency that trains all of the summer meal sponsors overseas that those sponsors are operating properly and using funds and and works to in partnership with some private with some nonprofits like hunger free Vermont works to recruit sponsors and make sure the program is operating well so I do believe that the agency of education is the appropriate agency to handle these funds since they do deal with all the rest of the claiming and disbursement of federal money for this program. I realized that Katie Katie has another meeting to go to so I want to thank you for sharing that it sounds like we can get the rest from other folks that are in the room but I am pleased to hear the work that's going on in the committee. We have we have certainly have backup funds to cover CRF but if if the focus can be up there and I'm really pleased to hear that they've taken on the summer program. Thank you so much Katie. Thank you nice to see you all. Yeah. Larry did you. I just know you hit raise your hand. Are you just waving. Sarita. Awesome. Yes hi. I just want to clarify something in the past the summer meal program was a universal program. Is that correct like there were no limits in terms of who was eligible all children could get it. And then in this looks in the in the new proposal it it increases eligible participants which is wonderful I'm just wondering is that different than the past summer program where all kids were eligible. Thank you for that question representative Austin. So the in normal times the summer food service program operates in a way where communities have to be eligible for that program based on the percentage of low income children in their community and if the community could demonstrate that during the school year 50% of children attending that school were eligible and enrolled in free and reduced price school meals then that turned that entire community the whole geographic area served by the school into effectively a universal summer meals program where all children any child age 0 to 18 could be served summer meals at no charge to the families and the school or the sponsor of the meal program whoever that was would be fully reimbursed by USDA for each meal served and then in communities that didn't hit that 50% threshold, they couldn't operate a summer meal program in that way, and the only kind of summer meal program that those communities could operate is what is called by USDA a closed enrolled summer meal program, meaning that if there was a summer school, or a summer camp, or something like that where they could demonstrate that 50% of the children in that program were using the free and reduced price school meal program during the school they could serve all the kids in that program universally free summer meals. So that's how the program operates and that's the one waiver we're still trying to get from USDA our agency of education is still trying to get which would be to make the summer meal program universal everywhere in Vermont. So we don't have that waiver yet, but many more towns have qualified to be able to provide an open summer meal program because of the collapse of our economy and so many people being out of work and all the lost income so even if we don't get that waiver, we will be able to serve a very large percentage of children with the summer meal program this summer if we have the ability to deliver meals to them. If we don't get that funding. If the school districts I mean it's not hungry Vermont if the school districts and other sponsors don't get that funding from the cares act funds that 12 million that's that's what we're looking at to say that that's what we think it will take to really be able to fully cover the whole state with summer meals and part of that is for transportation. Part of that is to cover additional costs. As I said earlier, that that it is going to require to safely package meals to have enough staff to cover increased demand things like that. But another part of it is to address the fact that not all school districts are are willing or able to continue providing meals over the summer. So we're going to have gaps in where summer meals can be provided by school districts and we're going to need to quickly find other nonprofit entities who are willing to sponsor the meal program in that area and then we're going to have to find entities who can prepare the meals and then to them to that program and we're thinking that perhaps some local restaurants in different communities in Vermont could you know we could have a win win win here right and and we could get restaurants. I'm sorry the f 35s are dry on flying over and it's very loud so um but but so does that answer your questions. Okay, thank you for a second. So just just what I'm looking for right now is is the committee comfortable with where the the other committee is going and so that we can move on to things that actually we need to be covering. And I'm looking to Caleb elder to to respond at this point. Thank you chair web. I am very pleased to see this proposal from human services I guess what I'm keen to understand is because money has not gone out to school districts yet I just appreciate our own funding being written in such a way that it also can be used for these qualifying reimbursements so that while I see the 12 million that we've just been hearing about from Katie and from house human services that that might be more about transportation logistics for this summer and I just want to make sure that we're also saying yes but we know you had kind of FY 20 costs which maybe for food service and can also be reimbursed out of the bill that our committee has in front of us. I don't think those things are duplicative to me they just provide potentially different channels for the different moments in time over which this crisis has unfolded. Also just with your permission I'd like to just read something from our superintendent about our summer meal program. I just wanted to say I'll keep it to one sense. It's fine I was just going to have Jim respond first but go ahead just saying without factoring transportation the meals during coven have actually been revenue generating. Since we are operating as if it were summer meals we are reimbursed at a higher rate per meal than normal. And so what this emphasizes is that it's not the food that is at least in our district putting a hole in the budget. It is the additional labor that has had to be moved to the food service sector and it is particularly that 4850 $4850 per day we're spending on transportation so thanks for letting me share that it was just something from the field that came very recently. Well I wanted to have Jim respond in our language that we have if it's COVID related. It's a permissible. Our language would allow for that correct. Well that's true only in subdivision a one. A two and a three would have to be broadened. So, and summer meals. I'm not so sure this. I'm not sure. I think if you want this bill to cover some meals. I think we need to be more expressed on that point. Additionally, I'm not sure about if it's a usual school district costs or not given that it's their fair funds of transportation. I'm not sure. So I think to be cautious here I encourage some language on that in this bill. And, but in terms of money that has already been spent that in our a one that is a reimbursable expense if they're not able if they're not using that. So again, we can add language in the boat to make that express as a, as a permitted expense. Peter Fagan. Did you have something. Sorry, I'll get used to putting the hand thing down. Yeah. Chip conquest and approach. How are we doing here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by how are we doing. I'm just checking to see if you had any questions remaining questions before we move on. No, I mean, I think Peter mentioned the thing earlier that is on my mind is just, you know, making sure that that in all the good work we're doing that you're your committee is doing here that we're not duplicating efforts elsewhere. I appreciate much counsel suggesting about being specific in these areas for things you want to cover. I would just again, you know, make sure that in when the language is very broad that we're just being careful that we're not, you know, spending the money in on the same thing in different areas. Okay, thank you. So just trying to figure out what we want to do with that language. Do people. Do we need to do we need to add that language, folks. Kathleen. And then we need to move on to higher ed. So, I was just going to say, I agree. I think we do. And don't we also still need to add language making more clear what our tier one and tier two priorities are. I remember discussing that yesterday with you. Can I just address that maybe it's useful to have preparations here for this question. I'm not sure what form, maybe they both should focus into your one only and the communication here too should be to Chloe's chart. If that's okay with the preparations, or you can do both in the bill. I'm worried about a little bit worried about timing. Yeah, my understanding would be that. Yes, we want, we want clearly what you wanted to your one spell that just in the form that you're doing here. Anything for tier two could come as a list doesn't need to be in sort of bill form like this. And, you know, we'll be acting on tier one immediately this week. And the other things will be taking up later if, you know, if and when it's the right time for that. Okay. I understand a nor you have a couple more things that you wanted to say is it something that you can send to us because we're just running out of time here I'm afraid to get this document forward. Yes, I would be very happy to do that I just mostly wanted to make sure that you did not require any additional clarifying information for me about the different places where school meal programs had incurred costs or or are likely to. I think just quickly my understanding, my sense here is that 12 million for summer it is great and if the, you know, Health and Human Services Committee is going to take that on that that is great and the funding that you all are working on would be to make school meal would be an among many other things to cover costs that school meal programs have incurred as representative elder was