I'd like to call the 22nd meeting of the 2018-2019 Common Council to order. Would the clerk please read the quote for the day? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Every accomplishment starts with a decision to try. Thank you very much. Would the clerk please call the roll? There are nine present. And all the person, Rosemary Trester, is excused. Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next we'll move on to the approval of minutes from our last council meeting. All the person will. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to approve. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none. All those in favor, please signify by seeing aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Item 4.1 is resignation. I'll turn it over to city attorney Adams. Thank you, Mayor. The first resignation is from Amanda Salazar. She is resigning from the Mead Public Library Board effective February 13th, 2019. Thank you very much. All the person will. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to accept and file. Thank you for that motion and support. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by seeing aye. Opposed? Motion passes. The second resignation 1.5 is from Adam Cain from the Historic Preservation Commission effective February 14th, 2019. All the person will. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to accept and file. Thank you for that motion and support. All those in favor, please signify by seeing aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Next we'll move on to item 1.6, a presentation on dark store loophole property tax shift by Kurt Witensky, the deputy executive director of the League of Municipalities. Kurt, please come forward. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, everyone. My name is Kurt Witensky. I'm deputy director of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. I understand the city of Sheboygan has plans to have a referendum on the ballot in April asking voters whether they approve asking the legislature to close the dark store and Walgreens loopholes. I'm here to give a little explanation and a little background about the dark store and Walgreens property tax loopholes and answer any questions the council may have or the mayor may have. And so to start out with though, what I'd like to do is we have an association and just by the way, so I'm here from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities. We're an association of all the cities in the state, including the city of Sheboygan and all the villages also. So there are 190 cities and about 413 villages and also by way of background last fall, last November, 17 counties and about six municipalities conducted referendum on the same issue. And they all passed overwhelmingly, most close to 90%, some between 70 and 90%, asking the legislature to close the dark store and the Walgreens loopholes. Now, let's talk a little bit about what those loopholes are. And I'd like to start out with this video that our association has prepared basically to educate the public about this tax issue. If there are big box or other chain retailers in your community, your property taxes may be going up. That's because certain commercial properties have been able to obtain special tax reductions. Perhaps you've heard of these tax breaks. They're known as the dark store and Walgreens loopholes. Unless the state legislature closes these loopholes, other property owners, including homeowners will pay an average of 8% more in property taxes. Even more in some communities. Communities like the town of Grand Chute, Ashwabanan, Sheboygan, West Bend, Franklin, Pleasant Prairie, Sun Prairie, La Crosse, and Rice Lake. You see, the total amount of property taxes a local government may collect is strictly limited by state law. The size of the property tax pie stays pretty much the same from one year to the next. What can and does change is how the pie gets divided. When one kind of property like big box stores pays less, other kinds like residential and mom and pop businesses pay more. Let's take a closer look at the dark store loophole. Attorneys for big box chains claim that a brand new store in a busy area has the same value for tax purposes as a vacant, boarded up, dark property located in an unpopular location. Here's an actual example. A low store in Wauwatosa is assessed for taxes at $13.6 million. Lowe's claims it's only worth $7.1 million. Yet Lowe's spent in excess of $16 million to acquire the land and build the structure. Lowe's argues that even the land was devalued from $9 million to $3 million once the big box store was constructed. And Lowe's insists its store can only be compared to vacant dark stores for property tax purposes. Ironically, as big box stores fight for a smaller share of property taxes, they use more municipal services. Big box stores demand more police, fire and ambulance service than other commercial properties and way more than residential properties. Every day municipal police, fire and ambulance respond to calls from big box stores. Meanwhile, the cost of paying for these services gets shifted to homeowners, the class of property using these services the least. The other loophole is called Walgreens after a 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision. That ruling allows national pharmacies and other businesses who lease their store to claim the value of their properties for tax purposes is less than half of the actual sale price. Here's another real example. Walgreens challenged the city of Oshkosh's assessment of its store. The Court of Appeals, relying on the 2008 decision, decided that the value of the Walgreens property was $2.2 million, much less than the $4.3 million actual 2009 sale price of the property. Other taxpayers, mainly homeowners, now have to cover Walgreens' former share of the taxes. Plus, Oshkosh taxpayers had to pay the corporation a tax refund of $69,500. Nearly 300 pharmacies in Wisconsin can take advantage of this loophole, including stores in Ashland, on Alaska, Dodgeville, Beaver Dam, Weston, Appleton and Sturgeon Bay, and in your neighborhood. Other commercial and manufacturing businesses that lease their space are also beginning to use this same loophole. Only the Wisconsin State Legislature can stop this unfair tax shift. Tell your state legislators to restore fairness and common sense to the property tax system by closing the dark store and Walgreens' loopholes. Call your state legislator through the legislative hotline at 1-800-362-9472, or visit darkstoreloopholes.org. All right, that's a fairly good 30,000-foot explanation of a fairly complex topic. What we're talking about is how do assessors for cities, villages and towns, because they're the ones who are responsible, determine the fair market value of certain commercial properties. And we have some fundamental differences of opinion between property owners like big box stores and their tax attorneys and municipal assessors around the state and municipalities. And that fundamental difference of opinion is over the tax strategy that are being employed by these property owners, commercial property owners for the most part, is resulting in tax shift over to other property tax payers. So just let me give you a perfect example everyone can understand. If you and your neighbor are sharing the cost, and I'm going to bring this down really fundamental level. We're not even going to talk about property taxes, we're going to talk about other things. If you and your neighbor are sharing the cost of a pizza, and you say I will pick up two-thirds of that cost, I'll pay for this tonight, say it's a $20 pizza, I'll pay $15. And your neighbor says, initially says okay, but then looks at his wallet and says, you know what, I only have $3, so I can't contribute the full $5. So what happens? It's still $20 pizza and still has to be paid for, so you have to pick up it. So the cost, more of the cost shifts over to you. That's what's happening with some, as a result of these tax strategies that big box stores and stores and medium box stores like Walgreens and CVS that use two different tax strategies that I'll explain in a little more detail. The person who's picking up more of the cost of the pizza in Wisconsin for property tax purposes are homeowners, because already homeowners in Wisconsin pay 68 to 70% of the total property tax levy. So the rest of the property taxes, 30% are paid by agriculture, manufacturing, and commercial. So whenever anyone on the agriculture, commercial, and manufacturing side of property taxpayers figures out a way to pay less, then other taxpayers have to pick it up. And really the only group that's left for the most part are the 70% of homeowners who are paying property taxes. So that's what we're talking about here, is trying to avoid more of the property tax burden from shifting from one class of property, commercial, over to another class of property, homeowners. Another thing we're talking about here, especially on the Walgreens side, and I just want to kind of give a 30,000 foot level look at this tax evasion effort, is right now as a result of this 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that Walgreens won against the city of Madison in 2008 and was referenced in that video. We have a situation where property like CVS stores and Walgreens are selling, so the real estate is selling for between $4 million and $8 million in Wisconsin. That's the going fair market value right now. Mainly investors are buying those properties. Pools of investors will buy them. But they have to be assessed as a result of that Wisconsin Supreme Court decision in 2008 at roughly half of that amount. So they're assessed at between $2.1 million and $3 million, and they're selling on the market for between $4 million and $8 million. So if your home, maybe your home is assessed at $250 to $300 million, and you think you could sell it. I'm sorry, I'm used to Madison prices, sorry. Your home, not million, $250 to $300,000, and your neighbor sells for $300,000 and you just bought your home for $305,000. But you argued to your assessor, well it really should be half of that. My assessed value for property tax purposes should be more like $150,000. You'd be left out the door. But that's exactly what's happening as a result of that 2008 decision for commercial leased properties. That's how Walgreens and CVS own. 80% of those properties are leased. They're not owned. And they're relying on an argument that their lease, the amount that they actually pay to the owner is above market and shouldn't be calculated or considered as part of the determination that an assessor takes in, the information the assessor takes in to determine the value of the property. So would you mind showing that? So here's some examples from around the state of Walgreens and CVS assessed versus sale values. And you can see the sale values range from 4.2 million to 8.7 million, but the assessed values are 2.4. Well really just hover around 2.4 to 3.4 million. So we have two pieces of legislation. Our association worked with legislators last session to introduce in the legislature. And the first piece of legislation would close the dark store loophole, which is a loophole that mainly big box stores are using. And their tax attorneys argue before the assessor that their assessed values are too high because you shouldn't look at us as an open thriving store in a good location. You should value us as if we were a closed vacant store that's no longer in a popular location. And that argument is winning in other states around the country. It is not the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have not totally bought in Wisconsin, and we want to make sure that that doesn't happen. So we've introduced legislation to just make it crystal clear to courts and to the assessor and to property owners that it's not appropriate to use dark or vacant stores and the sale prices of those stores to determine the fair market value of a thriving open store. And so our bill basically just says exactly that. It says that the appropriate comparable for a store or any property has to be of similar age, similar size, maybe a similar retail, but also if it's dark and vacant, that's not appropriate comparable for something that's open. Okay, so that's one piece of legislation. I got introduced last session. Our