 Okay. All right. It takes, there's usually a little bit of a lag time. So this is a joint meeting of Senate appropriations and Senate health and welfare. And so we want to talk further about our concerns that were generated by the proposed reduction in the advance payment to our primary care of providers by one care. And I know that this is a concern that is beyond just appropriations it probably has some transcends multiple committees in some ways. We had just some preliminary committee discussion relative to the concerns that have been expressed either to us directly or by reading news articles and having sort of going through why now and why would we when we talk about the importance of primary care and strengthening primary care and recognizing that's critical role that it plays in health care reform, would we be taking, not we, but why this action is being proposed now and should, and should we take any kind of steps at this point and what they might be. So that's, that's why we're very happy that we could do this jointly, so that we can perhaps come forward with a plan that we think makes sense and we can do it as expeditiously and as simple as possible recognizing that probably in the long term, this is a topic of much more discussion. So, Senator Ash or Senator Lyons. Do you want to have any comments. I would like to comment from the health and welfare perspective and yes we have also discussed this in our committee. We've looked at the rate setting issue. As an issue of equity and equality since January, we have not focused on the ACO rate setting process but have looked at how we could improve the rate setting process overall. However, with the proposal that the ACO has put forward to have a lower standard for primary care, understanding of course that it's not a fixed standard that it would depend on the quality of care and the metrics involved. But our concern is significant and especially given the timing of this during the COVID epidemic. We did hear from the Green Mountain Care Board and the chair of the board also expressed concerns about the timing of this. And I think I was going to bring a proposal to our committee and I think Senator Kitchell and Senator Ash similarly were interested in bringing a proposal to appropriations so I think it's really appropriate appropriate appropriations and health and welfare work together to evaluate what's happening. I did a little research and I do know that according to rule five, the Green Mountain Care Board rule five, number 17, that the Green Mountain Care Board does have the authority with rate setting and so they are the ones who would ultimately be responsible for responding to this proposal. However, I think as legislators we need to put something forward ourselves. I don't think we can, we can let this go. I've heard from a, I can't tell you how many primary care docs I've heard from since this has happened and I've been communicating back and forth with them so I do think this is something that we need to look at. Senator Ash. Yeah, I'll just, I'll be brief and because no matter what I say within certain quarters it'll be represented as being anti hospital or anti whatever. I could, I could praise them to high heaven I'll be accused of that if I criticize something they do I'll be accused of it so I don't really care at this point I'm going to be rather blunt. I find the proposal, not just all time but completely contrary to everything the Health and Welfare Committee, the Senate. The legislature have been trying to accomplish in terms of prioritizing upstream primary care preventive investments, and it can be couched in all of the sort of pseudo techno garble that people want. But it is an attempt to squeeze independent primary care practices, who have been squeezed frankly for the last two decades by the insurers, and it's always for some reason primary care which is the sort of underfunded aspect of our system has to be subjected to all of these hoops that have to be gone through in order to be rewarded. And I never hear one care, or any of the healthcare establishment talking about putting the same types of hoops and constraints in front of public relations spending, government care spending lobbying advertising and all of these new high paid positions that keep being layered on top and going to connected people. So, for once I'd like to hear them to put them through a risk corridor before we talk about primary care so I'm also worried about timing. Jenny you're exactly right the timing is unfortunate for a couple of reasons one of which is these practices have to make decisions on contracts by September 11. So just a week away. And that has not given them a tremendous amount of time to understand the implications and make decisions so what I hope is that we can find a way to provide language because we can only count on our own actions but not the board for one care. So hopefully we can find some language that both can, you know, predominant or majority of the members of the both committees feel good about and we just get it done and move it over to the other other chamber. And just to get it started I believe Jen Carby has done a preliminary draft that we could look at that we would be something that is an immediate response at simple and a statement from the legislative perspective regarding this proposal. I don't know if you. Do you have that available, Jen. And thank you very much for making yourself available this afternoon as well. Sure, I mean I have the language I could. I can lose Senator Ash. No, I'll be back shelves. Okay, he'll be back. All right. There he is. Okay. You're muted. You enjoyed saying that I'm circling I'll be back. All right, as long as you can hear. All right, Jen, did you want to probably getting a steps in. You want me to just put up the document. Okay. All right. It is short it's just a sentence. So this is notwithstanding any provision of 18 VA say section 93 82 that's the Green Mountain care board certification and budget review for accountable care organization statute. Notwithstanding any provision of that to the contrary, the Green Mountain care board shall not certify an accountable care organization to operate in this state during calendar year 2021. So the commission intends to reduce the amount of its per patient per month payment to primary care practices for any part of 2021 below the payment amount that was in effect on July 1, 2020. Pretty straightforward, simple. Yeah, that looks good. This is, this is the first time we're, you know, we've really got a chance as I said this was a draft that Jen prepared in anticipation of this discussion around making a legislative taking a legislative position on primary care and this proposed reduction. Comments of center Ingram. Well, are we going to hear from one care I'd like to is us health and welfare going to take testimony I mean I'd like to actually do them. I can all I know about what's going on is why I've read in the press and I my opinion of the press is about on a par with President Trump's opinion of this point. We did receive a letter of center lions did you get that from one care as well from. Here I think it went out to both committees I'll make sure that the committee has it that it's on our webpage. One care has sent out two letters and I'll double I'll double back to see what both of them are. Let me just report. Right, and we have the report but that my concern, Senator Ingram is that September 11 is right around the corner. And so it's a week away. And if for us to. This has been sprung on us fairly quickly during a very difficult time. We understand that our primary care is the most important part foundation for health care. So I'm, I'm inclined to move forward with this and at least a conversation about how maybe to improve the language that we have in front of us. We will we will obviously hear from one Claire through a written communication. And if we can find time in our schedule we will put them on for testimony there's no