 Hey, good morning everyone. It's great to have September with us. You know, as I've got a sweater on up north here, a little bit cooler, but it's good to see all of you. And we have, I believe, three witnesses, Suzanne, Abby, and Alan. And we have Michael with us as well. And I think that's it. Tomorrow, we've got the hearing with a larger group of individuals. And we're also going to I guess I didn't tell you guys, but I invited the house to be with us so that, you know, that looks good, Chris. So, well, I got a note from somebody that thought that it would be good if we all heard from the firm groups at the same time. It wouldn't tie them up twice and so it'll save those folks some time and it'll save the house. They'll hear the same thing we're hearing. And I just think it'd be more complete doing it all in one session. Chris. Mr. Chair, my face was about the schedule. Is that tomorrow or Thursday? I thought we were doing it Wednesday because there was a conflict on Thursday, one with me and somebody else had one. You're meeting Wednesday, nine to 12. Okay. I may, that's tomorrow. I may have to duck off for part of that, but just, that was what I was reacting to. Thanks. And Senator Starr, Suzanne is now here only on audio. Okay. Well, well, so we'll get started with our testimony. Suzanne, welcome and we're glad that you could be with us and you can read off with your testimony. Thank you, Senator. And I apologize. I had to join the call on the phone because I was going from the lobby of the pavilion building back to the office. So please excuse the sound of a person talking while walking. Well, we could wait a few minutes if you'd like to get inside or... You know what? That would be great if you could give me one minute so I can set back up and I will rejoin the call. Okay. Yes. So, Chris. Well, at some point I would love to brief the committee on the discussion around the tax and regulate bill. I don't know if you saw my note and I don't, we have Michael, but I don't know when that can happen, but sooner and later would be better. It shouldn't take too long. Yeah, but it's going to take more in a minute, right? More than one minute, yes. Yeah. Maybe, you know, maybe there'll be a break in testimony for one reason or another and we could do it then or do it at the end. I just want to make sure you were aware. Thanks. I did get your email. I think quite a few commented, quite a few of the committee members commented in regards to that. And yeah, we need to talk about that. Yeah. So is Suzanne back with us? I, yes, yes. So you all set to go? Yes. Thank you. So I first would like to point out to the members of the committee that the Racial Equity Advisory Panel has submitted, I believe they've submitted, there I am, has submitted some written testimony on the topic of the Relief Fund for the committee's consideration. And if I may, I'd like to start with just a walkthrough of the Relief Fund proposal. Just a very brief overview and then leave it for you all for questions, because I, the conversations I've been having about this have been most effective when they're question driven rather than me just talking at people. Yeah. So let me begin. The proposal on the table is $2 million for economic stimulus payments that would serve the same purpose as the economic stimulus payments that were given by the federal government through the CARES Act. The target audience for those payments here in Vermont, it would be a state level fund coming from the general fund. And the target recipients would be anyone who was excluded from CARES Act payments due to their or someone else's immigration status. And if I recall, I know this committee worked really hard on this kind of a measure. So I think you all are pretty familiar with the specifics of it. The estimated number of people who could be eligible in Vermont is about 5,000. And that includes 4,000 up to 4,000 adults and up to 1,000 children. I have further breakdowns of those numbers if you'd like more details on sort of more specific groups within those numbers. We've identified through our tax department people in the state of Vermont, not just people who are immigrants to the country, but also people who are US citizens in Vermont residents who have been excluded from CARES Act funding because of someone else's or their own immigration status. So this is definitely an issue that affects people here in Vermont. And so the purpose of the economic stimulus equity proposal would really be parity and equity for all of Vermonters in the state regardless of the day to day or week to week changes in federal policy and federal attitudes towards immigrant communities. I know this committee is perhaps more intimately familiar with the details of this proposal than others might be. So I'll leave it there and just invite any questions that you may have. Yeah. Well, thank you for that. I guess to start off with when we worked on this earlier this year, I believe we were told that because of the status of not being an American citizen that we could end up if our program was audited by the feds end up having to pay, take general fund money out of our state treasury and pay in that money back to the feds. And I'm wondering did you get any communications or have comments with people? Michael, did you raise your hand? I didn't raise my hand, but I can comment on this after Susanna answers. Okay. So have you cleared that up or have you gotten any communications in regards to that issue, Susanna? So unfortunately the federal government does not appear to have relaxed the restrictions on CRF dollars. So they still cannot be used for direct payments to people who are not US citizens or technically people who don't have social security numbers. So for that reason this proposal would be for general fund dollars. Boy, you know what kind of shape our general fund is in. The one way we could maybe do this if we could figure out a way to take COVID money and pay off something that nobody has figured out yet that's being paid for by the general fund, use COVID money to cover that expense and then take the general fund money to pay this expense. And I don't know if the administration, because they've got a couple of million dollars I thought they put in their proposed budget to cover these folks. And so I don't know if any of you have heard any more than I've heard or not, Ruth, and Ruth, and then Crush and then Anthony. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Susanna, for your testimony. I believe this is included in the governor's proposed budget. Is that correct, Susanna? Yeah. So it's in his overall budget proposal with the provision that general fund dollars be used. I'm just skimming through the testimony that Linda just posted on our website that you sent to her, Susanna. And I'm wondering, it looks like that testimony is trying to make the argument for even more money for 5.3 million versus the 2.0 million. And I'm just curious, with the $2 million, what is the estimate for the number of people you can cover? And you said you could provide more information on identifying the people. I'm assuming you worked with the tax department or somehow got more data, because this was one of the sticking points for us in the spring was trying to figure out the number of people that we should allocate funding for. So if you could speak a little bit more to that data and how much, who and how many people that 2 million would cover, that'd be great. Yeah. So the written testimony that was submitted is from the Racial Equity Advisory Panel. The panel believes that the initiative should not only be funded, but should be funded at the amount of 5.3 million. And there's a lot, there are some questions around how we arrived at these figures and what is a plan B or a plan C. So first I'll talk a little bit about who would qualify and how we arrived at the numbers in the first place. The 5,000 estimated potential eligible people in Vermont break down to up to 1,000 children, up to 500 people who are immigrants with lawful status. They are here legally, but who don't have social security numbers. And that includes student visa holders, the spouses or dependents of people who have petitioned for them, or asylum applicants who have not yet gotten their work authorizations, etc. It would include up to 500 citizens and legal permanent residents and that's green card holders who do file taxes, but either they or well, who file taxes with an undocumented spouse. It includes 1,750 undocumented adults who don't work in the dairy industry and 1,250 undocumented adults who do work in the dairy industry. And our tax department was able to identify about 295 filers in Vermont who either they themselves or their jointly filing spouse filed using not a social security number. I can get into the technical aspects of how you do that without an SSN, only if the committee would like to hear them. I don't want to spend time on that if you don't need to, but about 295 filers who did not use a social security number to file or whose spouse did not use a social security number to file. That was the information we were able to get from our tax department. And so with the question of the 2 million or the 5.3, the 5.3 figure represents the total number that it would cost if every single eligible person we estimate made an application and received the funding. It assumes that our top numbers are correct and it assumes that every single person who was eligible would apply. We cannot confirm either of those two things. Unfortunately, it's a population that's very difficult to quantify. And even if we do know how many there are, there is often great risk in coming forward and identifying yourself to the state. And so even if we knew how many there were, I wouldn't guarantee that