 meeting of the Senate agricultural committee in our main discussions this morning is setting up an agenda for the future and talking about how the COVID funds are moving out and being spent and as well as dealing and hearing about the 2021 ag budget as it pertains to the last three quarters. So we'll get started. I don't know if any of the members have questions to start with, Chris, Pearson. Well, it doesn't have to address it now. We can wait if you want, but I'm hoping we can just talk about when and how committee meets for the next few weeks. So I don't know if you want to hear from the secretary and his folks and then we move on to that kind of discussion or I'm just hoping we could have some sense of it. And I'll be honest and say, I hope it's not all four days, but as needed or maybe a couple of days a week scheduled something like that. Well, I'm hoping that we could do Tuesdays and maybe Thursdays or something like that because then we have more time in the morning because Friday we have to get done early to go on the floor and Tuesdays right after we get off the floor. But we can talk about that and set up the schedule. And the other issue I think dealing with that is how we work to get more people onto the YouTube and being able to hear what we're talking about and if they have input and they're not on the agenda how we address that. So we can talk about all those things when we get done with the secretary and Diane. So good morning, Mr. Secretary and welcome and Diane, welcome. Were you gonna do budget or COVID this morning? I thought we'd begin with the budget and we're open to talking about COVID if you'd like as well but I thought maybe we'd begin with the budget and so you're just surprised at what we're doing. We presented to house appropriations earlier today and then we're gonna be talking with Senate appropriations later today. So I think it might be a good time to spend a little bit of time talking about the budget and how it may impact some of the decisions that you make even related to COVID. So I thought that might be best. I don't know if we've sent along a budget document to you and I just maybe, I don't know if we wanna bring that up on the screen or if we just wanna wait for that later or we can go slide to slide or whatever you're... But it would be good if Linda could pull that. Do you have that Linda so you can pull it up? I don't have it. They can email it to me. I sent it over earlier, Linda. Oh, sorry, I'll get it on very shortly. Okay. Well, that's happening. I can just give you a little bit of overview. So let's go back to maybe March when COVID started. You know, meat inspection, dairy farms, plant inspection, the Vale Lab in Randolph, all considered essential employees. They have been working. They have not stopped. So they've been carrying out all their duties throughout the pandemic. As the warm weather came, we opened up more and as Vermont opened up more, more duties were added that presumed activities including waste and measures, outdoing gas pumps and truck scales, more on-farm inspections, and also the engineering of projects for farmers that underway. Animal health has been busy. We had some issues or some animals coming from the Midwest that were making their way to Vermont, mainly centered around some of the processing facilities in the Midwest closing and some of those animals being repurposed to Vermont. Farm, continuing to do pesticide monitoring, testing, certification, also testing the feed. Make sure that is okay. Just a little bit on the operations of the organization, I'm 16 State Street where I am today is pretty much been closed except four to six people have been working out here, mainly out of the administration, the business office, and a little bit of water quality as well. We've gotten a lot of productivity working from home, about a third of the agency staff. You're kind of cutting out the answer. About a third of the agency has been working from remotely and that will continue at least through January as things continue on, although we do have an hour of people that already work from the field because they're inspectors and work with our producers and farmers in the field. Maybe we can go to the granting programs slide. We can go, I think it's the second or third one in. Is that party of the budget? Yeah, it will relate to the budget. And I think it's important that you get a sort of an overview of the scope of work that's being done and how that's going to tie into our budget proposal. So just to refresh, we do have three granting programs that have been going through the agency of agriculture. So I think we can go to the third slide. I think Linda could roll that up to the third slide. Are you there, Linda? Michael, do you know if Linda is on? Linda, I think you have to download it. Once you download it, it'll let you go page to page. So if you just go down, I says download print one drive. You need to download it and then you can select the page. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Linda. Thank you, Linda. Sorry about that. So just to refresh your, there are three granting programs that are currently going through the agency. One is. The dairy producer and dairy farmer and the processor one of $25 million. That one is, is underway. We are sending money to processors and dairy farmers. I think by the end of the week, probably about $4 million will reach those businesses. The agriculture fairs application closed last Thursday at two o'clock. This week. We're reviewing those applications. Going back to the fairs and field days, if they have to supply any information, if they want to make any corrections. So this week we should finalize that half a million dollars. Going to those. There's about 14 and play. 14 different organizations. As you know, the fairs and field days had to cancel this year because of no large gatherings. Also working lands and agriculture producers. Yes. Is that just the Vermont. Ag and field days? Like, I know we're part of the one over. In Lancaster, but does that wouldn't include them with it? Or would it? It would not. It's just Vermont based. Affairs. Mr. Chair, can I just inquire from answer? Did the Vermont state fair make application? You know, I do believe they did. Yeah, I think they're in there. Thank you. Yeah. So hopefully by, you know, next week, those will be buttoned up and we can get some of those checks over to finance and get those out the door. The third pocket, which is underway, which is our producers and this connected to working lands as well. There's an 8.5 a million dollar granting program there. And that may cover a wide array of producers. It may be a vegetable farmer. It may be a farmer's market. It may be a slaughterhouse. It may be a sugar maker. Maybe a value added food business as well. So that application is out. Those applications are started to come in. And as of this morning, we have received 31 applications. It's a mix of sectors, including, you know, maple forestry, F wine is in there produce orchards and also hemp. So there are about 73 others that have started the application. So the population right now is about 104 people have. Required or started the application or. Have submitted their application for that. We're going to start reviewing those applications. And also Vita is helping us approve those applications. Down the road. Once we get into the review. Did answer. Did we put a cap on those? Those particular programs. I believe there's a cap on of $20,000. Correct me if I'm wrong, Diane, but I think it was the cap of. $20,000. You put a series of caps on the money that was in the Senate bill based on a gross income. So the smallest was 2,500 and the largest was 20,000. So you did put a series of caps in there based on gross income. Yeah. So it's going well. We are really working the messaging now. We think. We've got some. We have a newsletter. That goes out weekly. We sent out another bulletin. I think yesterday on this, our newsletter is about 4,600 people it goes to. So that's going out on a weekly basis. We also have a view both online and the paper edition. We've really been pushing on a daily basis. All these programs on a social media platform. And we've got some. We've been pushing on a daily basis. All these programs on a social media and links to all the applications and questions. Facebook with about 13,000 people signed up for that. Also Instagram, Twitter. We're working closely with all our partners and making sure that they have the information they need so they can distribute their membership including NOFA. Farm Bureau, World Vermont and all the industry groups. We're working closely with all our partners and making sure they're aware of these programs. We also have a robust internal listserv