Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: This is good afternoon, everybody. Senate Education Committee on the afternoon of March 27. Just doing a little bits and pieces today of things, and the first thing we're doing is hearing, for the reporter and sponsor, H542, came over to us earlier this week, and, we did things as many may recall out of order insofar as we did the walk through first and now we're Now doing

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: we are from the border of the bill for the introduction. All right, so really H542 is pretty simple. Does two main things. First of all, it ends the indoor air testing program, and most importantly, removes the headline by which all schools in Vermont, public and private matters, must test for indoor classes of PCBs. The reason for that is, quite simply, because there is no money that the state has appropriated for this any further. So having a mandate with no money attached, and one that we have already seen can lead to millions and millions of dollars cost per school building, It's imprudent to remove that 07/01/2020, come seventh day line, and sort of just stop the program, which isn't happening anyway. Because there is no money for indoor air testing, it is not going on. And so the deadline is still there, hanging out over, it is still a mandate. It is now just sort of, they won't do anything, it's gonna convert to an unfunded. The other thing it does is it says that whatever money currently exists, and there is some money in the special fund that's held by the Department of Environmental and Conservation, can only be used for remediation in those schools that have issues. That's not really in conflict. There's about $4,500,000 left. DEC has told us that it is mostly earmarked for Green Mountain Union High School in Chester, finished up their remediation. In their testimony to us, they said that essentially all of the schools that have tested above the state created action levels have reached points of management that allow them to use their educational spaces at a level that seems to be the most meaningful thing. Meaning that it's okay for the schools in their daily operations. So for example, Bellows Falls Junior High School went through a big remediation program. Their levels are now down so much that they don't have to use the indoor air filters. Other places are, so you'd be able to do a combination of indoor air filters, these small units that run all day long, all night long, and other mitigation. So there's no work to be done at least three medical and high school, and there seems to be enough money still set aside for it, according to the folks at the Department of Biomasservation. It also calls for report backs, including a plan for the future. It's a remediation, testing and remediation is something the administration wants to pursue to provide plan for more and more.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What about schools that are doing things like, like Quinbally, if they had

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: Right. So, again, they, according to the folks at the Department of Environmental Conservation, they seem to be at a level that is below the school action levels set by the state, and they are able to use their facilities in a way that meets their needs. Do they have ongoing expense? That'd be a question for the DEC. I think that the, what was previously a mandatory requirement to continue testing on either quarterly or semi annual basis, I think that has been lifted because they have tested enough along the way that it had consistent results. But again, would confirm that with that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So we have a in right now.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: Deputy Secretary for example. Department of Health. Department of Health. So what I'll say is, you know, they didn't really object to this bill. They asked for additional language, saying that it should be mandatory to test the building if that's sort of like what the people have targeted building for consolidation or whatever, rather than mandate that just in play. You need that as common sense of appeal. Beyond those three, is

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: there anybody else in person that we should hear?

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: So here's what we heard from Matt Chapman, Tricia Coppolino, who's been sort of the, I could say, scientist behind all of the testing. Know, depending on rates.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: With the Department of Health. Yeah.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: And then we also heard from a number of superintendents who've been part of the buildings that have been affected. Okay. But this is the owners, okay. And I'm sure the Superintendent's Association can set you up with any number of those who have been talking about it. Okay. Yeah. Good. Again, the main thing here was to not let what was a funded plan be a turn into a massive unfunded mandate that would really fix up a 100% property taxpayers. We've had this discussion with

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Lodge Council, they ran. But when you talk about the mandate, actually, to whom does the mandate adhere?

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: So what it says in the law is that all schools must test for indoor air, or stuff indoor air for PCPs, period. So the vanity is on the schools to do it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Not the Period. Not Not the DC, okay. Yeah. Yes.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: So you said a report time. Those are report time. It's all spelled out in the bill, ANR on current status and future status of those who are affected and a proposal for future mitigation, testing mitigation, and going forward. I think there's a report back from the Department of Health. I can't remember the specifics in there, but I think that's about it. Great.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thanks.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: Okay, yeah. Like I said, it's not very complicated. I don't know if you share it with us

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: or if you could. Just curious, Medieval?

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: It was 920. Oh,

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: that's right. That's right here.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: 920. And Flourvode? Voice vote. Vote. Thank you. I call it a strong voice vocal. Thank you. Anytime, people know I won't talk about this till I'm blue in the face. Well, see you again. Thanks for the time. Thank you. Have a weekend. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Like I said, we're jumping around a little bit. We have a couple of people in, I think one by Zoom, one Zoom, to for the giving us some input on the draft math with the sinking input and Rachel, people come in and give it give us some. So, we have Matthew, veterans? Yes, of course. Right, okay. Superintendent of schools from the Central Vermont, Supervisory. So you've, I've assumed, seen the witness pass? Yes, I've Okay. And you sent an email, and so, yeah, go ahead. You are, just short circuit here, I think you're here. That's correct.