describing, and also to look ahead to what's going to be required for cafeterias and schools to do in order to prepare for safely providing meals in the new coronavirus environment when schools open in the fall so I think the more flexibility that's provided in the way the funding is set. So of course you just froze. Brad James you for the agency you are going to be providing guidance that will include I'm assuming guidance related that will include meals. Is that possible. I haven't thought about meals per se because I think I my understanding was that that is under a different funding source from USDA as opposed to the. I mean my guess is the answer money could probably be used for that. I'm not 100% certain on what I've read in the CRF money, so the money that we're really kind of talking about your tier one and tier two. I'm not clear on, as I read that whether it says food is allowed, it does talk about food delivery. And it talks about it as as I read it and this is from the US Treasury guidance it says expenses of actions to facilitate compliance with coven 19 related public health measures, such as expenses for food delivery to residents, including for senior citizens and other vulnerable populations to enable compliance with coven 19 public health precautions. I think you can make an argument that, and again I'm not an attorney. And so this needs to be vetted and run by whom I was making decisions as to what is an allowable cost, but I think you can make an argument for the fact that that because schools are closed and kids need food that delivery of the food by school buses is an allowable cost. Okay, I'm going to need to move us on we've got more to talk about I have the ability to do some shifting of money I know that the superintendent's and school board Association have some requests on language, which you need to get to and we haven't gotten to higher ed so a representative elder I'm going to give you one last shot. Thanks. Yeah, just with an organ and cut off there I just wanted to draw our attention to what she had said. Yesterday evening it would basically take section a one and two and combine them in effect. I think the benefit of that in addition to calling out maybe food delivery, specifically according to what Brad just said, the benefit of doing that would be two fold one it would have the title one allocations applied to the entire 40 million, which addresses the problem you mentioned yesterday with well organized district not getting out in front and we do it for all the money instead of half of it. The other thing I think would be beneficial is I'm not convinced that 20 million is enough to cover the FY costs incurred, especially this transportation through the month of June. I hope it is, but in the case that it's not I would like the full pot to be available for those already incurred costs. I don't know where to forward looking costs so. Yeah, that's my final comment I mean I don't know if anyone logic there but that's that's what I'd love to see happen. And we will have an opportunity to do that. I had hoped that we could get this all done in an hour and it's just seeming like it's we aren't going to be able to do that. I have. I'm just trying to figure out how we're going to do this before we meet at 1030. And Julie you have to leave at at 10 is out of my understanding. I can be here until 1030. Okay. We need to look at the higher ed portion and then I'm just checking to see if we have. No we don't have. We need to get Jeff Francis in the room again, Julie. If you could send something out to Jeff Francis and Sue. From the school boards Association, that would be great because they have they have some recommendations for language change. And Jim, did you get the recommendations for language change from them. Okay, good. I do this. Okay, thank you. So I have. I think we have Sophie here. And I think we have UVM here as well. We have UVM here. Okay. Richard Kate. Okay. Thank you, Richard. So we are looking at funds and just to the committee, I just want to be clear on a couple of things as I went back and looked at where we are in the budget adjustment act age 953. We applied some COVID dollars to the Vermont State colleges to the tune of $12,512.5 million to cover 2020 costs related to rooms, meals, distance learning equipment, et cetera. And to UVM we gave 8.7 million. And in the first quarter budget, we gave 15.258 to the Vermont million to the state colleges and another 15.355 to UVM. So we have some significant money that has gone to higher ed. So it looks like we've got to the Vermont State colleges. 2028 28 million and to the University of Vermont. 23 million I think. So I just want to make sure that we understand that. And as a result, I am going to suggest that we would do some of the money to the Vermont State colleges and move some of that money over to availability for pre K-12. So now that I have the two higher education folks in the room to say I'm considering with the committee. At the moment we have 10 million in our first tier funds, considering moving that to five. So this would allow for a little bit of the room that I think representative elders talking about. And I think Dylan, you had a comment. No, you don't. Okay. Okay. So, Sophie, you sent an email talking about some of the ways that you would be able to spend this money. And I also would like if we could pull the draft of our bill. I think it's one point. Is it one point to Jim. Yeah, so I think is, I think it's on our on our calendar. So Julie, if you could pull that up. Thank you. And if you could scroll down. Jim, where is it located? It's Subsection B online. So at the moment, sorry. Because we're not dealing with tier two, the only goal of language is B one. Yes. Okay. So at the moment, this is the language that we have with 10 million. So, so excuse me, Jim, I'm just a little bit confused. I don't know what you're dealing with with. Yeah, because we're thinking tier two appropriations out. And using close chart. So B two will come out of the bill. Oh, okay. So it's just be one. I think you're focusing on now. Okay. Okay. And that will happen with the, for the, for the pre-K 12 as well. Yeah, we'll be taking out a three. And we're talking about collapsing a one and two. Well, there are different fiscal years and different language. We should talk about that. Make sure we know. Okay. So I just wanted to give Richard and Sophie a chance to respond to this, this language. Particularly given what I just said about money that's already been appropriated or is in the process of being appropriated as it moves through the, the process of being appropriated. So I just wanted to make sure that I understand. So the, we're talking about, well, not 10,000, but 5,000 between UVM and the VSC, but it's for FY 20, which is ending in a three weeks here. Is that correct? So we would need to adjust that. So is that what we're talking about is fiscal year 20, or we're talking about fiscal year 21. I think Josh is talking about 20, but that could be changed 21 of course. So, okay. We want to give you till December to spend it. Okay. Yeah. So I was going to say one of the challenges would be, you know, trying to do this within the next three weeks, because as you noted, we don't yet have the money in the budget adjustment act bill, you know, hasn't been signed by the governor yet. So we don't have it, but that would just be one of my concerns would be having three weeks to spend the additional money. I went back to the colleges to see because as you noted, we already have had COVID related expenses. Recognized in the two bills that you mentioned to, you know, 27 million approximately an additional funding. So I think some of the costs that the colleges are working with like for protective equipment and things like that are more expensive than they had originally envisioned. And I think one of the other pieces on those requests that was submitted did not include the cost of testing because at that time it wasn't clear whether that would be an expense the colleges would have or whether that was something the state was going to cover. And I know there was an additional 55 million, you know, under cares for testing. So those costs had not been included before my sense is that and correct me if I'm wrong, but that the legislature is really interested, particularly with the Vermont State colleges in trying to figure out ways to support the Vermont State colleges with the bridge funding moving forward. And there's a limit to what you can do with COVID relief fund money that would help the Vermont State colleges. So one of the things that in talking to the colleges that might be helpful and also help address support the colleges moving forward, I maybe reduce the amount of bridge funding that would ultimately be needed would be if there were ways to use this money to help support the students. So if we can support students using coronavirus relief money, that would that would help enrollment, which then in turn would also help the colleges financially and hopefully reduce the need for bridge funding. So I would I would just put that out there as being a possible route for using a coronavirus funding that could ultimately help the colleges deal with the financial situation they have. We do have in what I had emailed to you previously, for example, from CCV. They were saying that they have already gone through or they're currently getting quickly through the CARES Act funding that was used to provide support to students to help them with childcare, transportation, housing and food. If there's a way we could use some of this money to again help support students to enable them to continue in college or to come to college in the fall. I think that would that would serve two purposes that could be beneficial. I think you had about two million, I think was what you thought it might. That was specifically for CCV, right? So that but that same logic, I think would apply to the other colleges as well. I don't have a specific number for the other colleges, but probably something along the lines of the money that they've, the amount that was allocated through the CARES Act, originally maybe, you know, maybe we could use that as a rough guide guide, but I can also find more information and provide that to you. It's just been a