 Good morning. Thank you to everyone about their flexibility and where we are this morning, as many of you know, but perhaps the people in our viewing audience don't know, the state house is under construction, so we're in boardroom at the tax department. So hopefully the sound will be okay, you'll be able to follow along. This is our last meeting of the PEG access TV study group, and we're hoping today to get some draft language out that we will be able to bring back to the House and the Senate and go through the committee process and hopefully figure out next steps for how to shore up funding for PEG access going forward. So as you know, our legislative council Maria Royal did send out a draft proposal, and I think it makes the most sense to start with the draft proposal with comments and questions. Yes, Dan. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank you to all the members for the opportunity to be here and to participate, and thank you for the drafting of this. I have some just general comments. If it's okay, I'll read them. Yes, and actually before you do that, Dan, I wonder, Maria, if it makes sense, we should have started with a walkthrough, and I apologize, Dan. Let's start with a walkthrough. I'm still in the car driving from Rattleboro, and I need to put my legislative, I know you are. You're probably on the highway together. So why don't we start with our legislative council attorney giving us a walkthrough of the draft proposal? Sure. Do you want her to sit? Sure. Why don't, since we're gathered here together in this new space, why don't we introduce ourselves? So I'm Becca Ballant. I'm the chair of the committee. I represent Wyndham County, and I serve on the Economic Development Committee and Finance in the Senate. I'm representative Mike Yintoshka. I represent Charlotte Park, Vinesburg, in the House, and I'm vice chair of the BG Access Study Committee. I'm Karen Horn with the Vermont State good cities and towns. I'm Clay Purvis with the Department of Public Service. Good morning. I'm Dan Glanville, representing the industry. Andrea Pappini with Public Utility Commission. Lauren Glendavidian representing Vermont Access Network. And I'm Maria Royal with Legislative Council. Does everybody have a hard copy? You know, Mike Buran has some extras, and there are also some extras up here for anybody who'd like them. So we'll walkthrough the draft proposal, and I'll maybe fill in a little bit on some of the considerations that went into the language choices, and of course any questions or clarifications we can address along the way, or at the end, whatever works best for the committee. So this is basically a study. It's not very long, so maybe we'll read through paragraph by paragraph. So what it does is it authorizes the Joint Fiscal Committee to contract with one or more independent consultants to assist the General Assembly with evaluating options for financing public benefit programs through an assessment on communications providers based on their use of public rights away. The consultants shall have expertise in finance and economic modeling and in communications law and policy. The Joint Fiscal Consultation with the Office of the Legislative Council shall administer consulting contracts for the Joint Fiscal Committee. I did talk briefly with Steve Klein, the head of Joint Fiscal Office. He did suggest having the language say one or more consultants. He was concerned that you might not actually find a firm that has both the communications expertise and the economic modeling. They might submit a joint proposal. So that's why that language would be expanded. In evaluating options as required by this subsection, the consultant or consultants shall consider and make specific findings and recommendations regarding the follow-up. Whether and to what extent communication services may be subject to a right-of-way assessment, taking into consideration the Communications Act of 1934 as amended and as it pertains to information service Title I, common carrier services under Title II, radio transmissions Title III and cable services with the regulated under Title VI. These are all different titles of the Communications Act and the various communication services that are subject to its regulation. In addition, line 4, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which you've heard a little bit about as amended, and then C, any other relevant laws and judicial precedent and orders, regulations or bulletins issued by the FCC. And then finally, line 7, Subdivision D, State and Municipal Laws and Ordinances Assessing or Regulating the Use of Public Rights of Way by Communications Providers in Vermont and in other jurisdictions, including the terms and conditions of lease agreements or other contractual arrangements, as well as the revenue generated and the programs funded for many fees collected. And then in terms of what the consultant shall develop in Subdivision 2 line 12 of page 2, the consultant shall develop alternative models for revenue generation based on right-of-way, a right-of-way assessment and shall develop current and future revenue projections that reflect market trends in the communications industry. The models shall describe technical implementation issues, including the availability of or need for mapping data related to communications infrastructure in the public rights of way. In developing alternative models, the consultant shall analyze models enacted in other jurisdictions, including the revenue generated in the programs funded. The consultant retained under this section shall have the technical support of the JFO, the Office of the Legislative Council, the Department of Public Service, the Department of Taxes, the Agency of Transportation, and the Agency of Digital Services. The funding for the program, there are two options, A and B, for your consideration. Again, I spoke with Steve Klein about what his estimated cost was for this study and roughly he said between about $300,000 to $500,000. So the first option is an appropriation, depending on what amount you arrive at and the money is from the general fund to the JFO to cover their expenses. The second option in Subdivision B is a billback provision. And this would work by JFO essentially billing the PUC, the Public Utility Commission, for its expenses incurred under this study. And then the PUC would allocate those expenses to communications providers that have infrastructure in the rights of way. The remaining language in that Subdivision, a competition of a communications provider to which costs are proposed to be allocated, the PUC shall review and determine after opportunity for hearing the allocation of such costs and may amend or revise such allocations. That's standard billback language under Title 30. But basically the PUC makes a determination on how to allocate and the providers are given an opportunity to ask for reconsideration. So those are two options for funding this particular study. Then Subdivision 5 at the bottom of page three, honor before January 1st of 2021. The consultant retained pursuant to this subsection shall submit a report of his or her findings and recommendations to the General Assembly. The report shall include draft legislation implementing the proposal that represents the most equitable means of extracting the greatest public benefit for Vermonters from the commercial use of public rights of way. And then finally in page four, there are two separate studies. The first one subsection B, you'll see I put in italics, the state auditor. This is the issue about whether there should be structural potential structural changes that pertain to the AMO's to increase their efficiency or extract some cost savings. I don't know who would like to do that study. State auditor was just a person that came to mind and state government that do does this type of activity for state programs generally. But that's for you to decide. In any event, it says the state auditor shall assess the services offered by Vermont's 25 independent nonprofit Peg access centers and determine whether there are opportunities to achieve efficiencies and cost savings through a restructuring or consolidation of services. The auditor shall review models and other jurisdictions. The auditor shall report his or her findings and recommendations to the relevant committees of jurisdiction on or before January 1st of 2021. And then finally subsection C. There was some conversation about perhaps doing a study about the IT and whether Peg could assist with offering some of those services that were discontinued. So again, I don't know who exactly would do the study, but one proposal for consideration is the secretary of digital services and consultation with the commissioner of buildings and general services shall evaluate the costs and benefits of the state partnership with Peg access centers to coordinate and expand the delivery of video conferencing services. Taking into consideration the services provided by Vermont interactive television, which was renamed Vermont interactive technologies and was not was defunded. I think in 2015. The purpose of this public private partnership would be to increase public participation in state proceedings. The secretary shall report his findings and recommendations to the standing committees of jurisdiction January 1st 2021. This would be effective on passage. That is a very detailed walk through, but thank you help know in terms of your discussion. So before I go to Dan, are there questions specifically for Maria? Great. I wonder if we need to define public benefit programs section a little bit like what do you mean by public benefit? It's an excellent question. I don't what do you mean by public benefits? What do we mean? I did keep it broad. That was the, you know, the charge to me. But to the extent you want to be more specific. And then they so maybe we talk. Yes. And then my other question is, is this the way it's written here? Would it just look at use of public right of ways? Or is it looking at other revenue generating mechanisms as well? I think the charge to me was to just look at the use of public rights away if you want to expand it again. That's something that certainly could be incorporated. So back to Karen's first question. In terms of defining more clearly what we mean by public benefits programs, what is some language that would help? Illuminate that. Just a question is, do we want to restrict it to public access, television, AMO? So do we want to make it a broader reach of programs that may be eligible for funding? And so you're saying perhaps to pull that out and be specific that we're talking about. Yeah, I think we want to be a little bit more specific. Lauren, what did you have something to? I was just going to hear the questions and maybe Dan's comments and think about that question about public benefits a little bit more. Okay. All right. Thank you. So just to thank you very much for the drafting and for the explanation. So I have a couple of general comments. I know that we've all worked hard at these meetings since the springtime and we've had an opportunity to look at this from the perspective of the current health of public access television. I think that the facts that have been presented indicate that we are at a state of good health and that perhaps we can look into the future to see where things might be. With regard to generally the draft proposal before us, I know that we had spoken about between 300 and $500,000. We would have concern with regard to the