all of them would apply. That being said, if we were to keep it at the 2 million, if we assume the same payment per child and per adult as CARES Act money, so that'd be 1200 per adult and 500 per child, then theoretically, if all 1000 children applied, that would be $500,000 earmarked for children. So if that first $500,000 is assumed to go to children, then that leaves 1.5 million remaining for adult applicants. And at $1,200 each, that covers about 1,250 or 1,275 adults out of potentially 4,000. Now, of course, we don't know the likelihood that the money for children would all be used, in which case, that would overflow into the adult pool. And of course, we don't, I mean, unfortunately, the numbers that we've amassed as estimates, we're saying up to, but it's possible that the 2 million might cover it. It's possible that it might need more than the five. I think that this is one exercise that we're undertaking that we hope will help us to get better understanding of how many people there are in Vermont. So there are some question marks, but one thing that I've been really heartened to see is that members of the legislature generally agree with the principle, and it really just is a matter of figuring out how to make it work. Yeah. Chris. Thank you. I appreciate the work you've put into this. A couple questions. As I understand the federal program, like I have kids and our stimulus check was boosted because of them, but it came to me. And so I'm curious if you can just technically, it sounds like you're saying that children will get money directly. So I'd like to understand that. And then my follow-up question is around identity. When we were trying to figure out how to do this with CARES money, we spent a lot of time trying to make sure we weren't inadvertently creating a list of people who would be vulnerable to deportation from the federal policies that none of us, that I don't support, and I think most of us are concerned about. And so can you just talk about the protections that you envision along those lines? Yes. So to your first question about how it would be administered for or to children, we are working on a draft that would have language in its thing. Something to the effect of an eligible child is any individual under the age of 18 years who's eligible for whom an eligible adult is a parent or legal guardian, something like that. And we're working to tweak that. But the idea is that it would be for the child. It may come in the child's name. A lot of children who are here, who are impacted by this, are citizens. And so to some extent, a lot of them are recorded and known by the government. The problem with CARES Act stimulus payments is that it eliminates, excludes everyone in a mixed status household, even U.S. citizens and even children who are U.S. citizens. So the payments for children would be administered, would be delivered presumably to the guardian of the child, or the child. Similar to the way that we do temporary assistance for needy families, public assistance, right? And maybe in the name of the child, but it's sort of given to the adult. To your second question about privacy, this is of paramount importance to the state. What we don't want is another repeat of a situation where we had employees going rogue to ICE, or we don't want a situation like what happened transitioning between 2016 and 2017 at the federal level, where a new and incoming administration was using existing lists that had been generated by state departments of motor vehicles to be targeting people for immigration enforcement. So we are going to be developing an application process that is minimally invasive. That is, we're only going to ask what is absolutely necessary to get people paid. And we are going to be doing our best to guard the privacy of applicants. Because frankly, a person in that position's privacy is of far greater value than $1,200. So being trustworthy as a state means us being us doing everything that we can to protect people in that way. I hope I've answered the question or at least communicated that it's something we're thinking about. Yes. Yeah, for sure. I think we all understand this, but a mistake here is not something you can, oops, sorry, you know, you were trying like it's a life changer. And so I appreciate the gravity that you seem to understand. But I know maybe this questions for Michael, but I I've always thought that like all the checks that we've sent out to, you know, all the businesses as well as to individuals through, you know, the frontline workers program, isn't that all public has to be public knowledge, Michael? It doesn't necessarily need to be public knowledge. You can identify award applicants generally. And you can provide that their personally identifiable information is not public and is not to be disclosed. There is a draft House Appropriations Review this morning that does just that. And it is now public. I can send it to you if you would like. Well, I think it would be very good to have, you know, for knowledge and if, you know, we're going to move something forward. But is appropriations working on a proposal to to move that forward, Michael? Yes, it's a standalone committee bill. It's based on the administration's proposal, which was based on your language from February, which was based on other programs that the administration did before that. So it's like the circle of legislative action. So it's yep, it's they're definitely taking time and seriously considering it. Well, that that's good, because if if they did, you know, get that going in approach on the health side, it would go come over if they passed it, it would come over and go directly to our approach committee. And we could, you know, support that as a committee if we so voted or or help move it forward on on our side of the aisle. So that that's good to know. Anthony, did you have a question or a statement? I guess it's become a statement. It was a question, but most of the questions were wrapped up in what Ruth had asked and what Chris had asked as well. It's concerned about how we would determine who gets it and who doesn't get it. I think it's really important that we fund this program. That just as a matter of fairness. And I was going to, I was wanted to be clear that, and this has already been talked about that the $2 million is not enough according to what the people who deal with these folks claim that it's closer to the $5 million. And I would hate to be the person who walks in and finds out that, you know, I'm the last one in line and I came in last and like everybody got it. But now it comes to me and I don't get it. I don't see how we are going to live with ourselves knowing that we've only allowed this funding to go through to a certain number of people, but we're still leaving out other folks who deserve it and need it. So I guess it's a statement since you've already answered the questions about the difficulty of trying to make those determinations, but I think it's really important that we go forward and find a way to fund this and fund it adequately so that it meets the needs of everybody who needs it, not just some of those folks and leaving others out in the coals, which is we would just be on some ways making the situation even worse if we say, oh, we forgot to find, we chose not to fund you guys last time. Now we're going to fund you, but actually we're only going to fund part of you. So, you know, some of you are welcome to come in and get your funding and others are going to be left out in the cold. I think that would be really unfortunate. So thank you. You've never gotten to a party, Anthony, and been the last in line and got there and y'all, the shrimp were all gone and this was all gone. Yeah, I've been there with that. So I know how bad that makes you feel. So I'd hate to see that happen to anybody else. I mean, I'm having experienced that myself. I think it's important that we don't leave people out in the cold that way. Make sure the shrimp is available for everybody. That's very true. Brian, you had a question? I did. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we talked about this back in, I don't know if it was April, May, or June now, but the year's kind of gone by. One of the sticking points for a lot of people, sort of the general public, is the question of whether these folks pay taxes or not. And I know we talked about it before. I assume, Susanna, that a thousand children don't. I mean, I don't know when people start to pay taxes, but it's probably not at age 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, whatever. But of the 4,000 adults, I think you made the point that it is true actually that they do pay taxes. Is that not correct? It is true and verifiable that a large number of eligible people do contribute to the tax coffers through payroll deductions. And often, I mean, do not get to file for returns, so effectively just don't get to participate, to take advantage of any of the programs that they help to fund. So in a sense, they are taxpayers, but not tax filers. That's not necessarily true of all of the adults who would be eligible here, but it is true for a good share. Thank you. Rose? Thank you, Senator. Oh my gosh, I'm just blanking. Oh, one thing, Nolan just, Nolan Langwiles on this call and he sent me the fiscal estimate that he did for the House Appropriations proposal. So I'm assuming he can send it to the full committee or it's on the House Appropriations page. And I agree with Anthony. I don't think anybody really who supports this wants someone to be the last person to the party and not get a piece of cake or a plate of shrimp. I will say, though, because that we're not sure about the data, even though I know that Susanna and others have done a lot of research, we have this strange, I