 appropriations. And as always, just when I think getting our list of things to do at a smaller amount, more things pile on. So we're going to have to figure out our timeline. But first we have Michael Grady here from Legislative Council and Mike, thank you for coming back this we went through the House Ag bill with you and you got through the whole bill but we really didn't have enough time to ask questions. In particular, we wanted to continue the conversation around those those entities receiving grants or individuals to see receiving grants. If they were not current with their taxes or current with child support, and you said more, you've had more information and development on this so can we start with that piece Mike and then we'll go to the bill, please. So just to refresh your memory, all state grants are subject to administrative bulletin five, which has mandatory terms and conditions. And two of those are that the applicant certifies that they're in good standing with payment of taxes and good standing with payment of their child support. If they're not the terms and conditions allow the granting entity to withhold payment. So there was some concern that was raised from the farming community actually about the tax provision. I talked to you about it yesterday and whether or not it was the discussion with you or aside conversations. Good morning, Diane about the agency of agriculture emailed Senator Hardy and said for the cares act money going out through a CCD, the Department of tax, and the agency of agriculture, there will be no reduction in the funding individuals and businesses due to tax and or child support issues. So one thing that the secretary of administration has authority to do under administrative bulletin five is to waive any other mandatory terms and conditions. And apparently they have done that. So that that issue should no longer be an issue based on this email. Any questions on that topic for Mike it looks, it looks like it's been handled Diane. Mike, thank you. Thank you so much for that. So does that mean all of the CRF dollars or just this ag piece. You said it was from Diane. Well, it what is referenced as the ACCD money, the department tax department and the agency of agriculture. I am sure there are other CRF funds. But I can follow up with who has been your point person from the administration on this is it is a commissioner Gresham. Yes. Okay. And so I can follow up with Adam and see if this is going to flow through for all of the CRF grant programs. I haven't had this particular conversation with Adam but as far as CRF funding and other pieces of the budget Adam has been the point person. Thank you Diane, Marty. Yeah, I would want to make sure that it does flow through through all of them because within the budget for instance, there's a lot of financial aid money going out to person see those through VSC or VSEC, those people might be affected by the not in good standing. There's also money going out to the Department of Public Service on the technology pieces, and there's money going out through AHS through many of the housing things. I think we need to make sure that or find out if it can be a an exemption made to anything using the CRF funding. I will find out. And then Mike if language needs to go in and then be reflected in all those bills that have already moved. You will provide language to us that we would put in one of our bills that would then get reflected into all the pieces how do we do that. Sure, I've already drafted language for the agriculture assistance bill because the Senate committee wanted it. They wanted to be, they weren't didn't want to wait for a CRF wide decision they build it into their bill I can just take that language and build it into the template that's being used for the CRF bills. And for the bills that have already left in the governor has signed though, like in the BAA if there happened to be some CRF money's gone out all over the place how do we, how do we reflect it into those that have already been signed into law. I think you just need to choose one of the bills to include a provision that says that any CRF funds the notwithstanding law or administrative bulletin five the provisions on tax set off and reduction for failure to pay taxes or child support shall not apply. It should only be about three or four lines long. So, the best place to put it would be the quarter bill that the Senate is on the floor now with which would be tricky to do it would have the same effect if we throw it in the economic development bill tomorrow morning. Or Mike Marcos committee. Yeah, it's just about the scope of it. It's, it's really, you just for any CRF funds appropriated and fiscal year 21 or went or appropriated from the CRF. I'm not afraid of it. Okay, Maria. Will you make sure I don't know if it's you, Maria, but to make sure that we have that tomorrow from Mike to drop in so that Mike, he's, he's in a lot of cases we could have that like drop in this. Does that make sense to the committee before I go ahead and ask to do it. I think that's the right bill. I think that's the right bill is I don't mess with the Senate. I haven't thumbs up from Peter to other people that we drop it in the economic development bill. The broad life. Yes. Okay. But I do think we, we ought to just, I mean Mike has it and we'll draft it but I think we just, if Mike finds out that this waiver is sort of whatever administration wide. We don't need to do it. Right. I mean, if Mike finds out that the waiver applies to all across, you know, it's not just a CCD, Department of Ag, etc, then, then there's not really a need to do it right. Well, except I think we want to make sure on the legislative side, the other branch of government. As well as money going out for financial aid for UVM and BSC and VSEC. Those are not governmental agencies. Is that okay, Chip? Yeah, I just want to double do it. And as Marty said, there would be groups that wouldn't be covered. Good. Okay. Thank you. And let me get that on my list. So Mike. Were there any other questions regarding that? I guess I'll write myself a note. I'm sorry. Next thing, let's just go to the larger agriculture bill. This is still under discussion between the two committees of Agriculture, Health and Senate Mike, do you want to just give us the broad framework of kind of, we don't know what the