 Welcome, this is the morning meeting of the House Appropriations Committee to finish up some final work on the budget adjustment before we do a proof read. As always, there's a couple of loose ends that need to be tied up and we have six of them. And I'm confident that we can get to resolution and and proof read the the document and vote out still at two o'clock today. Steve had some things when JFO were working on the document last night that that needed to be brought to our attention. One piece is that there's more revenue at the end of the fiscal year than than is than it then shows on on our than our than shows on our budget adjustment. There's an additional $2 million from the Attorney General's Office that needs to be reflected and $3 million from DFR. Steve, do you want to speak quickly to those two pieces? Are you there, Steve? Um, Maria. Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Um, so when the governor gave us his FY 21 recommended budget in the C section, there were some increased direct apps and so what we've done is add those to this budget adjustment bill. So that money would be realized and that there were three things. There was the Vermont Life Magazine for $375,000. I think that's just a residual amount in that account. You heard testimony about this a while ago, but it was so long ago that maybe you haven't remembered it. $2 million from the AG's office from the reimbursements and then there's a $3 million item from DFR. In addition to that, I'm sorry. No, go ahead. Okay. In addition to that, you'll see in this budget adjustment that you're working on today, the 400,000 that was identified from the Secretary of State's office and we have to remember to add to the total list of revenues, the $10,000 freed up from boys and girls state and the $25,000 freed up from the USS Vermont Commission. Oh, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. And so those, all those six numbers added together is 5.8 million, 5.81 million to be precise. And so that's over and above what we saw when the governor gave us his supplemental budget adjustment numbers, although they're not all new numbers because they were in the governor's FY21 recommended budget in the C-section. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that, Haria. I just assumed that those numbers had all been resolved when we received the governor's proposal. So thank you for your office for finding that catch. So the committee before that we had talked about the 400,000, the 25,000, the USS Vermont and the 10,000, we were going to drop to the bottom line because we do have a deficit of 143 million in taxes that will be deferred that are not guaranteed. They'll come in at 100%. So it's not like this is just additional money. We have a pretty big, a pretty big bill at the end, depending on what comes in with taxes. So what would the committee like to do with this new total? Do I have any recommendations from a committee member? Peter, if your hand is up. Sure. I recommend we use that to offset the decline in revenues. I heat the bottom line so that we don't have to use as much funds to close the budget at the end of the year. Okay. So that would be just to simply drop it to the bottom line and then the CFR dollars or the reserves, whatever do not completely cover it. These would be part of the dollars that would cover it. If all that tax money comes in or even more than what this would do would go over then to 21 for us to use. Are there any other thoughts, Marty? Yes. I agree. It should just be considered extra income that goes to the bottom line that would help balance the whole budget on that worksheet. My only concern is if indeed we're talking a little bit later on about the water quality issue and we get to the point where the water quality fund, the water, clean water fund is down to zero because we haven't deducted as much as we thought. We can still make the adjustment in DEC, but it would mean some of that additional income would have to be used to balance the bottom of the budget, if you know what I mean. We follow that except I don't know all the committee members because this other issue that I called you about Marty, I haven't been able to circle back all the committee members, but we will get to that one and then what you said will make some more sense to them. It will make more sense, yes. It's a relatively small amount compared to the five million that we have the extra money. You're right. That I agree in principle should go to the bottom line. Thank you. Chip? I agree. I think for me the first order of business is to put whatever money we have on the bottom line to try to not use the reserves any more than we have to. That said, I don't know if it makes any difference if Steve, if the possibility that Steve brought up yesterday about being able to use the CRF money as a bridge, as a loan basically or a bridge, if that would change what we do. They're asking you a question. Sorry, what was that? Not asking you a question. I was just saying to the committee about whether if the possibility of using the CRF money as a bridge to get into the next FY 21, if that comes true, does that change anything? I was really just asking the committee. No, I don't think so. I think the advantage of this just what you're doing is you may have to use less CRF money for a bridge, but in the end result, you're going to have to repay the CRF money. What this will do is when you come back in August, you'll have more money on the bottom line if