Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We're live.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everybody. This is the center education clinic on the afternoon of April 1. Not everybody in the room knows everybody,

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: so why don't

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we go around starting with Senator Ram

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Hinsdale, Chittenden, Southeast.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Doctor. Hashim from Windham County.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Good afternoon, Dave Weeks from Summington District.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And Steven Heffernan from Addison County. History. Hi.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So for the record, by the way, the people listening, we are taking up H542.

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Thank you, I'm Julia Rutland, I am a Deputy Commissioner at the Health Department and I am joined online by my colleague Danielle I'll let her introduce herself. Hi, I'm Danielle Thorkholtson. I am the risk assessor and health PCB coordinator for the PCB in Schools program. Danielle is here when I need to back up on some of the more specifics. All set? Just jump in?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Okay, great. I'm here today, I'll be talking really about the health impacts of PCBs as well as the establishment of school action levels, which is what we use to determine whether schools will need to move forward with remediation mitigation.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just to be clear, you're talking about curveball.

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: I'm talking about PCV. Yeah. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Not PFAS. I think it's important to into the site map. Well, I know, there's a lot out there. The PPD testing program is one of many ways that the health department works with schools to help keep the health aideans safe for kids, if you want, the teachers and the staff. We provide guidance and enforce regulations around lead in drinking water, asbestos, lead based paint, radon, and even use of cleaning products. We also can work with schools on asthma friendly school designations, things like mold and pest management, so this is all just part and parcel of work that we do. So, what are PCBs? They're a group of toxic chemicals that harm health. Were used in building materials prior to 1980, and can be found in a whole host of different building materials. As they deteriorate, the PCBs are released into the environment. PCBs are known as something that are called persistent organic pollutants, meaning that once they're released into the environment, they remain intact for exceptionally long times. They become widely distributed. They have been found in the Arctic even though they haven't been used in the time that they travel on air across the globe, in soil, water, and air.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: They bioaccumulate, and they accumulate in living organisms, the higher you go up in the food chain, the greater the concentrations because you're eating more animals than and and others that

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: plants that have the concentrations of PCPs in them, and they are toxic to humans and animals. Harms of PCBs are really pretty widespread. There's cancer, which a lot of folks know and really associate, but then there are multiple systems in our body that are impacted by PCBs, and they cause serious health problems. This is acknowledged by many organizations, groups, agencies, etcetera. So, it's clear they have very long hematologic rights, meaning that exposure to a young person could result in health effects down the road, even to their children. The different effects of PCVs can be interrelated to each other, so one kind of cascading effect. The important thing is on this slide to note, is that the EPA recommends that PCB levels in indoor air of schools be kept as low as a testicle. The immune system impacts, studies show that it can result in reductions in the response of the immune system and decreased infection, resistance to infections. PCBs suppress the immune system, and that is one of the reasons they think they may be carcinogenic. These toxins are linked to autoimmune diseases, increased infection rates, and potential disruption of vaccine responses. The reproductive system impacts, they impact the reproductive system in couple of ways, reduce birth weight, decrease fertility, reduce live birth rates, reduced sperm counts, and decrease in gestational age. So, again, it's it's pretty widespread, and they impact brown fetuses and uteropenal as well. Can I ask a question? Is this is is there an age specificity or sort of a I I know you're saying it probably affects pregnant women the most and fetuses, but, like, teens, are they more they're more susceptible to So the affective the younger children are more susceptible. Okay. So you'll see when I get into the levels Levels of based on age of the students and the faculty.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Okay to ask the question there. So, do we have confirmed cases? Because, you we have janitors that have worked for a long time for the people in CDs, and I understand the failures in that. Have you got actual cases that have come from any of the schools, or is this more about being precautious and saying, Hey, we need to get what you understand as well. But have we actually seen the effects of this to say it may cause it? Have we got records of it happening?

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: The health impacts are based on numerous, large epidemiological studies. It's hard in Vermont to drill it down and say, this particular case is related to this PCB. What we have heard from teachers and staff in some of the highest schools. I'll get into specific. That's fine. But they have reported to us health impacts that are consistent with high PCB exposure. Whether it is the PCBs or not, it's so complex to tease apart, but we have had complaints from teachers, faculty, staff, etcetera. Thank you. Guys, you couldn't get through my paces. Keeping me on the toes. It's good. I love talking about public health. Nervous system development. So the development of the nervous system, obviously, is really critical for early learning and can impact a person's health throughout their life. Some of the effects that have been seen are significant and persistent deficits in neurological development, including learning deficits, memory, attention, and motor impairment. And the changes, again, can occur in utero, and PCBs can be passed along through breast health. So, though a teacher may, a baby may never be in that particular school, If the teacher is exposed to the PCBs or the mom is exposed to the PCBs, should they pass those and watch them, why aggress them? PCBs are among the most well studied endocrine disrupting chemicals. They disrupt thyroid hormones, which are critical to normal growth and brain development. They're linked to altered onset of puberty, affect brain development, leading to additional cognitive and behavioral problems, and are associated with changes in thyroid hormone levels in infants that can result in lifelong metabolic and cognitive changes. So again, we may have teachers or faculty that were exposed ten, fifteen, twenty years ago, the effects may show up much later. And then the cancer risks. So, EPA's peer reviewed cancer reassessment included that PCBs are probable human carcinogens, and the EPA isn't alone in that assessment. In fact, the International Agency on Research on Cancer has declared PCBs to be carcinogenic to humans, saying that it does cause cancer, and is, one of the ones that is most commonly seen is malignant melanoma, that is also associated with non Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast, and liver cancers. That's all the bad news. Suffice to say, PCBs, they're a bad actor in chemical work. There's just no question. The science hasn't changed. They continue to be hazardous to different health. So, back when Act 74 was passed in 2021, we, the health department, developed a framework that would help to protect the health of students and staff as much as possible while still trying to retain a level of feasibility for schools to be able to implement. The school action levels, which is what we use to help prioritize when schools need to take action to address the sources of PCPs inside school. So, school action levels, and this gets to your question, Senator Ram Hinsdale, they vary based on age. So, the very youngest children are the ones that have the highest intake of PCBs because of their food, etcetera. So, the school action levels are set at 30 nanograms per cubic meter for the younger breast ones, for K. Kindergarten through grade six is 60 per cubic meter, and then grade seven through adult, it's at 100 level, 100. And these levels were established based on the non cancer risks. Vermont, there's a lot made of Vermont SALs being different than the EPA levels, and they are. So, the EPA action levels range from 100 to 600. They are both based on the same science. We used the EPA's framework, their model, to arrive at our numbers. How we arrived at different numbers is based on Vermont specific information. So, the EPA said basic amount

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: of

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: time that people are in school and a set number of days. We know in Vermont that ours are multi use, so many of them have opened early for kids to come in to get breakfast. They stay open late for after school care. There are clubs. There are evening classes. So, there's a lot of uses, both during the school year and also into the summer. So, we took those, that into account, and we looked at what is a reasonable amount of time to assume that some of the most vulnerable may be in this school, and by vulnerable I mean, most likely to receive the highest level of exposure. So, you think of your janitorial staff. They are likely working year round and could be there

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: far

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: longer than the kids might be in. So that's how we arrived at our different levels.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So just to go back to, you don't have to go back physically, but okay. The 600, so I understand that the range we're using for schools is 30 to 100.

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: 30 to 100.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So the 600 that the EPA uses is significantly higher than.

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Yeah, it's important to note, and Matt will That's talk about

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a good idea, I just wanted

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Yeah, yeah, Matt will talk about the, really, that there's like six schools that really stand out, and all six of those schools exceed the EPA levels. So I think

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: that's important to Okay. Good. So I'm dealing with PCBs in some of my work area, and we decided just to stop using the building because auto could come in and have them. But the state was willing to come and say, okay, you can come. There's a certain amount of time. Are we gonna come to that? There's a certain amount of time so you you can be in there six hours depending on the level or less or more. So like janitorial people, I would worry about them because they're there a lot longer normally. Yeah. But, so our, with the levels where they're at, the teachers being there from, do they often are not exposed long enough to have any harm?