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: Those four towns. Yes. Okay. So good afternoon, Chair Bongartz and members of the Senate Committee on Education. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As the chair said, my name is Matthew Fetters and I serve as the superintendent of Central Vermont Supervisory Union, which includes Payne Mountain School District serving Northfield and Williamstown, as well as the Heffernan Valley Community School District serving Orange and Washington. First, I want to begin by acknowledging the complexity of the work and the thoughtful effort that's gone into developing version six of the map. And I also appreciate the recognition that this is a starting point. As has been said publicly, it is by definition not right, and I'm offering these comments in that same spirit, help improve it. After reviewing both the map and the draft legislation, I wanna frame my concern not simply as a local issue, but as one that directly is connected to the goals and requirements outlined in the bill. The legislation makes clear that this effort is intended to improve governance efficiency, strengthen educational delivery, and remain responsive to local needs while prioritizing voluntary alignment where possible. It also explicitly directs the State Board to consider and avoid creating geographically isolated districts. My concern is that as currently configured, the placement of the Paine Mountain School District, Northfield and Williamstown within the Supervisory Union number of eights. And that just to be clear, as we're talking about, that's here. That is correct. Yeah. Okay. That risks doing exactly that. Northfield and Williamstown sit on the western edge of the proposed SU eight, while the rest of the supervisory union extends significantly to the East and the Northeast. At the same time, both communities are part of the Central Vermont corridor with strong geographic and community connections to Barrie and Montpelier. This creates a structure that does not reflect how these communities actually function. Northfield is closely aligned with Montpelier Roxbury region. In fact, students from Roxbury travel through Northfield daily to attend school in Montpelier, and travel time is approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Williamstown is closely aligned with Barrie. Commuting patterns, services, and regional identity all point in that direction. By contrast, travel from Northfield and Williamstown to the eastern portions of the proposed supervisory union can approach an hour or more depending on the community. These are not theoretical concerns, they are the daily realities that shape how districts collaborate, how students access opportunities, and how systems operate. I also want to be clear that this is not about aligning with one specific district. Northfield and Williamstown sit in a region that includes Montpelier Roxbury, Barrie, and Washington Central, known as U32. These are geographically proximate and interconnected communities. My concern is not choosing one of those outcomes today. It is ensuring that the structure allows those conversations to happen in meaningful ways. I would also note that this pattern is not limited to Northfield and Williamstown. The towns of Orange and Washington, which I also represent, also have strong ties towards Barrie and the greater Central Vermont region. Close to 90% of their high school students attend Williamstown Middle High School, U32, or Spaulding High School in Barrie. That further underscores that this is a region with shared patterns of movement and connection that are not reflected in the current configuration of SU eight. There are three critical ways this proposal conflicts with the framework established in the legislation.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: If I could, Terry, I apologize. Can you back up just a step? Are you an operating district? How many schools are there?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I don't know the way.

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: No. I appreciate that. Central Vermont Supervisory Union is comprised of Payne Mountain School District, Northfield, and Williamstown. Each of those towns have a elementary school as well as an operating middle and high school. Is Three elementaries? Two, one in Williamstown, one in Washington, as well as a middle high school in both towns. So we're one of the unique school districts in the state that still operate two high schools, and we're already in discussions on how do we address that even internally to consolidate into a single high school.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Because I'm slowly catching up that pretty much. Any

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: choice in the district? Not in Payne Mountain. Now Echo Valley School District is our smaller school district making up the towns of Orange and Washington. They only operate K-eight and they tuition out all of their nine through 12 students. The approximately So 90% of their high school students that I mentioned, that's about 80 of their students travel towards either Williamstown, Barrie, or Berlin for Duke.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: And that's what of keyed me into, they really understand your scenario. So because it's important to understand the lens that every person who comes here and testifies with the lens that they're looking for. Yep. Absolutely.

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: So this underscores that this is a region with shared patterns of movement and connections that are not reflected in the current configuration of SU-eight. So there's three critical ways the proposal conflicts with the framework established in legislation. First is geographical isolation. The bill explicitly requires consideration of whether a district becomes geographically isolated. In this case, Northfield and Williamstown are placed in a supervisory union where they lack natural geographic and functional connections to the majority of the SUA communities. Is not simply imperfect alignments, it's the type of configuration the bill cautions against. Second, the bill's approach relies on voluntary mergers occurring within the proposed supervisory union boundaries. That means the boundaries you establish now determine which partnerships are realistically available. If Northfield and Williamstown are placed in SU-eight, they're effectively prevented from aligning with nearby and naturally connected regions such as Montpelier, Roxbury, Barrie, or Washington Central through the voluntary process the legislation is designed to support. I wanna be clear that our districts are prepared to engage fully in the process outlined in this legislation, and this is not a request to be left unchanged. Many of the districts that Northfield and Williamstown are most closely aligned with, such as Barrie, Montpelier, Roxbury, and Washington Central, are not being placed in the newly formed supervisory unions at this time, but will instead be studied and considered for future reconfiguration. However, this proposal would place CVSU in a supervisory union that defines and limits the set of potential merger partners. That makes it especially important that our placement now reflects those connections so that future collaboration is not unintentionally constrained. Third, one of my primary concerns relates to how the legislation structures the path forward for districts. While the bill does provide a pathway to adjust supervisory union boundaries, the pathway is separate from the core process. It requires local votes, multiple public hearings, state board review, and ultimately legislative action. In practice, it's limited, uncertain, and cumbersome. So I would ask, if we already know that Northfield and Williamstown are more closely aligned with neighboring regions, why would the proposed legislation place them in a position where they would have to pursue the difficult process just to align with communities they are connected to? Finally, these supervisory union boundaries are being codified in statute, and the transition timeline begins immediately, with supervisory unions operational by 07/01/2027. I imagine study committees will begin work well before that. So while it may feel like this can be adjusted later, in practice, this is the decision point. Once established, these boundaries will shape what is possible in the next phase of this work. I understand the competing priorities the committee is balancing. I understand that SU-eight is projected at approximately 3,700 students across these districts. The issue here is not whether the supervisory union meets a target size, it does. The issue is whether it is coherent, functional, and efficient. Efficiency is critical. It's a critical goal and one I strongly support, but efficiency is driven by proximity and alignment, just not scale. When districts are geographically dispersed, transportation costs increase, collaboration becomes more difficult, and shared programming is harder to implement. I agree that no map will be perfect, but there's a difference between minor imperfections and structural misalignment. In this case, the concern is structural. It affects whether the system can function as intended. If we think longer term, the region currently operates multiple high schools within a relatively small geographic area. Better alignment could create opportunities over time for deeper collaboration or even regional approaches that improves programming and efficiencies. But those conversations kinds are only possible if CVSU is positioned within a structure that reflects the geographic reality. I also wanna emphasize that our districts are not seeking to preserve the current structure at all. The districts within CVSU have been open for reconfiguration, including the possibility of separating if it results in stronger geographical alignment and better long term outcomes for students. My concern is that the current proposal assumes these districts should remain group, but in practice, they may be better aligned with neighboring regions. If the goal of this legislation is to support meaningful voluntary alignment, then the initial boundaries need to reflect those possibilities. In closing, I want to be clear. This is not an argument for maintaining the current structure. Our districts understand that change is necessary and have been open to restructuring where it leads to better outcomes. But if the goal of this legislation is to improve educational opportunity, increase efficiency, and support sustainable systems, then alignment matters as much as scale. Right now, the placement of Northfield and Williamstown in SU-eight works against that alignment and risks creating the kind of geographical isolation the field specifically directs you to avoid. I would respectfully ask the committee to reconsider this portion of the map. A relatively small adjustment at this stage could significantly improve the long term success of this effort. I would welcome the opportunity to continue working with the committee as you refine this proposal. Thank you for your time and your consideration.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So you're actually advocating for, so one thing we haven't done is break up the district. I understand. On the theory that districts are together for a reason. So we have not done that. They're suggesting that we do, right, to break up this district. Do you have a sense of, and by the way I understand your argument, I will say in and of itself the fact that it goes over here doesn't make it geographically isolated to me. That's not necessarily geographically isolated there or other places. But I get your, in fact this one's actually separated. But your real point is that separation or isolation is because your point is that these two towns really gravitate this direction not this direction. Yes sir. Is that a universally or there's no nothing's universally, so forget that. Is how deeply have the waters, from what you're suggesting, been tested?