that. Take out. And also general media. We've been using, you know, press releases. The governor has highlighted these programs. During his. News conferences. And also we've, we've had some coverage in the general media. Just alerting people if these programs are there and available. We've had some workshops over the next couple of weeks, some tip sessions to make sure that folks are aware of all these programs because we do have some deadlines that are, that are approaching. So we want to make sure. You know, under the cares act, we want to make sure we use all this money and don't leave any on the table. So we've got to get this money out the door by, you know, all the state money by at least December and less Congress money. So we want to make sure that we use those parameters. So. Brutes has a question. Yes. Thanks, Bobby. Mr. Secretary. I wasn't sure if we're doing questions now, but. I know that when you all testified in. June. About this. There was some concern that you didn't. Have a contact information or you weren't sure who a lot of producers and farmers might be in the non-dairy section. And I'm wondering twofold if one. You're sort of becoming acquainted, acquainted with operations, farms, producers that you didn't know of before. And are you keeping that information? So you're building up a better database of who the. Of the broader agriculture community. Or are you just seeing the ones that you, you already knew about. So I guess the twofold, are you collecting data as you're going? And are you seeing new operations that you weren't aware of? Or are they the same ones you knew of? Yeah, we've, we've always been in close contact with anyone that's working in and around agriculture. The difference here is many of these may not be regulated by the agency. So that's the difference. But I think that we weren't in touch with them or engaged with them. The active division has close relationships with whether it be farmers markets, whether it be value-added businesses. Dairy is unique in two reasons. One, it's, it's, it's highly regulated through. Sanitation on that end. And also water quality. So. And we have the, you know, we have the small farm certified small farm medium farm large farm. We're on a regular basis of those being regulated on the other aspect, it's, it's working closely with, you know, NOFA it's working closely with rural Vermont, the Farm Bureau, Mabel sugars association, the people in the hemp industries. All those were very close with and work with them on a daily basis. It's just that this database wasn't regularly out there. And so to this day, we don't know what the total audience might be. It could be 7,000, it could be 5,000, but we've, we've been, we've done a really considered effort to try to do as much outreach to just as many groups as we possibly can to make sure that they are, they are aware of this program through, through this second pocket. Also the working lanes group is a good section of people that may have been through that program before that know about these programs. So they've, they've been engaged in messaging there. So it's been, they've always been with them. It's just, well, the testimony from the agency in June was that you didn't know who any of these or many of these people were. That was, that was what your, your testimony from the agency was and, and that why it was made it difficult for us to figure out how much funding to put in this category because there wasn't a lot of data available. But sounds like it's a little different now. Yeah, I think it's, I think the difference is we just, we don't, because they're not regulated through the agency. That's the difference. So you can't just call up the address and send it out. That's, that's that was the point we were trying to make. We're engaged for them, but we're engaged for these groups on a regular basis and they're very, very, very important to our landscape. And we want to support them and believe in them. And we want to make sure that they get these dollars if they qualify for them and get them because this isn't, this is important work. Okay. Answering is that, is that cut off date for them? Too short. Should that have been stretched out or how the application is coming in? We are, we are certainly open to making sure that as long as we don't get up against that headline where we have return money. But isn't that September 15th or something? Yeah, we've got, we've got some tight deadlines that are coming up. And I think as long as you don't, you know, change the application that's already in a dramatic way, we are open to extending the deadline. Sending deadlines is not going to have any impact of how we product. We will have an impact, but the more time that we can give farmers and producers, get this application in, we are all in favor of that. We just want to make sure that we have the time that, so we don't, you know, but up against some sort of federal deadline or some decisions that have to be made. If there's some money left over where you might want to repurpose that money as well. So you've got to, you've got to add it in, but maybe some of these deadlines that, and they're, they're deadlines throughout state government that are different on each program. Chris, I had a question. Yeah. So I just want to make sure because the deadlines are part of the concern that I have. So your secretary, you're open to us tweaking that, recognizing that we don't want to then brush up against December 30th. But in terms of that, I just want to be crystal clear. I think, you know, and I, you know, Diane and Allison can also weigh in, but I think, you know, tweaking deadlines is not going to, I think maybe wise in some of these, you know, we are, you know, there's no good time for a farmer to fill out an application because it's nonstop all the time. And there is some paperwork involved here. There is some, you know, documentation that has to be done, you know, for someone to get two hours of the day, sometimes it's very difficult and it's harvest time for a lot of folks. So we are open to tweaking the deadlines as long as we don't, you know, leave any money, you know, on the table that may impact the program. And then along those lines, the report that came in that we had asked you guys to submit just suggested that even in the dairy where, you know, the presumptions we built in in the dairy assistance, we assumed that virtually all farmers would take advantage of that. And I'm seeing that it was 11% have been awarded or something, you know, it's pretty low. I guess, or lower than I would have imagined. Can you just talk about that? And are you seeing trends there where it's the bigger dairies that are moving through the application by virtue of having staff or more personnel and the smaller are stuck in the field, literally. Can you help us understand any explanation around those numbers being low and the trend that you're seeing that we should be aware of? Yes, thank you, Senator. We have about, I think about 50, I think the latest figures about 55% of either started the application or have completed the application or have received payment. So it is starting to get, you know, people are starting to engage more on it. And, you know, Diane can maybe speak to she's in the trenches here, looking at the application, seeing how they're coming in the documentation. And some of it also may, there may be some strategy involved here as well, with losses and expenses, depending on how the price of milk goes up and down and so forth, and also some of the federal programs that are out there and how they work for or against the state programs. I'll let Diane speak to a little bit more of the nuts and bolts, but we are seeing more people start to engage in process these applications, knowing that the October 1 deadline is approaching quickly. Yeah. I think Diane had to hop off. One of the concerns that I had in the program we set up was that it was obvious, again, based on the assumption that Dairy would sort of all come in looking for assistance and we all recognize Dairy's been hard hit. The program was structured so that the money would sort of favor Dairy and couldn't move if there was money left over in the Dairy portion, couldn't move to diversified producers. Whereas if there was money left over in the diversified non-Dairy, it could go to Dairy. You know, recognizing we're going to learn a lot more in the next few weeks. Is there any opening at the agency to maybe make sure that it could go either way if in fact there's a logic for Dairy to just take advantage of federal programs or whatever? I always seemed like we should just be as flexible as possible recognizing we would learn more week by week. So I'd love you to comment on that, please. Yeah, I