there's any leftover to help you, as you all said, with the FY 21 bill. I think this is a very appropriate thing to do. I agree with Peter and Steve. Any other comments? We have a proposal on the table from three members. Yeah, just is anything that Marty was going to talk to us about important for us to hear now, or could that wait? I don't know. Let's put it on the table now, because I don't, I'm hoping that it does not end, does not impact any of the end of year construct. Marty, do you want to talk about the newest issue that arose with the Clean Water Fund? Or do you want me to outline it? Sure. No, I think I can. When we saw the spreadsheet that came from water quality, remember, there was a spreadsheet with pink and green lines on it that described where the decreases in income were and how they intended to make up that sheet of paper, yes, and how they intended to make up the difference, which would be using some unobligated funds from DTRANS, ACCD, and DEC. The DEC amount was $750,000, and it outlined the specific areas where they would take it from. And I ran that by Natural Resources Committee, and they looked at it, and then they came back and they were quite concerned with one of the items that was suggested to be reduced. And that was $100,000 for the La Rosa program, which is a water sampling program that is done in the summertime by volunteer groups, and then the samples go into the analyze so that they know what water quality is in various lakes and ponds and streams. Frankly, I did not question that from when the Secretary suggested those five different areas. I thought they all sounded reasonable, but I admit I did not dig into exactly what that La Rosa program was. I had assumed that the Secretary had looked at it and felt that it was an appropriate place to cut the funds. There has been a lot of concerns from the Natural Resources Committee, however, that that's a program they would not, they would like to see not cut, because they consider that very critical. My first response was, well, in order to make this budget balance, the DEC needed to find $750,000. So if DEC could find $750,000 in a different way, that would be fine as far as we were concerned because on the big blue sheet from Adam, all it shows is $750,000. So far, the Secretary has not suggested any alternatives that she could use to make up that amount. And there is still discussion going on, I believe, between the Natural Resource Chairman and the Secretary to see if, number one, they're all alternatives. Or if we indeed fund this last item and don't cut $100,000, or don't cut $83,000, we could use what's left on the bottom line of the Clean Water Fund, but that literally depletes all of the Clean Water Fund because it's using all the, this sheet uses up all of its unallocated money from last year, plus its contingency fund. So we would either, we would be either at zero for the Clean Water Fund as of the end of BAA, and then of course we have a new year, or we just cut, and by doing that we would be, we would be cutting less. And before, what I just mentioned before was, since we have this, that would leave the Clean Water Fund empty, but we have other funds that would help balance the full budget. So what was I referring to the 5.8 in so-called extra found money that we have just said would go to the bottom line, but perhaps less of that would go to the bottom line if we need to make the total budget balance. Thank you. So it's a question to me of if that particular item is critical enough and important enough that we want to find some way of keeping it by either finding a substitute for it or spending the money and leaving the Clean Water Fund with no balance at all. And so really at play out of the total 750 in DEC is the $100,000 La Rosa. La Rosa. It's a partnership with communities with swimming holes and ponds and lakes as Marty outlined. I was hoping it would be as simple as identifying the 83,000 to go toward the $100,000. But according to the treasurer, the secretary this morning and Marty would have been part of that call if she had an iPhone that we could merge her in. This what this all happened within about 10 minutes. And so to set up a zoom meeting, we were running out. This partnership would be reduced. But it's not simply about the money there is also, you know, the, the, how much capability that the lab had during this time and the stress on the department with COVID-19 and other areas that they are being pulled at. And so as we speak, natural resources, the natural resources chair and Julie Moore are talking to see if there is some language that they can come up with that satisfies both of them. And I'm hoping we will get that in about a half an hour. That's my hope. So that is that's all we know on the sheet that we received. And part of the confusion was Julie came in on a Thursday morning. This decision was made Thursday afternoon. And so that's one reason, you know, a cut in the program was not laid out at that time is I think Mary asked about cuts. The decision had not been made at that time, but I did relate to the secretary that this is the budget adjustment and typically we do not do programmatic changes, unless there are emergencies. And, and I did take the blame for, I always look at things in fiscal year and in the subsequent note that came from the secretary she did mention that there would be a reduction in the 2020 field season and that they would resume all activities in fiscal year in 2021 field season means