 I'm always looking up the corner after Representative Conquest noticed that we weren't live one time, but we are now streaming live on YouTube at YouTube. And this Monday morning appropriate house appropriations committee meeting. And first on our welcome everybody it's good to see you at a nice weekend and enjoyed. Well, there's more sun again today, but at least it was beautifully. Bob Helen is not available to join us today. Linda, you will not be available on Thursday. Is that correct. Thursday. And is there anybody else who has a conflict conflict for the rest of this week. First on our agenda, rated 11 o'clock we have commissioner Gresham, and he was going, he is going to not was he is going to go over with the committee the instructions that were sent out to the departments regarding the quarter year bill that that we that we are beginning our work on so welcome Adam it's always good to see you. Nice to be here. And also note that my colleagues. Deputy Commissioner Riven and budget director Rich Donahue are also on the conference. And so we are fully manned in case any question goes awry will have someone who can answer it. Thank you everybody. Matt Riven is just in the waiting. So, well, let's wait a minute until he gets in. Matt, are you here. Matt Riven are you did you join us. I did thank you. Excellent it's nice to see you thank you for joining me. Rich Donahue nice to see you too. Adam we're going to let you take it away the committee received the, the letter that you send out and I don't know if you have paper copies but if you don't have a paper copy for notes Teresa has just put the the letter up on the screen for us. I'll be talking from this letter so on May 12. We sent out budget instructions for the Q one only budget for fiscal 21. If there's any better way to acknowledge the fact that we're in a bright new world I don't know what it is. Since my colleagues in finance and management as well as the governor staff spent an awful lot of time this past fall working up a budget which we submitted with you and I know you spent a lot of time on and we are effectively throwing that out the door and we are settling for the first quarter of 21 on a one quarter budget. So these instructions have were sent out to departments on the 12 just basically telling them what we were looking for and what would be in the budget. The first thing I would point out is there there really kind of two components to it as you see one is the appropriations and we are going to use language format we're not so in that be section where you see pages and pages of numbers. We are not going to be using that. We'll be there. We'll be calling on the FY 20 adjusted budget numbers. So that the numbers exist but we are not going to be putting them in this budget. It's going to be a language format only, as we'll see in a mall. We're not including legislative language that needs to typically go on a budget to make sure that we can keep the wheels turning to make sure that any requirements or statutory language that is necessary is in there. Not that we're completely dispensing with it, but so we will be putting in necessary language, sometimes referred to as boilerplate language, other times, you know that would keep a specific program going that requires renewal so you will see that in the budget that we ultimately submit to. So, there will be an appropriations and a language section in the budget. In the actual in the appropriation sections. The governor has decided that we will use a percentage amount for each department. And we've kind of delineated funding sources to determine the percentage amount I think the percentage that you're that most familiar with is the general fund. We are setting a 23% of the Act 88, which is the FY 20 enacted budget adjustment that was signed by the governor this past March, we're going to use 23% of each department and agencies, FY 20 BAA first quarter amount. So, on an annualized basis that would amount to the equivalent of an 8% reduction, keeping in mind that the current revenue, the most recent revenue forecast we have which was April 28. I believe was calling for a better than, I'm going to say 15% reduction in FY 21 revenue so we don't think we're being too severe in what we're asking departments to do and indeed it may end up being kind of a dry run issue later on this summer when we do a full fiscal 21 budget. So that is for general funding. Yes. I just wanted to jump in quickly for committee members. Let's hold but let's write all of our questions down so that Adam can get all the way through the presentation of the budget instructions, and then we'll move to the questions after that so that flow in the overall thinking of your direction forward. So for federal funded departments or departments that have multiple sources of funding including federal funds. We are funding that at 25% of the FY 20 appropriation at assuming departments have the funds there and we're aware that there's been no change. But we are assuming that one a fully one quarter of the FY 20 budget adjustment amount will be used in 21 FY 21. For the transportation fund I think people are aware there's a seasonality issue with transportation. Typically will burn through a little over half of their appropriation in FY 20. So we are making that adjustment with the exception of the J talk appropriation, which we're leaving at 25% and you know again this reflects construction. We work with the OT to make sure that we were more or less on target for what they anticipate we also look through our vision statements to ensure that that is correct with education funds. Initially in our instructions had pointed to a 30% appropriation from the education fund, which reflects the timing of the first payment which is in September to local education associations. Currently we've realized that might be a little bit low and we, I think we'll move that up to 3334% of the appropriations, but again that is not meant to be a increase or a reduction it's meant to align with what we anticipate the funding requirement will be for the first of three payments to the schools, local education districts. And for special funds for IDT internal service and other funds, we are leaving that 25% of the FY 20 BAA appropriation. And, you know, we expect that one for special funds that departments will let us know if they expect a change in their special funding allotments based on recent developments for IDT and particularly for internal service funds. And we are thinking that the full because of the complexity, particularly of internal service funds. We are assuming that in the FY 21 budget, we will do a full review of internal service funds, and importantly, if departments that are typically general are receiving reduced targets that we would hold those for many of the internal service fund departments like BGS for example, my department finance and management, DHR and the like, we will hold them to that same target. Regardless of whether their internal service fund or general fund but we, that's, you know, the math is a little bit more complicated because we have to dole out department to department on that so we thought we would leave that for the full budget year, but we have communicated with departments that they can participate that when we get to them later on this summer. So we gave these instructions to our departments we asked them to get back to us by Friday that Friday that just passed if they had any comments, or if they thought it would be a hardship or there's stuff that we didn't know about. I don't want to get ahead of our budget submission to you which we expect soon, but I will say that there were a number of departments that got back to us that led us to make some adjustments in those instructions to comport with various requirements or spending patterns that they have that we may not have noticed when we issued the instructions. We also for operational language, we asked departments to let us know any language that is a must have starting off the year, and we collected language that is required I think the committee will find that the language that we ought to be submit to you is somewhat reduced from what we normally submit, but you know there is again some language that needs to go in the q1 budget. And then, you know we concluded by saying that the revenue estimates as I think people know are subject to change. We have to use the most recent revenue estimates, which were made I think April 28 to the time that we have an updated forecast that changes things to a significant extent we will adopt our budget instructions, or our ultimate budget that we submit to you accordingly. We do not anticipate that there will be significant changes. I'm sure that you know every revenue forecast has some changes but at this point we're not anticipating any significant changes. And we are acknowledging that the 2% for the first quarter, you know is an 8% full year reduction. And, you know, I would say this is meant to be really a heads up that, you know, I think we have some challenging discussions coming up. And I think this kind of gets us off in a sense it gets us a head start on what we anticipate will be a challenging year. And you know, kind of puts us in the right frame of mind. So I will end there I'm sure there are questions that you folks have and let's see if I can answer them. I need to unmute myself, we do have a few questions. Thank you. A couple of questions. If I'm budgeting for 25% federal and presumably that that usually takes some general fund match, but my general fund has been reduced. Does that mean that I may have to reduce more significantly non matching general fund, so that I have the general fund to do the match, or in reality is everything leveraged. Well, the, did I make myself clear. Yes. Thank you. I'm just going to look at Matt as a what he had as a general representative, if I'm understanding your question. If there is a grant that that gets paid evenly throughout the year, and therefore requires 25% of the budget and federal funds to be expended but there's not sufficient general funds to match that. Then I think that we would view that as similar to a general fund expense in that we would ask the department well how what what opportunities can you take to limit or reduce expenses, such that you can stay in within your total expenditures. But one thing that we have incorporated and I think already exists under law is that for departments where they cannot simply cannot stay within the general fund limit they could come to the emergency board. In July and request an increase in general funds so if their ability to leverage full federal match with somehow impinged. There is a mechanism where they could exceed the 23% on the general. Another area if I may madam chair just moving on. Do you anticipate policy changes that may require, unless there's not withstanding rulemaking or public notices, etc. in the area of program eligibility that might not start until the second quarter, but the policy rules will need to be approved in the first quarter in order to get a full nine months of savings. We, it, I mean, by nature the fact that this is a skinny budget, we are not anticipating certainly including that in the budget. The policy changes, I think you're aware that everything will be on the table come this summer. I can't know, anticipate or not anticipate changes but in the skinny budget we are not including the kind of a head start on policy changes that may or may not be made over the summer. So you think they all can be compressed within a nine month period and get you the savings you might be recommending. That would have to be the case if we may change this and we would acknowledge that. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, David. Are you finished. Yes, we can come back. Mary really chip. Thank you. I read the budget instructions a while ago and I failed to appreciate that I didn't understand what it means to talk about doing a language only format. Are you suggesting and so not doing the individual numbers section. Are you are you suggesting that we are just doing appropriating one number, rather than making appropriations to each department. I'm suggesting that each department would receive their target. So every department every agency will have a number associated with spending, but we would not be including a full section. That has literally every apartment on it in the budget document itself, but every department will receive a target of, you know, their funding source 23% or 25% of Q one FY 20 budget adjustment. So every department will have a target but it's just not going to be in the in the actual budget document. We will just just to elaborate so that the language in the bill will say, all general fund appropriations shall be 23% of the amount appropriated in Act 88. And as we discussed with JFO they will prove I believe they will provide to you a spreadsheet that shows how that translates into an appropriation amounts, and we will turn will need something in that format in order to from a technical standpoint stand those appropriations up in the system. Okay, thank you. Just if you don't mind representative just to follow up on that. I mean, every finance and management was in contact with every department to give them a target number. So they were on the same page with them in that regard and they have a target for general fund or special fund like it's just that, you know, to Matt's point it's not going to be in that budget doc. So I think I understand the process. The, there's just a mechanical issue of how we actually appropriate it and if we should disagree with you about the across the board 23% of the prior years budget. We'll just have there's a mechanical process for accomplishing that and we'll, we'll figure it out. Could, could you please talk to us about how you pay act is being managed within this proposal. So, as the committee is aware, the FY 20 pay act will be annualized and baked into the FY 21 base. The FY 21 pay act as far as I am aware has not passed yet. So, we are waiting to see whether that passes and if it does if there any changes or whether the agreement the administration reached with the union is accepted so that is not reflected yet in the budget but the FY 20 annualization act is, you know, in the FY 21 base. And help me with my recollection the 21 agreement was the $1400 across the board increase rather than kind of the traditional step increases plus a negotiated increase my remembering that correctly. So, yes. Yeah, it was a different animal. The it was an upfront lump sum paid in July. It did have step increases it did not have a cola. So the lump sum was in substitute for the cost of living increased, but it did have step increases, and then the following year, it was more of a traditional step and cola. Yeah, the following year being 22. So, clearly, if we're doing a quarter of a year we're going to have to think about that differently and I'll just set that aside and we'll have that conversation around the pay act but it is a piece of this moving picture that we're going to need to think about how it works. Thank you. Kimberly chip and Marty. Hi. And I think I heard this correctly and I'm just confirming. Adam I think you said the, the deduction or the percentage would be taken from the fiscal year 20 and acted budget adjustments so any of the federal grants that are coming in. I'm not sure what you're referring to the enhanced transfer authority, including the enhanced transfer authority that that what is it 250,000 now none of that would be taken into account is that correct. Could you, I'm sorry, the enhanced transfer there I'm not sure what you're referring to. Yeah, I'm thinking about the last conversation about it hasn't yet passed but it's the idea that there could be transfers up to 250,000 rather than the current 50,000. That's going to stop at the end of fiscal year 20. That was okay. Temporary right. Okay, thank you. I forgot. All right. But but so just back to the other part though, there's not a reflection just to be clear. In terms of all any of the federal grants that have been coming in after the budget adjustment enactment, correct. That would be right. Okay. Kimberly are you finished or. Yes. Chip and Marty. Hi Adam, I have a question that has to do with one of my budgets, but I'll ask it. I don't know if it's true anywhere else. So the defender general sent me and some others a memo saying that it looked, it looked like 2% has been applied to his annual his whole budget rather than rather than the first quarter. And then and then that that amount taken from the first quarter. Do you know if that is true and if it was intentional? And if so why? So I saw the defender generals know I, they are being treated just like every other department. Here I saw the difference with the defender general versus other departments. I think, you know, he's merely saying that 2% a quarter annualizes to 8%. So in effect, it's like he's getting an 8% reduction. That's true as taken, but it's no different than our other departments. Whether there was some mistake in the process or, or his understanding of what it was, but I asked him, I mean, he's, I just wanted to double check with him. He's queer that he thinks the entire 8% has been taken out of his first quarter. But you're telling me that they weren't treated any different and we'll get it worked out. I just wanted to make sure you wasn't any on the same page as everyone else. Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Marty. Yeah, I have two questions. I just need a little clarity on when you talk about we won't see it'll be language as opposed to real numbers. I'm trying to think of an example of a for instance an agency would have a $400 million annual budget so a quarter would be 100. And so we're not counting on 100 for this next quarter we're counting on 92. So they will be told, you may spend 92 million, as opposed to what would have been 100%, but what would have been 25% of the whole year. But then will we see within that, what they're going to spend on personnel and what they're going to spend on various operational issues or will there just be a flat number of 92 million for that quarter. So I'm wondering if we'll see the detail of how they intend to spend that portion that they're allowed to spend. First of all, I think if they have a $400 budget with $100 a quarter, they would spend 98 per quarter. So, and then, you know, 90 my math self sorry. Yeah, I think that, and in terms of how they will spend it. In other words, the various details. I don't think our intention is to put that in the skinny bill that would be underlying the numbers that are applicable for each department but I don't think the budget detail will be there. I think that that's correct. They're simply isn't the time or opportunity to revisit everybody's budgets and to Adam's earlier point that would involve some policy decisions which we've tried to keep out of the first quarter budget so no, but given that a tease off of the off of the FY 20 BAA I think that the most accurate picture of a department's budget construct would be the FY 20 budget but recognize that there are certain pieces that that will have moved somewhat from then but that would be that that I think the best picture of their detail. But it would seem to me department at knowing that they're going to be reduced by this 2% and eventually 8% over the whole year. I would think that perhaps some departments may want to shift emphasis within their department. And yes, I guess that's a policy change. So that you rather than just going along at 2% less for everything that they have they may see strategically that they would be better off putting those reductions in one area as opposed to another. And I frankly would think they would want to look at that. And then frankly I'd like to take a look at what their decisions were. And I think the distinction is not that they would spell out exactly where they would pull that 2% from. They would just squeeze everything by 2%. Well, we're asking departments to find those savings as they know best have I mean I guess you know one way is for us to tell them but we're really not in the position to tell departments what's best for them. Yeah. No, I wouldn't tell them either but I would think they might have some ideas. They may. Right. My other question is, why is it only a 2% cut, I would think we're looking at much greater cuts necessary later on and why start out with only a 2% cut. You know that's a fair question I would say that partly because of the time frame. We thought something even more dramatic might require a lot more input and a lot more work and cause a fair amount more