think, you know, flexibility is great in any program. And I think if we, you know, as we get more data, as we get more people applied and through it, you know, we know the audience particularly with Dairy, we know exactly how many are out there because of the regulation that they're under. So we know it's an audience of the processors and producers. It's about 800 plus. So we know exactly where they are. You know, there's some other things that you could do. You could maybe increase the award, you know, the grant totals. You know, some of the early stuff we rolled out, they'd have some bigger awards to the smaller farmers. But I think if we look at the data, I think if more people, you know, apply, and we'll probably know in a couple of weeks on the working lands and act producer program, we'll know, we'll get a sense of where that program is heading as well. If we're being swamped with applications there, that will give us some indication. What we want to do is we want to make sure we use these dollars in the most attractive way, get them out to the ground where they're needed. We're seeing some very creative things that are happening. As this goes on, like, for example, one, one cheese maker, his audience was with restaurants, institutions. When those dried up, he had to go curbside and put up a farm stand and make some different cheeses. So that particular cheese maker was able to use those cheeses that are called COVID dollars that way. We have a dairy farmer that has gone value added because the price of milk was so difficult, they decided to put on a bottling plant and they're using some of their COVID dollars to do that, which is allowed on the program. Our farmers markets, you know, they have endured probably not as many vendors as they normally would do, but if you look at their income screen, they have a number of added expenses with it because of safety and protective equipment. So, you know, we want to make sure that, you know, they're taking care of and making sure that there are losses that are covered and extra expenses. So as those applications come in for the working lands and the producers and, you know, we want to make sure that all of our vegetable farmers had wholesale accounts that cried up early in the beginning, so we want to make sure they're covered. So I think the data that we get will probably allow us to make some early informed decisions, but we are certainly open to, you know, adapting and changing and just making sure that the money is used in the most effective way and gets it to the people who need it the most. So, you know, I think it's important to get that information from you as soon as possible because I would expect three to four weeks, we're going to be maxed out here in Montpelier or on Zoom and we'll be going home. I know Jane has made it very clear and we're going to keep working on it until we get it done as soon as the house gets it. Well, we're already working on it. And Tim, Timmy has said when the budget's done, we're done, which is good news for probably all of us because we've already lost most of the off session meeting earlier. Any other questions on the subject at hand? Anthony, you had a question. Yeah, just curious. I know that one of the things that I get to see what's going to do is set up webinars for other kinds of outreach meetings. I found out whether they're called meetings these days, Zooms, whatever they are webinars around the non-dairy stuff, particularly I'm just wondering when those are scheduled and you know, whether they've happened already and what the deal is with those. Yeah, yeah, we have, we have, we've got a number of those that either have happened or are going to happen. If you go to, you know, our web page, there's a COVID page, and it outlines all the important webinars. We've had a couple of last week and we have, actually there's one happening at 11 o'clock right now on my schedule here. We are, we are doing that. We think it's highly important to have people understand how to best to fill out the application correctly and assist them in any way that we can, but those will continue on. We're trying to also get the general media to have call-in shows, just so people can call in and so forth because customer service here is very important to us. And I know that the staff is really working on to make sure that people have the best information possible so they know that. But we are having webinars, we're having coaching sessions. We have a team that can answer those frequently asked questions to make sure that they have the best information to apply. But very, very important to us. I just want to back up because I think it was Senator Pearson may have mentioned that he'd seen a report. I know that under the 351, that the agency was supposed to send maybe monthly reports to the committees and others. And I haven't seen any of those. I'm just wondering. Did I just miss those? Did those happen? What's the deal with those? Yeah, we, we submitted one already. And I think we've got another one. It's doing a little bit here. I'm not sure what the deadline is, but I know Diane's been working on it. And one good thing about these online programs, we can get some rich data out of those. And I think we've got a lot of, you know, some of these, these programs have been set up online. So we can, we can tell you exactly, you know, how many LFOs have applied. We can tell you, you know, what the payout has been, how many of them. So Diane, I know it's working on that report. And I think we've got another one. It's due. Probably first of the month. My understanding Allison is that correct? Yeah, let's do the first. And we send out the previous, there was not a lot in the previous report. There was not a lot of work. All the time. And I think the program, the cultural and working lands application just went live. Last week. And we also, Senator Plena held webinars for the technical service providers. In addition to webinars for those that wanted to attend for application as well. So there were. Three more applicants and one for technical service providers. Is that all working out to everyone's satisfaction? That's with the farm viability. Yes. So if anyone is, you know, has questions, maybe struggling with the application. They have people on standby that can help them. And that's, that's very important. We don't want people to be discouraged that it's too difficult to fill out. It may take a couple of hours. But there are people that can help them, can help them upload documents if they need to. Help them with the strategy of filling out the application. So farm viability with the housing conservation board. I know you appropriated money for that group to help with that. And that process is underway. And we've been encouraging and messaging folks to reach out to them. To get that assistance. I think that's really important. Yeah. Ruth, did you have a question? Yeah. Thanks, Bobby. I just wanted to let you know, I did talk to one dairy farmer and this. Who decided not to apply because they. Or we're going to not apply because they were concerned about it being a sort of quote unquote government handout. And I really talked to them about how this is not. And they should apply. And there's nothing to be ashamed of. And, and that it's important that they take advantage of this money. So there is some of that out there, just this feeling of shame. And I reassured this farmer. That's nothing that they did that was their fault. It was a global pandemic and they should get this money. So there may be some of that a little bit. Going on. So just making sure everybody knows that this, it's important that they do apply and take advantage of the money. I'm wondering in the, the sort of non-dairy. One of the things that. I know Senator Polina is concerned about and, and that we were all sort of wondering how it would play out is the whole. Thing about profitability and that sort of window of time that we had put in there. Cause we were struggling with how to define this program. And whether you've run into applications that have been denied or people who can't apply because of that requirement. And whether that's one of the things that we should tweak. I know Senator Polina is concerned about and, and that we were all sort of wondering how it would play out is the whole thing about profitability and that sort of window of time that we should tweak. I don't have enough data to answer about whether it's, whether they qualify or don't qualify. We've been very careful to make sure to go back to an applicant if we think that they may need to supply some more information to it. But the, the, the working lands and ag producer program is really probably too early to tell whether people are struggling with that particular