now I've learned something, Memorial Day to Labor Day. So it would be a complete cut in the 2020 calendar year, and I was working off fiscal years. And we thought that those two working on this and hopefully will come to resolution. I have Mary and Dave and Kimberly did you have another question. Yeah, I guess I just that makes sense. I'm just wondering if in this motion we should allow any space for that potential resolution to Yeah, good thinking. Yeah. And I think Marty included that but I hadn't put it out there. Thank you. Mary and Dave, Mary. So I'm confused what is the question before us. The question before us is that we would take the additional dollars that that need to be reflected in the budget adjustment from the attorney general and Vermont Life magazine and DFR and to bring them to the bottom line to go with the tax deferral money that we may owe a piece of if it doesn't all come in. And if it doesn't all come in that it would go to fiscal year 21 to help with those budget issues with the caveat that we need to hear about the resolution from natural resources on the La Rosa money. I certainly understand about dropping the excess revenue to the bottom line and support that. I thought we were also discussing whether or not we would fund the clean water monitoring program which I must note is a 40 plus year old program that monitors water quality by volunteers throughout the state. It's a really fabulous way. I'll let you know about this. I think this, you know, I think I remember having Congress anyway. It's an interesting program and I had not understood from the testimony that they were considering eliminating it for the year, and I am very concerned about that. We also had not heard about the stress on the staff so I'm at a little bit of a loss for how do we regard that proposal. So at this time, the chair of natural resources and the secretary of are working on exactly how to move forward because this is a priority for the committee of jurisdiction to continue this program. You know, the to go out and there was some question about, you know, could they get these contracts out with with, you know, the pressure on the staff and natural resources said, well, these contracts have been going out for years and years. It seems like they, they're working it out right now. There's a big back and forth. Both groups want to get to a resolution that. And is there any reason not to use the $83,000 that's on the bottom line of clean water fund. I spoke to Emily burn and she said that could be made available. So that would be the first thing to do, I would assume and then fill the gap with, you know, well there may not be a gap as they're getting a slow start to the program anyway. COVID-19, but the secretary, after I spoke with Emily and the money could be made available. The secretary said it's more than just the money and then went into the other pieces. And so that is why Amy and Julie are talking now to see where they can come to a resolution I'm hoping. Thank you. Dave. Thank you. I'm trying to determine whether it's a symbolic or material in terms of what's left on the bottom line of the clean water fund. So if we, if we do the cut, there are funds that will be left in the clean water fund. And if we don't do it, and we, we restore, there will be 83,000. If, and that's if we do the reduction. No. If we do, if we take the extra money, then there will be nothing on the bottom line at the clean water fund at the end of. Okay, fiscal year 20. And yes, it gets restored by tax income that comes in. They have been able to carry over a million and a half from one year to the next and another half million and a contingency fund. But this year they would have to use all of that literal work. And we would be literally at zero for next year. But is the question whether we have 83 or zero. Right. It could be made available to help with the Rosa partnership. What the conversation now is the money is there, but do they does the, does the department have the capacity to get the work done. Okay, because I'm sorry, in my mind it was a question whether there's zero in the fund or 83 and that seems the minimus anyways 83 and I, it seemed like we were trying to leave some funds out there for symbolic reasons. But it's more than symbolism I take it. And well I think it was just that the secretary felt she could pull 100 out. And that would leave 83 but if we don't pull the 100 out and yes we're just at zero. Okay, thank you. Thank you Dave made up. My question goes back to the, the, the, I guess, motion that is before us and exactly what the total amount even keeping in mind that this clean water fund issue. I heard listed last time there was a listing of the money, the money from Vermont life, and from DFR and from the AG's office. And that's what, but I did not hear referenced to the money from the Secretary of State's office, the USS Vermont and boys and girls state so are those last three being held. They're all in one total for $5.81 million. Okay, so all of them are indeed together. That's all I wanted to thank you very much. Kimberly, your hands up. I forgot to take it down sorry. Nope, that's okay. And Mary. Kimberly, I feel the need to also kind of argue the other side of this problem. So, I, I feel really strongly about the clean water monitoring the lakes and pond monitoring program, it really is fabulous. I have also said that special funds of which this is a part live and die on their special funds, and that we have not so we