 Good morning committee. This is the Monday morning committee of the house appropriations committee and it is already September 21st which I just find unbelievable how this month is flying by. We first have on our agenda we have Sarah Truckel from DCF, we have Sean Brown the commissioner and we also have Sarah Clark the CFO for AHS with us today. Our committee wanted to hear a little more about the status of funding for the parent child centers and I understand there's some work that is being done and many people have reached out to different members in the committee regarding getting some support and and what that support is going to look like through DCF and the amount that we passed out of the house the 3.9 million back in June later morphed into a larger 12 million dollar package that certain funding priorities was going to be taken from and so we just need an update of where we are on that and plans for some support if needed to the parent child centers. So welcome Commissioner Brown and Sarah and Sarah thank you for joining us today. So I think you've been there's been lots of conversations lots of emails going around and Sean do you want to start or Kimberly did you have anything you wanted to add before the commissioner jumped in? No I'll save a couple questions for later but thank you Madam Chair. So Commissioner Brown welcome and would you do you just want to give us an overview of where we are and what you see the the issues are and how we can possibly resolve them? Sure good morning and for the record this is Sean Brown the commissioner for the Department of Virtual Children and Families. Yes so we the legislature did allocate 12 million dollars for three different areas for providers in response to COVID in one area was for parent child centers for their ongoing operations and when we did an application process to award those funds and we worked with the state's consultants and our attorneys to identify what would be or would not be allowable expenses that were submitted and based on that we we started to move forward and make awards and then some concern was raised after some testimony in house human services regarding whether some of the decisions being made of what was eligible or not for reimbursement based on other areas of what is happening in state government and other areas where the COVID relief funds. We stepped back and met with our consultant and reviewed some of the expenses that the parent child center submitted to reevaluate whether they were reimbursable and so that work went on through last week and through Friday. I can share with the committee that the parent child centers that submitted actual cost and expenses up through August and then future expected costs from August into October combined those totaled almost $967,000. We did notify the parent child centers of their awards for funds up through August and then we were going to notify them separately of their future anticipated expenses. I think combined we will be able to reimburse almost all of that $967,000 to the parent child centers. Several of them submitted appeals which are a part of the process and we're reviewing those now and we believe that we'll be able to resolve those and then also we'll be sending out notices of their anticipated expenses fully funding them as requested. So my first question is the anticipated expenses from August through October but what about October through December? Will those be included or? Well most of those expenses that they submitted up through anticipated were for purchases of like appliances and then some building capital expenses and so while those projects will be ongoing we just need them to submit the reimbursements through the end of October so we can get those funds out out the door and issued and spent before the end of December because those capital projects need to be online before the end of December to be reimbursable so we just need it's a very quick time. Yeah thank you I now understand that. Okay are there questions? Do we have Mary Beth Redman? Welcome Mary Beth you're here from the Human Services Committee so if you have questions or need clarification make sure that you know just raise your blue hand or flag me down somehow. Are there any thoughts for the commissioner at this point? The concern was that the initial award that they received Sean was it 130,000? Approximately yes 130,000 out of almost a million dollars worth of requests but we've heard from the commissioner that it appears that through the appeals process and understanding some of the some of the more detail and what the asks are that they hope to get nearly the full amount out the door. Mary. Thank you. So I understand what has happened today. I'm thinking that if I were a parent child center and had been turned down that I might not now apply for the same thing that maybe is now eligible under kind of the current understanding so are you letting the PCC's know of you know that there is an opportunity that things that have been turned down are now eligible? Yeah we're notifying the PCC's this week that you know we had given indication in the initial award letters for the incurred expenses through August that much of the capital expenses under the initial guidance we received would not be eligible and so we're sending out notices this hopefully today for those anticipated expenses that those are now eligible and they can expend those funds and submit the reimbursement this later this fall for those costs. Thank you. Any other questions? Diane and then Marty. Thank you I thought I'd be in a long queue. Thank you. Thank you for coming in this morning. So it's one of the reasons why we were like we're here today is because the parent child centers are such a critical support system within you know across the state and especially in today's environment I'm wondering commissioner are we is the agency working with or the PCC with the parent child centers to get a deeper understanding of you know what we funded here what you're going to be able to fund here is also just a tip of the iceberg of a narrow scope of what they actually have needs for and underlining all of that there is a lot more going on I know that it's a lot of money and you're doing we're doing I'm very pleased to hear that this is going to get out the door but are we at the same time while you're working with them getting a better and deeper understanding of the other issues that are not being addressed because COVID is so narrow does that make sense? Yes we in working with them we have begun that conversation with them and asked if there are additional losses or expenses that they incurred that might or not but they initially looked at here so we get an understanding of what those look like what those losses or expenses look like. Thank you. Thank you Diane Marty. Yes I just wanted to clarify that you indicated that certainly some of that now it has been judged that some of the capital expenses that people were asking for such as appliances and that sort of thing would now be eligible but indeed instead PCCs still need to expend those funds and then ask for reimbursement is that correct? That is correct this is a reimbursement but will this letter that you but we we are letting them know that it based on what they submitted for information if they make those expenses they will be reimbursement and we're committed to turning those payments around as quickly as possible when they submit for their reimbursement once they make those purchases. Okay okay I understand from a fiscal point of view it's it's necessary that you wait for justification of the expense before you reimburse it but the concern of course was the getting the capital funds in order to do some of those things first but if you can assure them that the those requests are legitimate and will be reimbursed promptly I think they will be able to manage. Thank you for making those changes or clarifying those issues. Marty Mary Beth. Thank you Madam Chair. Representative Feltas really began kind of my initial inquiry and that is how quickly you know as far as reimbursements are we talking like days I mean one of the things that I heard overwhelmingly was the time frame and knowing that you you are approved to spend this quickly do you feel like you'll be able to turn those around within days I mean is that that the hope? I you know I'm not a find the financial person so I'll defer to our Chief Financial Officer Sarah Truckel to give you a little background of how the agency and the department of processes its invoices and makes payments. Happy to do so so Sarah Truckel DCF Financial Director for the record so this award will be issued on a based on their grant applications for their anticipated expenses so it'll have an amount and then it'll be paid on a reimbursement based basis based on their invoices similar to how we pay other grants that we have within the department but also grants that we have within the parent child centers we typically process payments within a couple weeks that's our typical turnaround so we have to receive an approval from the grant manager and then the accounts payable team processes we haven't seen a significant delay in any invoices being processed with COVID and would anticipate that this would take the same payment process so for some context with our child care stabilization payments we were issuing payments within 10 to 14 days of those invoices being submitted. Thank you and just one more question relative to first I just want to say I'm really grateful for this review and this change in decision and I'm wondering if in your consultations with the consultant if in the end there will be any expenses that it was deemed you cannot pay like is there anything left out of this that you definitively determine no we can't cover that? At this point you know there we hope to cover the vast overwhelming majority and my goal is this to try to cover it all so at this point we don't anticipate there being a huge discrepancy from what they've requested to what we're reimbursing at this point we're continuing on those areas under where they've appealed the initial grants where there's still where we need some additional information we're hoping that additional information allows us to move forward and make payments. Thank you. Kimberly? Yeah thank you so if folks are done with the PCCs I just want to echo thanks to everyone for raising the issues and for working on them and I know it's been a quick turnaround the the shift that I want to make now is looking at that 12 million dollar package and my recollection is that had some summer grants it summer camps in it it had the PCCs but it also had the CIS funding and I would welcome any update on what has happened in terms of those dollars. Yes you know we are in the process awarding those funds out there was only a few costs out of the the amount that they requested I don't have that exact number but there was some costs that were requested through the CIS that we believe were mistakenly applied for by a parent child center and should have been included in their