other piece of legislation would reverse this 2008 Walgreens decision by basically telling assessors that it's appropriate. It's okay to look at the actual rent that a commercial lease property is paying and also it's okay to use recent sale prices of that property when trying to determine the value for property tax purposes, that you don't throw out that information and pretend it doesn't exist. So those are our two bills. Last session they were introduced, as I said, we had overwhelming support among legislators, including legislators from the Sheboygan area like Senator Lamehu and Representative Katsuma. So we had 84 co-sponsors on our dark store bill. And there's only 132 legislators in the state legislature in both houses. And then we had 62 legislators sign on to our Walgreens reversal bill. So you're probably wondering, well, why didn't those bills pass if they had overwhelming support? Well, that's a good question because they also had very strong opposition. And the opposition, as you might imagine, are businesses who are currently taking advantage of the kind of current state of the law and naturally do not want to see those loopholes or those tax strategies closed. So we were not able to get over that opposition. And leadership in both houses were not convinced that it was necessary to schedule these bills for a vote. So we did not get a vote in either the Senate or the Assembly. It came out of a Senate committee unanimously. And I also want to emphasize that these were bills that were supported, had huge bipartisan support. So we had strong Republican authors and Republican supporters, as well as many Democrats on the bill. And one of the only policy issues in the state capital in the last year and probably this year that cross over partisan lines. And we have support from both Republican and Democrats on a significant substantive policy issue. So this session, flash forward to this session, what's the status? So the same authors that we had last session are with us and are introducing a bill. We're actually going to circulate their bill for co-sponsors, asking other legislatures to sign on to that bill in the next week or so. And instead of two bills this session, we decided to go with one bill and address both issues in one bill. It's less confusing and we just think it makes more sense. And so we anticipate we'll have similar strong bipartisan support, but you never know. And so referendum questions on the ballot where citizens can communicate to their legislators by voting yes on whether they want the legislature to address these issues by passing legislation are critical and lend support and political pressure on addressing this issue. Also, another thing that's changed from last session is that Governor Evers, the governor, has publicly told us and also said it in a number of other forums that he will include in his budget both these bills, the language out of both of these bills in his budget, which he's going to introduce next week on February 28th. So we anticipate we'll have two ways for the legislature to pass Darkstore and Walgreens legislation, either by separate piece of legislation that will be introduced, probably the next three weeks, or a budget bill that will be, language will be in the budget that will be introduced in a week and a half. And so we're very hopeful that this session will be able to pass legislation that creates a fair tax system and addresses the inequities between which classes of property are paying property taxes and which are avoiding paying some and shifting some of their bills on to other taxpayers. So happy to answer any questions that you might have or dive into some other details of this issue that I didn't touch on. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, Mayor. Just a real quick question. I guess when I sit here and when I've read about it, heard about it, and after your presentation, what are your concerns? To me, this is like a snowball that's going to roll downhill and get bigger and bigger. Right now we're hearing Walgreens, CVS. Those are kind of the big, big gorillas on the pharmaceutical arena portion. We've heard Walmart, there's going to be, you know, we're getting, you know, the brick and mortar stores are having some struggles. Right. So there's going to be more big box stores that are going to become open. And my fear is that, you know, you've got the big guys that are pushing this through right now. They've got obviously a lot more money in their pockets to be able to push it. But do you see that it could actually roll out to all of the other stores that are out there? Because if you, I mean, if you look at it and like you said before, a lot of the big stores, they don't necessarily own the buildings. They, you know, lease it from another second, third party group. Right, right. So these are, you know, all of a sudden you're going to have all of these buildings, all of these properties and businesses that are going to say, hey, if it worked for them, it works for me. Exactly. Yeah, you've hit it right out, right correctly. There's a successful tax strategy will be copied by everyone else. And the same business model, leasing commercial space. If it results in a, you know, in a less property tax bill than ownership, that business model will be followed. And we're seeing it. So lodging industry, banks, they're copying and trying to use the same technique, same strategy. And we're very concerned about that. Well, the person, Donahue? First of all, I just want to thank you for joining us today. Well, thanks for having me. I saw that. Yes. Yes. Thank you. It is. So I am concerned. And I wonder if all of the authors here, frankly, there's some responsibility to get out to the institutions and explain them what this referendum is. But I, what's happening? And why can't, with those astonishing numbers, why, I think I have a sense of why it hasn't happened, but what's going to change that will bring about a better result? Well, we're hoping that political pressure from referendums like you're having in your city and the referendums that happened in the fall, and the fact that we now have a governor who's supportive will convince some leaders in both houses of the legislature that there is some political risk in not passing this legislation. They weren't convinced. Leadership was not convinced in both houses last session that there was more pain from, they thought there would be less pain by just not passing the legislation and maintaining status quo, appeasing some of their allies in the business community. And we want to show them that that's really not the best policy decision to make. Don't make a political decision. This is a serious policy decision that needs to be addressed. And I'll note that Mayor Van der Steen did send out to council members a spreadsheet indicating just how much the city of Sheboygan has paid out in back taxes and the interest, which can be formidable. Yes. So this is, I mean, we're right here in Sheboygan. Our taxpayers have suffered as a result of this, so keep up the good work. Well, thank you. Our fingers are crossed. Well, the person boring. Thank you, Mayor. Kurt, a couple questions. What was the thinking on going to one bill rather than two? I can see possibly, you know, if the dark store has really overwhelming support and the Walgreens a little less support, is there a little bit of a fear that the Walgreens ones might not vote for the bill in totality? I think that was... But you still think it's a better way to go with one? Yes. So originally when we opposed this legislation three or four years ago, we were working with legislators and it was just drafted as one bill. Then a couple legislators thought, let's separate it on a more comfortable with the dark store or a more comfortable with Walgreens, and so we made it into two bills. But as the session progressed last session, it was very difficult to explain both kind of complex ideas separately and there was also some legislators who were playing off one over the other and dark store, there was more comfort with that, but really the Walgreens decision for 2008 has way more ramifications in the long term for causing a tax shift over to residential homeowners. So we don't want the Walgreens to be set aside and legislators declare victory if they just passed one of these instead of both. And then also you said the governor is probably going to have this in his budget. That might be an easier way to pass it because then the budget passes and it's in there. Now what are the pitfalls of who could remove it from the budget? Could that be leadership again? That might possibly take it out of there and then say, well, we're just going to do the bill rather than having it in the budget? Yes, that's a definite possibility. And leadership has already said that when the governor introduces his budget, they're going to go over it very closely and probably remove most of the policy items that the governor has included in his budget. So what we're hoping and our strategy is, and we're completely open about this, we're going to tell the whole world what strategy is. So we're trying to at least have the dark store in the Walgreens issues part of the discussion when there's trading going on over what's in the budget, what's out, probably won't happen until next fall when they get to that point. But that's what we're trying to ensure. Thank you. I'll hold the person starting soon. Thank you, Mayor. Current, thanks for coming up to Sheboygan tonight. Always appreciate it. Thank you. I'm going to shoot off a few questions here. Jim and Mary Lynn answered some of mine already. So I could take those off my list. Oh, I can't even read my handwriting. So I think my first question is here. As you know, we have a referendum coming in April. I've been getting a lot of questions from constituents. You know, this stuff can get kind of wonky. There's a lot of big technical terms that us from the municipal level might understand. But folks who aren't so plugged into these issues might understand, do you have any helpful tips or techniques that we could use as local elected officials to sort of be the advocates for our communities to share a lot of this information? So we do have talking points on our website, Walgreens talking points, and Darkstore talking points. And we have the video obviously. But ultimately, at the 30,000 foot level, it comes down to avoiding having one class of property taxpayers pick up the slack and pay part of the responsibility of another class of taxpayers. That's what we want to avoid. And we're already at a point in our state where homeowners, residential property owners, are paying roughly 70% of the property tax levy, which is unusual for, if you look at other states, most of the burden does not lie entirely or mostly on residential homeowners. It's spread more equally between all the different classes of property. For instance, in Minnesota, residential property owners pick up 50% roughly of their property tax levy. Colorado, similar. Iowa, some of these states have constitutional language saying that that has to be the case. We don't. We have a uniformity clause. But we have most of the property tax burden already being paid by homeowners. We want to avoid having more of their responsibility shifted to homeowners. That's the big way to talk about it that I think has the most understanding. And then just tax fairness. Sure. Some other questions that I had too. It seemed like in the last legislative session, there was leadership was sort of dragging their feet as you sort of alluded to. Have you've heard anything? Are there any more discussions as leadership more willing to bring this to a vote on the floor this session, this time around? And I guess just kind of another note while I'm at it to kind of talking and referring to my last question. I don't know if you know this, but the WMC they're bringing in a speaker, I believe next Friday for the first Friday forms of the Chamber of Commerce. So the other side is sort of, you know, I guess they were taken aback by some of this strong support from the other communities. And they're looking to sort of essentially throw a wet towel on it here. Yes. So I guess definitely anything that we can do, I guess this is me sort of preaching to the choir, but anything that we can do as local electives to sort of be advocates for this