are not subsidizing the transportation fund, the education fund. I'm not sure how I feel about moving what will become general fund dollars into the clean water fund to make up for this deficit. So, here's the classic Mary arguing on the one hand and then on the other hand, sorry guys, but we do have an ability, special funds are allowed to carry deficits and if they can move the 83 to cover. If they can work it out and it makes sense to continue they can move the 83 and they can carry the 20,000, which all seems small change when we're talking about a fund that normally has what $51 million in it. So it's a small issue, but no, there's a principle here, I think. It's the, it's the project, the project itself that is a priority, even though it's small and small in numbers compared to other numbers. I understand I'm just saying that they ought to pay for it out of the clean water fund and if there's not money in this current year. And they can, they can pay the whole amount. They can carry a 20,000 deficit into 21 pick it up and cover it. If it can be worked out. And I see representative Sheldon back on the line but Marty you had your hand up and, and then I'm hoping Amy that you and the secretary have come to rest. I want to clarify for Mary that the clean water fund is not 50 million the clean water fund is 15 million. The other parts that we talked about that gets spent on clean water does total 50, but the actual clean water fund typically has a balance of 15 million more or less. And so this would be a, this would be a, a, if we used it all, it would just be down to zero, and it would get replenished with whatever the clean water surcharge and the sheets money and then rooms and meals tax that come in next year would help part fill that up again. And we would figure out the budget and how to spend that, or the clean water board would figure out the money of how to spend that. Thanks Marty. And we're going to from where we were with the end of year dollars that have come in and stay on water quality because Amy you're back on and I'm hoping you've had an opportunity just to talk with Secretary Moore, and can give us an update. I can. Yes, thank you. I came into your conversation when, when Mary was speaking the most recent time, and thank you for taking this very seriously with us this. I did have a good conversation with Secretary Moore and we've come to an agreement that will probably make you all relieved but so we're proposing that this budget adjustment remain as it is and I have a commitment from her to work with me on what I reduced. The Rosa partnership support would look like, given the fact that the field season is different this year and that money could either come from the 83,000 or it would be part of the next fiscal year budget. I'm going to text both kitty and myself and articulate that in in writing in a text, but that's where we have come to, and it makes sense in understanding where she's coming from and that just the constraints and the changes happening because of to the field season. I think it's important to know that they had come to a place in the program where they had their awards notices prepared to send out right as we were all transitioning to remote work, and they decided to hold all of their, you know grant money. It was one of those things they held in anticipation of it. And then they just had, they found their way with what to do with it so those projects were ready to go but they were sort of dependent on a spring field season starting in May, and that was unable to happen. What I'd like to see is that groups that are that need to continue monitoring for contact recreation like E coli and are able to do that have access to the state fund to allow them to do that. And so I don't know if that's exactly what will come to but instead of pulling all the support for these groups that have been doing this for many, many years in one fell swoop will at least be able to offer something to some of them. And that's, that's where we came to. We would not reflect any changes in the bottom line do we need to take the project balance in and do anything with that or can we just leave it on the bottom line of the clean water fund, and, and they can make those changes within their shop. That's yes that the ladder we can leave it the way it is. Okay. So, do we have agreement from the committee to leave it as it is and that the natural resources committee will work with the secretary of an hour and word with the La Rosa partnership program. Mary, do you have a question. I have a statement. So that makes sense to me. It's a reasonable solution, but I really hope that we will see in the FY 21 skinny bill, a proposal for how we move this forward, which means next week or the week after, so that we don't lose it entirely. I can support this with the understanding that we're going to see a proposal for the reasonable reductions that they're having to have now. Thanks. Oh, any, any changes will reflect in the skinny bill. Yeah, Marty you if there's questions on the floor Marty I think you can handle them all now but Amy if there's something that we don't understand in your conversation with the secretary. I would be willing to clarify on the floor. Sure. And I just, if I may want to just say that you know my committee wasn't aware of this. And so we, we haven't been able to assess the situation and so just unfortunate that it wasn't brought to us sooner. We've historically expressed a really strong support for this program and so, you know, it would have been good to know sooner. Obviously the caveat being everything's different now and people are turned upside down during the coven. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. And thank you for. Thank you. Quickly. Thank you. Just a quick show hands that will just continue with the clean water fund as is in this other conversation will will sort itself out elsewhere. Okay, those that support this raise your hand and those of you who do not put your hands down anyone not support this. Okay, then we'll continue on with the clean water fund. And then, then we let's go back to dropping the, this does not impact the dollars that are going to be reflected in the budget with a total of 5.81 million and we have. Three members talk about just dropping it to the bottom line to offset any deficit or move to fiscal year 21. If you support that would you raise your hands your flesh hands or your blue hands. Okay, I think we're good with that. The third thing that we needed to look into. Steve, I'm a reserve language, but we had never seen it. And so it would be good for us to see it before we do our proofreading. I think it talked yesterday about the possibility of $3 being allowed to be used as a bridge. If they cannot be used then we have our reserves to use as a bridge. Using the proposal from the administration. Teresa, do you have that language you could come up please. So I don't know what language you're talking about the reserve language with using the reserves as a bridge. I don't have it. Do you want me to come back to that while you fight while you get there. Did you send it to me. 29 and 30. 29 and 30 of the draft. Okay. So if you have another device. Teresa has sent out the draft. I don't know what you're talking about. What time did she send it out. I don't see it. We send it out to the committee or not. Yeah. Yeah. Has been sent out this morning. We can send it again. How about that? We'll send it again. Okay. Okay. Well, we can send it again right away. Do you know what we'll wait for that until we can put the language up on the screen to respond to let's move to other sections. Okay. So let's talk about you brought up about the legislature. Definitely we're going to be working past the 18 weeks. You thought that June 19th look like, which gives me pause June. Looks like a likely date before we can take a break and what those costs would be. And since we know that we should reflect it. Do you want to talk about those costs? Yeah. There are two changes in the CRF. That's the first, which is. We were basically moving into overtime. We basically budget for 18 weeks. And June 19th would be five more weeks. And so at our spending rate of 150,000 a week. That would be $750,000. And we think after the conversations yesterday, that's very. Wait, hold on. Teresa wants to know what section it's 29 and 30. Yeah. That would be 750,000. What we would do is either we can put it as a subsection. To the legislative one or just add it to the 500,000 and make it 1.250. This would be money that we're going to the legislative budget. To cover those costs of the FY 20 costs. And it would mean we wouldn't have to use state dollars for the. To cover that extra time. And it would allow you for more flexibility for use of state dollars. And then the. This sort of CF money is no longer available. Should it be reflected separately, Steve, because the other dollars are a blend of the JFC. We're going to sort out. And so if we reflected these separately, they could go directly. Now we could appropriate them to the legislature's budget. I was thinking that would be a good idea. We'll probably the separately right to the legislative budget. Okay. I got a committee members feel about this. Are there any questions to Steve? We'll go back to this language in a minute. Teresa, we're going to, we're going to finish up the 150. Mary. You're muted, Mary. I just want to say no, so that we don't have to work till June. 19th. That problem. week earlier June 12th but we just we I hate to say it but I thought June 19th but probably more accurate. Okay, any other comments or questions about that. We know it's an expense that's coming up even though it's a date that we typically don't work to if just as quick straw poll if you're good with doing this as a separate item and I and I and appropriating rate to the Legislature's budget raise your hand. Okay. Okay, thank you. Oh, Teresa, can we move to the reserve language because we only talked about it yesterday and we didn't get to see it and since we're meeting it's a good time to see it. Ria, are you going to walk through this with us or? We were going to actually I was going to make Stephanie but I'll be glad to. So, use of general fund reserves. So, section 29 basically unreserves the three, excuse me, the three funds. The this is the balance reserve. The second is the stabilization reserve and third is human service case law reserve. So, that would be the order that we would access them rainy day first and stabilization second and human services case law third and it's only the set necessary but of the order then there's this be provision should federal assistance to state be available, including the ability to utilize inner fund borrowing from the coronavirus relief fund, then we would such funds shall be applied to allow the to reduce or eliminate the need to utilize for businesses object in a so we're basically saying if that money is available then don't do the