[Julia Rutland (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Well, again, the teachers are often there as long as the janitorial staff, and again, the longer duration, like over multiple years, when you are, if you have a woman who is pregnant, it could be a very narrow window of time that the exposure results in lifelong impacts on the developing fetus. So, it might be in the tenth week, say. So, very specific, it doesn't have to be necessarily. So, that's the challenge. However, what you speak about is something that we do do when the testing comes back as being higher than the SAAS, we can work with the schools to do what we call a site specific risk analysis. And again, that uses the framework and the same model that UPA uses that we use to establish the school action levels. But it's like we dial up or dial down the number of hours that could be, that that room or block of rooms could be used. So, it's room that has high levels, we may say, okay, you can use the afternoon for five hours a day, but they still need to move ahead with remediation. It might be like, you can do that to get you through the school year so that we aren't disrupting the learning at the level as if we had said no outcomes at all. Get into the summer, and then they can do remediation when students aren't at school. So, do look at that if the school needs assistance with that, and try to provide guidance based on what we're seeing on ground in school with returns and levels. That's it for me. Any other questions before I turn it over? And I'll be here so if things come up as well.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Think Matt, you'll talk about, let's forget to, when most schools get built that are the most vulnerable. Sure, yeah, okay.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Worry.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: So I am going to give an overview of the PCB in school program. I know some of you, this is gonna be a refresher for others, it may be the first time going through it, but it's probably good, and I will also say that I shared a much more detailed memorandum with the committee. If you, there are specific schools or areas of interest that you have, there's a lot of that that's covered in that memo, and you should feel free if you wanna get into more detail. Obviously, I'm happy to answer any questions, but there's some more in there as well. So what are PCBs?

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: PCBs are human made chemicals that are synthetic, they don't occur in the environment, and they were virtually entirely produced by Monsanto. EPA has banned very few chemicals under what's called the Toxic Substances Control Act. It's our version of chemical management in The United States. PCBs are one of those chemicals. They were banned in 1980. We basically see their use from the 1930s ish to 1980 in building materials often. The types of building materials they're found in, they're in caulking sealants, light ballasts, paints and finishes, sort of adhesives and insulation, roofing, and sort of electrical components. We we find them a lot in HVAC systems. So the most common things that we find are challenges with caulking in windows, caulking in sort of virtual, other parts of construction around the school. We've had a lot of challenges with the installation within schools. So those are all the types of building materials that you find PCPs in. One of the real challenges with PCPs is that, and especially with indoor air, is that PCBs embed into a room like this and they adhere to porous surfaces, so things like concrete or brick or things like that, and those porous surfaces then become secondary sources as well. So we're not just dealing with the cough that was the original problem. We're now trying to find the other things that have been impacted by that original source. So it can get challenging. So why are we dealing with PCBs in schools and indoor air? Well, some of you may know, in 2020, Burlington High School found PCBs when they were doing construction projects, a renovation project in both the external building and the indoor air of their projects. They were basically found throughout the building, and ultimately the school made a decision to rebuild. In 2021, the legislature required that all schools test for and address PCBs in indoor air. So that's what started our testing program. And basically, this is sort of the Y part. We have a number of studies that have shown that schools represent the highest exposure to PCBs for students and staff when you have elevated concentrations in there. So if PCBs are present, that tends to be a fairly significant contributor to people's bodily loads of those PCBs.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So with the last bullet

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: That is with the last bullet sets. Yes. And and I guess I I would say, and I'm happy to share this as well, we've been doing this long enough that scientists are starting to look at our data, and and the results are kind of concerning, right? Like they're basically reaching the conclusion that the data that you're seeing from indoor air is basically exceeding risk levels established by both EPA and the state. So I think it's worth underscoring that there are lots of challenges with this program, but this is a real and a serious risk that we think, I think both health and DEC think is incredibly important to address.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: If I can, I'm just, I reread the last bullet several times. I wasn't quite sure what the point was. On its face, it looks obvious. Sure. But I'm wondering if it's trying to compare schools to public buildings, commercial buildings. Sure. So

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: you are exposed to chemicals and contaminants from a number of different sources that you encounter throughout your day, right? So with respect to PCBs, you might get them from the food you eat. You might get some degree of exposure from the office that your mother works in that you come and visit. And I think that this is trying to say that that when you have a school exposure, that school exposure eclipses all of those other sources and ends up being the major contributor to that that student's impact.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay. You know, so I I I get it. Here we are in education committee. We're focusing on students in education schools. But can the same be said for the studies have shown that the state house represents the highest exposure to PCBs for legislators and staff when concentrations are elevated? Mean, it's kind of like a, you know, it's a, I'm not sure what the sentence really is driving that a, except

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: to say kind of the obvious that schools and PCBs and students don't mix well. I think it's both that and that schools represent a significant exposure pathway to students.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, that's the obvious one.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: And really honestly, it's not intended to say much more though, yeah, I think maybe what is obvious. Thank you. So how did we pick the schools that we picked? What was sort of our process for going through this? So there are three twenty eight schools that were identified as either being built or renovated prior to 1980, and it's not all schools, it's public or independent schools. Jill will probably correct me on my appropriate school's terminology, but, and then we basically had a matrix to prioritize those schools, looking at the age of the building, the number of free and reduced lunches to try and look at sort of the economic impact of that school, whether there was a childcare in that school, whether there was prior PCB work, and any planned or construction or HVAC work. And so we came up with sort of a ranking system and then shared it with the schools, and there was an opportunity for, frankly, schools to move around based on individualized math issues.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Was the bullet about planned construction and HVAC work, is that more about because it disturbs PCBs?

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Well, I think and and we'll definitely get to this later because we wanted to make sure that people are yes, and if people are doing work, we wanna pair the work that we're doing in the context of of PCB identification with that construction work because and this, I think, has become incredibly apparent as we've moved through the program. When you do the PCB identification and abatement work along with school renovation or construction work, just minimize the disruption and minimize the costs associated with the pandemic. So that's basically the prioritization matrix. How do we go about it? And so once a school is sort of in there and we're doing this work, how do we do it? So basically, the first step in our process is that we have a consultant that goes after the school and they basically group like rooms. So they go into the school building and like, look at building materials, the age of construction, all sorts of other factors, and start grouping rooms together. And again, I think the goal is we're not testing every room. We're testing a percentage of those rooms based on their grouping, and we're doing a representative sample of 30% of those rooms. And then the Department of Health develops an occupancy letter based on the sampling results. Here's what we think should happen, And sometimes, if there are school specific challenges, we work with school administrators to come up with a site specific risk assessment, as was said, to basically tailor the amount of time or the amount of use a particular room has. Then lastly, we do what You is

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: can, I'm sorry.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, no, go ahead.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Do you have the cost for all, like, the six slides?

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Well, you know what? We'll get two. Two slides and then three slides. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Matt, can we go back one slide? Sure. So we had three twenty eight schools. How did you get down to the schools that you did, the initial roundup testing? I guess I see that. That's kind of the you've cut the answer there, but how many schools, like, out of the three twenty eight, did you end up with 100 of them being top priorities, or?

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: So we pretty much just had a spreadsheet and we ranked the schools, and, mean, it's a rough ranking. Right? It's this wasn't intended to be sort of, you know, really arguing between one and five. Right? But try to do a point system, rank them based on that point system, and then work with schools. Some schools maybe wanted to have all their testing done at once so they could get it done out of the way. Others were like, it's too much work. Let's space it out so that we don't have everything happening all at once. So there was a conversation that took place with schools that were being tested. This is just sort of, I skipped ahead a little bit. This is where we're at, effectively, as of today, which is out of the three twenty eight schools, we've tested 157, so about half of the schools have been tested. About a year ago, we made a decision to sort of change our approach to some degree. We've slowed down and truncated the new testing of schools in order to focus our resources and efforts on addressing issues that have been identified in the 157 schools that have been tested, right? So there are 32%, 47 schools that have either a primary or an ancillary space that has been impacted by PCBs that are over our standard. There are 21 schools that are over what's called the immediate action level, which is sort of the more significant standard in about 70% of the schools who have basically no experiences.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, so this is a great slide. This helps us out. Good. My question is, so three twenty eight schools identified meeting the criteria of age and etcetera. So there are schools, there are another what, 150 schools or so which are not in that, were not in this high priority. We need to keep that in mind when we're talking about how much we're funding and whether we're worried about those other schools. Would you, as a DEC representative, have a comment on the schools that are not in the three twenty eight?

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: I do. So those three twenty eight, they are the schools, the schools outside of that bucket should not have been, had construction or renovation activities during the time period where PCBs were used to build the materials. So because of that, we would not expect there to be PCBs in the schools that are not in this 300

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: megawatt. So as a

[Gilbert Scampbell (Deputy Secretary of Education, AOE)]: Can you help provide a bit big picture context? So for the record, Gilbert Scampbell, deputy secretary of education, chief of operations, long time partner with the Mac Home PC program. So at the time that we started the testing program, we had three ninety eight public schools. We basically still have the same number except a few from closed, a very small number. In addition, there's about 120 plus approved independent schools. So that was the world, the the the kind of larger ecosystem of schools. And then the filter, the first pass filter was exactly what Matt just spoke to. Were they constructed or had major renovation in the time period, which was about four to five decades

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Yes.