doubt about that. But we are under a very short time frame in a short time frame. Senator McCormick. You had your hand up. Yeah, I just want to say it. Yeah. Yeah, I just want to say that I'm impressed by the admirable simplicity of the language. I think it says what we need to say. Okay, let's get it done as quickly as possible. Sometimes simple is better. What would be the impact on the subscribers, if this were to pass. Do we know my, my impression would be that it would be reassuring to folks who would not leave. I would hope that they wouldn't leave and that we would continue to have providers in the system so we don't know. We don't know what the effect would be. I'm certain we'll certainly hear from them. I would think in the same way we'll hear from others. I mean before we do it or later. I, you know, I think that we're going to hear right after this meeting, possibly during that. I expect your instincts are right, Senator Lyons. And I mean there is a vehicle to do this very quickly. It's a bill that I originally sponsored that you could take back and put this language on and I'll declare defeat for another session on my healthcare administration agency. But I will be back. I'm assuming I return in January. So other comments center star. Yeah, I just think that, you know, what's been said is so true and accurate. You know, I don't think we can simple is the best way to do it and what Jan just read to us. And I would hope that health and welfare could deal with this Tuesday morning and we could deal with it Tuesday afternoon and and our committee and get it on the floor maybe as quick as Wednesday. And that was really a challenge as Senator Lyons indicated, and that came from a letter that we got that date was in the letter we got from one care. I can't find the letter I, I don't know if I received it or not but I have, I can't find it anywhere in my emails or anything so I haven't seen any letter from one here. Well, I am looking right now and I will forward it to you. And then, as I think Senator stars, a suggestion of timing is probably good. We can clear as to. Well, that's the point it is an S bill that we're talking about a sort of doing this. I, we're talking about a strike all I think. And, or a proposal amendment to the bill which one are you thinking about Senator Kitchell, I would give up this study just do a strike all and just make it a single purpose bill at this point. We don't, we don't have an H bill that we could tack this on so it would go quick. I wouldn't go. Would it go any faster than if we just send over an S bill. No. No, I don't think so. Oh, new topic. Yeah. Well, it would go faster if, if you had a house bill that you could strike the language out of that has already passed the house send this back over. You could even send it late. Well, no, we'd have to look at who she is still after we'd still have to vote it. Yeah. So, but I think the timing that we just talked about is, unless we want to do it over the weekend is really, and it is a holiday weekend. That's the other thing. I would think that if we in fact act on Tuesday and pass something out and suspend the rules. It is a very strong statement around the legislators, legislators view about the importance of our primary care provider community. And what we have everything we read and everything we're told just reinforces the importance of having that provider group strong and involved so Senator Ash do you have any suggestions relative to timing of health and welfare took something up. Can you take that bill would have to be recommitted it's on the calendar. It wouldn't have to know if it's a strike all amendment and just be the reports wouldn't be offered and then there'd be an amendment from whoever wanted to offer it. Okay, so that would work. That would have the effect of striking out the underlying bill not the reports of the committee and just for clarity this bill is not the bill that's on the calendar is not getting taken up by the house no matter what so it's not just No offense Senator Kitchell I know you what you're saying you said you're willing to wave the white flag of surrender I think that actually is that flag is so been waving for so long it's it's tattered and probably needs to be burned on flag day. I don't know why you have to rub it in. There isn't much of the flag left to rub in. But more salt in the wound. So, so I did family leave for 10 years for anyone took it up. So have faith. So there is an if you would prefer there is an H bill and Senate health and welfare for which the content has already been enacted in something else. H723 and act relating to telehealth, all of the language from it went in act 91 the COVID bill. Oh, just another possibility if you I think either either is fine. The advantage of that one is if it goes over to the house and they adopt it then it's done. Yeah, so let's Thank you. That's a good suggestion. Yeah, that's a very good suggestion. I meant my question is this that it is a bill that's in committee so we would have to pass it as a strike all send it up over to appropriations would have to be after the floor on Tuesday so it would go to appropriations Tuesday afternoon I could ask not to have it referred to us. It's a money bill. Well. Okay, that's fine. Not spending any. So, if we could figure that out. Senator rash. It never. That bill on the house side I just look only went to healthcare not to ways and means or appropriations. So it would it would not need to go through extra steps to bypass another committee down the hall. Okay. This is the question for senator ash as anybody had conversations with the house leadership at all. Not yet. That's very important. Yep. Okay. I'm going to ask about senator lions. Have you had any conversation? No, I was waiting for this meeting before I did that. And I'm, I will. I defer to senator ash to talk with the house leadership. And then I'm happy to talk with representative leopard if you would like. I think it's worth passing. I agree. I agree. I agree. I'm just, just. To quote a senator. Who shall go unnamed. I'm just saying. I've heard that before from someone. That. There's the committees have put in too much work for policies like this to be done sort of extra. You know, in a, in this, through this bureaucratic forum and. Not have any response. Well, thank you. So, uh, Jenny, then you were, um, Um, then the plan is that Tuesday morning after Labor Day weekend, this will be, um, on the committee agenda and then you will use that H bill that. Jen Carby references. Um, that seems to be a. The most expeditious way and, um, And move it quickly, huh? Well, I think, uh, we, as I think Senator Ingram, uh, is right. We will invite, uh, one care in and we will invite, uh, Green Mountain care board backs should they wish to comment. Um, but I think that would probably be sufficient at this point. I've heard a significant amount from a number of people in different. There are places of leadership who are very concerned about this. So. Uh, and I think. I think that we need to reassure ourselves that this is not about. Uh, Condemning the ACO process or all the work that is going on, especially in prevention and linking our community services with our. Uh, hospitals and other health care providers. So this is not about that, but this is about ensuring that primary care is sustainable financially and that we're, we need to be very careful before we, uh, put a downturn in their reimbursement, uh, opportunities. Incentives. Senator Ash. If, um, if the bill doesn't pass, I think we have to put money in the budget to give everyone a copy of, uh, Yankee magazines, home remedies. Annual. Yeah. Since we want to have primary care practices in many parts of the state anymore, we'll need to go back to the old ways. And, um, if you're taking testimony, I, it seems to me with two key questions, um, emerge. And one is, um, if this is a time to bring certainty, why, why is this action being taken now at this time? And why, um, why, uh, why, um, uh, does