Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Hello.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, we're back after a little break. We're back on the floor. Think you logged off.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, so we were discussing the Northwest corner of the state. And so what I did is I grabbed and had printed our groupings with CSA border overlay map to kind of help describe what we're talking about. And I think we will talk specifically about is Milky. Yep. Thank you. We're gonna try to do our best to get various maps organized and straight here. Okay. So again, just relating to grouping the islands with Franklin County, between testimony plus the members who we had on our committee who represent that area, their concern was that there's just no land between the two and you have to drive down through Milton anyway. If you look on this map, we have Grand Isle grouped for merger study with Milton and Colchester. And so you see the seesaw line diving down there. I'm not sure that that's what we intended, even though I'm sure we said that, and maybe we didn't. I it would probably clear things up to have that line go straight across if we put Milton in Colchester and the islands altogether in a grouping and put Milton into the CISA with all of those as well.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: So, like, from where

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: it says group 20 to the green dot below Bellows Free, like, would be a line?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Well, yeah. Well, we have a line right at the bottom of the Green would become a CISA boundary, which puts Milton frankly with the same merger study grouping that we have. And again, comes with the grouping conversation as well. It's really about nothing but geography and the fact that that majority of people in the islands go south for CTE for high school, all of that.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah, I'll agree with that because all our services we receive now at Milton are from the Chittenden County area and not breaking up the Seesha District going north and then or going south and then the Merger District going north.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: So I guess to make it more of a formal proposal, it would be to go to the cease of boundary line for the house in that area with the adjustment that puts Milton in with Colchester. I think on the airtime strip, it's the Chittenden Central. Chittenden Central. Yeah.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: And then what about for the merger groupings?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Where is I just wanted to do the CSIP card first to take care of that number. Okay. There is a fair bit more with the Murphy groupings issues.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Do you have other sea cells?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: That's it. No, that's the only thing where we were any different.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I can't speak to the Grand Isle part. I would imagine it's almost split maybe like that upper northern portion of Grand Isle heading over to the Masiskoit Valley area.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, I hear what you're saying. We sort of just decided to keep it clean from an SUV boundary point of view as well. I guess what you'll see, we started talking about the groupings, is that we didn't wanna break up the SUVs when it came to our merger discussions. All right, so that is a proposal on table for the CSAT. If we can answer now or not, if you guys wanna talk about that's fine too. The groupings, probably the biggest difference is that we have fewer than we do. But maybe we should just talk about that area one more time within the discussion of groupings. Again, we would suggest that the groupings stick with the House proposal can strictly because of where the lake is and where the bridges are and where the where things flow and keeping the rather than sort of against pulling up Oliver, even the way that we I know they switch over, but they are part of the Grand Isle Supervisory Review.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. And just going back from what I've heard from my areas is that a lot of those services that they do contract with is in that group group 13, the Colchester, Essex Westford, and Milton School District versus the islands, Milton, just the islands in Milton. More of our work is done with the Chittenden County for services wise, so line that back up. And I don't know what that means, the islands fall, but if you look at page 28, group 13, you'll be as the Senate side of Colchester, Essex Westward, and Milton as that group. And then in the houses version, it'd be group 20, which is the islands, Albert and Milton. The 28, actually. Our group 20 is

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: the islands Milton and Colchester. Yep. And you're saying

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But Colchester, Essex West, Milton is more naturally

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: where it falls. Could we agree though that the islands should probably be grouped with the Chittenden County folks rather than the Franklin County folks? Since that's where they If they Yeah. I would say it is first of all, have Baltimore