referendum, educate our community, I think that's definitely key. But yeah, again, going back to the question. So WMC is very advocating very aggressively in the state capital and around the state against these legislation. They're not alone. There's other business groups as well. And then there's retail. The retail stores have formed their own set of lobbyists and hired their own set of lobbyists. Leadership, I would say, is about where they were at last session. So we have assembly leadership is Speaker Robin Boss. He's not enthusiastic about this legislation. He's skeptical. He sides more with WMC on it philosophically and for political reasons. And I'm not saying anything he wouldn't tell you because he told us that straight up. Last session, he took the position that his house would not take up these bills until the Senate did. So we concentrated on the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald is not as he kind of keeps his opinion close to the vest. But he does his position was we will not take these bills up until we have sufficient Republican votes to pass it. Just Republicans alone. So they have the majority party. So we needed 17 Republican senators to say yes. We're always one or two or three short. And you know what what week we were counting to be able to convince Senate Majority Leader Fitzgerald to schedule it for a floor vote came out of committee. Like I said with a unanimous vote. But that's where that's as far as it got. And then last question, Mr. Mary promise in your conversations. I'm assuming that you kind of mentioned and bring up the impact that municipalities have with legal fees with having to hire outside council with, you know, litigating a lot of this stuff. I know it's definitely impacting Sheboygan. Yes, that's. Yeah, I heard an amazing statistic from City of Wauwatosa, which has right now seven pending seven to 10 pending cases going on where they are facing appeals from big box stores for the most part, appealing their assessments. And City is determined to defend each of these because they think they're winning case and they're going to defend their assessors and the assessment. And they spent $600,000 last year on legal fees to do to accomplish that. Thanks, Kurt. Okay, seeing no lights, Kurt, I want to thank you very much for attending our meeting tonight. Appreciate you driving up from Madison and have safe travels home. Thank you, Mayor. Anybody here for public forum this evening? Not tonight, Mr. Mayor. Okay, next we'll go on to Mayor's announcements. First, I want to give you a little update on the latest snow emergency, our second one that's called during this snow season. It was declared starting at 10 o'clock on Monday, February 11th, and the snow emergency was in effect until three o'clock on Wednesday, February 13th. Altogether, 13 inches of snow fell during this period. We had 34 employees that worked 483 hours, probably about 150 hours less than the first snow storm we had. And DPW employees drove 13 plow and four salt trucks and front end loaders, 3,348 miles, about 1,000 miles less than the first snow fall and used 165 tons of salt. The Sheboygan Police Department issued 181 tickets for cars parked illegally and had 86 cars towed during the second snow emergency. And I just want to thank everybody at DPW, the plows, crews, streets and sanitation department, the police, fire, transit and parking and water utility staff for working through the storm. And also recognize all city departments whose employees kept their locations open during the difficult weather. On your desk tonight, you have an issue of the new Sheboygan visitor guide. Now this is a little different than what's happened in the past. Previously, the visitor guide was put together by the Chamber of Commerce. But now our new Visit Sheboygan entity is putting out their own magazine. And different from the other issues that came out in the past, it doesn't have any ads in it. It's just a great piece to sell the city of Sheboygan. And we also have an opportunity to view these online. If you want to, you can go to VisitSheboygan.com, scroll to the bottom left of their front page and look for a word called guide. And just click on that and it'll open up the viewer for you. This morning I received an email from Rosemarie Trester that she was resigning from the city council due to medical reasons. I wish Rosemarie the best if she recovers from recent medical procedure. And I also want to extend my thanks to her for her three years of service to the city of Sheboygan and the residents of District Number 4. Her resignation will be under other matters. It came in just today so we're not able to accept that tonight. That'll be delayed until our next meeting on March 4th. However, I asked the residents of District 4 to consider running to replace Rosemarie as an older person for the remainder of her one-year term on the city council. And we're going to be scheduling an election by the Common Council on March 18th.  I also want to remind people that the police academy applications are due by February 22nd. Just a day or two here. The 11-week program runs each Tuesday from March 12th through May 21st. And there's only 105 days left until we move back into City Hall for our council meeting on June 3rd. Thank you. Okay, next we'll move on to the consent agenda. That'll include items 2.0 through 2.7. All the person will? Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to accept and file all ROs, accept and adopt all RCs and pass all resolutions and ordinances. Second. Thank you for that motion and support. Those items are before us. Is there any discussion on those items? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? Nine ayes. Motion passes. Section 3 is reports of officers. Item 3.1 through 3.3 will be referred to various committees. Under resolutions, items 4.1 and 4.2 will again be referred to various committees. Under reports of committees, item 5.1 is RC number 254 of 1819 by the finance and personnel committee. To whom is referred, direct referral, resolution number 174 of 1819 by all the person's rindflash. Born authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into contracts with the UW Badger Band and the Stephanie H. Weill Center for the Performing Arts with regard to the performance of the UW Badger Band at the Weill Center as a fundraiser for the Mayor's International Committee on April 1st and recommends approving the resolution with updated contracts. All the person rindflash. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll for passage? Nine, aye. Motion passes. Item 5.2 is RC number 255 of 1819 by the licensing hearings and public safety committee. To whom is referred, direct referral, general ordinance number 41 of 1819 by all the person's Donahue and Sorensen. Amending section 130 to 31 of the municipal code relating to commercial quadri-cycle hours of operations and recommends approving the ordinance. All the person Donahue. Thank you for that motion and support. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll? Nine, aye. Motion passes. Under general ordinances, items 6.1 through 6.4 will be referred to various committees. Other matters received after the agenda was published, I'll turn it over to city attorney Adams. 7.1 is her resignation. Also person Rosemary Trester submitting her resignation from the city of Sheboygan common council, district 4. That lays over. 7.2 is an RO by the city clerk submitting various license applications for the period ending June 30, 2019, December 31, 2019, and June 30, 2020. That will be referred to the licensing hearings and public safety committee. 7.3 is a general ordinance by all the person's renflation borne amending section 82-33 of the Sheboygan municipal code so as to modify the department of finance table of organization. That will be referred to the finance and personnel committee. Next is a contemplated closed session. Alderperson Wolfe. Thank you, mayor. I make a motion to convene in closed session under the exemption contained in section 19.85 sub 1 sub e. Wisconsin stats were competitive and bargaining reasons require a closed session related to the to the development opportunity for the former boat doctors 1320 Niagara Avenue. Thank you for that motion in support with a clerk. Please call the roll nine eyes. Motion passes for our viewers at home. This will end our transmission tonight on WSCS. We'll be journeying in closed session. So this will end that session will take a short three minute adjournment and then return.


When the narcissist becomes obsessed, the narcissist will obsess over certain people, people who they may not even know. They will attach themselves until those other people choose to disengage. But narcissists cannot deal with rejection, they cannot deal with being dismissed or refused. So then they start a smear campaign. They start saying horrible things about that person to other people. You may try to disconnect from the narcissist, but they use victim playing as an excuse for their behavior, which never justifies what they do. They're just getting emotional because you don't want to deal with them, because you've figured them out, because you've realized what they really are. But without your knowledge, they have created this relationship in their minds. In their minds, you're together, because they've lost contact with reality. They have these delusions, they have these false beliefs about you, and they cannot seize to support their way of thinking and feeling about you.  But it never becomes a reality, so they start to create disturbance. They're chasing after you, even though you want nothing to do with them. They're making it seem like it's more than what it is, as though they're deeply involved with you, as though they know you so well, when you don't even know who they are.   Because they're completely delusional, they can't escape their own fantasy, that they have created in their mind, which makes it difficult for you to escape them, because if you have social media, they will still be following you. They will still be watching you, while they're making false and damaging statements about you, which is not normal behavior. Because a normal person doesn't like something, they're not going to keep going back to it. But the narcissist will return to the very things they say are not good, because there is something wrong with them, which is why they're not going to stop.  So they're going to want all or nothing, you can't just be happy to accept the situational suggestion, you can't try to be friends, you have to completely disengage from them, because they don't want to slice the pie, they want it all or nothing. So being friendly is not going to be good enough for them, especially if you have already rejected them, they will be lurking in the shadows, they will be spying on you, because there's these feelings and memories in their mind, which causes them to think that they're missing out on something, and there's nothing they can do to stop it. They have issues with everyone they come across, they can never be in agreement with anyone, because they're given their attention to these unusual thoughts, which causes them to take inappropriate action, it causes them to be very unsociable, whether not enjoying or making an effort to behave sociably in the company of other people, whether not inclined by nature to a feeling of friendship, or to the enjoyment of talking to someone, instead they behave in a wild and uncontrolled way, because they were raised without cultivation or care, which will result in them rejecting people who may desire friendship, but then they will stalk and harass people, who are rejecting them, people who are just trying to get away, because they're making these agreements in their mind that you are unaware of, but then they expect you to fulfill this agreement, which they never brought to your attention, so for this reason, they may become obsessed with you, they may continue to spy on you, but now that you have this information, it should make it easier for you to deal with them. Thank you for watching, I hope this video resonated with you, please like, comment, share and subscribe, if you would like to donate, my PayPal link is in the video description, coaching inquiries, you can email me at coaching.narcsurviver.uk, thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon.