billback provisions to the communications industry as it stands because we do think that the draft proposal, although we've had some early discussion with regard to satellite providers, does exclude them from consideration in this entire proposal. We also would have some general concerns. Yes. Dan, you just hold on for one second so that we are clear on where that language is specifically in the draft. We're talking about option B on page three. Yeah, page three, line seven, two, 14. Okay. And so your recommendation, you would like it to not be given as an option there? For billback. Yes. Correct. Okay. I just want to make sure we're looking at the language specifically that you're referring to. Do you want to stick to topics? Like if I had something on that topic, do you want to talk about that or do you want Dan to continue to do it? Can I just suggest maybe you finish the comments and then let's circle to get them all on the table and then it's all right. I'll defer to whatever the chair wants you to do. I actually would actually like to hear what Andrea has to say about this particular issue and because I also saw Clay's head nodding. And so I'd like to hear you want to get all that on the table before we move on to the next thing. Andrea. Okay. Thanks. So the commission has some kind of concerns about the communications provider's definition, which kind of speaks to what Dan was saying about satellite providers who falls under that. So that's kind of the first thing there. And you're talking about in that same section? Yes, in that same section. So in general, the commission is concerned about this section and the build back and the implementation. So I was just going to give some information about why. The second thing is the jurisdiction issues about billing back for this type of study. Just not sure where this falls and how the jurisdiction issues would play out. And then from a practical implementation issue, the commission has instituted some more streamlined procedures and for simplifying how build back would work. And this language goes against what the commission has been trying to implement. And then just generally also the process and proceeding for deciding how to appropriate those costs would be pretty labor intensive for the commission and it would take a lot of time. So there's some concern around that too. And so in summary, we would strongly, the commission strongly would prefer section A of this, which is the general fund option. And Dan mentioned the 300 to 500,000. I wasn't at the last meeting. No, that was, Maria was talking about Steves Klein at JFO gave an estimate that a study of this scope in size would cost somewhere between three and five, probably $1,000. So that's where that came from. And again, these are best estimates. And so Clay, it seemed like you also wanted to weigh in on this particular issue. Yeah, thank you. Can I ask you a portion of Andrea? Yes. Are you saying that the Public Utility Commission would find it hard to allocate resources to do this study? Hard to allocate resources, but that it would be, oh, you mean to, can you say it again to do the study? Yeah, I'm wondering whether PUC has the resources and the personality expertise. I'm sure you have the expertise, but with all the other work that PUC does, would it be difficult to do this in addition? Yes, it would be difficult to do, to be intimately involved in the study. And as it was written earlier, it says section three before that, it does say the Department of Public Service would assist, but it doesn't say the Public Utility Commission and that would be where we would go considering that the Department has a, I'm gonna defer to Clay, but Telecommunications Division, but this isn't really Telecommunications, I don't know, sorry. Let me like, Clay, it's fine. Okay, so you have a concern with the Department of Public Service being named at the top of page three as the, do I? I'm asking. Oh, no, no, sorry. No, I do not. Okay. I was trying to answer representative. Yanchatch. Yes, thank you. Yes, so section three is that the JFO would have. Access. Or the consultant would have access to the Department of Public Service for creating the report. The only role for the PUC here is to administer the built-back provisions. And I was. So we're hoping to write the report. They're hoping to pay for it. I'm sorry. Oh, and I just wanted to say that I was expressing concern about the time that the process would take to allocate these costs to determine who the communications providers are and who falls under that. So that was what I was expressing about. So I think from the Department's perspective, I think we share the PUC's concerns about judicial resources being applied to this. This seems very labor-intensive, not necessarily a surefire way to succeed in securing payment. It almost seems like the payment method here, the method for paying for the report is utilizing the same scheme that the report itself is intended to explore. So I don't know how it would play out. One concern that I think comes to mind, at least at first blush, is that the cable companies, they already pay a franchise fee, which is for the use of the right-of-ways. So my question is does 300 to 500,000 come out of the payments that the PEG channels receive? So basically, PEG's gonna be paying for it one way or the other, I guess that's my concern. And if that's okay, okay. I think that question kind of goes back to the definition of public benefit programs or really we're here from PEG, so this is about PEG. So I guess the question should maybe, should maybe they pay for the report and I'm throwing that out there as a question. I don't know that this is gonna work. I think that it's gonna be very problematic for the PEGC to fulfill this section. Okay, so. Can I have one more comment on that, based upon what you've said? So we do think that it seems a bit, the billback provision seems a bit, and I use this word respectfully, but prejudicial against the communications industry as to what we're looking at here. So, and then we would make the argument as to whether or not, we've had a full conversation as to whether or not taxpayer funds should be used for this as taxpayers just making that argument. But to Clay's point with regard to offset, I do want to state as I've stated before that we are currently in compliance with and we're complying with the 621 order and we will work with local franchising authorities. That local franchising authority in Vermont is the state of Vermont to determine its application to our current franchise obligations and implementing that will involve a conversation with the LFA. So I don't know what impact this would have, but we would obviously evaluate that and have a conversation as we will with any piece that would result in a reduction from the 5%. Just want to state that clearly for the record. Does everyone know the 621 order if we want to refresh everyone's memory, Dan, about the 621 order? Sure, it's the, I'm apologize. No, no, no. It's the order from the FCC with regard to what in-kind costs can be deducted from the 5%. What in-kind costs associated with franchise obligations can be deducted. So that's why I gave that general statement because we're still in review phase on that, haven't had any implementation, we're not going to do it unilaterally, it will involve a conversation. And I'm not providing a legal opinion here, I'm opposing it as a question because I don't know. I think we're more or less in uncharted territory here, but I think that potential exists, so I just want to make sure that the community's aware of it. And I just want to remind everybody too that whatever we come to today is just the next step in this, and it goes to the committees of jurisdiction in the House and the Senate to be further worked. So this is not the last statement on this by any means. I would just want to get to some kind of consensus for the next phase of this. It's important to all of us to make sure we're looking at shoring up these critical stations long-term, and so I just want to make sure that we're not wasting each other's time this morning if I feel like there isn't enough support. For B, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that. I want to move towards something we can come to agreement on. And so that was my reason, Lauren Glenn, for focusing on this piece. And if there isn't people advocating strongly for Section B, then I would just assume we take it off the table and focus on things that we can call a less around. But I will ask my Vice Chair if you are in agreement. I kind of agree with that. I think the simpler way of going in is just to have the Joint Fiscal Office fund the study, the legislature fund the study through the Joint Fiscal Office, I should say. Yeah, that's a good question. You may, this is a bit of a sticker shot to me. I was, as a rule of thumb, just assumed everything in state government cost $50,000. Anytime we want to write a report, we just ask for $50,000. So I was curious, Maria, how they arrived at this number. You didn't have to talk to Steve Kline. I just asked, you know, help me flesh out a little bit for the committee, what would be the right kind of cost. And certainly, I need to have it in the office today, so. I always think that, I mean, the consultant industry, hopefully no one in the room is in the consultant industry, but I mean, you can find a consultant for whatever price. So if you say we're gonna spend $300,000 on this report, you're gonna get a bunch of bids for $300,000. If you say, no, we're only gonna spend $25,000. You'll get a bunch of bids for $25,000. And I think I'll refer to the study on carbon pricing that we funded not this past year, but the year before. And that came in at about $125,000. That was, that's a pretty extensive study. Peter Blum, when I asked him about this, he said somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000. This is his estimate, but again, not knowing who else you might have to engage in that work. And I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Maria, is Stephen Klein was also saying we may have to retain more than one in salt. And salt, and perhaps that is also the reason for the higher cost. But again, it's an estimate and it will go through legislative review in many different ways before any appropriation is given to joint fiscal. So I don't wanna focus too much on the amount since it's just ballpark. I wanna make sure we're focusing on the concept. So is there anyone that would like to advocate for keeping B it? Part B, I mean. Part B, sorry, part B page three lines, seven through 14 as an alternative funding for this study. Because if not, we're gonna move on. Okay, let's move on. Back to you, Dan, thank you. Thank you. I have one other, or two, three other matters. On page three, line 17, we would respectfully request that the word shall should be may in that regard because if in the determination of the consultant after doing their diligence, it is determined that there is not a need for legislation that should have be obligated to produce it. Mike, can you say the louder part? I think that's about it more too. Other thoughts on that? I agree with that. I think it ties the hands of the consultant that may need non-legislative options on the table and that might be the best way to go. Just gonna ask everyone to speak up a little bit more just because of the wind. I love this room, but the wind is howling. So anyone in disagreement with that? Okay, so we're changing Maria the shall to