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: and see same

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: CISA. Second, that's where the kids go to high school. Third, that's where the kids go to CPE.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So so you're you're talking about for the grouping islands with Chittenden County?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. And whether we stick to our grouping or your grouping, we didn't put a pin in it real hard at this point.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Let's put a pin in it. But yeah. Okay. Got it. Got it.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Wait. So your group 20 is Alberg, Champlain Islands, Colchester, Milton, and South Hero. Yeah. So are are you proposing to add Essex Westford to that grouping?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I was only I wasn't going any further than saying, let's move the islands into a a Chittenden based grouping rather than a Franklin Oh, okay. Grouping. And that little detail, we can sort of come back to. You talked about the islands. You're talking about the islands associated. I'm talking about Grand Island supervised JV in the kitchen, all of that, all of the islands.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Which I would say be consistent with the CISA.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And keeping the SU.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Okay, noted.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I think as you look at our CISA and grouping map that I have in front of you, what you'll see sort of consistent in our philosophy, it clearly was not to break up the SUs and not have CISA boundaries break up SUVs such as they are. It may have happened in, but I don't think so. We were we were trying to be pretty careful about that. And that was our overriding philosophy. And added to that is where kids go to CTE. And I think in the bill, we continually call out making sure kids have access to CTE. So, for example, I'm not sure how often do you consider with the whole Paint Mountain change, but we have compared to what they have. Northfield and Williamstown go to the Randolph CTE by moving them into a merger study group that's mainly Central Vermont, those states all go to a different CTE. So that's just one of the factors to keep in mind.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, we got a lot of testimony, a lot of calls about moving Paine Mountain to It's actually in the bill.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, think we moved Paine Mountain to where you had it, actually. Yeah, at

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: the very It was very recent.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: It was in the Senate and Metro. So I think we moved them to where you

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: had them. No, I think you moved them into Wimitsky Valley region. I don't know. Go ahead.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Are you talking group 18?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I think we're losing versions to some degree.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Group I'm sorry.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So there was one grouping change that happened in the final amendment, floor amendment in the Senate. Can you verify what that was?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And it's reflected in the side by side. Okay. Right?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah. We moved Payne Mountain into group 18.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Into our 18?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Into, yeah, the Senate 18.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Page 28.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: You have them.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: One of the challenges that was that this map doesn't have any town names or It's 73. Yeah. It's up to date.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We could we could I have the smaller map. I know which groups and which number helps.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The It's

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: an amendment somewhere.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Green Mountain is in group nine on gross. Which is on page 27. Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And much of that was based on fact that the kids from those schools all go to random technical center.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Can you move them to group 21 of our measure?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: No, it's group we have different number of groups. But it's group 18 with Barrie, Harwood, Montpelier, Roxbury, Twinfield, and Washington Central.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The other caution I didn't have with that move is that that makes a really big merger group. That's I think it's over 5,000 students at that point.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I mean, I think what what we heard was from the senators from Washington County, they didn't like the group that the Senate Education Committee had put them in and asked that they be moved into the Washington County group. I think they had been put in a group that was more with the Northeast Kingdom. So I don't know how they feel about the group that you put them in. It was in one version, they went south. In one version, they went north, and I think they wanted to be central.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: You're talking senate versions because we don't we didn't put them

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Well, Granville, Hancock, Rochester, that's more that's that's more south of where they are, I think.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yes.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: And originally, the Senate had them going more north of where they are. And so this was they wanted to be more central. Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I mean, we had them probably central, as you can get, just geographically, which is our group nine. And again, trying to sort of call out maintaining access to CTV as well. So I I do realize this is all largely guidance maps. So Yeah. Our class is important. And

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: you do you know where they are on this note? Stop.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Number. I know. But in the So I would

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: say that the concern with the change that you made there of that part would be probably two. One is a very large grouping, type of ADM, and it's sort of a breaking up of having two kids heading in different directions for CTU.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, and yet, what we tried to do was listen, was sort of pick up on what we got asked to do,

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So, reference to school boards. Well, I do think that both committees received a lot of testimony and feedback from the field and sought out I know the House Education Committee sought a lot of feedback from the field and from families and kids on this. But did you all check the number of students per grouping as you were finalizing the math?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yep, seven thousand one hundred and five and eighteen.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah,

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: that is one That of the

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: may be the biggest. Yeah, it is the biggest. But it doesn't mean they all have to merge into one.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Just speaking of numbers, I a group number, don't should be yours. What I would spell that? Franklin County, which would be our you combined our green. That'd be a big green. That's number 12. So it looks like we basically combined our group seven thirty and eighty out of the islands, it seems like we probably got another Jack. And so I just wanted to ask sort of the motivation for that and what is the for that?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: ABM for group 12 is 9,000. It's small print here, 9,100. That's also another large one.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: We try to keep ADM numbers manageable, the things that we did, sort of sticking to that guidance. Also talked about about being in the 2,000 range.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: So what is your so what let me just look let me look at your words. So you would have it as