component of that program. I think maybe by maybe next week or the week after, we might have some solid data and some more evidence of folks. If they are, are they struggling with it or if they're not meeting that, that aspect of it. But I think it's a little too early to give a solid answer on that, but we are, of course, as we mentioned, I think it's a little too early to give a solid answer on that. But I think it's open to making sure that. You know, our programs are as flexible as possible. Anthony. I just want to re-emphasize. You know, on the one hand, I agree with what you're saying. It's too early to know that that is not telling us whether people have any problems with the applications or not. But on the other hand, time is really short because we don't have the data for a couple of weeks. The deadline is in a couple of weeks. So it puts us in a real bind to. I think I've heard from a decimal producers and. Berry producers, maple sugar makers, other sheep and goat producers who are concerned about the. Both the deadlines and this no net profit stipulation that people are having trouble thinking they can verify that or that. They're going to run into problems in the fall that maybe. Contradict the no net profit thing happening in the spring and the summer. So I just think it's something we really need to take a look at. Be sure that we're, we know what we're doing when it comes to making it. We need to make sure that we're doing the right thing. We need to make sure that we're doing the right thing. Fair process for the non-dairy farmers. I've also heard from a couple of people that. Some of the farmers markets are saying that they're going to have trouble applying because they, there's a minimum. They have to have $10,000 minimum income for the farmers markets. I think it is. And they're not sure that they can make that. So I think that there's a bunch of things that we need to just reevaluate and make sure that we're on right. Right path for. I understand you're in a difficult bind. I mean, I'm not, you have a hard time because you don't have a lot of time for that. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for all the outreach. And we are certainly, you know, we want, we want to make sure that, you know, people can get into this program and need, you know, the need is out there. And we know, you know, we're up against some deadlines in time, but if, you know, if we can extend some deadlines that may offer more, more flexibility for folks. And. What I could do Anthony in the committee. I think that's what the committee would like to do about the date. And maybe some word changes. Not structurally, but word changes to allow people, more people in. I'll, I'll talk with Jane today in a, in our committee meeting this afternoon. And if, if they're going to put a bill through. A little corrections bill. I'll explain the September 15th deadline and try to get that squared away. Either tack it on to something that's moving through either, you know, finance or props and, and we could stretch that out. You know, it's a, if it's a minor change like that. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And then the, this afternoon and Chris, you're on finance. So you could mention. That that date may have to. May have to be moved out a little to make it all work and be fair to people. I think that would be good, Bobby. I think, um, we have some land, Michael. Great. He's worked on a little bit of language that could be useful. Moving in that direction. I'm not sure if it's, but I think it could be done that way. It's not, they're not major changes or tweaks. That'll make the program easier for people to access and get their money's worth out. But see the, the approach bill. May not come and tell near the end. After the 15th, but we may do. A COVID correction bill sooner. That this would work. Yeah. I think that's a good idea. Yeah. This, our issue would work in that earlier bill, not the later bill. Yeah, I hear you. That's a good idea. I appreciate that. Yeah. I just, I just want to make a point of clarity through an asset. We work closely together on changes and remind folks that we've spent hours working with programming staff. On the application. And so when we start talking about. Um, you know, the, the, uh, the couple of weeks ago. And, and tweaking those particular things that may be seen as small. They're, they're rather large when it comes down to the programming and the software companies that we've been working with. So just wanted to raise that issue. have sympathy center what I'm saying is a program's gone live and we have staff that's already working with the applications and so the purposes of equity and changing at midstream that that comes into concern for those that have already applied as well. Yeah we'll we'll work with the Allison but you know our crew has never forgot who they represent and it's it's more the farmers than the workers. I mean we can adjust to about anything so you know we'll work with you but I always keep in mind who we who we're representing. And I think we're all we're all focused on you know helping the farmers and producers the only the only caveat is if you make a change to a application it may come with a cost and we just got a big where who's going to pay for that that's that's something that we want to we want to keep an eye on because you know we don't have programmers here at the agency contract so we don't have people that do that application so I think that's what Allison's alluding to and also you know and the people have already applied as well so we're all open to making this program better and so forth and I think one thing we all agree on is maybe the deadlines could be extended that would be an easy easy yeah it's not going to change anything at all. Brian. Thank you Mr. Chair so this is a little bit off the topic but I did promise that I'd bring it up and I don't know whether Secretary Tevitz or Deputy Secretary Eastby can help with an answer but I got an email today from a family run wood fire bakery in Middletown Springs it's 18 years old it's supported the family since 2003 etc etc 95 business model goes direct to consumer meaning that before the changes brought on by COVID they would attend nine farmers markets and 20 or 30 festivals so it's a sole proprietorship business and therefore they have not been eligible for the majority of the grant support that's been offered by the CARES Act and they're under the gun like a lot of people so they're wondering whether there's any additional funding available for sole proprietors and for any new businesses from the economic recovery grants and I told them that I would definitely ask yeah Senator that's a that's a good point I think the administration has put forward a proposal that would cover that particular business up in the future because that is as we've gone through this you know we've discovered gaps and needs that maybe some folks weren't covered and that's the sole proprietorship one is one that's in line with that and I think the administration not not the agency of agriculture but through commerce is put together a program that that group would qualify if if there's some extra funding that's available that the governor has put forward I think he's put together about a hundred thirty three million dollar program in that particular segment needs some attention so he's put some dollars in that will probably cover this wood-fired baking business down in Rotland County all right thank you very much but I don't I mean we started on a prop last week and I think that particular proposal's got got a rough road ahead of it I mean we saved we saved that a couple hundred million dollars out of the first appropriations so that we would have extra money here at the end and and we haven't had we as senators and legislators haven't had any input on that 132 that I know of and I mean we're gonna have to we're gonna have to discuss that I would presume uh before before it gets adopted but that's um you know that single proprietor and and mom and pop say that needs to be addressed yeah thank you mom um any other questions if not ain't some uh you move forward okay why don't we why don't we dip into the budget because it does tie into the COVID a little bit um and I don't know if want to bring the slides back up Linda or not um I'm on the one that's the changes to the agency budget slide there we go yeah so there we go um so um you know we're we're trying to get our new budget completed when we started this pre-covid we the governor and agency put together a $750,000 one-time request and additional money for the working lands program uh well because of you know lack of revenue we have withdrawn that so that's one thing this is the one-time money the