this decision, um, um, not work counter to all our public policy goals about strengthening, um, primary care in our healthcare reform initiative. I think those are the obvious questions that emerge from this. You're right. Thank you. Okay. Um, my. Senator. Senator Sears, you had your hand up and then send the lines. These things happen. See. Now we had healthcare policy and overall policy from the state of Vermont that we had developed. And these things seem to happen at hazard. We deal with little parts of the system. The system itself is so huge. That, um, we end up dealing with the little problems as they arrive. So some, but he decides that it would be great to cut primary care. Um, and then, um, I don't know, I don't know if Senator Lyons or the members of the health welfare committee have kind of a. Mission statement or something that can guide us. As to. And guide the public as to what our healthcare policy is going to be. I don't know if Senator Lyons or the members of the health welfare committee have kind of a. Mission statement or something that can guide us. I don't know if Senator Lyons or the members of the health welfare committee have kind of a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, raise that flag exactly. So could I please get a copy of our policy on health care delivery reform. Oh, I just made, Yeah, I wait, I, I, I let me, let me interject here. I think there were a lot of questions in what you're walking. is pretty nascent and COVID has interrupted its progression. So obviously it is all about building a system of primary care and prevention and we've worked assiduously to do that and that includes both our community service programs, our prevention council, our chief prevention officer and then on the healthcare side focus on primary care. What has happened with this particular proposal that we're concerned about is lowering the incentive for primary care providers. So if you're a primary care provider and I can't speak for what the ACO has done here or the exact metrics around it, but there's a range of possibility for reimbursement for our primary care providers. This has made it a lower base. It also has increased, I think they've increased the higher level as well but it's based on quality outcomes. So it is a complex piece of, it's a complex recommendation that's been made but it's absolutely been made at a time when primary care providers are already in dire financial stress and thinking that they might have to prove themselves all over again and justify their existence for a much lower rate of income. So that's our concern, your question about what is our delivery mission, what's our vision, what's our statement, it is about prevention and it is about primary care. So we're losing Senator Ingram, thank you for giving us a half hour and so I'm just wondering in terms of further discussion right now or shall we, now that we've sort of had this framework discussion, let the Health and Welfare Committee work on Tuesday morning to come up with what we would recommend as our Senate response. Senator Starr? Yeah, I just want to point out that it's critical to health and welfare get this done on Tuesday morning, not Wednesday morning or Thursday. You know, you've got to get on it early and come to a resolve by the end of the morning. The cattle fraud. I know, I've got to miss those cows. We don't get up that early Senator. Well, I know how to do but this is not time to not, there's not time to let it drag because the lobbyists will come in and try to work their way in to drag this on. Well, listen, we will be taking testimony but here's what I would suggest. I will have Nellie send a Zoom invitation out to Appropriations Committee members and ask if you would like to participate in that meeting. You're very welcome to do so. So Senator Kitchell, would you like to have that invitation sent out to your committee? I'm sure, although you've got two members. I already got two. We'll have a call. Just make sure she has Bobby's correct email address please. I'm booked up starting at eight o'clock Tuesday morning. Thank you. I have a feeling that it might be your committee that's kind of leading the herd on this one. Richie and Dick can, they'll be there. And having the advantage of this joint meeting and Jen Carby being here as well to listen to Nolan is I think we're going to help that committee process move ahead. Seems like it's pretty straightforward. I mean, why are we reducing now? Senator Cummings had a question. No, it's not a question. I was going to ask Chair Lyons, could we just say we're not going to take up another bill on Tuesday until we're finished with this one? Oh yeah. Don't worry. We'll take care of that. Senator Starr has made sure of that. Yeah, just go in. You make the motion. You go home. What is this problem? All right. Okay. I'm still asking my question to Jen. I hope Jen will send me the policy on health care delivery for state of Vermont. Well, our goal is the transformation of health care. There is no system. Yeah, there isn't. Oh, but that's right. So I understand in criminal proceedings, you always, you never ask a question you don't know the answer to. Is that true, Senator Sears? That is true. And you knew the answer. I believe I know the answer. Yes. And that's part of our problem. Yeah. Okay. We demand, we demand of other agencies to state government. But I can't defend that, that the answer to that question. But what I can say is that we are, we are in the middle, not even the middle, we're approaching the middle of an experiment on all payer reform that will guide us toward our policy. So it might interest the senator to know that my first term I was on the health and welfare committee when we did health care reform. Governor Howard Dean pulled a sheet over it when it died in the house, I believe. Oh, are you talking about when we had the health care authority created and all that, Senator Sears? I, you know, my, the details escaped me, but. Okay. Yeah, I heard that the free press had a headline of legislature about to approve $90 million tax increase for health care. Something of that nature. Something like that. I was under Cheryl Rivers leadership. I wasn't there then. Well, I think Jan, Helen really was Chair of Health and Welfare. Yeah, Jan Vakis was involved. But Cheryl was sort of the driving. You're talking a different era, Dick, different one. Is that the second time? I think this was Howard Dean when he first tried. It was the first time when Howard Dean tried. I think you should ask Bobby. Republicans were actually in control of the Senate at the time. Ralph Wright was the speaker. Oh, my goodness. Well, this is ancient history and I'm sure we've been doing a lot of that today because Judiciary took up Woodside. Oh, and I did a sort of a historical revisit of our Hazard Bay, Bill. So it's been a historic day. Historic. All right. Thank you. What I suggest is that we come to closure on this because I need to communicate with my committee assistant to collect people who might testify and to have Jen in, to have Nolan in so we can look at some of the fiscal repercussions of what we're doing or what they're doing, not us. And we're good. Thank you, Jenny, for getting this on the top of your list so quickly. Well, this was going to be on my list for another bill, age 795, but this puts it in a faster fast track. So that's fine. Okay. Well, thank you for glad you were available this afternoon. Do you have another committee meeting then to leave for, Ann? Are you have your committee meeting this afternoon? No, I'm, I got a couple members who are not happy being in session. So I'm the only, am I out of the three chairs? I'm the main driver. All right. Well, Stephanie, are you there? I am here. All right. So our agenda was obviously to do this first thing, and then we were moving into committee discussion on the budget. Okay. Is that right? Is that what the agenda is? I've got two screens and my iPhone and I'm Senator