don't know if it's benefit or not, but that we can be doing a budget adjustment in a few months in January. So one possibility is if this gets off the ground and there's a lot more demand and people apply than we expected, then we can adjust the amount in January. I know this is going to be an extremely difficult budget year. I'm really supportive of this and worked really hard in the spring to try to make this work. So I want to see something get through and get started and would love to be able to do the 5.3 million. But if that's not going to be possible with our budget, I think getting something in to get this started and then taking a look again in January at least is a good start. So I appreciate the work that you have done, Susanna and others, and your task force to get a proposal this far. So thank you for taking the baton from us and moving it along down the road. So just really appreciate that we're back talking about this. Yeah. It's good that the house is working on it. Well, the administration picked up on it, but then the house is picking up on it. So it's good to learn as much as we can. So we can support it with good solid numbers. One thing we could maybe track that would would help on the money. And if we knew, you know, how our other programs that we've done with COVID money, how well they've been participating, the clients are participating in. And I doubt if it's 100%, but we'll find that out maybe as we move forward with our testimony. And, you know, if you figure it at 80% or 90% or whatever it is, and it would give us a much clearer picture on on the overall cost. But as Ruth mentioned, we do in January, I mean, it may not be some of us because we have races between now and then. But a lot of legislators that aren't having a racist fall will be back. And so it could get adjusted. We don't know what committees we'd be on, but it could get adjusted in budget adjustment in January. So, so there's, you know, some good possibilities looking forward that we might get this darn thing done, which we all kind of want. Well, we do, we want to do it. We spent quite a lot of time and energy and testimony to get this thing going. So anyways, are there other questions by any of the members or Suzanne and do you have anything else you'd like to offer at this time? I don't just I suppose just to offer myself as a resource. If you have any additional questions or thoughts on this, I'm very grateful to you all for not just for your consideration, but for the fact that you were leading on this in last session. And I'm very hopeful that we can get this done as well. Yeah. And if if you come up with new material or more updated material, if you could get that to Linda, and we, you know, we'd be more than happy to have you back as long as we're meeting, you know, off and on through this session before the budget gets done. So, you know, feel free to get word back to us on anything new or updated that you you have talked about. I certainly will. Thank you so much. Chris. Could I just ask? Yeah, thank you. And thanks again for being here. Hopefully next time you won't have to sprint to join us. New Jersey, California, I think there are small handful of states that have already done this in one way or another, or we're advancing this idea. Have you have, has their experience been able to inform this proposal? And have we been able to learn from that? And maybe I don't need to know the details, but I just would take comfort in knowing that we've explored the experience of other states. We have been monitoring their state, other states who have been doing this closely. The trick is that the jurisdictions are so dissimilar that it's hard to really get information that's useful to us. But I suppose one thing that we are learning and relearning through this process is that the fact that this is happening in a number of jurisdictions, the fact that this is being supported across a spectrum of ideologies, lets us know that this is the right thing to do. So in some sense, it would be nice if we had a model we could look at from start to finish and say that's how it went for them. We are monitoring it in real time, but I think us, to some extent, we're just going to have to also be brave alongside them. Maybe they're using our model to develop their model. Maybe they're using our model. How about that? Well, we're usually first in quite a few things. So it wouldn't be the first time, that's for sure. Well, if there are no other questions, thank you for being with us and look forward to working with you in the near future. Gracias. Thank you all. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. So next we have Alan with us. And I guess we have Abby as well. And I think, Alan, I don't know what you have for time, but we'll get started with your testimony and updates. And then we'll switch to Abby at the end. Great. Well, I have whatever time you need. I am currently on vacation, but making exceptions for you all to that. I'm over in Level Main on the Keyser Lake. It's really quite lovely here, but I'm very pleased to be able to talk with you. So thank you for the invitation. Thanks for taking time from your vacation to be with us. That's okay. You guys have very limited time, so I'm happy to do it. Yeah. So what I understood, Senator Starr, you were interested in was an update on the current meat processing capacity in the state. Is that correct? Yes. Because we keep getting these reports from our constituents that they're backed up and they can't get in for months. And it's really going to slow us down if we don't get going with this and try to improve the timeliness of getting processing done. Yes. Well, I did provide some written testimony. So if you're okay with that, I'll just hit the high points and sort of give you a sense of what we learned back in the month of May when we contacted all of the commercial meat processing facilities in the state. And I don't think really anything has changed if anything it's gotten worse from a capacity standpoint and longer wait times since then. So I believe Linda has my testimony on your on your web page. So for the record, Ellen Kailer, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund. So as you know, there is a continuum of meat slaughter and processing types within the state. There is the on farm slaughter that is allowed with certain number of animal thresholds. And that has to be pre sold. Those animals need to be pre sold to customers. And an itinerant slaughter person comes on on the farm. It can't be done by the farmer. And they harvest the animal and then that the meat is is provided to the customer. And it is not for sale from a retail perspective. There are also custom slaughter and processing plants also for direct sale to customers. There are state inspected slaughter and processing plants that are allowed to sell to retail. But within the state only. And I think you are aware that that recently the we got a the ability to sell meat from state inspected plants outside of the state. There was a I don't know if it was a waiver or what it was that was arranged. Abby probably can tell you the details. And then there's federally inspected plants. And that's for retail sale. So you have a you have a continuum, a range of different types of slaughter meat processing for different purposes, different market channels, different types of customers. So during the month of May, because we were concerned about what we were hearing and seeing that nationally with meat processing plants across the country being shut down due to COVID related outbreaks by in those plants, we put together four consultants, Rose Wilson, Randy Quinnville, Lawrence Miller and Chris Bailey to make contact with all of the commercial processing facilities in the state. And we chose to do the commercial facilities because the commercial facilities obviously are available to sell to retail. And they they represent the largest segment of plants meat processing in the state. The 14 does that include the custom slaughterhouses and the federally inspected slaughterhouses? Just the federally inspected commercial slaughter facilities. And I've listed the the the names of the plants that we contacted in in my test in the written testimony there. So Adam's Turkey Farm, Vermont Packing House, Westminster Meads, Brose Market, Vermont Slaughter and Livestock Processing, Misty Knoll, NPC Processing, Royal Butcher, Maple Wind Farm, Northeast Processing, Stonewood Farm, Green Mountain Smokehouse and PT Farms. So those are those are the commercial slaughter and processing facilities in the state. We got the list from the agency of agriculture. And we asked them sort of who they think to prioritize reaching out to. And we were interested in three main questions in our outreach to them. We wanted to find out how are they doing with complying with the governor's and the health department's processes and protocols related to work workplace safety, getting enough PPEs, all of those kinds of things. We wanted to see how were they operationalizing the governor's and executive orders. We also wanted to find out how they felt they were doing financially and their overall cash and budget management. Because if a plant went down, had to close for a couple of weeks because of a COVID outbreak, we wanted to get a sense of, are you going to be okay? Do you have enough cash on hand? Are you going to be able to get through a period of being in shutdown? And then thirdly, you will recall that right around the time of May was when the Cabot and DFA announced the quotas, new quota system for milk from their members. And so we knew that there was going to be a number of cow dairies that were going to get called in order to meet those quotas. And so we were concerned about what we