base money is still in there it's about you know 560 covered $70,000 that the base money is still that is unchanged but the one-time money that's general fund money too right that's correct yeah so that helps the general fund right and then um we have this USDA program that they picked out they want electronic ear tags um we had a one-time request of $25,000 we've withdrawn that I don't think that's quite ready for prime time with USDA so we've we've taken that back so that won't be there and in in one-time money to get that program going um we've had some internal um service fees cost reductions across you know all of our um division so that's there and then this is another one that's it's important um as we've established all of these granting programs and um pretty much we have a core group of people and even people that this isn't in their work description have been working on um you know the CARES Act so we've got $1.5 million that we are going to offset um some appropriations because they've been working on you know response they've been working on establishing these granting programs getting the programs up and running offering technical assistance you know our agriculture development division pretty much non-stop has been working around the clock on on COVID related expenses so we're using $1.5 million in CARES Act funding to help with our employees that are implementing all these programs so that's going to help um that's going to help our budget because we're able to use CARES funding which means we're not having to go through deep cuts elsewhere within the agency of agriculture budget and that that's for the 32 people that are working on yeah yeah and it's in and just you know it is an estimate we don't know you know but we we've done a deep dive with the business office and we've got you know some people are working on this full time but we may have someone for example that's that's working on you know the Act 250 and he may be working a day or two a week on approving these grants and making sure that everything is in order so they can get payment so we've got people that are outside their normal workload that they're working on making sure that we get it's about 40 million dollars that you know we're trying to get out the door through these programs so we've had to repurpose people and they've some have been working exclusively on that but we've got about 31 people one way or another either a day a week or two days a week or five days a week they've been working on cares related issues and also some of the dollars will be dedicated to PPE as well some of those dollars will be able to use some of the CARES money so that's our that's in our budget which helps our our general fund and and those that 1.5 CARES fund that's not of course coming out of what we want to give the farmers and non non ag this is coming out of the general CARES fund that we're administering this does not impact the grants that are given out yeah this is just the this is just the you know the work that we're doing on this so it doesn't impact the payout for the grant so it's not taking out of the granting programs before that bro thanks Bobby Mr. Secretary is this money that you already have or that you're requesting from the we we're requesting this in our budget um and it's okay so we we think we think looking at the sort of the flow chart the workload that's going to go through this we believe you know people will be working in this space for a long time and over time you know since july um we believe it'll be about a million 1.5 million dollars that will be dedicated to just working on CARES issues for the agency great thanks yeah and one other and i don't know if it's on this slide or not i want to bring you to um one other highlight and this is where most of the other programs are all level funded there's no significant reduction one area that we are reducing is there's a 619,000 dollar reduction from the clean water aspect of this we are able to keep our core programs so the on farm programs implication of grants you know commitments to you know improving conservation practices to the farmer are all there we are proposing cutting back some of the granting programs to some of our partners whether it be the conservation districts or uvm we're going to have to curtail that by about 619,000 dollars and this is the result of what's happening with the clean water fund the clean water fund against the tremendous amount of money through the property transfer tax and early on in this that came to a came to a halt it also gets funding through bottled deposits and so forth and early on you know when recycling all that clothes that had an impact so early on that fund has seen some reductions so that is a result of some of the early real estate activity that fund is not as it's as it was supposed to be so we've had to curtail some water quality grants about 619,000 so i think that's probably the most significant part of our budget wherever facing you know some dollars that we wanted to put more in but we're unable to do but on the farm stuff will continue the money to farmers will continue it's just some of our partners that help with technical assistance and in getting farmers to a better place we're not going to be able to fund them as much as possible did you have you had anyone analyze that so when when questions come up you know we're gonna have to answer answer them and we we should have a some kind of maybe a list of what type of projects might not get funded that's for next summer or for this fall or for when well it would be well i'm trying to look at trying to figure out what today's august so it i guess that's a that would be determined i'm trying to walk through sort of when we have the some of these granting some of these granting agreements are now three-year projects so we're giving uvm like three years and we're giving the watershed groups a pocket for three years so they can plan so they're still going to be getting dollars from us they're just not getting as many dollars from us as it is under this proposal yeah um so um when he you said you were coming this afternoon to appropriate i believe two o'clock we'll be in we'll be in uh senate appropriations yeah um so uh questions any other questions for anson um or allison i guess is still on no uh ruth is that so anson is that is that it that's basically the changes that you're requesting yeah i mean you know we've been able to we've been able to maintain you know our fairs and field days level funding basically everything else is is pretty much level funded the big highlight i think the two takeaways is you know we're not going to have as much money because of the cooling water fund in the 619 000 and also using the cares dollars to help us with some of our budget issues which means we're not going to have to go down that road of looking at um general fund you know some of our granting programs like two plus two are impacted they can stay you know they can stay where they are which is in this in this climate is a good thing um so that's i think that's probably the two main headlines as far as the budget and no staffing reductions no staffing reductions are in this in this particular yeah i mean we we as legislators the people of the citizens of the state are very fortunate that we had such a good year in 19 because the tax revenues that we thought we were of course going to lose were a lot less than than what was projected back there in in uh earlier this year um but it when whoever does the 22 budget i think they're going to earn their money um big time because you know all of this year of 20 the money will come in you know for for the year of 22 and uh it's it's going to be a rough time i we've got to get our ducks in a roll this year to prevent that next year from happening uh chris yeah uh secretary going back to the clean water funds um you know that that that is obviously a choice that the senate and the legislature and administration have some control over but we're also in the middle of a settlement with the federal government that holds our feet to this are you confident that reducing funding and you know setting aside my issues with that choice that we don't run into a problem with the epa and and their uh expectations based on the settlement that we're in the middle of i believe we're we're going to stay on course here because this particular reduction is not focused on for our communication that's happening on the ground so those projects you know will continue to go forward um this is more of our partners who are offering new technical assistance which are they are very important and we value that relationship because they're in the you know the non regulatory aspect of that because they have drawn