may. Dan, did you have one other thing? With the broom, I do feel like I'm on Harry Potter. Yes. Yes. It's the best we can do with our options. It's very nice. I like it very much. It's a compliment. It's one of my favorite rooms in this building. The ceiling is incredible. It is. We're in the Great Hall at Hogwarts. As long as I don't hear a boy saying slither into me. So two other brief matters. Just, and it wasn't really addressed, but who will have the, I presume, Senator, that you're speaking with regard to the choosing of the consultant that the appropriate committee would put parameters in place as to how the consultant is chosen, what requirements they must have, and all that because it seems a little bit vague in general. I'm gonna defer to Maria because I actually don't know much about the process of retaining consultants. Yeah, I don't really work in that area either, but I do know it's not uncommon for the Joint Fiscal Committee to retain a consultant through the JFO, so they, you know, as representatives of the legislature, to the extent there are not criteria here or that they'll fill in the blanks, they have to go through an RFP process, which is a pretty public process, and entertain options from numerous firms, and then ultimately the JFC, the Joint Fiscal Committee, would make the final decision about the terms, the specific terms of the contract, so. Do you want to remind everybody who's on the Joint Fiscal Committee? I believe those are the chairs of all of the money committees, so that would be appropriations, House and Senate, ways and means in the House, finance and the Senate. I don't know if there are other chairs, I think it's just. I think the transportation. Oh, that makes sense. The Teeville, probably not the institution's capital. And so, Dan, did you have suggestions for how to be more prescriptive in the charge? I don't, I just wanted to raise it as a concern, yeah. So in part A of section one there on page one, we kind of spell out what skills this consultant shall have with expertise in finance, economic modeling, communication law and policy, and then we talk about the various aspects of telecommunications in part A there. Well, I'm not sure. You're saying it's pretty prescriptive. I think it's prescriptive enough already. I just wanted to make sure. And I'm not too, I'm not quite sure how the numbering of the paragraphs goes. The A and then a one and then a capital. No, no, no, no. It probably has to do with where this fits in the other legislation. So I think too, it comes back to the opening paragraph there, which is how are we gonna deal with the concept of the public benefits programs? Or are we just going to spell out what we're talking about is Peg Access TV. That's what we're talking about. That's why we're here. And so I'm wondering how that people are feeling about that. Do you want to just talk about why you use the word communications? As opposed to a more broad term? Well, it seems to me at least in the research we've done in the conversations that we've had that while the path has addresses Peg Access, where we have wondered, and where our questions have laid is with the state's authority to require broadband compensation from Title I broadband. And we have a general idea that there are prohibitions on that, but there are also places in the country that are looking at this differently. Eugene, Oregon being one of them, which their Supreme Court upheld and the FCC has gone after them and they're in kind, but that may be ultimately upheld, we don't know. So a lot of these questions are in play. And so I think that the term, I started to use the term public benefits when looking at this question of public compensation for private use of the rights of play, whether it's Title VI, Title II, or Title I. So the question became bigger. So when we talk about public benefits in response to Title VI, Congress was trying to guarantee diversity of voices and opinions and to ensure that community needs and interests were met mindful of cost. That's what that meant. So that is in the small Title VI sense what public benefit is. Yet we are really needing to look beyond Title VI to answer this question, because we have franchise fees, but that's declining. So I think that the scope of this is more narrow. I don't think the scope of this is gonna get us to information that we're curious to find out and possibly apply in Vermont. I mean, it says here, it refers to Title I, but I don't think that's a closed question. I think that's actually the question on the table. And I think we have to be able to look at it. So I don't think we're just looking at communications providers. I don't think the answer is just in the communications realm. So I guess what I'm saying is number one, I think that an assessment of communications providers based on their use of public rights of way, I think that's narrow. I don't think that will get us to a new different way of thinking about this work. Do you have suggestion for alternative language? Well, I think we speak to it that we're researching Title I, Title II, I mean, we're looking in these places, but we're not just looking, we may not just be looking at an assessment of communications to me means Title VI. And I don't know if that's what you intended. So communications is a term of art. I mean, it does refer to Title VI, right? I mean, telecommunications is Title II. So anyway, I'm not full lawyer, so I don't know the right term here. I just don't want to be restricted by it. And in terms of public benefits, I think what we're really talking about is meeting the needs, the communications needs and interests. Community, communications needs and interests. Community needs and interests in relation to the widest diversity of ideas. And that's really what we're trying to accomplish. Does, in your opinion, does public benefit programs include more than what we're talking about here with PEG? Well, I don't want to be grandiose, but I do think that the Universal Service question is part of this, because they're dealing with the same decline in revenue and we're gonna need to look at alternative ways of promoting those public benefits as well. I mean, the whole environment of internet, telecom and communications is in play here. So I'm thinking this is bigger than just looking at replacing the franchise money. I think that it's looking at replacing, it's looking at the internet as, how do you structure compensating the public interest, the public, as internet use increases and these other technologies decrease. So I think it's an ecosystem. And I don't really have the precise language, but I think the concept is important for us to discuss as a group, because I suspect that other people at the table don't see it as broadly. Yeah, I would like to... Yeah. Thank you. With all due respect to that opinion, I'm always looking for ways we can find money for broadband, that's part of my charge. So that's another public benefit, but I think the reason we're all here is because of Peg. We were charged with looking into Peg, finding alternative revenues. You have Peg access services in the title of section one, but then I don't see it anywhere, actually in the body of the legislation. Maybe it's there, I don't know. But public benefit kind of implies something greater. And I think we're now outside of the scope of our, this committee's enabling legislation, which was to go look at Peg and come up with recommendations on how to ensure adequate funding for Peg. So I would I think be more inclined to narrow the scope of this to looking at ways that Peg can be funded. In fact, I see all this right away stuff as kind of a rabbit hole. I mean, there might be other ways to fund Peg. Maybe it should be the consultant should look more broadly at how Pegs are established today, how they operate, wherever might be funding opportunities and the pros and cons of those. Maybe it should involve combining section one with the, with section B here on the last page. Oh, I see it's all in section one. So study and A and B maybe, maybe they ought to be combined. Maybe there should be one study that looks at all of those questions. You mean the state auditor report? The state auditor report. You have one consultant going out and looking at ways that we can generate revenue, I guess, ostensibly to pay for Peg. And then another report saying how can Pegs do things differently. I don't see why we can't do that as one report. When I read the language under the state auditor, I thought that it made sense to have the consultant that was working on, as Clay said, to work together to possibly be the same consultant as opposed to involving the state auditor. And I was also wondering what the AMOs would think about the state auditor being charged with that. So I'm digressing a little bit so I want to stay with what we're talking about. Maria? No, just to clarify, your right, Clay, that subsection A is much broader than just Peg services. The public benefit is not defined. I don't think that was a charge to me. If you want them limited to Peg services, you can, obviously. And then the reason why Peg access services is listed in the subject line is because of the second study, which has to do with the auditors looking at, and I probably should've added VIT services because that's the third study that you look at. So there are really three things, a very general right of way assessment for public benefit, very broadly defined. The structural issue with respect to Peg services and then the video conferencing. So there are kind of three things. Whoever you want to define them, but I just wanted to clarify that. In terms of the term communications providers, I really just followed the language in the Federal Communications Act. In general, under Title VI, cable services is the term used for cable services and cable providers. So, and I tried to delineate in terms of the services that are subject to the assessment, information services, telecommunications services, cable service, radio trends. So it's the broadest, if you want to move forward with this, I think it's the broadest reach of services under the Federal Communications Act. But to the extent there's still confusion that can be clarified. So I concur with Clay's assessment that we should stay within the scope of our charge and restricted to the EEG access services rather than using a broad term like public benefits programs. I was also wondering how if we have Part B that I would state auditor, if they're looking at the structuring of AMOS and everything. And you've got another consultant saying, okay, under the current structure, how are we gonna do it? The results of Part B could affect the recommendation of the consultant doing Part A. So, yeah, there has to be more of a tie-in there, I think. I'm not sure how to do it. And I'm not even sure whether the state auditor is the person is the... I have concerns about your section. The section to do it, yeah, the department to do it. And I'm not sure if we're not receiving state funds, whether we need to have an assessment of... I don't think that assessment's necessary. Well, you aren't receiving state funds currently. Right, that's what I mean. Right, so I think it is. Yeah, I mean, if there was a clause in here about allocating dollars for PEG, then I think that that study makes sense or do. But I think if we're not gonna do that, then I don't think the study's necessary at this time. You're talking about the study in part sub-RB? With the state auditor. Right, I don't know that the state