PCC request because the CIS providing grant was for the provision of telehealth and cost and expenses there and so we've covered almost 100% of those costs and we're looking at moving the few expenses there that are not tied to telehealth that were submitted by a PCC and putting those in and making sure that following up with that provider to make sure they understood that that was for telehealth and if those were other costs that were reimbursable through the other means that we will move them over to that if that works for them that provider. Great thank you and my follow-up question and this sort of highlights it I was looking through Act 136 and I noticed there were two reporting provisions one was sort of a I think it was October 1 and I forget the second date and it applied to the whole bill but in terms of a January 15th report back of where all the dollars land ultimately that seemed to only apply to the health care stabilization section and just based on our back and forth right now I'm thinking that um it might be helpful to have that same sort of report back in January that would just let us know where the dollars landed within that 12 million dollar package versus only the health care stabilization and in part the reason I raise it I think that will better inform us when we head into fiscal year 22 knowing where resources from the prior year including CRF resources have landed does that make sense? Oh absolutely um you know given the intent of the legislature it was our belief and it is our belief that we want to provide an update or a report to the legislature where where we spent these funds as well as the health care stabilization funds. Great thank you very much. Thank you Kimberly for bringing bringing up that extension you know the extended report back so that we get the full view um if this is being added to the budget Kimberly and I think it would be helpful to DCF that it's not one of those formal report backs where they have to do all the jargon in a big long report but they actually just come in and they report back on the informations to the committees of jurisdiction and so ledge council has that type of language that makes it we get all the information but it's it's an informal report and not one of the long longer more time consuming reports would that be helpful John that that type of report yeah we're happy to report back in any mechanism that that the legislature would like to receive it so we're more than happy to come in and provide additional testimony in January on the final result of all these funds and how they were spent thanks I think I think that would be helpful just because as you highlighted earlier Madam Chair we started out this malocations in the house that were far more specific and because everything was melded I think there's been some sentiment on the part of members of trying to follow through where things landed in greater detail than just a 12 million dollar overview so thank you and Kimberly you will you will work on that language yes thank you are there any other questions or comments or thoughts for any of the group that's here with us today from DCF Dave yes thank you I had Madam Chair my questions are not directly related to CRF but I thought it looks like we have enough time just two quick questions if I may related to the child world Shawn I understand that the the director of CIS is leaving do you plan to refill that position yes yes we do plan to fill that position great thank you and could you briefly I've had a couple of constituents contact me about the SAG process special accommodation grants could you just briefly describe to us how how that works please I'm going to offer Sarah Truckel to explain those in a little more detail she has a little bit deeper knowledge of those than I do thank you happy to give some high level context so Sarah Truckel financial director for the record the special accommodation grants have an application process which the provider of a child care program may apply for funds on behalf of an eligible child that application process is done in consultation with the child's parent or guardian and is for a specific purpose most often for one-on-one assistance during a child care setting to support that child during the time that they receive care in the child care setting and to support their learning we review those applications based on the funding that we have available and make awards based on a set amount of timeframe so sometimes those awards are made for three months sometimes they're made for six months and then the provider receives funds to typically hire that additional person in the classroom to work with that child is that answer your question representative yeah so it's a grant process it's it yes it's not a bid process it's Sean has these kinds of needs and and we'd like X amount of dollars to address them so it's a grant it's an application process yes so it's still it's not it's an application process of which there's criteria that's reviewed to determine the needs the amount of funding available and then an ultimate allocation um so they they do go through a process which is reviewed by the Children's Integrated Service program manager and I do believe the director also reviews each one of those applications to determine the appropriate award and level of need based on the application criteria thank you Sarah I appreciate that happy to help thank you madam chair thank you Dave are there any final questions um that anyone would like to ask Mary Beth anything else from your committee that you'd like clarification at this time I I think we're good I'm delighted with the news thank you excellent thank you for for coming in it just makes communication so much easier when we're all working as a team and thank you Sean and Sarah and Sarah for for coming in and and bringing this information because the the emails that we've been receiving have been very concerning and that this is working out and you can address these needs is as Mary Beth said is excellent news and we're happy to receive it so we are going to move on to the budget and you're more than welcome to stay a busy day and need to and need to get back to your own work but thank you for coming thank you thank you for having us okay Teresa and Maria are we here on Friday we did quite a bit of work we um on Thursday and Friday we did some work on the web report and then we got through a about a quarter of the language I don't even know if we got through a whole quarter of the language but then there was additional language that was passed on Friday that is not included in our original packet and Teresa that is all posted now is that correct yeah I just put the I just put four documents up there's the restatement of the house and senate general fund differences which you got this morning the language differences which you got this morning in the list and I just did a CRF total side by side and the annotated and I'll send you the last two right now and so my question is the open up the senate language is this all the new language from page one to the end or is this just the additional language my print it's not it's not I can't download it Teresa I can't open the attachment for some reason that's weird it's only like a one pager okay yep I wasn't nothing happened it's just a PDF so let me uh I sent it to you in a pdf form this morning the whole committee always open yeah senate language it's not uh there it is okay and that includes oh so it's a one pager and I may print oh no it's a couple pages and uh it includes all the new pieces that we don't have if we had printed off the language from Thursday right yeah it's the comparison yeah the side by side or differences I should say differences so my question is Maria we're going to continue we left off on page 19 of the language um I want to keep working through that language as quickly as we can as a committee where how um will you just note where there's new language or do you have it already in addition is it already added to your languages that's my question you can spit out so um I it's not in the language that I um had on Friday but I will try to pay attention and insert it where it needs to go um so we were used we were using the annotated I believe right yes we were okay so what I would like to do then Maria I'd like to continue with the document we started with and if we can just note where there's additional language and then address that additional language when we have those communities in front of us we've got enough language for us to address today um do you happen to move off and is there any additional language in the first um sections that we've gone through that that we just need to just put a line with a red mark saying more language coming we've done section eight one hundred through uh we left off at B 1102 is there anything that we need to add that was that we haven't talked about so far um so I I just can't answer that I have to look at the language so Trisha you said that you sent it earlier the the new floor amendments so let's just skip that then Maria and we'll come back to all those floor amendments from prodding let's just continue it's on both websites as well kitty if I might this is more like I I look at a document the earlier annotated version was 161 pages this one's 178 I'm I'm sure there's more just just differences than that but that's my initial clue that this is the final yes it would I actually gotta revise this morning oh okay that's what I'm asking so Maria you are going to be working off a new list thank you Diane for looking at those page numbers so this is going to include all the new language and unfortunately I don't I don't have a copy or that works that long and I don't really want to be 200 more pages yeah okay okay so yeah okay that's good this is where we left off um I think that your committee had we've gone through um B and we were starting at business economic assistance and unemployment stimulus so my only thing I want to go back to Maria if there's new language in those first 19 pages that that we have missed but looks like it looks like these pages okay we'll go back and see if there's something we missed in the earlier section yeah I mean I can do that I just um yeah okay so let's let's do what you just said continue on would be 11 or two yeah okay 19 for everybody just so we're all know where we are yeah so okay so be 11 or two is the section that addresses the new language that I mean the new money that was added by the for the 85 000 for the commerce uh CRF funds and you'll see some of the um I'm just going to turn my phone off it's making noise sorry um anyway so that number the 143 700 what they've done is they've under they've gone to the underlying bill the um AXA Results 137 and amended that bill to reflect the new money that's been added so that 143 700 is in addition of um 61 700 000 and I think this is worthy of a like just a little note to self like if you want to write in the margins there's four places where we will see the total of 85 million added and this is one of them so this is the 