Kitzel. We just had a, we had just a general committee discussion. We didn't have a specific topic. That's what I, that was my recollection. So I'm going to ask committee members, Stephanie did a good job of identifying areas that are out, you know, that we're going to have to consider. I am trying to make sure that we are keeping lists of what's coming our way. Stephanie is trying to, I have a list we talked about several days ago. Yeah. And it seems like we're talking about two, two lists, one of which are potential CRF funding needs. And then the other would be one time general fund or general fund requirements. I had, I sent out to the committee the email that I received from chair of gov ops and they're wondering if it's possible to give the council, I believe that Senator Sears was involved in creating on racial bias, more money for the work that they're having to do. My question is, could we use CRF? Do they, is there a possibility of using more CRF that gets to the end of this calendar year? I think I would suggest there is. And the reason for that is the large number of minority populations who've been adversely affected by the COVID-19 as seen in the Winooski situation and several others around the state. So I, and around the nation, certainly all the minority, lower income minority folks getting hurt worse than others. So if we could, we put in 50,000 the first go around, I know they were requesting 150, but if we could at least start out looking at 50 through the end of December from CRF and then. As I understand it, we're basically asking this one person to weigh in on everything in every committee. And, you know, so I'm next to impossible for one person. And the other job, by the way. And the other is the extent to which she has to contract or get, you know, additional help and so forth to support this workload, which. And I want to say, I think our building on the creation of this office and putting that first 50,000 to that office, as we're sitting here now, I think that was certainly a good step and the importance of that work. I think every day is coming home to us in a variety of ways. So if you could check Stephanie to see if we could at least pick up some of it under the CRF that, you know, until the end of the year and what that might be, I think that would be helpful. Other areas that we want. The budget as it's come to us from the administration does put 65 CRF into the Attorney General's office for. I'm not talking about the Attorney General. I'm talking about a Zuzana Davis's office. Yeah, okay. Senator Sears. Yeah, I just wanted to mention Woodside for a moment because we spent quite a bit of time in Senate Judiciary this morning on it and we have our recommendation is that we look at what they're doing right now as a short term plan that we support that, but that we not say that they have a plan in place. I do not, I don't even think they can say that they have a plan in place. They're not even allowed to, you know, they haven't even entered into the contract with Beckett. They're in conversations with them. They've contracted with Sununu for up to five beds at $1,500 a day. They're trying to work through all these different things. So I, while we'll have to do something in the budget on it, I'm very troubled by the idea that they've solved the problem and we just walk away and elinquish to them, whatever. And they don't even know yet if Beckett, if the program they're proposing at Beckett will be Medicaid eligible, which will have a huge impact on the general. So we need some language. Is that what you're suggesting? I mean, I'm suggesting that we continue the language that we not say that they've got an approved plan. We had the language in the budget adjustment on Woodside. I think it was budget adjustment. And I think that we leave that in place or if we need to reference it, we say that that's still in place. That has not, they have not met that yet and they need to go to joint fiscal and justice oversight if we're out of session in their plan. All right. I think what you're saying is, Alice? Sorry. Yes, that's what we said. I mean, it's, there isn't a solid plan at this point. So what you're saying is what might be interim expediency because it has to be done should not equate to a long-term plan. Right. Exactly. And I think we need to reference that language in the, in whichever bill it was in. I think it was in the budget adjustment. It was either that or the Q one bill. And I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll take it up and send it around. Okay. Yeah, I wanted to check the price out. Did you say 1500 a day? I did. Yes. $1,500 per day, the state of New Hampshire, but they are taking the most difficult kids we have that are impossible to place. And I realize that sounds huge, but when you do it over a yearly basis, it's much less than the $6 million we're paying to keep Woodside open. On the other hand, that is about 650,000 per year, all general fund money. So if you, and their contract is up to five kids. So that's like three, three, three and a half million or something. Exactly. Which is why I just said, I don't think we can say that that is a finished plan yet. Okay. All right. So that's other things from then we have your justice reinvestment issue. And you said that, well, I'm asking some discussion. Is it $3,300,000 or $500,000? $400,000. I'm asking the commission to do the difference. No, I'm not. No, that money she's working on. I'm working on an additional, the Senate Judiciary Committee would like to see an additional $400,000 come from a reduction of out of state beds to fund better inter-gratterer intervention programs for domestic abusers in the community. That is the biggest group that we can lower our prison rates by if we can get them treatment. The current system is that they have to pay a copay in order to be involved in the program. And most of them can't afford a copay. So they don't, either don't get out of jail or they, you know, continue. So, I mean, if you look, if you wanted to take a look at all the problems from what has in the criminal justice system in terms of violent crime, domestic violence is our number one crime, violent crime. So, Dick, can you can clarify, when we had the Department of Corrections budget presentation, they were taking the reduction in out of state beds, which I thought was around $500,000 and using it just to make the budget call. And we had a lot of discussion saying, wait a minute, that's counter. Do we really mean mean it? So I'm a little confused. What is the $300,000 representative Hooper was referencing? I'm talking an additional $400,000 over that, but they've also accounted for a lot of new money into, in their budget, they put new money into the network programs on domestic violence, but not into the batterer intervention. And they're, and as they try to release people, a lot of the concern is from victims of domestic violence who are opposing some of these releases. And you have to admit, there isn't programming for these folks in the community. Okay, so that's on, you will add, Stephanie, you've got that. Okay, I was going to send a memo to you and Bryn, Stephanie, but maybe you can just, or Eric, and just working from ever over there on the language for that. Okay, other comments? The Defender General, as we are meeting with him next week, but evidently $200,000 of what we put in for CARES Act, he's not able to fund with CARES Act funding. Yeah, that's what he said. That creates that hole and we need to, we'll need, we can address that. The judiciary wants more money for about $1.2 million, I think. Alice can correct me. I don't see where we come up with it. You know, it's the same old security issue and, you know. Oh, in the Costello Courthouse. Got $85,000 for that, but it's, you know, they have a list and I think it's a legitimate list, but I don't know how we get above the governor's recommend for the judiciary of $1.2 million. Stephanie, I was going to send you an email. I was