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: Our board is currently in discussions on what what do we need to do locally as this legislation moves forward. And there has been discussion at the board level in regard to asking or or our board has discussed the fact that although we are a unified district and part of a supervisory union, is it logical as these discussions move forward for Northfield, which is in between Montpelier, Roxbury, for Williamstown, which, you know, Northfield is on the Route 14, for Williamstown, which is on 12, as well as Orange and Washington to possibly separate at this time. Although we know that that process is again a cumbersome process in approaching the State Board of Education, having to find other SU partners and moving forward with that. It hasn't moved along very far, but I would say that there's board interest in pursuing that. I've also spoken with community members as well, but I can't say that I have a survey that has shown that that is the majority field.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And just to make it doubly sure of it, I understand, are you suggesting that the two towns go where?

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: Go to 32? I think if the I think if the two towns were left in the the gray for the State Board of Education to come up with proposals, I I think there's there would be reasonable conversation for Northfield to become part of Montpelier or even U 32 for Williamstown to become part of Barrie. At the same time, I understand the senate's kind of challenge with breaking apart an SU during this time The district. Or breaking apart the SU even. Okay. That I I guess if if there was not the feeling that this legislation could break apart a supervisory union, then I would also ask that Orange and Washington are in that consideration as well. And part of that would be that Washington, I think there's been a similar interest to either travel north to Barrie as much as interest to travel south towards Chelsea and Tunbridge. Orange, I think, definitely positioned to be more in line with with Barry. Or the reason I don't advocate as strongly for those is they they are also a choice district. And I think, reasonably, they they they do have some connection to those Eastern districts as well. And so I don't think it would be as great of an impact.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yes. I'm going where I always like to go. So listening just to what you're saying now, if the current system was just that everybody found under, you know, I put out a one unit bike system rather than school, would that make it easier to do everything that you're talking about because we've had more than one come in and say, hey, it would be better that if all the barriers were taken down and the schools could talk to what is best to happen for their areas. I know it changes so much, but at least this map has this broken up to that, hey, we could have advisors for these areas, but the schools make decisions. Do you think that in this big building here, everybody goes, that's too far of a stretch. My colleague across the way here is, it's too far of a stretch. But everything we hear from every superintendent coming in saying, when we started drawing the lines, here's all the issues we're running into. If we took them lines down, kept the system for one year the way it is while you work it out, and two years like the chair has, that you have to have it done by them, or then education board's gonna do it for you. What's your opinions if that is what happened? There's so much more to it, but then all your services, you don't have to worry about talking to a different SU, know, CSIS they're talking about, or BOCES, they're gone because you're all working under one unified system. What's your thoughts on that? Because I get mixed thoughts, but just what you're telling us today make everything that you're talking about so much easier.

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: Absolutely. I do wanna make sure that what I share today is not being representative of what any other superintendent Everybody

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: comes in as their own opinion.

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: But yes, in many regards, I think there is some benefit to that. It does force districts on a timeline to move in that direction. I've heard that discussion around, you know, there might need to be some financial benefit for districts to merge at a larger rate. I do look at the per pupil spending of other districts and at least as of right now under the current model to merge with a district that has higher per pupil spending than the districts I represent could potentially impact our taxes. But if if there is a move towards the fund foundation funding formula where that playing field is level, I do feel like, at least for Central Vermont, that puts us in a position to have a much broader conversation with the surrounding region. For Central Vermont, because we sit just to the south of Montpelier, Roxbury, Washington Central, Barrie, which are larger districts that are in the gray area and seem to have the ability to operate on their own. We over the past year and a half have reached out and invited them to conversations on voluntary merger discussions, as well as the district that represents Randolph and the White River Valley. We've had some of those meetings. Not all of those boards have committed to wanting to participate, but we've certainly been open to a discussion. And I think having a map that doesn't bind us into a specific region, does seem appealing at least for the Central Vermont supervisory. Thank you.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So so I fully understand that your mission today was really to respond to senator Bongartz proposal, that's to fully respect. I appreciate that senator Heffernan brought up his single district map. I think that's worthy of Universities. Universities. There's also active, the AOE initial proposal. There's the redistricting task force, which basically focused on BOCES, BOCES maps. There's the house map. There's the J map. J what's J? That's Cooper. There's the null effect of this maintain status quo, and then there's the TBD, you know, we haven't even articulated yet. Given all of those potentials, if you're the if you're in our seats, what would you be advocating? What's important to you? What are the goals that you'd

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: like to achieve? Again, with the

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: all of those maps have maintained keeping current districts and supervisory unions together. And I think my position is if we are at a crossroads for the state of Vermont, there may be alignment, that requires districts to break apart. And so that has been where I've struggled with each of those maps as I've seen different iterations. They've continued to keep CVSU together, which I value for my own job. But at the same time, I don't think it necessarily makes the most realistic sense for the long term operation of of regionalization of school districts. So I'm probably one of the few people that would say there probably needs to be a a look at allowing districts without the cumbersome process of going to the state board, and saying we found another partner. We'd like to leave this SU for that SU. I think in my region, what I would like to get out of it is probably flexibility of our specific towns, to possibly enter into discussions with surrounding towns that may ultimately break apart our current supervisory union as it exists.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: And to that point, do you feel that taking your district and and placing it into the gray area that allows a little more autonomous analysis, that's a satisfactory solution in the short term.