[Gilbert Scampbell (Deputy Secretary of Education, AOE)]: Where PCBs were widely used? So those are the schools that we're testing. So if they're either too old, which we have a couple, or they were built after 1980, then they're not part of the program because we wouldn't expect to find PCVs in those buildings. That narrowed it then to 03/28, and then DEC and VDH kind of developed a prioritization matrix, which I think Matt has indicated was a methodology that had some flexibility built into it. Now we're at the point where 157 of those three twenty eight have actually been tested. Senator, you're asking the right question. What about the remaining schools of that original three twenty eight? And that's, you know, that's one of the outstanding questions to answer.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's all I asking. Okay. And of those, yeah,

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: I think they're From government's perspective. Right, there are 183 left out to test, so about 56% of the schools are Or excuse me, there are,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: my math is bad. There

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: are a number of schools left to test. You know, right now, we are well, maybe it would be useful, Senator, if I sort of go through the the rest of the presentation and then talk about what the plan is going forward in the context of sort of addressing both the House passed bill and some of our concerns with it, and then also what we would like to see as an alternative. Do you want to put them?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah, maybe these get answered, but did you find any patterns among the schools that were below the level? And do all families get notified? Does the entire school community get notified of the results, whatever they are?

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: So with respect to the second question, yes. We have both a notice process, and normally we have community meetings with both LPCs there to walk through what the results are, sort of what the plan is going forward, what sort of the impacts there are in school, and of course, answer is any general sort of public health questions associated with it. You know, we're constantly looking at the data in France. I think we've been more focused on trying to find similarities and get a better understanding of what's in the contaminated community as opposed to uncontaminated and trying to look for, you know, if we see these types of building materials, can we expect them to be PCB containing, and can that focus some of our work and efforts when we go into these schools? And I think we've we've, we've worked a lot with the the University of Iowa has a a center that basically helps deal with toxic contaminants, including PCBs. They've been a partner in this. Yeah. And so we've certainly worked with them to help them look at specific building materials and whether they emit, how they emit, and so there's a lot of that work that's going on. It's surprisingly complicated. And again, it gets back to the challenge that we've seen with respect to secondary impacts of other materials, right? So sometimes the original impact of material is gone, and we're dealing with some some off gassing.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I I come from a long line of architects and engineers, and I just I have to imagine, like, we're gonna find more chemicals in the future, and we have to be really conscious just of buildings that are too tight, airflow, small spaces, like, no matter what complex.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: I mean, I will say the quality of your HVAC Yeah. Is critical in washing out the school and making sure that you

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: have good airflow in is critical. Mhmm.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: This is the current status of where we are. I think that, you know, moving on, this is this is you know, Julie mentioned the the sort of six most, these are the six priority schools. This is where we're focusing the resources we currently have on these schools, and you can see each one of them. These are the month these are we currently have grant agreements or contracts out to do work at each one of these schools. So it's Bella Falls, Green Mountain in Chester, Hartford. I think it's probably worth flagging. Northcutter Gainey High School probably has it it probably falls more into the Burlington bucket than it falls into some of these others. The the HCV impacts in North Country are are pretty widespread, and they're pretty significant. We've been working with the school, and I think the school's been a I have an imminent amount of respect for all of the work the superintendent and the principal of that school have done to help their community through this process. And I think it's mitigated, but it's certainly that's a challenging school.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Could we pause here about you you pulled up Newport, but sort of are these the worst of the worst? Like, you're most worried about the kids? These are the ones that have

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: some of the highest concentrations that we've seen. Okay. We've seen that we're we're looking to try and basically focus in and use our resources to to clean the office.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. So that's really the main metric you're using, not, oh, they've managed to find a grant or something.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Right. No. I mean, we're we're working with them on on both, how do you clean it up and and we're funding those cleanups. And so, we're certainly focusing on the ones that have where it's basically disrupting educational operation, right, where there's a critical school room or building. You know, if it's if it's in a bathroom where there's very little exposure, we might not rank with it, and those schools aren't on this. So we're we're trying to focus where the operational issues are the worst and the the consequences are the worst, foremost. And I will come back to the funding issue, but it's in a note that I have and the way the slides are working. I can't see my notes.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And one's in elementary school. Yep. I don't know if the learning center it k eight or No. It's it's actually k 12. And they but it's they have kids organized in different spaces. Okay. And I think also, Matt, if you wanna speak to in all of these schools, the schools have taken the recommended steps to reduce the amount of time that the kids are in these spaces or they're not in those spaces. Right. So it's actually a good example because we have those lower levels for younger kids. They actually swap which spaces the kids work in. Oh, that they again, like a body weight and age thing to mitigate that potential risk. The schools have made operational changes to where their students are being educated, and as Matt was pointing to, sometimes that means they don't have spaces available, so there's real operational impacts there, and that's part of why they're being prioritized. It's a little haunting to switch us to different plates and space.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, could well, it could use its gym for a while. That's accurate.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Agreed. Right? And that's I I mean, you know, we're really in the the mitigation phase, right, trying to minimize exposures, come up with a permanent cleanup plan, and then move towards that cleanup plan. But that's exactly why these schools have been prioritized. So h five forty two. So so generally speaking, we're opposed to the approach that we stated by the house with respect to h five forty two. I think that there are three large concerns with respect to five forty two. The first one is there are a number of communities who have decided that they were gonna go ahead and move forward with testing because there were community concerns associated. They didn't wanna wait. There were community concerns they'd wanna do, and we have been working with them and basically said up to this point, if you follow our rules, we'll fund you when there's more funding available. You know, because my reading of H542 is it doesn't give us the opportunity to do that. It basically says you're tested without the state requiring uni tests, so it's on your your local dime to deal with that issue. The other concern that we have is, it's frankly an equity issue, right? 50% of the schools have tested, they know whether their school is impacted or not, and 50% don't and have no, may elect not to move forward, and for that 50% who hasn't tested, it's not going to be a state contribution or funding source associated with doing work at those schools. Just to confirm, at this point in time, only half the schools of Vermont have tested PCBs? That's right,

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: that's, we have about the higher risk.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Right, so the three twenty the half of the three twenty eight. That's 145

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to go. Right? A few weeks? No, I think it's, I've done the 180.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: 171 to go out of the 328. Probably,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: like, the Maybe I'm probably less. My my question's different. It could be

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: But related to center Hashim. The 03/2028, were they prioritized? Like Yes. Okay. What's the rationale behind those being prioritized? And the ones that haven't been tested, are they in a lower risk threshold for any reason? Just trying to get a sense of, we already hit the, you know, the most obvious risk sites.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So we came up with

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: a point system that we put people in a ranking based on. The 328 can do a ranking based on this point this point system. Right? The age of the building, the the number of free and reduced lunches, childcare, prior PCB work, and HVAC. And then we allow people to move around depending on their own local needs. Right? And so I I'm hesitant to say that this is all risk based. Right? I mean, there's a lot of non risk factors that went into this. So so I don't know that we've hit the the highest risk base at this point.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: But can you categorize it? Is there any way out of the 328 to say, these are the highest risk and our and our testing did show whether whether all of them are obviously all of them are not tested yet but that then you put them in a higher risk category and in fact that's where your whatever it is the 47 and the 21. Sure. I I AL. You know like did your approach like methodology? Was it appropriate? And did it not kinda net the results we thought it would? The the ones which are lower priority if they weren't hit, are you rethinking? A hard prioritization structure.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: We have talked a little bit about that. I think that the main takeaway that we have come to is that this is not purely a risk prioritization, and we allowed a lot of movement by those schools. So in other words, somebody who might have been at the top of our ranking wanted to move down for other local considerations. So I don't think that we can say that we haven't drawn strong associations with where you were on the list versus your potential risk of NPCs. So, Roshi? So if we were then to clarify that the schools that are anticipating reimbursement would be reimbursed when funding is available whenever that may be, and clarifying that the other 50% of schools will be able to test to find out if they have PCB related issues, then what what would the position what would your position be on the bill? Well, so I guess, again, just to I think can I come back to your question? I think the approach that we would prefer seeing is rather than, ending or terminating the testing program, that we refocus the approach that we're taking in a way that the testing takes place as a part of the existing facility in sort of a master planning process. So schools who are thinking about doing construction as a part of the state construction process, the education committees put together a master planning process. That master planning process includes looking at potential environmental issues, incorporating the sort of PCP testing program into that master planning process, and then basically coordinating the PCB abatement strategies that we have with school construction or renovation projects. So again, I think the one thing that we've learned is that at least from a cost perspective, costs come down considerably when you're looking at other construction projects or at at another construction element associated with it because a lot of the PCP containing material is is not readily available. It's behind walls. It's it's backfill building material. It circles up from the steel beams or such. And so that would would both hopefully minimize the level of disruption to schools because they already have a planned construction project, and they're thinking about how they're managing the student's education at that time, and also, address, hopefully, some bringing some of the costs down for some. I guess I guess with respect to your other question, just to to try and answer it, I think that we're concerned about ending the testing program and having a bill that ends the testing program based on sort of where we are in the process. I I think that PCBs are a real exposure threat. They're a real health threat, and and I appreciate members of the legislature and higher level executive branch employees need to balance the risk and the costs that are associated here. I think from a programmatic perspective, we think these costs or the health effects are significant enough that we should not just terminate the program. I think we should think about how we do it in a way that maximizes the efforts and minimizes the costs associated with Walk through this. I know there's a couple of questions.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Sure. Walk me through this first and let me see if the question Sure.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: This is my last slide. So I mean, again, I think, you know, our hope is to reframe the program in a way so that it requires that testing, pairs that testing with the school facility master planning process. So we're when you're looking at if you're a school district and you're looking at sort of your broader inventory of school infrastructure, you can make choices based on which schools have high levels of, environmental problems versus maybe you don't wanna make an investment, maybe they no longer are gonna be a part of your school even until your your building inventory is part of it. So and then if we have issues, then we focus our efforts on mitigating impacts between the time you test and the time that, school construction takes place. So we're trying to limit exposure to some of the things that we're talking about now. They're not ideal, but really trying to be more intrusive, remedial work when there's already a planned construction work.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: This kind of falls into what you're asking of what we'd like to switch it to. Yes, sir. What is the usual cost? Must be a a a cost to structure. And, of course, it it changes the size of buildings and all that. Do you have what what a a high test would cost to check a good sized building to in, you know, say a building the size of the front of the