auditor is the right... I think the state auditor is not the right person. I think that the substance of that report ought to actually be included into A. You're gonna have a consultant looking at revenue options for funding, I think it's only fair to look at the other side of the equation. Every business has revenue and they have expenses. I think that the report needs to kind of look like a balance sheet in that regard, so. What are your thoughts on that, Karen? I sort of concur with that assessment. I think that probably we should be looking at PEG access because if you're, well, if you don't focus the consultant, it's gonna be so broad that you really, I think, won't get anything in the end that's of value. So, but I would be more interested in opening up sort of what the potential revenue sources are, having a wider study of that. And then I do think that if you're doing the assessment of services offered in efficiencies, that that should be part of the consultant's job as well. I don't think that a state auditor is the appropriate place for that. I was also thinking maybe the public service department could do it, but they're not gonna be happy about that. We have many reports to do right now and I have independent consultants. So I hear consensus that the state auditor is not to be charged to do this, is that correct? Yes. So then the next part is. Did we settle on the language for public benefits programs? No, I wanna put that on hold just for a second, if I could, Mike. I wanna get a sense from the group. Even if the state auditor's not gonna be charged with this, is it important that some entity is doing research on page four? So we're all on the same top of page four on the PEG access centers themselves. So if I may, I think that we could say whoever, the consultant shall assess the services offered by the PEG access centers and determine whether there are opportunities to achieve efficiency in cost savings period, not dictate that it needs to be through restructuring or consolidation of services. Right, so you were saying strike that, to achieve efficiencies in cost savings period. Yes, and then looking at what happens in other jurisdictions is always, I think, valuable. Yes. Thoughts on that suggestion? I would suggest putting the language replacing auditor and consultant and taking that language and putting it as a new three under part A, and then moving three and four down. Do people agree with Karen's assessment that spelling out in this draft language through a restructuring or consolidation of services is not, it's not something I can get behind, I don't like that language, I don't think we should be prescriptive about how that's gonna happen. I agree, I think it's implied when you say opportunities to achieve savings or efficiencies in cost savings. That may not be. I think a proper consultant is going to think about restructuring as one potential option that doesn't need to be spelled out, that's what I agree. Good. And I agree with what Clay said too about this going hand in hand with any information researched on the study. So, I'm sorry, on the funding. So Maria, are you following our editing here? Yes, we will find out, yes. So basically, as I think I understand what's being suggested is that in line four on page four striking through a restructuring of consolidation of services. Yes. Is that right? Yes. And then in terms of who that is reported to, do we just want to consolidate that under page three? The consultant will submit a report to the general assembly. So I guess the question of who gets the report to review? Do we want that to make this one? I mean, if we're, if the consulting team is going to take this up, we want to streamline who gets the report, right? So strike that this goes to the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Energy and Technology or make the whole report go to them. I don't know how that works. I think the whole report would go to us. And the, I'm not sure whether we even need that last sentence there, but the previous sentence probably should be another item of study on a Monday. So if page four lines one through four, one through five actually. One through five, yep. One through five would go under, between lines nine and 20 on page two as a move forward. Would it be appropriate to add language that says that the consultant shall work with the AMOs to assess the services or it seems like there's not really an identified role for the AMOs with the consultant, so that might help. You could certainly say that, the consultant in consultation with or with input from whatever you have a choice, a preference for either of those. So I'm glad you have a, I'm like in consultation with, okay, great. All right. And I'm sorry. No, no. Did you want to speak with the AMOs or with the Vermont Access Network? Yes. Okay, access, thank you. I'm sorry, can you remind me or I'm glad, does every AMO, are they all a member of, Yes. Of BAM, you know, so whatever your position is, you can solidly say this is the position of every single AMO in Vermont. I have a couple of clarifications, but I don't know if I do still want to discuss any other issues or broader issues. Sorry. I do. I just want to know if in terms of the language that we just talked about, do you have what you need? I think so. Okay. I think so. We'll go through at the end and confirm. Great. And so I want to clear up as best we can the issue in section, subsection A on the first page, line six. Are we talking about public benefits programs, benefit programs, are we talking specifically about PEG TV? And what's, yeah. Just one final thing on the study of efficiencies. Yes. The Department of Public Service already collects all this information about our financial information. So I don't know if we want to have a reference, that they will rely on existing reports as well as something along those lines. Just to, that this information doesn't all have to be gathered in the raw, it's historically available. So I'm not sure. I just wanted to point that out. That's an excellent point, Maria. Do you have thoughts on that? We collect these AMO annual reports. I don't know if they're the same as utility annual reports, but there is that superior court decision hanging out there about confidentiality. I see you may want to be explicit about the department shall provide AMO annual reports to the consultants or something like that. Subjected confidentiality. That's up to you. I just, I wanted to make sure that we have the clear authority to provide the consultants with whatever you feel the consultant needs. We're not put in a tough place of deciding whether we're allowed to give it out or not. Yeah, that's good. I mean, there's nothing confidential in those. They're public reports. They're public, and okay. You still want the language? They're on your website, right? They're on the website, and they're also, and you have the historic data going back for a while, so I just, I don't, it may not be necessary, just for you. Yeah, okay. Then I stand down in a completely off base here. We've all been there, Clay. Especially if you don't get it off, right? Okay. I'm sorry, do you still want to reference that those reports are available through the departmental service? I mean, I think it's fine to say that the department shall provide. It was actually more Lauren Glenn, you know, it was basically highlighting that you have, you're collecting that information, so not. Well, you have, yeah, I think, you know, you have us as, I could, shall have the technical support of the, I assume, I was actually going to ask what technical support means in this case, and whether that language would be changed to consultation with, or in collaboration with language, but if that's what technical support means. You know, if there's a definition, I think in general, it's if you have data or information that's helpful to provide the consultant that you'll make that available. And there's a pretty common language which studies that the agency, whatever agency shall provide technical support and or supplementary data, right? So. We'll give it to them, it's not. I mean, that may be true of all aspects of this study, not just that. I mean, it may be a sentence at the end, which is, and maybe it says it already, right? The DPS will provide technical support as needed to aid the work of the consultant, including but not limited to access to annual reports. So one other thing I noticed is that on page three, at the bottom, we talked about the consultant shall submit a report as to her findings and recommendations to the general assembly. I think we want that to say to the House Committee on Energy and Technology and the Senate Committee on Finance. Okay, yeah, Dean. I have two other small matters, they're kind of the same, but in page one, line 13, after the word recommendations, my, I would respectfully request that we add subject to applicable laws. And then the same wording. Okay, hold on a second so that we can all wrap our brain around what you're saying here. I would assume that whatever we do is subject to applicable laws. I'm a belt and suspender, is that right, guy? Just to recognize you. How do people feel? Is that, I mean, I assume in everything that we do that's implied. So I think that would be an unusual addition there. I don't know how other people feel about that. I don't feel it's necessary. And I'm often a belt and suspender kind of gal as well. But in this instance, it feels like that is what we do. I don't know if other people. I don't know that it's necessary to include that. Okay. Anyone disagree? Or anyone agree with Dan? Not sure if you want to spot, is it needed? Be sure to exclude in applicable law. I think we're not gonna add that in. Okay. Appreciate the. I was gonna add the same thing elsewhere, so I won't bring it up. Okay. And then just one word on page two, line 12. Should it be develop or consider? Develop is the right word. If you're gonna end up with a report that makes recommendations that the legislature might take action on, you want something actually developed. Not just conceptual. Right. Right. Thank you. I was gonna say conceivably, you could consider something and not put it in the report, right? So. To add to that, I actually think consider would be helpful because then they would write about things they're not recommending. So, here's one option, here's why this is bad, here's another option, here's why it's good. Develop sounds more like they're gonna kind of create from scratch an alternative model when maybe there's one out there. Can I make this a joke? Shall present instead of shall develop. Well, no, that doesn't really. Well, we want them to actually do something. Maybe recommend some other, there's a better term. We don't want just consider, we want. Yeah, that's what I was just looking at. You need a product with $150,000. What does we consider. Recommend? I think that there is the requirement to produce the report, but I think that what this would do is in producing that report, they would consider other models. Consider versus recommend. Consider in recommend? Consider and recommend. Consider means to look at and recommend means to pick one or two that makes sense, right? I like that. So, on the table, we have consider and recommend and striking develop. Karen, you were, Mariette, do you have thoughts on that in terms of legal drafting? No, consider and recommend is fine. I think it's implied that they're going to do the economic modeling. I think that's a big part of it. That was why the