very short timeframe with a lot going on. So I apologize. I don't have more concrete numbers for you on that. We understand. I'm sure you do. Peter Fagan, did you have something? Yes, thank you, Kate. So one of the things that I, that I don't know if I emailed or mentioned that you lose track as far as potential use for additional CRF money being applied to the, our institutions of higher education, UVM and the Vermont State colleges would be to buy down the tuition costs for students more. That might just make the difference in somebody deciding to return or to show up to begin with and not. In other words, if we can take the cost of education at least for one semester off the plate as far as concerns, you know, they'll still be concerned about, about coronavirus, et cetera. But if we can take the cost off the plate, it just might make the difference on students might return. So Jim, Jim, just to respond to some of these comments. This language is broad. So if you look online, 11 it covers. Current virus costs incurred. So it's basically any, any qualified costs. And that's clarified on the next page. If you scroll down. Please to. Section C scope of guidance. I would ask this about guidance issued by this actually for Casey 12, but the idea of this language, which we should look at there is that the guidance issued to allow for use of the funding to cover all cost permitted under law. So I think we can experience that. To cover the funding for higher education. And I would note too that Jeff Francis had language like this. He said, we should look at. As well. Yes. Excellent. I think that they're coming into the room now. I've got to go. Sorry. I'll be right back. Okay. Let's say Richard. Kate. Good morning. Morning. I was wondering, I think we sent in the. Table that was in the letter I sent to representative Fagan some time ago. I don't know if it'd be helpful. For the committee if that was displayed or not. So Julie, could you look on the appropriations website and see if you could find a memo from. Actually, we were sent to this, to this committee yesterday. Okay. It's on our website. Kate. It is. I don't know if it would be helpful. For the committee if that was displayed or not. So. Great. Our spending. So Julie, could you look on the appropriations website and see if you could find a memo from. Jim. It is. Okay. I've missed it. So maybe Julie, if you could bring that up. And Jim, I've seen your, your hand up. I'm assuming that that's not accurate. Jim stepped away. You may want to mute him if you can. Excuse me. You may want to mute Jim as well. I heard him step away. To go attend to something else, but he left his. Audio on. Okay. He just got muted. Thank you. Thank you. If you could scroll down to the. So it's just a table being displayed. I appreciate it. Thank you. So this table lays out and. As you were saying earlier. Shows the. Break down to the 8.7 million in the earlier request. And. In terms of the ability to spend. Money allocated for FY 20. It's not going to be a problem for us. If you look down towards the bottom there are many other costs. You know, I think. Representative Fagan was mentioning. Our core need going forward. There certainly are many, many costs, but one of the biggest ones is financial aid. We expect a significant additional need on the part of students because of the economic circumstances associated with financial aid. And we're expecting it probably another 1000 students. To ask for adjustments in the coming weeks. And so that is where we would. That would be the first place we would be putting any additional money that would be coming in quickly. To do essentially. Reduce the net cost of tuition. Which is of course is what the way it matters. So I think that's a good question. I don't need to take a lot of your time. I know you're. So to clarify. Should, should the two bills passed out of the house, the budget adjustment act and the first quarter. Budget, which would give you an 8.7 and a 15.3. Million. You could be using those funds to cover these. And then having a little bit extra would be helpful as well, I'm sure. Yes, absolutely. There are many other costs. And again, I expect we'll drive them to the majority to financial aid, but. We obviously do as indicated on table. We're going to incur a cost around testing and facilities, modifications. A host of other things as we go forward. We also, there's also an additional 5 million for VSEC. So hopefully that can help as well. That would be welcome. Certainly. Okay. Any questions. For. UVM. Our. For Wednesday colleges. Can I ask a clarifying question? Please. So this is a very helpful chart. So I'm seeing about 8.7 million. In total through. The end of the fiscal year. So when we're talking about tier one money. If we're talking about tier one money. If we're talking about tier one money. Those costs clearly were all incurred and could all be offset with tier one money. And it sounds like you're saying, maybe those numbers would grow because those other student expenses would also count as potentially FY 20. Yeah. What I'm saying is, is we would be able to drive. Any additional funding into, into financial aid. Within this fiscal year. We would be able to do that. We would be able to do that. We would be able to go with it. It would be benefiting students that are coming. In the fall. But we can roll it through. Very quickly. And so for the. Well, I'm sure that number is growing, but the 6.3. That is. For the academic year 2021. Is any of the money that I know is not. There yet, but that was in the budget adjustment act. That was in the budget adjustment act. That was in the budget adjustment act. That was in the budget adjustment act. How that money in the budget adjustment act can be, I guess, applied to any of this money, this entire 15 million. Yes. Yes. That's my understanding. Okay. And I do need to clarify that beyond this table, there were several boats. Maybe you can scroll down below the table here for a minute. That talk about other costs. And one of the key ones is where you see, it says, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We talked about another 20 million. At least in the digital financial aid. So it's a combination of the table. And. And these other bullets are costs that we expect to incur. Thank you. Any other questions. Comments. Peter come. Thank you. I just need some clarification and then a question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And then from our state colleges have received within the BAA and the first quarter budget. It was this money above. Or in addition to their usual annual appropriations. Or is this. What they, you know, would normally get when we appropriate state monies to them. This is over above this. The general fund. The general fund. The general fund. Thank you. And so therefore it looks like. About 24 million to UVM. But the chart here kind of comes up with a total of 15 million. So it seems like everything is well covered by the appropriations here. If I could just interject. It's the table plus 20 million in financial aid and some of the other things. So that's the final question. Is CRF money going to financial aid and allowable use? It's my understanding that that it is. I would say that that is the question that we have too. So, I mean, similar to UVM, the money that's already been allocated. To the VSC, both through the budget adjustment act and what's currently under consideration for the first quarter. Transitional budget. So that's not explicitly include financial aid support because I think coming out of the original cares act funding that came directly to the colleges, it was clear that you couldn't use it for that. You could only use it for these emergency grants. So we did not include support. That kind of support for students. So with this additional money that you're talking about now, I think that's it. If we're permitted to do it under, you know, because there are different rules for the use of this money. And that's a question I have. If, if, if we're allowed to use this money that you're, you're thinking about appropriating for student aid, going back to what representative Fagan said, I think it would be enormously helpful to the colleges because it enables us to hopefully boost enrollment and bring students in that might otherwise not be able to attend in the fall, which would then benefit, you know, help reduce hopefully the bridge funding that we need. The previous amounts that have been appropriated or are under consideration for appropriation for coronavirus related costs, those don't help the VSC deal with the budget challenges that it has, the underlying issues. It helps deal with the unexpected unplanned for COVID costs that we're facing. But if you have additional money that you are looking to, to appropriate, if there's a way that that could be directed to students and that's a permissible use under under the cares act for these funds, that would be enormously helpful. So it would it be fair to say that if the federal government issued a ruling saying absolutely not, you cannot use CRF money for financial aid. That the money that's been appropriated thus far has and kind of will continue to cover the main unforeseen expenses that you've had as a result of the coronavirus. Yes, because the money we've we've that's we've already presented and is being appropriated is not going to student aid. So that wouldn't, yeah, that those were all again, and you can see just on the chart that's in front of you from UVM. Those were the things that we we also requested because those were the things that were sort of directly related to to the coronavirus. If we're able to provide funding to students in some way, either directly supporting tuition or if there are other ways to support students in terms of housing, food, you know, emergency medical care, et cetera, the other things that I believe are permissible uses, that would be that would be helpful. But again, if there was clarification that we could use it explicitly to help students financially attend colleges and universities, that would be ideal. But I've I've not been able to find in the research. I've done a clear answer on that. Thank you very much. And I would add that the original our original version of the table. Showed a that we would drive towards financial aid. And so when it became a question for the initial appropriation, we pulled that back out and that's when we turned it into a separate bullet in the below the table. The need is certainly there. And I too hope that there's a way to clarify it's future use, but we won't have any trouble spending the 8.7 million on eligible purposes. Jim Gemery. Yeah. My hearing. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Just to mention, the way that the language is set up. First, as I mentioned, it's very broad. So if it's COVID related, the colleges could use it for that purpose. And second. It's in the language to the back of the bill that is more generic to the appropriations language in the budget. use the money only for purposes that comply with the requirements and there's an audit requirement. So in terms of determining whether the financial aid cost or eligible or not, that's really up to the colleges to determine and then to mentally kind of have confirmed. But that's not a call that you need to make because the bill will allow them to use it for where a purpose is permitted. Thank you, Jim. So committee, can we take this document down? And I just want to check back with the committee. So and given given where we are right now, the funds that have gone forward, are we where our thoughts on reducing our moving 5,000 out of our tier one funding, 5 million out of tier one funding to pre-K 12? Are we comfortable with that or are not? Comments? Sarita? Yeah, is that just for public pre-K or is that private as well, that money? We've left it for, we're assuming that the other committee is dealing with child care facilities which house pre-K programs. Ours is looking at pre-K in public schools. Just in terms of, yeah, my question related to, okay, I'm going to suggest that we move 5,000, 5 million from tier one for higher ed to the pre-K 12. And if anybody disagrees with that, I know Peter Fagan is sitting there. I know that Chip is sitting there and they represent the two different factions in the. So this is, Madam Chair, Kate, thank you. This is the policy committee's recommendation. And so I really try very hard sitting in appropriations, not to but in ski and try to override the policy committee's recommendations. So this is your call. I do know that the economic driver of getting our students that are going to our institutions of higher education here in the state is huge. And anything we can do to entice them here this fall would be a real help to the state of Vermont. So is the intent here, and I'm sorry, I've got an emergent constituent issue that I'm working on literally as we speak, is the intent here to reduce the 10 million down to 5 million and then split it somehow between the two institutions? Right, which could be 50-50 or it could be zero. Because I was working, I wasn't sure what it was, I just wanted to understand. I'm not going to weigh in on, you know, what I think you should or shouldn't do. That's the policy committee's piece. So. Okay. Thank you. I'm Kayla Belder. Yeah, I mean, I think this makes sense to me in that the bill purports to address pre-K and hasn't been called out in another section. And also because it seems like the college is at least for covering costs incurred and FY 20 appear to be covered. I'm in support of potentially making up this 5 million in the tier two money and trying to find that 20 million in the tier two money. But it does seem that in tier one we really, as we've heard again and again, we need max flexibility for that allocation. I think the pre-K through 12 kind of weights that this bill would have at the configuration you're proposing, I think it's appropriate and it doesn't seem to me that it leaves the higher ed with kind of unpaid reimbursement costs from FY 20. So I'm in support of that. Kathleen? You know, these are really difficult decisions. You know, you wish you were sitting on top of the mountain and you could see where everybody's costs and exactly how much money we all had to parcel out and you could just, you know, look at it from 30,000 feet. But you know, seeing as money has already gone out the door or is about to go out the door for higher ed. I just feel like this is our shot to get money to the public schools now and that they have been doing, you know, incredible work and I think we need to prioritize them in this bill right now. So I support it. 50-50 or 3-2 or Jim, I saw your hand up. Is that still, no, okay. Lynn, bachelor, bachelor. Thank you. I have to agree with Kate and you and Mr. Elder. I just think we need to help pre-K and this is the place to do it. So I'm with you guys. So 2.5, 2.5, 3-2, 1-4, 0-5 recommendations. I'm going to throw in the table two and three. Could you clarify that, Kate? Is that two? Yeah, I was just asking for clarification as well. Two UVM, three to the committee on education. No, three to the Vermont State Colleges. And what you're thinking behind that? Well, I'm looking at how it was given out, how that it was addressed in the budget adjustment act of 12 and 8 and thinking about the likelihood of a little bit needier students at the Vermont State Colleges. I think that sounds like Give it all to the Vermont State Colleges. What was that? Oh, sorry. Can we give it all to the Vermont State Colleges in this round? It's up to the committee. Richard Kate. Can I ask a question as we think about money going to financial aid to students? There's a, I guess I'm having an inner debate about, do we need to clarify that it's to only go to Vermont students? That's opening up a whole can of worms, which I probably don't have time for right now. An appropriate can of worms to discuss. That's right. Richard Kate, can you deal with it being 3-2 or 4-1 or how about zero? We would obviously prefer 50-50 split. We understand that so legislators nature is prerogative. I can assure you we can make good use and was indicated earlier by Representative Fagan. We do believe that our activity is an economic driver for the state, so we're hopeful that what we do with it would be would be appropriate for that purpose as well. I'd like to think of it as an investment. And the question around how the allocation gets driven in terms of Vermont students, that's fine. That's not an issue. So you're comfortable with us saying for Vermont students and as well, Sophie, you as well. Yes. Yes, we would be because we serve predominantly Vermont students, about 85 percent of our students are Vermonters. And again, I would obviously respect what the committee decides to do, but my hope would be that providing this kind of support to students would ultimately decrease the amount that we would need in terms of bridge funding, because it will hopefully boost enrollment in the fall. And that's really what the bridge funding is going to be needed for us to, in order for us to continue, is we really need to have the support due to the loss of enrollment while we transform. Okay. Kathleen? Then we're going to need to tie this up. No, you're good. So, Jim, can you make that for Vermont students? Well, I can. My concern is we're not sure if it's even always worth expense. Yeah. I think one approach here could be to be the language as it is, have the colleges determine what is appropriate, what is a permissible expense for financial aid, and they could decide to only use it for Vermont students as they seem to want to. So, yeah. Okay. So, you're recommending that we just leave the language and that can get sorted out. And I think that there's an interest in serving Vermont students anyway. Three, two. How about, how about give me some blue hands here? If you don't, are you okay with doing three and two? Put, raise your hands if you are. Okay. So, I've got one, two, three. That kind of majority. Is there anything, is there another number that folks wanted? Can I just say something? Yes. I almost would like to split it because a lot of CCV students transfer to UVM and do very well. They transfer in their junior year. So, I would like to give them tuition as well. I'm fine with the three, two, but I also would be fine with 2.5 for each. We aren't, we aren't sure what's going to happen with tuition. I think is what Jim is saying, whether that's going to be allowable or not. Right. Larry? No, I think that, you know, I think there's a very fine line how this, these allocations for tuition, if they're eligible or not, you know, that's, I guess it's something we're going to have to look at. But I also, I also look at the discrepancy between the tuition at the University of Vermont and the tuition at, at Vermont State Colleges. So, you know, my concern is that balance. UVM certainly does have a higher tuition rate. So, what would you recommend? I'm almost, you know, I'm almost thinking that maybe we should just split it. Split it. Yeah. Okay. Chris Mattos. Make it even, even playing field. Chris Mattos. I see the hand, but I can't hear you. Hey, Chris, you're, you're beautiful. Can you hear me? Now we can. Yes. All right. Sorry about that. I was just wondering, what's the split? I can't remember off the top of my head for state funding to UVM and Vermont State College, because I would recommend just splitting the 5 million that same proportion. Do you know Peter Fagan? That way everybody. Okay. This is hard. I've literally got this person who is, who is outside in the Department of Labor building. I'm trying to get her in. She has huge problems and they literally drove up the Department of Labor and the doors are locked. So, I'm doing this all at the same time. What was the question, please? The question is, how are, in terms of our appropriations to the Vermont State Colleges and UVM, how is that split in our general appropriation? Off the top of my head, normally UVM's appropriation is approximately 42 million dollars and the Vermont State Colleges is just shy of 30 million dollars and that's off the top of my head. So, just if that's what you're looking for, those, those are the numbers. So, that, that's like a 58 percent to UVM and was that 42 to Vermont State College? I'll take you, Chloe, for that one quickly. And that's what you're recommending a little more to UVM? Well, if it just lines up with what we do for an appropriation anyway and Coop makes a good point about the differing of tuition costs. So, I'll just throw