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: can get from a testing perspective, I can get you the exact cost of of what a test cost. And then, you know, it it again, it's 30% of group rooms, so we can give you some branches on that. As far as the the cleanup thoughts Wow. Cleanup Okay, good. Cleanup thoughts. Yeah, it's

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: crazy with point of contact. But that's where, even if you ask what you're asking here, is at that point, you were gonna have residents asking, what's the health risk to my child? Is it severe enough that we're gonna spend a million dollars to have Testing can't be, hopefully isn't that much. Is it, like, anywhere from 30 The, to 100

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: of course, I'm not looking for it. Let's see. Do you remember what you've been at? Proxima testing on?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, it so we haven't run the grants for the last couple of years. DEC took them over. Thank goodness. But it was in the $4,040,000 dollar to $70,000 range because there's, like, they go in, they do all the sampling, they set up the inventory, they do the thing. But it was we're not talking about 200,000, 400, 500,000. It was in the 1,000,000.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: But even for, like, a small school in a small rural area, they'll go, Oh, we wanna do this addition. Now you're saying we should spend $40,000 testing. And then what happens when the testing comes back in our

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I was about to jump in.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Yeah. So, no, please. So I I wanna be clear that the the goal would be the goal would be to keep the program that we have. The state is is providing the funding for the testing, and, you know, it would be on the state to basically And

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: we have no money. Well, I mean That's what I

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: I I do I I just wanna, like, sort of put a ring around that. I mean, we have allocated all of the money that's currently available, and we're gonna focus on remedial works and schools that we have. I I mean, I manage a fairly large division within DEC. At the end of the fiscal year, I have the ability to basically look at special funds that I administer and and rededicate some of the monthly fees if there's a need or a desire to do that, and we have done that a couple times. I there is I think part of the reason there was no request for any money this year is because we're really focused on aligning the work that we're doing with the school breaks because we've heard from the schools that it's incredibly disruptive for us to try and be in there while they're in an educational setting, which makes it more complicated to do work and focus on getting that work done before we ask for any more money than the money that we currently have or are trying to spend through. So you're right. You don't have any money. And I know we are in a budget constrained environment, But I mean, but I do think that, again, think that to this point, the state has been doing the testing related, They had been paying for the testing.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Chair Bongartz, can I can I suggest something? Sure. Can I scooch up with Matt?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yep.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator Rutland, you've been waiting. So if you can have the budget walk, don't come up.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I hope I remember it. So, mean, I'm just I'm just playing out. I think it's important it's important to do the testing. So I also worry that if we're waiting till there's some master planning, etcetera, you're still gonna have schools that are left behind that just simply, you know, can are not thinking about a new school building anytime soon and maybe don't have the political will or the financing in their community to do that. I also think doing the testing helps build the will to fix our older buildings. You know? And that's what we saw in Burlington was like I mean, granted the Macy's was not great, you know, but but most people, when they know there's some kind of immediate risk, then we found the money. You know? We found the political will to to work on a new school building. So I just I can't imagine just waiting to do the we we know school construction isn't gonna happen as fast as we need it to otherwise. It's a really challenging situation. I think we just have to name that. We have this known health risk. We are in a really significant resource constrained environment in terms of funding. We have the framework within the state construction made language that you all passed in x '73 that contemplated this. Right? And I know that because I made sure it was in there, right? This idea about prioritization around a range of environmental toxins that we find in our schools so that we have safe and healthy schools as a key priority. Also within that language, so what are some Because the challenge is how do we make some forward progress when the problem's really overwhelming? And it is a real challenge. So also within your Act 73, you do have the school facilities master planning grant.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And so exactly to your point, and and we made that an eligibility criteria for state, potential state construction and funding. And on purpose, and senator Weeks, I think you were you were in the room on these ones as well. Right? We constructed it so that it wasn't just doing the facilities master plan on a school. It was all the schools in your district portfolio pointing to exactly these kinds of issues. Even if you weren't contemplating building a brand new element, you don't think you have a perfectly good elementary school, but as part of your district facilities master plan, you could have a requirement for indoor air quality testing that, you know, would allow you to at least have a sense of what's happening in your buildings so that you could then, as a community, have those, like, informed conversations. Because we all wanna avoid the situation where we look at some of our older buildings. I'm actually a big fan of a mixed approach that contemplates new build, but also critiqued in renovating our older buildings. Not going to be able to afford. We just have to be honest about this. We can't afford to build all new buildings. Right? Winooski is actually a great example. That was an $80,000,000 renovation on an existing building that has had really excellent results. Right? So we need to take a mixed approach. What we don't want is for folks to end up doing major renovation, incurring major costs in bonding, and then you find out that you have an intractable PCB issue where it's permeated all the way down to the core structure of the building and then you're like, oh no. Right? So, it is, there is no idea. So I just think we have to put away the idea that there's an ideal solution at this point. We don't have to limitless money. It's very challenging and very complex. If it was, so a step that the legislature could take, would be to actually fund the facility's master planning grants. That would allow districts to begin to build their master plan, it would include resources from DEC for them to do the PCB testing, and then they would have an informed approach to those decisions. And the community would be able to have informed engagement around their portfolio of buildings. If they did discover that they had a PCB issue in the buildings, two things can happen. One is we do have some mitigation strategies, like those clunky air filters that nobody likes, they work. They work, right? So, if we're talking about reducing harm for students and teachers and staff in the building, that's an immediate solution. It's a low cost solution. Nobody likes it, but it works, right? So we can immediately address the health risk. And at the same time, get an understanding of the sort of pervasiveness of the issue and what potential strategies might be. And then that would inform any potential state construction. It's complicated, and I think the last thing we should do is pretend that it's simple. So it's gonna be a complicated path forward. That is a path forward that we could think about. Yes. I'd like the least satisfying answer on this, but it's, I think it's the practical.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Three questions. First, any remaining funding for testing or remediation?