shooting off emails like crazy this morning, as you probably know. Can you get for me the proposal from the Chin's working group in terms of what they were proposing? Because I think that's going to be key for us to have relative to our conversation of yesterday. And I think it's important to know that there was a plan and a proposal in terms of what could be done to improve our child welfare system. Okay, other thoughts? Anything else from judiciary Alice that I missed? Let's see. Wait, let me just look there. Well, I don't know if you want to update people that the sheriff is going to be a part of the Loyal County Sheriff is going to be a part of the Woodside, former Woodside. Yeah, I forgot that. I think. Yeah, but that's only for what just short term. They said short term. But the Beckett plan, even, you know, they don't have a site. Well, maybe they have a site that can't tell us yet. But what do you say it was six to 12 months before that would be in effect? Yeah. So it's, it's, you know, it's not just it's going to be some time and then it could be longer than that. You know, you don't know if a community is going to accept the proposal or fight it in court or, you know, you don't, you don't know these are the things that generally happen with group homes or certainly a bigger facility. There's only five people, but it happens with any big foster care home even that the community usually doesn't accept it right away. There's a law that forces the issue on, I forget the number of persons it's considered. For zoning you're talking about. Yeah. If the community actually has zoning. Yeah. That ties into another. I'm sure it's in the, I'm sure it's somewhere in the kingdom. No senator. Well, Bobby's going to open his own group home. He's been talking about, he could do it for he would do it for 750 a day. So what about, what about doing your, your old barn over the upstairs indoor group home? Well, I believe that in all seriousness, I believe that the Memorial County Sheriff's using a facility that he had planned for a different group and has contracted it to have sheriffs work with those kids, but it is short-term and very temporary. It's only, I think it's when somebody's picked up on the weekend. Yeah, that was, that was my impression. I don't know if Senator Westman knows where it is. He probably ran it in the barn. Probably it's owned by. Look at it, look at it. He just shut his face. He just sent himself out. Stephanie, this ties into another request. Senator Sirotkin, we passed legislation in this talk it's about zoning. Senator Sears comment triggered it where, where the whole issue of trying to get more housing density and downtown housing. Tim, perhaps you can remember the bill. We stripped out the appropriation. It was to help towns with their plans and so forth and zoning laws. And he was hoping that in, in light of all the housing issues and with that legislation that obviously some towns don't care for that, that he would like to have that put on the list. Oh, really? There's a piece of that in the Act 250 bill. If that went any place. That's not going to. So a funding for planning. Is that what we are? It was in the bill that I believe we passed. Tim, can you help me with one of the last bills? It was housing and it was to incur, to support barriers that make affordable housing in downtowns or within neighborhoods more affordable. I remember I stripping out an appropriation in that bill. I'll talk to David Hall and get the original. I'm just trying to get stuff on the list that might have come to people's attention. I'm not saying that we can do it or not. I just want to make sure that we're not losing anything here. And Stephanie and I are keeping a complete list. So we should look right up. Senator Starr? Well, just that something that would help communities rehab these old buildings that are sitting around town that they nobody really wants to claim ownership. And many times they'll just give it to the town. If the town had some some way of dealing with privates where they could get a private owner to take that over, but there wouldn't be any taxes for, you know, five years, 10 years or something to help with the cost. Well, we did a variation on that. And I think it was what, about 8 million or 6 million in the CRF bill to take substandard housing and help the owner get it so that it is rentable again. So we did do some funding along that line. That's not the same as housing going to a town. I mean, the other issue that's come up, and I'm trying to sort this out, and that has to do with the appropriation that we gave to local government. My thought was that the town governing body would sort of be the gateway for all the applications for all the organization municipalities underneath it, whether we're talking about wastewater, they're talking about fire district, you know, et cetera. And, and Jeanette raised the question because we have like Burlington Housing Authority, she has Brattleboro Housing Authority, the extent to which that pot of money that is being administered by the tax department. Those are federal agencies though. Brattleboro Housing Authority and Burlington Housing Authority and Winooski Housing Authority are instruments, those are federally constructed agencies. I'm wondering if they're even eligible to receive CARES funds? Well, I don't know. It was more for the cost of cleaning and some other additional costs. I don't know, Tim, that's a very good question. I'm just, I'm just putting it out there as some another issue that's come up. But the way I'm trying to get clarity. I mean, priorities for CARES funds, I hope we're thinking about the businesses that didn't have 2019 months to compare to who are suffering pretty badly. I would say that is a higher priority than many of the things that people have put forward. I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying we already have an appropriation to towns. And my hope was to just use them as sort of the clearinghouse and making so that you didn't have all these different entities like the, you know, the fire department and the waste water that it would go through that town government structure just for coordination and ease of administration. That's what I'm talking about. And the already existing appropriation for local government. And I just need to clarify or correct because I don't think we was not my intent that the town itself had to incur the cost on behalf of the waste water district, but that they would be filing the application on behalf of that municipality, which exists within that town, which is also a municipality. So it's just a coordination issue. Have we heard that they aren't doing it? I mean, I know their couple of towns are doing it for the ambulance stuff. But are they not doing it for other things? Do we know? You know, I don't know. But my, you know, my intent was more for organization and clearinghouse and ease of administration than saying to the town they had to assume the cost and then get reimbursed as opposed to that they were filing the application on behalf of the wastewater or whatever. And remember the tax commissioner said those applications were just coming in now. I think today is the deadline and that they still have to match them against FEMA eligibility before we really have a fix on, you know, what money that looks like. So other thoughts to put on our list to make sure is Senator Ash. I would like to know if there are any pre-agreements being made with members of the House Appropriations Committee on any expenditures that we're not aware of. Well, I haven't negotiated anything. I haven't even had a conversation in the past week. I heard reference to Representative Hooper. I'm not picking on her, but what is her? Representative Hooper. Reinvestment have to do with our work. Because a week ago Senator Sears said on Saturday morning he was having a call with Representative Hooper to talk about the whole issue of justice reinvestment and corrections issues. That's that was