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: I definitely think so because it does again, I think with the one caveat is I don't know if the state board is still gonna move forward with that intention of SU, CVSU as a whole needs to go somewhere. I hope that there is some flexibility to say we might need to propose, a new district that actually does break apart some districts. Because if you move the whole thing over, the towns that have the tuition system would be out of luck.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Absolutely. So that would work for those two towns. That's why you're I think that's why you're advocating. Yes. Breaking up the district. So okay. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Just gonna ping one more. Yeah. It's it's great that we have superintendents coming and going. I I really like to take advantage of the opportunity. School choice, statewide. Almost pitting public school against public school, potentially against independent schools. The parents having school choice. You know in the realm of hypotheticals any first reactions to that?

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: This is my fifth year in Vermont as a superintendent. Prior to that I was an educator for the past twenty five years in the state of California And as long as you could get your child to a school, you could enroll in that school. I understand some of the concerns of it creating a lack of opportunity for certain students who don't have that ability, at least in my experience, I didn't see that. I saw that even within our own school district, there's teachers who have to get their kid to school before they come to school. And what I found is it opened up opportunities for teachers to bring their children with them when they go to work. I found that because someone worked in a different region of the state that they were able to bring their child to be closer to them. It's my one opinion and I know that it has disfavor among a lot of my colleagues, but for me, I have not winced at the idea.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: Thank you. What part of California?

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: So I was in Victorville, which was the Inland Empire. Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: But I don't have to say anything, I do have an opinion on everything. I've said I've said it all along that, you know, I I don't want it because I've been on in on the receiving end of forced mergers. I I don't wanna have to tell people that they have to merge. So what I recommended was we get all 52 superintendents in one room or at the Barry Auditorium. We have a district roundup where you guys all work together with us. And you know where all the you know all the ins and outs of your supervisory union of your districts. You be willing to do something like that?

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: I would. And the Vermont Superintendent's Association had their spring conference just yesterday, and we were all sitting across at at the Plaza Hotel looking at this map and just hearing different people saying, you know, this right here doesn't make sense. This over here, there might you know, this town's gonna have to travel through this new district to get back to into their district. I I would almost hope that there would be lots of superintendents that would like to give that a go.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I don't I don't mean maybe at the end of the roundup we could, you know, we don't do a rendition of musical chairs. The people that didn't merge end up someplace where they didn't want to be. So to have everybody and we could do that in a short period of time and have somebody, you know, keep a track of, input, the input, then they got school boards are gonna weigh in on it, and there's ballots gonna weigh in on it. Well, I

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: think it's it's doable. There are so many intimate details to each district. It's it's I I applaud you all for for working with these maps, and I've gone into the system and made my own maps. But without having everybody in the room, can understand the challenge that you're all dealing with.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: And a more question for you, Chair, is that hopefully, as we've had superintendents and disinterested people come in and testify as to what they want. So we should have been keeping score. I mean, really. And to to all that data, we've still got it. We've got

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: all the people. That's why the mask can change the moment. Okay. Yeah. So, thank you.

