 Thank you, Teresa. This is the Thursday morning meeting of the House Appropriations Committee, and I just looked down and realized it's September 3rd. I don't know if I even realized we were in September. Time is certainly flying by. But we are now streaming live on YouTube, so this is the official start of our committee meeting, and we have a lot on our agenda today. So, we're going to move first to, Chip, you have a bill that we will be bringing to the floor, and we have Michael Grady here to walk us through those final changes, and I know that there was some work last night done on that long piece of language at the end that I think that we've been able to considerably shorten and do what our committee was hoping, Mike. That's what I am hoping you're going to present to us, and Chip has been reading for all of our final changes and has been getting those to Mike, and they should be reflected. We also have Susanna Davis. So, Susanna, if you wish to weigh in at any point, please just break in and let me know. So, let's pop up this language and walk through the stimulus equity bill that we have been working on. Thank you, Mike, for your work. You're welcome. So late. Can we get back? Do you want me to just walk through changes or do you want a full walk through? We've walked through this bill probably five times, so I think the highlights of the changes, but let's highlight the dates and we can go through it, but really highlight the changes. Sure, sure, and I do have a date question for you, and I'll... Page three. So, there's no changes on page one, is that correct? No changes on page one or two, or the changes that have been made you accepted when Becky walked through it with you. Thank you. Line six, you'll see that on or before November 15, the agency of the administration instead of the agency of Human Services shall establish the program toward direct relief grant payments to eligible adults and eligible children. You wanted on page three, line 12, to use the past tense that they were ineligible to receive an economic impact payment, and then you use the lowest income threshold from the CARES Act as your income threshold. The 99,000 is for a single person with no children filing, and the 198 is for a joint filing with no children. That is the lowest income threshold in the CARES Act economic impact payment section. It can go up depending on how many children you have, what your income is, and the 5% reduction under that. So, that's a little complicated, but this is the lowest threshold. Should I move on? I think you should. We've talked about that section, and let the hand come up. Let's continue. Page three, line 20, you wanted it to be clear that the award is going to be issued as a check by the State of Vermont, so each award issued under the section shall be issued as a direct payment from the State of Vermont. Any questions? We've had a long conversation about the importance of trust building. Okay, so okay. On page four, you have all applications for a payment under the section shall be submitted on or before March 1, 2021. That's the correct date. Okay. On yesterday, yes. All right. Page four, lines four through seven, you changed it from agency of human services to agency of administration. You wanted the agency of administration to consult with the executive director of racial equity and the agency of human services. So that change has been made on page four, lines four through five. Page four, line seven, it had previously said as needed. And you wanted that to be struck may partner with public or private entities as needed to conduct outreach and you wanted the as needed to be struck. We've discussed all of those pieces and we both of those are put in there both the AHS and the executive director. Yeah, new exact. Thank you. Okay, you report. You can move to page six. The first report subdivision G one on line two is that reports the joint fiscal at the November meeting regarding how the agency of administration or its contractors will make payments under the program, including how payments will be dispersed to applicants who lack banking services or a mailing address. Moving down page six, line seven, this is the date issue. Remember that the application deadline is now March 1st 2021, but you have the report to the general assembly coming back on April 30th with the summary of payments, any challenges and a description of the results or success. I just wanted to know if that's really the all application may not be in by the time that the report is developed. No, they'll be in by the day will be in. Well, they let me they may not be paid out yet. Yes, that's okay. As long as they're in as long. Okay. Okay. All right. Then on section two, this is the appropriation as the chair reference. There was a long section amending a previous appropriation from 2018. That has been struck. And what is now in is five million is available in fiscal year 2021 to the agency of administration for payments under the program of the funds available. Two million shall be appropriated from the general fund and then not withstanding that 2018 appropriation, which was the long section that was amended yesterday. Three million of the funds appropriated from the tobacco litigation fund to judiciary to address adjudication of chins cases shall be transferred to the agency of administration. Then you see that the agency may use up to $50,000 of those funds for the administration of the program. And then if the funds available to the agency of administration under the section have not been awarded on or before June 30th 2021, any remaining funds shall revert to the tobacco litigation fund or use by the judiciary and fiscal year 2022 to address adjudication of chins cases consistent with that 2018 appropriation. Thank you, Mike. Teresa, could you go back to the bottom of page six, please? Right there. For the administration and payment of grants pursuant to the Corona virus relief assistant program. Why why I just need clarification and I'm not following. Why would we mention the CRF? If we're not using any of that money in the appropriation piece. The name of this program is the Corona virus relief assistance program for immigrants. That's our program. Okay, that's nothing to do with the federal CRF. Thank you. I read to the end. Thank you, Mike. Thank you for the clear chip. Did note the very interesting acronym. Oh, no. Oh, I did not. I can change. We need to change that. I just think that I believe we should change that. Sure. We have Vermont. We have like the Vermont relief assistance program or something. The BFRAP. Just change the word to relief. Do you need it to say program? It could say Corona virus. Well, program is used throughout. Just say Corona virus assistance relief program. Maybe not. I want to read this in there. Nolan, why don't you just get rid of relief? Why don't you just say Corona