61 700 and then we're going to come upon a 4 million for restart Vermont um and then there's going to be a 2.3 million for Vermont State College workforce training and then we're going to come upon it so Teresa we'll just slowly walk through it but we're going to also come upon a 17 million for the unemployment insurance supplemental benefit so um I just want you to have heads up that those numbers are included in these documents that we're going to um just second Maria for for the committee when when the bill passed out of the house when the bill passed out of the house the commerce committee came in and they had I think 88 million dollars going they had a total both have a total of 100 million house position was 88 million to go into the business sector for recovering grants and then the other 12 was divided into three ways five million for the city areas three million for the Vermont State Colleges and then the last five million I need a refresher on Maria do you remember or Linda I'm sure you remember yeah I'm not does anyone remember the last five it was um can I just ask you when I look at our our bill that that number which is now here that they're reflecting is 143 when it left the house it was 170 but they don't they don't show that because I think they just took it all down and just work from the original or something um but anyway the house version was 170 170 both spend the same amount of money it's how we see this different ways and I think the fourth amount was the restart right yeah that yeah that sounds right yeah yeah yeah 88 million all going out to uh recovery grants and then the other five for the ski areas four for restart from three to the Vermont and so you're going to see it right I can't hear you you can't hear me my week should I shut off the video is that is that better no I think you just need to be closer let me see if my volume may be laid down I apologize and somebody is wrestling papers near them that may be you kitty no I haven't moved any okay um kitty I'm thinking if we flip back a couple of pages we we can see just to refresh where we have ended up on page 17 let's see page 17 okay there um you'll see there we had um part of this let's see um yeah yeah so this at the bottom of the page is the five million dollars that the house had put in for ski areas and the senate just they struck that language because the ski areas are going to be part of the overall grant process they're going to go through the process just like every other business so they don't have a special carve out they are still eligible of course for these grants it's just not as a separate carve out so that's where the five million that you just mentioned um regarding the house lives or did live um okay and then then on page 18 the next page um you'll see yeah there at the top you see the four million the restart Vermont and that is I believe the same as the house um there was a little bit of language was added by the senate and you can see that in green um but this is part of the 85 million dollars that the senate has added the senate did a little bit differently they did 85 million dollars um added to the bill and then there's a 15 million dollar um contingent appropriation for a total of 100 million dollars um okay and then on number 16 so the the UI piece is totally different money then the the 17 million is totally different money outside the 100 million no no it's in the it's in the money it's in part of the 85 million it's um there's four pieces there's four pieces and they add up to 85 million it's four million for restart Vermont to this is from the senate perspective 2.3 million for the Vermont state college workforce training 61.7 million for business grants and 17 million for the UI supplement and if you add those together you get 85 million and then where's the last 15 so we'll see that language um it's coming up it's um it's part of this giant package that you have in front of you and I will definitely flag it um oh here it is I'm sorry it's on page 24 section B's and boy one one zero two point two it's called contingent business grants crf appropriation there you go yep that's it okay that's what they did to um they did contingency of the 15 million and that would that would help their number of 61.7 to get it closer to the 88 million yeah so yeah yeah that's right and the idea is that if there's any money left over from the allocation to the administration and the allocation the 150 zero of those um the joint fiscal committee um is allocating there's anything left over or if we get um FEMA money or monies that will replace some of those dollars 15 million of those dollars will go to this purpose and so for this committee and for Linda um we will pull in a mic mark out in committee because uh they're they're very similar they both have business grants they both have restart Vermont and they both have BSC the big changes are the lesser amount in the business grants on the senate side and adding 17 million to the UI um and so that that's just going to be a conversation and progress with us and with the committee of jurisdiction okay any questions any members on how the difference between the hundred million dollars that went out in commerce is everyone pretty clear on that I'm I'm pretty I'm pretty clear on it and I'm glad I put some mental time although it was thick going through over the weekend to try to get my head wrapped around it and I'm sure that I'm still missing a lot of pieces but so my question is because I was trying to tag up things that we had in our CRF bill with where they moved and Maria did a good job of showing us where those other pieces moved but I think coming up and and where does the 1.5 for the CUDs fall in we're gonna wait okay I don't want to start jumping around that's not that's not a part of the economic move right no okay okay um marty yes I I do have a bit of a concern with what the senate did because it looks to me as if the 15 million that they're adding in to make up the total of 100 is contingent money assuming they would come back from the jfc as opposed to being directly 15 million that they're committed to do not just presuming that something's going to come back right so that does concern me a bit that it cuts into the pot that jfc might have to take care of some last minute things that need to be taken care of yep it it is concerning and it's it's concerning that it cuts into the jfc pot but it also cuts into the amount going out to support Vermont businesses that are struggling and so that's right immediately yeah so we'll have to you know that will be a conversation between our committee and their committee to see where we land but also making sure that the priorities from commerce that Mike is working through these with us and and through their the adjacent committee on its side um we're close but we're far apart at the same time and in some of those areas the themes are similar money is the problem in the contingent the word contingent is is going to be an issue yeah i'm sorry i'll i'll echo that i know you guys will be going into committee of conference but it seems like the 15 million that we we actually were comfortable because of the advice that we were given by jfo that this was a very high probability from fema and response that it might actually be out more than than the 15 and that 15 was a conservative use that we use straight up went forward with so i find that the construct that the senate is proposing here just complicates that a whole lot you know as we approach december for businesses being able to apply and for the agency to be working with people so so we know where the issues are i just want to keep working through this language we're not going to resolve them now but also we need to ask um the joint fiscal office for updates where we are with uh with the crf dollars and the fema dollars because those are changing you know almost daily too and and so it changed significantly from when it left the house to the senate it's going to change in our time where we're working out the differences as well and then it's going to continue changing all the way to number 20th um and so but that that those are the pieces that are on the table and depending on the money that's available and the priorities um we'll sort through how the hundred million dollars looks in the end okay are we move on we didn't solve it but we're that's all i'm trying to uh do at this point what page are we on uh 20 okay so so yeah page 20 also um refers to the additional 61 million 700 000 and just as a reminder the senate had this five million for ski areas they're going to compete against this pot of money they're going to compete for their funds in this pot of money okay in the in the one one seven right yes so yes they as competes here okay yeah um okay so here we go we're going to um move a few pages there's language changes um there's uh on page 22 there's a lot of language about process and um you can read through that that's regarding these grants um so a says adopt the process procedures and guidelines then um then you know you can i don't know if you want me to go through this you can submit and then you just submit information to business so businesses know how to apply oh you move to the next page okay yeah i'm sorry i'm on page 22 and so there is a full page of language that was added regarding how to apply for these funds and um uh there's also some reporting at the very bottom provide bi-weekly updates to the general assembly concerning implementation of this section and linda you'll bring these to the attention of house commerce and anyone in this committee if you want to weigh in weigh in on with linda um okay then sorry yeah page 23 you'll see this is where you're going to see the 17 million for the additional ui supplement and the language states that it's um for not more than a hundred dollars per week for not more than five weeks to vermanos who received unemployment insurance benefit pursuant to um this pandemic unemployment assistance well their statute this is directly related to the um the administration's request and i think they requested 20 million here was it 18 or 20 they they requested 20 to the cf the joint fiscal committee and and this is um um you you will see that in the senate proposal that they did not continue with the gift card that we heard testimony on friday and um not that this is a one off this for that or anything like that that is not here but this is the new piece that um doing supplement of the 100 additional ui so can i ask a question i'm sorry this but they're they're using 17 million of crf funds for this this is all part of the 100 yeah okay um obviously we'll work that out but they we must be able to use that yeah yep it's part of the 100 million and mic's committee they'll work their priorities um and and we'll come up with a commerce package that the house and senate agree upon which also includes within the 100 million the next page on 24 that maria's already gone over the 15 million of contingent grants if they become available it would go back into the uh into the