[Matthew Fetters (Superintendent, Central Vermont Supervisory Union)]: Alright. Yeah. Thank you, Terry.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome to stand. Listen, we have one more person. Abigail. We did testify by Zoom. Good afternoon.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: Good afternoon. Can you hear me okay?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: Excellent. Good afternoon, members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As a rural Vermonter, I wear many hats. So, I will start off with My name is Abigail Pelton. I'm here to share the position of the Windham School District and the residents of our town regarding the current state of education funding and reform. I hope that you have had the opportunity to review the letter that our board has sent to you. On 03/03/2026, at our annual town meeting, the people of Windham spoke with clarity and unity. Two articles, Article seven and eight, passed unanimously. That is not something we take lightly. It reflects a community that is engaged, informed, and deeply concerned. Our town's message is straightforward. Statewide education funding systems are not working for Windham. We believe the system, including the implementation of Act 73, has failed to provide the equitable and accessible education guaranteed under the Vermont Constitution. At the same time, it has created unstable, unsustainable property tax burdens that disproportionately impact small rural communities like ours. This concern is not theoretical. It is grounded in lived experience. Windham is not a typical district. We do not operate our own elementary school. We tuition our students to neighboring schools. Our middle and high school students are part of a larger district. Our elementary district operates our own transportation system, transporting our students as well as our town's middle and high school students, because the larger district's contractor will not serve our town based on its geography. Our student population is small but growing, and our families rely on a mix of public and independent school options that meet their families' needs. Despite operating efficiently within this structure, Windham residents faced some of the highest property tax increases in the state. We were told that Act 73 would simplify the system, reduce fragmentation, and control costs. But what we are seeing is the creation of a system that does not account for geography, does not resolve major cost drivers, and does not provide sustainable tax relief. Even more concerning, the current reform proposals fail to address the realities of towns like ours. Both approaches eliminating our district's ability to provide equitable education, both threaten the transportation systems that make education accessible for our students, and both shift governance to models in which Windham's voice would be significantly diminished. For us, equity is not an abstract concept. Equity means that a child can physically get to school in a timely and safe manner. It means families have access to options that work for them. It means decisions are made with an understanding of local realities. Nearly thirty years ago, the Vermont Supreme Court made it clear that education must be equitable and accessible regardless of a town's wealth. Yet today, we find ourselves questioning whether that promise is being fulfilled. Windham's recent vote was a call for meaningful structural reform. We are asking for true equity in education funding, guaranteed transportation for all students, preservation of our school choice and expansion to seven through 12. Local governance that ensures our community has a voice and tax relief that is tied to real lasting reform, not temporary fixes. We are ready to work collaboratively. We are ready to be part of the solution, but we need a system that recognizes the diversity of Vermont's communities and does not force a one size fits all approach. Most importantly, we need a system that works for our students and our families and our taxpayers. We urge you to listen to the unanimous voice of Windham and take meaningful action this legislative session. Here's also, I'd like to put on a different hat now, the speak as a parent and resident of Windham. I believe the proposed Senate map does not adequately account for Windham, Vermont's unique geography, transportation realities, and historical education alignments. As a result, it risks creating inequitable, unsafe, and impractical outcomes for our students and community. You guys can take a look at the map that's being proposed where Windham is located, it's the northern tip of the Windham South Supervisory Union. Windham is geographically challenging, with two steep roads connecting the town to neighboring areas. Only the northern route is maintained by our town. The southern route is maintained by Townsend, has a steeper decline, is more dangerous than our town maintained road. The proposed map will likely lead students to travel south to Brattleboro High School. Based on consistently declining numbers and its ever increasing costs, Leland and Gray could eventually consolidate to Bratibrill. Bratibrill is approximately 40 miles away compared to 14 miles to Chester or 20 or so miles to Manchester. Sending Windham's middle and high school students to Bratibrill would create unsafe bus routes, increase costs, and impose necessary time burdens on students and families. The Windham School District is nonoperational and provides tuition for grades K-six. Our nonoperational district owns and operates a bus and collaborates with the West River District to provide equitable transportation for our grade school students that wish to attend Townsend Elementary and our middle and high school students. The middle and high school district are unable to serve our town based on our geography. Windham's nonoperational elementary district tuition's K-six students. Half our students go to Chester, Londonderry, and Windham Schools. And under the concurrent proposal, these would be Bennington Rutland SU and Windham North SU. However, for grades seven through 12, our students are forced to attend Leland and Grand Townsend, which is, in this proposal, is part of the Windham South Supervisory Union. That breaks essential social and academic developmental connections for our students that are served elsewhere. The proposed map doesn't address this issue, forcing students to leave their established existing school networks and potentially increasing dropout risk, travel fatigue, and disruption to extracurricular participation. Many Windham families rely on tuition to align education with work and commuting patterns. Our town's unique geographic location creates two distinct travel corridors. One to the North, which provides a transportation corridor to Route 11, providing access to Londonderry, Manchester, and the Mountain Towns, as well as Chester and Springfield, Vermont. The road to the south to Route 30 provides access to Townsend and the Brattleboro area. The current proposal may force families to travel in one direction for work and another entirely different direction for schooling, increasing logistical and financial burdens for Windham families. Windham's taxes are among the highest in state, yet our per student education costs are relatively low. Our housing stock is most similar to Londonderry in the mountain towns and dissimilar to towns in the Brattleboro area. Inclusion in the Brattleboro Rutland SU or Wyndham North SU would provide better student outcomes, improve transportation coordination, reduce bus miles, and improve cost efficiency. The current map would create inequities by pairing Windham with a distant and less compatible districts. Historically, Windham was a part of Londonderry and previously sent Windham's northern students to Chester High School prior to joining the Leland Gray District, demonstrating longstanding community and administrative coordination with nearby districts. Preserving this alignment maintains historical precedent and supports community cohesion. Even though we have historical ties to Leland and Gray, residents have advocated sending their students elsewhere. In 2019, the town of Windham, Vermont attempted to leave the Leland And Gray Union District via a district wide vote. The vote failed, given other towns' reluctance to allow it to leave. However, this shows the town of Wyndham's desire to leave its restricted middle and high school option. Leaving the Windham in the Windham South Supervisory Union would essentially force it to continue status quo. This is not creating a more cost efficient system, nor is it supporting the student population. If Windham stays within the Windham South Supervisory Union, it will face long logistical transportation times. Now, Chester is approximately 14 miles away, Manchester is approximately 24 miles away, Townsend is approximately 17 miles, and Brataville is approximately 41 miles. Given these distances, Rutland Bennington Supervisory Union and Windham North Supervisory Union appear to be far more practical and safer options for Windham students. They also better reflect historical ties, geographic realities, and commuting patterns while pursuing continuity for K-twelve students. For reasons of safety, equity, educational continuity, transportation efficiency, cost effectiveness, and historical precedent, Windham should not be assigned to the Windham South SU under the proposed Senate map. I personally believe that Windham's district should be changed from K through six tuition to K through 12 tuition to better support families due to our geographical uniqueness. Additionally, the town should be considered for inclusion in the Rutland Bennington Supervisory Union, which would better serve our students, families, and taxpayers. I'm sure the other districts and towns are in similar situations, and I'm concerned that the current maps proposal doesn't account for towns like ours. Thank you.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. I know that we've in little tiny town with one of the most beautiful churches in Vermont. Do you agree with that, Abigail? I said one of most beautiful churches in Vermont.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: Yes, it's our meeting house, but yes. Yeah, the meeting

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: house, yeah. And so what you're suggesting, I think most people simply, would be take this blue tip here of the Southwest District and move you up into the yellowish orange district. Is next.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: The Rutland Bennington.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, Windham North.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: So Windham North is another, yes, another district as well, that or supervisory union.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Ben, it fits well into?

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: I don't know how well it really fits. There's we are geographically unique, And there are families that travel and have commute and have established, you know, their commute that way, but we also have the larger population heading towards Londonderry, the Windham. We have the independent school, the Mountain School and Windham that a large portion of our students tuition to.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And you have, by the way, you have, in total, how many students pre K through 12 do you have in Windham?