virus assistance program for immigrants? Well, you could also, I can't raise my hand. Nolan, go ahead. So the administration had, and Susan Davis had kept referring it to as like the Corona back. The economic stimulus equity payment. So you could call it something like the, you know, coronavirus equity stimulus, or sorry, economic, sorry, coronavirus economic stimulus equity payment. So it'd be like CREP. I think we should, can we switch that back out? Say the name of that again, please, Nolan. So you could either, you could call the economic stimulus equity payment program and be like ERAP or ERAP, or you can put the Corona virus in front of it and be like CREP. Yeah, I really like equity program, because I think that's a message that we're driving is equity. And so I really like the equity piece in there. I think it's a title reflecting what we're trying to accomplish here, the equity of this. Suggestion economic stimulus equity from Susana in the in the chat. Didn't see the chat. Thank you, Mary. Yeah, which is what is consistent was basically I was just saying it from her because that was even calling it you can call like that. Okay, quickly so that we don't end up where we were yesterday with an hour discussion on one date. Let's come up quickly with a name, a title for this program, we can either call it the economic stimulus equity program. Or Nolan, you had one more word to put in there. What was your call the Corona virus equity stimulus, the Corona virus economic stimulus equity program. So just add you can call it the equity stimulus economic stimulus equity program or you can put the Corona virus in front of that too. I would recommend just putting Corona virus in front of it because that is that is what is, you know, that is a driver of this program. Corona virus economic stimulus equity program. Mark, yeah, I was just thinking it might be helpful to put the name Vermont in it so that we distinguish this from the federal program and people don't think something else. So we would have our own program. It's not a federal program. I think that's an excellent point. So how does the committee feel about Vermont Corona virus economic stimulus equity program there? Nolan wrote Well, I wrote wrong. How? I put economic equity should be economic stimulus equity. Are we ready? Okay, I got it. Vermont Corona virus economic stimulus equity program. Yes, sounds like a title made up by a group of people. Right. It accomplishes what our mission is. And so my question is, Michael Grady needs to go back now and put this title throughout. First, I want, can we have a full screen, Teresa? If we all agree upon the Vermont Corona virus economic stimulus equity program, I see a wave of a raise of hands, please. Okay, and those oppose if I could have a verbal no. All right, thank you. And my question is, Mike needs to go back and fix the title throughout the bill. Are we comfortable taking a vote on this bill and just having the title of it changed? Our committee member is good with that. If you are, could I have just a hand up? I'm good. Okay, so my question is now we have our, we have the bill in front of us with only the title being changed. Are we ready to take a vote on this bill? And are there any final questions or concerns for committee members for Susanna or for legislative council or fiscal? I am not seeing any blue hands. And so I am wondering if a member would like to offer. Madam Chair, I'd love to make a motion if you'd offer the motion. Thank you, Diane. So I'd like to make a motion that we report favorably on the House Appropriations Committee, Bill, the Vermont Coronavirus Economic Stimulus Equity Program. We have a motion on the floor by Representative Lamford. Do we have a second? I'll say a second. Thank you, Bob. The motion has been made and seconded. Is there any final discussion or questions or comments? If not, I would ask that the clerk please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Conquest. Yes. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lamford. Yes. Representative Myers. She had to go with us. I would like to hold the vote open and see if we can have Linda pop back in for a vote. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yacovoni. Yes. Representative Toll. Yes. And is Linda in the Commerce Committee, Teresa? She had her very last doctor's appointment today. Okay. We can hold this vote open until noon. And then before we close it, I do know that the speaker is willing to introduce this bill today. And so if we can put it on introduction today, we can move it more quickly. So we do need to have this bill to the clerk's office before the start of the house time, which I believe is at 1.30 today. Two o'clock. Two o'clock. So we should have it there by 1.30 at the latest. So, Diane. Yeah. So Madam Chair, I'll work with Teresa on getting or, you know, moving the clean copy. And I'm assuming that the reporter of this bill is Representative Conquest. Yes, it is. Thank you. And Susanna Davis, we want to thank you. You really helped shepherd this bill through. And as you can see, appropriations doesn't do a, you know, a bill with so much policy in it. But with the help of the administration, putting this proposal forward and with the initial out of the agriculture, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, we were able to do this in a pretty short period of time. And really, thank you for your work and your interest in your advocacy for all Vermonters. A tremendous pleasure. And I hope that you all recognize how important it is, what you've just done through this action. Vermont is leading in the nation. And that's big. And you should all be very pleased with that. So thank you all for the hard work. Thank you. And Mike, thank you. I realize you were working crazy hours yesterday and to tuck this in. We appreciate your always good work. And thorough. So thank you. And Nolan, thank you for JFO. We have such a good team between Legislative Council and JFO to support our work. Okay, so we are now going to move on because we have a lot to do. At seven 15, we have Betsy and Ras coming in. There's some language that we need to include in the budget regarding the Legislature, having the ability to work off campus when you come back in January. And so that needs to go in the budget so that that capability and planning for spaces can happen. And there's also some other language being worked on that would allow for the capacity of spaces to be used on the within the capital complex that would be large enough for committees to meet. And so in order to move those pieces forward so you all can come back and do this important work in January. We need to make sure you can work off campus and and with complex in other areas that would provide for social distancing and safety and that those areas can get set up with video equipment, you know, video equipment. I