that pitch out there. Okay, I'm going to go back to 50-50. That worked. I'll jump in with a counter and just say, you know, the general fund appropriation, we got to remember, UVM is more than just an undergraduate four-year liberal arts college that also funds extension, medical college, other things that are not necessarily student related. I think given the fact that our state college, I'm going to make a plea back for the three and two, given the fact that our state colleges serve about 85 percent Vermont students and our goal here is to get more Vermont students enrolled in our state college system and if we can use some money for financial aid, I think that the three and two I'm more comfortable with, but I'm not going to hold up anything over that. It'll probably get adjusted, it'll probably get adjusted in appropriations anyway. Yeah, three, two, just shake your head so I can see you all, three, two, three, two, okay, three, two, Jim, three, two from on state colleges to UVM and now we have absolutely no time, but we do need to actually hear the recommendations from the superintendents and school boards related to language changes that Jim fortunately has seen and if we could maybe bring up the recommendations that they sent, that should be sent to Avery. Yay, thank you so much. So we're going to have to basically go, yes, on each one. Peter Fakin, can you mute yourself? Okay, he's good. Okay, and Jim, we're going to want your comments on this as well as we go through each one. Okay, so who would like to speak? All right, well, this is Jeff Francis, can you hear me? Yes. Our goal was to be as clear as possible with regard to our recommendation so you can go right to two. So the first recommendation is that language be added in A1 that directs the AOE to provide reimbursement funds to school districts equitably and in a manner that is not based on a first come, first serve basis. That assumes that the reimbursement funds are a finite source and it's intended to give, we'll say, the less well-equipped supervisory unions and districts the opportunity to not get cut out of a process based on their administrative capacity. Very tricky. Let's come back to that one. Okay, and doesn't that language that we know that the AOE would have to work the system out, we just think they should be directed to work the system out. The next one, number three, we talked with VASBO overnight and they want to make sure that there's maximum flexibility. So the suggestion there is that language be added to explicitly state that the AOE shall not impose eligibility restrictions for COVID-related reimbursements or grants in excess of the eligibility requirements set forth under the federal CARES Act. You've heard from Brad that that is not their intention but we think given the magnitude of this program that it is useful to actually have it in the law. So stop right there, Jim, comments on that? Yeah, so on that one there, I'll just read you the ball because we can't get, I don't think we can have two things up at once but that's the reason why we have a subscription to C currently in language. Yeah. So this is a different version of that. The language currently in the bill says consistent with the same purposes of funding under subsections A and B, forget about that for a minute, it says the guidance issued by the agency of education and the agency that will be administering for higher education shall allow for use of that funding to cover all costs permitted under law. So it's a different way of I think expressing this point that has to be very inclusive of everything possible. So it's a question of which language you want to go with and maybe Jeff has a view as to, maybe there's a view that's suggested by Jeff is doing something else but that's, I see them as being somewhere at least. So Sue Seglowski's on the line, I think that, and I'm not an attorney, I wanted to disclose that. I think that the reference to law in the language you just stated, Jim, could be added to by making sure that both the federal law that we're talking about, not the state law. So the authors are making sure that the eligibility speaks to all available uses under federal law. So I don't know what the best drafting is, but we wanted to make sure we didn't lose that point. Well, the underlaw is designed to be very broad. So it's under law, I mean all laws. So it's state and federal law. So I use that phrase to be again, very broad. So I'll defer to the committee. Madame Chair, if you'd let Sue come in if she has one. I'm appreciative of Jim's response. And I defer to the committee, but also understand that Sue as an attorney might have a comment. Sue. I would defer to the committee as well. But I think that it would be helpful if it was specified that we're talking about the federal CARES Act. But certainly could discuss that with Jim. Yeah, I can certainly in the current language, I could do whatever you want. But in the current language, I could change it to say underlaw, including CARES Act. So I could just call that out if that makes you more comfortable. Yes, I think that would be great. Thanks, Jim. Okay, committee. If you have problems, let me know. One number. And also, whether she make, well, I have an additive comment, but our intent in number four. So one of the challenges of navigating, navigating this entire endeavor, it has to do with timing and clarity. So when we discussed this after your discussion yesterday, we thought that it would be useful if there was an explicit reference in the bill to the agency of education's responsibility to issue clear and timely guidance on the use of the funds. To Brad, he might have had to leave. I can't remember if he's still here. I think he had to leave. I believe that's the last point, Jeff, right? There's one or two other, there's one more, just one more point, number five on page two. Okay, because at that point, we're going to talk about that. And number five is the simpler point. And it was actually brought up yesterday. And I'm not sure whether it was in response to something that Caleb Elder said, or Jim, whether you made reference to it. But if you take a look at A1 versus A2, A1 talks about the cost of reopening schools. Excuse me, A1 talks about coronavirus costs incurred by schools. A2 talks about the cost of reopening schools. And we think that the broader coverage coronavirus costs incurred by school districts actually has utility in A2, because school districts are going to be engaged in COVID related expenses that are legitimate, eligible expenses, but may not be literally reflective of the cost of reopening schools. So we thought that the same explanation that exists in A1 should be transferred to A2 as well and replace that reference to the cost of reopening schools. And then the final point, six, I think you've already discussed, it was just our thought that the bill might benefit from the elimination of tier two references. That's advisory from us, and we certainly defer to the committee on that. Those are our comments. Let's go to five. That's the full extent of our comments this morning. Let's go to five, Jim. Let's say support the bill language, if we could. Yeah. Okay. That sounds good. Let's pull up the bill language. And while we're doing that, and it's 1.2, I think, thread on our website, Julie, and Kathleen, did you have something? Yeah. Just about the, I think it's a really good idea. I've lost the section we were looking at, but I think it's really important to include a timeline for expenditure funds and issuing guidance. And I just want to clarify, I remember that the AOE is going to issue very clear guidance to the schools on how they can spend these funds. And Brad is back in the room, so. Yeah. But we said earlier today that no guidance will be provided to UBM and the state colleges. I was wrong about that. That language in the vote does cover the UBMs and colleges. Okay. I was incorrect. Okay. So they will also be provided clear guidance. Not AOE necessarily, but whatever agency appropriation is appropriate to administer that, they will be provided guidance. Oh, great. Okay. Okay. So there. Okay. Can we go up in the bill, please, to subsection A? And yeah. Great. So A1 and 2, let's just talk about differences between these two sections because there are a number of them. I'm not sure whether there should be differences. Except for the fact that A1 deals with fiscal year 20. A2 is for fiscal year 21. So that's one difference, obviously. A1 covers all coronavirus costs. A2 is a narrower set for reopening schools. A1 is a reimbursement program. A2 is a grant program. And A2 has requires the most a school or supervisor unit could get is their proportional allocation of Title 1A funds. So there are a number of differences here that I'm not sure they need to be here. And so I thought we maybe should just talk through that. Yes. Thank you. We've been talking about this has been in the air for a while. So yes, please do. One by one. So first of all, we're reallocating money, $5 million from higher education into pre-K through 12. So my first question is, is that $5 million going into fiscal year 20 or 21 or both? Let's put it into 21 until I hear otherwise. Okay. Good. Okay. Second question is the scope of coverage. So to just point, A2 is one limited. And it can be expanded to be like A1 and cover all coronavirus costs as opposed to just cost for reopening schools. Just one quick question on A1. And those can get pushed forward into A2. I'll put the numbers in. Great. So anything left over from fiscal year 20 will be able to be used in 21. Yeah. Then I suppose it doesn't matter where the, well, let's put it in two for the moment. Okay. Brad James, do you have a comment? Yes. Yes. My comment is on the $5 million that we're talking about at the moment. And it references what Representative Fagan said yesterday. It seems like we keep talking about more and more costs possibly in FY 20 that need to be reimbursed. I would suggest putting that $5 million, that additional $5 million in FY 20 for the reimbursement. If there's anything left over, then have language that says any money left over from that rolls forward to FY 21. I think if you don't do that and you find you need more money and the $20 million that's in there in FY 20, you're going to run into a