relationships with our farmers of how to do best practices and in offering you know financial assistance to those groups so we believe that but we believe we're on course and of course the agriculture is has already done a tremendous job on our farmers of the progress if you look at the phosphorus reductions that are out there on the statewide scale our farmers have stepped up and they continue to make incredible progress with that they're being innovative and they're making those reductions so we believe we can stay on course here it's just that some of these dollars and you know it's no fault of anyone we have a pandemic and there's not as much money coming in so we have to take some difficult choices but we believe we'll we're going to make our do our best to march forward and our farmers are still they're still despite this economic climate are making incredible investments in water quality and and we're pretty uh we're pretty encouraged by that despite of all the planning that you are facing and we're doing more more work with our smaller farmers because of the rollout of this program over the 20 years and our large farmers that have been in this space for you know 15 20 years and medium farmers about a decade and now it's the small farmers and certified small farmers that are are doing their part as well so if if some of these like UBM in the conservation districts if they're on a three-year rolling average or rolling funding thing even if that if that 619,000 is is approved couldn't that come back in in like a year or two if our economy turns around so that projects that are out three years could still be funded or is that I think I think yeah and the other thing to keep in mind here you know the in the clean water fund there is these estimates of you know the reduction of money that was coming or based on the early stages of the pandemic I think some of the economists and we all know we've heard the anecdotal evidence of people moving to Vermont now and buying property and my understanding is the real estate market is quite active right now that has not been reflected completely yet in those figures so there may be some dollars that will you know in another six months or for a year be dramatically different than they are as far as as far as the money coming into the state but the the economist and the tax department will shed more light on that as we move along well of course in I mean in January you know they'll start doing the budget for 22 anyway so you if the revenues picked up and or could be used I mean it could could be funded fully funded for 22 to offset this yeah the most important thing now is it's just try to get that try to get the economy recovered and get people get people working get businesses you know open safely and that will generate revenue so we can we can fund these programs and that's why these CARES Act dollars are so important moving forward you know we've got another batch that's coming through and a lot of that you know it's really focused on economic development which is so vitally important of course to keep moving forward yeah um other other concerns answer or questions for answer no we did we're we're delighted to work with you on you know if we need to change your pivot we value the working relationship we have you and and I'm really proud of the all the work that you know the staff has done here they've really worked incredibly hard to try to make these programs work and keep going and I'm really proud of our our farmers and our producers who keep in mind have not stopped at all through this program and through this pandemic and keep in mind when they're always feeding us and I think agriculture is in a wonderful place right now where you can really make make a difference and it's been rediscovered the sort of a renaissance how important it is and buying local and supporting our landscape so I think we're in a I think you folks are in a wonderful position here over the next several months play a really lasting impact on on Vermont and the economy and we stand ready to help and we we can and how how are our small farms are we losing many uh with uh sales uh Antson just uh yeah I I'll at the beginning of September we'll have the the latest uh numbers but you know we're we're looking at you know 25 to 35 since the pandemic um so it's you can tell the pandemic with some of the early prices the farmers were facing with 12 13 14 dollar milk um that did push some um out of it and it's across the board I wouldn't say I don't think we've lost a large farm during this they've you know I think the estimates and I think testimony was that you know the losses for them could be a million dollars for the year and so it's across the board but um you know losing one farm it's just one too many right um if uh Brian thank you Bobby I'm just wondering whether either Antson or Allison might have a suggestion if we were to move the date of the non-dairy application deadline um what might be your suggestion for that um well I'm trying to I'm trying to do the I think is it December 15th was the critical date of you know money having to be out so we don't have to return any cash dollars to the federal government so we're going to begin there you know and um you know the more time we can give them and if we can still process and complete the applications and get the money out the door um you know I'm not set on a date but I mean that 15th of December is the critical date so we've got you back that out um you know someone completes an application they're safe you get another two weeks to get it approved if there's any adjustments have to be made and then you know if you give another a week to 10 days to two weeks to issue payment um so that's probably a month so if you back it out a month from December 15th I get you know what November 15th but November 1st I don't know I um that's a date we might want to take a little more follow-up and I can I can work with but I think the most important one is making sure we don't return any federal dollars to the federal government or if we're going to repurpose some of these dollars that have been allocated to agriculture that we have a close eye on where we want to go. That's helpful I wasn't clear on you know what the administrative process was for receiving the application getting it approved making any modifications to it and then finally writing a check and getting it out so yeah and I'm padding probably a little bit of that I'm just cautious about that you know who knows what's happening in the world. I think Brian will certainly have some more discussion and on this whole issue you know as as we do our work over the next two or three two or three weeks um so if there are there any other questions for Anson if not uh thanks a lot Anson and stay in touch and we'll we'll as we come up with questions we'll um we'll be sure to let you know what they are great y'all look great yeah yeah thank you all right thank you very much bye bye okay um Michael do you have anything for us uh just on the deadline issue the reversion date is December 20th not December 15th the initial applications need to be in by October 1st for all of the programs um so you should be aware that you're going to need to move probably four or five dates to make everything work the way you want it to work yeah um well and you've already started working on those dates Michael I did what Senator Plina asked me to do but that he did not ask me to change the October 1st initial application date um but it's easy enough to do that and then it's about whatever date you want that initial application to be submitted the the issue with with at least the dairy program is that they had an opportunity to put in a subsequent application after their initial application so if you move the deadline back you're going to have to consider when the subsequent deadline for for reapplication is going to be you might just say that the initial application needs to be whatever date and that they can apply for for um additional funds after that up until whatever date that reversion is is that mostly for the dairy people though Michael that's mostly for the dairy isn't there the first date is the September 15th date right that that the non-dairy stuff would transfer over so September 15th is the date when the secretary has the option to reallocate to from non-dairy to dairy it says if non-dairy ag producer and processor assistance funds remain unappropriated on September 15th the secretary may reallocate the funds to the dairy program um so it's it's not an automatic it's a discretionary um authority i just sent you the dairy update that i received from diane on august 12th i thought you were all receiving it um when diane sends them out she sends them from herself to