were hearing of some of the plants that normally called dairy cows would be sent to out of state. Those plants were being shut down because of COVID outbreaks. And so we were wondering, is there a way that Vermont facilities had enough capacity to take a certain number of Vermont called dairy cows and be able to keep that meat here in the state? So we were looking at these three different questions and we did all of the outreach by phone. We're not able to be in person in any of the places. So what we learned about their safety protocols, we couldn't visually verify, but we felt fairly confident in their abilities. So here's our key takeaways in the process of having those conversations. And then the consultants and I really sort of working it through like, what are we really learning across these 14 plants? They're doing a pretty good job with instituting all of the health and safety protocols, that they seem to be taking it very seriously. They were doing masks. They were having separators between workers. They were, you know, following the break rules, break room rules and all of that. They, all the plants seem to be very good, pretty good in terms of financial health. All of them felt like they could withstand a shutdown if it happened within for a couple of week period. And that the main impact of them being shut down was really going to be more on the production side of creating additional backlogs for producers. Because that shutdown meant that those two weeks worth of slots for harvesting animals would have to get shifted by a couple of weeks. Every, and this is, I think gets to your point, Senator Starr, every plant reported that they are at maximum capacity in terms of their infrastructure, their workers, their physical plant abilities. At the time, there were two exceptions. But as more workers have been brought on board and additional equipment have been acquired by those two operations, they too now are operating at maximum capacity. And another sort of interesting development that's happened that is putting additional strain on the system, so to speak, is that Walden Meats, which is a purveyor of aggregates a lot of Vermont and Northeast meat, has bought, has invested in Vermont Packing House. And they now have access to 40% of all of the slots, slaughter slots at Vermont Packing House. So that meat, a lot of that meat stays and is sold locally or it's sold within the region, which is a good thing. But what it does do is it does put additional limits on the amount of capacity for the small producers to get their animals to slaughter. The plants are turning away new accounts, especially for instance, if they're asking for ground beef with called dairy, and that most plants are scheduling out now into February and March and maybe even later for some of them, because they just don't have the extra slots. So small producers who have had slots and have had a regular process more or less have been able to have those slots maintained. But because of increasing consumer demand, they've been wanting to harvest more of their animals and they can't get the additional slots. So that's one of the biggest challenges that the small producers are really experiencing. A couple of the plants are interested in hiring and need additional workers. I mean, pre COVID, the workforce shortages for trained meat cutters in the industry was already a challenge and COVID has only exacerbated that. And while we think that the current situation that's brought on by COVID is not going to change anytime soon, we do think that there are some projections that local meat demand may continue post COVID even at 25% higher than pre COVID levels. And we recently had a focus group with a number of grass fed beef farmers. And we were asking them the question about overall consumer demand. What were they feeling in the marketplace? What were they hearing? What were they seeing? And we were pushing them to say, how much do you think your industry grass fed beef could expand over the next 10 years? And they felt that they probably could almost double their sales and output over the next 10 years, but they arrived at the challenge, which is only if there's additional processing capacity in the state. And as you know, other New England states have been trying to see if there's a way that we can ship more meat within the region because we're all learning about how these larger, the US supply chain of meat is so concentrated and is very vulnerable to shutdowns and is making us very vulnerable overall. And so finally, in conclusion of sort of where we arrived at from our analysis, is that we probably in Vermont could use another one or two Vermont packing house scaled slaughter and meat processing facilities in the state. That just adding a little bit of capacity here and a little bit of capacity there, if it was even possible from an infrastructure standpoint, would not be sufficient for where the market demand is going. And what about contracts? So the market is there to sell the finished product? Is that at a competitive price or is that? Yes. No, yes. And even the cold dairy meat, for instance, the Vermont food bank was very interested and they were going to be able to offer a competitive price for the dairy ground beef, but we just we can't get it processed. Any interest from anyone in building a new facility? Has that been explored and how long might it take to accomplish that? Well, we're just, I don't know of anybody right now. We are in the process of forming a new meat supply chain task force within front of plate with that express purpose to try to identify individuals that might be able to start up a new plant and to do all the work around that to be able to to expand overall capacity. It's going to take time. It's not something, I mean, first you have to find the plant operator and the owner, then you need to have an actual physical facility that can be permitted and have the capital and the workers. So this is not going to be a quick turnaround by any stretch. I wouldn't even want to try to guess from a timeline standpoint. Another question. What region did you find where their farms that could could raise more or double their herd size so that, you know, you don't want to get a lot of trucking involved in and so is it like Addison County or where did that interest come from? Was there any particular area? No particular area. I mean, we pulled together. I think it was maybe 12 grass-fed beef producers from all over the state that are doing it and, you know, obviously where there's more land in Addison County and there is definitely a lot of activity there around the grass-fed beef side of things, but I think obviously one of the key things would be to take a look at where do we feel like we have a capacity shortage in terms of geography, in terms of, as you're saying, keeping trucking costs down, but I mean we're pretty much hearing across the state from producers of the challenges of getting slaughter slots and Abby may have more intel to share on that as well. Well, and I would think if, you know, if the 25% of the market is here or additional market, but if it was going to be out of state, you know, like Boston or Hartford, you know, an area where you can go either way for us easily is, you know, White River along the corridor 89 or 91 and you can go, you know, south and southeast or however, but any idea of what it costs to put up a facility? I don't off off top of my head. No, I can easily find that out. I can just see if Mark Curran would be willing to give us a ballpark of, you know, what went into Black River Meats and Vermont Packing House. Yeah, and Carl Cushion ought to have an idea, I would think. Ruth, you had a question? Yeah, I had a couple of questions. One, excuse me, is the capacity issue mostly around beef or is it across the board for all types of all types? So even poultry and poultry is different in that. Abby should speak to that because I'm not as abreast on the poultry rules, but, you know, Maple Wind Farm in Huntington, Bolton area, they process other people's chickens there, but they also do a lot of their own chickens. So they are close to their plant's capacity. And then you have Misty Knoll Farm, which again, it's their chickens. They're not processing for other people. So chicken is a little bit different, but for hogs, goat, sheep, and cattle, it's a problem. Okay. And we heard testimony last week from rural Vermont that, and they were pitching an expansion, I think a pretty big expansion of on farm slaughter. And I'm wondering, is that something that you support or sustainable jobs fund? And what do you think it would be, would even put a dent in this capacity issue or not? It wasn't clear to me that it would. I think that for the small producers, it would provide an opportunity for them to harvest more of their animals, because right now they just, they can't, they have no outlet. So as part of a longer term strategy of building up towards overall capacity for the meat industry in the state, it is a portion of what is needed. I think that I'm not gonna, I can't recommend what levels. I mean, I think that's really for the agency of Ag and you all to sort out, if you want to go that route. I think in the short term, it could help quite a bit for the small producers, but because it can't be, you can't sell it into stores, it doesn't meet the even larger issue of more Vermonters wanting to buy more Vermont meat. So, you know, it hits a, it would, it would take care of a certain population of the producers and a certain population of Vermonters who want to buy direct from farms. And that's, of course, assuming that they actually can get their hands on a chest freezer unless they have one already because you can't buy a chest freezer anymore. But I think it is