Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Good morning. All right. This is House Education on Tuesday, February 17. The committee is gonna take some time now to get our thoughts together on a budget memo for the Appropriations Committee concerning some of the budget requests we've heard. So I think we probably should dive right in, talk about the big kahuna, which is the agency of education. Beth and Rob, to the extent you're able, just give us a reminder as to what we heard.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I'll start with AOE. I struggle to go back and find the testimony because it wasn't on the day I was told it was on. The big upshot for AOE overall is it's a 3.91% increase. There are some places that increased, and special education actually is an area that decreased in the budget. Of the increases or part of it is the five positions that were funded temporarily under the Act 73 legislation. They're requesting those five become permanent, not temporary. That's the big shift. So what in line with the three ish percent increase. Okay.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So probably the it's kind of a standard budget increase that probably the biggest thing here is this request to make the temporary positions permanent. Anybody want to weigh in on that? Guess I'm inclined to support it. We always talk about how we need to resource and make sure the AOE has the people that they need. At least one of the positions is towards school construction assistance, which we're hopefully they'd like for a lot. Any other thoughts? I agree.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: We do a lot of talking about how they're not staffed appropriately, and in order to be staffed appropriately, need the funding to do it.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Agree, did we know what the other positions becoming permanent are? Say it again? Do we know what the school construction, but what the other positions are that would become permanent?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: You mean exactly what those five would be doing? I don't have that in front

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: of me. It was in the presentation.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: It's in the presentation. I could go back and find that some.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Think a lot of

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: it's involved in their overall restructuring and use of staff.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It was in the finance department, sort of an inward facing position or it wasn't like out the field kind of position, but still there to serve.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I was caught off guard when just now when they talked about consultants working on Yes. Sent me through truancy. So I'm I think that wasn't a consultant they already had doing something

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Let me see if I can find that presentation. I think I remember what day it was on now. There it is.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It'll take me a minute to find it.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: And I never got a clear answer on the dos to the compact. Okay. Never actually got an I did get informal confirmation. Informally, I knew we were told that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Kind of interrupted what you were saying after you talked about the five positions.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Let's see. They were limited service. Say where they ended up. Restructured some of the appropriations, combined the finance and administration with the Ed Services appropriation into a single appropriation, which is the majority of the personnel costs. That was just kind of a That's just a restructuring of the budget. Yeah. The change was mostly personal services, 600,000 increase. Operating expenses, 500,000 increase.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: The positions were approved previous year or last year.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: As a limited service.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: As a limited service. So

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: the positions

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: themselves we had approved. Emily, go

[Emily Long (Member)]: ahead. Yeah, so it's something that Representative Quimby just said that I want to follow-up on, but I'm in the general agreement and consensus that for years we've been trying to fully staff the Haiti elite. And so this is not a reflection. My next comments are not a reflection of anything but that I want to make sure we do that. But special ed, seeing a reduction. You didn't say how much, but you did

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: the reduction. Could find it. Especially, I

[Emily Long (Member)]: have it. And we already know, we heard testimony last week that not only are the top Well, not sure where I heard the full I think it was the BCSEA said that the top three positions are vacant. And I can't remember who said that the special director position was raised again to a cabinet level position, meaning maybe more for a position like that. Because if you see chronic vacancies, you have to address that in some way. So that is a flag for me. And the other thing I just want to say that's related to the constant feedback we get and have for many years, is not reflective of the leadership better today, but it's been a constant, that if we are continuing to agree to a 4% or nearly 4% increase, that seems standard and we're okay with that. I want to make sure, and I'm not suggesting a path yet, but making sure that we are being very thoughtful in our follow-up and getting feedback on how that money is being utilized. Because Representative Brady just brought up one example, but I know over the last few years, however number of years we've been using consultants, if we're heading in a shift in a different direction, I support that and highly support that, frankly. But I also feel strongly about accountability. And just putting that out there for just as we put out for the future, I think it's really important. I'll say, I