problem. So let's put it into FY 20 and then if you just roll forward. Okay. Unless I hear otherwise. Okay. Yes. Second question then, I think, is whether A2 should be drafted like A1 and cover all eligible coronavirus costs rather than limiting A2 just to the cost of reopening schools? I think that the, I like the language that the school boards had recommended. Anybody else comment on that? I like that. Can you scroll down a little bit so we can see, you're talking, yeah. Yes, I'm online, 12-13. If you go up for a second, sorry, go up to A1 first. Go up a little bit in the bill. Scroll up, please. Thanks. So it's online, six in A1, which says, reimbursing the first year 2020 coronavirus costs. That's everything that's eligible. And then if you go down to like 13, it's only the cost of reopening schools. So Brad, James, and then Dylan, then Serena. I'll be very quick. I came back on just as Jeff Francis was finishing up, so I'm not certain what they said. But I would recommend that you make that reopening of schools much more broad and allow it to be used for whatever eligible costs. Okay, thank you. Dylan? Yeah, I think I would agree. One of the areas I've been interested in is ensuring that districts could apply for reimbursement if they had to hold an all-mail election. And we know that we still have about a dozen districts. So it is conceivable that some of them in a frustrating way might not be able to get their budgets approved before the close of the fiscal year, in which case they would be in 2021 and you would want the flexibility to be available there. And as I read A1, it appears that that could cover elections that take place in fiscal 20, perhaps, but I'm not sure it would be covered later. So for me, I think making it broader and allowing for more eligibility would cover that and would help other areas as well. Thank you. Sarita and then Caleb? Just, I agree with Rodney the language in A2. Thank you. And Caleb? I'm just wondering, what is the function of gating off the money in the two stages? I'm just, I know I'm not going to advocate for putting it all together because I've already done that, but I don't have a big problem with this, but I'm just not understanding why we wouldn't just make it all one big pot for eligible funds with max flexibility over the entire date range of March 18th to December 31st, 2020. That's actually what you're doing because you're over the funding in 2020 and 2021. So basically the fact that it's for fiscal years, I don't think it's that relevant for use of funds. I see. Okay. But it's still written kind of as the sections. Is that right? Well, we'll come back to how it's written. I might be able to combine this in a way based upon a few of the points we have to discuss. But the effect is the same. That's all good. I didn't understand that. Thank you. So when we're done, Jim's going to redraft and then hopefully we're just going to find a time to meet. Jim will send it out to everybody and we'll hopefully get to it before floor. Chelsea? I don't. Chelsea Meyers, VSA for the record. I don't want to put Brad on the spot, but I think he did explain at one point the reasoning between dividing it into reimbursement for FY20 and grant funding for FY21. And maybe that would be helpful to hear because I think as an association and our members would also like as great a flexibility as is possible. Brad? I think for the FY20 money, everybody agrees that reimbursement is the correct way to go. It's one that's simpler for us. That's not the reason to do it, but it is simpler for us and it's faster for us to get the money out the door. And it's already spent. And it's already spent. In FY21, part of the concern is that if it is a reimbursement process and there's only a certain amount of money, some districts that know what they have planned already and will spend their money quickly may draw it down more than for lack of a better term and I don't like this term, but anyway, they're a fair share. That harkens back to Act 60. I think a grant program in FY21, pardon me, makes more sense because that way districts will know what they're going to be allocated. This draft still hasn't allocated as going out of the way Title I goes out. So they would have a rough idea of what they're going to have available with the potential of more money being available later, however this all plays out over time. I guess I would just say that if we put most of the money in the first category and we know it's going to spill over to the second, that would be the safest thing to do and that way we don't risk underfunding the FY20. I completely understand what you're saying. I would say, and again, grants are not my forte in the agency of education, but I would say that what that would mean is we would not know how much money we are offering. We can offer people if we put it all into FY20 and wait to see what was left over. We would not be able to tell them what they're going to get in grants. That means they can't draw against those grants until the grant is done, which would mean that we would need to know how much money we have, which would be somewhere probably the end of July at the earliest I'd bet, and then that's when we then have started the grant writing process and that in and of itself takes time. They each get to look at what their title numbers are and then they can very quickly figure that out. Once I need to send them the percentages, but yes. Okay, so I think so far if I'm looking at the list we've addressed. I have one more I believe, which is if you looked at the language on lines 15 to 17 for aid two, the point just raised, it's a bumper basically, so it's a right equity. So they can only get grant funding up to their proportional allocation of title 1A funds. So that limits and makes it sure that there's some equity here. That language is not in A1. So there's no bumper like that for the reimbursement. So you could add that language into A1 to be sure that Burlington or some bigger school this didn't get all the money as opposed to Wyndham or something. And that brings us to I think the first point that Chelsea was concerned about, which is in the point two that directs the agency to provide reimbursement funds equitably. Love that word equitably. And I guess it's is there a way to do that that doesn't have to tie it to something that lets them use their judgment? Well, if you put the bumper in here like you have in A2, I think that addresses equity and you're not mentioning the word equity, which might be good. So it's an approach. I'm not sure how the Vs are thinking about that, but that might be an approach to addressing their concern. It's a challenge. I guess I'm thinking about the difference between physical structures and students and students and student learning is definitely title one is very, very relevant. But then there's just a sheer number of students in the larger districts, a sheer number of buildings. So I don't, I don't, I'm personally inclined not to tie it to title one. But I want to give the agency flexibility. Brad. This is without having thought it all through carefully. If we were to allocate the FY20 money out and say they get up to a certain number, whatever, whatever schematic we chose, that would then run the risk of some districts not being able to spend all their money and other districts not being able to receive all the money they've spent on reimbursements. I do not know individually what districts have spent at this point, nor with the other things we've been talking about, such as personnel costs being included and eligible, what, what those numbers are going to be. If you have a situation where a district has, does not spend all of its money allocated in FY20, that money rolls forward to FY21. If you have a situation where a district has costs that were not reimbursed that were eligible in FY20, once we go into FY21, I don't know if there's any way to go back and give them money without special legislation from you guys to, to, to close those books for FY20, FY20 without a deficit. And we certainly know that. So I guess what I'm saying is I think if we were to, if you were to look at an allocation methodology for FY20, I think there might be problems with that. I might be interested to know if Jeff and Chelsea have thoughts on that and or Sue has thoughts on that. And I think we also know that at the moment you're predicting it to be kind of in the 10 and we're already providing 25 so that there's, there's some room for money that's already spent. Right. The, the, the 10, the 10 that I'm predicting is are, are the costs not personal, not salaries and benefits. Right. That, that's, that's the additional money that we were talking about earlier this week and last week, I think. Yeah. It's probably somebody last week. Chloe and then Peter Conlon. Yes, I actually, I just raised my hand. Did it work? It did. I would like to offer something as well, sort of just thinking about this FY20 reimbursement sort of bucket. And I completely understand the idea of wanting the funds to go out equitably, but I also sort of want to follow up on what Brad was just saying that we don't know exactly what expenses schools have already incurred and it's kind of like, you know, what's, what's done is done to some extent and we don't want them to go forward into the next year with a deficit. Brad has also, there's been some discussion about the fact that we're hoping to do, you know, put out this guidance and sort of start a communication with the districts about potential staff costs that might also be eligible for reimbursement. And, you know, initially, and the secretary actually spoke to this yesterday and spoke to the idea that there might be potentially, you know, $6 million of staff costs out there that are eligible for reimbursement. If that, in fact, proves to be the case and we get comfortable with the language and what we can spend the money on, the more money we can push out to districts in FY20 that cover, let's call them general budget costs such as teacher salary and staff time. That is actually money that will be able to flow through. So say, you know, you are able to cover a million dollars of staff costs with CRF money in FY20. That money will be available as a surplus in FY21 if you make those changes and will help the Education