part of a strategy. The other issue is that, you know, again, as a potential short term, what we don't know is for those producers that might want to take advantage of increased on farm slaughter capacity, because the thresholds increase, if an additional big, larger plant came online, there's nothing to say that they wouldn't then switch over to those plants, to that plant. So I think as a short term strategy at the very least, and to satisfy the needs of certain parts of the marketplace, it's, it's worth exploring seriously. Thanks. Any other questions? Abby, you can feel free to jump in with any comments if you, if you'd like. Any other, what about expanding some of the ones that we already have? Is there any, any room there? Are they at their limit building wise and storage wise and all that? Yeah, a lot of them are at their storage. They have wastewater, like for instance, Vermont Livestock's water and reprocessing Carl Cushing's plant. He's had white wastewater issues forever. And so some of it is, is a physical plant challenges. Some of it is being able to get workers. Royal Butcher, they were, that one of the two that said that they could add capacity. And what we were able to do is to get them a working lands grant back in May, June to, because they needed some equipment for just pack to improve their packaging line efficiency. He happened to have a second cooler that could be used for hanging carcasses. And because of making small improvements to his packaging line and he could increase his throughput. And so he was able to bring on, I think it's about 10 additional cattle a week that he can now process. But again, that's a, but that's a small, that's a small amount. Right. And so, you know, and he's a, you know, a decent sized operation. So I mean, that's the thing. It's like any, any improvements, it's going to be incremental. And what we really need is something more transformative. The way that Vermont packing house and from, and Black River Meats was back in 2014-2015 when they came online, that was transformational, you know, that, that was a major increase in capacity that we saw come online. And we basically are at that same point again. Abby? Yeah, thank you, Senator. Abby Willard, agency of agriculture. When Ellen's team and the agency's team have worked on some of the ag and food systems brief development, we talked with the poultry community and heard that it's really tough for some of those processing facilities that are taking on other birds from other farms to really scale that practice up because of the infrastructure improvements and additional requirements that are needed to actually process birds from another farm. So Maple Wind Farm, as an example, is really efficient at processing their own birds. They have a great system and a great operation and they manage it, I think, you know, relatively well for them to expand and offer facility slaughter for other processing of other poultry is a challenge for them. So I think it's another capacity issue that we're facing. And when we met with the sheep and goat industry a bit ago in a joint farm to plate working group conversation, we heard from the sheep and goat industry that with the closure and shift in priorities of the packing plant and spring field, there's still capacity challenges for processing of small ruminants. So while, you know, I think we've heard many times that the most profitable livestock to slaughter and process would be beef just because of the size of the animal and the pounds of meat that come from one animal versus doing sheep and lambs and goats. So that industry has sort of shared with us that they are concerned about not having sufficient slaughter. And that's not even a capacity issue, but a willingness to slaughter those animals in Vermont facilities. Now, have you had any conversations within the agency about any of the rules or rags that these people are, it's holding people up from expanding or any of that, Abby, to find out if there's some things that we're overdoing or things just right or how's that all going? Yeah, I'm not part of the routine conversations that happen within our meat inspection team in that section. But what I do understand is, and maybe Ellen's research wouldn't work with the plants can cooperate or not, the reputation that Vermont's industry has is superior. And I think that speaks to what Caroline Gordon from Royal Vermont was sharing the other day that Vermont meat that's processed in a state facility can now cross state borders. And that is an unbelievable, or the only state that that's possible in. And that speaks to the quality and the process that occurs in a state inspected facility. And that I can, I think, speak on behalf of our meat inspection section, that that's their ultimate objective is public health and safety to ensure that the consumer is receiving a quality, a high quality and a safe product. And certainly the slaughter facilities that we have in the state have been able to meet those standards. Their challenges seem to be more around capacity or around sort of this struggle to see new entrepreneurs in Vermont or come to Vermont that are interested in engaging in this line of work. But I have not heard, and I don't think the regulations are too strong or too strict. I think it actually has helped maintain our quality reputation and brand outside of the state. Well, I think, you know, that's most important is if you haven't got high quality products, you know, you're not going to move forward. And we do have a good reputation, which is critical, I think. So on the labor issue, are there are there any of our new citizens that have moved here or that are coming here? Are any of those people interested in being trained to work in the meat cutting business? Because you mentioned that was an issue. Is there any way anyone checked advertised training in these neighborhoods for meat cutters or where we could help with tuition costs or any of that? Do you know? I personally don't know. I do think that the new American population tends to be mostly in Chittenden County. And all of the meat processing facilities are outside of Chittenden County, with exception of Maple Wind Farm. So there's a transportation challenge. There was a question early on of whether or not there were chefs in restaurants that could be deployed. But we heard from the processing plants that they were not interested in having chefs because it would introduce an additional vector into their plant from a safety, maintaining health and safety protocols. And also, just like from a production standpoint, just needing to crank it out. It's just sort of different processes. I do think the question around training is a good one. If you may recall back in 2011, when Farm to Plate first launched, there was money provided to a Hannaford Career Center and Med River Food Hub to develop a meat cutters apprenticeship program, which is now being run out of Vermont Technical College. It doesn't happen on a regular basis, but it is something, it is a piece of infrastructure, so to speak, that does exist, that enables us to train people in the state that are interested. I don't know if there's a class coming up, but it is a larger systemic problem overall, Senator Starr, and your question is a good one that's worth exploring. Well, and what about how much do these people get paid that if they're on the line and they are a meat cutter, do they make good decent wages or do you know, did you check that out, Alan? I can get you that information. We do have it. I just don't have it off the top of my head, but it's decent, but it's also really physically hard work. You have to be, and you have to, and it's cold work. You have to be in an environment that's what, like 45 degrees or 50 degrees working, and so it's not for the fainted heart for sure, but I can get you those numbers. You know, people will work if they get paid decent, and these new Americans, you know, they're probably from areas where people work, but we want to make sure that if we go down that road of promoting that, that they can make a live in doing this kind of work, because it is hard work, and you know, the hours are probably 10 hours a day, I don't know, but 10 or 12 hours a day, so you know, work conditions mean mean a lot. Ruth, did you have a question? Yeah, well I just wanted to add some of these plants, I know at least the seasonal ones use H2A workers, migrant farm workers on special visas to come work in Vermont. I know for example, Stonewood Farm we bring. I don't know if Alan or you, Abby, or if this is more of a question for Alison, but about whether or not there's, I know there was a delay in getting some of those workers in in the spring and wondered if that has been cleared up. So for fall processing, for example, if that workforce is available. My understanding, Senator, is that those consulate closures are no longer the same concern that they were in the spring, at least at this moment in time. I think what could happen later in the season is, you know, remains to be to be known. But yeah, we've had some similar questions from Apple Orchards that hire H2A workers this time of year. And my understanding is that they're able to and they're seeing their workers come in as scheduled. Great. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And those H2A workers, they're only given a certain length of time they can be here. I'm wondering if while they're here, if we had somebody contact them or have meetings with them, maybe the like, Paul Stone or somebody like that could talk with them, see if they'd even be interested in moving here to do full time work with would be, you know, maybe it would work. Some of them might want to move their families here if they enjoy being here. That's why it's important that we know what they get paid and that if we had a new facility, you know, what we could offer workers to come and stay and be able to feed their families and live okay. I looked up the butchers and meat cutters, typically are about $36, $37,000 a year. So between $17 and $18 an hour, meat poultry, fish cutters and trimmers are a little less about $34,000 a year, about between $16 and $17 an hour. Yeah, so you aren't going to live too high in Chittenden County, are you Chris? You know, the rent would take half of it. Yeah, see, I mean, the cost of living is pretty severe. I mean, you know, that's the way it is. And the challenge of course is that while we really do want to see wages increase, one of the other things that we hear from producers is that the price that they get for animals is lower. And so there is this, it's just, you know, revenue and expenses on both for the producers as well as the meat processing facilities and for wages is all part of this mix here. And it ultimately comes back to consumers and understanding the cost of producing high quality meat and our ability to actually pay for that added cost. And then of course you get into the issues around food access and can everybody afford that? So these are structural system level challenges that we're constantly bumping up against. Yeah. Well, and you know, like the milk, the farmers the one on the butt end of that thing, you know, but we seem to be, you know, milk in the store seems to be selling at a same price. It always has $450 or $5, but yeah, they're getting. Yeah. Yeah. So I would definitely, sorry, go ahead. No, no, you're, you're good. I was just going to say in my mind, the other thing that you all could help with is ensuring that the working lands enterprise fund has more funding than what was in the governor's recommend, which I believe was just about $5.95 was their base budget. Getting up to at least 750,000 in a working lands allocation for fiscal 21 would be a step in the right direction. Higher would be better, but we understand the challenges that you all are facing with the very, very tight budget. But basically in order, but one of the things that we've seen through this COVID process across the board, all sectors, all types of businesses, is there is a very much an increased need for business and technical assistance to support the business owners in being able to rethink their business model, getting it pivoting into new market channels. So there is a need to have additional funding that can support the business and technical assistance work that's happening with farmers and food producers and, and forest products businesses. And we need a bigger pot of money to go into infrastructure and, and business grants. So that because remember the key thing is the working lands money doesn't have the same time pressures that the CRA money has. So while the COVID relief money and what you had in your bill trying to signal to get more of the CRA money to go to meat processing plants, reality is, is that other than a little bit of small, you know, piece of equipment or some small piece of infrastructure, that's all the CRA money is going to be able to support because there's not enough time to do the structural bigger plants that we ultimately need. And so having more funding within working lands, it's not a be on end all because, you know, there's still not enough money there, but it would at least give us the ability to identify some additional larger plays on the meat processing facility side of things if we had more money to work with. So how's that doing on the house side, Ellen, do you know the working lands money? I thought they'd put in quite a bit. Are you talking about 21 or? Fiscal 21. My understanding is that, and Abby, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but my understanding was that the original base budget was $595,000 in the ag budget. And then in January, the governor had signaled he would, he'd be willing to put another $750 in as one time money to get working lands up to I think was like $1.395 or something like that. That was going forward. It was unclear whether it was fully going to, you know, manifest, but it was moving forward and then COVID hit. And so what the governor's team has come back with is basically level funding at $595, and that's extra $750s off the table. So the question is, can you get a little bit here and there to get working lands up higher than just the $595? Yeah. Yeah. And my understanding is, is that the house yesterday was talking or the committee was talking or this morning actually about, about that, right? I missed that testimony though. They, the administration has basically taken their original budget for the year and taken three quarters of it and, and paired it back. You know, so it's all pretty much level funding straight through this. So far, the one things that we've seen have been very few increases if any. Yeah. Other questions for Ellen or, or Abby for me and the committee. So are you doing, are you folks doing any more work on the meat processing business or got anything scheduled for the, for the near future or? We don't. We had some dedicated funding that we could put towards doing that and that funding is stride up. So, and we feel like we did a good bit to check in with them. You know, if there was funding, we could probably do more, but I think what we're looking at doing is, is putting together this meat processing supply chain work to bring together producers and processors and distributors and all the support organizations that we can take a much bigger, more, more structural look forward at how we actually get a couple of additional plants online. Well, so you're, is ACCD working in that or with you or? Not yet, but not yet, but we can easily include them. Yeah. Yeah, because you've got a combo of problems that's going to take a combo of agencies to, to be able to figure it out and, you know, because I'll tell you, 22 is going to be, as far as I can tell from where I said, 22 is going to be the roughest year. You know, we're lucky for 21 that we were in good shape with our, you know, fund balances and all that good stuff, but that's getting sucked up for 21. And so if we could get something started during 21, while times aren't too bad. And then if 22, but who the heck knows when this stuff's ever going to get over with, you know, but it would be good to have a rough plan put together on this meat business, because the way dairy, dairy milk cows are going, these farmers, if they keep getting cut back on their milk, we've got all this wonderful land that grows great grass. We ought to be utilizing it for some good beef for Southern New England and get into that market. And because our farms, you know, farmers love the farm and they do, you know, such a great job at it. They would make sure that we had good beef going, going south. And so anyways, anything else for either Ellen or Abby? If not, thanks a lot for Abby. Just going to say, Senator, I'm happy to visit with you about Everyone Eats, which I know you had questions about, or we could talk about the VCAP report and sort of some of the status updates, if you're interested in those topics. Yeah, we should get on to that because we're running out of time. Ruth? Yeah, I was just going to say that I was interested in hearing the update on Everyone Eats. I got an email about it as we were, as I was listening to Ellen. So if you, I'm trying to get more going in Addison County, so if you have any suggestions, yeah. Yes, please. We need your help, Senator. We do. I'm going to try. But if you have updates on like what your best advice on that would be, that would be appreciated, especially since you're in Maine. And I think I heard a loon. Is that possible? Did I hear a loon? Absolutely. There are loons on this lake. That is so awesome. Anyway. Thank you, Ellen, and enjoy your rest of your vacation. No problem. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Good to see you guys. Yeah. Bye bye. Bye. So Abby, we'll jump right into your stuff and move forward. So you want to give us a little update on your report? Yeah, let's start with the report and then let's save a few moments to talk about Everyone Eats. Both Ellen and I are on the task force for that project. So I can at least give kind of some broad strokes around Everyone Eats and then maybe a recommendation of who else you may want to hear from from that project. But I think that Linda shared with all of you the report with data as of yesterday. So we can just sort of go through that really quickly if that would be helpful. Sure. So as of yesterday, we'll start with the dairy producer and processor assistance application. 