Everybody for a sear ripping 2022 top shroom sapphire baseball five box number 16 It's a random team style break the link for the results is in chat And you can always find them elite sports cards calm. Let's get started. Good luck y'all next break to fill with spots is going to be the Sonic chrome baseball or crossman chrome baseball excuse me, which has 20 to go the link is in chat as well Optic choice basketball Crown basketball and packable as well Shane buzz labor Astros card and Giants Yeah, we're good Alvin. How about you, man? Corbin Kelly Jensen gold Robbie Ray Mariners to 50 Patrick wisdom Jake Myers Irania arise and Brault Brault Joe Ryan rookie for the twins got Overton world of die for this one. Oh, yeah, actually this one goes Dodgers by majority. I Would start Curvin Castro Alpharo Tigers card and valet Carson Kelly gold 50 Cubs Ian Hatt Cubbies to 50 2350 there Mitch Moreland and Luke Voight as a Yankee Freeland Badoe Philly's card and Bogarts Strasburg Evan White McClannahan and trout Appreciate everybody for getting spots and breaks so far tonight's one more baseball breaks and leave for a multi-sport. You got basketball Football on Star Wars Lance Linn fall by another goal this time is Diamondbacks Carson Kelly to 50 Fulton verse show Tucker Davidson Josh Bell Danny Duffy JD Davis and Max Fried William Wilson Gatres Scope with a purple Aaron judge Alvin seven of ten Alvin Ask you shall receive Yeah, yeah, he's pretty good pretty good Seven to ten of the judge purple. That's great. And there's a Tom Murphy Seth beer Cooper Criswell a Matt's team card and Nelson Cruz I'm sure Alvin knows who knows who Aaron judge is Jack Lopez rookie Red Sox orange rookie Zach Thompson Marlins to 25 White Sox card and Tatis Hello Vaughn Vaughn salutations Joe Adele a Greg Holland Vogelbach and Spencer Howard Spencer Turnbull followed by an Eric Haas and a gold rookie Hoy Park Pirates to 50 That's a red Sox I didn't Hoy Park Alex Kearlaw Showtime Oh her and Strider and A triple which will roll the dive for now if there's a majority it's gonna go to the team with the majority Otherwise, I'll go to where the die roll says one two three four five six As a two left side on last majority so Royals unless somebody has the other two teams May as well check blue jays white socks bunch. We will have duplicates here I'm just gonna check that now blue jays hon. W White Sox Alexandra's nope They're gonna go left Pete Lonzo, what's up James AJ Alexi gold to 50 future stars Andrew Vaughn white Sox Henry Ramos Vaughn whose birthday is it today? Alice Christian Walker Manny Margo and Christian Yellich Francisco Lindor Christian Javier Matthew Boyd and Blake Snell Adames San Suzuki rookie Cubs Nate Lowe and Tariq scuba Sam's birthday. Oh, yeah, he did turn three They do have some cake in the shop, too Bryson's birthday is Wednesday Michael Taylor Corey Dickerson and Vlad Gutierrez and Julio Rios. It's Raymond Felton's birthday. Oh my god. That's a big day I'm sad. I didn't know I'll to they writings Perez and the mayhew Brian Reynolds And Berea so Mavericks legends Brea and Felton, huh? Gold Lorenzo Cain Brewers the 50 Colton Welker Jason Hayward Elvis Paguerro Taylor Rogers Wade Miley and Alex Bregman a Brian De La Cruz No, not yet Freeman Odore. There's a triple. It's gonna go so left unless someone has Braves and Mets Braves Alexandros Mets Alexandros so this goes to Alexandros. He has the Braves and the Mets So he's got majority Luis Robert Ellie is not in this product. This is 2022 top scrum JD Martinez Yankees White Sox White Sox Alexandros Yankees is Alvin. So this will go to the Blue Jays Spot with Han W and we got gold Brock Holt the 50 Rangers CJ Abrams rookie Yeah, you won't see Ellie in any other product probably until next year You might make some bowmen. We'll roll a die here one two three left four five six right Blue Jays left raise right There's a for gonna go right side raise on this one raise on this card. No, just for this card. Oh, just this one Yeah, Andrews Gordon Rendon Jordan Alvarez Sean Murphy Cubs team card Lou and Diaz Classee Stacey Brian Miller Mancini Fletcher fam Chapman Scherzer Scherzer is a dodger Jeff McNeil Osmer Pasha and Strowman as a Mets Granky Ronnie Dawson the young and Jackson reads one more box here Cosmic spot came in metal draft spot came in So Cosmic's at 19 to go I have to move that one back. It's got a bit to you Yo Marcus sup and this the rookies the big chase rookies be Julia Rodriguez Bobby Wood jr. Jeremy Pena Seya Suzuki Chockelson is solid Who I'm missing Hunter Green is a good one to get for like a pitcher Brian De La Cruz is playing well I'm missing some guys for sure just a lot George Kirby is a good pitcher Got Andre Jackson or Keity Herrera and Tony Santheon International I think it's not I think it's FedEx. I don't think it's USPS or USPS Right thanks. I think FedEx is the only international we use Plisac, Jansen, Junk, O'Shella and Wainwright Pungin Ryu Joey Bartz double bath Red Sox card Nick Ahmed Come on. Come on. Amber J. Reyes Justin Dunn and Gallo Carlos Rodan gold to 50 Padres Jake Areada Interesting one there Dominic Smith and Lars new bar rookie Kyle Lewis Kirk Brewer's seam card in Diamondbacks Dylan Moore sends Attella Alex Wood and Hoy Park Connor Wong Tanner Hauke Jean Segura and Ryan Zimmerman All right recap time Golds to 50 we had Areada for the Padres Rockholt Rangers Lorenzo Cain Andrew Vaughn Hoy Park for the Pirates Carson Kelly Diamondbacks Ian Hapcubs Robbie Ray Mariners Orange Rookie Zach Thompson Marlins at 25 And purple to 10 Aaron Judge Congrats Alvin 7 to 10 That'll do it. Thanks everybody moving on


Good afternoon. Welcome to Senate Education. It's Tuesday, May 2nd, 149. Mr. Grady, thanks for joining us. We are trying to encourage our federal delegation. We sent them a letter a while back on school construction funds. Now we're trying to get them to encourage the EPA to look at the setting, the standard for PCBs. And we know that the EPA historically we've heard has not been great at, or I'd say the federal government in general has not been great at dealing with chemicals of high concern. I can just speak to my own experience with PFAS and certainly your experience with PFAS and other chemicals. What we're asking our delegation to do is to encourage them to look at that, push the EPA to look at that standard. And I would say it's really what we're trying to get them to talk about is the airborne standard. And I don't know if anybody wants to add anything to that, but... Yeah, because there is no, they don't have an air quality standard, do they, from my understanding? I don't think so. They don't have a mandate. So what they have is for schools. Yeah. And so they have, they're called EGLs, but effectively exposure levels for evaluation. Yeah. And their recommendations. And they have this little flow chart that the schools are supposed to do, you know, if you were built before 1979, your building may contain building materials. And then it gets to this big gray box right here where it said, you might want to do indoor air testing. This is the federal. Yeah. Okay. So it's a recommendation. Yeah. It's not a requirement. And then it goes on and says, if you hit one of the ELEs, then you evaluate what you're going to do. And maybe you put in some mitigation measures. Maybe you do some more testing. And then if you're over 50 parts per million, then you have to take the stuff out of the building. But the 50 parts per million is really focused on the building material with demolition waste or construction waste. And so that's, that's significantly higher. Right. First of all, because it's in the parts per million versus the nanograms per million. Oh, nanograms per million. So yes, I mean, you're, you're, there's a significant gap between this mandatory action and their ELEs. Have you seen these kinds of gaps before?  Yeah. I mean, PFAS started at a very, very high level, but the new PFAS standard, which has not been fully formalized and will be below Vermont's current standards because of the concern and the prevalence of those chemicals that they're effectively everywhere. How did they get to that? I mean, can you just give us some, so when we started the PFAS conversation, Feds had, you know, really high, not high standards, low standards in terms of PFAS. And now they're below, or they're so much more stringent than Vermont. They're not so much more, more stringent. They will be more stringent, right? The, the history of chemical regulation is, it's, it's long as a little ugly. It, the, the main, the major law governing is called TASCA, the Toxic Substance Control Act. And it's not based on a precautionary system. It's based on a, you effectively get approved if you meet certain minor hurdles. And then there's a, a, an approval for use. And then there was basically, if something happened, then it would be reviewed. So a lot of chemicals got out and were used without a lot of significant, significant review. And the review was usually based on the evaluations and studies made by the manufacturer that they weren't necessarily independent. TASCA was amended about four years ago now to build in a more precautionary component and to have mandates for EPA to review the health and safety of a certain number of chemicals per year. It's going okay, but there are thousands of chemicals. And it's, other chemical is allowed for its use until EPA brings it in for review and makes it determination on its safety and efficacy. What's problematic to an extent about that EPA review, it sounds great. At least they're reviewing, at least they have a mandate to review a certain number of each year. But once a chemical is in review, the states are preempted from regulating. And so states are otherwise can adopt their own regulations of these chemicals. But once it's in that EPA review, it's basically that regulation is kind of forestalled. So it makes it somewhat, I wouldn't say it's a risky act to try to regulate a chemical. It's just that you, potentially your state regulation will not be valid for a period of time while it's under EPA. What's the period of time usually? I'll have to go back and look at my summary. It's called the Frank Wauverg Act. I'll have to go back and look at that. But like a couple of years or like a couple of decades or somewhere between. I think I have to go back. I haven't looked at that. I have a fact sheet on it that I did that I can get. But that federal law interplays with other states that are regulating California. It has what is originally called the Green Chemistry Rules where they've identified chemicals that they believe are dangerous or toxic. And once they've identified it as dangerous or toxic, the manufacturer of a product with it has to label it as California has found that this has been trade. We open up a string of Christmas lights and there's like a little label on it that says the California has found the coating to be potentially harmful. I just bought this. So the states are making efforts that are more precautionary I would say than EPA. But EPA is also making improvements to TASCO. Not necessarily. It's not say like the EU standard where EU, you basically have to prove that it's safe and it goes through years of review. And then something called the RAS standards where you don't get to be used if