business grants if if that money becomes available so linda that's another commerce and that's part of the 100 million dollar total package okay it is um yeah go ahead marty marty i just wanted to clarify this unemployment the 17 million it's not another 100 on top of the 300 that we already allowed it's 100 for those that are still on unemployment from september 27th to november 15th because that extra 300 has already expired remember there was originally federal government had 600 extra and then that went back to august and then we we fell into the federal program for another 300 for like three or four weeks this is now 100 for five weeks from september 27th onwards to november thank you for so somebody who's still on unemployment in october would get their regular unemployment plus 100 right thank you and the time period that i referenced was the august time period for the 300 and thank you um this is for a different period of time excellent point right okay i think then we can now move on to uh telecommunications and yeah page 25 we've just so we did that the yeah okay good thank you perfect so what the senate has done is they're they're amending the underlying bill act 137 to um this has to do with the question that was asked earlier about the um i guess nobody asked i'm sorry hot spots um okay um so originally the bill had uh 50 000 125 000 is being added here and this is the issue of the wi-fi hot spots and um let's see i believe this money was moved from where the house had it um you're talking about number seven here because this is all black language above move down to 1105 teresa please are you talking about 11 yeah yeah um yes i'm sorry you you know i shouldn't waste your time looking at language that you've already proved that's okay um yeah i'm talking about 1105 the telecommunications plan this is the question that was asked earlier about the CUDs this is where that 1.5 was moved because it is um the idea was that it was more appropriately placed here in order to be eligible for CRF funds so that was where i was can i just i'll just jump in because that's where i just want to flag that and nardy's on top of this because she's just on top but this is where the polls we had for the polls and now there's i don't know i don't know how this impacts that construct that we had but i also want to go back up to that line above it be b1105 we that was our space in our bill that we took out from mark haigley's amendment the senate puts this little repeal in and i wouldn't look that up and marty that was going to be a question for you this changes one of the items on the 10-year telecom plan that they have to include and so that will be the flag question is like what's the impact of them eliminating that from the telecom plan they just repeal number seven there's like a dozen of those what was number seven diane do you have that no it's right there in front of you see above not right b1105 when we look at our original bill was the place where we had the four hundred thousand dollars movement that we took out from mark haigley the rental assistance so we had removed that the senate has used that spot for this new cons yes so they added this in that location that repeals one of the many items that the 10-year telecom plan is supposed to include in their development so diane we're going to have steve climb jump in and explain this piece but we don't have to decide i just wanted to let you know that it's there that that could be a big question yeah yeah i just threw a couple things out representative lampford did catch a good point here the telecom telecom plan did have in there the looking at the issue of the cuts and what the senate said is and telecommunication one is a long-term look and the senate said well we're giving him short-term money a study to study the cuts so we don't need to even look at him on a long-term basis so it that was sort of the tie the senate made it's a little the senate proposal is a short-term cut study and it changed they got rid of the long-term look so it is definitely an issue that probably should be open the second one just i just want to flag 11.05 1105.1 this was uh there's a lot of questions about the polls or whether or not the polls would be eligible and so what the senate did i think in conversations with the chair house chair of uh chair brigglin brigglin is since there already was 800,000 going to fund um this type of just general work the proposal was to preset to 2.3 add the 1.5 there and since that's already underway and there's already some approval uh of that type of expenditure it that could cover polls it could cover other things too and so they lumped all that money into the sort of category of already approved things it's not going to be loved i think by the um uh commissioner chairney because it was hard to place the 800 now they've got to place 2.3 but rather than go through a new process from the new program the team safer to put it through an existing process the old program had a hundred thousand dollar cap this one has a four hundred thousand dollar cap so they can essentially provide the various recipients with more money uh and get the money out um quicker and if polls can be made eligible they can fund polls marty do you have a question here or thoughts well i i agree and it's easier to throw it into an existing pot that was already uh part of our June uh calculations and they did change the language a bit to accommodate that or to accommodate what the original idea was for a poll data survey and some pre-construction work perhaps and the data net the language now says talks about accelerating their deployment schedules and things like that rather than specifically saying for a poll data survey but indeed it it can some of that work can be done early and be done before december and by pulling it within that bigger pot to start with it just makes it easier and the cud's can all turn around and apply again for that pot of money and marty um i think it's fine 1101 a have you has tim brigglin's committee weighed in on 1101 a 1101 a what's that where we 1105 i'm sorry 1105 1105.1 word i i don't know where i came up with the other number uh the the part that we're going the 1105.1 is what we're talking about now and yes they're aware of that and have 1105 that diane just mentioned i had missed that and i'm going to do some checking on that one okay so we'll leave that one open but did they take a position on the new language and use the initiative for the polls within within this new construct have they weighed in on that did they work with this language they have not officially weighed in on it but i have informed tim brigglin of all of the changes that that occurred with their requests and i don't know that they're going to meet today but he might take a straw poll on all those items and let us know i don't see any he didn't seem to think there were any complications okay um then let's just leave them both open until you come back with us and then at the very bottom on on on this new section is where you see the grant awards going from 100 to 400 that that steve had mentioned so we'll hold that all open marty until you've heard yes committee okay thank you let's move to 1106 which is to page 27 i think teresa maria yeah yes okay so um these this section has to do with the 75 million that the administration had to allocate and the 150 million that the joint fiscal committee um had to allocate and what's going on here the black language already had um two million two million five sixty five two thirty seven reverting from the administration's 75 thousand so that was money that was reallocated in sierra and if you go down um yeah yes so you'll see here that out of the 150 million joint fiscal committee money two million is being reverted and reallocated okay so we had 20 million no the first something the first 20 million yeah you're right that um we had assumed that there would be some FEMA money that could offset some of the some of the um money that was allocated this is different this is a um okay so that issue we talked about earlier with the um senate is assuming 15 million that in their contingent money but this is actually go ahead this relates to page 24 this language relates back to 24 and you're right diane we did do the 20 million we thought we would get from FEMA and they have done a whole different construct here and and have just uh zeroed in on right and yeah and their construct is short of ours by five million and in their language they only include taking it from the 150 and not from the 75 as well they just take it from one item that's a you know it's interesting so up above in the language of the house past they are they're agreed with the reversion of the 2.565 million from the 75 million to the administration and then in addition to that um they're reverting 2 million and you're right i mean if you look at the language that's crossed out it said um there is some house language that says the first 20 million a reassigned it refers to the 20 million that you were just talking about but this is as the chair said a different construct yeah and in the end of where it is it's 55 million sort of lost in this little shell okay so when we go through and determine what we're going to do with the FEMA dollars and and how much we can capture what we're going to take from those two original processes through JFC we will decide if we need to alter the two pages on page 24 and 27. Linda this is um this is related to yours but it's it's because it's how we spent some of that money out of the 100,000 but as a committee we will determine what we're going to do there but I think we can move on because that we're not going to make a decision on that now. Page 28 is uh yeah so I think we can skip to page 29 because 28 is just all language that you already okay there we go boom right there defender general um the defender general um notified us that there was 300,000 CRF monies that they had been appropriated in act 120 the quarter one bill and those monies are not going to be able to be used by the end of the year um so those monies are being taken away here and you'll see I you did see it actually on Friday that we the senate added general fund monies to replace this um this was part of the general fund increase that they included for the defender general. So this is the 453 is GF. No no no this is all coronavirus CRF money still but I guess what I'm trying to say is that they said they aren't going to be able to use the CRF monies between now and the end of the year so what the senate did was they took a look at their need and and backfilled with general funds so you see that on the web report. I'll give you on the web report it's on b202 is where they increased it yeah and they increased it by 375 but 300 of that 375 relates to this issue right here. Okay but my question is they are confident then they can get the 453 out by December 20th. That that's what they reported to us they feel confident with that. Okay so so if they're confident with that piece but obviously then it leaves a hole and that's where