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: This is what we use. This is And we may be here as yeah. I

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Is something we can really bogged out, and we definitely we'd have John Adams come in and put it up on the screen, and he can say this is how many people are here, this is many people are here.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, it would be really helpful to have a comparison of how many, what the ADM is, because I would be concerned about having the group so big that they're not manageable for a conversation about

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: a merger. Yeah, there's two particular large groups. It's the two we've been talking about. Yeah. Eighteen and twelve. Otherwise, we've done

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: So do we wanna see if someone from the GIS office for January this afternoon?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Think we should. Yeah. Yes. I think we should. But I'll just sort of I'll just quickly go through some of the other thoughts on this. Our group twelve and eleven, which you have combined more or less, the feedback we got is that's a pretty vast geographic area. It's the East. Some folks up there were like, do you know how long it takes to get from Newport to

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Cadence? That gets us to about 11,000 students. I'm sorry, 4,000 students. An hour or eleven. And I think, partially it was also to allow more flexibility as to having network discussions. We In way? Well, don't all have to merge, wouldn't necessarily have to merge into one, could merge into two. It's just a little bit more flexibility. And that whole region up there just really seemed to go naturally fit together. That was the rationale for it. Naturally put together in what sense? Operating structures or SUs or Well, it's a combination of like districts, and they all kind of operate the same, I think. It's not a big I don't think it's a huge deal. We just did it because that was kind of consistent with the testimony we got.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, in reality, what you have, like in our group 12, pretty sure these are K-twelve operating systems. Yep. 11 is really all over the place. You've got, you know, k twelve's. You've got 100% non operating. That would be a a it's gonna ultimately be a complex one to get combined, but but Yeah. Certainly not a cost.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That's a point. Well taken.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: All right. Obviously, it's just until again, the central part of the state is a big number under yours, and I think there's a CPE split issue that we should think about. Sort of in the southern quadrant of the state, Our two are not terribly dissimilar. The sort of bottom part there, our group five and our group six, these were really intended two things. One is to maintain SUs who are already working together, both because they are SUs, but also because they're all part of the same current existing CSA. And so their value is also a Vermont Superintendent's Association region as well. So there's a there's a certain amount of consistency of working together. And, you know, I think under yours, we're kinda chopping it chopping up an SU, like, Dover and Warrensboro are. They're actually part of a different SU that stays in group six, but you have them moving over here. They operate differently. I so that may be, but they certainly operate differently within the SC that they're already in.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: And,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: again, it was more it stays within the CISA boundary. It maintains an an SU where they're doing things together. I suspect there's a CTE factor as well. So that's just just another thing on point now.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: I will say, based on personal experience with our committees, if there's an existing relationship through a supervisory, they're much more likely to be successful at merging.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: It was kind of our philosophy of trying to maintain SUs as we've created these groupings. And as someone who lives there,

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I know those conversations are already fairly active in the groupings that the House has followed.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, this is one we took some testimony on. So we'll

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Well, did the testimony say?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: That the boundaries of the House map are kind of where we had a sense people actually wanted to be. I'm sorry, the boundaries in the senate map, where we had a sense people wanted to be. You know,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I we always have to struggle with what a few emails and a few pieces of testimony are, do they speak for everybody? Of course we do. I think a lot about the sort of what's gonna make the process and work the best in terms of, you know, what already exist working within what already exists, both CPE catchment area and existing SUs and SDs. But anyway

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We'll note we'll note that. Yeah.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: The our group or I guess, the sort of the Rutland County area, could you just talk a little bit about the changes you've made there? This would be on your light blue section. We're not very different. And so like there's that little hand thumb going up there. I just can't read what that is.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: I think it's non split town, how much the word town it is.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Middletown Springs.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Middletown, a logical Middletown, Middletown and Wales, all