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: think I misspoke. It's actually a decrease in special funds. I think I said special education. Oh, did say special. Special funds. Sorry, that's very different. That's good to hear. It's a $17,400,000 decrease in special funds because Medicaid LEA grants are shifting to AHS. So it's Medicaid, but it's special funds and it's a shift in where it's going from.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: You read what's written there about that?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: It's $17,400,000 decrease in special funds as the Medicaid LEA grants shift to AHS.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. So this is part of an effort and agreement by the two agencies to view this work to AHS. Yes. They being probably better equipped to do with Medicaid billing.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: So that's a shift away. It's not that they just cut it. It's being shifted.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But it's out of the AOE budget. It's now in the AHS budget. AHS budget. Okay. All right. So in this budget memo, I'm going to just say that the committee is generally supportive of the AOE budget and the conversion of limited service positions, the five limited service positions to permanent. I'm just going to say that we will perhaps request more information on the use of consultants moving forward, something along those lines. Does that seem okay with folks?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Can I ask a question? I'm not suggesting a change, first of all, I'm just curious. It seems like there's been a lot of talk about what things should be shift from the ed budget that are ed related, and that obviously requires a whole session to figure out where that would come from. But what is the process for actually responding to those kinds of discussions and changes?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I would say that probably a standard legislative process, so that if you were to say, like, I would like to see early college, two other things that are in the ed fund moved out of the healthcare and moved into the general fund, a bill. It's a bill. Okay. All right, Beth, what do we got next?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Do you want to knock off some of the bigger ones like UVM and the Vermont State Colleges? Yes. I just got the VSAT numbers that I couldn't find this weekend, like twenty minutes ago, so that's why they're not in yet, but I do now have them Let's do higher ed. Which treaty would you like to start with? Let's do UVM. UVM. So their base budget is a 3% inflationary increase to base funding, which is in line with the governor's ask. The two additional things, though, are the $1,000,000 each year for five years for the Vermont Cancer Center that I believe they ask for every year, and I don't believe we've yet convinced that that's in there. And then there's the $15,000,000 for the multipurpose center, but that money would be coming from the higher ed trust fund, not from tax dollars or general fund dollars. So it comes specifically out of that higher ed trust fund.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: What do they call the

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: multi purpose center? That I believe, also in the that one, I believe, in the governor's side. For $1,000,000 each year for five years for the Cancer Center is.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I'm going to weigh if it's okay with everybody. I will repeat what I did last year when it came to Cancer Center. So that's a better call for the healthcare committee than for our committee to weigh in on. The multipurpose center coming out of the Higher Education Trust Fund. I would look for input. Am personally opposed to that. It's not what the Higher Education Trust Fund is supposed to be used for. It would require a complete change in the law about it. And, I would say I'm not opposed to changing the law of how it's used. So long as it continues. Well, if it were bringing a lot of money that we could then say, well, here's a source of funding for school construction. Great. I don't think that's ever going to happen because of the mechanics of how it works. But otherwise, it seems like it should be used for the benefit of what's there for scholarships towards higher education.

[Kate McCann (Member)]: Was there any proposed legislative language that accompanied that? No. It would be necessary to actually make

[Emily Long (Member)]: that happen.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: There are some other things about endowment funds. It's not just scholarships. There are some options for them to have endowment funds out of the Higher Ed Trust Fund. I don't know if this would even be an endowment fund, unless you put in the endowment fund and you moved it. Guess I'm just curious if we were inclined to grant that budget request, what are the legal mechanics to There was nothing I saw during that.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I have no doubt about the merit of the project and the value for the campus. It feels particularly fraught for our committee that is just desperate to find any niggles for K-twelve school construction to green light $15,000,000 for our UBM athletic facility that we have not even come up with. That may have been That

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: was in Let alone get access to Right.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. It's just, you know Education. Looking at the side by side there, that feels like a pretty strange, would be a very mixed kind of policy indication from us.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: And this will come up in our next discussion and our next topic. But state legislature has made an incredible investment in our state college system. That sort of $5,000,000 per year for five years for 20 is now over. I think our state colleges not

[Emily Long (Member)]: out of

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: the woods. I think they've made some credible advances. But if we're going to be investing dollars or if we're going to be making significant changes in the Higher Ed Trust Fund, I would be concerned about its impact on the state college system. And, you know, the next topic we'll be talking about the Freedom and Unity Scholarship Program, which, you know, if we're going to fund something out of the Higher Education Trust Fund that is outside the bounds of its current statutory limits, that's where I might make an argument. And as you say, UVM multipurpose facility has been on the books for a long time. There's no doubt that it's probably a facility that is needed. But to me, it's just not in keeping with the spirit of this fund.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I was just gonna