herself and somehow bcc's everyone else i don't see who's receiving it i thought you were receiving it um as senator pierce mentioned earlier as of august 12th there was really only about 11 to 12 percent of the total funds appropriated um for the under the dairy program yeah and i think when i checked in with them i think 11 11 out of the 33 big farms had had got their apps in and been approved but that still left 20 i think like 22 uh that that hadn't got their stuff in yet and those are the big guys and countless little guys hadn't gotten theirs in yeah the the report i have has nine of the large farms but that that's almost three weeks ago now so i wouldn't be surprised if a few more have applied yeah um and i'm sorry mr chariot didn't mean to go ahead Brian i think the next report is due a week from today if i'm not mistaken so i think we'll get a much clearer picture uh in the next one where we are i'm going to guess it's going to be north of 50 or 60 instead of the 11 but that's just against well i i hope so from the testimony that we received early this spring i mean things were pretty glooming and i hope that and that's why i i wanted to push ants in a little bit and i did call bhcb to make sure they were doing their part about helping some of these people that were requesting assistance um can i can i ask like another question oh sorry christ yeah sure okay just to clarify and maybe i should have asked anson this but the the ag programs don't have that requirement that the accd programs originally had for the 75 loss and now i think it's down to 50 loss right we just got any loss any any demonstrated loss of revenue or cost due to covid okay because i think that's another misconception out there is that they think that it needs to be a 75 loss so i've talked to a number of farmers where i've said no it's any loss plus any expenses um so i don't know well and in most cases just the loss in their milk checks from what they were getting in january of february and what it dropped to would cover it would cover most every farm just in the loss of milk revenue with the exception of the organic guys um but the conventional guys should have all basically qualified qualified for the max in near in near small medium or large um for that revenue uh christ did you have yeah yeah well a couple things that that point that senator hardy just made is only true about dairy right the non-dairy do have to uh have some percentage of loss i thought the non-dairy cannot have a net profit over a designated time period right and you you should have received a letter or you may have received a letter from multiple organizations saying that it's a difficult for them to determine that and be even if they've had a net profit they still might have had significant economic harm losses as compared to last year and they think believe it's inequitable for dairy not to have that no net when they do well and and i think when we were setting it up i certainly forgot of let's say people would have a meat or a vegetable csa and so they pay for that in february or march so on paper they are having a profit but it doesn't really recognize the cash flow so um i'm wondering if uh mr chair you mentioned vhcb and they're we're hoping that they're helping people with technical assistance to apply for some of these programs we want to make sure that's happening but i also have heard that the the applications are to say the least tricky and so i wonder if we could actually hear from some of the technical advisors to to see if they have feedback that maybe would be wise for us to understand in terms of if there are changes we should ask for in the application process i i'm sensitive to eastman's point we don't want to redesign the whole thing it's just a few weeks underway but but i also know that too often state government makes things about as hard as possible and well maybe at least here to see the advisors who are helping people with the technical assistance if they had feedback maybe that'd be valuable yeah it'll also be also be important to hear from some of the excuse me some of the farmers or the people that know who's been hearing from about removing the no net profit thing that might make the application simpler i mean i'm not know for sure but it seems like that's one way of re-envisioning the application process that might make it simpler for farmers to show a loss as opposed to this argument around no net profit during certain months so i wonder if we i think we should hear from those folks who've been hearing from those farmers about that i add that on my list about what you thought about doing you know a whole session like as long as it takes one session to do input from from farmers and concern people you know applying the whole nine yards on COVID funds and how how they're finding it working and you know just from the general public i hope that's something you'd want to do or i thought it might be a good idea yeah i i think that would be helpful because i'm wondering why the applications are so complicated and um because i heard from a restaurant that applied for the sort of regular application a regular um accd funds and he's and the restaurant owner told me it took him 19 minutes to to fill out the form and he he did it like that and got the money so i don't know why the ag ones are much more complicated or if this is just an anecdote that doesn't bear out in the larger thing i don't know but i know i i would think accd would be two but i know they're very concerned about the applications um and whether they're legitimate COVID expenses because if they pay out money and it's not and the feds come in on it then we got a claw that you know we got to pay pick that up out of our own general fund money and you all know we haven't got any extra general fund money so that might be one reason why you know our crew's taking it to heart and but why don't we um why don't we plan to have whoever's looking after this for Gus over at BHCB have them at our next meeting to hear how that's going and then maybe next we give people an opportunity uh to think about what they may want to say but get it out there that next week at our maybe second meeting we'll have it kind of an open forum and people can can call in and and get on would that work yep uh brian thank you mr chair maybe we could get a copy of the application too i mean it wouldn't hurt to look at it to see whether it is in fact as senator hardy mentioned i mean maybe it is really complicated and then again maybe it isn't but two people thought it was and so all of a sudden we're getting all these complaints when i don't think it would hurt to at least look at the application yep michael either maybe either you or linda could get copies for us sure i can get you a copy um i i think the issue is demonstration of the economic harm uh providing enough records or or other proof to qualify and to ensure um that it would qualify or be eligible under CRF funds i think that that that's the difficulty that some of the the farmers are facing yeah crash but but the businesses over at accd have the same test right they have to call they have to demonstrate some and and mr chair you mentioned maybe the agency ag agency is a little extra cautious and they should be cautious but in terms of liability for the general fund the amount of money going out through accd completely dwarfs anything we're giving to ag and so i gotta believe the scott administration is is gonna be concerned about veracity of of their awards through accd so anyway um hopefully we can uncover what's going on make it possible if if there are improvements to be made yep um and um what day what day would other day would you like to meet uh what day is easier for for you folks um but we we'll do two days two days or two mornings a week and now this thursday i i almost think we have uh an approach as a public hearing on the stuff on thursday what what two days would tuesday and friday work better than because we already have to tie up friday morning anyways and tuesday those could be a short morning uh you know once the bills start coming in but we could we could go directly from session to committee and it wouldn't screw you up on another morning yet at least it would be y'all can take uh continue us from our morning session unless we start running out of time tuesday and friday is much more welcoming i have a problem with i i have a problem with next friday we're talking about friday the fourth of september if we're talking is that next week yeah i have a problem with that morning other than that i'm free but that more friday the third friday the fourth is a problem for me in the morning yeah that's a little fresh friday tuesdays and fridays are both potentially short because we also