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: of them go together, logically. And they're in merger discussions, actually. They have been. Makes sense for them to be together, Middletown, Wells, Rupert and Powell.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, mean, sort of look at high the school there. Anyway, I I don't have any I don't actually that's because your parents want to find out what they were out on that. That's alright. But you did not pull in the Earth Wales And then got it. Okay. I understand it now.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Version. That's a very logical principle. K.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Then, let's see. That's the same. Addison County just always look the same.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: It's nice to be the easy part of the state.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: In let's see. We got the that's the state. If I'm looking at the yeah. Chittenden County. So we have, like yeah. Up the road, we're digging on that with some maybe look at the map with some names on it. Not sure I have a whole lot more to say on this.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: If we get John

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And texted him and I haven't heard back.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Okay. And it'd be helpful to put them on the screen so we can load them up so we can see them. See how much the size difference is. Right. And then also where they overlap with STUs and existing lines would be helpful too.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: We would not necessarily lock people in where they are because this is about movements. We wanna be we wanna be sensitive to that. Yes.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Mean, I'll be honest with you. You know, the a lot of the talk about SUs and those relationships that exist today as something that you brought up as being very important as well is, I think, somewhat reflected in our map as well. Just let's keep the SU boundaries today because people are people who are already in these systems together. Given that, and I don't think we can probably dive into a whole lot more. But I think one fairly factual decision, you all can make a point with this publishing, but I can't cease that. There you go.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And it sounds like we're still talking about Hayne Mountain and then one or two in The Kingdom and then Southeast Vermont. Did that summarize well?

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. And I will say appreciate the attempt to get down to 18 groupings. I think we tried as well, but kept, you know, like, okay. Put that there. That's gonna explode. Number. Over large. Yeah.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Could we talk school construction? Good. Move on capital. I think we could state the Well, on the I need your book. Yeah. I'm going to keep on doing it. I'm watching my In the grand scheme

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: of things.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Yeah, in the grand scheme of things. Oh, definitely. I put together a diagram on school construction that helped my brain, at least, I think, or I'm hoping will. I'd love to talk through the percentages and how they work. I know yesterday, Senator Hardy, we talked about the districts that had already passed bonds and what scenario they would be in if funds supplemental district spending didn't pass. And so I maybe I'm the only one who needs this diagram, but I desperately need it.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: We love visuals.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: Is it enough for John? It does. Well,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: John's getting settled. Jack, you or whoever, decided to get a screening movie at this end to the extent that that's that we can do it. Yeah.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And I texted John Adams, but it might be better to have an official invite.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: But he has people on the staff who can accept it. I didn't mean that.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: So I'm joining the Zoom now, and I'm John Gray with the Office of Public Council. I haven't sent this for posting yet, but I can afterward.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Okay. My computer has decided to train. Here we go.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: So the hope here oh gosh, I really struggle with the colors. Can you guys tell that those are two different green?

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, you can

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: Yeah, there's a big one. Okay.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: Let's look better on my laptop. I'd hoped to have more useful headers, but it was true of just assembling this. So the idea here is to show the different aid scenarios possible under the different chamber proposals and how those would be covered through district bonding, state bonding, what is different indicative examples of the kind of aid that you might get and how much you would need to buy more locally and then the kind of aid that you get. So this slide is meant to indicate if you get the minimum aid available under the different proposals, what would that look like if it was in the form of a 100% debt service subsidy? And so on the health proposal, just recall that you have a range of 50 to 95%. So the minimum aid would be 50%. And under the Senate proposal that ranges 30 to 75%. So the minimum aid available would be 30%. So that's what you see here is visual form what I just said, And I'm just gonna pause on each one so folks can ask questions because I think it's gonna be more helpful to look at it and then ask me things than for me to say to talk about this.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I'm just gonna clarify for me and anybody else that in this scenario, we're talking about supplemental district spending, the difference in supplemental district spending than the allowables. This is for strictly for school construction.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: Yes, this is a one time authorization unlike the annual, restorative annual.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Please don't try to do that.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: And so part of what this is trying to show is that when you get your aid package completely in the form of a debt service subsidy, the school district itself will need to bond for the full 100%. But then what they're actually covering through supplemental strict spending is just 50%.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Okay. That was not clear from the visual.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: I couldn't figure that out. Couldn't hear how good.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: We talked about that, So the way I understand this is the district has a bond. The way the district pays back the bond is in the house contract, 50% of that bond is paid back through a debt service subsidy from the state, and 50% of that bond is paid back through supplemental district spending. But the district is responsible for the full bond and paying back the full bond.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, this is the minimum amount without the bonus. Yep, The 45% bonus. Great.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And then is the next.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: Yep, okay, so just to orient, the first three slides I'll show are all minimum eight scenarios. And they show you if it's 100% debt service subsidy, that's what you see here. They show if it's 100% state bonding support. And then they show if you got a mixed bag, if you got a mixed package that was 50 percent bonding support, 50% debt service subsidy. In all cases, they're just examples of the kind of aid that you could get. You could get a package with 2,005 and 75, you could get different scenarios. These are just meant to indicate the extremes and the midpoint of the kind of aid that you could receive in a stable package. So this is if you receive the minimum aid exclusively in the form of state bonding support. And you can see that you're getting the light blue, which appears much nicer than the differences in the greens. It reduces the amount that the district is bonding, but if you compare between the two, the supplemental spending coverage is the same, Still 50% coverage on the health side.