what I was referencing. And I believe you had that conversation Senator Sears. Very pleasant. Okay. As one might expect. And I'm assuming you didn't make any commitments on the part of Senate appropriations. We just talked about our collective frustration that as they lower the out-of-state beds the money isn't reinvested. And we had a discussion about whether it was 300 or 500,000. That wasn't being reinvested. But we also talked a little bit about the programs that they are supporting in the community and how there was no decision made. But how do you and this is an issue that we need help with Stephanie if the House doesn't take care of it. How do you forward the money for justice reinvestment to to get started up. We did that. We did about 800,000. Oh that's right. Yeah. I'm sorry. I was talking about I was thinking of marijuana. I'm sorry. That's different confidence to me. Jesus. All right. I'm sorry. I got my marijuana confused with my corrections. Yeah. All right. So that's the only conversation that I was referencing Senator Rash. We had a very pleasant conversation Senator. On Saturday morning you said. Yes. It was very nice. I was outside shoes. Okay. All right. I don't know if anybody else has had conversations but I have not. The only conversation that I've had was the extent to which and that's an amendment that I sent you Senator Rash regarding the startup of our child care programs and the proposal to do something to deal with that workforce issue. That's the extent of my conversations. And we do need to talk about that amendment if and we probably should do that this afternoon. And that and I'm sure that Senator Westman and Senator McCormick are aware of it but and we had some brief discussion when we were doing the hazard pay bill that when we lopped out employees in the house version child care workers were excluded. We put them back in but we determined that in fact child care workers during that two month period of time probably were not working. And that was the extent of our conversation but the concern now is with the startup of the program the startup of schools the interrelationship with the hubs that to stabilize the child care workforce is going to take some financial incentives. And so the agency has proposed a way to do this. They support doing it. It would be under the permissibility of a hazard pay type arrangement because of the risk. And the issue for us is to consider that amendment to consider that as an amendment to one of the hazard pay bills. And I don't know whether health and welfare has had any discussion on that or not. Rich I think you usually are the lead buffalo for child care. Yeah well I would tell you that the Health and Welfare Committee PROB is going to take up the special accommodation grants and where they are. No this is different. This is this would be a payment. I understand what the payment is and I understand all of that. But if you were looking at issues that are going to come up I'm going to I'm just saying to you in addition to that special accommodation grants and the proposal from the administration is going to come up in health and welfare. Well that train is going to leave the station as it would relate I mean if we do it as an amendment to the hazard pay that's going to happen. No I didn't say in relation to the hazard pay but I wanted to bring it up for the budget because we haven't heard it so. What is special accommodations for school kids? No. What is it? When we had testimony from DCF they plan on cutting the special accommodation grants that go to parent child centers for assessments. That's going to come up in relation to the budget. Are you talking about the determinations for health care that's okay. Oh that's different than information and eligibility and referral. Yeah that's a different thing. I thought the other well on the former one we were speaking about with regard to the child care worker that for the workers who continue to have their child care centers or homes open to the children of essential employees the other child care places closed but those who are doing essential employees stayed open and I don't know is that the group we're talking about that didn't get it. No they those that worked during those that stayed open to provide for essential workers. For essential workers for that period of March 13th through May 15th now got brought in with our expansion. They're already in now. They will be if the house will agree to that. Yeah and the and the other workers were already paid anyways for the most part. So what what we have here is language it's quite straightforward. I ask Katie if she could join us if you wanted to have her join. All right the drafter. Okay basically what it does is if she can join us fine. What I she developed was a draft memo based on conversations with AHS staff. It doesn't it's a no cost and I know that Senator Ash had concerns about you know some of the terminology as well that out of that 12 million that the Joint Fiscal Committee approved as part of child care the startup of school those not hot spots but help me Rich. What? Hubs. Hubs. Hubs yes. Hubs, routers you name it was the staffing concerns and there various proposals came forward. Advocates were saying well we ought to have a bonus but that ran into the problem of what is a permissible expenditure under the CRF guidelines and so the the recommendation was to do this payment to the child care workforce through a prospective hazard pay payment. It doesn't require any additional money it just is giving authorization to use the money in that way. Yeah out of the 12 million. So Katie has drafted an amendment that would basically say a prospective hazard pay grant program to staff and pointed at child care programs regulated by DCF so that's what it does is it is it allows funds from that 12 million that we have already approved to be used for that purpose. So if we want to do that then it would be as an amendment to one of the hazard pay bills next week. So Senator Sear, Senator Ash do you want to raise your concerns? Well all of our discussions about hazard pay to date have been about work performed between mid-march and mid-may and there were certain people required to be at work during that period and I'm somewhat nervous about using the term hazard pay moving forward for just one piece of a much larger puzzle because then I don't know how we wouldn't how we would distinguish between child care and lots of other jobs. I'm not picking on them. It's between teachers. Between teachers whom Senator Hardy mentioned this morning. Or even very many of the same people that we've just advanced in second reading today. So I just worry about whether this would then put us in the awkward position of deeming one group now doing hazardous work and all the other people who we formerly thought doing hazardous work not. Well the other where we've spent a lot of time and we use language Stephanie you can remember it. When we made the money appropriation to EMTs we talked about stabilizing the workforce and it seems to me that that's really the concern is adequacy of the and stabilizing the workforce and maybe Senator Ash's concerns are really. Ovid stabilization. Once we need to be very cautious about so maybe our terminology or what we call this or the reason that we're doing it can be done in a way that it's permissible but doesn't open up that larger discussion around well why why this or why why this group or why me which is a let me tell you working on the hazard pay is really tough because every group is saying I'm essential I deserve it I should be in and it becomes really really hard to make those delineations so is it possible to do something more from stabilizing and assuring adequacy Katie. So I just got in touch with Chrissy to see if Damien could join us because he's on hazard pay originally the proposal came up to us using language around recruitment and retention which was concerning because the conversation around child care retention