word develop was, but if you're, I think that's gonna be implied that they're gonna have to do that to make a recommendation. And can I ask a question on line 14 of that page too? Sure. Again, I'm just wondering if the term of art of communications, market trends and communications, does that mean that we're not looking at market trends in Title I? No. Okay. So, I don't believe, if there's something I'm not aware of, but the communications act covers all forms of communications and their information service, telecommunication service, cable service, so I'm using it as broadly. There's a way of making that clear, if I'm mistaken about that, and I try to stick with the kind of the broadest language, and maybe Clay is a... Actually, for a question of recommendation, I actually thought to strike line 13, started with the word based, based on the right-of-way assessment and shall develop current future revenue projections that reflect market trends in the communication industry. I mean, when you say based on right-of-way assessment, you're really limiting it to one option. We discussed many options, one of which was an assessment on the use of a right-of-way, and we had the agency of transportation here with, I think, two meetings ago with very serious concerns about feed diversion, and we were really saying, okay, well, they're only gonna write about one option here, and it's just the right-of-way thing. I think by striking that, you kind of get out of all of that, and this consultant can look at that and other items. Yeah, I think that's an important thing to do about that. So what, how would it read Clay? The consultant shall develop alternative models for... Consider and recommend. Consider and recommend alternative models for revenue generation, period. The model shall, or I guess could be generation for public access, television or peg services, and then the model shall describe technical implementation issues including, I guess you could say a need for mapping, but I don't know if you need mapping to have... Yeah, I mean, leave that in, everything after that, but you're not gonna say based on right-of-way assessment because then they're just looking at that and nothing else. So do you skip over and shall develop current and future revenue projections that reflect market trends in the communications industry? No, I think that can... That stays, right? I think so, yeah. So all you're asking for is to strike based on a right-of-way assessment. Based on a right-of-way assessment, yes. Just strike that. The consultant shall consider and recommend alternative models for revenue generation, and shall develop current and future revenue projections that reflect market trends in the communication industry. Yep, okay. I think that's good. Lori Glenn. Yeah, I think that's fine. Thank you. You're welcome. So just to get to your question of public basket. Yes. Which I think sort of comes this way, I'm thinking. So when we say PEG services, I think what I think about that that's a proxy for Congress's intent, which was to assure that there were diverse, the widest possible diversity of information sources and services. That's what Congress was intending and for PEG to accomplish. And there is another part of that, which is PEG services that meet community needs and interests in reference to cost. So those are kind of the two aspects of what public benefit means if we're going to look at it in this more narrow framework. So I don't know if we want to use PEG services as a proxy and define it. You know, when we say more to say public benefit and define it, but I would refer back to the 84 act because that's one of the initial definition of what we're talking about, which is to make sure that there's the free flow of information in their communities. That's really what we're trying to fund here. In this case. So does that mean, I would think that that implies that we need a definition by what we mean by PEG access services. If it's broader than public access television, then. Dan might have an opinion on this definition. I'm not sure. I agree with what you said. That there's a federal definition that exists. So I think putting a definition of PEG access in there in allowing the consultant to get that federal definition from the department would work. I don't know if we want to bog down this with that definition because the definition should be a reference to how it's defined in the federal legislation, USC. Maybe in accordance with the PEG access and accordance with the telecommunications act, PEG access programming in accordance with the telecommunications act. I do think that public benefit is so broad that it's just subject to. Was that the 1984 act that you were working on? Well, I was updated in 1996. But you're correct. It's really the 34 act. Oh. Way back. Yeah, I was not there. But again, I think if we're intent on making this focus discussion on PEG as opposed to the public benefits that accrue from the use of the rights of way broadly, which I think is an important question. And I would refer to the genesis of the definition which is in the federal legislation. So I'm going to look at this. Could you add that as a reference? Yeah, you do. But let's just see where. The definition in federal public access services as defined in USC, whatever. So I guess we would go in section A. You need to, you need to take a quick break. Yeah. Okay, so before you do that, Dan, so we're going to take a brief recess. But we have a hard stop at 10.30, okay? So I want to make sure it's brief. We come back, we deal with this issue, and then we need to talk about the second issue we need to discuss is the appropriation unrelated to the study. But we had a suggestion for a straight appropriation for filling a gap over the next year and a half or so for Peg TV. And then if possible, if we're able to bang that out, I'm going to ask Maria to see if she can work up a new draft, which is like putting her under the gun, but that we can look at before we break at 10.30. So I'm going to be cracking the whip. So we have five minutes right now. Okay. Is there a men's reminders board? Yes. There is. Looking at page four. You have to go back on the right. I think, I don't think he ever took us off, did he? It's still blinking. Well, it might be a hole if it's pretty vicious. I used to have one. If it's blinking, it may be stopped. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. Just hit play again. Now it's working, right? Yeah. Or it is. Yeah, it's totally. They don't let me near equipment. Don't feel bad they don't let me near equipment. No. We are on the record. Mike has left the building. So. I figured it out. Yeah. We figured it out. We got on the record. Okay. So page four. Looking at proposed area of study regarding Vermont interactive television. Clay, did you have thoughts on that? I don't have many thoughts. I think this overall is fine. I just wanted for a little bit of a historical perspective that when VIT closed, there was a commission. I think we probably have people who were there and can provide an endless fountain of knowledge and re-account of what happened. But there was a recommendation made. Nothing happened with that. The Department of Public Service was required to write another similar study. I think we produced that in 2017. Similar to this, are you saying? Just similar in that coming up with a plan for an alternative to Vermont interactive technology. So this would be the third iteration of that. Okay. It might be useful for whoever does the study digital services to look at that record. And then the second comment I would make about this. I would say I reached out to the Secretary of Digital Services. I haven't heard back yet how their opinion of this legislation, but including the legislative IT group as well, I'd love to see video equipment in every committee. Just the amount of resources we expend going back and forth between the State House. It would be just a life-changing event that have cameras that are broadcasting committee hearings for us. I think for probably everyone in the state government and the public at Marsh. So I'll just put that plug in. There wouldn't have any audience anymore. Oh, no. They would have a greater audience. You just wouldn't see them. And so just to be clear, Clay, is there anything that we're charging this study with doing that hasn't already been done? I just want to. The purpose of the, well, the only change here is that now they're looking specifically at a partnership with public access centers. So that's not. I think that's something that. And do you remember, Laura, it's been three years now. We actually issued a minority report on that VIT study that outlined the role of the centers. I was thinking of the second study. I think we had some discussion, Peg, but I'm not sure. Yeah, there was a legislative study, and then we issued. So there has been some discussion. But I think what you're identifying are two things. And again, we should decide on scope because there's nobody that wants to look at government coverage in the legislature more than they, since we've been doing that since the 80s. So why don't we just take those two parts really quickly? So what is needed is a budget estimate. I mean, what is needed is where would the sites be? Where's the need? Where would the sites be? How much would it cost to set up? Should it be open source? Should it be proprietary system? What are the operating costs? It doesn't have to be a really extensive study, but it just needs to gather enough information to say, here, legislature, if you were to reinvest in this, what it would cost to do if it was done in partnership. And that first report and the minority report do touch on that. They touch on that, OK. Well, to some extent. I mean, now it's we need. That was a long time ago in technology years. But we could refer to those existing reports in here, whatever the previous record is. But what we really want, so the costs and benefits, is that clear enough? They will evaluate the costs and benefits of the state partnership to coordinate and expand the delivery of video conferencing services. So Lauren, if I could, Lauren, I'm glad before I lose it, can you go back to, you spelled out about three or four different questions that you think would be helpful in? So one is the current need, the current need assessment for what sites, where the site should be, where the biggest traffic is, where the biggest needs are in gaps. So assessment and then a capital cost breakdown and operating cost breakdown. So can I make a suggestion there, Lauren Glenn? Please. Maybe after coordinate, in other words, develop and maintain? The delivery of video conferencing services, of statewide video conferencing services, right? Or just video conferencing? I think statewide is what we're trying to get at with this. And so can you say it again, Dan? So it would be, would peg access centers to coordinate, develop, maintain, and expand the delivery of statewide video conferencing services? Maintain. Coordinate, develop, maintain, and expand. Because I think if you leave it as coordinate and expand, you would presume that it's there. And I think there's a need for infrastructure investment. Yeah. And then maybe it would be period. And then this study would take into consideration the services previously provided by VIT and subsequent reports or record referencing. Yeah, I just told them to lose sight of the fact that there's been a substantial amount of work done already on this topic. And this report, everyone, to