you're found to not be in compliance. It's a more precautionary approach, but it takes time and it takes money to navigate. So I'm just, I know you can't predict this, but I guess we were to have the administration in right now and say, hey, should we move in this direction? They might say there's some risk because if it does come under review, it could be a long time before the state can then deal with it. So right now you say the current testing program and the action levels that have been set up for that. They're not that significantly different from EPA. I mean, they are lower, but I think Commissioner Levine, he did a side by side of what they are. EPA's screening level is actually lower than Vermont's. It's more protective, but the action level in Vermont is much more protective and then the immediate action level is also much more protective. Vermont's action level depends on the age of the exposed population, the duration of exposure, et cetera. And EPA has some of that too. They have, theirs is kind of based on age, not necessarily duration of exposure. So I guess my question is, is A, that you would want EPA to revise its standards for PCB exposure? Is it just in schools or is it in all indoor air quality? I'm inclined to say indoor air quality and have natural resource and energy look at it also in health and welfare. Because there are other entities that regulate PCB exposure levels like OSHA. So in the workplace, the occupation of OSHA has a time-weighted average airborne concentration of one milligram per cubic meter for PCBs containing 42% chlorine. And then the exposure level for PCBs with 50% chlorine in an average molecular formula is a different standard, but they don't actually spell it out here. And then NIOSH also has standards. NIOSH is the National Institute on Occupational Safety and Health and they have a separate standard for workplace. So there are other standards that are adopted by other entities. NIOSH's standard is a narrative standard. They recommend that any exposure be reduced to the lowest possible exposure level. What does that stand for again, NIOSH? The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. And they're all lower than the EPA. They're more stringent than the EPA. Well, the OSHA standard with the one can be. So I think really what you're asking for is to have a mandatory exposure levels in schools and or air quality in schools that is more protective of school populations than their current recommended levels. And then the question is, do you think that they should mandate testing in schools? At the federal level. Yes, mandate and pay. That's key. I'd like the idea of the pay for sure. Do you mind drafting something to the effect of what you just said, more stringent with financing? Again, we could re-emphasize. We could look at our school construction letter and perhaps re-emphasize the need for funds. Sure. Going forward with just general school construction, but yeah. And then we can take a look at it for the next couple of days. And I can run it by the chairs of health and welfare and natural resources and energy. Very good question. Yeah, please. So in S-25, PFAS, we saw the comfort standard in California. So does that mean that the federal government isn't testing? Has this standard for PFAS? So the federal government came out almost 18 months ago now with what they're calling the PFAS roadmap. And so they identified their major media areas that they regulate in, air, water, waste, toxic substances. And they are proposing standards for PFAS standards for each of those four major categories. So I think recently proposed taking some PFAS off of the approved list under TASCA. And they are proposing water quality standards, drinking water standards, solid waste management standards. But those standards won't become enforceable until they're enacted as rule. And so that's their next step. And they have what they call the roadmap. They have the roadmap to getting there. It also depends on who's in the administration at the time when rulemaking is right. Because from prior transitions, some rules just are just put aside and don't go forward. But I think that rule, or at least some of those rules, because of the pressure from states and the prevalence of PFAS contamination, it's coast to coast, it's everywhere that you can think of it, water, soil, waste. That there will likely be state pressure for them to continue with these components of those rules. And Vermont had its own PFAS bill a few years ago that directed ANR to come up with the drinking water standard, which they have come up with the hazardous waste standard, which they have come up with a water quality standard, which they have not done yet because they wanted it to be consistent, if not with EPA, but regionally with New England states. And that's going to be a tougher one to do, because you don't really know all of the sources of PFAS, just take Bennington, for example. There's probably PFAS leaching from soil into groundwater, groundwater into surface water. And then that's into your surface water, and how do you account for that water quality standard? It's just there, between the groundwater, which is between the surface water, and how do you manage that? I don't know. Is there a chemical that's as ubiquitous as PFAS that you can think of? I mean, it is everywhere, right? There are many chemicals that are as ubiquitous as PFAS. I will say that manufacturers are becoming more aware of what they're using and not just trying to reach an end result, but being precautionary, using some systems that have been enacted, ISO systems, blue sign, things like that, that are management techniques for what you're going to put in your product and how it's going to be ultimately handled. But there's tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of chemicals that are approved for use, and some of them the full effect is not known. That's a sad note to end on. But to Natter's point, when you talk about school construction, we've got to make sure we're building new schools or renovating them. We're not using chemicals that we don't understand yet. That, I think, is one of the industries that was first impacted by chemical management is the construction industry. Because PCBs were in a ton of things. They had to pivot away from those, and they had to move towards materials that were better, but you pivot from one thing into another. There are entities that certify some building materials as being safer than others. They can fully guarantee that they are safe. All right, I will start a letter. Thanks, Mike. Do you want it to be addressed to the federal delegation specifically and CC, say Commissioner Levine, Secretary Moore? I feel nervous. Speaker, yeah. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. Do you know the contact at EPA with me? Have you talked to anyone at EPA? The only person I've talked to or had any correspondence, Judith Anke, who used to be in this district, but I can reach out to Judith and find out. All my EPA contacts are dead or retiring, so I will have to figure it out. Thanks. All right, I need to run up. We'll pick up at 2.30. Okay, everyone, welcome back to Senate Education Tuesday, May 2nd. From one easy topic to another, 483. Committee discussion. I think I know where most, I think I know where everybody is actually, but want to open it up for conversation and discussion. As you know, we've got 2,200 rule, anti-discrimination piece in, seems to be working effectively. We have the piece having to do with special education in starting July 1. We have the moratorium on schools, which I know people have been asking me a little bit about. And that would mean any and all schools until further notice. And basically, I think what we would do next year is assess, you know, to see how many, and we could talk to the State Board about this, how many districts are in the queue, or how many schools are in the queue, why would they want to start a new school? Some people have mentioned, you know, the possibility of special education schools starting, but the only way to do this, given court cases, et cetera, is one blanket moratorium for the time being on new schools starting. So I think everybody knows where I am on this bill, but this is an opportunity for committee discussion and... Senator Sheen, do you want to start the conversation? Sure. I think, I mean, my... So first, I think the moratorium is the most important piece. It sounds like that's also moving in a different bill appropriations, right? Yeah. So the moratorium is important. Ending the international schools situation is important. The anti-discrimination piece, I like that. The tuition piece regarding the subsidizing of private students using public dollars and how you have to divide that, I think that is one of my concerns. I'm not sure. I feel like there's a lot more understanding that needs to happen there as to the impact that that will have. Yeah. Can you explain that some more? Yeah. Can we look at it in the bill and maybe speak to it? Yeah, sure. This is my one without any notes. I know. I can find my notes. I have one with notes, too, and I... The other way it was written was pretty much a center has been just outlined which is public dollars cannot be used to offset, I think, costs and needs of a private paid student. Oh, okay. I think that is what... Yeah, that it can't be subsidized. And you have a problem with that? Or you don't... I don't quite know how you do it. Flashed out of it and how, what would the impact be on different schools and how they'd have to change things, both for current students and existing students and what towns will have to do to backpedal to reassess what they're paying for tuition because the schools will be changing what they pay or what they're requiring towns to pay for tuition, as far as I understand. I mean, we could ask the president to pretend for funding to look into that this summer and pull together a group of legislators and others. I think it would... And we would have to take some testimony. I don't know if it would... I'm guessing it would require two sets of books for the school but maybe the school kind of does that. I don't know. I'm not sure what it does in the end, but that's... I mean, I know that I had an email from a constituent and I don't know if this is what you're talking about, but I'm saying that the tuition kids going to that school are paying more than the non-tuitioned kids. Does that make sense? Is that what we're talking about? So are you saying that the kids that are coming from a tuition in town are paying more than the others? Right. Can we make it so that it's equal? That's a local... I mean, the school board set the tuition rate. I mean, we can... I always say we can do whatever we want with the legislature, but I mean, it would clearly have to take some testimony on it and look into it or we could even look into it over the summer to try to understand. And Senator Hashim, I'm trying to understand. So you're thinking it might interrupt schools right now if it passes like that? Yeah, that's one piece of it, but I'm actually just trying to find it. I mean, I think one of the things we heard was that... And again, we haven't... People want to see the numbers or take more testimony on this at some point. We know that independent schools don't get construction aid and so they do get... So a lot of that's private funding and private funding we did hear from one witness offsets the tuition costs of some of the funding for other kids. But what I'm trying to get us to is... Well, keep going on that topic if you want. Yeah, I can't quite find it, so... I mean, I know it's in the film. But on another topic, the attestation, that is... Is that immediate and then yearly? I'd like to make sure that's attestation that they're not discriminating in their enrollment process, have it be immediate, and then they have to do it now and then also on a yearly basis. I'm not sure it's yearly or not, but I would think that we should. And I would think it would probably do all schools correctly in this stage. Yeah. Yeah. I think you're right. Here's the topic. Okay. Very marked up one. So I guess the question, another way to think about it is what are people's goals? If you look at the making decision, my response to that, again, similar to what we did last year in 2019, the anti-discrimination policy, the moratorium, which is new, and then we've got the special education language. I don't know what else we could do to make it. Yeah, I don't know either. Other than... Then the other option is 66. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or 283. I mean, that's how this conversation for Scout started was making. Right. So it might turn to speak. Yeah, whenever. We're just having a conversation. Okay. It was... No, we're just chatting. Okay. We're not going to... Well, I mean, I think you all know that I would like to vote on this. I think I don't... I'm new here in the state house, as everyone knows. But I get the sense that this is something that comes up every so often is sort of like this accountability piece with independent schools. So it seems to be a sticking point and across the landscape, the legislative landscape. And to me, this bill is fairly, I mean, relatively innocuous. I think if you look at the title of it, it's an act relating to the accountability and oversight of approved independent schools that are eligible to receive public tuition. And I just don't see where this is going to be that much of a hardship for our independence. I don't think it's going to cause any of them to close. I don't think it's catastrophic. And I think at the same time, it does achieve some accountability and oversight that, for me, because you guys know I use the word equity a lot, it seems to add to sort of a more equitable landscape in terms of what our statewide education system looks like. So I would love to vote on it. I really applaud the folks who work on this. I think it was like a nice balance between accountability and oversight, but not being too stringent or limiting to independent schools. So, I mean, I wish someone could be a little bit more clear on what they don't like about this or what they think is really horrible about this, because no one's really been able to express that. So I mean, I can say just from where I'm sitting, and I'd be interesting to talk to the prior chair, I feel like, in a way, there has been this interest kind of from some folks to deal with this kind of stuff, but I don't know still what the problem is. The problem for me is making. Like we said last week, I would much rather be talking about all the things that are happening right now with kids, honestly, than this. So let's take the interview process, for example. We heard that there's an interview process for CTE programmers, and we also heard that not all public schools take kids. They can expel kids, you get expelled, you can't go to the next school. I mean, there are all sorts of things out there. So it's not quite black and white for me. Let's say the interview process. I also was compelled by the woman whose kid, you know, there are situations, and I've talked about this a lot. I'm happy to keep talking about it though. Honestly, it's just not a fit for the kid. That's why we have so many special education schools. They're therapeutic schools in the state. And I do worry about, and I know you do too, teen suicide and LGBTQ kids, what's the right spot for the kid? We heard about the family that had to... So that interview process, if you're going to go to the campus, you're going to get a sense or a feel of what that's like. I don't see that as an accountability kind of thing. Accountability to me is, I mean, if kids are leaving, if we had underparencing, their kids weren't being educated or experiencing those things, what I think this is, honestly, is kind of a... Again, for me, making is the most important thing. And I think that has been accomplished. When I think of my goals, that's, I believe, we have done a solid job, and then we would reassess next year to see whether or not, based on 2200 rule, special ed, and the moratorium where things are at. But I came to this with, and we did last year, making. Right. So I, again, I'll just weigh in. I think there will always, always be individual cases of a kid who's not happy somewhere. Totally. That will always be the case. I'm looking at it as a system that we need to invest in, that we need to support, and that we need to hold accountable. So if there are kids who are failing in a system, then the AOE and whoever else, whatever other governing body we have, needs to step in and fix the problem. Will it be fixed for everybody? Probably not. But I'm looking for what is the best system that will benefit the most kids. And I'm particularly interested in, obviously, our most vulnerable. And by that, I mean, you're right. LGBTQ kids, kids from the global majority, kids living in poverty. We have to build a super strong system to, as you've heard me say, right, lift them out of poverty. It's always, education was always the great equalizer. And that's kind of what we need to be focused on as far as I'm concerned. I agree with you. I want to work on other stuff. Yeah. That's why to, and I was hoping you might want to testify. But I would, you know, we're going to be, it sounds like if we don't vote on this and if we can't move it, then we will be, again, next year dealing with this. Well, it depends on really what the goals everybody's goal really is. Again, for me, just speaking for myself, my goal coming was make it. And how do we deal with make it? I would much rather deal with it pieces that we have, move forward and work, and might we tweak something? Might we find something over the summer that we would need to tweak in terms of accountability? I don't know how interviews get to accountability. I just don't.  Okay. Maybe pull that kind of thing apart. But I'm not sure how we, what's going to make, it depends on people's goals and objectives. As much as an interview can be used by a student to choose a school, it seems like it could be used by a school to choose a student. And we, I have said, you've heard testimony, public schools take basically everybody, right? You're sure you can make exceptions, but it's basically they take everybody. And if we've got public dollars going to these quote unquote independent schools, they should have to do the same. That is an equitable landscape.  No, CTE is under a different governing model. It's under a different governing structure.  No, I mean, of course I don't. I want to shut any of them down. And I think what we learned was exactly that the CTE, they benefit from that.  They're like, hey, somebody had a disciplinary issue. We're not going to take them. We're at somebody at this. And so they turn people away. Can't say that it's right for them and it's not okay for others in my opinion. Well, if that's the line that we have to draw, then, you know, if that's what you're suggesting. I'm not. I'm thinking we allow people to continue and let the CTE program continue as it's doing it. Well, I would ask for a vote. I would ask for a vote. Go on page seven. Yeah. So page seven is where a few different points that I brought up are located. The idea of having student, publicly-tuitioned student rates be the same or lower in the tuition rate for private payers and having the tuition rate be published on the school's website, that's at the top of the page. And also I'm using the as-pass by the house version. Is that? Yes, that's what I've got. Yes, I bet that is. Yeah, yeah. I'm just trying to find... Page seven of 24. So wait, what is your issue with that? Senator? I don't have an issue with that. I think it makes sense. Oh, okay. Okay. Page seven. Then the attestation is on section 10 or starts on line seven through 11. School attests on or before August 1 each year in compliance with the requirements of subdivision nine, and I think subdivision nine is the anti-discrimination piece. So I'm sorry. Do you mind just going back to page seven? Yes. Just so I'm following. So tell me a little bit. This is page seven. Subsection... Ten. Ten. Okay. School attests. I want to be for... It's starting at the top, is it? No. Section 10, the school attests on or before August 1 each year to compliance with the requirements. That's true. I'm answering. And subdivision nine is the anti-discrimination piece, right? I'm not ceiling, but I don't... I'm not sure. And again, we're just having committee discussion. I'm trying to get a sense of where people generally are. And then the... So the attestation is required to remember by 2,200 rules. Okay. Yeah. So we're just repeating. That is required by 2,200 rules on non-discrimination. And there's an enforcement process, I believe, in the 2,200. I mean, the enforcement process isn't... It's a habit. We could find out. Yeah. Yeah. It's in the 2,200, so we can ask Beth. Because I thought there were some schools that didn't attest or they refused to. Well, the 2,200 rule is pretty... I mean, it's just been an effect. I have to check with Beth. We did lose...  