use of the reserves and we think it's available. This is sort of a I had a brief conversation with Adam and we haven't completed that discussion but this basically says if you can use the CRF money for this purpose, use it first and don't use the reserves. The advantage of just one of the advantages of that is in 21, you'll find uses for those reserves. I think that and we can go into more than 21 bill. Then it goes to section 30, which basically talks about the deferred tax payments and it says the extent that the payments are deferred that we receive them through August 31st, which is basically all of July and August. That first to the extent in the inner fund loan was made by the coronavirus relief fund under the provisions of section 30 subject to be you would basically use an amount to is it say relay rather than repay? It's supposed to say repay. It's supposed to say repay. I think we have a slight word in an amount to relay the balance of the inner fund loan. So we will repay that and then second and then it says again, it's got all the things we've repaid the reserves in the same order. Human service case of reserve. I don't think they're in the same order though, Steve. You have you had the rainy day first before. Right. What is is we're using them first rainy day, then stabilization, then human service case of reserve and we're repaying them differently. Okay, in the opposite order. So that they again, the priority, the last thing we get to repay the three day, but last in first, you know, first in type of thing. And so that's the that's the end of the year language. And then it says, uh, uh, it says, finally, any, any additional amounts received from the suspension shall remain available in the general fund for appropriation and FY 21. And that's what you just talked about. If the money comes in over this, it'll be there for you for FY 21. Diane. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Steve, though, I'm just, I get a question around the August 31st date. Yeah. And a, because there's been speculation of the, the July 15th date moving. And that, that was where I was like, I was wondering if we need to put in, or give ourselves the flexibility of 30 days after the, or how many days after the tax deadline, then, then if it changes, yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. You get it. This, this is really good question for you all to decide about. We were torn because part of it was, um, we want to give you some uncertainty. If you come back and have to deal with this bill, you'll know sort of where you are. Um, you're right. I mean, what if they postpone the date of repayment of September, then, then we may want to just say, uh, and you may want to do it in your bill in 21. You might say, this additional money came in and we're going to reflect, we're going to use it to pay off the reserve balance we're using. Cause the worst case would be the federal government postpones from June, July till September, or even later. Yep. And what happens is that you really haven't repaid the loan. You've just, or in this, or you've had to use the reserves to, um, uh, you wouldn't be attributing that extra money and you will have that option in 21. I, I actually, you know, I don't think there's, it's whatever you want to do. Like this was just one attempt to have a point in time, but you could certainly extend it to, or even a later point of point. We can give you a progress. Okay. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on mute. I'm there saying Marty, Marty, Marty. Oh, I was on mute. I like the language the way it is, Steve. I wouldn't want to extend that out any further. I think if we get, if we get out and the tax payments don't come in, I would feel more comfortable in just playing using the reserves and then fill it later on when we can. I wouldn't want to leave that hole sitting there forever. Thank you, Marty. Mary, my third hand is up for, or from the discussion and the description. This makes sense to me. My problem is I can't read the whole document together and to really understand it. So I sure would appreciate if we could have the scent to us so that we can read it. I mean, I can't, I can see what you're showing me, but. So I believe that is sending this document to you. I, yeah, that's what needs to happen so that then you can take it and every section of it, and then we'll get back together at three o'clock and talk about your questions or observations. Yeah, I just think, Kitty, you're going to ask us, do we accept this in general? It totally makes sense to me. I want to accept it. I would just like to be able to read it before I say yes. Yeah, that's a good point. Yep. Let me thank you as soon as I'm done screen sharing. I'll send it to everybody. Okay. Just one other thing I want to flag in the language that is will be what noting what this does is it still has you adding money to the stabilization reserve in FY 20. So there was a one point of thought that why add money to the stabilization of FY 20 if you're going to take it. But at this point, because we may not be taking that we are, we're meeting the sort of need to keep a 5% reserve in FY 20 with the understanding you may take money in FY 20 to meet the shortfall. And so you'll, these numbers reflect the full reserve in FY 20, including the sort of additional money you would add for the fiscal year. That's really confusing. I'd be glad to let Stephanie be more. No, and that is true. Originally we thought maybe you don't, you