must be out of the 1970s with with the correct technology so that your committee's meetings can be heard and recorded and accessed by others. So that is at 1115. Then we'll take a quick break for lunch and you'll nourish yourselves and then we're going to lie a lot of work that we've all been working on really, you know, just a tremendous amount of effort from all of you. I would like to quickly go to work. And in your web report, I just want to make sure we're clear so that Maria can be moving as quickly as she can working on the final copy of the budget. If you go to web the web report to be 209 made a we had left open the state police and we have we have not taken a position on the mental health clinicians. Is that ready to go Mary and made of the mental health clinicians? We did receive language from health care proposed language with regard to that to include. I don't know where Mary disappeared to she's there. Okay, so mental health to come back to that when Mary's here, I didn't see that she had left the screen for almost 1115. I have three minutes. So there are a few things that we can tuck away. Kimberly, can you turn to be 317 along with the other members and there were two pieces of DCF that were left open regarding family services? Was this a Woodside piece within that family services? Because I don't think we have time to hit Woodside quickly here. Right, I think you meant B318 kitty. The you talked about the language. I have no I'm in the numbers. Okay. Anything to do with B317 and B327 gets us into Woodside and they're best considered as a package those two parts. We're going to hold up on that then because that's a bigger piece. And then the last the remaining pieces all depend on where we end up with with money. And so whatever we decide on our final list with money will determine if we close out Forest and Parks State Board of Education and and there's one other piece that we're going to have to close out which has to do with a criminal justice training council. That's still open. Yes, because we have a little piece of money on the list for it. You're right, 42,000. Okay, 40,000 435 training council and also there was a small piece for the in commerce recommended funding the 50,000 for the Center for Rural Studies. All right. So those are all when we make those final decisions with a larger list of money Kimberly after we do the 1115 language with I think it's Betsy Ann who is joining us now at 1115. We will go back to DCF and close out the and determine if we should close out the Woodside pieces. Thank you. Betsy Ann Thank you. So I mentioned to the committee there was some language that is going to be needed in order for the legislature to prepare for January to prepare to be off campus and also to prepare for meeting and other spaces within the capital complex. Are you addressing both pieces of language or just one of them? I am just addressing Hello everybody Betsy Ann rest legislative council. I'm just addressing the chambers convening and holding sessions. And then Rebecca Wasserman is addressing a separate issue regarding committee space and state space generally. Okay, so yours will be focused on if we're not if we're not in the state house having the ability to meet outside the state house. Correct. Yes. Teresa, do we have this language we can pop up? Here you go. Thank you very much. So I'll just give some background. When it comes to the general assembly and its chambers holding sessions, there are a few provisions of law that are at play. The first is constitutional. The each of the chambers has the constitutional authority to regulate its own procedure. Another provision of the constitution is set forth in chapter two, section six, which requires the two chambers to agree to adjourn to different places. In addition, we've got statute. There's a provision of law and two VSA section one that provides that the general assembly shall hold its sessions at the state house. So we have to keep all of these provisions of law in mind when the general assembly is considering meeting outside the state house next year for the twenty one twenty two biennium with the overall concern being that right now it does not appear though it be safe for both chambers to be meeting in person with the state house. And so this draft that is draft five point two would address an alternate location for convening and organizing. And when I say that I'm meeting day one, getting all the new members there where the secretary of state will convene the house and the lieutenant governor will convene the Senate and then thereafter holding sessions generally. So where you meet after that after you get sworn in on your first day. And there's another issue just to be aware of is just this really is in regard to the general assembly regulating its own procedure. So while this language we'll get to it in a second is not withstanding that two VSA one section that says that the sessions of the general assembly are held at the state house. And this would be in a bill that would be submitted to the governor. The big picture is that this is the general assembly regulating its own procedure so you can perform your constitutional legislative function. So it's really this language is designed to get you there on day one be able to get sworn in as new members and then making clear that you're able to meet outside the state house. So it starts out with some findings and purpose and intent with the in section one a providing the findings is that the general assembly would be finding that both chambers convening organizing holding sessions of the next biennium in person at the state house and Montpelier conflicts with health precautions that are necessary to mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsection B describes that it's the purpose of this act to provide an alternate means of convening organizing and holding sessions of the twenty one twenty two biennium in order to protect the public health safety and welfare during the pandemic while also maintaining the ability of the legislative branch to can perform its constitutional legislative duties. And then subsection C is providing the intent. So first by this act the general assembly would be intending to establish in law the alternate means of convening organizing and holding session for each chamber next biennium. But we'll see further on in this bill that while this bill would set out the plan a specify what those locations will be for day one. After we leave here after you finally adjourn CNADA this biennium. We likely we hope plan a is going to be workable but we just won't know for sure what if something else could happen with the plan a that this bill sets out. And so this bill pursuant to JLMC request joint legislative management committee request sets out a plan B just in case something happens to that plan a location for convening and