[Kate McCann (Member)]: say too, I've always struggled a little bit to sort of figure out how we weigh the ability of an institution to do sort of its own capital campaign. I mean, I think the president was really pretty clear that it's a huge fundraiser with

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: them, but

[Kate McCann (Member)]: there's no nonprofit campaign for school construction. So I think that it's just really hard to know how to balance those things, I think.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: The only other thing for UVM is the 3% inflationary increase to base funding, which is fine with that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right. Let me do the state colleges next.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Sure.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Rob, jump in anytime, Rob, if you need to. Thanks, Peter. I am listening and I'm taking notes. Alright, great.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: So again, with the state colleges, I don't have the number in there, but in the notes, the base funding again is a 3% inflationary increase to base funding, which I believe is in line with the governor's budget. Then there is some new stuff that isn't. So there's the 1 and a half million dollar one time wish this was all on one page. I'm sharing my desktop. That is to fund the rural micro credential programs. That's something new. Then there's another $3,894,000 for allied health programming. That's new. And then the capital projects, $6,000,000 in capital projects, mostly on the Johnson campus. So those three items were not covered in those. Those are all additional to the base funding.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right, so I'll take the easy one first and say that essentially the capital project work is something that falls within the institutions committee. There may or may not be money in there for what they're proposing. I'm gonna sort of refer to them on that. So 1.51 time for the rural micro credential program, 3.9, basically the allied health programming. I think that it helps the appropriations committee if we are realistic. It's very nice to say we agree with everything. So I am tempted to simply say that we support the base funding increase. Capital dollars would be deferred to institutions. And then for the other two worthy proposals, I think the best we can say is, to the extent there's money available to help with these break, but we understand that's probably not possible. The word from the Appropriations Committee is there's about maybe $3,000,000 to play with total, not necessarily, but for everything.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I would agree with that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: A little text string this morning, people asking how each committee handles their budget letter. Do they vote on it? Do they just do it by consensus? We've generally been a consensus group. So if you are not, if you don't want to be part of the consensus, just say I disagree or whatever. Everybody knows that. Are we at VSAC now?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I've got it in the spreadsheet, but they are requesting $27,897,494

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Give me that up real good.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Almost 28,000,000, you just need to round it, for their base funding, which is a 3% increase. So again, their base funding is in line with a 3% increase. Then they've got some additions to that. So some additions that they would like is the aspirations program. They want to use up to 400,000 of the base that they've already asked for to support innovation, career and college aspirations. They currently have the authority for $300,000 out of the base. So they'd like to increase that to use $400,000 of the base. They would like for dual enrollment early college stipend, 84,000, which is level funded to support low and moderate income.

[Emily Long (Member)]: That's not part

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: of the base?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I think so. They're talking about what's coming in because that's a level funding. Freedom and Unity Scholarship, you mentioned, they want $2,300,000 so that's an $812,000 increase. That's sort of the big

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. Would you give me those numbers again?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: So the Freedom and Unity Scholarship, they want an additional $812,000 for a total of basically $2,300,000

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Do you have everything you're reading in an email or

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: in text? I do. It's an email I got from Appropriations twenty minutes ago, their presentation.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: That's why it's on a spreadsheet. Everything

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we're talking about is a spreadsheet.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I have the reason that they gave to appropriations was just forwarded to me. So I have there so I can forward that to everybody. As

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: a reminder to everybody, that additional funding for Freedom and Unity would bring the household income at which you qualify for free tuition at the state universities, at State University, to 85,000, I think.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: That was a 100.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It does not bring

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: a No, 85. All right. So something else. Are you ready for the next one? The Vermont Nursing Forgivable Loan Incentive Program. They would like an increase of $2,000,000 to that program, which would make a total of $5,500,000 and that would fully fund all the applicants. And the Vermont Mental Health Professional Forgivable Loan program, they want 1 and a half million dollars to restart the program. The funding expired in the 2526 year. So they want to restart that program, and that is 1 and a half million. Finding the Freedom in Union, I've got it right here. Boy, that type is small. The program currently allows families with 65,000 or less. It would raise it to 80. 80.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Got the full VSAC list of requests?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Let's see. I think it's just some more detail about each of the requests. There's not a new request that I'm seeing. Let's see. Budget summary, they've got the VSAC grants, which is in the base fund. Aspirations program, flexible pathways, same 7% administrative free. Freedom in unity scholarship. Yep, that's it.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Stucking that to math now, so we all I feel like I