don't do the transfer in and we not withstand that. But the Adam actually had not, he was still having the transfer go into the stabilization reserve and his, his construct as well. So, so yeah, so we're transferring in by, as we would by law, we're filling the reserve and then it will be available if we need to to the 5%. Yeah. I am no Peter. So Steve, are we going to be adjusting the 5% based upon the new reality or are specifically 5% budget stabilization reserve the way that it was before coronavirus hit? So 5% always applies to the previous year's total appropriations. So 5% for 20 applies to FY 19 and 5% for 21 will apply to 20. And so this day, assuming that we actually have to cut something in the neighborhood of $260 million out in 21, it means the stabilization reserve might go down by that 5% in 22. So it's always that sort of one year time lag. Thank you. Yeah, I would say it would also need to, if it goes down in 22 and 23, then we'd have to jump it back up to the new reality, we hope if we had a good one. Yes. Okay, I've been told that Teresa slippers come often or she has to be in another media in 10 minutes. So I guess we'll have some more little things. What we're going to do is are we good with the August 31st date or does the committee feel that that needs to be pushed out? I think I would just take a quick raise of hands. If you are good with the August 31st date, could you put that down, Teresa, so I can see everyone's hands at once. If you're good with the August 31st date, would you wash your hands? Okay, I have a majority there. So I'm going to take that we can read through the language. I think it was explained pretty clearly, but having it in front of you were where you're not seeing half of the time does make a big difference. And if there's some changes that we can need to be made, we'll do that at two o'clock. But the basic premise of it, to use CRF dollars if available, if those can't bridge, then we go to reserves, we have a list to use first, and then we pay them back just the opposite by priority. The basic premise of it, how many of you agree with this premise? Okay, then then then we agree with the premise. If anything needs to be tidied up, we can do that at two o'clock. It's actually not three, it'll be at two o'clock. One more thing is the best fierce one, I don't know if you want to. Yeah, we have two other things we have to do. Let's do the treasurer brought to the attention of JFO last night that as there are additional dollars being paid out to state employees, either in overtime or in types of hazard pay, that this will have an impact on the retirement. That would be greater numbers than we would have. Section 34, Section 34. Yeah, so we did Section 34, maybe after you get your draft, you can look at it. Okay, and I'm going to keep explaining while you're looking for the draft in Section 34, and what this does is it would allow the Corona Relief Funds to be used for those additional burdens placed upon the retirement system. Compared to the whole system, it's a small amount, but it is an additional impact because of overtime and hazard type pays that have gone out to state employees. You can read that quickly and see if there's any questions. And this was just brought to our attention last night by the treasurer. Is there anyone who has a question on why we would do it or how it is worded? Mary? Sorry, why joint fiscal and why don't we appropriate it instead when it's in 21? Well, this is not joint fiscal. This is just, it says the state treasurer should make a determination and what the expenses are if we're at 20 and then any amount will be paid. Oh, she's just... There's a separate... And treasurer shall report to joint fiscal. Okay, she's just going to tell. Okay, thanks. Sorry. Anything else? So if I could go back to a full screen, committee members that would be willing to accept this would have a show of hands. Okay, it looks like we're good with that. The last piece, Peter, could you speak to very quickly regarding Vermont State Colleges and UVM? You're muted, Peter. Sorry. So I know precious little about this other than the Adam does not believe that the room and board reimbursement use... He questions it. Questions it. And that's just it. Whether we can use coronavirus relief funds to make hold the room and board issue at UVM and the Vermont State Colleges. I believe the best thing to do here is be... We don't have... There is nothing... I reread the facts that frequently ask questions, etc. There's nothing in there that says exactly that. I don't see anything that says you can't do it either. I recommend we leave it in use of coronavirus relief funds. Maybe we'll get better clarity as the Senate deals with this. Perhaps not. Honestly, this is COVID period. So it's all I got. So Peter's recommending we leave it as is and if something changes with the interpretation of the rules that it could be switched out on the Senate side. Peter and the Joint Fiscal Office both are fairly more than fairly confident that it is a related expense. So are you all okay with Peter's recommendation to leave it? Raise your hand. Okay. Theresa has another meeting in five minutes and the doorbell keeps ringing for those people to join her next meeting. We will meet at two o'clock and please take this time to proofread the document. If you see any changes, don't wait until to send those to Maria to get those changed and we'll take a vote at two. Okay. So I'm going to go off the live stream. Perfect.