organizing both chambers in case that plan a location if there's a flood or somehow that building would also risk public health. This law this piece of legislation would provide a plan B and it grants that plan B authority to the JLMC according to a two step vote to acknowledge the constitutional authority of both chambers to regulate their procedure but also both chambers to agree to adjourning to a different location. So this language on line six here on page two is saying however in acknowledgement that the general assembly in 2020 cannot know what affects COVID-19 pandemic or other factors may have on the intended alternate of convening and organizing a plan a after that alternate is enacted into law by this piece of legislation. This act also provides the legislative branch with the flexibility it needs to provide for a subsequent substitute alternate means of convening and organizing the twenty one biennium pursuant to the authority. This act grants to JLMC and its members from each chamber in order for the largest legislative branch to maintain constitutional control over its legislative procedure. What we're getting at here is that ordinarily to exercise legislative law making authority. You have to do it as a whole branch both full chambers here. The plan B authority would be granted to the JLMC but because I view this not so much really not law making authority but really regulating your own legislative procedure which is an issue within your own constitutional control. I just want to put that in the record and that's the reason why there is this delegation of authority to a subset of the general assembly the JLMC because otherwise the general assembly can't maintain control of its legislative procedure after you finally adjourn and something happens with the plan a location that this bill specifies. Now I'll get to that what that plan a location is proposed to be in the section two. So it starts out by saying notwithstanding specifically the provisions of two BSA section one that require the sessions of the general assembly to be held in the state house in Montpelier for the twenty one twenty two biennium at the top of page three. The proposal is that the house shall convene and organize that's the day one and may thereafter hold sessions at the very auditorium or remotely or both. So that's making clear that the proposal is to have the house's plan a be a combination of potential combination of very auditorium and remote and it says the Senate shall convene and organize and may thereafter hold sessions in a location or manner that it determines because this bill would be starting out in the house. The house as I understand it the proposal is to not try to speak for the Senate allow the Senate to make its own decision about what its plan a authority would be. So the idea would be that once the budget gets to the Senate the Senate would fill in what its plan a location is and it would fill in what that location or manner is on lines three and four. For example it could be the same as the house very auditorium and remote or maybe somewhere other locations for the Senate to decide. And then the language goes on to say in addition after convening and organizing the day one activities getting you there sworn in as members the chambers may hold sessions as they may by rule joint rule or resolution provide. Just ensuring I mean this is the two chambers at beginning of the 21 biennium determining that perhaps you know maybe the house wants to move somewhere other than the very auditorium or the Senate wants to go somewhere else. So just ensuring that there's that flexibility built in that after day one you could meet and hold sessions elsewhere on page three. So that was the plan a the plan a for the house very auditorium Senate to be determined ensuring that thereafter after day one you could also do meet in other locations as you agree. But subsection B here on line seven page three discusses the plan B just that the back the potential plan B in case the very auditorium for example doesn't work out something happens with the very auditorium that it's no longer safe to use that for plan A. So this language says notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A if a majority of a chamber's members of JLMC subsequently determines that the alternate means of convening and organizing the chamber on day one described in a one or two will jeopardize the public health safety or welfare. A majority of that chamber's members of the JLMC may vote to require that chamber of the twenty one twenty two biennium to instead convene and organize in a substitute location or manner. And if that substitute location or manner is thereafter approved by JLMC that chamber of the twenty one twenty two biennium shall instead convene and organize in that substitute location or manner. And in this case JLMC would have to notify as soon as practicable secretary of state lieutenant governor and members elect. So it's a two step process there for that plan B authority which we hope wouldn't need to be used. But it's a two step process to acknowledge the constitutional provisions that each chamber should have control over its own procedure but also that the chambers by chapter two section six of Vermont Constitution have to agree to adjourn to different places. So that's why that two step process is built in. And that plan B again would only be exercise if there would be a jeopardy to the public in having the chamber convene at the plan A location. That is it. Hello. I'm sitting here talking to myself. No one told me. My face either both were off. I apologize. Thank you Betsy Ann. And so this is there's a two step plan with plan B only needing to go into effect. If if plan A if there's a reason why we cannot continue with plan A because of safety etc. Correct. This simply allows the legislature to to meet outside of the state house where Betsy Ann articulately went over all of that. I think there's three places in statute that requires us to be at the location of the state house. Dave. The question Dave. Yes. Yes. Did I read the document right I don't have it in front of me. Could we just put it back up briefly and go to the top of it please. Is that is that possible. Teresa. Yep. It just takes a second. There you go Dave. We'll go to the top. Thank you. Yeah. I'm trying to get and slow down. If you could go down a little bit. It mentioned Barry. I'm going to try to let me tell you my question without citing it on the document because I just can't follow it right now. Would it satisfy the constitutional requirements if the joint legislative management can we can't go to Barry. We're not going to go to any other alternative. We're going to have the first day of the session remotely on zoom. Would they have the authority to do that. Yes. I read that they do that Barry auditorium. Thank you Teresa that references at