and recruitment has been ongoing for years and it's been a central part of the conversation so we move towards the perspective hazard pay to avoid falling into the trap of using those CRF funds for something that's been an ongoing problem with that said if you'd like to frame the language around stabilization I think that's potentially a possibility but I would want to consult with Damien before we move forward. Aren't these people who are working in brand new settings that didn't exist before and are only existing as a result of COVID or am I missing it? No these are the existing programs and the big concern at which we had some preliminary conversation and Senator Westman said why would I leave my ongoing child care provider job to go to a hub that's only going to be there temporarily that was one dimension but this was so this was this is really the issue around stabilizing or keeping workers has been an ongoing but in this environment I suppose it becomes even difficult so if terminology becomes really the issue maybe the same terminology we use for the EMTs might be more applicable than within the context of hazard pay as we've defined it. Ever vigilant Senator Ash? I'm glad that's clear now that it's not not to pay people at the new facilities it's to pay the people who are in the regular child care programs whose pay is low they consider and getting them some pay so that maybe they would stick with their current positions is that correct? Yeah to stabilize that's yeah yeah to keep what you've got so if it's a terminology issue certainly this is a group of workers there I bet 99% of them must be lower wage women. The other issue related to child care and I don't know whether Health and Welfare has talked about it but we have had data in the past around the very large percentage of children who are in these centers not because of parental employment but more for child protective reasons and I'm just wondering what have you taken any testimony in terms of what has happened to those children without that kind of additional family support and it seemed like the number of children it was it seems like over 40% increase in the number of children authorized for child care participation through the program because of child protective reasons and it just is an area of concern. I throw it out on to the Health and Welfare folk in terms of how these children have been served and with the closure of programs for a period of time. I just I just worry about our kids. Okay anyone else want to chime in? Well Rich and Dick should explain what they've been doing about that. Well I don't know if that was a maybe that's getting a little arcane I'm not sure but it just seems like a concern that we have we've talked about as it relates to the closure of the adult day program and what that means for seniors living at home but we've got this group of children that the closure of child care facilities seems like it would have you know somewhat of an analogous raisin and a somewhat analogous concern. It probably really would be Sean Brown who's in charge of DCM. We've taken testimony just on the urgency of getting child care up and running and of course that was early on even when other people were being told to shut down and not go to work child care workers were being sent off because that realized that what work had to be done couldn't be done if we didn't have child care. Well that was true for some that were viewed as a lot closed and some provided essential services so at least that group. So Katie I guess you're waiting to get some kind of confirmation. Committee other thoughts while we're sitting here pondering the work ahead. Okay Tim do you have other thoughts? I'm a little fond I'm still nervous that policy committees are going to be end around it on the house side and then we're going to be stock holding a ton of language that our own committees have not had the benefit of looking at and then that creates a coordinating problem for us. I'm also anyways I have lots of worries. Well we have I'm getting my lawn mowed I've got to close the tour. You're good till he doesn't return row. I think that's one thing that we've asked Stephanie to be on alert but I think committee chairs Senator Sears and Senator Starr we're just concerned that somehow that the budget this year could be sort of the vehicle for everybody's bill to get tacked on. The house is already it seems like made the rather than a separate transportation bill have are proposing to just make it part of that one budget bill. Lobbyists are now all starting to descend on specific legislators to get things into the budget and appropriations which would have no chance of getting to the finish line suddenly once they're inserted are going to be hard to take out and then we're going to be at the disadvantage as Senator Sears said yesterday of being perceived as having to trade to get rid of things that shouldn't have been there in the first place and so that's another pretty serious worry I have. Sports betting. Like sports betting you know things like that that have no place in the budget but people will really try hard. Well that's the only place to put it because the house won't deal with it. My favorite. So a lot depends on who does it. Yeah it's the McDonald it's the McDonald's rule of frivolous lawsuits. It's frivolous if it's yours but not if it's mine. Yes. That's correct. My only star is well known for this by the way. He taught me everything I know. Yeah he even gets up and asks to have his own amendment rule not germane. Especially when I'm putting getting something better done away with. Isn't isn't Mitzi and you Tim aren't you controlling what can go in and out of a bill on our each individual sides. We've talked about the bills themselves but then what gets put into a bill and committee there's just I don't think she can this is no criticism I don't think she can keep up just the way I wouldn't be able to. An example I'm just picking on one because I know it's coming up but in health and welfare you guys have the price transparency bill my guess is there's going to be 20 sections in that bill we're not in the we don't have the ability remotely to be keeping tabs on every section. So there's a good faith test that committees have to be falling because we can't keep tabs. So this is a good topic if we have are we going to have a committee chairs meeting because I do think it's yeah maybe early in the week. Otherwise I do think just like we sometimes have the attempt to use joint fiscal committee as a way to circumvent what should be the regular budget process or input by policy committee. So I think we have to be pretty sensitive at this point. Well especially if we're going to be out of here sooner the better in three weeks you can't I mean I love to load stuff in but I mean I've been following Tim's lead and keeping everything pretty. Oh Bobby's been a good boy Tim. Huh. Well I've been trying when it suits his nature. No I guess. It says you look lovely today Senator Kitchell. Who does? Vince. It's like you know Bobby I just thought I'd add that. Oh my gosh. For Eddie Haskell. Mrs. Cleaver right. Mrs. Cleaver you look lovely. I shouldn't speak of Eddie Haskell like this so soon after his death. Yeah I know I know it's a sad this has been yeah this has been hard. Do we still do we still have Lumpy Rutherford though? Lumpy Rutherford was Wally's other friend. Oh. Oh you can read you'll have to google that for a Senator McCormick. Larry Mandela was. Okay well we're kind of waiting Katie you look like you're waiting for Godot there. Anything else I mean what we can do is in concept if we can figure out that that there's the way of using this 12 million in a way that makes sense we know that we've got child care needs and as we get into these partial potentially school shutdowns having the need for child care is going to actually be increased so it's we can maybe we can come up with a draft and send it out to people and and then we can look at it or