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: need more. Yeah, said I just got it. It's a lot of details. It's a lot of detail that I couldn't find this weekend.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Like, oh my gosh, where is all that?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: When you hear the flexible pathways type, that's to cover.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: It's just the math for

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: small expenses that some kids can't afford when they do a dual enrollment or early college.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: My keyboard is on, I could type.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So the additional asks for BSAC that are upping Freedom and Unity to 812,000 by 812,000 or to bring that to an 80,000 household income. Vermont Nursing Forgivable Loan Program, they want 2,000,000 to fully fund the request. And then 1,500,000.0 for the Vermont Mental Health Forgivable Loan Program.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Just have to note that

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: we don't have the teacher forgivable loan program

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: in there, which I noticed that myself. Ran out

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: of money, and we have some folks who are

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: midway through are now not going to

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: be funded to the end of their I mean, in addition to just pull up the

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: But I know before the session started, were getting a lot of requests for occupational therapists forgivable loan program.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I guess I'm wondering where the VSAC request for those to all extremely high needs occupations. Like why those?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Their testimony, what I recall is that essentially, yes, that these were considered critical careers for Vermont and therefore they rose higher than the others. I mean, let's be very frank and clear about this. This money doesn't exist.

[Emily Long (Member)]: So,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we can weigh in. I think that what I would like to know, let's talk about the freedom and unity, 08/12000. Here's how, if I were doing this in isolation without your input, how I would write it. I would say that given our previous investments in from our state university that

[Emily Long (Member)]: moving

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: up the number of reminders who would be eligible to attend tuition free would be a sign of further support as their bridge funding declines. So I would again, if I do this isolation, I would be supportive of this, obviously, with the caveat that this is a big ask at a time when there's not much money available. But my level of support for would probably be higher than the other requests, which are high requests and may not reach as many people. Although to be fair, careers for the state, life was really great when we had all this one time money to put into these things. I miss those days.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Well, and also by funding something that helps the modders to get more financially stable and also has long term impacts for finding a better stable place for generations.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: So I'm gonna write it then, before I said it, everybody can take a look at it, I will just send off isolation, but I'll be supportive of that. Obviously the committee was especially supportive of the increase in funding for the Freedom and Unity scholarships.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: And I know they didn't specifically ask for it, so it's not an ask, but could we signal

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that if

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: money were going to be used for forgivable that it would go towards the teacher one? Or is that overstepping? We can put whatever we want.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Think that's just me personally. I think that I might put in that although there was not a specific request for it, this program existed, has not been fully funded. There are people with outstanding we are paying the full benefit of it, and it should be considered above the

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Totally understand. No one's in here are absolutely worthy of it, but being the education committee is something that we I'll work that out. Others might not have the same opinion.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Mean, one of the benefits of the teacher, almost there was this commitment to Brahma as part of the year. Right. I assume there's a similar thing in the nursing program, but I don't know much there is. Yep.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Does

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: that wrap up VSAC? So the big ones wrapped up.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Oh, another one I realized this morning I didn't put on the list is we do need to weigh in on the adult education piece.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I was like, Oh, it's

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: not on my spreadsheet.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm not sure anybody in the room here has picked that.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: No, no one is. So the ones at the top of the spreadsheet, don't know if you care

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: what ore you go in. Before we move on from VSAC, I'm gonna add in a paragraph if nobody objects, again, I'll go back to the committee to review that does talk about if there are going to be, if tinkering is going to be done with the Higher Education Trust Fund, then the Freedom and Unity Scholarship Program should be part of that consideration. Okay, next.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I don't know which one you wanna take first.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I think that's a grab bag.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: How about isn't hunger free Vermont the pass through anyway, the $182,000 It's what they got last year. It's what they asked for this year. And it's a pass through AOE as a It goes to AOE. Yep. But that's why it came to our community, even though it's not agreed or not. And last year, I think we just said we supported them being the I can't remember the term. AOE is the sponsor. Sponsor. AOE continuing to be the sponsor for high recruitment. It's not new money or money that they're asking for. It's the same. I think that they went through a bit of a process last year where it was

[Kate McCann (Member)]: sort of in the budget, out of

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: the budget, ultimately back in. I would love for us just to support it being in there this year. So what's it called?