the top. And then so that's the plan A for the house. And then if you scroll down to that plan B authority in subsection B it provides that the legis first the chamber has to approve. It says convene and organize in a substitute location or manner. So that manner was added in there to confirm its part to help confirm that it might not be a physical location. It might be meeting remotely. Alone solely. Yep. And as I read this the first day of the convening the swearing in et cetera et cetera that could be in person at the very auditorium or somewhere else. And then the remainder of the session could be remote via methods like zoom et cetera. That is correct. So there's there's sufficient attitude. Yeah. Okay. In the very thank you. I just wanted to make sure. Yes. Thanks. Are there any other questions for Betsy Ann? Thank you, David. Any other questions? Lisa, can I have a full screen please of people? Thank you. Are we ready to take a position on this language? OK, Peter has asked that we move it. If there's no other discussion, those of you that support this language to be included in the budget, raise your hand. And those that are opposed to verbal no, please. Thank you. While we're so we will include this in our language. And Maria, are you on? Is Maria on with us? Theresa, make sure Maria has this language. I will make sure she has it. Yes. OK, the next language that I would like to do is the Treasurer's Language that she talked about yesterday that allows the change to October 30th. It just extends the date. And I'd like to move there next made up. You have a question? Oh, well, I did. There was reference made earlier that Becky Wasserman had a piece that was that related to our meetings. Yes, that has to do with legislative space and that's scheduled for this afternoon. Oh, God, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Betsy Ann. Thank you. Thank you. See you. Let's go to the next piece of language that the treasurer brought forth yesterday and she needed an extension. This has happened before. This is let's see. We're just waiting for it to come up. Hang on just a second. Let me just get it because it's an email. So I had to make sure I had it. And looking for that chip. Is there any other language referring to the judicial masters that you want to include or was that with the reversion language all good with you? With the bill we. I'm trying to remember where where I have left that. So we'll talk. I need to I need to check in with Maria, I think. OK, I've taken off the version language because that's included in the bill. It's just the judicial masters if you need it. That's on my list still. Yes, thank you for reminding me. OK, so this is what the treasurer brought forth to us yesterday. It is simply a date change from the September date to an October 30th date for the capital debt affordability advisory committee to shall submit to the governor and the general assembly and the committees the committee's estimate of the net state tax supported debt, which pertently may be authorized for the next fiscal year. Are there questions for the committee? And if there were, I would hope that you would ask them of the treasurer. It's simply the date out which we have for. Are we ready to take a position on this language as we discussed it yesterday? Theresa, can I have a full screen please? Recommend we approve it. Thank you, Peter. There's a recommendation on the table. If you support it, please raise your hand. And if you're opposed to verbal no, please. OK, and Theresa, will you make sure that Maria gets that language as well? I will. Another piece of language, if we approve any additional money for the grant writer and move it to the base of BHCB, which will deal with the money later. I want to do language now. We have a piece of language that identifies the will of this committee. And we had talked about this. I can't remember if it was this week or last week, because the days have all blended. Theresa, do you have that language as well? Which what which one are you talking about? The the grant writer. Grant writer. The money that we were moving the base into BHCB is in emails that we were exchanging today. My next and you said and you mentioned that we had put in money and I said yes, but we'll do the money separately. Yeah, but I don't have the language. You don't have the language. I was told it was already in the budget. Is it already in the will you just send a question to Maria? I'd asked if we needed to have language there. So let's move now to the joint of the end of session construct. Once we leave, if federal money comes in after we leave, we need to have some kind of construct in order to to grant out or to move out those federal dollars unless we want to call the legislature all back in. So the thought is, is we would get the priorities of the committees of jurisdiction. Legislators will be weighing in and it would guide the Joint Fiscal Committee in directions to send out any additional federal aid that had to be addressed while we were away. And so we have I asked the Joint Fiscal Office to help with some language that would enable the Joint Fiscal Committee to work off the House and Senate priorities and address those that funding if if any federal dollars come in. Do we have that one, Teresa? I'm sorry. I'm doing a lot of emails. What did you ask for? The end of the construct for the Joint Fiscal Committee if money comes in after we have adjourned. I do not have that. Oh, I thought Steve had that. Maybe I know I've read it. So I thought it went to you as well. Do you have any other language then, Teresa, instead of me asking what you want me to do? Let me see here. I can I send you because some of these I'm not clear. I'm going to send you this one and you tell me whether this one is ready. And then there's one that addresses the housing the housing registry from House General. Did you want to that CRF? So I want to hold that for CRF. Mary, you have paid. OK, I thought we already did that. Is there a change? No, we did. But I've got I spoke with I was in DevOps this morning and they agreed to the language on about eight to two and there were no changes. I just wanted to thank you close that loop. Thank you for that update. Does anybody else have any language? Chip, do you have the number of school day language? No, I haven't gotten that yet. I think most of that language they're working on some other one one other particular issue. And they're going to send all the language together. But they didn't expect they would have that till this afternoon. OK. Mita. Now that Mary's back, I don't know if you want to pose the question again with regard to the mental health clinician language. Yes, Mary, are you ready to bring that forward? No. Sorry. When will that be ready? Oh, the. So we have advice from the health care committee that Mita and I have both seen. I'm just