something earlier on Tuesday or I can keep you all here until Katie gets a response and which might be tomorrow. That's okay. That's okay. That's nice that you had here. I'll just look at these. Well is that acceptable that we come up with a draft and send it out to them are you amenable to that? Yeah. Draft what? In other words can we redraft another this how this 12 million dollars might be used? Sure. All right I think your concern is and I think Alice has reaffirmed it is the questions and as it relates to opening it's sort of similar to the whole volunteer issue that we've been struggling with so if we could maybe get a redraft and find if there's another way of recognizing the need but doing it in such a way that it isn't opening up that larger discussion about well who which groups and why etc. So just to clarify you're looking for language around stabilization that tracks what the language was for EMTs? Right right and okay does that just define tune that does that mean that the child care centers home providers whoever who closed down totally would they be in on the mix of getting this money because they did not care for the height you know for the we're talking about going forward now this is more forward Alice oh this is more for those oh yeah okay yeah well listen beef but I thought it was for those daycare homes where they did do cared for children of essential workers or this is totally going forward to just get them a raise no let's separate them the first for those that did not close because they were providing child care services to essential workers those child care workers already period of March 13 through May 15th will qualify I thought we had them in already no they got bounced with that when when we had to constrain the didn't we just put them back in and one of our past two bills that we passed yes yes that's what i'm saying okay so now who's the group that we're trying to now now it's in the past what we're talking about is the stabilization right now and into into the between now into all workers working in the field that are yeah okay direct care okay other thoughts one question about the colleges the independent colleges what group was it that take monies available for them we put language in one of our prior bills um I think it was in the health uh healthcare crf bill 965 was that and um it said that we would ask the health department to see if there was a funding source for testing and if not the administration was to bring back a proposal the estimate that we have from the independent colleges at that point I think was around three three to four million dollars and um so it was like we did with senior nutrition and that is if the money turns out not to be available from another source then make a request of joint fiscal and um um I um if that isn't made to join fiscal then that's something I we've made a commitment we'll do it in the budget okay I need to I have a conference call a zoom call tomorrow morning with vendington college about this very subject okay um their concern they they've started the process yeah we recognized um at that point what what funding there might be available was so unknown so it was a contingent but it was acknowledgement that there was a need that there would be a cost and that we were committed to making crf money available to um support the cost of testing for our independent colleges so I should get an update from the department of health no no no I don't think that any money became available so we're going to have to put in crf money I do think that the house the house committee the house appropriations committee this morning provisionally approved funding of crf money for independent uh colleges and universities so how much was that I believe it's 10 million dollars not just testing but other COVID costs okay well actually that's consistent with um of the memo that we got from Kovat about the importance of these this sector of our economy which we don't normally get because it's been so focused on the accd piece of the economy you know right but I mean they bring a lot of money into the community absolutely absolutely um thank you for that helpful information stuff well I'm glad the house has done it because you know as I said we made a commitment and we'll fulfill it can you email me a copy of that stuff is it already written I'll find what the house did yeah I don't know if it's written up yet but it's the dollar amounts on a spreadsheet okay 10 million that's good it's probably to help them with PPE and some other stuff like we did with the public publicly funded okay so Katie had to leave we will coordinate getting a replacement an updated draft for a committee to consider I'll float it by Senator Ash for I just feel that our the legal review of our of what eligible cares has been a little bit back and forth at times and so but the concern you raise is really an important one and we've got to be very very sensitive to that so we will get a replacement and anything else otherwise it's it's 230 on a friday afternoon I would like to tell senator McCormick that Frank bank who played lumpy died too soon as well after 101 appearances he he did that much of an acting career afterwards became a bond broker or lumpy or lumpy um do you remember lumpy's real name Clarence yeah yes good for you I think it was Clarence B Rutherford that I don't know right I remember his father always addressed in this class yes well like the Duke of Clarence um the other the other question that is out there um and I have not had a chance but obviously when you mentioned um uh senator former senator Lucy um the issue around the second year of the pay act and what language did the house do anything on that Stephanie there's no funding at this point because it's a 2022 I don't know if I don't know if there's language in the bill yet but I don't there was a discussion about it earlier last week perhaps um I don't know what the status of it is at the moment in terms of the house bill okay all right it's not a 21 budget issue but it's out there and uh I don't know I think the request was some kind of language I'm sure it's something that they would like to see done but I'm not sure the is they the house or the lobbyist or the house no the vsea the lobbyist and so I have not had any conversation with um anyone from vsea I've had a request to have a conversation I don't know if I understand the issues enough to have a conversation and that's why I was wondering if there had been any action on the house side although there is no um no need to take any action on scent uh funding us the second year we've funded we funded the 21 costs now but wasn't there some comment from the administration about asking vsea to take a year off or to go in and renegotiate but both parties have to agree I think that might be where that that's coming from did do you know does anyone know did the administration make a request to reopen negotiations for the second year I thought they did if you would check on that that would be very helpful check on that okay all right now that you brought up vsea one quick thing from the Woodside discussion today out of 30 filled positions at Woodside 11 are on paid administrative leave for various reasons in being invested that's very troubling yes very troubling not only brought that up yesterday that's awful well it's not it's not it's there there are two parts one of which obviously paid leave setting that aside the the other concern is um although we don't have the details what exactly behaviors resulted in the need to um put someone on administrative leave I believe ten of them were restraints yeah so that's that to me if it relates to the care of the children in that facility then that's that's the most troubling yeah okay I think by the looks of everybody's face it's time to adjourn for the week bye we got two bills out and um thank you everybody we can ask a quick question after we go off live yeah I will uh-huh okay thank you have a great long weekend