Fund picture. So it will essentially reduce the funds required from the Education Fund in FY21. So if that's the case, then we are, you know, working with districts and we're finding that there are these eligible costs, it's possible that this can be part of the $150 million Education Fund problem. So conceivably additional funds could be made available. Does that make any sense? So just to clarify, as I'm understanding it, you're suggesting that we not add that we not add the recommended language about in their point two that we leave it. I am suggesting that we do not add any limiting language on the FY20 reimbursements. Thank you. Peter and Brad too. I was just going to say that the reason we have the limiting language of the Title I funds was to make it duplicative of SR money. And the only thing that I would say is that we just need to guarantee that every district will get at least the amount they would be getting under SR since the idea is to replace SR with CRF funds. This is Jeff Francis. I have a thought that may be helpful. What if the, and this is for Brad, is my audio working okay? Yes. What if there was a date by which the districts needed to submit their reimbursement amounts and that all the reimbursement amounts were collected and then looked at in terms of the way the reimbursements were paid? So presumably if the reimbursement requirements were less than the allocated dollars, there would not be any problem with reimbursing them. And if they were in excess of available reimbursement dollars, the entire picture could be looked at so that it is not a first come first serve. It does not suppress the submissions, but it gives the agency the latitude in the event the reimbursement requests exceed the allocated dollars to look at it on that basis rather than any other basis. I can't complicate it. Kathleen James. I just want to say that it may make it a little bit more complicated, but that, I don't know if you saw my hand go up and go down a little bit earlier. Well, that is exactly what I was going to suggest. And then I was like, no, I don't know if that's such a great idea. So thank you, Jeff. I think that's a good idea. And I wish I kept my hand up. Okay. Well, you did, in a sense. Brad. This is lowering in there. Okay, there. That I was, as I was listening, that's what I was starting to think too. So Jeff, Jeff beat me to that. The question I would have, which we have to think about is if the reimbursements were in excess of picking the number we have right now of $2.5 million or $25 million, if they were in excess of that, the first thought I have is then you would, we would know what everybody's asking for. Then you would simply prorate out what they're asking for versus what they're able to get. In other words, if it was $27 million that they get, well, let's make it $30 million cost, they would get 25 over 30, which is five, six of what they were, what they had spent. You can ignore the math, that's fine. But that'd be prorating out what they had spent compared to the amount of dollars that we have available. That would treat everybody equitably. That would still leave an unreimbursed expenditure that they had made for COVID in FY20 if we did it that way. I'm certainly open to suggestions that was just off the top of my head, though, if that makes sense. Jim and then Chloe. Yeah, so in terms of dates here. We're on the floor in two minutes. If you do dates here, I think you need a date for the guidance to be issued, a date obviously for reimbursements to be requested and a date to pay them. So we need three dates and also the proportionality of language that Brad suggests in case those reimbursements are higher than $25 million. But in order to move forward on that, we have to start with dates, I think, what they should be. So think about that, Brad and Chloe, and then we're going to have to end. But if we can get this last piece together, I think Jim can draft. I would just like to offer in sort of in conjunction with the dates sort of conversation as well, that if it is found that reimbursements requested reimbursements in FY20 exceed $25 million, that the agency reports back to the legislature in August and consideration can be made about appropriating additional funds. Nice. Peter Conlon. Sorry, I forgot to take my hand down. However, I will say I like what Chloe just said. Yeah. Simple. Are you comfortable with that, Chelsea and Jeff? Yeah. Okay. Oh, wait a minute. If floor is not at 1030, when is floor? Floor is at two. Yeah, right, Kate. It's at two o'clock in the afternoon. Two o'clock. Okay. So we're still okay. I thank you to it. Time flies when you're having fun. Yeah. Garny, it just reminded me of that. So confused. If we could stop before two, however, that would be appreciated. That would be very good. So can we talk about the dates? Yeah. So first date is the date by which guidance has to be issued by AOE. Like tomorrow, is that okay? Chloe, is your hand still raised with a thought on this? No, I didn't. I forgot. I'm a bad zoomer. Okay. And if you have some ideas, please let us know. Brad, when can we do this? Yeah, tomorrow will be great because I know the sooner, the better for them. I can't promise anything, but I would say I think we could probably get something out a week from today. And hopefully earlier, that would be my suggestion that we aim for because we need to get out as soon as possible. There's no doubt about that. Yeah. And you're obviously going to be working on it now. So you say June 30 because people won't even be enacted until we wish them well. Yeah, so guidance by the 26th isn't Friday, 30th is a Tuesday. Brad? Yeah, I think I'm pulling up calendar. Yeah, I think, yeah, if we aim for Friday the 26th, if that gives us some time. And is the guidance, Brad, that you'd be issuing under A1, is that the same guidance you'd be issuing under A2 for the grant program, or is it different? Pretty much, I mean, we're changing the language into to make it more broad, correct? We are. Okay, then I mean, the criteria are not changing as far as we know anyway, from the federal folks, they are what they are already with things that we're questioning and asking about. Okay. And then the second date is, what's the date by which the reimbursement request has to be submitted? I would, I mean, if we're putting official guidance out on the 26th, I would say, I would say, I was going to say the 15th. I think that's realistic for them. And then we're going to turn it around as quickly as possible and get it back and work on it. I would say the 15th at the latest because we're starting to get pretty far out there then. Okay. Payment by when? You said payment by when? Yep, payment by when. That I don't know, I would have to check with the accounting office on that. That sometimes takes, that can sometimes be quickly, sometimes we would have to look at these, make sure that they do, that they are what we, what they do follow the guidance. Because again, like I said before, the last thing we want is when these monies get out, we don't want to find out that it was not allowable cost and have them pull money back. But you will be looking at budget adjustment in August. Is that right? Probably. I'm just trying to think that we need to have that before that, before that, if we're looking at appropriating your funds. Yeah, I mean, we would be bored, whatever. Yeah, we would certainly, if everything was into us on the 15th, we would certainly have a very good idea of a maximum amount for FY20. But I think, I think we need, we need to probably a week to go through it and to process on our side at the bare minimum. So I'd hesitate to put a date in there, certain as to when we have that, when it will be paid out. I think you say as soon as possible. Yeah, it's not strictly pretty like legislative language. But yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how we relate that to the fact that we might be portioning the decisions to portion. Yeah, I mean, again, as I said, if we have the numbers all in on the 15th and they're aggregated, then we could tell them by the 16th, whether, whether it's going to be portioned or not. As soon as the numbers are aggregated, I can tell them. Okay, we're just going to put in a date, Jim. I mean, sorry, Chloe Wexler here. I don't know that you need to put in a date, certain for payment of the funds. Okay, good. I mean, it doesn't seem, I mean, before December 30th. But, you know, and I know that obviously, you want to get the money out there, but this is for the reimbursement account. So they will be getting those other funds made available to them in a grant. And once they know that they're getting reimbursed for their funds in terms of their books, it's better. So I just don't know that there needs to be that specificity. I can put that on as soon as reasonably possible. Okay. Okay. Because I mean, that's what we'll do. We're sure not going to sit on this. No. Okay. Certainly know that. All right. So we've got that down. Yeah. So we'll probably report back if it's over 25 million total guidance by June 26, submit by July 15, and payment is as reasonably impossible. So I think we've got that nailed, hopefully. Another question I've got is the carryover. So if there's carryover funds from fiscal 20 into 21, is that, are those carryover funds into 21 used for reimbursement, or are they going to be used for the grant program? I would assume the grant program. Yeah, I would presume the grant program. Okay. Are we there? We're there. Can I just ask one more question? Yes, please, Chloe. Can we see the language about the surplus? Sure. I've got Brad's comments, which I can I would just wanted to confirm that you had received those comments, and I didn't know if we needed to have a committee discussion about making those changes. I have received them, and the discussion is up to me. Yeah, committee discussion. Let's let's do it quickly, because I think that that's actually was a fairly easy one, wasn't it? Yes, that I think it's important. Yeah, I think I agree. It is important. So let's let's do that. Yeah, so if we scroll down, please to F. Yeah, subsection F, which is on page three, I think. Yeah, bottom of page three. So right there. So line 16 through 20. So this is in May right now. So this allows school districts to carry over