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: There is minimal, under $1,000,000 left for testing. De minimis. De minimis, I would say.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Second question, PCB funding, this exact conversation we're having right now, we had during the budget conversation at the end of the last session. We made a decision, so I can't remember how the committee came out. We had all the same conversation about need to know, dot dot dot, for planning purposes, future construction, etcetera, etcetera. I'm just not sure where that landed, because obviously it didn't result in any funding. But I do remember a very robust conversation and made

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You had an appropriation last year, right, for the high impact schools.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah? We did. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, good. And then, fundamental question, because there's only like fifteen minutes remaining in this conversation, you coming back to talk about specific language on H4542 at some point in the future, or is this it? Are you going to end this conversation with all good,

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: or change these paragraphs? You know, if the committee, I will say, and we have some language, I will admit, I am an environmental person, not an education person, and so making sure that what I put together for trying to fold this into the school construction process, I think it would be beneficial to both have Jill take another look and the team and AOE take another look at it.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah, it's been a minute since we looked at

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Right, and then whoever Ledge Council is for the committee to just make sure that they take a look and it fits appropriately within Title VI statement and the process. So we could have you come in with some

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: suggested item and have Ledge Counsel there at the same time. Yeah. So think the answer to the question is I understand your question is the way you would say scrap this and go to what you're proposing on your last slide. Connect it to path of running and school construction and continued testing on her posturing through that methodology rather than just trying to continue to pick on it. Yeah, I

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: think that, you know, I understand where representative comments coming from. He and I have been talking about this for many years. You've talked to him as well. I understand, like, it's I don't think any of us are where we wanted our intuit to be here. Right? But I do think that, you know, we now have a known health risk in our school environment. And so there isn't really putting the juice back in the bottle, Right? And we have an unknown number of schools, Trish Kopalino was texting me and she Thanks. Secondary, know, the remaining schools, Senator, to your point, because the methodology, as Matt was pointing to, it included things like the age of the students and their FRL status. Those those are not indicative of the actual risk of PCP in the building. It's the impact. Right? And differential impact on historically marginalized populations. So, I don't think that we could say, with any degree of confidence, that the remaining schools may not have PCB issues. You know, I was like, I drive past my local high school and I know when it was built, maybe mom may have attested that one. Right? Like, that causes me concern, Right? So, I don't think that as challenging and complex as the approach that we are suggesting is, and we have to recognize we're talking about years. We're talking about years of time here. And so we all just have to be honest about what we think will be the length of time before we complete this testing, its complexity and how it integrates with 1,001 other moving parts that I think this committee is pretty darn aware of, right? But I don't think that there is an option at this point to just say, No, we're just not testing. I just don't think that's the role that we're in anymore, so how do we move forward in a way that has, it's rational, we can afford it, and it can be pulled into a larger, look at

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: our building proposal. So, I have, so when you said there's a million dollars left, there's actually more than that except some of it's committed. I think that it's fair

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: to say there is a lot, there are, and I can get the exact number, there is money left that's encumbered but not spent.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Right? It's a good value for the kids. Exactly.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: Round, exactly. There's a bunch of money that we have basically told schools, we've allocated an obligation There to is some amount of money under 1,000,000 that is unexcoverished. Yeah, okay.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, I know, like, when you're an attorney and an environmental attorney, everything has the risk of litigation. Sure. But this I feel like this came up for me with the defibrillator conversation. Like, I just I worry that when we talk about known risks and we have an imperfect methodology for who goes first and there's political calculations or districates to move things around. Sure. We're all very exposed to the liability of ending a program that has a pool of schools that have risk. Sure.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: I mean, I think the most important to sort of add on to your if if money were not an issue Mhmm. I think that the deputy secretary and I would be sitting here and saying we gotta be moving to do this. Right? I think this what we're putting forward is a recognition that we're living in a financially constrained environment. It should in no way indicate that we, I think both have very serious concerns That's right. About piece of piece schools. It may be worth just saying, you know, the state of Vermont is in active litigation against Monsanto to recover all of

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: this Oh, You

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: know? So so it it is we're not we're not just this is not money. This is money that, at least, the state is making a good faith effort to

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: recover and

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: replenish our funds by, frankly, the issues that this company created. So

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's good. So the other alternative, just keep going with what we're doing. And that's another alternative.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: I mean, and that's a, and it's a perfectly, I think the one recommendation I would make if you were going to take the continue the program alternative is there's a date that everyone needs to test by 07/01/2027. That needs to get pushed out in the future, right?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So current law still requires them to do this. It actually requires all of us to keep going. And the absolute Doing resources to do so.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Right now there's not money in the budget to fund that. To finish the testing would cost about $5,000,000 You know, I

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: gave the exact numbers. Just, let me see if Trish is giving me. But we

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: would be doing the testing without any ability because we lack resources to remediate or mitigate.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Sure.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I mean, you know, yes, I

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: mean, I think it's clear from my perspective.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It was like 10. Okay. If on the upper end of the estimate you gave us, 70,000 and 100 and 40,000.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, was going 40,000.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Or, I

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: mean, I think that extending the deadline for when all schools need to test would allow us to then, I mean, again, I think regardless of, it would allow us to look at our strategy and develop a budget for the next year, and develop a strategy for the next year based on that budget, right? Like, mean, and so, I mean, that is certainly an alternative and not one that is one for you to live with. I think long, pairing it with school construction means that the costs will likely be lower over the long term.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But there are trade offs.

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: But there

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: are trade offs. We get back to that.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But you'll have some schools who may not test for ten years. Exactly. Look at that strategy, right? Yeah, okay. So Senator Weeks, had

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: a question? I do, thanks sir. So, we're beyond the 50% mark in this session. There's two departments and an agency represented here. We've had about two plus months of trying to affect the House Education Committee on PCB bill when we've got this product. Is it possible that the three, the two departments in the agency can get together and say, this is our recommended language for modification of Yeah, we have a draft

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: of it. Have a draft actually brought to house education.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so here's my question.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Why didn't we affect it in the past two months? What inhibited your kind of consolidated perspective from getting us to a better place in the Bill language than they are today? Do want

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: to let you speak to it?

[Matt Chapman (Director, DEC Waste Management & Prevention Division)]: I think that there was, so the language that I outlined for you was provided to the House Committee on Education, and the House elects to go in the direction he's supporting today. Thank you,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Pat. Okay.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Fair. As I said, like, Matt and I and Rep. Collin haven't talked about this for two years. It's just, it's very challenging. Like, I don't want to, I think that representative Collin is really coming at this from, you know, I I think there's there's good faith all around here. There's just, it's, it is complex, there's not great solutions, and there are exactly to Senator Rutland's point, there are trade offs that we just need to be honest and transparent about, and nobody likes those trade offs. We don't live in a world where money is infinite, and this is our situation that we find ourselves in. So, I think just being really clear about how we're going to move forward, that we do have, in the state aid for construction, the task force report, the working group, and Act 73, there is, I always like to say budget certain expression of priorities, right? There is clear prioritization for a variety of environmental toxins and safety issues in our schools for state construction aid. So, that's not by accident, and it is something we can think about, and at the same time, we recognize that that's another challenge, right? So, there are other approaches that states take, discuss this during the task force. Some states take a very different approach to state construction, and it's like little amounts of money to do basic repairs, right? We didn't take that approach because we're so far in the hole at this point. You know, if you have a, if you have a system that's operating pretty well and your buildings are pretty new and you don't have the giant $7,000,000,000 deferred maintenance pool, that's an approach you can take. Massachusetts does that, some other states do that. We didn't take that approach. We do need a comprehensive kind of overhaul the system. We can't integrate it in here, but I just think we need to be clear about the choices that we're making.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So our, just to recap here, way you need some direction, which you gotta think about. So our choices are, accept the goals, keep working from the house, extend the deadline by a couple of years or whatever. Mhmm. Or go to the bell ground you're talking about of doing it connection with. Mhmm.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: K.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: K. So we'll get a get a sense in the beginning. Let's unless it's a virtual already. I don't know to have or not. Got my own thoughts about why.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Senator Heffernan stepped out, came up with a solution for making

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: sure that Yeah, and I'll make it through this house.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, don't we have we can set aside some time for discussion. Yeah. We'll on board to get in touch.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. And we're happy to help continue to talk It's a it's a wicked a wicked problem for the.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Thank you all. One to many for my

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes, it is. Yes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. It. I have those stuff. It's

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Okay. For a small school. Okay.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Not significant. Posted.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just the same connection with the Posted. Budget budget budget letter. And as as I mentioned yesterday, I posted last year's letter and something to get us started on these things. So I knew that when I did that, we started to hear from people. And Morgan's here. So Morgan, floor is yours. So again, remind us what you do and then talk about what not what you do but just go ahead. Why don't you talk about it?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Sounds great. I apologize. I'm hearing quite a bit of feedback in the room. So if I'm a little bit delayed, apologies, but I'm also bummed not to be in the room with you all. I was in the building yesterday. I'll be here the next two days. So for the record, I'm Doctor. Morgan Crossman, I'm the executive director of Building Bright Futures. I'm going to share my screen if I have the capability to do that. All right. Can one of you let me know if