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: I don't have that figure in front of me. Our district is 30 maybe? Because

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the elementary school when it closed had about 10 kids, right?

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: 17, I believe.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: 17? Okay. So all together you have about 30. So we're talking about 30 kids, which matters for us. And this is where school choice would be awesome. Then you could just, and then you're saying that transportation becomes an issue, but maybe not because then the parents headed that way, it would actually make it easier.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: And the road is maintained by our town. The road to Route 121 to Route 11 is maintained by our town, so that it is much easier for us to manage the transportation route versus a steep, twisty road that we do not have any maintenance of, and it's dangerous. Abigail, she's contentious for a very long time, that hill.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Do you have a sense of where most of the kids, K through six, are going at this point?

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: It's kind of a mixed. We have about, I'd say, a third that go to Townsend and a third that go to the Mountain School in Windham, probably close to a third at Homeschool, and also, we do have a student, I believe, over in Chester.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: Okay.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: So, we're kind of all over the place right now. And the concern being brought forward to our board now, which we're going to even be addressing at our next meeting, is those families that are outside of that structure now have to consider pulling their student from the system that they're in and comfortable with and thriving in relocate them for middle school and high school. And so, that's a lot of the challenges that the small rural communities are facing as far as how we can navigate the longevity of our families.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So, student choice would be strong in your mind.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: Absolutely.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. So just, I think you, maybe, just so you know this, this committee has spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get rural Vermont, right? We have we have spent a lot of time in rural Vermont, hearing from rural Vermont, and trying to make the system work well for the people who live there. So thank you for your testimony.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: Thank you

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: for the opportunity.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I understand it and thank you.

[Abigail Pelton (Windham School District board member/resident)]: Thank you. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Shifting gears again. Last quarter of the day. I got, we got contacted by Autumn who's on the screen with us just to take a little bit of time to hear about what's going on I guess with adult, with child and adult food program. You've heard from me before but just you wanted to check-in again.

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: Yeah thank you I'll just go ahead and introduce myself and I've got a few slides, a few things to share. Then I'm also joined by Amy Fleming from Brock who can share kind of more boots on the ground how this program works. So I'm Autumn Moen. I work at Hunger Free Vermont. I live in Burlington. I'm our legislative policy lead, I'm in the building a lot. I'm just unfortunately not there today, so thanks for accommodating me on Zoom. I'm gonna share my screen if that's okay. I'm gonna send a request over to Daphne, so hopefully you can see that. But I'm going to start with just giving a kind of background on what happened with this request last session because we did work on it together. Let's get into that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: By the way, let me just interject here for the committee's sake. I'm work on organizing the request as So soon you we'll then have it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: We'll have a sheet to work from.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So your visit is nicer.

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: Okay, great. Sounds good. Alright. Well, thank you for having me and for this hopefully pretty brief overview of the Child and Adult Care Food Program. So just as a refresher for what happened in last session with this request, and then I'll just give a quick reminder of what the program is and and how this request works. But just for a refresher from last session, we worked with your committee, I gave a probably a similar overview about the program, and your committee did support this request in your budget letter to Senate appropriations and it was included in the Senate budget. Since it had not been included in the House budget last year, there was some back and forth in the conference committee, but it was eventually funded at $150,000 to the sponsor organizations of this program, which was just shy of our request of $182,000 After some application and grant awarding process, which I'll let Amy get into a bit more, All of those sponsor organizations have now heard that they will be getting this funding really soon, and they were able to incorporate this into their budgeting for their current fiscal years. Amy will speak more to that. So this appropriation of 150,000 in FY26 was really critical to ensuring that this program, which gets meals and snacks to kids in childcare, really ensured that this program was able to stay alive. It was absolutely critical, but there are needs that still persist. So we're returning with the same ask this year of $182,000 that will go to the Agency of Education because they oversee this program, and that will be distributed amongst the sponsor organizations of the Child and Adult Care Food Program as an incentive to participate as a sponsor for family child care home programs. So now that's kind of the background of what happened. Oh, and I'll add for this year, as of last week, the funding was included in full $182,000 in the House budget. So going over this background again, just as a refresher, and I'm happy to send any handouts or materials to look over because I know this is a lot of information at the end of a long week, so definitely don't expect anyone to memorize all of this. Happy to send any materials. But the Child and Adult Care Food Program, or the CACFP, is a federal nutrition program that early childhood programs can participate in where they receive cash reimbursements for meals and snacks that are served to the kids in their care. The Agency of Education administers this program at the state level. The CACFP is really the most equitable way for all kids in child care settings to make sure they're able to access developmentally appropriate nutrition and they're able to access learning alongside their peers when they show up to their child care programs. Now, both child care centers and family child care homes can participate in the CACFP, but this particular challenge that I'm going to talk about on the next slide here is really relevant to family child care homes. So those are small family child care homes with just a few kiddos in them, you're all familiar with how all of these programs operate. Just specifically, this request is around family child care homes. And it's important to note that these homes leverage $1,200,000 annually in federal dollars, all through reimbursements for meals and snacks for the meals that they serve in their programs. So the role of a sponsoring organization then for family child care homes is that under USDA guidelines for how they operate this program, it's under those federal rules where a family child care home or in the federal guidelines they call these family day care homes, they need to have a sponsoring organization, essentially an organization that does their onboarding, their paperwork, and they do three site visits a year. So they have to have a connection with a sponsoring organization. And we have two zero three family child care homes in the state of Vermont that are participating in CACFP, which is about half of the family child care homes. All of these are currently covered by only three sponsoring organizations, so that is Brock Community Action, Capstone Community Action, and the Winston Prouty Center for Child Development. So those three organizations cover the entire state. So as you can imagine, that's a big geographical area for a lot of these folks to cover. There's typically one staff member or one and a half in the case of Capstone that will cover their entire geographic area, do three site visits a year, and help with their onboarding and paperwork. I'll let Amy speak more to what her day to day looks like with that. But I think it's just really important to drive home the fact that this is a really big administrative process that these sponsor organizations carry. We used to have seven sponsor organizations throughout the entire state, but just the amount that they are reimbursed federally and the amount of work and time that they spend to administer this program just makes it really difficult to continue to administer it. We have lost some sponsor organizations over the last few years, we're down to just three. So, as of 2024, only about 44% of family child care homes were participating in the CACFP, and there are some barriers to participating in this program that goes beyond the sponsor organization's capacity to add on new programs. As you can imagine, with only three of them, it's it's really difficult to continue onboarding new programs and do outreach and all that sort of thing. But there so there are barriers beyond that. But without any additional funding and additional support for these sponsor organizations, they might drop out of the program and then family child care homes are completely unable to participate in the CACFP in the first place. Due to this funding gap, as I said, these organizations are experiencing strained budgets and a few of them have had to stop participating in the CACFP. I'll just put this up here again. This is what our request is. It's $182,000, and we've landed on this by doing lots of focus groups and talking with the sponsor organizations to understand exactly what the gap is in being able to confidently and effectively continue to operate this program and look at the idea of expanding and being able to recruit more family childcare homes to participate in the program. The last thing I'll share before I turn it over to Amy, because I think it's really important to hear from her, is that we actually did hear, my colleague Keely, who is our early child nutrition expert, she heard from a family childcare center that they heard about this funding and they reached out to her and they said that with this sponsor funding that was in the state budget, they would be interested in having a conversation about becoming a sponsor. They said that we are currently a sponsor now, but just for their sister organization, But if Addison County needed someone to do that for home providers, they'd be willing to have a conversation about what it would look like. And if there was funding to access, they might be able to pull it off. So that would really help to balance this administrative duties that fall really heavily on these three organizations that are left. If we were able to onboard another one, that would be really fantastic. Hearing that this funding was available is really what made this child care center say, you know what? We might be able to do that and might be able to take on some of these family child care homes in Addison County, which is really exciting. That was a big, I think, part of why this request came to be was to increase capacity in that way. So I think I'll leave it at that. I think, like I said, it's really important to hear from Amy and what she does on the day to day at Brock and how this program operates, and she can speak to how this funding from last year has impacted their budget and their ability to continue operating the CACFP. CACFP. If there are questions for me right now I'm happy to take them otherwise I can turn it over to Amy.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Autumn, I have one. The $1,200,000 federal drawdown a result of the $150,000 we funded last year?