have floor sessions and and we're a committee that likes to talk so i'm wondering if maybe we should do at least one either wednesday or thursday that don't have conflicts with the floor but i know we thought about earlier tuesday and thursday that's fine yeah that's fine yeah next thursday i've got a appointment at uh i just had a tooth extracted so i've got an appointment at 10 40 to see whether the dead guy's tissue is starting to regenerate my mouth that's what they do that's what they do when they pull it too they put a cadaver's tissue in and it sticks you up that is so gross brian thank you for sharing it's not that bad it's not a big deal maybe next uh maybe that would work if we change that particular day it would work better i've got to um take my wife over to burlington for a doctor's appointment to that day the third i believe it is so so that might work better we'll we'll decide um let's see well that's the day we were tentatively thinking about having a public input you know that it'd be a week from our second meeting this week but we do the public thing on the second wednesday the second and then not meet on the third right would that work yeah yeah and and i i think linda's on so um i'm listening he's getting this down i'll i'll make a note of it so i won't forget um no uh so is there anything else that we're doing this week we'll try to get somebody from vhc beyond thursday for thursday and um and we'll also get a report on the um applications from maybe michael could get those and send them to us ahead of time or linda could however we work that out and um and uh go from there is there uh michael so so the application that's online is iterative it it basically um populates as you enter in data so and and then you need to register in order to go further into the application process so i've asked the agency to send over a full copy of the application because you you just can't see it unless you register um as a farmer online so i heard i've heard that people can't get it you can only get it online there's no paper application available to the farmers so i'm gonna ask for that full copy and i will send that over when i receive it yeah linda is asking what time on thursday bob thursday we can we can uh roll at nine o'clock um bobby i just two things first of all michael if you are able to uncover the apparent report about school food service and what's going on that would be great i can't find it i have asked the people in our in operations that are supposed to receive them if they've received them they haven't i've also reached out to katie mclean who drafted some of that language for what was it act 136 um i haven't heard back from her yet my next option is to just reach out to rosie directly okay great thank you and then the second thing um bobby is the that little the a little amendment about field days um and wondering what your thoughts are this for the rest of you is this ongoing issue with field days in their welcome center the addison county field days in their welcome center and and all and they're uh holding tank um it's something i've been working on with them and michael as well um so there's just a little amendment about um financial assurity on holding tanks um i don't know bobby how you wanted to handle that if you and chris have talked or what you want me to not not this chris spray um and what you want me to now that if we all charge the dollar an hour for all the time that individually that everyone has spent on that holy smokes i mean uh but uh peter i mean it's unreal it's crazy yes it is totally crazy uh peter has agreed to uh the language change i believe to let nonprofits and charitable groups is it go without he's agreed to that language right the commissioner yes well they had they had wanted a broader sort of getting rid of the financial assurance on these tanks more broadly but um i asked michael after talking with you and and senator bray to draft it more narrowly so i believe you drafted it michael that it's about about number of days that the tank is in use um yeah that's correct you might remember from from now it's about two sessions ago that you the fair wanted to use the holding tank but they didn't qualify because their flow was too high so you allowed holding tanks to be used when the event or the building is not going to be used for more than 28 days in a calendar year so what the agency asked for is a financial surety which the holding tank section requires any holding tank to have a letter of credit or other surety that uh it will be maintained appropriately the agency asked for that to be deleted entirely and the language the senator hardy asked before would only um remove the financial surety requirement for buildings or structures used for no more than 28 days a year which would be all of the ag fairs well i i think that would have to run i'm sorry you don't need me really right i don't say that you may have to do some lifting with a former committee uh that you used to be on happy you bike no i think i think uh if the agency will support that um i think we ought to try to tuck that into somewheres along the way and get this thing put to bed yeah i i think senator bray was thinking potentially the act 250 bill and i know you and i had potentially talked about the budget yeah so i guess my my thought would be that that's a chair's decision so i don't want to but if you all can if you want just bobby i just want your direction as chair to let me know what i should try to do i'd rather go it alone as a single bill than to hook it to that 250 bill and um you know we're going to be doing i would expect some other issues um and we'll we'll find a home for it okay um i'm the commissioner asked me about it so i'm just gonna let him know that um we're still not sure um he they they also uh he testified this morning in the house on and this came up on in house natural resources apparently so yeah oh yeah well amy's probably she has supported um she's aware of it because i let her know um i i don't know specifically i don't know if she's seen the specific language but i was going to send it to her so yeah i don't i don't know do you have your hand up michael um so i think the commissioners scheduled to testify this afternoon in house natural maybe maybe he got on the agenda earlier um i i just wanted to say that the financial surety amendment will turn down the bed covers but it's not definitely going to put this issue to bed um because they still have to finish the design and installation of the final tank so yeah it still will have to get another tank michael's absolutely right um but this will make it cheaper for them right so we're trying to find ways to make this new tank not as expensive um we did have a very good very productive meeting i heard from both the agency and field days that the meeting was productive and they felt good about it and we resolved a few things um but this is just helping them along the way and they'll still have to pay for a new tank because the tank they have is another big tank or another another five or seven thousand or what what size i think the tank they have is i believe like five to eight thousand gallons too small they have to finish doing more flow calculations and it was hampered a little bit because there was actually no fare this year but i think they're going to work around that i think everybody's goal is to have this done so the fare can open next year with a tank new tank i know i'm sick of this too body well i i'm not i mean i really think that they should be able to do what they want to do down there as long as they don't pollute and and i mean it's been a a mess uh we do what we think we'll get them there and then we find out that well this is missing or that's missing or they have to add or something else on but anyways that would be good to get that done um anything else to put on um this week's second meeting it's not necessarily that but it's a thought that i want to go back to when Ruth mentioned before the food programs and they're talking with michael and others about repurposing the dairy money you know if there's not if the law now says if there's money left over in the non-dairy program it would go to the dairy program we're not even sure the dairy program would need that money anymore but my thought was to repurpose that money toward nutrition programs which could then be used to support Vermont agriculture as well so instead of the money going from non-dairy into the dairy program go from non-dairy into the food bank or something where money would be spent to buy local produce so it's just a thought for now to keep in mind yeah um so are we all sat yep yeah well um we'll um we'll see you all tomorrow more uh tomorrow after lunch on on the senate floor