details are where they're going to land hopefully this afternoon. But can you give us some of the broad frame it up? Sure. I see just as a background, the Senate S-351 would create a dairy assistance program that would provide financial assistance to milk producers and dairy processors. It would also create an agricultural producer or processor program that would provide assistance to non-dairy farmers, commercial processors, commercial slaughterhouses, and farmers markets. There is, as the Senate proposed, there would be $19 million appropriated for milk producers, 3.8 appropriated for dairy processors, and 7 for those non-dairy ag producers and processors. The House Committee on Agriculture originally felt that there should be no money appropriated to the non-dairy agricultural producers and processors and wanted to have all of the $30 million appropriated for the dairy assistance program, with basically like a $228 split. But the Senate Ag Committee this morning insisted on having the non-dairy ag program and now the conversation is about at what amount that program would be funded. Excuse me, I need some water, I apologize. The Senate this morning proposed moving the non-dairy program to a $5 million amount, moving the dairy program to a $21 million amount, the milk producer program to a 21, and the dairy processor to 3.8. So a total of $24,800,000 would be appropriated to the dairy assistance program and a total of $5 million would be appropriated to an agricultural producer and processor program. Additional $192,000 that was in S351 that would be appropriated to BHCB to help them pay for additional staff and consultants to meet the exponential demand that they have on their surfaces since COVID. And that's really where they are. The House Chair was going to talk with her committee about the Senate's proposal. They, that's really basically what I can talk about right now. So that's the broad framework and where the details are. I mean, the discussion that we would have now, we don't have the details and we'll have to wait until it comes forth. There is a piece though that I would like the committee to talk about. Chip has been working on a forestry piece. So, so that I'd like to put that piece up so that when we do get the bill, we can at least have a section of it done because all of this is going to move very quickly tomorrow, or maybe later this afternoon, which would be help us significantly. So, Chip or Mike, who's who's going to Mike, I need you to walk through it, but Chip, why don't you just tell the committee how it came to be, please. Okay. And I did sort of go over this briefly with a committee. The other day, you know, the was not the forest products industry or the forest economy is a really central part to the rural economy for many parts of this state. And I think, arguably, essential to what a lot of us think about Vermont as a whole and the working landscape and the recreational landscape that we all value and that also brings a lot of tourists to Vermont to support our economy. So, they're just there didn't seem to be there. There was a need for, let me back up there was the forest products industry for reasons that I won't go into now but I will happily provide and we'll talk about on the floor. It really has suffered through this COVID crisis in part because of the lack the sudden lack of demand for paper products, which has put a bottleneck on a good part of the harvesting that's done in Vermont, Vermont for us. So, they have a significant need like many, many other businesses in the state, and they, but we were not, there wasn't any program set up that really dealt specifically with them or really provided the kind of economic relief that they that particular industry needs. And so I have been working with Mike Snyder and Sam Lincoln from the Department of Forest and Parks. And Mata has been helping right along with sort of the, our committee's work on on making something come together and then Mike, a Brady has been drafting it and and we're about to see what it see what it does but the real reason for it was that this is a significant part of as I said, largely the rural economy that is in a bad way. For the same reasons a lot of other businesses are, and, and there was a need to address their particular issues, being in a very high overhead low margin kind of business. So you're muted. Thank you the lawn, my lawn just is getting mowed and so there's noise everywhere I'm trying to not have all of you listen to the lawn more. Mike, would you walk through this language with us. Sure. So, the program will be called the forest economic economy stabilization grant program. 5 million would be appropriated from the Coronavirus relief fund to a and R and fiscal year 21 to establish the program and our would then be directed to enter the MOU with Vita for implementation and administration of the program a and R consulted with Vita. They are willing to do it. But they want the money to pass through a and R, then you see subsection be which is the kind of the template determination of why the expenditure from this Coronavirus relief fund is necessary. Touches on several of the points that represented conquest just discussed regarding the pressures on the forest products economy and supply chain. And as a result of the market and supply chain disruptions caused by COVID-19 forest product businesses are suffering significant business of interruption that restricts its ability to operate effectively. So then you get a definition of what is economic harm. The expenses are lost revenues or both. And then what is the forest product business. This is actually a definition drawn from statute with one slight change. This is from Vita's credit program. It's their remote enterprises that are primarily engaged in managing harvesting trucking processing manufacturing crafting or distributing forest or wood products derived from Vermont forest. What is different from the Vita definition is that it would also include consulting forestry services and secondary manufacturers of wood products. Then you get to what the terms of the memorandum need to address. And it will establish who is going to be what the eligibility criteria will be. They have to have been operating in the state on a report February 1, 2020, and they have to accurately demonstrate to be that the economic harm