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: Yeah, that's a good question. The $1,200,000 is actually from data that I believe the most recent data that we have was from 2024, that full fiscal year. We should be able to get we can ask if we have or I can ask my colleagues if we have.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But the question really is, does the drawdown come as a result of the state investment?

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: Yeah. Okay. We can't quite say that yet because the most recent data we have is from before this. But what I can say is that if we do not invest in these sponsoring organizations, they might not be able to offer this program at all. Then those family child care homes who are the ones bringing down those federal dollars, they would not be able to participate in this program at all without a sponsor organization. So, it's kind of a way to fill in this funding gap that exists in this program right now and potentially, hopefully, allow them to expand. Like we said, last year, the one fifty was just shy of what the full request was, which, you know, made it so that a new organization could not join. So to answer your question, no, because of the the data being being from a year or two ago and the appropriation just being from this past year. I can't exactly tie those.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sounds like just make sure we understand this, it sounds like it's the 1.2 doesn't come directly because of this 01/1982. It comes indirectly because of the 01/1982 because it allows the sponsor organization to survive. Okay,

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: I got it.

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: I would say yes, and that the 1,200,000.0 and that could change depending on if more family childcare homes are able to participate, that could be more. But that I would say that money is on the line, really. Like, that's something that we currently can draw down because of the the, you know, capacity that we have. But if we were to lose capacity, which we are fearful that we could, that's 1,200,000.0 on the table that we could start to lose

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Is

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: how we would maybe case that. Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Amy. You Okay.

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: I'm gonna stop sharing my screen and let Amy take it over. Amy's.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well Oh, she went. He's okay. What's this? Let's see Amy. What's the difference? Oh,

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I got no kids too. Amy's coming. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You're muted, Amy.

[Amy Fleming (BROC Community Action)]: Sorry, was fiddling with my camera. Thank you so much, Chair Bongartz and committee members for allowing me to speak with you today. I'm Amy Fleming. As Autumn said, I am the Nutrition and Education Department Manager at Brock Community Action, and I am a sponsor of the CACFP in Rutland, Bennington, Addison Counties. First, I did also want to take a quick sec to thank you for the work that we did with you guys last year to get the $150,000 appropriation. That truly was a lifeline for us. As Autumn mentioned, for the sponsoring organizations right now, the struggle is the administrative reimbursement that we get to operate this program from the USDA doesn't even operate the program at baseline. When I started working in this program back in 2008, the gap was there, but it was fairly minimal. But this year and last year, we were facing close to a $40,000 gap in funding. And so typically, we would subsidize that shortage with other grants like the Community Service Block Grant or something like that. It was really critical receiving that appropriation to stabilize our program as we were having difficult conversations about the viability of continuing to sponsor the program. Just to kind of speak to what Autumn was saying, the reason why I have Addison County, because Brock typically is We, as a community action agency, actually cover Rutland and Bennington, is because they lost their sponsor in 2021. I onboarded all of the Addison providers in 2021. Otherwise, they would have lost access to the program. I did submit a testimony, I'm gonna actually send Daphne an updated, because I realized that two of my figures were wrong. But like Adam said, there's currently three of us to cover the two zero three participating homes that we currently have. On top of all the administrative work behind the scenes that we do, such as we have to provide training to all our providers, formal training. We have to monitor their meals and snacks. Those are on-site visits, each childcare must be visited three times per year. So we currently have three and a half individuals conducting six zero nine site visits, and those are physical on-site visits across the whole state. That is very difficult. It's becoming a lot more difficult just geographically with a staff of one, or in Capstone's case, she's got a one and a half. As you can see, it's a huge, huge burden. With this funding, it would enable us to stabilize and focus on expansion a little bit, onboarding new providers, which would help lessen the gap. As more providers participate, we would receive more federal administrative reimbursement. It would allow us to do a lot more intensive outreach to expand the program within our three organizations. For Brock specifically, just to put it in dollars and cents, last year, so fiscal year 'twenty four, 'twenty five, I should say, we drew down $265,805 in direct reimbursement dollars that was distributed and paid out to 39 providers that I serve, and they served 142,641 meals over that program year, just in my three counties. So we're talking a pretty big impact on our communities, their families. What I did include in my testimony was some provider test mails about what it would mean to them, what the program means to them currently, and what it would mean if they lost access to the CACFP, many of them stating that they would either be faced with a decision to possibly close their childcare, or they may be forced to put the burden of supplying food onto the families. And so in a time where we're already facing some pretty big food insecurity issues in our state, this would exacerbate it immensely. Keeping the CACFP accessible for those providers is our number one goal. This appropriation will absolutely allow us to continue to do this work. I think that's kind of the highlight of what I wanted to say. I didn't want to take up too much of your time. It was great. We got the great news that Autumn shared that it was included in the House budget this year. That was a really big step forward from last year. I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone might have about the program.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay, I see there's a question but let me go ask one first just to follow-up on what I was asking about just to make sure we really understand this. Would I be correct in saying that if you had like full participation in all of the home childcare centers, you probably wouldn't even need a state appropriation to fill in the gaps?