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you are seeing a beautiful green slide of the child?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Okay. Beautiful. So I came to this committee earlier in the session and wanted to just do a quick reminder of the role of building bright futures system for you all. So we are Vermont's Early Childhood State Advisory Council. We were established as the primary advisor to the governor and the legislature, as well as the administration on the well-being of children and families prenatal to age eight. So really, as we look at children who are in that prenatal period through third grade, we serve as a nonpartisan public private partnership. And so our role is to bring together all of the agency leaders, legislators, community partners, and family members to guide a coordinated system on behalf of the state. We are named in state and federal statute to do a range of activities. The primary is to advise and to serve as that advisor. The second is around convening and elevating. So we're responsible for bringing partners together so that we can help understand what's happening on the ground to really shape decision making for those of you in the legislature, but also for the administration and the governor's office. We also hold the vision and strategic plan for children and families. So we are setting that direction through all of that data and information gathering for five years, and I'll talk a little bit about that in a moment. One of the key ways that we advise is through monitoring and understanding the needs of kids and families, but then coming to you all and turning that research and data into clear actionable guidance. This committee has been phenomenal in identifying where there are data gaps and really helping us think through what data you need to inform decision making on behalf of young kids. We're also responsible for accountability and strengthening the system. So how do we know whether or not our investments are making an impact for the intended Vermonters and identify where there are changes that still need to be in place? And then in terms of the strengthening of the system as a whole, we are doing that aligning and building capacity across agency leaders, as well as communities to both understand, but then respond to the needs of those communities. So on any given legislative session, we're providing direct data driven advisement to both the legislature and the administration, somewhere between two fifty and three hundred touch points a year. So that includes us coming in and formally testifying, but also meetings with each partner to help build strategy, to think through the data or to respond to questions. And I think because we are in that nonpartisan data driven lens, it's really important for me to name again for this committee, we are not lobbyists, we are not a lobbying entity. All of my guidance is coming to you from the strategic plan, partnership across the state and driven by data and stakeholder input. So very similar to the way that the Joint Fiscal Office in kind of working for the legislature and others to provide information is the way that Building Bright Futures functions, but both for the legislature and our administration. The next slide is the, how do we do this work and what does that network look like? So I won't spend too much time here, but just naming that while Building Bright Futures as an organization has a team of 13.5, we manage a network of over 500 partners that are coming together monthly to understand the needs of kids and families and elevate it. So at all times, we have 12 regional councils across the state and those partners who are doing work directly with kids and families or our family leaders themselves coming together to monitor the system and understand what's happening on the ground for kids and families, which is how we know what's working and what's not in real time. We also have seven strategic plan committees and those are shifting based on the needs and based on the strategic plan, so we're actually in a process of updating some of those committees right now based on the new five year strategic plan that we've set. And then we also have the formal state advisory council, which is the 23 governor appointed board. And I wanna show you on the next slide what that board looks like, just as a reminder of when I say public private partnership, what that really means. So on the left hand side, you're seeing all of the agencies, departments and divisions that serve children and families have a voting seat or non voting members as part of this board. So we are bringing them together separately as a group to coordinate and integrate on a monthly basis, but then they are also a part of the broader State Advisory Council, where we're also having representatives from the House and the Senate. So Senator Gulick and Representative Garifano are the current two legislative leaders that serve on this board as the primary liaisons for you all. And then on the right hand side, you're seeing all of the at large members and this group is representing all of the different partners across our system and content areas when we think about early childhood. Who is doing that direct service, how are we working with kids and families, whether it's nutrition, food security, mental health, physical health, special education, education reps. So really making sure that we have a diverse board so that when I am coming to you all with data, with voices from partners, it is coming from a really robust, diverse series of partners. The last thing I'll name about the broader role of our system is to hold the vision strategic plan for Vermont for kids and families, and we were specifically named just outside of state government so that we could hold this vision as a public private partnership, it wasn't gonna be based on any one legislative body, any one governor or administration, but that it was that collaboration across every sectors coming together to say, here's our statewide roadmap for kids and families, it's a plan of plans, here's what it looks like for the next five years. That is something I will drop off into your committee in the next week because we formally have it printed and can also make sure you have it. But there's so much work in this and I already mentioned some of it at the beginning of the year around the vision and strategy for kids and families. Related to education, there are so many touch points in terms of how we think about pre K, but also how we think about young children in the context of education transformation that are really important for you all to have access to at all times. I won't talk as much about the process, I did that with the committee, but I do wanna transition to talking a little bit about some of the data work and the significant discussions that we've been having on the house side around pre K, because a lot of this will come specifically to your committee, right? So there's been so much discussion in the house side and my responsibility in thinking legislation related to young kids and families, specifically pre K, is to ensure that it maintains its status and a priority as we're considering broader education transformation. So when I first came to you all at the beginning of the session, I presented some data. We've now spent a ton of time partnering with the Agency of Education and the Child Development Division and have brand new data that has now just been presented to the House Committee on Human Services on access and enrollment trends for three and four year olds, participation by program type, so again, in that mixed delivery model, having both school and community based programs, and now we can look at it across the state and see regional variation across supervisory unions. And we also have interactive maps for that. So really excited to be able to come back to the committee in the next few weeks or whenever you all start to have that conversation about pre K as part of ed transformation with some really critical new data that we haven't had as a state before. And I'm happy to talk more about that and where it lands in the strategic plan again, when that comes to you. But the reason I'm elevating that specific scope is not just because you're the education committee, but because that is an example of data work that is unfunded within our organization. And it is the most critical work that we've been asked to do by both the legislature, the joint fiscal office and the agencies to help understand where kids are, what they have access to, how it varies across the state. So to just give you a very brief overview of our funding, because we are a nonprofit and we're also this public private partnership, in order for us to maintain that body of work, we have a very diverse funding portfolio, so it doesn't just come from the state, it includes state, federal, and private philanthropic sources. And at any given time, we have 11 to 15 different sources of funding to support the work. Anytime we are seeking funding or to build capacity for our funding, it is to meet the need of what the state is asking us to do in statute. So right now we do have a budget line, last year we came in and requested an addition or an increase to that budget line, which has been stable since 2023. Our budget generally is around $2,000,000 and that is to maintain 13.5 staff, program, business operations, and then some money that goes out the door to communities. In the last three years, we have had significant additional funding coming from the federal government, namely to put grants out the door to communities, to provide additional support for their direct service work. So we also have mechanisms in place to identify what the needs are and what those gaps are and then provide resources to them. But that is beyond when we are thinking about our base budget, how we think about that, that is additional funding that we write for through grants. So part of what I wanted to name for this committee is that in this session, we did not ask for an additional allocation. That being said, we as an organization are consistently asked by the legislature and the governor's office, as well as the administration to execute additional responsibilities on behalf of the state. I think the important piece of that is that is the right strategy. You're not creating a new entity, you're not needing to necessarily contract out for those things, it is very in line with the work that we should be doing and we're psyched to be doing that work. The challenge is every time those additional responsibilities come in each session, it means that we're having to shift our capacity, shift our resources to try and determine what takes priority. And so just to give you an example of some of those things that come as part of sessions that we will immediately respond and reprioritize for, it's things like rapid and large scale data collection and analysis in alignment with what the agencies or the legislature are really grappling with that session. It might be statewide information gathering like during COVID or in pre K changes or in childcare law. Right now, a ton of that work is in-depth analysis. It's data analysis, it's bringing the agencies together, understanding what data we have and helping them publish it and then communicating it out so that the legislature can make informed decisions on pre K. It is often that we are tasked with facilitating statewide work groups, task forces, and other cross coordination efforts, which is again the right role for us as an organization related to early childhood. It's just challenging when we can't anticipate what that looks like every session. And that kind of additive effect means that we are consistently struggling to maintain capacity to do the work that you all need. Some of the other major things that we tackle are supporting any of the systems transitions in leadership. So if there's a new secretary, a commissioner, a deputy, a part of our job is to orient them to the system and to the work that they are responsible for and how that work is happening and underway. We are also the primary entity that is writing grants to bring additional money into the state for children and families related to their early childhood system and not just for our organization. So over the last few years, we've written a $24,000,000 preschool development grant over the last three years. We just received the next iteration of that at around $12,000,000 and that is really coming in to support both agencies, but also community based partners in the system. So just wanting to name that there's so much intention that both the legislature and the administration have around identifying Building Bright Futures role and the work that you need from us. The challenge is it isn't always met with, here are your statutory responsibilities and the work that's coming out of each session with staff time and resources to make sure that we have the ability to meet those needs. So again, coming into this session, I just want to be clear, we are absolutely recognizing the current fiscal environment and we are not requesting and have not requested an increase to do this work. And as a result of that, between last session and this session, we reduced capacity by four staff. So in the last year, we've downsized by four staff members, but then reprioritized our work to make sure that again, we're staying aligned with what the priorities are of the legislature, of the administration and the grant makers, and I feel really grateful that we were able to secure one year of federal funding through that preschool development grant in partnership with all of the agencies to really stabilize some of those key functions. So as we're moving forward in the session and coming years, I think what's important for you all to hear from me is we are so committed and excited to support all of this work and to really be that primary advisor in supporting all of the data work and convening. And when there are emerging issues like pre K monitoring, accountability, our success as an organization and our ability to support your efforts in those areas are really dependent on how we're aligning our resources. So looking forward to partnership with the committees to say, okay, if there's going to be a new role of responsibility, what staffing capacity do we really need to execute that and the funding that comes along with it? And what are the trade offs? What are the things we need to prioritize to make sure that we're able to show up for you in the way that you all need? Because our goal really is to be that reliable partner.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Thanks. How much are you in the budget for?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: The current amount that we're in the budget for is around $700,000 and so that has been a level dollar amount since 2023. That's not the exact number, but that is the ballpark.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, can you guess the exact number just for the purpose? Yeah, okay.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yep, so the exact number in the budget as it stands today is $798,707 I think what's important to note is that there is a very small dollar amount that's within that budget amount that comes through the license plate fund. So we as an organization have a Vermont license plate for Building Bright Futures and those dollars are also added to that each year. So that number might shift like very minimally in a 12 to $30,000 range. And that is money that again, we really prioritize for regional and local work.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Senator, I'll just step back.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What strikes me is you're talking about being able to get money out the door in grants, being able to coordinate and apply for grants. And I'm trying to remember, but had we put in the last two years a request in to add money on top of your level funded appropriation, knowing that we were losing federal dollars last year too? Like we've, you know, this is another emergency year where it diminishes your ability to do the work you're asked to do because it's the second year maybe or more that federal dollars have been lost.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yeah, I appreciate the question. So last year we did come in and make a request for additional funding, it was championed by both the House Committee on Human Services and your committee, it did not move through any of the appropriation cycles. So that in part was why we made the decision from a fiscal responsibility perspective to downsize staffing and then really reprioritize the work to say, okay, what are we legally responsible for? What are the needs that are coming from the legislature and the administration and our partners? And how do we reprioritize?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So the more I learn about building bright futures and the more I learn about your leadership, the more respect I have. But unfortunately here I think we may, this conversation may have been a couple weeks premature because you've got your strategic plan in hand, we don't have it, that's where all my questions would be. So hopefully we can have another conversation once we have the strategic plan in our hands so we can have a more succinct conversation. That's my only goal.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Yeah, absolutely. And again, coming into your space today, I want to name, I'm not coming in asking for an increase at this moment in time, and I'm offering to you all, we do have a new five year strategic plan as a system. Pre K and education priorities are absolutely critical to that broader vision and strategy. And we do have more data now based on how we've reprioritized in supporting the agencies on pre K. So your committee in particular asked some really important and valuable questions about where in the state kids are receiving services, how many kids are enrolled, do we understand what those age breakdowns are and whether or not they're in public and community based programs. So it was more an opportunity to come in and make sure that you knew, one, we are not coming in recognizing the funding climate to make a request of the committee or asked to be included at any higher amount, but that there is so much work being done in this space. And as your primary advisor for that, definitely reach out and call on us in the next few weeks as you're moving in the direction of early childhood education policy.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So again, not having a strategic plan, I have a fundamental question for you, and that stems from the experience that Senator Williams and I had in health and welfare. Where does birth to grade or age A belong? What's the right committee of jurisdiction? Is it health and welfare or is it education?