disorientation. We just thought that we would start down the road making some reduction. And frankly, you know, in keeping in mind that there will be a full fledged consensus revenue forecast in August. We didn't want to cause too much dislocation or disorientation early on if only, you know in August we would have to say only kidding. So we thought this would be a reasonable compromise to start down the road of reduction. And, you know, at least get a head start on it. And I would also, you know, say keep in mind that this summer we will be as you'd imagine doing a fair amount of work on the budget so this is an ongoing discussion and if during the summer departments determine a you know here's maybe we want to save a bit more here a bit less there and shift fine they will be able to do that. They will be able to do that but or you know certainly make plans to do that. So it's not like, once we submit this budget things are over for two months this is kind of a ongoing discussion that's going to go on, you know, coming through the summer. Okay. Before I move to David Diane I wanted to just continue with Marty's with Marty's questions. I have, I don't understand quite how some of the timing is going to work because even they can continue on with business as usual even just making a 2% cut. And it seems like some of the work would have to start for cutting, maybe some programs that the legislature might be interested in weighing in on. And if we come back in September. We're not going to realize even a 9% I mean a nine month savings, because we wouldn't have had time to do our work and vet these issues and so really the most savings I would see would probably be six months of savings, but how do we, how do we handle knowing that they're going to be doing, not just proposing the cuts but it seems like they're going to have to start laying the found work. You know, the found work I'm sorry the foundation for, for these reductions, and then reeling them back in if those aren't the reductions the legislature would make I just the timing piece I'm conflicted because I can't understand how it can work. I just can't take a 2% cut and not impact any programs. And, you know, maybe we'd rather see an entire program go and keep a bunch of things whole than 2% across the board so how do we, how do we, how do we work together. And not find ourselves in odds and August and September. And how do we do this work in four months. If we're only going to give a three month budget and be ready for the fourth month it seems like we'd almost have to do a four or five month budget. And for the legislature to turn this budget around in just a couple of weeks and for the Senate to do their work and the time for the governor to sign it we're going to be well past a September mid September date and maybe into October this is looking more cumbersome to me I think is any is anyone following a thing I had to say. I was really nervous at the timings not working for any of this. Right. Kitty, I think, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mary. Okay. Well, I think that's precisely the issue that Marty and date we're asking if we don't begin this process now. There's going to be a much more profound effect later on. And I think the fact is, you know, we may be looking for all of those savings but having to do it over a six month period, which means it's twice as much as it would have been if we'd done it over a one year period. So the math doesn't work and to our advantage. So maybe you should be thinking about a longer skinny budget that gives us, I don't never mind. Yeah, yeah, I, you're absolutely right, Mary and my questions are coming from Marty and Dave but my question is, these reductions are going to have to start the found the foundation the work of it's going to have to start in that trains going to be going down the road. We're usually we get a proposal for a reduction, but I can see where the actions are going to have to start taking place and. And then if we have to pull all that back and do it. I'm really confused how this is going to work in August and to get enough reduction to fill the year and an agreement upon on what those reductions should be. That's that's what I'm concerned about and whether we can even get this work done for the three quarter bill in this little narrow August 15 to mid September. Because if it has to be voted out and signed by September 30. That would give us three weeks to do our work for a whole budget. At the most. Diane and then Dave. Thank you I'll just chime in on that and then I'll ask a question it's it seems like we're trying to put off what we really know we need to do. But I think it becomes more dramatic and more impacting at that at that time, then to start to do the work like everybody said over a year, not just five or six months. But, you know, to that end, is there sort of a expectation that there'll be some sort of rescue operation from the feds that maybe we don't have to go. Are you try you. The, you know, the 23 and not the 20% because we're thinking come October we might have news that might make our budget processing look different. No, no, I have no anticipation of anything different than what we see now. We're trying to acknowledge that in a short period of time it's really hard to get a budget done and asking for a very deep reduction in any one department or all departments just would be very difficult for them to execute in a couple of weeks. I just, I don't see tuition or how it's going to get easier. I just that's what I'm just I don't see how it's going to get easier later than what we might need to be thinking about right now, doing both but. So one of my other questions would be is what I had written down was, how are we going to see the reflection of the coven 123 direct dollars in these budgets that are there now as a part of the both the skinny and the other budget, because if we have a big flow and if we're making reductions over here how are they going to, how are they going to achieve the mission of fulfilling with those coven direct dollars were meant to do, if we're, if we're making reductions so all of those things need to be taken into account. I'm sure you know. You know, agree. And I mean as I think I said, I don't know. Last time or at some point this coming year is going to be I mean to your point is our in that on the one hand it's going to be lean times. And T fund in particular education fund but on the other hand, it's going to be boom times and that there's going to be a billion or more to billion in total, you know, coursing through Vermont so yes, you know, there will be some departments that have an awful lot of federal funding that, you know, like, we've never seen well, but their general funding is going to be reduced. What I would say though, specific answer to your question me one of the challenges for designing an FY 21 budget will be to see how we can kind of achieve general fund savings or take back general fund and put in coronavirus relief and that that's going to be one of the challenges that we anticipate will help get us through FY 21. Within FY 20, some of that relief fund money is making its way into our budgets. For example, I use transportation maybe it's the most clear, roughly a little over $6 million of the transportation budget for FY 20 has been spent on COVID 19 emergency response for example, cars, watching cars at the border, getting license plates, responding to various unique challenges at rest areas and the like. So, you know, that is getting into the FY 20 budget and will help us end the year in balance, but not in a major way. I think the more major appearance of that fund will be an FY 21. Thank you. I know that we're sort of cussing now on the I picked this up and I don't know it might have been even you that said it but I'm not sure that we're you know there's first relief recovery reform. And so the relief is, is flowing. We're now setting the stage of the recovery. Right. But I think we're just seeing where I come from is how do we, how do we facilitate the recovery that we maximize where we want to go in reform, because it's a little tough to reform after you've spent. And why, and maybe later on you're not that's won't be a part of the reform piece, but all right that aside I was there's my second and final question then I'll go is. There's this possibility of a second wave coming just when, you know, the fall into the into the you know, Thanksgiving time is around then that preparing for the potential of how we can be positioned to be ready for something that occurs. Because we, because you guys have done everybody's done a really good job so far of being able to, to do this on the fly but you know, are we going to just repeat it. Tough question to answer answer. I just, it's in the back of my mind every day that we try to, we're planning constantly thinking that the, the landscape is going to stay stable and, and I, I, I'm concerned that I mean it's always going to be a little unstable, but this level of disruption, but we're we need to have sort of the plan B for the another way. Right. Agreed. Thank you. Okay, I have Dave, Marty, yours is back down. You're up and Mary. Dave. Yes. Thank you. I'm going to lower my hand. Adam, would you, and the administration may also be doing this you may not be at liberty to give the details however, would you see as a friendly amendment or welcome proposals that might in the skinny bill suggest spending the coven relief dollars targeted towards sectors of the economy that have been significantly damaged due to the pandemic. And that one would not want to delay on because businesses might not be there come September, October, or November. I don't want to give examples just just because but but you can imagine them as well as I can. Would, would that be welcome. And then, and then let me just picking up on what Diane was saying. I'm going to give you a brief statement of this situation and there's leadership and this is not a criticism, but the leadership part is what direction do we want Vermont's economy to move into if we're if we do have the flexibility to, if the feds do have the flexibility to use the covert dollars to replace revenues. That's that would consume a large amount of the dollars on the table. If we don't, however, we could be looking at sending a large quantity of dollars back to