trying to track down and make sure that we've solved the questions of who's responsible for paying for this program in the out years. And there's still kind of a conversation going on about how to make sure this works in the out years. So rather than explaining it to the committee and having that conversation, let me just complete it and get back to you. OK. So, Teresa, if you could ask Steve and Maria, the three pieces that I know are out there and are done are the JFC construct for after the legislature leaves is one. The financial reconciliation in a one oh two point one on the very first page, we just wanted that review to include some sort of final technical review or reconciliation and the other piece that they were working on was JFC a one oh two point one. And Steve had some CRF. There's some he's also working on other CRF language that has to do with if there's any entity that wasn't able to get their CRF dollars out, how we can bring those back in and redistribute them when we are out of session. And so that is another piece of of language. OK. And then if you could ask them about the grant writer, if grant writer language is needed, I thought we had that. Chip will bring back school days this afternoon and that and Mary will bring back the mental health clinicians and we will be at a close with language. I would like to OK. I'd like to if you take out your language package, if you turn to page nine, the only thing that's left open on page nine is if we need. If we need grant writer language in on page nine. On page 17, we have left open for the Capitol Police Officer need in that section E 100 and made a youth weighed in on the Capitol Police Officer need that gov ops is not recommending. That would be Diane, who has the Capitol Police. Thank you, Diane. Is that accurate? Yeah, that's accurate. Yesterday, yesterday, we agreed with government ops, or at least I thought we agreed with government ops recommendation and the Joint Legislative Management Committee will will be looking looking at the both both of those items in the Capitol Police's budget. And since we did agree with that, we can close out E 100 because that was open for that reason. Was it OK? And or I still had it open. And then if we page 31, Kimberly, this is where the child care provider stabilization grants are. We agreed to the dollars yesterday and the construct, but we didn't go back and address the language. Right. Thanks, Kitty. Right. So if people look at the bottom of page 31 in language, there are two pieces that travel in tandem. One is E 318, which is the stabilization grants. And the other is E 318.1, which is the child care financial assistance program. And yesterday under the web report B 318, we closed out the section that dealt with the child care financial assistance program year two. That is the language that is captured in E 318.1. So my recommendation that would be to align the language with the numbers that we approved yesterday. And, you know, the explanation is there is that swap out in terms of two million dollars of that amount, how it's funded. Any questions for Kimberly on those two pieces of language? We made the decisions yesterday. This is a language that aligns with those decisions. If you accept those two pieces of language, would you raise your hand? And if you're opposed, if I could have a verbal no, please. Thank you, Kimberly. And the next piece of language that we have left open is on page 33, which has to do with IDAs and has to do with micro businesses. The one piece that needs to be changed on E 323 is subject to available appropriations. And if we appropriate, then we'll be able to go back and close out 323. And the micro business piece is the same thing subject to available appropriations. And then it was this waterfall language. And so depending on our actions this afternoon or if we get moving. No, we only have 20 minutes this afternoon. We can go back and close out those two pieces with IDAs and micro businesses. And that is it for language. So, you know, the pieces that are hanging out there and there's nothing else that I'm aware of for language that we're going to have to address. And I just want to quickly look through the web report so we cannot close out the state because we're waiting. Dave, go ahead. Sorry. Yes. Yep. No, that's OK. Don't be sorry. I guess it goes somewhere else. Let me just see, for instance, I received some proposed language for house health care and health care disparities. That's CRF spending. That's CRF, that's going to be a whole section. Yep, we're going to move to CRF. I don't have to worry about. No, any CRF. Thank you, Katie, all together. Sorry. So public safety. OK, thank you. Thank you, Dave. 209 is open. Kimberly, let's move to the Woodside pieces. I think this would be a good time to finish up these pieces. In your web report, it's on page 317. And I'm sorry, 327. Right. So the page number for those of us who have the male version from Teresa would be at the bottom of page 35. You're going to see, excuse me, the title, the header for B317, Department of Children, Families, Family Services. The actual numbers, though, you have to flip the page. And that's where the numbers start on the following page. So page 36, the very, very top of page 36. So the two open sections in the DCF budget are B317 and B327 and both involve Woodside. And they are the last two because there is nothing easy about Woodside. It involves some of our most vulnerable Vermonters and their distressed families as well as state employees who are working under circumstances that are tremendously demanding. And as we all know, there have been ongoing challenges around how to handle justice involved youth deemed in need of a physically secure location and currently served at Woodside by state employees. And you might recall that there was language. It was in the Q1 and it stated that it's the intent of the General Assembly that Woodside remain open until its closure is authorized by the appropriate committees upon a plan to identify and fund alternative placements. And a plan was due from DCF on August 18th. Fast forward and much has occurred, including three destabilizing moves in a short period of time. And in this August 18th report, which we all received as did some other committees, a plan for interim options are outlined and a more detailed and a longer term proposal has yet to be released. October 1st was the Woodside closure date in the August report that DCF recently submitted. However, there are currently no youth at Woodside and it's the stated position of the DCF commissioner that no more youth will be admitted as there are continuing active issues, continuing litigation. Fortunately, on this committee and on the Human Services Committee, there are members who also sit on the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee and I've attended when we could