redo that work. Certainly if you want it, you can pull upon it. And so just to remind us, what was the date of that last study in the Minority Report that you referred to? That was 2015. And then we wrote a subsequent report in 2017. And you're saying we, as in the Department of Public Service. So would there be an opportunity then after evaluate, say, in coordination with work already prepared by Department of Public Service? I haven't sustained, like, review the previous report. We could just add the Department of Public Service under in consultation with commissioning building services and Department of Public Service. You could do that. I mean, I would say we've done this twice. Now, we were a member of that commission. And then we did the subsequent report. Clearly, our work to date has not produced anything. So I don't know that having us do it a third time is going to be helpful. I'm not suggesting I do it a third time. But you could say, we've done this and here it is. Yeah, we would consent a link to the consultation. To the report and the legislature's website that we've already just done. So it would be fair then to say, in consultation with the DPS and commissioner building some general services, right? As long as we can agree that in consultation with is going to be us just sending what we've already done to, yeah. OK, so then I would say this report would take into consideration the services previously provided by Vermont Interactive Television. Subsequently renamed EIT, as well as legislative and administrative reports on the subject. Because one was a legislative committee and one was a DPS report. And the legislative committee was what year? 15. Kathy Keenan. Kathy Keenan is Rob Chapman. Was that chair? He was the chair. OK. OK, OK. Good, thank you, Clay. You're welcome. Missed that piece. Did you have something here? Yeah. Is there a funding requirement with this piece? I think the consultant will determine that there would be. Yeah. Now, well, it's a secretary of digital services is going to do the evaluation. So is it going to be within their regular budget? So just. Do we have to allocate money for it? So I did talk with Chris Cole about this. I'm not sure I reported on that. He's building in general. Yeah. And he very politely said, the governor doesn't want to spend any more money. The legislature likes to spend money. I'm not sure we're a good house for this report because we're not inclined to recommend dollars be spent on some new project. So that is a short version of what he said. So I just wanted to let you know what he said. So it may be that the consultant could take up the work. I'm not for what it's worth. I'm reporting no value. Well, I don't think the consultant's involved in this, but based on what's in this draft, it might be a question for the general team to charge. OK. And again, in committee testimony, you could say whether you agree with this or not. Exactly. Because we're going into committees. Going into committees. I just want to remind everybody of that. It's leaving here. It's going into committee. We can have John Quinzaman. We are moving the football down the field. And so I don't want to get too hung up on that. So don't worry about thinking about funding. I don't think so. I don't think so. All right. So without getting to it, I have just one other question, which is the Part B, which had to do with your legislative coverage. And is that something that we want to include and refer to in this? Or do we want to keep it as a VIT? I was just thinking of adding, under the in consultation with clause, the legislative IT department, to kind of keep it inclusive of all of state government. And I don't mean to get sideways with your IT department. No, I mean, it's so many of these issues are related. We are. OK. And you were saying that specifically because you think it'd be a good idea to have it in the rationing, television, and the committee groups. It would be fabulous. It would be, yeah. And you're thinking about that in terms of interactive, right? Yes, you could have Peter Blum testify by a video conference. That'd have to get to work this time, so yeah. Things like that, that I think would be very beneficial for everyone, including the public, who for most of us, we have day jobs and we can't come to the legislature 10 AM on Wednesday to watch our big issue. So one final asterisk. In addition to the DPS report and the legislative report, the PUC had also done a study on opening meeting rooms. So I would just mention, just for the asterisk, I'm not sure it has to be in the language. I'm not sure which. There was a study about how to improve how to open the Public Utility Commission. That was including your name change, but it had a whole aspect of the video conference. Yeah, I'm getting tired of it. In fact, 174. Yeah. So anyway, I'm just saying that it's part of the what else is in legislative and administrative reports. I think the PUC would also support it. So we may have a. OK. So onto the big questions. Mike, do you want to speak to the suggestion of the $500,000 appropriation? So yeah, at some point I'm not sure which meaning it was that the study identified the deficit of $500,000 as a result of the general accounting practice changes. Is that correct, Lauren? Yes. Yes. I believe you brought it up. And so you were suggesting that we include a $500,000 allocation appropriation in this legislation to make up that difference. And so right away that would get one of the things I thought about is that right now. So this is draft language that we would use going forward. Yeah, so right now the state does not actually fund in any way type access TV. And so this would actually be a recommendation to change that policy and appropriate a certain amount of money, in this case $500,000, which I think is a significant policy change respect to the role of the egg state, egg place, and this relationship with the state. So it would be a one-time appropriation. It's a one-time allocation, yeah. So just to acknowledge it would be a shift. Yeah, and it doesn't really, I would imagine it doesn't really commit us to do anything in the future. No. So if the study were to come up and say that there's no further applications needed or further allocations are needed, then that will be totally separate from this appropriation. So the question before us, given that this will all go to all the various committees will make all its stops, is the recommendation of the committee to recommend to the larger legislature that this is a one-time appropriation that we recommend. And again, since this is going to committees of jurisdiction, they'll take further testimony on it and decide whether it's an appropriate policy change. Wondering what other committee members think on this? I have a general comment on it. Sure. I would just state that as I've presented in the past, since 2006, there's been increases in the funding to AMOs, at least from Comcast perspective and I believe other industry representatives, that every year has surpassed all leading economic indicators in the growth percentages. So as a result of that, you've seen from 2006 to 2019 a doubling of the funding. I don't know what's going to happen in the future. I don't make predictions like that, but I can't tell you there has been a considerable uptick since that period, so I just offer that to the committee. So I'll plant my stake. I am in support of it. I think that we have a gap that we're trying to fulfill so that we have a little bit of breathing room going forward. Just I don't want there to be a question of where I stand on this. I think a recommendation is a recommendation. It's going to go to the appropriate committees and the decisions will be made, the very hard decisions will be made in the appropriations committee on both sides of the building. But I just want to be transparent in where I stand on this. So just to confirm, it's OK. Yeah, sure. This is separate from the other legislation, OK. Yes, it would. And if $500,000 is not what people are willing to support in a one-time appropriation, that is why Maria left it blank so that we can talk about, well, how much skin are we willing to put in the game at this point? So I think from my perspective, I take your point that this is just a recommendation, more or less. I work for the Department of Public Service or a department in the executive branch. So I wouldn't want this to be construed as the administration's position. Absolutely. I don't know what the administration's position is on this, I can guess. But I don't know how it fits into the overall budget that they're preparing. I think another concern I have, just going through the budgeting process, I mean, everyone who comes in requesting an appropriation, they get kind of looked at and guessed, maybe this is what Dan's trying to do, the argument that Dan's trying to make here. I don't know. But next stations are situated a little differently from your run-of-the-mill non-profit because you have this reliable study stream of money, and I do worry about having that looked at. And I think it's up to the state to decide whether to assess that fee and how much the fee is going to be. A lot of states don't assess it. And what they do with that money in context of, what does that be, related to cable services? I think that could be something broader than just pay. So I guess my concern is, how is this going to be portrayed as a boost in the legislature? I don't know, that's a question for you. But I don't think I can support this simply because we're basically contemplating today a million dollars in appropriations. And I don't know how that fits into the government's budget. So I probably have to say no to this. We go to the legislature with a number of asks for funding every year. This isn't one of the priority issues that citizen towns have for funding. And we're also contributing from the local level now. So I think it would, likewise, be difficult for us to support this particular appropriation. I would be going on very much what I heard as testimony in this committee. And thinking about the, I remember there was testimony that there were some AMOs that do have reserves and are not suffering in the same way as other AMOs. And so I would have some concerns about the process for allocating the money among the AMOs. And it seems like that would be something that would need to be fleshed out. But I'm not sure how that works in the process with the legislature. But I think that it would be difficult to support just a general language like this. I would have some concerns on how the allocation would happen, and it would seem like that would be the next logical question. Could I just add to what I said? Sure. If this particular question came up in the appropriations committee, we wouldn't oppose it. We wouldn't say anything about it, rumor or the other. You're saying wearing your hat as vermilion of citizen towns wouldn't say anything when we're the other. Right. The other option, I noticed in the draft bill, here we go. We don't have any findings, and we don't have any. Findings. Findings. And to Karen's point, nothing would prevent the AMOs from finding a sponsor and presenting legislation. And you wouldn't have, I guess, the official backing of this committee. But you could add findings that say, there is this gap and funding due to the accounting changes. And this has done XYZ effects on AMOs operations, something like that. So that's not us voting on recommending an appropriation, but it does provide