Washington. I might suggest that that's not a smart thing to do, because this could be a once in a hopefully lifetime opportunity. We don't want more pandemics to, to make some really significant game changing, changing investments in Vermont broadband etc. Yes. Do you see the skinny bill as an opportunity to do some of that reform work that Diane alluded to. And it's an active discussion, I know within the legislature as well as within the institution. I can't speak administration. I would like to see coronavirus relief on appropriations. However, if the skinny bill is essentially the last monetary bill to go before the legislature and pass I would, I would say that that is one prime vehicle for CRF appropriations. I cannot speak in that regard for the administration I don't know what the plan is. Follow up, and I appreciate that that that didn't expect you would be able to but I'm trying to send a message here. It would seem to me in a collaborative way, sooner than later for someone in the administration to say you know there are a couple of policy areas that we too are interested in. We want to form and shape them because these things take time. And we want to work with you now as opposed to whatever the deadline is in June for the skinny bill or whenever we're working that's all it would just seem to make sense, or they're going to they're going to germinate up through our policy committees. And I'm trying to avoid a controversial. Maybe that's impossible and that's okay. We can do it collaboratively that's all. And it would seem to me during the skinny bill, and many others may disagree it maybe just let's do this mathematically 23% and wait and be done. But it would seem like there are opportunities that we could miss, because we didn't act in a fluid fluid way. Thank you. Thank you Dave, Marty and Chip you had your hands up and they're down. So I'm assuming. And Mary. It feels like we're, there's a theme going here. I had not heard the expression response recovery reform. And I think it's interesting that in fact maybe it ought to be response reform recovery and looking at the long term how do we fundamentally change the way our systems are working and lay the reform work to facilitate that recovery. During this period of time, the state of Vermont and this administration have done some really extraordinary work that has shown an opportunity for some of that reform work and I'm thinking both of what has happened in the mental health field where by assuring that people are housed and receiving services because we had to do that to protect them. They are not landing in our hospitals, which means that that very expensive consumption of services, let alone, you know, the personal and, and, you know, all of the other issues with allowing a crisis to go to a hospital level. And I am curious how we're going to continue standing up those systems that are enabling us to keep these outcomes that the administration must have thought were were wise and valuable because they said them in motion, how we're going to continue supporting them until we get to the structural changes. How are we going to continue housing people to keep them out of hospitals and having services until we change the system. And I think we have to answer that question now, not in September for implementation at a later date. That was a question. Not one of my speeches. That was a tough one. I do think that the kind of call it bridge funding was in part the purpose of the coronavirus relief fund to make sure that we are carrying out the functions of government, while we think about and act on reforms that will make long term lasting impact. What I think was the intent and you know that fund has been used in the emergency situation and I suspect be used as a bridge to get us to the reform efforts. I think that FY 21 is really I would say the on ramp to FY 22, when we have one time money and we have to use only the resources that we have and generate through state funds. I would think that that work and sooner enough. I agree for that and and I agree with you and it's particularly because we begin to cross budgets. It's not just, for example, what the Department of Mental Health can do. It is what are they doing with diva, what are they doing with the health department, what are they doing with a whole array of different departments in order to get those outcomes. Just looking inside one budget for the savings. In fact, we may need to be looking at investments in one place because we know that we're going to get these long term payoffs and other places. It's going to be challenging and interesting. From the questions that the committee has brought up and knowing the work the administration has to do before we get a three quarter year budget or however many month budget in August or September. It's, it's obvious that we're going to probably be working in July. Just for the committee to realize I don't see how we turn all this around without some meetings prior knowing you know the changes that have been made in corrections that the changes that are happening now in judiciary. The changes Mary you talked about in mental health in order to be able to move a larger budget at the end of the year. There's a foundation work we need to do prior to that. I guess I guess I was just hoping July wasn't in the picture, but it's like, you know, I'm off the fourth. It's likely that we could. It's more than likely we will be meeting for quite some time. Any other questions for Adam or rich or Matt, you're with us or Matt. I have one comment madam chair on that. And you know just so the committees aware in late summer, we will be doing a full year FY 21 budget as rich has pointed out to me in that the, we're getting a one quarter budget out of the gate, but in late summer we're going to be working on a full year budget that may accept all the changes in Q one or change all the changes in Q one, but it'll be a full year budget that we'll be doing. Right, right. That's what I'm anticipating. And so if we, if we get the forecast in, I think it's August 15 mid August. What are you looking at timing to have a budget to us with with your proposals. Well, clearly we have to have something by the end of just September. And we have to leave time for us to debate and come to consensus and the like so our hope is that by the very last days of August to the very first days of September we have something for you. And that could be a challenge in that the board is meeting, I believe the second week of August I'm not sure exactly when but it's going to be mid August. So we would have to turn that around. Pretty quickly. But we will be having discussions with our agencies and departments this summer so my hope is that we can do that. And I would say, probably early September would be target for when we have some front of you. So that that goes back to my timing issue Adam if we get it in early September, and the budget that we're looking at now the skinny budget expires or only goes through September 30. Let me leave something from you let's say on December 3 or fourth I don't know when Labor Day is for the House to do their work and vote and then send it to the Senate for them to do their work, and then to conference out the differences. We're already into October and we haven't even gotten it to the governor for a signature with the amount of days that he needs to consider signing it. The timing is already off and our skinny budget may need to go out past September 30, or does need to, unless we're getting a budget from the administration around August 16. I think that we're challenging with the board around that now we can be, you know, one thing to discuss maybe we move the board meeting up but I think the economists would protest that they're barely going to have the foot revenue, coming in by the end of July and so they're not going to have a read on how the FY 20 revenue ended and so we're bumping up against some time constraints. On the FY 21 we're going to have to move fast on what could be a very Yeah, but even but even fast giving the House two weeks to turn around the work including the votes, and that gives the Senate one week and then it gives us one week to conference that that doesn't even begin to seem realistic and so this, the skinny proposal in front of us now probably needs to go out to October the end of October, realistically. Right. So it's something that we that I don't know. I wouldn't know where the timing doesn't work I mean it's clear that the timing doesn't work for the for everything to get done in a month or less than a month. Yeah, I would. I mean, timing is such that, you know, typically we have keyboard meeting in mid January and we drop in a week of that. The last, the magnitude of the information this year is substantial and so I'm not. I just don't want to make it you have to back out of. But, you know, we, we can move quick when we need to. This one unusual that the information that's going to be coming at us in early August about July payments and segments might have substantial pain in the board forecast that would require us to make substantial changes in our budgeting. And I'm just a little reluctant to commit, you know, then we, the board meeting of dropping a budget if we have to make that many, you know, dramatic changes. And I fully understand that I'm just saying we all need more time. Diane. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to jump in on there because the other thing that we're not taking into this is going to be a very large impacting budgetal directional change. We have to schedule public hearings. There has to be, has to be opportunity for the public to weigh in and have had time to review and comment both to you and to us. There has to be, I'm, I'm leaning at the moment and now I'm just spitballing to help maybe the skinny budget needs to be more of a six month kind of hint with big changes coming October. Do you know what I mean, I don't I don't think we should be putting ourselves in a September 30 box with dramatic changes that need to occur. Keep that in our skinny budget can become a slightly more robust, fuller flesh budget. COVID related snacking. All right, I'm stopping Marty. Well based on that discussion I was going to suggest maybe that we make the skinny budget go through the end of October, as opposed to September. In which case the administration we'd all have time to think about things after you finally get a forecast in the middle of August, and not have to produce a new budget by the end of September we would have to produce a new budget by the end of October, which, I think at least gives us a little bit more time and yet it's not the full half year as Diane just suggested I'm thinking maybe it should be a third of a year as opposed to a quarter of a year. These are all things that we'll discuss and we'll bring the Joint Fiscal Committee into, I mean the Joint Fiscal Office into with help us with the timing issues, but Diane brought up a good point about public response not only is there public response for the legislature but the administration has that commitment to the public as well that allows for, you know, time. But what's clear is we have a lot of work to do we have a little time to do it, and it appears it's going to be over the summer, quite a bit of it, which is not a problem but you know the legislature is typically never been in session during the summer, especially during an election year. Any other thoughts we have had the administration for an hour and I'm sure they have a lot of work to do and the governor is on one of his news calls. So if there's no further questions Adam will be in touch regarding timing and what is exactly in the in the pieces to make sure this rolls out in the best way it can for the administration the legislature and for for Adam are you anticipating coming in this week to present. I do. I do. You are okay we have do we're going to schedule for Thursday or Friday do you have a preference. Can I get back to you later on today with that. Yes. For sure then and you know hopefully sooner. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Adam, thank you, Rich. Matt, good to see all of you. You guys. We're going to go to our next item on the agenda. We have a federal funds update from Stephanie and Stephanie the doorbell just rang and I know you just entered our meeting. Yes. And the doorbell rings it's like yes. I don't hear it. Before we're done I, Teresa needs to make everybody host and so and then have some plan to ring in because it's just, it's it's like, it brings some levity it brings some excitement or happiness to the visitor. So welcome Stephanie we're going to move to the agenda and then we'll come back and do some committee discussion about timing issues and what we see in the two pieces of the budget. Okay. There's a document I sent to Teresa. It's on our website and it's there's a link in it to from the update you'll get from Steve Klein tomorrow and I've been updating the sheet for several weeks. The source of the information is ffs every Friday, late in the day, they send out their update of the funding across all the corona virus COVID-19 response pieces of legislation and funding that is associated with that. The source of the allocations by state or territory. In some cases they started out being ffs ffs estimates congressional committee estimates and they get updated to actual awards from the, the departments, the US government departments over time and so mostly these are up to date with the most current estimates in a few cases. There are still some, you know, congressional committee estimates for some of the newer pieces as well. And so I thought I just, you know, walk through the sheet with you. So you understand what's on here it's very similar to the tracking sheet and it's the same underlying database that the executive branch is using they turn it into a little sort of graphic at the bottom of their sheet. I've been just doing it as a list. Week to week and for the past few weeks I've been actually trying to understand what's changed. If an estimate has changed from one week to the next for the Vermont amount. And so what I thought I'd do here is, is walk through and note the pieces that have changed, particularly this week there was one change last week that I'll point out as well. But it's set up. It's set up with it there's a bit more information there's a whole you can have all 50 states and territories in the underlying data set but what we post online is simply this Vermont only picture. So the first two and a half pages are these grant amounts that would be coming out from the federal departments to Vermont, and I'll stop there for a moment to see if there's any, any comments or questions before we start rolling through. So Stephanie at the very top one from the Treasury is the, the, the most, the 1.25 billion, all of the numbers down below are not related to the 1.25 they're completely different sources of money. For all individual grant amounts estimates of grant amounts that the state will be getting for various programs under various departments. In addition to top one is the track. Yeah, they're in addition to. Yes. And some of them are coming through the state and some of them are going direct to other institutions. So we can, we can look at that as we go along as well. But the CRF the first one, the Treasury. Well, I have a question first from Marty, just my hand trying to find Marty, your hand is up. Okay, Dave. Is this elsewhere on the web. I'm just trying to more easily. It's on the committee as well. I didn't find it there. I'll go back and look. Thank you. You might need to refresh if you had it up earlier because I put it up halfway through the meat. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Okay. I don't have any questions, Stephanie. So let's just start. Okay. So that first one is as a grant that we have in our coffers now from Treasury and doesn't, I know I'm going to spend any time that nothing has changed around that one. So that the continued FAQs and, and, you know, trying to suss out the, the boundaries of the areas of use of that are one of your struggles are our collective struggle. And how that will help with the budget building, which is a challenging budget building I was listening to your conversation off and on the past hour. Starting with that one quarter bill. And going to the big bill hopefully in August once we have a very not perfect but better forecast official forecast update. The next group is from the Department of Education. There's four funding streams here two of them the bottom two are going directly to the institutes of higher education. The $1 million was spread across all the colleges and universities in Vermont. And I don't think we have any historically black colleges and universities in Vermont but I don't know what an MSI is but about $365,000 on that bottom one flow to some small number of education higher ed institutions in Vermont. The biggest one is that K through 12 fund, the $31 million. That's the funds that are coming. The, the our agency of education has is in the process of or has made the application for those funds and 90% of those funds go out to schools and they're going out to schools based on the title one formula. And so there's been some discussion around how these funds may or may not be part of solution to the ed fund revenue challenges. The funds probably won't be in hand in the local districts until after the start of the fiscal year. So that's the, that's the big lump there and then there's the 4.4 nearly $4.5 million that is the governor's fund, and that is a fund that can be used for any of the other education purposes could could go out to schools could be used at higher ed. It's a bit broad. And it's the, we, you know, the, there's been a lot of applications from various entities asking for a share of that various education entities, seen several letters sent by independent schools. And I think both UVM and state colleges, etc. And I don't know that there's any decisions made about that yet. I don't, I don't know off the top of my head what the application process for that 4.4 million dollars is we can find out where, where the status of that money coming in is. But that's that that's the education group. Can I ask a question Stephanie on the education group. We keep hearing about 23 million that is going out to schools is that within it. It's actually 28 million it's the 90% of the 31. Okay, so thank you the 31 is the amount for Vermont 10% of it can stay at the agency for admin and other determined uses, but 28 of that. The 27 point some high number has to go out to this to the schools it goes out to the supervisory unions, and it's based on the federal title one formula, the way that 2728 million dollars will go out to the schools is based on a federal formula that's a requirement. Thank you. I'm not. So, let's continue. So, now we'll start into the HHS department. Sub subgroups. Children and families, this is a group of grants that have grown over the several weeks. You see here childcare and development block grant that that number hasn't changed the big change the big disappointing change over the weekend when I updated this is in that community services block grant. That community service block grant when it was initially an estimate from a congressional committee when the cares act first past was about $5 million for Vermont. So in the actual awards that were in the update on Friday evening, the Vermont amount has dropped to this 1.3 million dollars and that's, that's a lot less than what this this is a grant that goes out to the cap agencies generally. And so this that that was the biggest sort of downward adjustment I've seen over the several weeks from estimates, initial estimates to the grant amount. So that's that's the first one I would note is one that has changed from previous previous iterations of this sheet and it's a it's a disappointing change downward. The lie heat piece that actually went up a smidge over the weekend just revised estimate. The family violence prevention piece that has come down a little bit from what was originally an FFI estimate FFI estimate. The component pieces for runway and home of use haven't changed over the several weeks and the head start piece has not changed. But you can see where the primary recipient is for these different grants. Kimberly has a question Stephanie. Looking at that community services block grant, I had heard that that was a quote technical glitch and that there were efforts underway to fix it and so that may be an ever evolving number the 1.372. I hadn't heard that but I hadn't actually take and actually sort of investigated that all this