[Amy Fleming (BROC Community Action)]: That's very possible or the gap would be immensely shrunk. The

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: program is largely about federal money because that's what we're drawing down and what we're doing with the state money is filling in a little bit in the cracks so that the sponsor organizations can come something like close to breaking even by agreeing to sponsor. I think I've got it anyway. Question from Senator Heffernan.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: My question is that 182 is that by product or is that for administrative costs to keep this program going?

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: That is for administrative costs to keep the program going. All of the reimbursements for food, so for all the meals and snacks, that is all federal dollars. So that's that $1,200,000 that I referenced earlier that's leveraged federally by having this program run-in the state.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thank you. Why would a childcare home not take advantage of the federal program? So why isn't it fully subscribed?

[Amy Fleming (BROC Community Action)]: That's the million dollar question. So this is a question that we've actually been working really hard over the last few years to answer, and we've been running into some difficulty establishing communication with those non participating providers. But just in the last couple of months, we have made some connection between, so family child cares are regulated under DCF, and we are housed in the agency of Ed. So we're in kind of two different silos. And so just recently, there is an effort underway to kind of bring that entities together to have a conversation with licensing to see how we can support each other and establish communication with those non participating providers, because I would love to know the answer to that question myself.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And what is required of them? That's my question. What's the process to get? Yeah, is part of it the hassle factor or what is required of a participant to the program?

[Amy Fleming (BROC Community Action)]: So if someone were

[Sen. Terry Williams (Clerk)]: to

[Amy Fleming (BROC Community Action)]: onboard for a family childcare home, I would travel to their site. We would probably spend maybe an hour chatting about the program, kind of giving them the rundown of what it would entail, what it means, and then the paperwork to fill out and onboard takes about ten minutes. And so initially, there's that little bit of paperwork that we do at the very beginning and the onset, but once they're enrolled, a lot of the stuff that we require they're already doing for licensing, like signing kids in and out, having a record of that, the times that the kids are coming and going, having a menu posted. So they're already doing a lot of the work and they're actually already required to meet the CACFP meal pattern requirements. So in theory, they should be also feeding the kids what we would be requiring. So I think part of it is just a lot of misconception. Part of it is maybe just some reservations about things like food waste and whatnot. So these are all conversations that I've been trying to hone in on so we could actually really narrow it down. But I do believe that paperwork could be the biggest, which is sad because the paperwork piece of it for a home is not as intensive as it would be for, say, a center. So we think that maybe there's homes that are talking to folks that run centers and they're two different animals. You can't compare the two even in how they operate. So yeah, I think there's a lot of misconception out there. I think there's a little bit of fear of possible paperwork burden, which is why we've tried to establish a communication with them just to kind of figure out what those barriers are so we can address them.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. So my guess is that all centers take advantage of this, right?

[Amy Fleming (BROC Community Action)]: I don't think so.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But child care centers?

[Amy Fleming (BROC Community Action)]: Don't Yeah, think that

[Autumn Moen (Hunger Free Vermont)]: I was just going to jump in. I don't, and maybe Amy, you actually have a more specific answer than I do, but it's not all child care centers that participate in the CACFP either. They face their own barriers to participating in it, but that is actually a big part of what my colleague Keely's Ending Childhood Hunger strategic plan, has just been finalized. There's a big piece about the CACFP in that, so if that's something that the committee would be interested in learning more about, meals in early childhood settings and how to increase food security amongst young kiddos, that's totally something we could think about bringing her in, we're at least getting a memo to you or something with some more information. What I can say is that it's actually not all centers that participate.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So then the last question, guess, not just the paperwork, but are they concerned about federal oversight that now that you're part of this program, now you're subject to, which they may already be subject to, but you might actually have more of a limelight put on you if you're in this program. Is that a concern? Is that part of it? It's like, hey, I already have the state watching me. Now I'm part of this federal program. Now they're gonna be watching me. I just don't wanna do it.

[Amy Fleming (BROC Community Action)]: Yeah, no, definitely. I think that could also be part of it. I know that licensing visits can be a little bit intimidating, and so maybe in their mind, they're thinking, Ugh, just one more person in my house. So that was part of what we wanted to address, because a CACFP visit isn't nearly as intense as a full licensing visit. But without being able to establish those communication with them, we can't dispel and help them have accurate information. But I do believe that that also is one of the factors.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Any other questions? Good, thanks. So like I mentioned, your timing is good. So we're going be working on putting things together for the committee over Okay. The Thanks everybody and we're done for the day.

[Unknown legislator (Sponsor/Reporter of H.542 on PCB testing)]: Thank you so much.