the general fund piece will be diagnosed as on b202. We were aware of this issue but it came just as we were bringing the the bill to the floor and so we did not have time to address it. Chip you'll pull up on these pieces and then we're going to determine probably how we find that general fund depending on our priorities as well if we choose to. I can't see my green and my black with the red light. I can look at the screen. Let's go down to the 1108. Okay so this language also refers to the 150 million that the joint fiscal committee has to allocate and what it's saying is that any money that's not used let's see shall revert to the CRF fund here in the middle sits okay unless otherwise authorized by the commissioner of finance any money is appropriate for the CRF fund oops shall revert to the CRF to the extent that they have been expended by that they have not been expended by December 20th. So this is a so that they can be reallocated this is a lot of language to basically say that any money that's not spent of the 150 million is going to be reverted and reallocated and I think that relates to the 15 million that that we talked about earlier. Well my question is this is all money. This is the new plan this is their rewrite of our whole okay yeah it goes on from page one oh well and the other bill for many pages and it's just rewritten everything that we did is not there and this replaces it I have no idea how it impacts the difference between what we did and what they're doing. I can just you know it's worth probably we'll go through at some point with you go through with Jen the meat they're really two changes they did most of them are technical the only they deleted in the way you ascend over to the senate you had specific priorities those specific priorities were taken out and the there was discussion in the senate about why aren't we prioritizing agriculture why aren't we prioritizing other things they just left the priorities you did put in about liabilities and revenue and took out the the other direct priorities and then they also took out a couple other paragraphs later on which were probably superfluous but maybe not you know you can talk to Jen about they weren't really substantive it's more just repeating things that were in the law elsewhere so I think you'll find the biggest change is the priority change of not putting specifying what they are but Jen should really go could go through the technical technical differences. I think there was some of them like they wanted to clarify that it was money that hadn't been encumbered because if it's already encumbered they didn't want to take it back and a lot of smaller changes like that there actually is an annotated version we can we can send you I think with this. My question Steve where's the language all we had a ton of language where's our deleted language that's what I this I want to compare yeah where is it what what section did they delete the language from so so it's I think the best thing I can do is send you Jen did a copy with crossouts and deletion so that you could use that the way this annotated version is set up it just has the replacement language and has your language I think separate but I will I will check that I think most useful thing would be to give you a copy with the deletions but if you know but if you look on page 27 you see our language deleted on page 27 it has it has the green line through language you're right but I guess what I'm saying is that they deleted the whole thing and substituted a new version but the changes are pretty minimal and so I want to get you a get you a copy that shows some of the technical changes so you can actually see the difference because it's very hard from because they substitute out a whole new version exactly and that was my where I got with it too and I just printed theirs and put it in my book next to mine and I thought we're going to deal with that one because that's a bigger issue and if it was not so it wasn't if it if their changes didn't subsequently change things and why did they have to strike the whole thing and rewrite it why didn't they just change the pieces that made some decent improvements by removing the word previously you know the so this is going to take a little more by somebody to dig into to make sure our priorities are we will we will come in and walk through these these language changes with us so that we understand the technical pieces versus the substantive three pieces that may have been taken out so that's going to bring us all the way to 30 33 I believe yeah so Steve since you're on section B 1109 the contingency planning for increased CRF flexibility is this also something that Jen might want to go over or is this something I think what it was and I'm trying to find the document that outlines all the change but she could go over all those sections because that he basically worked it through and I think you'll find most of them are not um substantive but you'll you'll need to go over with her oh marina if we're tracking it's it's 1108 1109 and 1110 we're going to continue on page 36 would be 1111 and okay perfect and carby come in and do all of those other pieces okay let's let's go to page 36 um and um these are um this is the education piece uh no no no no no this the first piece of B 1111 is the extension of the application deadline for the 13 million dollars the municipal grants read it this already I haven't we we talked about this and we've we we may have talked about this particular one I think um down the next section 1112 before we continue on I want to state on the 1111 number a last week we talked about this and I believe that we had affirmation from our committee to move that date out to October 15 we had an email from the tax department is anybody else remembering this does anyone have an issue with moving this date out one month if not I think we check it out we'll come back to it okay I'm not hearing any any opposition now let's move down to the pre-k this is where they added money and you're going to follow with the jurisdiction they moved our 32 5 or 34 5 35 up to 53 million um so I think uh chip you'll do that work and Maria let's jump over to page 37 okay 37 okay so this also okay so they appropriated so there was already an appropriation of 50 million in fiscal 20 and the the 53 million is for 21 CRF funds so you flip the page and you can see how that 53 million is spent on page 37 um um they uh Teresa I think yeah 37 yeah right perfect okay except I want to just make sure the committee knows that we did 50 million in 2020 the 53 is in fiscal year 21 correct so it's not moving from 50 to 53 it's it's an additional where we only did the 32 or 4.5 this is how they have allotted those 53 million go ahead Maria I keep I'm sorry I keep okay no no it's you know here's the thing I I agree with you because this house language it's not crossed out so you can't see the difference um but the first place that they added of the of the 53 billion let's see there was an addition to efficiency Vermont um yeah there it is it's too big bottom of the page um so there's seven million added there and there's um but I can't I don't have in front of me the number that the house I believe there was a intermediate I can't help with that if you I only because you have that number yeah I do so our original position we had 11.5 okay okay 11.5 okay so that makes sense thank you you're welcome yeah um yeah okay so there are actually two million dollars over this house okay here um I think you know our annotations we just have to work with them a little bit more because this is a transition year for all of us for staff and so we just got to anyway that's okay so then down below for public schools um where it says 41 million now it's 88.3 that's an increase of 43. I'm sorry 47.3 million so um if you add from the governors from the governors from the governors but see again I don't have what the house number was so we had 68.4 uh chip I think is trying to jump in here chips oh no no I was just gonna provide the number regardless okay thank you um so 68.4 so if somebody does the quick math we'll see the addition and it's all going to total up to um yes it's 19 900 19.9 million 19.9 million okay yeah over house yeah I apologize for this we should be able to see the house numbers as well as the governor numbers but okay um so that's so that's okay and then um if we flip let's see if we flip to so this is patient you will work with the committee of jurisdiction about the four million of the remaining funds and how those are used yeah that that was an hour our version so that's not new yeah this is difficult when it's all in green and it doesn't include hours um yeah I agree I I really do agree with you here you're you're right on that um so maybe what we need to do and I'll sort through this we need to show you the house numbers and then the change from the house to the senate this doesn't quite do that um so my numbers aren't going to add up but the next page on page 38 the independent schools um the governor had 1.5 the senate now has 1.2 and if somebody has it in front of them what the house had does anybody know what the house number had been up there in top of page 38 I don't think we have changed it I think okay okay that's fine so the the senate took out 300 000 and do you know Maria was that they didn't have didn't think they would have the eligible costs or so I don't know the answer to that but I can certainly find out I'm sure that we have some background information on this I bet it's in a memo somewhere um having great um Steve you don't know why this was done do you okay I'm not sure what the this refers to okay on page 38 at the top under two it says approved independent schools there's a reduction of from 1.5 to um 1.2 million right that's because they I guess that they went and got all the applications for independent schools they're only told slightly below 1.2 million so they and that's on a sheet that's on our website uh spreadsheet you can look at and so then today all the it seemed like all the grants went out and it came out to less than 1.5 they just took the other 300 000 to the bottom line of of the other schools programs that's why they reduced it the accounting and technical assistance of the AOE decided not to use it and put all that money into the general money for schools so uh again that that was part of it and the schools could apply for accounting or technical assistance in their general request for assistance so it just meant that AOE wasn't going to use that money um so again they they um freed that up to provide general aid for schools because they were trying to get to the higher number that this things they actually know it's it's in the uh it's the first item in the senate um resavement collection if you want to pull it up please uh it's a gf I thought it was a sear no no it's the first item it's from it's not today it was a couple days ago or three days ago I think it's spreadsheet and the uh let me I can pull up a link to it if you want but it's uh um if you go to the list of items