So those schools won't get public funding. Yeah. So that's what... So in my opinion, it's working. Yeah. I feel like that accomplishes our underlying goal of not putting public funds towards schools that discriminate regardless of how they're affiliated. The piece that I did have some confusion slash concerns about was at the bottom of page 7, which is that's where the division of tuition is described. Right. That's the one I'm not quite sure is ready for primetime. I don't know if it... Right. Yeah. We can figure out a way to sort of jump into that. Back to the attestation, it is. So a bunch of schools decided not to sign it and that's why they're sort of not going to be approved by the State Board. We can always have Jen Samuelson in to confirm that. On the back, page 8, is there any idea why we don't want to amplify the right of action if what I believe is the anti-discrimination piece is not complied with? No private right of action is created by this subdivision against an improvement. I also need to confirm that subdivision 9 is actually the anti-discrimination piece. State Board is authorized to use its powers. We can ask Beth. Yeah, I vaguely remember. I don't have my good side-by-side. So I was just expecting just to get a sense of where everybody was. What page are you on? Page 8 at the top. I believe, yeah. So it looks like section 9, the subdivision 9 is the piece that covers the admissions process, the policies that comply with the Public Commodations Act, the Fair Employment Practices, the tuition rate, the application fees, and the non-discrimination is located at the very end in subsection I. So is there a problem with that? Have we got any investments that are not doing those things? It seems like it. Well, it seems like it. I think this is a solution looking for a problem. Yeah. I really don't. Is it functioning right now? I think the... I really think the need for this to be not over. Well, we're just having committee discussion today. David's not here. I want to be respectful to Senator Weeks, too. But I wanted to get a sense of where people are on this. And if I were to summarize, correct me if I'm wrong, I think there's one person that would want and ready to vote on the full enchilada. Correct. Okay. One who might have some concerns about sections, certain sections. Yeah. And then the two of us who are happy with, at least at this point, with what we have done already and want to see that wait and see what happens next year to see how the 2200 Act 1783 and the moratorium take effect. So the moratorium that is being included elsewhere? Yeah. That includes international schools? No, that includes just... That's no new schools can start whatsoever. Can we somehow incorporate no international schools on public dollars on that moratorium? No, that's not... That's a different... That's not a moratorium. That's not sending public dollars out of this. I know what you're trying to get at. I know it's not a moratorium per se. Right, right. Yeah. In the umbrella of education generally, is it? Yeah. If I were to summarize, correct me if I'm wrong, your thinking it's on the international students. Yeah. I do think we need a little... We need more information if we were down the road to say no more dollars out of state, the 25 mile thing, I think need some real looking at. I mean, I'd still like to know how they got there. What if the ideal school is 30 miles or whatever? But yeah, let me talk with probes on the international piece. I mean, are you okay with that? Are Vermont tax dollars going to Switzerland? No. What about a prep school in Massachusetts? Well, I think we need to look at the whole state and pull the schools out if there's a school that's in Quebec. You know, rather than... It's 25 miles away rather than busing kids 50 miles. You know, like somebody... We had a testimony that said if you hold all the independent schools out, there'd be some powerful gaps. Well, sure, especially in rural Vermont and special education areas. I think there could be... I mean, I don't want to bet for this, but I think there could be legal issues for a state government picking and choosing international policies. Interesting. I think it's something that... I think it would have to be all or nothing internationally. Yeah. Are you okay with a family that moves to Landgrove and has four kids, and all four kids go to Deerfield Academy in New Hampshire and all of our Vermont tax dollars go to Deerfield? Are you okay with that? I don't know where Deerfield is. It's a fancy private school. What's the distance? I mean, if there's a closer school... 40, 50 miles? Maybe. I'm not really. Okay. Are you? I mean, I think the... I don't think it... The therapeutic schools, I understand that. There are circumstances where it makes sense that there's a very specialized school for somebody with needs that can't be met even anywhere in New England. I think that could be an exception. Go wherever you need to go. Yeah, I agree. But sending, going to Landgrove, what's the time you said? And then using that to send your kids to a super fancy prep school that's beyond our borders, well beyond our borders, I don't think that makes sense. So maybe we do 50 miles. My thing is the 25 miles, I don't know. It seems to me like I'd rather dig into that a little bit more and just try to understand. I think digging into it can make sense, but... Yeah, I don't know. I'd like to sort of get a sense also of I mean, are there four kids going to Dearfoot right now? I just like to get a sense. I use the family that I know as an example. That's why I chose that example. Senator Weeks did bring up a point. I think he mentioned a school that was 28 miles out. He knows people are going to. Yeah. But then you have to draw a line that's slightly mild. Yeah. Except, and I agree with you, if it's a special needs school, and I remember we kept this in 219, we said wherever you need to go, so your child gets the best education they possibly can. And I don't know if there are many kids outside of New England, but I think there was a kid in the Midwest at one point for severe disability. So that helps me to understand where people are and anything else. What were you describing regarding the interview process? Is there something you want to change there? Well, so the interview process thing for me... Is that located? Yeah, so I like the kids. I mean, getting rid of... I guess somebody would have to make the case for me why a kid shouldn't just have experience in interview, campus tour, get a feel for the place, see if it's a good fit, that kind of thing. I don't know where it is. That was my... That might be in subdivision nine. Let's see. Where it says, school shall not use an admissions process. Right. Public relations students and academic entrants and financial institutions are considerations of ability to pay... Page 15. What page? I don't know. I'm looking at my side by side. Yeah, I mean, I... The CTE, I thought was a great example. I mean, she doesn't take everybody. She said she turns like 30 or 40 kids away. I don't think if we're going to really treat everybody the same, I think let people have that experience. Well, those are different circumstances. But also, I have to wonder... You're using a band song. Oh, sure. You're welding with... I mean, there's a reasonable judgement to do things in CTE. Right, and I don't think you should be allowed. Absolutely. I think she should continue to be allowed in interview. The other thing... I have a note here that says that... And it's next to... It's in that subdivision line. It says that public schools rely on a transcript to determine placement. And that's just my scribblings. But, I mean, if that's the case, then, is that something that we should also have for private schools? Because if public schools are relying on a tran... I want to confirm it, maybe I misunderstood something, but unless they determine placement, they will still take the kid regardless of what's on their transcripts. I mean, honestly, when I hear this conversation, I'll be honest, and I know we're not on the same page on this. Transcripts, placement, interviews. I'd be rather be talking about bigger things. I mean, I'm not sure in terms of accountability. Accountability is no discrimination. Make sure you're giving the academics that the state and federal government require in terms of special education. That's just me. I mean, people can make... Keep making the case for this. I just... I don't see it. I mean, I just... If somebody said, oh, you've got to make sure all the schools are doing X, Y, and Z, and it made sense because we have 30 parents in here that said my kid's not being educated, I'm not sure how this improves public education or independent education. I just don't see how it improves. Like, it really makes a difference in terms of... I think the point regarding the interviews is the fact that a school, an independent school, can say, yeah, we attest that we're not going to be discriminatory, but you are going to have to go through this interview, and in the back of the admissions officer's mind, they can say, yeah, we're not going to let this kid in for whatever reasons, but, of course, on the record, they can say, yeah, we just don't think you're a good fit for, you know, maybe... I don't know. The more nefarious reasons, and I feel like the nefarious reasons are what we're trying to get at. So I think we're still at the same spot, full steam ahead, some questions to people who are saying, okay, right now, those three things in place, let's assess next year. I don't see how this bill is harmful to our independent schools. Can someone point that out? Can someone show me the harm that this will do to independent schools? We generally try to do things that improve the lives of schools and kids. We don't try to do things, think about them in a harmful way. How does it advance the world? So one way it advances the world is by trying to create a more equitable landscape and building capacity in our public schools. So, well, if we are allowing some schools to discriminate based on whatever and others not to, that's number one. Number two, if we have some schools that have endowments of $400 million and land holdings in, you know, $300 million and pay their superintendent $450,000 a year while public superintendent is making $150,000. That's information that we should all be privy to. So that accountability piece, which is not even in here. I understand that. But that is the kind of thing that ultimately would level the playing field a little bit more. So building capacity in our public schools is what this is about because our public schools serve the most amount of kids in the state and all kids, regardless of their ability, their special education needs, et cetera, et cetera. So, and that's also remember what Act 173 is about to do in all of our independence. And we do suspect there is going to be, as we've heard a little bit, some independence that are going to close because they're just not going to get a special education. They're not going to get the public funds. Yeah, and I completely agree most of our kids are in public schools and I would love to be having a conversation, frankly, about our public schools. I would love that. This seems to me like kind of interviews and this and that and okay, but I don't see it building capacity. Yeah, I mean. Yeah, there are some areas. Remember, there are no public schools. We know that. We know that they're in public schools. Yes, you're right. The way our landscape is going. You're right. We have these independent schools, but again, I I, if it's, you know, if it's for optics, if it's for creating a more equitable landscape in the state of Vermont, I don't see how we cannot be in favor of that. It just doesn't make sense to me. And for me, at least that's why the anti-discrimination piece and the special ed piece are so important. Those are and then the moratorium. I mean, and maybe you would disagree if we didn't have those in already moving forward, I would think that that would be the center part of this bill. Those were the center parts of it, Lesh. I mean, yeah, you've made your... No, we've all made our... Right, everyone's made their cases. We're really disappointed if we at the very least cannot have some kind of restriction on where Vermont taxpayer dollars are going. That seems like a real basic to me. It seems like we... It seems like there's a general somewhat of a consensus that we don't want to send taxpayer dollars overseas. I don't know. I think Senator Weeks also had that concern. He was... I think he's not here. I don't want to fully speak for him, but he had a very good point. Let's find out who the kids are, what the situation is. We don't bring things generally to the floor that say, hey, we're going to stop. Let's understand it. I