attend in person. Some of these Justice Oversight meetings where Woodside was discussed and it's fair to say, I think that the tension was palpable each and every time. And as we touched upon yesterday, we are budget writers in this committee, but may sometimes find ourselves making policy choices when circumstances demand. And in my view, this is not one of those times. Given the complex history and the ongoing litigation around Woodside and now the proposed reduction in force that was brought forward yesterday, my preference is that we defer that we defer to the Policy Committee of Jurisdiction Human Services. Their vote yesterday was to follow and fund the administration's recommendation and to close Woodside by a vote of 10-0-1. And in terms of the budget, as the budget implications, where are we to do that? It involves two sections that are working in tandem, kind of like the pieces that we looked at yesterday. Those two sections again are the B317, the Family Services and B327 Woodside. And I want to start with B317. So if I start, I think I'll start with a broad overview and do some non-Woodside details and then some Woodside details. And then finally that last part when we get into the Woodside details, I'm happy to report that we have one of Maria's charts that I think will pull this together nicely. So you will see if you're in B317 that there's an increase of about four million in federal funds. And this reflects that TANF five-year plan net neutral move that we discussed yesterday. So 3,500,000 went down from the general fund to federal funds. And that was along with the title for EFMAP that's tied to kids who are in FSD custody. That's the foster care permanency payments that's not Woodside. And that allows for a one-time reduction in general funds in an up of about 713,000 in federal funds. Some of those are Woodside pieces and then there's the familiar 5% internal service fund downs that offset some of these increases. In the global commitment down, you're gonna see it's nearly two million. And when I'm using these numbers, I mean the difference between January and where we are now reflects the Woodside residential placement reversions of nearly 3,200,000 because CMS no longer pays for room and board as well as some of the internal service reductions. And then this is offset by, if you cast your minds back to January, we went through there were a whole bunch of caseload shifts that we saw in more detail and that that's essentially a true enough of those. You're gonna see a general fund decrease there of around 5,300,000 and that reflects that 3,500,000 TANF, ISF and some Woodside reversions as well as that one-time title for EFMAP that freedom that 700 plus in general funds. There's also an increase of about 3 million under grants and that goes back to CMS saying no use of the global commitment funds for room and board plus there's a barge piece in there and some caseload trucks. And touching upon a few of the non-Woodside details and here I got these from the ups and downs. If you recall, there was a repurposed position that we saw in January for the raise the age initiative that remains that's an up of about 100,000 in personal service in the general funds. And I inquired that where does that stand? I'm told recruitment is underway. That was maybe a week ago. They were in their second round of interviews and this is the juvenile justice director of operations position. And there's also an increase of about 117,000 for the balanced and restorative justice or barge contract. And I know both those pieces are of interest to folks. You might also recall from January that there was a pilot with the Northwestern counseling service support services. This is in St. Albans and that was sought to try to reduce reliance on residential care. But that did not produce the hope for results and that was discontinued. And that accounts for about a down of 640,000 dollars in the Medicaid global commitment funds. And I think that this might be a good place, Marie, if you're on to go ahead and put up that chart now. What year is Marie? I'm sorry, Teresa. It's not on, it's just me. And I'm sorry, I've been working on things, but the chart, I remember the chart. I think I can give me a second. There's one that is modified that had, it has two different boxes in it. You want to send me the one that you want up so that we don't get confused? Okay. Can I go to the ladies' room? Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm going to have to, there's, I'm having trouble finding, I thought Maria would be here. I can ask her. So it's the latest chart on Woodside? It's the latest chart, right? It has two pieces. There's two different versions. And I want the latest one that shows both boxes. Oh, well, Kimberly is waiting to put the chart up on Woodside so we can address those two areas. I received a text that there may be an issue with the bill that we just passed. And so I'm going to hold it for a bit to have a Ledge Council determine if there is a bit of an issue or if it's just a disagreement between parties. So we'll just hold that, we're holding that bill and it may be coming back to us for a revision. Kitty? Kitty? Yes. You mean the equity bill? The equity bill, the one we just passed. Yeah. The language to make sure that we transfer funds correctly if they've been appropriated, we just have to check that language and the reversion back of them. And it has to do with that piece. So not within the meat of our bill, not within the construct, but we just have to make sure that a couple of groups agree that the way we're transferring and reverting back actually can work. So Kimberly, can you tell us what you were going to show us? Do you think? Yeah, my apologies. I really thought that Maria would have this up. So the upshot is actually one of the helpful places if, I don't know if any of you have that report, but when you go to B327, there are various ups and downs that are going to get you to a total of $4,604,412. And that was when the plan was conceived and that's from the governor's restatement. Then what you'll see when you have the August report that came out is that same figure, so the 4,604,4012 is reconfigured. That reconfiguration has basically four parts. The first part is you'll see an 1,470,029 and that is for continued operations at Woodside for the first quarter of this fiscal year. So that's July through September 30th and that comports with that closure date of October 1. The second you're going to see, and this is again on our journey to that number of 4.6 million, you're going to see 1,526,704 dollars and that is put in as an estimate of the cost for various contractual agreements to serve Woodside youth. As we know, there are any number of in-state and out-of-state residential treatment programs for Vermont youth and there is also in that August report an agreement with the