[Kate McCann (Member)]: It's the child and adult, gosh, guess the acronym.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: It's

[Kate McCann (Member)]: the food program for in home early childhood education.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Have it down here. It's for the CACFP is the CACFP is the initial sponsor. For it. They need a sponsor organization and the AOE is selected. That's why it's under our noses. We supported that last year, that being the CACFP sponsor. I could not find if they got any money last year, but we did just get a letter from the American Heart Association again this year. Last year they'd asked for $100,000 to help schools with the cardiac response bill that was passed. This year they've asked for $150,000 and I don't know if they got $100,000 sure I didn't find that. I don't think we I think we passed it off to healthcare people. Yeah. Correctly. I don't know what ended up happening.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: We really haven't had No, it's just

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: a letter we just received. Right. Request.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I don't know how you deal with that

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: one. Yeah, I think we would need to do a lot more due diligence. That's one of those ones where I'd say to somebody, work on it on the Senate side, because we would need to understand what the status is of our cardiac response plan that we did this last year, and where the American Heart Association will play a role.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I'm going from the bottom to the top, actually. So anything else on the American Heart Association? I think you have what you need. Farm to school, they received $1,000,000 They've asked for $1,000,000 No increase at all. Dollars 500,000 is for the farm to school early childhood, Right. 500,000 for LFI. I don't know what that is, but it's exactly what they asked for last year. 500,000 each program. No increase.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I'm actually going to I'm going to do exactly what I did last year, which is defer to the other committee on that.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Okay. Two left to go. The next, the Governor's Institute. Has asked for an increase. Last year it was 384,000. This year, they're asking for 423,000. It's a 10% increase, but they have been flat since '24. So they haven't had an increase since the FY 'twenty four budget, so that's why they're asking for 10% in FY 'twenty seven.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Three, three, three. Yes. Everybody. I'm gonna I mean, I'm basically just gonna say that we're supportive of the program and recognize that they have not seen an increase since FY24. There's extra change in the couch cushions. Okay. Agree. The program gets product underfunded.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: The last one in my spreadsheet is Advance Vermont. And

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: other day, talked about that.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: So they had asked typically for around $384,000. They ended up receiving a 100,000 last year. They had received this or 340 whatever they'd asked for in the past, they'd receive it. Last year, they they received a 100,000. Or 50, I think, last year. I'll have to check my notes, but that was a 100. This year, they're asking for 600,000.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Prior to the year before, it was $3.03 something.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: 300 and something. And then they got but the 600,000 is for two programs, not one. It's for the My Future Vermont, which is what had been funded before, and it's actually adding now in this graduate with a plan program. So that was their request. And then there's the adult ed piece. I forgot to put in the spreadsheet. And that's all I have.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Thoughts on Advance Vermont?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I think it's a great Yeah. Great organization. I just don't think they're gonna appropriations is gonna find $600,000.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: It's going be hard to justify an increase from 150 to 600 when others are getting that. I'm going to just sort of say that we remain supportive of the work and the program itself.

[Emily Long (Member)]: I think

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: we should. I think we should.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I want to say something about, like, to get closer to the prior to last year levels of funding,

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: We're

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: seeing that also funded out of other areas besides the agency of education. It's much more of a labor. All right, that's good. So I think I discussed very briefly with everybody the adult education funding. This is probably just language that will go in the budget. I met with the chairs of commerce and appropriations on this. We had a recommendation from the agency of administration that said that the funding level statewide isn't in dispute. It is how that money is allocated. And you had one side saying it should be based on numbers of students and the other saying it should be based on the number of classroom hours. I know I'm putting this rather crudely, but much of this was argued about in the off session work by the agency administration. We appreciate them being the ones to have done this. They came back and I think somebody described it as splitting the baby and just saying, we'll do it should be 85% based on the number of students and 15% based on classroom hours. That remains also argued over. I discussed it with chair of commerce, chair of appropriations. And what they're going to do is add language that essentially agrees to that for over and over three years, it will be diminished by five points. So it goes 85% classroom, 80, or I'm sorry, 85, 90, whatever it takes to get up to it. So that ultimately, it's a glide path to basing everything on enrollment or ADM, whatever we wanna call it, rather than classroom hours. But with a three year glide path, 5% per year, 15 percentage points that have to be Beth has language. Like I said, I don't think it's a bill we have to pass. I think it's language that will go into budget. Everybody alright.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Did you get the follow-up communication from any KLS who wanted to weigh in on that?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yes. I did get the yes. All right, well, just to review.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Plus I've forgotten something, that's