week I did look at the list that's the state's allocation list. And if there's the question is a glitch for Vermonters is a glitch across the entire way they calculated that I did see that the list for all the states and territories actually added up to the total number of grants. So that was in that community service of block grant so I hope I hope you're correct and I hope it does swing in the other direction. No, I'll try to follow up on that and the other question I just wanted to ask it's on the top line the childcare and development block grant, looking at how far out those numbers go in terms of obligation I often hear the word leveraging those in reference to that amount of money in particular and I'm wondering if you can shed any more light for me on so budget mechanics there. So we do get there's an underlying childcare and development block grant and so this one just comes in on that same. It's the same grant it's just an increase in the allocation. So what I understand is, despite the fact that you could obligated out and have to have it liquidated by 2023 that's sort of bad typing on my date out there is because we have undertaken this for the childcare industry in in the large chunk of the money that was approved in the JFC plan last week that was submitted by the administration, estimated $17 million or so through mid June or so. So that's net of this money so they were applying is my understanding that the administration is applying this 4.4 as well as the CRF money as part of the solution, the short term solution to the childcare. Keeping them afloat as much as possible. Right, right. Sorry. No, no, go ahead. My understanding is that this, this money is actually being applied as we speak to that to the childcare issues. And do we have it. And again, maybe I'm sorry to keep talking so much. I know we have a lot to cover. In terms of a spend rate would I have to go to the agency just to see where that where that stands currently in terms of invoices going out and we've had, as we know in other systems problems with money is going out and wondering if this falls into the potential problematic area. I, in terms of money going out from the agency to the childcare centers. That would be in terms of where we stand week to week. That would be from directly from the agency. My understanding is in the entire estimate. This 4.4 is counted as a resource in that entire estimate for childcare help. So that the, that the amount of money that is going out for from mid, mid March till sometime in June would include this 4.4 in it. Okay, thank you. So there were no changes under the community living these numbers have stayed pretty steady. Over the past several weeks. And you can see the amounts that are going out. For all the various. There's been two rounds of the congregate and home delivered meals support services. Protection of vulnerable older Vermonters family caregivers centers for independent living. I that goes to nonprofits I don't know if it passes through us or not I can find that out but that's. I don't know if I can come right into the state and go out. It does. But money's in here that would do it to do the adult days into any of these categories. I they may fall into the aging and disability resource centers that $300,000 protection of vulnerable older Americans I'm not sure. But that would be probably the supportive services I'll find out. Thank you. Oh, I'll find out if they all seem to be coming in on. They're not there. They're existing grants that come in that are just increased. None of these I think are like a newly created grant. At the federal level. These are all dollars that we anticipated coming in. No, it's just that they're, they're not creating a new, a new line item. They're just an existing federal line item. That's okay. Okay, when you said it's not new. Okay, I thought you were going to. So just to be just to be clear when they are when they are coming in on an existing federal line item they don't go to JFC they just go through an excess receipt process. You may see them at JFC, you may see them come up in the context of the 21 budget when we get to that, the big bill part of the 21 budget in August, you may see them in that context. If they're already spent, if they've already been sent out it between the end of 20 and the early part of 21, you may not see them in that 21 budget, you would just be asking the state departments to report on the use of these funds and how they were distributed. Thank you. The next block is CDC, and the CDC testing funds that $55 million that was a new amount of money this week showing up this is on the, this funding is from the 3.5 bill, the, the one after the cares act that had the, the testing and tracing piece in it. This estimate is, is an estimate from congressional sources according to FFIS it's not actual CDC award amounts yet. The previous grant awards are, are the award amounts and my understanding that the, the first 4.9 and the second 5.4 have been drawn into the state and are being applied in it at the, to the Department of Health at the health emergency response portion of, of activity, but that's a pretty big that's a very large chunk of money the testing money. There's no, there's no guidance yet available on that. It's simply the estimate that it's the first time that FFIS has been carrying that estimate. Stephanie for that amount of money, can every Vermonter get tested? Do we have the test that would allow? I don't, I don't know. And I do think this must be a combination of testing in and tracing to be that size, but the health department would be, I think it's bigger than what they anticipated, potentially, if this correct, if this allocation is correct. It's one where I'd say, because it's from a congressional source and not from an actual agency award source that it's when we could see a change in the number over time as, as we get closer to having the award maids to the state. Next group and it goes on to the next page are the HRSA health resource. I forgot what the F stands for administration. But you see there's a variety of programs where Mont did not get an allocation, Poison Control Centers, the Part A Ryan White HIV AIDS funding, little bit of money on Part B and the other parts of Ryan White funding. Community health centers had a couple rounds in the, in the COVID to build the family's first bill and then a bigger chunk in the CARES Act. They're also getting a test capacity chunk of funding, same source as the CDC test capacity that's a three point, a federal 3.5 bill allocation. And then if you scroll onto the next page, telehealth, we did not get a piece of that funding, which was going through Institutes of Higher Education, little bit of small rural hospital improvement money that's been on there for several weeks. And then this next group, the geriatric, all these health workforce pieces, AHEC, geriatric AHEC centers of excellence, veteran nurses in primary care and registered nurses in primary care. Those were, those five areas were all new to the tracking sheet this week. The only allocation that we, the state of Vermont got was the AHEC $95,000. That seems to be the standard across all the states with AHEC, very few that higher than the $95,000 allotment. I don't, very few, there's only a handful of states that have center of excellence programs that were getting part of that grant. But the other workforce enhancement and primary care pieces, I don't, I don't know what the nature of those programs are that why Vermont did not get an allocation in those. We're not the only state that got a single allocation in these workforce programs, but several states do have two and sometimes three of these allocations. So it would be interesting to know why we don't, we don't qualify for any of these programs. Dave has a question, Stephanie? Yep. Thank you. Stephanie, I see asterisks beside the community health centers up above and there for us. Do you know what those, you know, I did a few weeks ago and I can look on the sheet. I think it's not meaningful. It's part of the FFIS underlying database and I will find out and circle back with you what the asterisks mean. Not meaningful, don't worry. I have a feeling, I have a feeling every single one of them has an asterisk on it and I don't, I'll find out if that actually ties to a note. I don't think so. I think it's part of how they use their coding. And is the money a pass through directly to our FQHCs or does it go into Diva and then do they redistribute it? No, if you could, if you switch, Teresa, if you just flip up to the bottom of the page above. So those, all those community health centers, those are, I believe are going direct to the FQHCs. I don't think they pass through the state budget at all. I mean, do you know, yeah, my FQHC, mine, but the one in my community, receive some retainer funding through Diva. And I think that was just an advance on their perspective payment. So I guess, I guess they don't have to pay that back per se. It may be adjusted if they don't have enough claims behind it. I'm reading the frequently asked questions on this, and there's a lot of latitude and I guess each one has the independent discretion decision making to do as they want in accordance with the guidelines with the money. I am not the best person to ask that. That being the health department. I probably would want Georgia Maharas from by state who represents these organizations to weigh in on that. I'll send her a note. Thank you so much. I don't see any other questions, Stephanie. So let's continue. Okay. So, next page, Samsa. There's the $2 million grant that you two weeks ago approved in the Joint Fiscal Committee. That you actually saw that pop up on the budget adjustment as well. You saw it because that was a new grant line item you approved it and they put it in for spending authority into the budget adjustment. And then the health department, but a chunk of it had to go as an interdepartmental transfer over to mental health. And then office of the secretary in AHS. So these are where the, it was the $100 billion pot for provider relief funds in the CARES Act. And these are some of the awards to date out of that pot. AHS sheet is not yet carrying the second part of the general allocation. So several weeks ago, there was the $30 billion allocation. And we knew from comparison to other states that