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: Oh, it's such an important question and I know the house is grappling with this right now as well. Is it house human services? Is it education? Is it the partnership between? And right now, both the way that we structure the legislative committees and the way we structure our agencies means it is all of you, right? And it is this partnered approach on how we think about early childhood education because the systems that we've set up in Vermont for how we serve children is so interconnected, both in terms of our funding streams, but also in terms of the way that we try to holistically support children and families. So while I'm seeing both the education committees and the human services and health and welfare committees all step in and lead different components of it, it really has to be a partnered approach because you all have different content expertise and drivers. So as you're thinking, I mean, what I would ask is as you're thinking about transitions on pre K, that your teams are able to come together, just like we are now trying to require of our agencies to come together to do this work differently, because there are gonna be things that your committee has expertise and will ask totally different questions than the perception of Senate health and welfare.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Any other questions? So good. We just wanted to hear from you before we put together the budget letter just to get clear about what you're asking us to do which is simply to support the governor's recommend. And then we'll have you back in the Senate week's suggestion a little later in the session when we have the report that you can talk about.

[Dr. Morgan Crossman (Executive Director, Building Bright Futures)]: That's great. Thank you all so much. And let me know what you need on pre K in the meantime.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Alright. We now after since well, senator, she talk a little bit about our preliminary thinking about the PCV bill. Well, let's do that. We're here. Listen to a little preliminary thinking. And it it what was recognized that what we're saying now was thinking out loud. So I'm not having to just, nobody's committing to anything. It's just sort of like additional thoughts.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: The issue I have is that, yeah, we definitely should keep, it comes out of money, we just don't have it. And if we can, not let the program die, but know that nothing's gonna happen, and if we do have extra money come in, I kind of partly agree that, hey, you could put it in into the building plan, but that opened Pandora's bombs too on a small school that, that, hey, we did the testing, now we're above rates, and now what do we do? That just, that just blew Anything we want to do out of the water because our rates are high.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm still in conflict with that. My guess is it would be water. Yeah. That's.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Sure.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, don't support ending the program. I think, you know, who pays attention to this issue or, you know, is following that there were 300 and some odd schools that were considered at risk and needing to be tested is now going to want to know which rooms, what level, what is the risk. People deserve to be informed. As the administration pointed out, all that would do is put them on the hook for all of the risk and liability of the community, which I don't think is, you know, it's why we have a statewide education system. Know, I don't think that's the thing we want to say.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You're on

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: your own report. And especially if we are trying to seek compensation, which we have been successful in the past and many states have been on these issues where there was some knowing, you know, contamination of schools, I mean, poisoning of kids, that it's more orderly if the state is keeping its process going rather than schools saying, well, we never did that because we couldn't afford it, and now there's money available. And I just can't support that. So I can't support the one option. Part of me would just move out the dates, honestly, because I don't think we're gonna come up with a better system. Then we hear how much they care about it. We hear the work they're trying to do. For now, I just push out the dates and let them see where they go with the remainder of the dollars and look to, but essentially put it on finances radar that we're going to need another appropriation in the education fund for this in the future biennium.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: You're saying in the future?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Not this year, but yes, next by, yep, likely.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: With the option to, again, vote again if we had that? Because I'd be for that if we, because we

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: can't always have them talk take to things down the

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: road, we do. Because, yeah, our biggest thing is we don't have money where we're gonna buy it. Is there any Kulik?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Oh, she's going to the school.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: She's in finance.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Oh, she's in finance now? Yeah. Okay. I

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: just know if, as a parent, schools are gonna do this anyway, and the schools that are gonna do it first are the ones that have more money, and so I'd rather we be taking responsibility. And frankly, I do think this will help create the urgency around new schools, districts that are spending their facilities dollars wisely. This is, to me, one of the real reasons we should consolidate is because people are sick of paying for half measures and lots of different It could help

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: than making more restrictions, nothing else, but I don't know.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yes. So I have three recommendations. One, room the dates into the future. I think we all need to reflect on the fact that we've run out of runway at the current timeline. Two, this is like deja vu all over again, where we had this conversation last year. I do think that we need to continue some funding for the highest risk schools, and I think the group of three that was in here before can tell us at least how to prioritize the remaining schools and at least have, at least to Senator Ram Hinsdale's point, know where our problems are each year, learn more and more. But more importantly, I think that we need to link the mitigation plans to, again, I'm not sure what's called an LSU or district education transformation related to the longer range school quality facilities plans. So meaning which schools are we focusing on, which schools, and the PCB issue with those facilities is important to developing that plan. But that's, you know, that plan, that's like five years plus out into the future. So you're talking about a little bit of a hybrid. It is a hybrid.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, which is actually an interesting concept. So it's maybe perhaps just throw it out there, extend the deadline a bit two years, and link it to facilities

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: planning. Yes, and give them some funding for, again, the higher risk schools. But the list of uncontested schools, I believe they can at least generally create, okay, this is the highest risk, is maybe more moderate. If not, I