LaMoyles County Sheriff's Department for a short-term secure supervision on weekends or after hours should that be needed. All of those figures are rolled up into that 1,526,704. If you keep moving to get to that $4 million figure, you'll also see one time cost for a new secure location and this gets to the fact that DCF is exploring, trying to put online, it would probably be 12 months from now, a five-bed secure, that's physically secure, residential location in Vermont and the proposals that would be run by a private entity and that accounts for that figure there. You'll also see that there is also a, I'm sorry, a 1.2 million, 1,200,000 that is some of the costs that are going into renovations around this new secure location and then there's also some miscellaneous contract and grants and all of these are captured in getting us to the 4604-412 number. So if you, and the box that I was hoping that everyone could look at that would, you would be able to contrast basically captures B327. And what that will show you is adding general funds to maintain operations and that's a big number, that's a 5 million and plus number. There's an interdepartmental transfer to maintain operations, that's close to 100,000. You'll see there's a removal of a woodside phase down number that's a month down of 1.2. The operation costs, there's an up of 715, you have an internal service in there and then there was a mothballing woodside funds, those are backed out, those are close to 250 and that gets you to the 4606. So, and I again, apologize that you don't have this in front of you when you're having my less than elegant walk through it. Representative Jessie, Maria just sent us a chart. And I think you've walked through it, Kimberly. So just hit the highlights of it. I don't think, I think followed with, you know. Right, I think the highlight is essentially that there's put in place elements of this plan that are called an interim plan. The fact of the matter is this is essentially the current plan because there will be no more youth, there are no more youth in woodside. And as I mentioned before, the commissioner has stated that there will not be more youth in woodside. And so these numbers that we are looking at in the top part of the chart are the numbers. Actually, this is the older version, but that's okay. This is the number that we would look at and it is not different than the numbers that are captured in B317 and 327 put together. Any questions for Kimberly on the woodside piece? And could you tell us the vote out of the committee of jurisdiction again, Kimberly? The vote was 10-0-1. And Kimberly, what is your recommendation? My recommendation is that we accept the recommendation of the committee on human services and that we approve these budgets that align with that decision. Mary? Thank you. I can't raise my hand. I accept the recommendation. I understand why it is the way it is. I just want to note that in a more perfect world, we would have the proposal for how we move forward with managing this population of youth more neatly understood and wrapped up before we moved from one way of doing it to another way of doing it. And so that gives me some pause, but we don't live in a perfect world. And I appreciate that we've got to move forward. We can't wait for that perfect world. And I just, we're gonna have to pay attention to Woodside a lot going forward or to the population served by Woodside going forward. Thanks. Thank you, Mary. Any other questions or comments for Kimberly or regarding Woodside? Kimberly has put a proposal on the table to accept the proposal from the House Human Services Committee for the construct to close Woodside. And as she, you did a fine job outlining the issues and the flow of money. And I have to tell you, it was an excellent presentation. If there's no other questions or concerns at this time, I would ask those that support the recommendation from the Committee of Jurisdiction, please raise your hand. And those of you that oppose a verbal no place. Thank you, Kimberly. And that closes out those two sections 317 and 327. Thank you. There's only four other pieces open and this will all determine on our work this afternoon our decision on the 24,000 for the State Board of Education in B5111 and Forest Parks, the 71,000 that is on a list that we're carrying in B705. B800 had the additional, had the 50,000 for the Vermont study for the Vermont Rural Studies. And Mary, we're leaving corrections open because we have the out of state beds, money that's being carried and that's B339. And so what I would like to do is break for lunch. And we will come back at, Teresa has us coming back at, let me see. 115. At 115. And at 115, when is the next, oh, that's an old agenda. No wonder it wasn't making any sense to me, Teresa. Yeah, I sent you a new one. I have it right here. I apologize. So we'll come back at 115 and there's a couple of things I think that we can get done if there's language but at 130 we're going to hear from the Transportation Committee at two o'clock. We're going to hear from, we're going to hear from a legislative council on legislative space. My question is to you so that we don't go, we don't come back. We don't have to work as late. Are you willing to come back at one o'clock? Because if we came back at one o'clock, Maria has finalized a list that shows all of our decisions and shows the plus or minus where we are on the bottom line. Are you willing to come back at one o'clock just to have that list in front of you so that we can get that off the table to make decisions after the transportation and after that other piece of language? One o'clock, does that work for everybody? Most often, Peter? I'm in house education at 1230 and we'll be there until at worst two o'clock. I will get out of there as soon as I can. Okay, we'll get the chart to you, Peter. Thank you. I may be there too. Is anybody else? Do I have a Mary? Do I have a majority that can come in? So one o'clock, can I see hands for one o'clock? One, two, three, four, five, one, two, three, four, five, I make six. Chip's gonna be gone. Dave, I can't see you. Chip, where are you going to be? I was gonna go to house head too. I'm not sure it's essential that I'm there. They'll tell me what happens. So I'll let you know, Chip. I think it's more higher ed than anything else. And so I'll let you know. Okay, there was gonna be some CRF funding discussions. I'll be here, Giddy. That's right. Thank you, Dave. We're good. I'll find out. I'll probably be able to stay. Okay, Mary? I hesitate to say this, but do you wanna do the mental health clinician language right now? I've got it okay for it. Or do you wanna do that, like? I think we need to break. I think we need to break and we'll do it when we come back. Thank you. Thank you. All right, see you all at one o'clock. Thanks. Sounds good. Thank you. Going off live.