there was something wrong in the calculation because of the way they were treating the ACO and not counting the Medicare money that flowed through the ACO. Our understanding, and they've made it a second $20 billion general allocation. And our understanding is our share of that is about $16 million. It's just not the detail on either the state portions of that, or the underlying detail is not been shared by AHS yet. We have the $54 million that was part of the original $30 billion. And we think there's another $16 million on top of that for a $70 million state allocation out of what is half of that pot as a general allocation. Green Mountain Care Board has collected from the hospitals and only the hospitals, their share of these different distributions and we can share that with you. And so, so those monies have come out, even though we don't have the detail on the second $20 billion piece yet from FFIS and I don't, we've been asking for several weeks and it just haven't seen it on any of the data sets I did not check the HHS's data set since last week so I'll check again and maybe it's up there now but we didn't get any of the high impact funds. Those were funds that went for the highest COVID-19 impacted states and localities, hospitals, and providers. We did not get any of those dollars. We did get $74 million under the rural provider relief funds. And those are in the, the majority of those are to hospitals, and those are in the Green Mountain Care Board's tally so far of what hospitals have received. And then there's a $479,000 hospital preparedness award that was early on in the process. And so that's, I think there's a very small amount of something in the 20 million, 20 billion dollar range left to be released from the hundred billion dollar provider relief fund pot at the federal level. I don't know what form that those remaining provider relief funds will take. I don't know if those are going to be sort of held until we know if there's, you know, second wave or a little bit more time passed before those are released but I think in my accounting I was up to about $6 or $78 billion of what I could see had been released out of that hundred, out of that hundred billion dollar pot to providers. And those are those go direct to the providers, they're not they're not flowing through the state. Any questions on that from members. Is it within some dollars Stephanie that that providers can use to boost pay due to hazard duty. Would any of these monies be available for that. My understanding is it would direct support to providers because providers had significant loss of revenue and significant costs, you know, securing PPE, you know, change in protocols, things like that so I do think that a provider could choose to provide additional funds if that was in, you know, in the balance of their calculations to do so to to provide increased provider pay I know that they're at my understanding is that UVM Medical Center did provide one week of additional pay for folks that were under $99,000 a year in wage I assume that you know when you when you see the list of distribution of these dollars, you know, there are the hospitals are the largest share of them they have the highest because it's generally based on my understanding is the rural hospitals are based on cost that the general allocation is based on Medicare. Revenue. And so you, and that those general allocations went out to 1000 providers in Vermont. And so there are some very very small allocations within within those general that that big Vermont general allocation individual providers. Yeah, Dave has a question. Could you ask a chess to give us information on on those funds that went out how much was used so these funds didn't go through a chess, these funds went direct so they chess to the hospitals are to the providers. Thank you. So if they go ahead stuff. So we know the Green Mountain care board is having the hospitals report on what they got. But that's only, you know, 14 entities. The, the, the, the, the like home health or nursing homes or other other providers independent practices. Those, there is a data set up at the federal level at HHS it just hadn't been updated for a while. The last time I checked. Well, I, yeah, I don't want to, I don't want to get ahead, but it's all related either our commerce committee either needs to be aware of these details. Or if we do get S 346, the hazard pay bill we I would think we would want to because if, if many of the healthcare providers at least have already received reimbursement for that you wouldn't necessarily want to do it twice. Does that make any sense, Stephanie. It makes sense that my understanding the only, the only hospital I know that have some hospitals have taken pay cuts, because they were concerned about their budgets. I know that the only hospital I've heard of that has done a bonus type or hazard pay is the UVMMC that one week piece. The, the, the issue. It's different provider by provider type. Yeah, I was more nursing homes and home health and non hospitals. Yeah, so I know that some of the applications for extraordinary leaf and nursing homes, because the 346 piece was in play and that applied to the $25 cap did not apply to the nursing homes and it does not in that in the essential worker bill. The agency I believe was pulling out anything that was related to hazard pay in those extraordinary relief requests. And they were, they were very small modest amounts. So that was the, that's, that's what I was aware of ahead and I haven't sort of circled back on that subject for a couple weeks but it seems like, yeah, Stephanie, it seems like there was the retainer retainer payments to agencies, and then there's this direct funding to agencies and now you're mentioning the agency pulling out the agency, pulling out some of the money for the hazard pay so it just a spreadsheet that would probably be necessary wouldn't it. It would it's the construct of what my understanding and this has to be checked with age, a hs. Because we pulled the nursing home separately and did and took them the cap off when the essential worker bill of the Senate that the home is coming for extraordinary relief. If in that ask for extraordinary relief they had a line item for hazard pay. That's what was taken out all the other costs for extraordinary relief stayed in their, their request for extraordinary relief. And so I the status of that versus the status of where 346 of their sort of in. I think that the agency was concerned of 346 was going to go they didn't want to double up on the extraordinary relief. So, and I didn't mean to get ahead of us on. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, so, so it does have to be understood what what what has or is potentially going out for different provider types for for hazard pay. The, the only, we do know that some grocery stores have given our boosts, but we, the only, the only hospital I'm aware of is is the UVMMC. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Peter, you didn't have your hand up but it's down. Do you have a question. It is down Stephanie Stephanie reiterated that the only hospital today is is UVMMC. The two hospitals I'm familiar with are dealing with major budget deficits and and are not talking about about any type of pay boost pay bump. Thank you. And just to be clear in this 346. It would only be people making up to $25 an hour, even in the hospitals that would qualify under the 346. It's only the nursing homes because of the very severe sort of workforce crunch there. That, as it came out of the Senate, it had no cap on it, nursing home and home health because of the nursing situation. Thank you, Stephanie. All right, so we are down into labor at this point. Yeah, the short term compensation piece. That was a new add this $183,000 that was potentially available to Vermont that was a new add this week. And just our UI administration supplemental. I think these are numbers that will change or can be drawn, you know, it's a matching arrangement with the UI administration and this is not, this is not anything to do with the actual benefits. I'm carrying a blank at the bottom of the sheet. When we finally understand how much additional federal UI relief came into the state. So, those assistance assistance grants. Those are underway the application for those are underway I think you heard from Sarah Clark in the budget adjustment that those those applications are in those haven't changed in several weeks. The USDA. Before you move to USDA Mary has a question on the justice. Can you remind me of what is eligible for the Jag grants. Let's see if we can broccoli. That's, I'm not at the top of my head but I can click on the link and look. Is that the link that I can click on, I can go on it myself. Yeah. Thank you. Time equipment, personal hiring supplies training travel, medical needs of inmates and state school. That's the, that's the quick list off the top. USDA. This is the funding that would flow through to the food bank. Some of this is in the form of commodities not actual dollars, the T FAP pieces. There, the, this might be the actual, these might be the actual admin dollars that came through the commodities might not be showing here. It's just allocation for Vermont for the commodity piece. I'm sorry. And then the commerce pieces. The fisheries were new last week. It's not a surprise that Vermont did not get any of the fisheries money. The homeland security pieces have been in for several weeks. Last week when we get down to HUD at the bottom of the page is round two of the CDBG that community development block grant. So that I didn't realize there was going to be around to but we have a $2 million allocation in round two for the statewide CDBG increase. And then is there more on hood. There's the, at the top of the next page the emergency solutions grants and you have seen I believe grant is part of the housing that you see in DCF economic services, the, the emergency housing, the state emergency solutions grant, I think it's being applied to the emergency housing program that we have now in the, in the hotels and I think it's expanding we have about 110 hotels that are participating in that or motel hotel motels that are participating in that right now that will run through the end of June. And so that the amount that you saw, if you were reading the JFC plan that was