261 applicants have initiated an application in the online platform. An additional 200 applications have been submitted to date. So that means of the 760 dairy producers and processors in the state that we are aware of and that received their unique dairy ID numbers to submit applications we've heard from 461 of them, which is not bad. You know, right now we have one month left for them to submit applications by October 1. We'd like to see those 261 that have initiated an application but not yet completed or submitted it. We'd like to see that number increase. I mean, excuse me, decline. We'd like to see those that have submitted applications to actually have them, excuse me, those that have initiated applications to actually move to submitted status. We just sent out some communications the end of last week to those 261 dairy applicants that have initiated to say, you know, if you need additional assistance, let us know. If you have questions, check out our resources, give us a call, send an email so that we can figure out how to get those initiated applications moved to submitted. You can also see the breakdown between processors and producers. So lots more producers than processors, as well as on a percentage basis as well. So we're seeing fewer processors than we'd like to see in the application. Yesterday and today, so starting in about eight minutes, we'll do our second application tip session for dairy processors to help them walk through challenging aspects of the application. We're having different applicants that have successfully submitted an application share their experience and hopefully kind of overcome some of these sticky or challenging or frustrating components of the application so that we can see more dairy processors submit application. On Wednesday and Thursday, we will have, hang on one second, there's so much activity at my house at the moment, hang on. Looks like the medium farm people. I mean, there's a lot of medium farms and we're only hitting so far 29. Yeah, you're muted, Abby. Sorry, thank you. Those 29 are just initiated applications. We've received completed applications from 45 of the 45 MFOs. So we've heard from, you know, 74 MFOs in total in some capacity. But we are hopeful on Wednesday and Thursday, we'll do those application tip sessions for dairy producers as well so that we can hopefully start to see in the coming weeks additional dairy applications come in. Okay, Abby, can I stop you for a second? Because I'm having a hard time following your numbers. I thought you said 451. Did I hear you say that number and I don't see 461. So there's that from these charts. Yep. So the first table is of initiated applications and there's 261 applications that have been initiated plus the second table includes the total number of dairy applications that we have received and that's 200 applications. So there's 461 applications that are in some stage of completion. Okay. It crosses over on a page, so I didn't see the 261. So thank you. That's helpful. Oh, yeah. Maybe when this was transferred into a PDF, I think it may have that's unfortunate. Yeah. Did I get it now? Thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. You can also see the third table down is payments. So you can see of the 200 applications that have been submitted 128 as of yesterday had actually been approved for payment. And that was totaling 4.44 million. I just got a text just a minute ago that today so every Tuesday is when we process CHEPS with finance and management. So today an additional 34 dairy applications were approved for payment totaling an additional 1.13 million. So that's an addition to this that's in your chart here. 3.1 adding. It was 34 additional farms totaling 1.13. So we now would have 5.57 million in dollars paid out in the dairy application. But even still we can look in the narrative here just below the 128 figure. That still represents only 7.97 of dairy processors and 19.53 of dairy producers. Yeah, we've got a long ways to go there. We do still. It's true. Yeah. So we can we can come back to any of these topics, but then I just would move us down. There's the application tip series that are happening this week to hopefully bring on new applicants or at least move them to submitted. The next application is the agricultural fairs assistance. And so this was the half a million dollars targeting agricultural fairs. You can see that we received 12 eligible agricultural fair applications that have outlined almost 2.5 million dollars worth of losses and incurred expenses that are eligible due to the pandemic. Yeah. How that's going to come up really short then, isn't it? Well, none of these programs have sufficient funds to pay all of businesses losses. So it's no it's similar to, you know, this will be the legislation that you all passed did not include caps for fairs. It just included some eligibility criteria and the budgeted amount of $500,000. We knew that we would most likely not be able to cover all losses. But again, that's similar to the dairy and the ag and working lands applications that have caps to paste based upon, you know, some criteria. So we are looking at being able to equitably distribute payment to fairs. So that was in the legislation that it be equitably distributed. And it looks like it'll be somewhere between somewhere around 20% of the claimed losses reimbursed through this grant payment to each fair. One issue, though, that you kind of forgot, I think, or maybe you didn't in here, is that like last year, it rained every day of Barton Fair. And the way we set the law up, or the way it's been set up, is that this year's losses compared to last year. Well, if last year was a washout and you didn't make anything and actually you went behind, compare this year with that, you might not have lost so much this year as you did last year because you had all these contracts for people to come and perform and it rained and no attendance. Did have you talked about that much? We did communicate to fairs and I admit I am not on the agricultural fairs review team at the agency. So I wasn't a part of the detailed conversation of the applications that we received. But we have said, and this holds true for any of our assistance applications, that if there were extenuating circumstances in 2019 that make that a really inaccurate comparison to your losses anticipated in 2020 to articulate that, to communicate that to the agency so that we can make accommodations, if appropriate, if there were again some extenuating circumstances in 2019. Yeah, that's good, Abby. Thank you. I don't know if Barton claimed that. I can ask Senator, but I don't know if they took advantage of that opportunity. I hope so, but anyways, I'll look into it. Yeah, it's a good point. Thank you. Sure. Mr. Chair, could I ask a question? My video is not going to work, but at some point I'd like to be in the queue. Sure. Yeah, jump in, Chris. Thank you. Abby, I know you probably have to get off for the webinar for dairy assistance. Are you guys doing anything similar for the working lands and non-dairy programs, applications? Yeah, so thanks, Senator. I'm actually going to let the team handle this second webinar so I can stay with you for a few minutes longer if you have time. And let's talk about the Ag and Working Lands application, because that's our third and most recent application that the agency launched. And we'll start with the numbers and then we can move to the technical assistance and outreach support. So as of yesterday, we had seen 113 applications initiated in the system and 52 applications submitted and received. So 165 applications in process in this application that's been open for just a couple of weeks now, since the 17th. And we did a very similar series of opening webinars for Ag and Working Lands support organizations as well as to the industry representative themselves at the end of August. So we did three webinars on August 21st, 24th, and 25th. We had about 50 participants, which it was pretty low attendance, frankly, compared to the three or four that we did for dairy, which had, I have to look back because that was in our July report, but I can pull that up relatively quickly. I think we had 150 or more attendants in that webinar series. Let me look quickly just. And these are archived online, right? We can point people to them, is that right? These report the series, the webinars, yes, we have a recording on our website for each of the webinars. Yes, thank you. You're welcome. We also are looking at doing a training next week with the Farm Viability Network to do another sort of application kind of tips and tricks session with them as they continue to work with applicants. We also engage with that Farm Viability business community once a week and hear what their questions are. They help us formulate our frequently asked questions that we populate on the webpage. We're helping answer any questions that they're receiving from businesses that they may be working with. And in this report, you'll see just the variety of outreach and education efforts that we did in the month of August, and we have a fair amount scheduled for the next couple weeks in September since we're in the final month here. Are there any issues, Abby, that the agency that you folks would like to see changed? We've got some deadlines and things that were in the process of putting together some suggestions to, I guess it's all going to happen as far as I know, in appropriations. And Michael has put together some language for us on dates that we've already talked about. Are there any that you know of or issues that you know of where your people would offer suggestive changes? Yeah, thanks for that opportunity. I have a few thoughts on that. And we've talked a fair bit about this the last couple of days, knowing that you're back and understanding that you're open to exploring changes on the three acts potentially. And I think the first thing I would say is we too share the objective of having as much time for applicants to submit an application as possible, as I think I presume the legislature hopes for as do many of our kind of advocacy and support organizations as well, those partners. We also talked a bit about some fluidity between the funds so that you know right now it's written that if by September 15th, if there's any unspent dollars in the non-dairy and working lands funds that those could be transferred to dairy. I think we talked the other day about just a general fluidity between the funds so that if mean fairs will be managed and spent separately, but the three different acts that include the eight and a half million that's now wrapped into this one application for ag and working lands and then the 25 million for dairy that we could have some flexibility in if we run out of a certain pot of funds to be able to utilize another pot if