think that was his only piece. I remember correctly there was I think it was a dozen or so kids that were overseas or maybe it was nine. It was a really small number. That's true, but I could be wrong. So, I think I'm pretty sure there's a grandfather clause in here, so it's not as if some kid in Switzerland is suddenly going to be kicked out of a school with nowhere to go. I don't want to send our state dollars out of the state. So, I know you guys have this... you don't like the 25 mile rule. I don't want to send money out of state, period. Build capacity in our state with our public dollars. I didn't say I don't like the 25 mile rule. I just want to understand. I mean, you're willing to draw a line in the sand on the moratorium. You're saying no more new schools. Right. So, there's a line drawn there. Why can't we draw a line that says no more state money leaving the state? And I think it goes to what Senator Weeks had previously said about the school that's 28 miles out. That's drawing a line in the sand. Right. So, where do we want to ultimately draw that line? Do we want to draw it at 30? Or do we want to draw it at 5? You know, why 25? As opposed to 50. I mean, it takes an hour to drive 50 miles. I don't know. It's just questions to ask about why we're picking that number. I think there should be a reason as to why we're landing on a number that will change a number of families plans for where they're sending their kids to school. I just don't think it should be arbitrary. But again, you can grandfather it in. I mean, I grew up in a district that had kids bussed in from an hour away. I mean, Allberg, Isle-O-Mott, North Hero, South Hero, Grand Isle, which they were always sent to South Burlington, Burlington, as a school chester. I mean, that's it's been. Now, Isle-O-Mott kids are very close to the Canadian border. Right. But a bus paid for and they're, you know, they took the bus to these schools. I mean, it just, it can be done. Yeah, I don't disagree with it. Yeah, I mean done. Yeah, sure it can be done. Yes. Procedurally, if we don't like this bill, we'd have to amend it, right?  That's why we're having this sort of committee discussion to see what folks are having. Yeah. Anything else? This is helpful. I appreciate it. I know it's hard. I know it's... We do have a grand bothering clause in here. Yeah, I believe we do. Yeah, we can check. Because I mean, it's hard again, I would much rather, and I think everybody would be talking about COVID, mental health, teacher salaries, all these kinds of things. And frankly, I think the people that are leading this charge should be also working on those things. Honestly, I think if this is what the public education advocates, the biggest, most important bill for them, this, given all the issues we have in this state, yeah, I'm disappointed. I'm frankly, really disappointed. Well, I think... That's me. I think... I think one of the underlying very underlying issues is the fact that with every kid that leaves a public school that's less money that's going to the public school, so there's less resources to do the things like raising teacher salaries or financing programs that are helpful for kids with special needs or doing the things that a public school wants to do. So I think that is the underlying issue that is slowly deteriorating public schools. That's what I think is at the heart of it. I mean, for me, the heart of this has been, at least again for me, is how do we deal with Macon? I think there are a range of schools out there, some public schools that are doing incredible work, even after COVID. And then we've got some schools that also need our help and our assistance, and that's where I personally would rather focus, but... So the number of independent schools that are doing nice things are great things for their communities and for kids that are game changers. Game changers. I think of the Compass School, honestly. That's a spot where kids need to go and I would say, you know, you look at everybody wants to paint the brush of all these kids that go to independent schools or rich kids. St. Johnsbury, Linden, and even Manchester, there are free and lunch levels. But there's nothing in this bill that would change that. No, no, no. I'm just talking about, we're on the topic of what independent schools are offering to the community and things like that. Anything else? Well, no, I'm just getting back to the earlier comment. I think it's, I don't think it's fair to say that advocates haven't been focused on a number of issues around our schools. One thing that they've been advocating for is a pause on the PCV testing, which is another added stress on the system, particularly the private system. But again, I know that nothing's going to happen with that either, but it's not fair to say that this is the only thing that they've been advocating for, because that's not true. I mean, frankly, I would push back on them and say the PCV testing, the question is, are you doing something that administrators want? Are you doing something that's good for kids? And I like to keep focused over and over again. And I believe PCV testing is good for kids. I think this landscape of schools that we have are good for kids. I even think the hazing and harassment conversation we had, if we lowered that standard, that's good for kids. Every one of those issues the public schools folks say, no, no, no. I believe they're good for kids. They're saying they're not good for kids. That's disconcerting to me. It really is. It's about how is the testing good for kids? Just explain that to me. For me, knowledge is power. And if you're in a school, all of a sudden that gets tested, and that is so high, you know that something has to be done to that classroom. But if you don't have, if your district doesn't have the resources to pay for it, and the state isn't willing to pay for it, then what do you do? We have the funds set aside, as you know, in 486 that actually put money there and are released to use those funds. Those funds, nothing is in those funds. The 16 million that we gave Burlington, there's, I don't know how many millions of dollars are left, but those are the dollars that are going to be used for some of these schools. That's not going to pay for a complete renovation. That does not mean raising the school, but it does mean making certain that a child or a pregnant teacher, or somebody who's through a developmental phase in their lives, knows that it's there, and we can deal with it. That's how I think it's really good for kids. And procedurally, when you have this, what we just found out, you find that they're PCBs, so you go in and you try to mitigate, and that makes the situation worse. Well, let me hear from them, as we are, you know, this is, that's a one, you know, we should listen, we should hear what they have to say. I personally don't see why stopping makes sense, even with that one situation. I think, you know, we've also, back to equity, we have tested what, 20% of our schools? There are a lot of schools that want to get tested. Those are state funds.  I get it. It's a hard thing that's happening out there. No question about it. And we'll hear more from that chapter. On the, yeah. So those are the three things for me that I think are kids-centric, in my opinion. Crassing and bullying. This and the PCB. And I have been disappointed. I really have been. I would much rather every day come in here and talk about mental health issues in school. All sorts of different things. But we can agree to disagree. Anything else? You are going to request to get off of the committee. Look at me. I'm here for the long time. All right. Good. Okay. I'm going to go to chairs in a little bit. I think we're adjourned for the day.


Hey guys, it's Missy. Welcome back. Today's tutorial is this half-up hairstyle. I got the inspiration for this look from SV Glamour on Instagram. Her hairstyles are gorgeous, so be sure to check her out. If you're new to my channel or you haven't subscribed yet, make sure to subscribe down below, and if you want to see how to recreate this look, then just keep watching! With my part on the right side, I'm going to divide out a 3-inch section of hair on the left side near the hairline and clip this hair out of the way. Now I'm going to pick up a small section behind the section clipped away and divide this into 3 pieces for my braid, and I'm going to start by crossing the right strand under the middle and then cross the left strand under the middle. Now I'm going to combine the middle and right strand together. Take a small piece from the right side and cross it under to the left. Then I'm going to pick up a new section of hair and cross it under to the left side. Then I'm going to cross a small section from the left side under to the right, pick up a new section of hair and cross it under to the right. So once more, I'm taking a small piece from the right, crossing it under to the the left, picking up a new section of hair and crossing it under to the left. Then I'm taking a small piece from the left side, crossing it under to the right, picking up a new section of hair and crossing it under to the right side. And I'm just going to repeat those steps, continuing the Dutch fishtail braid until it reaches my temple. Now I'm going to stop adding new sections into the braid and just continue the fishtail braid down to the ends. Then I'm going to slide a bobby pin over the bottom so it doesn't unravel. Now I'm going to let down the front section of hair that was clipped away and pick up a section near the part and divide it into two smaller pieces. I'm going to first cross the left strand over the right strand. Then I'm going to add a new section of hair into both sides, twist each section towards my face and then cross the left strand over the right strand again. And I'm just going to repeat those steps until I broaden all of the hair from this section and then I'm just going to continue the braid twisting the left strand over the right strand working down to the bottom of the section and then slide a bobby pin over the bottom. Now I'm going to pick up a section of hair on the right side of my head above my ear and create a second twist braid adding in hair from the top of my head and working down to the ends then sliding a bobby pin over the bottom of the braid. Now I'm going to go back over the fishtail braid and pull on the edges to make the braid wider and more full.  Then I'm going to take the twist braid on the right side of my head lay it underneath the fishtail braid and pin it in place with bobby pins. Then once it's pinned I'm going to go back over the braid and pull on the bottom of the braid to make the twist bigger. Then I'm going to take the twist braid on the left side of my head lay it underneath the fishtail braid and pin it in place with more bobby pins. Then to finish off the style I'm just going to go back over the twist braid pulling on the bottom to make each twist a little bit bigger. If you enjoyed today's video if you're new to my channel or you haven't subscribed yet make sure to subscribe so you don't miss out on any future videos. You can click my little picture right up here to subscribe. And if you want to check out older tutorials then just click right over here. Thank you so very much for watching and I will see you next time.