surplus funds as revenue into fiscal 21, as opposed to fiscal 22. And the question is it should be shall, as opposed to May. And the request, I think the recommendation was was to make it a shall. Shall with the caveat that they receive reimbursement from the coronavirus relief fund to generate that surplus. Brad, I agree with what Chloe just said, because with the way it's written out, this talk about all surplus funds, and I think what we want, and I think the idea of, I don't know what they're doing, the surplus funds right now, they have my guess is a lot of them are using them. But I think we want to make sure that we are talking about surplus generated by reimbursement with the CRF money. Right. Yeah, we don't want to limit their, their own, you know, wheeling and dealing. Okay, Mark pro. I just wanted to check with Brad. Does that, does that require them to use that surplus, those surplus funds to reduce their education spending in 21? No. I'm thinking, I mean, I'm trying to remember all the language that's that's tied around there. Well, my point is, I understand your point pretty much it does. I mean, it's not, it's not ironclad, I don't think. Shouldn't it be? Yeah, you do want to put in there to reduce education spending. It's fine by me. Yeah, I mean, if it's not, then we're not doing anything to close the gap in the ed fund. Well, we are because we know they're going to use it, what they're going to use it for. They're not going to take this money and do something to, they're not going to go out and say, we're going to build a kindergarten or something like that. No, but they could just but I think making it tighter is fine. My only comment about making it tighter would be the timing of determining their education spending because this, we are not going to know their reimbursement amounts in time. And so I don't know if the best, I'm just not, I'm not sure about the timing. This gets a little bit deeper than this committee discussion, but I'll just, I'll just throw it out there quickly. I thought about this as a conversation that Bill Talbot and I were having yesterday, kind of off to the side about the timing of all this. And I think if we let people know that this is coming down the line, they will, they'll have a pretty good idea of what this is going to do for additional revenues for them. It means that we are currently in the process of collecting budgets. They were supposed to be due June 1, but we always give them extra time. So budgets are still coming in. I haven't looked at them yet. So what this means is we would have to reopen that and allow people to change their budgets in terms of on the revenue side, because this is additional revenue. And that might push back the setting of tax rates a little bit. I'm trying to decide if this, I'm looking at the time, I know the governor speaking at 11 and other people have things to do here. So I want to see if that's something that Jim, are you able to draft something yet? I've been a little bit sidetracked here. Well, I can draft. I've got just, I'm not sure to do the last point. I would, I'm not sure if you want to tie it in front of or not. So that's an open question. The other thing is I confirmed with Katie who's looking into the food program stuff. She says that transportation, she believes is covered by Sierra funds. So there's no reason to spell that out in this language. If we do spell out in language, then we start creating a list. So I prefer not to spell it out. Give her a view that it already is covered. Any good language A and A12 now would pick that up. But back to this question here about the ed fund. If we get an answer to that, I can go draft. Or I can just do that as a whole for now. Okay. Kate, if I could chime in on this. I just want to be, I want to clarify, we're really talking about two issues here, two surpluses. One is that the carryover of the CRF money at the state level from one year to the next. And then F, which is really talking about a school district that has surplus funds that they don't have to wait the year to use them. I think Mark's point is well taken in that when a school applies a surplus as revenue, they do that with great caution because you then have an artificially low tax rate that will crank right up the next year. So you often say, well, if we give all this money back to the taxpayers, which then reduces the ed fund, then we are setting ourselves up to fill that hole the next year and that'll be challenging. So it may, if the goal is to make sure that that reduces the ed fund, we may need to put that in as a requirement. Does that make sense, Mark, what I just said? Yeah, that was, that was the issue I was raising. And I hadn't thought about the timing issues, which is why I asked Brad about it. I don't know if it messes up timing or not. I would almost be, I understand, I understand what everyone's saying. And I just wonder if, because we are uniquely sort of defining the surplus that they have to use. And, you know, they're trying to subsequently sort of reduce their education payment. But without really, I'm just wondering if there is a way that that can be done without delaying the tax rate settings and influencing, you know, sort of creating tax rate swings for the district. And the way to do that would be to sort of wait, see how much money each district receives, and then sort of square up on their actual education payment, as opposed to their education spending. And that also gives us more time. But, you know, we're sort of having like a very detailed conversation on the fly. So, Brad, any comments? Yeah, I'm not sure that that would work properly in terms of when I had not thought about what Representative Conlon had brought up about the potential swing in tax rates. I think I was thinking more broadly and looking at the picture as a whole where it would have be helping the education fund in FY 21. You are quite correct in saying that this could bring people's tax rates down one year and they're going to go right back up the next year. In a lot of ways that may not be a bad idea if a lot of people have been having trouble with their jobs and having trouble paying property taxes this year, they'll probably fall into next year too. That might help them there. But I've never thought about that before until right now. I think the reality of rates kind of yo-yoing a little bit for a year is correct. I had not thought about that. I think people understand that. I don't know. I would think they probably would. But I don't know whether there'd be a hue and cry the following year when rates went back to where they were normally. I personally think that could be addressed by an explanation as to why rates went down this coming year. We need to get to recommendation on the language for Jim because we're going to be ending and I'm going to probably try to have us end in 10 minutes. So I think then that the question is, I believe we've agreed that it should be a shall in there and that it is due to any surplus generated by the Coronavirus Relief Fund. The question is, do you want to ensure that it applies to education spending which will make the tax rates yo-yo a little bit? Could we maybe have a conversation with Mark and Brad and I and get back to you? That would be great. Okay. I think that would be helpful. And this will give Jim, I want to let Jim go so that he can work on the other items. Is that the last item that we're trying to address at this point? As far as I'm aware, yes. Okay. Wow. I appreciate so much the input today and we're going to have to find another time to check in after if Jim, if you can do this and then we can send it to the committee. Excellent. Shall we try to meet the committee at 12.30? Is that possible? Julie, do you know if that's possible? I don't know, but I can find Avery or I will find out for you and let you know right away. Thank you so much, Julie, for stepping in and helping us through this process. And Avery stepped in somewhere else, so of course. I know. So, Kate, you're thinking we get this language, have a brief meeting at a certain point in time, approve it so we can get it, we can meet our deadline. Yeah. How are we doing, committee? Well, it's difficult to say the least. Yeah. There's a lot, you know, there's a lot to this. Through it, I'm sure. I just wonder if that surplus, if it's added to the fund, does that also include the three cent increase that school districts will be here with the pay for the deficit spending? For the money we're borrowing, we're going to add three cents every year for about four or five years. No, Sarita, the three cents just represents the world pre-COVID. You know Chloe, it'll go away. I think Chloe's working on the Ed Fund Outlook. Oh, I was opening my file. We're the hammer. Okay. Thank you, Peter. Okay. Committee, just give me a thumbs up. We're working on this. We're getting close. Yeah, it's great, I think. I think we're there. Just we should watch our emails for what the actual time of our meeting will be. Yeah. Right. Okay. Yes. And the governor's on in 10 minutes. He's got some school issues that, of course, he'll be discussing. Yes. And Chris Meadows, did you want to say something? I just saw a little blue hand go for a second. No, I hit the wrong button. Sorry. Okay. Welcome to our Lord. Everybody's pushing the buttons, you know? Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Julie. I guess I'll send a message to Julie and Avery about the possibility of 1230, but everybody watch your emails. Thank you so much, Jim and Jeff and everybody and Mark and Chloe and everybody working on this. It's broad. We have no time to do something very large. Kate, you don't have to send this in the, I'm sorry, Representative Boyle, but you don't have to send us an email. I'm taking care of it right now. Yay. I'll send the Zoom invitation. Thank you very much. And Chloe and Mark will get together right after this. Yeah. Do you want to keep the Zoom? Yeah. I'm trying to call you right now. Oh, is that the phone ringing downstairs? That's all that racket. And just one piece of logistics. So we will not meet sooner than 1230. That's what we're guaranteeing. I don't think we can. Okay. Okay. Good question. Yeah, that is a good question. That's good. Yeah. Need to know. Lots of things to do. Everywhere. Sure.