approved last week of the hundred and 66 million dollars out of CRF. There's an emergency housing piece in that. So it's the two pieces together here, the emergency solutions grant, and the piece in the CRF that make up the total of the estimate of emergency housing for the period through the end of June. The tenant based rental assistance this is one that was also dropped, it was dropped last week. It was dropped about half. We thought it was going to be about two and a half million dollars initially. And then when the awards were were actually I don't know if this one's based on awards are just a new estimate I think it's based on a new estimate, the Vermont share of that allocation drop from about two and a half million dollars to this 1.2 million dollars. The transportation hasn't changed. It's all the nearly 20 million dollars in the public transit line and then the $9 million that you see for airports and those are going directly to the airport authorities. $3 million in the election security grants a handful of dollars across sort of just down for the arts and down for the humanities. Not sure what the status of those dollars coming in yet are there's an application or if they're directly just distributed to the state to be distributed to the organizations in the state. And so that gives you that just under $1.6 billion in total in the grant allocations for the state. All of it flowing through the state coffers but the vast majority of it is. And below that I've been tracking and FFIS has started tracking how much paycheck protection program have come to Vermont banks. It turns a little bit trickier in terms of we did very well in round one and we had a billion dollars of paycheck protection program grant loans that can become grants. In the first round, in the second round through the eighth of May, we're at $204 million. A little bit up from last week about $13 million higher than last week. And then the economic injury to that disaster loans. And out of that we had about $10 million. And so far in the second round of that, we're just under $30 million for Vermont businesses through Vermont banks. So some of this maybe, you know, if a business on the border actually does its business with a Vermont bank it might show up here, or for Vermont business, primarily uses a bank across the border that that total may be showing up in New Hampshire or Mass or New York total. So that's what's a little bit hard about this one, or you may have companies that do access paycheck protection in their own in their in their headquarters state, but they may be benefiting, you know, and a satellite of the company that's based in Vermont as well. So liquidity facility, which it sounds like from the treasure is something Vermont's not likely to use much. But there's an allocation for Vermont there. And then below that are things that aren't showing up on the FFIS sheet yet. And that's the F map increase that the $38 million, which is the through June estimate. If the President's emergency declaration extends past July 1, that will put us into another quarter of something in the neighborhood of $19 million. Vermont has yet to be determined how the amount of money that's in that $166 million and elsewhere is going to be sort of sought by the state and various entities in the state. So unemployment for Vermonters. The dust has to settle a little bit more there but will track how much of that. The $600 extra per week what that adds up to for Vermont in total. The amount here ties back to those grants to providers, those provider relief funds. So in advance of those funds being paid out the, the loans advanced payments were available to the hospitals in the state to the tune of $159 million. That's also something that the Green Mountain Care Board has been tracking what, how much did a hospital get an advanced payment versus how much it got in the end, how much it's going to end up having through those provider relief payments. And so that was just a way to advance that money more quickly to the hospitals. And that's the sheet I've just been keeping track of it week to week trying to find out what's a new thing that's been added and what's changed from previous estimates. And it should provide you a good guideline. When you do get to building the big bill of understanding what funds have flowed to the state and what that might mean for help in FY 21 in the big bill. Thank you, Stephanie. Are there any final questions for Stephanie. It's a great document. Just seeing out exactly where all the money has gone out when it doesn't flow through the state is a little bit more difficult, but yeah, but it's it gives you a sense of the scale of different things like like the paycheck, the paycheck protection program. I mean, to the extent that those turn into grants or significantly turn into grants that's an enormous amount of money into the state. Still some complications there with it. It's not going to be as easy as although the Wall Street Journal had an article today saying that that that Congress is actually contemplating easy, you know, changing and making that easier to function for people. It's going to take longer time, longer time to spend the money, etc. So. So, that actually happens. Yeah, you know, it'll be good to five billion as well. Thank you Stephanie. Sure. I don't see any other questions. So I wanted to just do the schedule for the rest of the week with committee members. Tomorrow, we're going to be going over two bills. We're going to be going over age 6607 primary care bill I know there's a lot of interest in this bill and by some committee members. I will not be taking action on this bill tomorrow but it's we need to get all of our questions out there and determine what happens with with that bill. The capital bill is coming on at 930, and I would ask committee members to make sure you read through that today or tonight if you can. I would like to take action on the capital bill tomorrow unless there are large flags. So if you have a large red flag. Let me know even at midnight tonight. Preferably before the discussion tomorrow would be helpful. I would like to learn more as we're doing having the discussion but if something's jumping out at you now. Please let me know in advance if you could on that. And that will be our time tomorrow because we have. What is happening tomorrow. I had some conflicts with committee members but also if you're on YouTube, you may want to join in at 12 o'clock there in the education committee there's going to be testimony regarding higher education. And that is a topic that we're all following carefully and we may want to jump in through YouTube to listen to that. Is that how said, how said, yes, how said. We're not scheduled for Wednesday because we have the house floor at 11 and then back again at one. And then I have a meeting at four and a meeting at five and a dentist appointment all morning. Thursday will meet at 830 to 1030 and one o'clock to three. And then Friday will jump on at 830 but we're back on the floor at 10 o'clock. And Thursday and Friday we're going to do more testimony and work. Adam will be in with the administration's proposal for the skinny budget. I'd also like to have Steve and Maria and Stephanie to talk about the timing issues because I'm really concerned with the timing issues and also if we do need to make reductions in the budget. It seems like that that that work would start and actually start happening would have to start happening to realize the savings and so I, we need to have a long discussion about that and how long the skinny bill needs to be whether the three months we can get our work done by September 30 through the House, the Senate and the governor I think needs how many days for signature five days. I don't know five. Thank you. Thank you, Linda. Actually, so why don't you unmute everybody. You would please. So the timing, I just don't. It gives us about eight days. It's muted so I can't unmute them. Oh, okay. At least it asked the question, would you like to be unmuted. We'll talk more about the timing and also how the reductions will work in light of the eboard and the the forecast coming not until that August, which it really came because that's the time if you get the best, the best forecast indicator that we can. That takes us through the week. On the floor on Wednesday. You guys may be on your own for budget adjustment for third reading. I don't foresee any problems if I'm out of the dentistry or I'll jump on. If I can't jump on Mary you will, you will be ready to be ready with their answers to questions. Thank you. Thank you. Capital bill action I would like to take if we ready and language is the other thing we can start looking at like we did with the budget adjustment through all the language to determine what needed to be in and what needed to be out. Maria has already highlighted areas of language that would need to be in and we can go over that with Maria as well. And if there's any other small initiatives that we believe need to be in the budget adjustment and Dave, you asked a question about adding CRS like we did in the budget adjustment to the skinny bill. I would anticipate if there are expenses that will be covered and have been identified that we will have a section just like we did. In BAA and and if there's larger house initiatives that make it through the house that need to be reflected. If they're ready, then they would be identified as well. Tomorrow's. Sorry, my video is not working for some reason. Tomorrow's discussion on higher ed in the head committee. It's how they're going to be talking about. No, no, I think it's more. What the future of higher ed and the. We're on what higher ed is going to look like after the impact of COVID-19 the pressures on the systems. I believe it's not going to be the. Are we going to are we talking about doing that in the skinny bill then the bridge funding. I'm not sure on the timing of that jet. I don't think does the treasurer has completed her work on her audit as well as the other that is looking at the audit. And so until that information is complete and the committees of jurisdiction have started that conversation. I don't have an answer yet. Okay, thank you. Any other questions. Okay, I think that we can go offline. Our meeting time is. Our meeting is complete. Okay, I'm going to stop the live stream now.