[David Weeks (Vice Chair)]: What do you want me open it?

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I'm good. I'm gonna keep on head with your head.

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: And this has no debt service subsidy. Correct.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: But there is gonna be one that has all three?

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: Yeah. Yes. And you're gonna see the most confusing one?

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah. Isn't helpful for my brain. It doesn't look I don't know. The visual this is not how I visualized what we did in either case.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I think maybe the last one will Okay. Be

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: Right. If you want to see a Admittedly,

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I'm

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: also just not good at putting these things together. I was literally doing it right there. So this is what a mixed package would look like. You get some in debt service subsidy, you get some in state bonding support,

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: and then you're covering some for supplemental districts.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: And so in this scenario, which is I think the scenario if, like, sort of full approvals are met. Yes? Yes. Okay. Then sorry, Seth. Supplemental The district spending, in both cases, we have not really figured out the source of that. Right? That's a project for next year. It's supplemental district spending. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. I meant debt debt service subsidy. Sorry. The debt service subsidy, the revenue source for that, we have not figured that out yet necessarily. It sort of defaults to the Ed Fund. Yeah. The state bonds need sort of approval of the recommendation of CDAC. But in both cases, I see basically what your proposal is doing. And this is actually what for whatever reason, I needed this to have the math add up. You are putting significantly more pressure on the subject spending than we are, and less pressure on the state.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah. The way that I was looking at it is less pressure on the state the district, but still supplementing what the more than we have now. It's up some of Way more than we have now supplementing what districts are able to get. And for the most urgent cases, they would get the bonus points and get a higher level of districts of state aid. And do you

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: have Is there a bonus point scenario?

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: These contemplate So when we go to the maximum, that'll be the next

[Seth Bongartz (Chair)]: slide Okay, great.

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: When we go to the maximum aid scenarios, they contemplate all of the bonus incentives.

[Nader Hashim (Member)]: Yeah, and the supplemental district spending is equalized so that there's So that

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: this is your maximum aid and this is 0% state bonding support. This is full coverage through a debt service subsidy. So on the house side, that's 95% coverage. The district still needs to bond for the full amount, because the aid that's available is exclusively as a subsidy. And then on the Senate side, we see it's a 75% maximum aid, still bonding the full 100% coverage of that SDS goes up to 25%.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Can there be a maximum scenario? I'm sorry, John.

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

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: I forgot to print your diagram. I'm sorry. Can there be a maximum scenario that?

[John Gray (Office of Public Counsel)]: I would have three slides for the maximum scenarios. Okay. This is just if it's 100% debt service subsidy.

[Steven Heffernan (Member)]: Okay, while you guys are going to the floor, if you could just contemplate the idea that if someone was to achieve sort of all of the requirements of maximum subsidy, they would essentially be building a building that is in, like, deep policy survey to the state, to the state's goals to some degree, that would ideally be reducing costs through scale. Fine. I'll credit it off.