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: would would just do that. Well, have that, you know, they have those criteria that you just spoke They said it's very coarse, but you know, so be it. Course is better than zero, yeah.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I just clarify? I would have chosen that hybrid if I thought we could be putting more money into facilities planning. If we're putting money on the table, great.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: This is a budget discussion, right? This is a budget prioritization discussion? Is that, that's kinda how you- Well, yeah. Kinda spun it to begin with.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: How much, I mean, I guess I didn't get into, like, how much would we be talking about What, like, I don't have a good framework for that discussion. Of course, if we're gonna put money into facilities planning, I think that's what the schools say would would be a priority for them over district consolidation. You know, it's just facilities planning.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Well, do we spend last, to answer, try to answer your question, and then Brown about May, what did we spend last year? So, again, we had this exact same conversation. What did we spend last year to keep the cycle moving forward and how did we prioritize that money?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I don't, I think it was 40,000,000 three years ago it? Don't know.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well a lot of money in there. Someone got used to it when I was going to school, 15,000,000, and the rest had spent down. Think when you started talking about this I thought, well yeah, maybe we try to get a million dollars and we continue to test it.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Great. Then that I support the hybrid. More money, extend the deadline.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: It's not big money. It's not the original but big it's continuing the process.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So Another x number.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But maybe we like, I'm all about facilities planning dollars that lead to the, that lead to as many of the outcomes that we're seeking this year as possible.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, great. Now, we haven't talked about the syllabus plan at all. I have just, for what it's worth, just having a conversation my When the fortunateness, it is to my mind kind of simply by building blocks and building blocks was getting the districts, fewer districts, bigger districts that emerged, and then do the facilities planning. And that made me just too methodical and too many years to do it, but that's the way I'm thinking about this. We also know that districts are doing facility planning now, no matter what.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I think if you find out that there's an elementary school that's half full and they also have a PCB problem, we're done, you know? Like, Well, that's

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: at least we have done.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We have, they can make an informed decision on the state to make an informed decision.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Very well, now, so this is about the Right now, we continue this discussion, we're really only talking about testing if this is here.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: You

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: guys can go ahead and report anything else, but we can certainly

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It informs a lot of other decisions.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It informs a lot of other decisions, so, okay. Well, let's then think about, so we should point this out. Stand for two years, 'nine, I mean, point nine, a million dollars, suggest a million dollars, and somehow there was some language that at least in an intent, by way of intent, suggests that we wanted this to be this information should be used to inform somebody's planning as we You haven't had a chance to book yet.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: I have be positive here. You know, I'll use somebody's language on the floor. Last week, we don't know. We just don't know how many schools we actually have. And if we could get it going with this process that we're working on and finalize where these schools are gonna be, then we would know. I'm I'm on record for the last two years as saying that even though I've had principals come to me and say, we'd really like to stop the testing because it's just perpetuating the concerns of the parents. I think parents wanna know whether their kid's school has contamination. And I think that if we could get this process and come up with not not even saying lines on a map, but just saying identifying which districts are gonna be merging and which aren't. You know? I guess I guess more of a question is if if they've signed a merge and closed one school, is that if that school's on the list, are they gonna have to mitigate the PCB concerns? Okay. So how do we know how much money we're gonna spend if

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: we don't know how many schools we actually have? We don't. There's no answer. We can't know that answer. So

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: we'll do

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: a test how much the whole thing is gonna cost.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: So I agree. I agree.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We don't have any schools. Right. And we know that we're winnowing down the number of of schools that need immediate review. So the only way to get the data is to do the testing, but we do know the universe of schools needed for testing.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: Well, the only way to get the data is to actually find out which schools are going to be in which districts.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. But I just wanna be clear. We do know that we're talking about a 145 schools

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Thank you.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That were built before 1980.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I built my 145 off the wrong number. I had to write math, but the wrong number. He had the right yeah.

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: But they're not all gonna be something that's a 100 and what? Six seventy one. 71. They're they're

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: not all gonna be on three. Let me get this done once mergers done.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But will it inform decisions about facilities for those communities if the state helps

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: to do that? Discussion. Well, it seems to me that the answer is that we'll forget that it's a big deal in exact same level, but in addition to elementary schools, one of them has this school with PCBs, that school's just gonna get closed. Right. Because it's not make any sense to do that when they could go to.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And and maybe I was too flippant, but, like, Burlington closed. Burlington put they put caution tape up, they said, you can't go here. We're moving to Macy's. So, like Yeah. They're gonna move those kids out of that elementary school. Chances are, they're just not going back after that if we're if we're in that process, but they don't have made that decision.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I guess

[Terry Williams (Clerk)]: you can't have a break. They've got a brand new school. Haven't gotten it

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: yet. It was almost Is it almost done?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We should that is a reason to do PCB testing in an orderly way because, I mean, that was a real we're moving the kids to a Macy's. We don't know when they're gonna go to school elsewhere. We don't know how much the community's gonna pay for the school versus the state. Like, we shouldn't put any community in that position, and we're very grateful for the money. But it wasn't an orderly conversation. It should have been done in conversation with Windham District after Oakland.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So, okay, I think we, it sounded like we had enough of an approach for me to call Matt and say, let's think about putting something together this way, then who is our counsel, who was counsel on this bill? Was it Beth or was it somebody else?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Michael Brady. It was. Oh. Okay.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's okay.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, and it's kind of just a budget. It's fiscal.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So this is what really gets to the benefits, is that the public will come and say, You need to do something about fixing our schools. But yet, when we go, We need to decide what's gonna happen with your schools, so they gotta keep our hands off

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: our schools. Well And

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: it's like, you know, either we gotta be all in on it and it's like, do you want us to have control or not have control? Our constitution says we have control. Never said that it was all meant to be local control, that the legislature has, legislation has control, and we try to keep our local people happy. It's just a frustrating thing that when it's an incident like this, what's they gonna do? What is it about districting in that?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Frankly, we're not gonna fund some remediation if the building makes no sense.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But our communities have been asking for the last twenty years what's the state gonna do if possible buildings exist, to be fair to plan.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: From what we've heard for what our total cost for school buildings is what, $457,000,000 was the

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: total I think it's more than that.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Was it? It wasn't much more than that. Was more than what we all thought.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: What do you mean? Total You mean debt? Yeah. Oh, debt. Debt's gross wall. Yeah.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's Oh, gross debt versus deferred maintenance.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Right. So if that's the case, if the state takes it all over and we're unifying our money as well for building, we can start picking out and doing regional jobs. You can save it at a lot quicker and faster rate. Yes. Can we get our voters to realize that?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's the only incentive we'd have for them. That is us saying, the only thing we're putting on the table besides a mandate is, we'll give you money you That's wanna raise exactly. Your

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Senator Ram Hinsdale, if you have just one

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: unified school We could

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: have one school building if That's you all.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: One unified school system that they have control. I'm gonna always bark that a little bit, keep going down the path we're going. But- If

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: you have a single district, you would have a single facility. Everything.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, but then let's take, let's be mentally flexible. Let's look at other states that have a single school building authority because that ultimately is what drives a lot of decisions about, no, you're not, this area is no longer eligible for

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: just- More than happy with that, but it's like, as a state, look at this, we're pushing to that, we'll get nobody else on same hill. You know. We're all elected then too.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I think, so what people want is control over their instructional agenda. Oh. And what we want is control over money on physical plan, I think, at the end of the day.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I guess you never looked at

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: my uniform system, because it gives them control. I to I have to I think we're I think we're good. We'll at least know enough to maybe get something you're gonna get something in front of us that we can then even

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. Work on. Let's do a full school facilities bill instead of just a PCB bill.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's my Do we have a week? But it's CD logger.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, I think that's essentially what they were saying, which would be the ideal, is that and I know it's like a chicken or egg problem with Act 73, but Yeah. The tail that could whack the dog is facilities master planning, frankly. It's it's not a chicken egg to me. It's a what is going to move what? And facilities is what people are asking us desperately to move on. What is our state vision for facilities?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And that's tied to the chicken and egg thing. It is tied to is tied to districts in a series of

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But in a way, it's kinda like we're saying you have to form a new SU or SD because you are gonna share a high school budget.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So I don't see it as chicken and egg. I see it as a simultaneous chicken and egg. Right. It's not one before the other, it's, you have a vehicle to do this now. Let's mature and move forward. I agree that it's very, you know, it's critical Mhmm. That it gets a huge amount of buy in throughout the state, including educators and parents.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And people can make informed decisions.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. They're supposed to get clear about what it is. Mhmm. So

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I put in a plug for this guy who really wants to testify, Matt McKenzie? This is what he does for states. He looks at commute patterns and a number of, like, inputs that we don't have access to.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: He's the guy you took.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And shows how you can save millions of dollars based on facilities decisions.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I know that dovetails nicely into a single district.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm not saying it does like that. I'm not saying it does. I'm saying what people are asking us for is to is to make physical plant decisions, having sense of state, and then file them.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We also could do that maybe through the miscellaneous bill, because I think we Are we getting here? Yeah. We're getting a miscellaneous bill. Oh, okay. Because we gotta get the Acting Civil and Free Polo bill out of here.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah, yeah, I'm rest.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We're only real game in town.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think this whole PCB bill could turn into Yeah, a

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: yeah. We can go off. Thanks. We have Beth in tomorrow, so we're starting on Section seven at The insertion