from the joint fiscal website under senate budget budget restatement you'll go to the um the first one on meaning the latin the earliest one of those is it's called k through 12 crf estimates september 2020 and it's a spreadsheet are you finding it theresa you're looking at the the senate proposal crf no um I will send it here because I don't you're sitting oh are you k through 12 crf estimates september yes I found it it was down way inside there okay you hang on and I'll put this up make it a little bigger yeah you'll need to make it a lot bigger and I don't really know if you want the committee I can certainly go over this the committee a little bit of a long thing I don't know if you want to do it now or later I don't I don't want to do this now okay and I and I really want uh chip to follow this so maybe I'll talk to chip about it and then we can go come back to your where you need he can come back to you later okay but anyway at least you know it's there that's great and uh theresa where is that so I can add so it's a website but I'll just send it to everybody and then you'll just have it thank you now we're gonna go back let me get rid of this hang on okay and are we ready to move on yeah I have a question as we're throwing down here in the next little that section continues to cross out yeah so if you add up all the differences from all the numbers that are crossed out and look at the new numbers all of these different sections add up to 53 million dollar increase okay Maria maybe I can ask you in this where they've crossed that out then they've added this new section which talks about prorating if if there are more expenses than we have the funds for so it says if the appropriated cares act funding proves to be insufficient to cover all reimbursement requests any cost for new pandemic expenses shall we call it fully covered to the extent appropriate funds are available um uh how at what point are they talking about new expenses I mean they're talking about those will be the ones that are prorated so I think that this is a conversation that um we need to have somebody that is more familiar with the subject walk you through I just I just don't have the answer to that then we would have um who would you like to have in or who do you want I'll just talk to Jim Demeray okay can I throw chip can I ask you to take a look at one other thing because I didn't get into it but I just lagged it on my notes is that that deletion of 1114 was in our bill the school year language and they drop that down to 115 or 1115 but what they got rid of a section that we have they got rid of the Australian ballot thing and I have no idea why that would be the only question I would have like why why was that taken out because you don't have to dance yeah and so chip you will um work with the committee of jurisdiction on that and then that may be a piece that that we have to work with that we would work with the senate on probably in that house and senate education yeah all right um but let's see so the um I'm having a really hard time in this room seeing what's green and what's black um so D we are Jim is going to check in with Jim Demeray on D is number two above in black or green I can't I can't tell I think it's black so the next section that's green I think is B 1113 okay and that's yeah and that's the number that we already saw that was increased by two million dollars and that will be a conversation that we will determine if we agree or cannot agree on 14 has been seen but we see it in 15 and then Chip will talk with the committee of jurisdiction or we're going to work with the Australian ballot piece and the importance of having or not having it here and 116 is the next one which is the waiver language has this changed from our house version no but they kept all the stuff they've added some new things once you get to 118 everything else is new but they kept the stuff that we had other than the Australian ballot so we can check off 115 and we can check off 116 because it is our own and 117 we can and then 118 is a new number and this has to do with ADMs Chip do you want to talk about this piece well only that there's I think everybody agrees that there's a need for it I think this is where our the house committee wants to go to but like I say all this stuff from here on is and they haven't they're meeting they're meeting to discuss it tomorrow and I'll be there tomorrow but I haven't talked to the chair about where they are on these news sections okay so uh just 118 uh chip and then uh 119 is new and is 119 new yes yes and 120 yes okay and how much further chip uh the after school yeah and 120 111 21.1 that's new that's a huge new piece yeah okay and that's going to bring us all the way over the 46 so kidding that's the wrestling papers yeah are you kidding yes I just for chip obviously one of the questions for education is how are they going to do all of this in the time period and what's it going to cost and this is pretty massive stuff they dropped in okay chip you will take all Mary do you have another question your hand went back up or comment no um it's that's a big piece of policy uh uh chip and perhaps they have taken testimony on this and they're uh ready to accept or come back with some change or it may be too much to do at this point but you'll have those conversations with the committee yeah okay are you good there a lot of pieces chip um let's move to page three 11 21 yeah section 1121.2 so this section was we're shifting to a new subject um the health care stabilization grant program and here there's 25 million dollars that um is being freed up um from the agency of human services and the there's a couple things I want to point out here when the when you the house has their bill you had there were two expenses that you had one was the da's and ssa's for uh three million and the other was the long-term care I'm sorry the other one was the Vermont health equity and that was a million dollars so those two items as we progress through this section you're going to see that they incorporated into this um money for the um health care provider stabilization grant program okay so I just want to give you a heads up because there's a lot of moving pieces throughout this budget and these are two of them so first there's a free up of 25 million from the health care provider stabilization grant program and I think Steve might be able to comment on why that occurred um but if you want to keep moving we can also keep moving um no if you look um at the bottom of page 47 well page 47 there's number four that was a million dollars in our construct yeah so on page 47 this is where you're going to see a few different things first you see the um EMS workers that that um two million dollars is number one that see that's two million and then uh number two okay the number two is the is three million dollars for the um testing in hospitals and I don't believe that the house had that in their numbers uh wait let me see I'm sorry I don't believe they did um but we did we did have the next three million but we had it yes we're taking this out of the the 250 that's right that's correct so this money for the DA's and ssa's is being folded into this pot of money and then as the chair mentioned the one at the bottom the 750 was a million in the house and so it's 750 now and it's being folded into this bigger pot of money okay and then two million the first one left the EMS piece yes okay and so Dave and Mary you both have some in here um uh within uh to work with the media cross the hall uh first of all um you know we're moving 75 to 250 but within that 250 that we passed back in June um that you know would we include the relating the related testing the EMS workers and then we had agreed to three million going to the DA's and ssa's but not you know we hadn't put it out of this pot and then uh cold care um actually I believed that um the new executive director weighed in on this language and in weighed in on that amount to see why they went from one million to uh 750 if it covers what they feel the need is if the committee across the hall agrees or disagrees with the language that brings us through 48 into the top of page 49 correct yes yeah okay so now Dave or Mary any questions on those pieces they're they're similar money there's some additions and it's coming from an existing uh an existing pot of money instead of um new CRF I don't have any questions I know that with the hundred thousand dollars that they're giving to the director of racial equity set up a dashboard I have a hard time thinking that that can happen in the period of time here but we'll sort it through that's a new thing I don't think we'd seen that before so Mary go ahead Dave Dave here so I don't want to duplicate anybody's work I've been emailing the director on this issue so want me do you want me to run with that one Mary or do you want it you've got it okay I'll work on that and I'll work on the 750 thousand dollar one the other one you mentioned EMS that's Peters I believe did you mention or am I just uh Peter are you with us yet Peter was away I don't know if he's yes I've been here I have been here for the past I don't know 20 minutes I haven't done EMS this year I mean I can certainly jump in try to figure out what's going on with it but I haven't done it nor have I had Peter Peter since you okay I'll take a look at it okay and then the testing in hospitals and long-term facilities if it's the testing piece um Peter do you do do you or Dave want to follow up on the testing piece it's part of the healthcare testing I'm assuming would come out of the health department but um yeah so I can I I'll follow up with that I again all they did was they reoriented the money from from a direct CRF appropriation and put it into the healthcare stabilization CRF appropriation so but I will I'll run that to ground with the healthcare committee and Mary yours is the same amount of money but from an existing source that you'll weigh in on and Dave you said you would do the 750 which brings us to the top of page 49 including your piece but you're already talking to the executive director thank you yes okay let's move to Maria let's move to page okay so I'm I'm thinking that this was an amendment or because it wasn't in my the version of the bill that we talked about on Friday like my hard copy but let's just go through it okay so the first change in this section um is you can see the money they added 22 million dollars in sub two and then the change that is being highlighted on the screen is when they include is this new from Friday yeah I I I believe it is and Steve do you can you just say whether or not this was added on the floor is it in it wasn't in my version on that I worked from Friday but it is today so I'm something happened between the two yeah I can check I actually don't know okay I'll check on that just Teresa can you move the screen up so I can see after E on reports that's where we left off I'm wanting to see this is all new yes what they have done is they've put the whole front line hazard pay bill they've dropped