some kind of context or support if they came in independently. So you're recommending adding findings to this draft legislation? I guess it's a call order for 20 minutes. I actually drafted findings. You got to love my vice chair. But I don't have an ability to provide you with a copy of them at this point. Unless I bring them up here, I don't know what to say. So for the sake of time, I can do the math as anyone can. So it seems clear to me that we're not going to include a one-time appropriation of the proposal was $500,000. What's up? We have a way to make copies of this. I can go to the copies. Oh, Maria. Yeah, what's Maria? Copies for the committee. Yeah. Thank you so much, Maria. So the findings will provide legislative intent. And so why are we drafting this legislation at the beginning? Why are we doing a study committee? But I'm not. And then I guess what you're suggesting is that if we include the estimate that there's going to be a deficit of $500,000 in the findings, we don't necessarily have to ask for an appropriation. Is that what you're saying? I think I'm saying it helps one plan's organization come in and say, there's a record of this existing. And there's a rationale for that. What we're discussing, Maria, is we're just looking at the draft proposal, a one-time appropriation. And we don't have enough votes on the committee to move that forward. But we were talking about how Mike had taken a stab at drafting some findings, and that we thought including findings on this piece of legislation might help the van go forward in asking additionally for an appropriation in the committees of jurisdiction. So I think Mike wanted to try to make some copies. In the meantime, so Maria has drafted the changes we've made, what we discussed while you were out of the room, what changes to the BIT study? Yes. OK. And OK. We wanted to include in there the Department of Public Service as in consultation with. OK. OK. And legislative council IT department, is that? I don't know. Yeah, whatever that. IT fits within. The legislative IT is under. OK. Ledge council currently, correct? Yes. OK. Currently. Right. I know that is also up for discussion in a big way. And looking specifically at the questions that Lauren and Glenn offered, what's a current needs assessment for VIT? Where is the need geographically? Oh, you're good. You're asking me. You're telling me to add this. I'm saying sorry, Maria. I'm sorry. This is yes. Yes. I am asking you. I'm not telling you to do anything. I respectfully request that you include current needs assessment. OK. And so the organizing questions were where is the need geographically at which sites? And then looking specifically at capital costs and operating costs. And then the other piece, and I'm sorry if I'm going too quickly, is that what came to light in the discussion is there have been several previous studies on VIT. Yes. Making sure that whether it's John Quinn or the secretary will be at digital services consults with DPS to look at the legislative committee report that was done in 2015. And then the Department of Public Service did one in 2017. And that any work that's done on VIT should start with the work that was already done previously in those two studies. Is that a correct summary of what we discussed? Our prior studies, maybe not those two, but included, but not limited to. OK. Yeah. Great. Other things on that? Oh, I know. Then. Work changes. Yes. So. Line 11? Yes. Line 11 through 12. I'm on page four. On the previous draft. Yep. Yep. To coordinate, develop, maintain. And expand. So to add after coordinate. OK. Develop and maintain. And then Glenn suggested on line 13. The previous taking into consideration the previously provided services previously provided. OK. Right. Yeah. Previously provided by VIT. OK. And we're wondering on line 12. Is it implied that we're talking about statewide video conferencing or should we spell out that we're talking about statewide? So right now we have delivery of video conferencing services. You can specify. OK. Let's specify that. Other notes that folks have? This is just a last minute entry. I'm wondering if this should be the purview of the consultant and not the administration given the administration is not likely to recommend fund. It's sort of against the grain of the policy of the administration to recommend funding for things. Maybe we really just need the consultant to look into the question. It's just a last minute thought on this. I have no opinion on the substance of that and I would be concerned about it. I would say legal with the agency of digital services and, you know, we can change it. Anyone else want to weigh in on that? The findings. Thank you. Do you have a copy? Yes. OK. So I heard yesterday that the Senate doesn't like findings in legislation. You know, the Senate doesn't like a lot of things, but we are working across the building. Not just across the aisle. We work across the building. Yes. So the findings are actually legislative intent. Why are we doing this legislation? And so basically what this is is a statement that's that gives the reasons why we're actually providing this legislation. So you could read through these. I'll read through them. Number one, public education and government. TB provides an essential community service to Vermont. PEG extends the concept of participatory democracy by not only providing the window to local government proceedings, but also provides a form for citizens to voice review points. There are 25 PEG access management organizations serving Vermont. Bison cable TV service in Vermont provides 92% of PEG funding. I'm not sure that's accurate. Is that correct? I think that's safe to say. Do you remember? Yeah. That's safe to say. Yeah. Is it? I'm sorry, Dan. I think it might be a little low. No, I think we did that analysis. Elizabeth says that's the number. We're good. I think I got it from someplace. Yeah. There's something in yours. I think we got it from someplace. Somewhere in this pile of paper. Okay. Well, obviously we can, you know, we can make it. As a result of changes in FCC rules, governing the cable industry, the source of PEG revenues has declined by X%. Now we could say by $500,000 and is expected to decline further in the future. And we can modify that if we need to. PEG programming is no longer restricted to cable, but is increasingly being accessed by the internet. And to keep PEG viable, it will be necessary. I think maybe that should be changed. It may be necessary to identify sources of revenue to take into consideration all methods of PEG programming delivery. And the legislature considers it helping a viable PEG service to be in the best interests of Vermont. So I have some comments. Okay. That I just found that I had sent on this. So I'm just going to read them out, is that all right? Okay. So the second one, PEG extends the concept of participatory democracy by providing a window to local government proceedings, comma, a forum for citizens to voice their viewpoints, comma, and opportunities for lifelong learning and cultural exchange. So that's meant to say it's not just government access. Could I just add to that? Yeah. It seems to me that you provide a window to state and local government proceedings. Can I just say quickly that I profusely apologize for bringing this up, but probably five minutes. I think it's fine to talk about it. I'm just wondering if this is going to result in a second debate. So for the sake of debate, can I add to that? I suggest that we perhaps concur that we can accept one, two, three, and eight, because I think the main focus of debate would be in four, five, six, and seven. Yeah. I think I would have changed five to say, as a result of changes in gap classification, PEG revenues have declined by 5%. So we could say just has declined. So it's just that number five is a little murky about the cause and effect. All right. So Dan, to your point, I think it's a good one. Can we coalesce around, again, this is just the next phase. Mike and I can revisit these findings in committee, take testimony, further testimony, have more time and committee to do that. Can we coalesce around the findings in one, two, three, and eight? Is that what you said, Dan? Yes. Okay. I think nine is important to include nine. I don't have nine. We don't have a nine. You don't have a nine. Oh, I'm sorry. What is the nine? I just uploaded. I'm so sorry. Was that the one you just stated? No, no. No, no, no. No secret nine. Yes. I'm sorry. The legislature, and this is from the original document. Yes. The legislature considers a healthy and viable PEG service to be in the best interest of Vermutters. That's number eight. Eight. Number eight, yeah. Well, then I must. You added one. Never mind. I'm so sorry. It's okay. I think what I do is I broke up number five. Okay. Into a couple things, but we can just agree that that does not need to be here. Okay. That's fine. I'm sorry. No, that's all right. So if we leave out number five in some form or another that kind of gets away from your suggestion as to if we put it in the final instance, we don't have to actually say we want to allocate it. Well, I think just, it would be helpful to van if they wanted to pursue an appropriation. So that would be a suggestion. So is there enough agreement to say what the projected deficit might be? Or is that something that we have in point of contention? I think it's been a point of contention. Okay. So we could add a seventh or eighth meeting. Or fifth or sixth. No, we're not going to be adding any meetings. We don't have the money for that. We're not going to do it. Give us a general idea of why we were formed. And then the draft kind of speaks to that. And as you said, we're pushing it down the field. We are pushing it down the field. And I mean, is it fair to say that there's been a change in gap funding? Can we say that? Sure. Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. We can say that there's been a change in gap funding. Yes. Maria, can we add that as a... Well, we can just say gap. Because gap stands for generally accepted accounting practices. Okay, fine. However you want to word it, just to have a line in there, that's the lifeline, essentially, that Clay is proposing to keep that discussion alive. As a result of changes in gap classification, PEG revenues have declined in Vermont. I think... But you don't want to say that because you... Right. I just don't think it's based upon the... Based upon the statement I made for most six. Right. It's fine. I think... Got it. Keeping it general, there has been a change in gap. Correct. Yeah. We all can agree on that, correct? Yes. Okay, great. So... So... All right. Does this have a good word? I think it's just, as one of the numbers, as a finding, we know that there's been a change. Maria, do you have the changes in gap that may impact revenue? Was that... I mean, I just wanted... Why are we saying there are changes in gap? Well, there's a PC proceeding on it. That was... I think that's the reason for the finding is this is an issue because it may impact available revenue. I think if we say may impact... Yeah. May impact. Sure. I don't know. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. So, one, two, three, eight, and the gap. And then in two, state and local proceedings, and then Lauren Glenn had some additional language. They didn't get it all down. I think she read it. No, that's number two. Part of two. Part of two. Karen, do you have an addition to... Yeah. Just state and local. Maria has that. I got that part. And then it would go on to stay a forum for citizens to voice their viewpoints and opportunities for lifelong learning and cultural exchange. You okay with that as a number two? I can do that. Thank you. Okay. So, four, five, six, and seven are out. For five, Wendy. Any other findings? Okay. And add those. And then do you want to go through the revisions? Yes. So, draft 1.2. So, I hope these are consistent with what your objectives were. The first change is to limit it to financing for Peg Access channels and services. I quickly looked for USC definition. I didn't find one, but that can be added in committee, to the extent that's helpful. And then, also, such including through an assessment on providers for their use of the right away, because that seemed like something that was one potential source that you definitely wanted to be considered. So, it's broadened to look at all options for financing Peg, including an assessment. It's implied that including is included, but not limited to. Okay. And then, one change you did not discuss, but just along those lines of broadening it on page one, line 16. This is in subdivision A. Whether and to what extent communication services may be subject to any fee or right-of-way assessment, because you're no longer just talking about a right-of-way assessment. I wanted that to be consistent. Similarly, on page two in subdivision D, line seven, looking at state and municipal laws and ordinances, assessing communications providers or services, and then including an assessment or regulation of the right-of-way. Similar intent just to broaden it. Then, in subdivision two, on line 13, instead of develop, we wanted the consultant shall consider and recommend alternative models for revenue generation, and it had gone on to say, based on a right-of-way fee. And then I think you talked about saying maybe for pay-access services, but I just left all of that out because it's clear in the charge what they're trying to finance, pay-access services, and shall develop, and the rest of that is the same. Then in subdivision three, on the top of page three, you wanted to... Oh, this is the having the consultant look at the potential for cost savings through the AMO. So moving that as a separate study by the auditor, making it part of this consultant study. So the consultant, in consultation with the Vermont Access Network, shall assess. And then I ended the sentence. It's just highlighted, involved here. After cost savings, I took out the language through a restructuring or consolidation of services. I think you wanted that out. And I took out the reporting requirement because it will be folded into the final report by the consultant. Subdivision four remained the same. Subdivision five is the appropriation. You took out the bill back. I don't know if you settled on an amount. We did not. My question to you, Maria, is can we say an amount shall be appropriated to cover the costs and then in committee? Usually we ask for even a nominal amount, even if it's $1. I see. Okay. Just to have a figure in there, as opposed to a to be determined. But you can... I would say put any figure even if it's $1. It just makes it a little bit easier to keep track. $2.50? You say $2.50? I was going to say $1.50, but... $200? $200. Soviet. $200? $200? $200,000? Yeah. Yes, not $200. Like I said, if you say you can put out a visit, we're going to spend extra money. It's not going to stay like that. Exactly. This is just to move it into committee, get it before appropriations. Right. So then not folded number six, what's now number six. The report said it was going to the General Assembly now specifically for the Senate Committee on Finance. I knew it suggested the House Committee on Energy and Technology. I meant to add end on ways and means there. Mm-hmm. So I can make that change, which it should be. You have and the House Committee's on Energy and Technology and on Finance. Right. It's supposed to be end on ways and means. That's what she was just saying. Yeah. Caught her mistake. Yeah. The report made clear draft legislation. And then I changed that language a little bit. So originally it said may include draft legislation implementing the proposal that represents the most equitable means of extracting the greatest public benefit for remodels from the commercial use of the public rights of way. So just trying to expand it, implementing the proposal that represents the most equitable means of extracting the greatest public benefit for remodels from commercial services or from the commercial use of public rights of way. That's consistent with broadening the study. So then B, just to go over what you just, I think, decided. It's still with ADS, Secretary of ADS, in consultation with Commissioner BGS, Department of Public Service, and the Legislative Committee on Information Technology. We'll evaluate costs and benefits of the partnership with TAG for expanding the delivery of statewide video conferencing services, taking into consideration, oh, Shell, excuse me. So on the top of page four, line one, state partnership with TAG access centers to coordinate, develop and maintain, develop and maintain, and expand the delivery of statewide video conferencing services, taking into consideration the services previously provided by VIT. The consultant shall review any prior reports on VIT and then cite the two, the legislative report, the DPS report, shall conduct a community needs assessment and any capital on operating expenses or costs for the services. And I think the rest is the same. That seems consistent. So Maria, legally, we're a work group, we're not a standing committee. Can we leave this meeting today with the draft in this form and then share the draft among ourselves online after the work group? What needs to happen? And maybe you need a break for us to discuss. Well, so assuming you're not going to get funding to meet again, at this point, this was to conclude your business. You can't online even really discuss or make formal action unless you're meeting as a committee. So if you want to vote the draft, as I have just read it and presented to you, can you do that? Are people comfortable doing that? I was hoping, I'm an industry representative, I'm hoping to abstain from voting. Okay. I'm happy to vote on that. You're happy to vote on the draft. That will also include the finding suite. So that will be the first section one maybe to stand alone findings and the five findings that we just discussed. And so just to be clear, I know I've said it, but I just want to remind everybody, this is a draft. It's going to the committees of jurisdiction. Anyone that wants to weigh in on the language will be able to come before those committees. But I think it's really important that we move something. Can I ask one question? So does this get delivered with a cover letter or something, or just dropping the legislation in the hopper? I mean, you know, saying that this is from the egg access study committee, or? I was assuming that it would be a bill that either Mike or myself introduced or we had companion bills on either side. And I imagine, given that it's such an important issue for so many representatives and senators, I can imagine that quite a few people might want to sign on. I'm just going to say, I think it's fine to vote now. The cost is still a concern to me. I think you have to vote if I wouldn't know, so please don't let me stop you. But like I said, I think the study is still in sticker shock. And I don't know that, I do think that this kind of plants a flag for the administration that we're in support of spending that money. I don't think I have the authority to do that at this time. I don't know, but maybe I do. You have to assume that if we're going to do a study, it's going to cost some money to do a study. We've gotten lots of studies where we got no money for it. I do understand, I do take your point and I do know that it's going to cost money, but that's a lot of money. So I am in support of the language. I think it's a fine study, but just because there's a cost going there, I don't think I can vote for it. What if we inserted the words up to $200,000? Or I was going to suggest that a lot of times reports have a minority letter from somebody when you can say I'm endorsing them in court, but not the amount. I'm happy to do that. And I'm not trying to strong arm the committee. I just want that we have a charge from the legislature for a certain number of meetings. I think it's really important that we stick to that and that we continue to move this issue. So if you're not feeling comfortable, Clay, that's fine. You can write a minority opinion. I think you'd have the votes now. Dan. It's clear. No disrespect. I take no position. We always believe that our position was to provide information and be helpful in that process, but not take a position at the end. I understand. I appreciate your time. Happy to do it. So all those on the committee in favor of moving this draft legislation, can I just... Do you have something else? Yes. I too am concerned about the amount. I feel like that's something that was kind of sprung on us at the last minute. Well, you were not at the last meeting. Oh, okay. Was that discussed there? I didn't hear that. It was in our notes. We went back to look. But that is why I wanted to give time today. So not to put you on the spot. Oh, no. Yes. Okay. And that's fine. I think we still have the votes even if you do not want to weigh in on the amount. Okay. But I want to make sure that this is not the hold up for this since it is just a general figure. Would people feel more comfortable if we put a dollar as Maria proposed? Is that a common practice? That is a common practice as a placeholder it sounds like. And purely be a placeholder and then you would take... And so we're not taking a position on the cost of whatsoever. I mean, it is more important to me to have the support of the committee to say that we think that this is important. Does the cost even need to be included in there? I've already asked that question play a few minutes ago. That's okay. And Maria said it is important to have at least one dollar. Okay. That's okay. I just... So are you willing to support it if it says one dollar? Yeah. May I ask one another? Is it possible to... You said right. I could write a minority, but... Is there some kind of clarification on not taking a stance on the cost that I can say? I guess I've said it here. Right. You've said it to TV land. I've said it to TV land. Yes. So yes, I'm voting for it. But I think, Clay, there is nothing to prevent you from writing anything that you feel comfortable writing. Thank you. I feel comfortable with the one dollar. Okay. All those in favor of moving this work group proposed legislation with Maria making a line item as for a dollar for this study, please say aye. Do we need to do a roll call? I don't think we do need to do a roll call for a work group. Okay. Okay. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? We have an abstention. Anything else, council? Could I take it presently? Right. Thank you. Thank you for all the hours you've given. I know it's not easy to do work in this high-pressure situation of having a timeline and being in a fishbowl. But I appreciate it so much. And I know all of our access TV stations will be grateful that we're keeping it on the radar screen of not just a legislature but Vermonters as a whole. So thank you. Thank you for your leadership. I really appreciate it. Okay. You're welcome.