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Anybody else have anything that

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: When I compare it to the people that came in last year, it was the same.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Some of ones

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: that I felt were missing came in a little after that.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right. So, AOE, we're going to support the five positions going from limited service to permanent. We don't really have a comment on the rest of the budget since it comes in at the 3% increase. And of course, they talk about their budget being $3,000,000,000 but 2.7 of that's the actual Ed fund.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Just noting that I don't think they were funded for a full. That's right. So I just want to make sure everybody recognizes that it will be.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Right. And they were unable to hire people for an eight month position. And then we will add something in there about encouraging both appropriations and us to continue to keep an eye on the use of consultants. UVM, supported the 3% increase in base funding. Cancer center, leave to healthcare, kind of a no on the 15,000,000 out of the higher ed trust fund for the multipurpose use. State colleges, base funding is 3%. We'll defer the capital project, but then there was still another allied health programs and rural micro credential programs. I think we can sort of be supportive, but understand that in these tight times, they're unlikely they should be funded. VSAC, we have, again, a 3%. They wanna make a change in the base for the aspirations program to use 400,000 rather than 300,000. I don't know if we have to weigh in on that, but it's their budget, but we can't. We can express support for the increase to freedom and unity and its purpose and all of that. But again, with the understanding that money is not available like it was. And the same for the others. And that if all of a sudden money miraculously appears for more forgivable loan programs, we'd also like to teach a forgivable loan program to be reconstituted, especially in light of some people sort of only getting funded halfway. And that if there's gonna be major structural changes in the higher education trust fund, that we would request that consideration for Freedom of New Deal should be taken into account. We are going to say that we want AOE to continue being the sponsor organization for the CACFP program. The farm to school will defer to agriculture, food. GIV, we will write in support of. Advance Vermont. We will support the program and at a minimum to encourage appropriations to return them to their prior funding levels.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Can I go back to GIV for a second? Did you have any notes about the fact that it's a 10% increase, that it's been flat since 'twenty four? Yes,

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: right now we're getting it.

[Emily Long (Member)]: Going back to Advance Ramon, you just said encouraged to prior funding levels, but we need to be specific about that because Is that what

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: it was? Years over prior funding

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Let me

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: see if I can

[Emily Long (Member)]: find One was 150.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: I remember Yeah. We had $3.84 and so forth.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: I can

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: find it. I've got right here somewhere, what it was in the prior year.

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: Let's see if I can find it.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Like, hood if this would work right for me. Well, I'll look for it to you. Where's my search button?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Okay. So I'll work on this. I think it's due Thursday. I'll work on this. Hopefully, Thursday, we'll have a little bit of time to finalize it. What's that?

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I keep throwing

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: them

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: to the bus, but I know you're carrying this here.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I don't mind sitting down and and begging this out, and then I'll I'll pass it by Beth and Rob to double check what I have.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Oh, I have it right here. Hey, Peter?

[Emily Long (Member)]: Yeah, Rob.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Sounds like you're you're already composing that in your head. I I am. Okay. I am. And I also I've got last year's on my on my computer, and we can follow the same format. Okay.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Advance for I was 350,000, but I may have just put it in a round number. In FY '25, they received 350,000, so in '26, they asked for 350,000, and they also asked that year that it go from one time money to base.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: They forgot the base. Nope, and

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: they asked for 350,000 and got 100,000,

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: but the prior year it was 350,000.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: Do you want me to update the spreadsheet with some of those numbers and resubmit it, or we don't really need to bother at this point, the VSAC numbers and stuff?

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: Yeah, if you can update it and send it off to anybody who wants it, including me, that'd be great.

[Leanne Harple (Member)]: Yeah, that's good.

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: I think it's just the VSAT numbers I have now. I can put around that. Might not happen tonight, but

[Erin Brady (Ranking Member)]: it's like, going

[Beth Quimby (Member)]: home tomorrow.

[Peter Conlon (Chair)]: All right. Thank you all. Let's take