the hazard pay bill into the budget and that's what this is and um go up one more Teresa so I can see a little bit more stop right okay so go down a little bit more I wish I could okay so they've added a new section uh section B1121.1 and this is all hazard pay so we are not going to go through all of these pieces um they have dropped their original hazard pay we know we did a different hazard pay on Friday we made some changes to it but I would like to drop all the way down to section B1122 now because I think that that's okay hazard pay here Teresa can we keep going down Kenny I didn't hear what section you want to go to I want to go to section B1122 I think I just want to make sure that is what you want this is all the hazard pay this is going to take up a lot of those new pages um that Diane referred to instead of 161 it's 178 and here's a bunch of them it's the entire hazard pay bill good correct that's so the next section that is being scrolled down to is 1122 and that's also a bill that um go back to the top of 1122 because this is new language too we're still not at we're not at page because I'm getting lost here I am too crazy here okay um let me let me see if I I've got it online let me just see if I can find exactly where it starts to 1122 when you see B1122 stop okay that's what we're looking for okay is the stimulus equity right just second I think it's page 59 we're going the wrong way the other way the other way then 59 59 oh okay somebody told me to go backwards so that's where I got you gone ahead of it okay this is more hazard pay there it is yeah oh no we keep going it's it's even stop stop right there page six yeah this is new language too and then down below it um stop right there stop don't don't go uh 1122 all of this is new language that we did not have no yeah yeah 0.4 0.3 0.4 the difference is this is where we amended it to add in um our language about the hub remember that small piece it would show up under B here yeah okay I think it's a new copy of this because it's really hard when you don't have so Kimberly is anything else new here or is that that's the that's the only one that I saw that was new there because we had only done a very actually no I stand corrected remember we also expanded uh with more precision how to describe child care programs so that paragraph B was different in the house version okay so we need more work on it so Kimberly I've got a quick question for you this is language that we had in in hours but I am not seeing it in the in in yesterday in our copy from Thursday I go right to 1122 for so they've dropped all of this in to the language I think chair the B 20 B 11 21.1 0.2 0.3 and 0.4 are all new that they dropped in on Friday yes right so it's not just that one paragraph that's a change but it's been dropped into the budget right so when we worked on s 232 on the floor those changes whether it's the till amendment whether it's what we did in the house appropriations committee around hubs none of that is captured here no additional and I don't we don't know if they they tried to do do we no no the timing was off not not just their timing was off I believe that they agree that they're that their position is their hazard pay as it passed the senate um and not ours yeah and and maybe they will agree to incorporate some of the pieces that were that were passing but my question is this piece that has to do with DCF is not part of the hazard pay bill is it or is this new scroll up Teresa a little bit so I can see where this stop right there childcare summer camps after school programs section 14 I don't do we don't have this piece right that's why I can't find it this is new this is all new language yes it's all new it's not in the bill that we had on Friday and it doesn't include hazard pay it's not part of the hazard pay piece well it does in B it says a prospective workforce stabilization program um but that's the same thing that's the same thing perspective workforce stabilization program is the renamed piece that what the senate used to call hazard pay if you recall there was the error made in which amendment apparently and it should be perspective workforce stabilization so that's correct and then the tweaks that we made in our committee okay so Kimberly you are going to follow up on 11 21.4 let's go back to 11 21.3 I just want to make sure we're following up with 11.3 delegation of administrative responsibilities human services yeah hazard but hazard pay okay that is hazard pay but it's within human services Kimberly so I want you to continue with that language with point three and now let's go to point two the other hazard pay is all linda but point two is with former employees linda this is going to be part of the other hazard pay up above this is an addition okay so linda you have point one and point two Kimberly you have point three and point four okay yep yep now let's move on and see what the next section is after 11 21.4 if there's anything else added so I think that's okay you want to go up more keep going down to 11 21.4 and see that's the last thing if that's the last thing then it'd be 11 22 that's next people right Kimberly's got this piece okay keep going there okay now we're back so all of that other is all new added language and this is where we've left off yes marty yeah just scroll down through this section on the equity program they included children under 18 oh it's on page 62 yeah I know that's supposed to 17 yep I thought the senate approved our bill didn't they act on our bill well you know if they're under seven if they're under 18 hours in oh no hours can we make an amendment to go under 18 that we move from 17 to 18 no no no we went back the other way yeah oh it would have had 17 that's right it would have opened up I thought the senate approved it Steve do you happen did you follow any of the senate discussions if they made a conscious decision to go back to the under 18 date versus the 17 after all the things that we learned and how it was going to complicate are you there Steve Maria you weren't listening to those because you know I wasn't listening but you know I'm going to find out for you Adam has his hand up and he may be listening to those conversations Adam yeah pardon me good morning everyone that was a an error when they lifted it from you know one page into another we pointed that out that and Michael O'Grady and Stephanie spoke and it was simply an error that should be worked out in some amendment or in conference committee if you go to conference committee they're like it was not done inadvertently it was an inadvertent error okay and and so at this time the the senate is not planning to take the bill up separately as we had passed they're just going to drop it in the budget and not take it up Adam do you happen that was the I believe that was the intent you'll have to check that but I believe that was the intent but the 17 year old that was an error that they meant to stay with the house and and so Marty after that I believe all the pieces are the same until the appropriation um and yeah it's uh they do a different construct for the appropriation yeah yeah but the total is the same it's five million um so this Adam we absolutely thank you for that information and new you but Marty just for all of our um tees and dot our eyes will you just also check with Michael Grady if that's an error not that I don't trust you Adam I don't know that's fine yeah I should do that probably not Marty oh I'm sorry I thought you're right that was your bills jeff that was your parting gift thank you jeff I'll forward to you an email between Michael O'Grady and me and then let's go now to the appropriation piece okay as noted um by the chair they have a different construct the total is five million dollars the house had put two million general funds and three million from reallocated money from the chins bill the senate has taken two million general funds and three million dollars from the human service case will reserve so Maria just because we're sailing through at the same time and I want all members to be able to follow the page number where it shows that construct is on it's on page 67 so we have to jump way ahead okay and so there you are finger right there I'm sorry I said we're there okay so on page 67 um which is totally different from my pages now that's not going to work um right so on your on your documents probably page at the bottom of 54 in the old documents from Friday okay so um I think that we can uh 122 we can check off because that language is set with the 15 I mean the age of 17 we can check off 122 it's our bill it's 123 where you're going to find the difference in now go ahead to Maria okay so let me just put okay all right so now are we going to have an amendment to it possibly on the 17 we don't have any amendment we're going to make the changes in the budget budget okay so we just talked about the appropriation you are absolutely right it all depends if we do further amendment or if we do a conference so I had conference there would be more amendment it's just working out the differences but if we do further amendment that's one we think or just you know I just know that that's something we're potentially gonna ship's gonna file come back with yeah but it depends on which methods we have to do put it part of a technical or whether it's um just in confidence so I had Maria on okay okay so we just talked about the this section here this is the appropriation is different source of funds in the house than in the senate as you recall the governor had two million general funds that two million is used in both the house and senate construct the house used three million of the chins money from back in 2018 special session that was appropriated and the senate used instead of chins they use the health care I'm sorry human service case load reserve funds that is going to be a conversation that our committee has if we want to use human services case load with funds or if we want to use the chins money and I just go ahead I just want to make a note that as we go through this language you're going to see some language on how they use the chins money so they they've commented they've used that money but we'll see that in a bit okay I don't have I don't have this bill in front of me when we did the stimulus equity bill but a section a is the thousand and then up to 50 000 for administration that has not changed is that correct that's correct so what you see in this language is there's calling it five million general funds and that's because in section in the b sub b they take three million and they unreserve it from the human services case load reserve and it gets put into the general fund and so in a they appropriate the full five million from the general fund okay which includes the governors too that he um i guess marty marty or mary who had their hands up i think that we said in a that the we named the director of racial equality in a rather than the agency of administration so i think that is different from what we said we named her earlier in the bill but i don't yeah