there's remaining dollars. There are some complications if all funds then have the same deadline because we won't always know which application, which pot of dollars has remaining dollars potentially because there's still applications in the queue that are being reviewed. So that may be something that we strategically think about if there's like a staggered delay delay in application deadlines but we did speak about November 15th and while I think that would be a really tight turnaround, it is probably the best date to allow the greatest amount of time for applicants to submit applications. The biggest challenge in the dairy application is the notification timeline between when the month ends and when they receive their milk pay stub. So the application right now asks that they include their up to their September milk pay price. Normally September pay price information for the fund so they get paid twice a month but we're looking for the final September pay price isn't available to the producer until sometime in October. It's not available to them on December 30th and so that's a challenge and we're working with the co-ops to see how quickly could they provide September milk pay price information to their suppliers. The same would happen if we extended the deadline to November 1st that again they would not have their October milk pay price on October 31st or November 1st but maybe they'd have it by November 5th or November 10th and so trying to work out that timeline that feels reasonable with the co-ops possible with the co-ops and and then gives the the producer's time to submit an application with that month's claim included. There is a I believe and we can have Michael look into this I believe there's a deadline when the milk processor that they sell the milk the farmer sells the milk like the DFA or agri-mar there is a time and I believe in law that they have to pay that in the September money to the farmer and whether it's 15 days or 20 days it but we can check that out. Yeah it's typically been a few weeks and we're trying to see if they can be even more expeditious can they do it in like a week so that they haven't got the money yet because the guys that they sell the milk to haven't paid them so yeah. Yeah that is probably true that it's a kind of it's a trickle trickle up situation for them for the the co-ops to be able to pay. Everybody gets their little bite of the apple and the farmer ends up getting just the core. We're hoping that's not always the case but yes it does feel that way a lot of times um we've also spent a bit of time talking beyond the deadline but about the no net profit conversation that happened last week and we are interested in looking into what it could be to change some of the language we want to make it just really known that there are consequences when we go in and make changes to this application about eligibility or requirements for applicants and we have reached out to the vendor MTX to ask them about timeline and how much it would cost to make modifications to the application if eligibility parameters were to shift or change. We're also looking in to see how many applicants in the ag and working lands application so again so far we've received 165 either initiated or submitted applications how many if any other businesses have applied and been knocked out due to not meeting that no net profit eligibility threshold to see how big of a problem if any is this eligibility criteria that was discussed last week and our vendor is looking into pulling out that data for us so I think it's not quite as simple as maybe we had talked about or thought last week but we're looking at all the different avenues to see what could work for example if we make changes to our application we will go back in the queue for those changes to be made with the vendor with MTX so it depends on how many other applications also have changes and when our request goes in as to when the bill passes if it were to be a bill that that is proposed and passes as to when our ag and working lands application can be amended and and then resubmitted so we know that there will at least be a two possibly three week time period where we'll have to shut down the application and not be accepting any applications because when the eligibility criteria that's in the application at the time that someone submits or initiates an application is the eligibility that we'd have to move all the way through so we'd have to stop the application put it on hold make any changes and then reopen it with a different eligibility for applicants to re-sign up yeah rose um yeah two questions i mean to to address that last question one one thing that came up was maybe just moving all the money into the working lands portion of it that doesn't have that so that you wouldn't have to stop applications and you wouldn't have to change the whole thing with the vendor i don't know if that's an acceptable solution or would even work but it is is that possible um and then my second question is um you mentioned the stagger deadlines as a way to try to figure out how much isn't each fund if we had uh November 15th or November 10th or whatever we settle on as the final deadline couldn't you just process the applications um not turning in anybody down per se but then just sort of see how much all the applications would add up to and then you would know before you've before you've paid out money it just seems like it would be unfair i mean we have it set up that way now and we want to change it because we think it's unfair to have different deadlines for the three of them it seems to me that you could work out some kind of reconciliation process with the deadline so those are my two questions yeah so right now all the v-cap applications managed by our agency have the same deadline i guess fares don't fares fares just closed because it was a very targeted population but the dairy assistants and the ag and working lands application have the same deadline of october 1st so we we have consistency there um and and that fluidity in funding i think is an option rather than making an eligibility criteria change that we um look to the additional flexibility and funding to support as many applicants as we possibly can that meets the ag and working lands sort of general eligible applicant criteria which again that too is is limited and that they need to be an agriculture business a value-added food product uh business of forest products or an ag producer association so there are still some criteria around who can apply but um if we had the fluidity between the funding sources that may be the best way and the simplest way to um work the different scenarios of eligibility through the chart if you haven't had a chance to look at that um eligibility flowchart take a look on our website it's very complicated with the three different bills and the various eligibility that accompanied each of those funds um but the application is now set up to be able to funnel applicants through based on how they answer eligibility criteria questions and that's what would make it complicated once we go in and start changing eligibility um and that's why we'd have to shut it down make the changes and then re re re upload um so i i agree senator hardy i think the the funding flexibility of the the amount in each bill with the associated criteria could be the easiest and and most feasible solution to support as many applications as possible yeah um other questions for abby no do you want to hear about everyone eats senator hardy i know that was at interest of yours but i also know we're in the lunch hour so yeah if everyone if no one else if people need to leave because everybody has committees i know um and needs to eat and probably use the facilities um i'm happy to either wait or just have a a conversation with you offline too at some point um well you want to see i i have a props at one o'clock and i don't know probably brian you've got a meeting anthony and i have a one o'clock at gov ops maybe we could have abby come back yeah sure definitely um i don't know if we're gonna have time tomorrow but we'll we'll um discuss that um in the morning but we'll let you know a day or so ahead abby because you have plans too so we'll yeah we'll check in with you um and uh you know and we'll get some questions rounded up and we can go from there if you do you Ruth and abby you want to use this uh this site to visit or you want to call separately that's okay abby i i think i have your phone number so i can call you separately at another time after i get a chance to read through the emails that i received and maybe you can give me some advice it's specific to how to get something going better and addison can listen yeah and i would encourage you as a committee if you're interested um the coordinating team of everyone eats which is again this five million dollars that was that you all helped appropriate for restaurants and local food procurement and feeding those families in need um they plan to have a legislative summary report written in the next week or two and gene hamilton who's the project coordinator would be a great person to come in and talk about the program overall um i can give you some of the highlights and i'm happy to do that in a day or two or or with you individually kind of to hearty but um that report that they'll have in a matter of days i think will be really really interesting and really valuable to take a look at well we'll have you back in um abby and thanks a lot for spending so much time with us um and um i guess uh we'll just sign off we'll see you tomorrow morning i think we're starting at nine o'clock that's right pardon nine o'clock nine o'clock tomorrow morning so um have a good afternoon and we'll uh see you all in the morning