this is just for okay okay i just didn't want to lose that piece the chips got it thanks it's on it's on um small letter c one the program shall be administered by a of a in consultation with the ed of racial equality and the agency of human services was asked to weigh in so those three pieces are marty no nope okay all right chip so you have this and then our committee will decide um on where the three million dollars is appropriated from let's move on i'm hoping it's 1124 yeah it is okay so um this is this is an amendment to the it changes the deadline for the agricultural crf assistance programs and if you recall in the house s 351 well it was the house and senate became act 138 for the dairy assistance program the deadline had been october 1 for applying and the deadline has been changed in this bill to november 15 2020 and you can see that yeah right there we'll come back to this as a committee and chip you'll run flag that by the committee of jurisdiction the deadline okay let's move on so the um there a lot of this language and and you know i might need to find out the other nuances but a lot of this language has to do with the date change and um specifying the set of referring to funds they say corona relief funds um and they so you know what there's a few different language changes here and if you need detailed information i can get it for you i just don't have it right and i think uh chip you'll be able to run these through with michael great if there's um something hidden within i don't you know the status of the dairy assistance program and taking that out in non-dairy and just going back to our app assistance programs it appears to be just tidying up the language on those sections but chip you'll work through those and i i want to move to 1126 um yeah i'll come back there there is that one piece of language that's in front of you can see the up to two million dollars we i just need to follow up and find out what what's happening there um but okay so now section b 1126 um let's see chip will follow up on the two okay this is all part of it okay yep fine it's all about the funds not being used revert okay all new language yeah this is this is all new language it's all new chip you've got all of these pieces yeah okay so let's um i think this now brings us all the way to section three 100 okay so d 100 is that's the um property transfer tax and let me see that's on page um i've got a question there's no c sections right we didn't we don't need any c none yeah i mean that's interesting i noticed that the other eight two no c sections okay so now d 100 um this is all property transfer tax this has to do with the bhcb change or and they took out okay so you did you do see that um strike out the administration when they gave us this bill they had a notation in their um referencing the one time three percent reduction to the base appropriation and the senate just struck that language is that for vhcb yes yes it is and so they reinstated them they reinstated the three percent um no i think they're just not no no i think what they're doing is they're just not including that reference in the language they're just not saying okay they're just not referring to didn't didn't we didn't we want to check it out or we put it in saying we just wanted to make sure that that three percent haircut that they have doesn't become a base uh okay so i might be wrong in this i thought that you're never wrong you're never wrong oh no oh my god don't say that okay so in any case it was at one point it was in the bill and now it's being taken out how's that i remember the conversation we had a conversation around this that we identified that these are a one time three percent but if you think we kind of uh have vhcb where we also see this three percent across many other areas and i don't believe we've been consistent with the language throughout the bill um and so we may choose that's right it was added by the house you're right yeah that we added that piece yes yep but but we only did it for this one piece we didn't do it for the arts or for any of those other sections where we saw the the uh three percent and then you also see i'm sorry Maria chip has a quick question well um so i all that sounds familiar but the language doesn't work as it is if we just strike that out does it because it says that that appropriation that amount reflects the one point five million reduction and a one time three percent reduction so if that was accurate before if you take that that out there the language doesn't work does it well the the three percent reduction is there even if it's not in the language we just wanted to emphasize it was one time in nature we didn't i understand that what i'm saying is the language that we had said the appropriation of ten million five hundred eighty dot a dot reflects the one point five million dollar reduction and a one time three percent reduction so if you strike out a one time three percent reduction that number ten million ten point five million is probably not accurate anymore right we're still doing the three percent reduction we were the three percent reduction is accurate whether the language is there or not i get it and i won't press it any further i just don't either the language was misleading before i think or is inaccurate now um but that's as long as the numbers work out at the end of the day so i i think that a one point that could be made here is that we not withstand the underlying formula every year and so the amount that they get can vary from year to year right the ten point five eight but the one point five million language has been in there for several years just because that's the amount of money that's being used to pay off the housing bond so we wanted everybody to be really clear on on that particular piece of it and i do understand what we're maybe we're notwithstanding the base every year so that's exactly really kind of perfect that's that's exactly what i'm trying to say um but then i want to point out that you did add that phrase and the addition of a hundred thousand to support the cost of technical assistance for writing grants so that that is that remains here okay mary you had a question or comment a comment i i notwithstanding that we not withstand every year that phrase either you either have to say the one point five and one time three percent reduction or you take out both portions of that phrase for that to be a logical statement that's what chip was saying i'm just saying it in a different way okay hey dave this is your section and i want to work on how that should and and talk with mary talk with uh chip and and just figure out which pieces have to be reflected or not reflected okay okay thank you yep didn't mean to shut that down i just want to move on this i think we're talking forever about it okay okay let's keep going and i think we can go quite a second now maria where's the next piece so so on page um oh yeah there's just a really small technical change let me see um on page 77 um i think this was part of the governor's uh technical amendments maybe not but it's just yeah the words following and being was they were added just make it said easier to read yeah so i think those are just technical unless you want to spend more time on it we can close it uh let's let's close those off unless there's questions so what section can you tell me the section okay that is section and you go back up on so i can find the section number d it's part of d 101 and then a let's see they're both technical yeah yeah today it's page 64 on your document thank you thank you yep yep okay let's just check all of those off and 102 there was nothing so the next section that there is something okay it's the next section um traces page 82 um the transportation piece yes that is yeah that's that about okay that's a good question excellent question um i have to i don't know the answer to that i'm just gonna have to to get it for you that's right i just i just flagged it too i had no idea i was like yeah yeah i have that flagged as well i should have asked that before today but okay so we'll leave uh that open and bob that is part of the transportation yeah you're going to follow up on i'm going yes yes i will follow up the next um change um trees is on page 84 this is also a technical change um we had a yeah oh there there that just wasn't necessary that um second title because we're already referencing that the um statute that's being just it just wasn't we just didn't need that green part so it's being taken out okay i got a kind of a question i've been over on the bill in my email and when i'm on zoom doing that you know i'm here i mean does my picture show up that's a great question bob i was wondering yeah we see you now bob well i was talking with you folks what there was about a hundred other people talking and nobody acknowledged me i said well maybe they don't know i'm here didn't but so i just like to know if you know that i'm here when i'm really here you may not know that i'm not here now we know you're here we see your sweet smiling thing but i'm going back to the you're going back to where go to my email to read the to follow the bill through oh yeah but we still you know you're here it just i can go back and read emails too and i can see that you're still here you can see that i'm still here when i'm reading my not my email yeah it is an email yeah so i can click off and and i've been reading going back and reading emails and stuff as we're on here you can still see me it's only can you hear me not if you're on mute so you want to make sure you're always on mute so if you're on mute and you may want to take your video off take your video off yeah and it keeps you as a placeholder here but you can uh what you what else you need to be doing as well okay yep good i'm going back to my email see you i'll be on so let's go to the next one which is yes 100.2 yes okay so i'm page 85 and um this is just a technical amendment this was the position pilot language so we needed to do you know we had to put the whole string of times that we've amended this language so this truly is a technical amendment and uh okay Mary you heard that Mary um so our we're missing the date that the pilot expires which is fine by me but we had a date certain in there and i don't see it now Marie um okay so there there July 1 2021 oh i looked right here it's it's never mind yeah no it's you know what sometimes this language is it's just a lot you know there's a lot of it let's just say that yep thank you okay so we can check off that's a technical change e 100.2 we can check off and i would like to do um i would like to stop right here and take a quick five to ten minute break um if the committee doesn't mind and we'll pick up with tax and um and all the thank you madam chair because the next six of them are all my budget okay let's take a five or ten minute break what time is it it is 11 let's come back at 11 is 11 10 enough or do you want 11 15 11 15 15 11 15 okay i'll see you all at 11 15 okay i'm going to stop live and we'll go back on when you come back