occurred or crude. March 1, 2020 before December 1, 2020. There is a reference to the fact that Vita shall establish guidelines identifying the specific types of cost for which recipients may use the funds. And there is a provision about no double dipping economic harm is not compensable. The same economic harm has been or will be covered by insurance or by another state or federal gang or other compensation. So I want to touch on this for a little bit. This has been a discussion among some of the legislative council attorneys this morning. But whether or not there will be, if you get assistance from one program, can you get assistance from another program. So if a forest products business gets assistance under this program will they be prohibited from seeking assistance under the larger ACCV grant programs for businesses such as those with 75% revenue reduction. I don't know if there's been a decision on that. That's a big policy call. I don't have anything to say about it except raising it for you. And then Vita creates an application forms applicants certify the information is truthful. Vita shall based on the amount of economic harm provide the maximum award. The maximum award is going to be $100,000 for each eligible forest business grants are dispersed as a single payment Vita s that grants only be dispersed as a single payment. And then you get the kind of basic terms and conditions it's a first come first serve program $5 million may not be enough to cover all of the economic harm to the industry. Federal tax identification numbers and sales amounts are confidential data submitted about the forest product business is going to be a trade secret. There's a reporting requirement on or before July one, the agency provides information to you. Regarding the funds to date, including the types of enterprises awarded aggregate amounts of award by enterprise on aggregate amounts by geographic region, and then they shall provide an update of that on September one, and then January one. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mike. When you were talking about the issue of whether these funds could be used if you got any other funds I think I thought when we were last talking on the commerce bill, we were told that you couldn't. If you said, and I may have misunderstood you, you said that's a policy issue for you to consider. I didn't think it was an option. Is it. Do we have the discretion to say, even if you did get help through PPE or something else, you can still get help to this CRF. I'm not talking about the monies from the state CRF. I'm not talking about mixing it up with the PPE or, or other. Sorry, I thought this, I thought this is CRF. This is the state CRF, right. Different pot, different pot of CRF. Got it. So, and then my next question. Go ahead, Mike. So for example, the conversation been in the ag committees is that some of these large farms are going to have economic harm that far exceeds $100,000. So if they apply for the $100,000 assistance under the dairy assistance program. Will they be able to seek reimbursement of their costs or expenses under any of the other grant programs say those 75% reduction in business grant program that. Okay. Some people are saying, no, they are prohibited. If they get that $100,000, they can't go to a CCD and seek additional assistance. And that, that to me is, is I, I don't, I thought the ag committees were understood that that a business could seek whatever relief. It felt that it was eligible for. I've been told that once you apply to one program, you can't apply apply to another program. When will we know when will we have a consensus when will there be a determination of, I know it's risky but I think that's up to you all and I mean you all as the body to determine that. I think that's a big policy decision. I understand the argument why, because there's so much demand on these funds that you don't want to allow one business or one sector to try to monopolize them. You want to make them available to as many businesses or business sectors as possible. But it's not a legal question. So we decide kitty, or the policy. Dave, did you have another question I interrupted. Well, you answered it I think Mike I was worried where these dollars were coming from the first I thought they were coming out of the ag allocation and that concerned me sounds like they're not. No, this is 5 million on top of the 30 million for ag. How much is available in the state funding bucket. That's 400 million. Correct. Well it's being spent many times right. If the state is a 1.25 what's right but then there's there's only 400 million that's available right now correct. I don't know. No, we need to get, we have a total sheet that Maria has in that from JFO where the total. I'm not sure I did we do not have 400 million left. We've said more than that. We, we have on the order of 250 million left that we're holding, not counting the JFC money. That's what I thought. Right. I'm going to connect the chart. Diane, you have a question Mary did you have a question at your hand was up and then down. It was up and then down. I had the same question and so it's been clarified that a policy decision needs to be made around whether or not participants in one of the grant programs may also participate in another. My question is, then, who makes that decision who makes that policy call. I'd like to put in a marker for our committee doing that, since we're the only one who sees everything as a group, rather than the individual needs and the individual committees, but just for later conversation. Not much later, though, because we're running out of time. So you're right. Diane. Sure. So I was wondering to on that same that same order is an entity won't know if they're been granted something they're going to apply. I'm going to if I'm running something I'm going to apply for everything. I'm not possibly out there, because you put a lot of fishing lines in the water when you don't know what you're going to come through you could apply for five different places and get nothing, or you could apply for four and get them all but you're going to. So, I think that would make it's difficult for for people to be able to apply or an entity or a business or I don't know how that would work. I'm thinking I'm just thinking like if somebody were to apply for a working lands grant, and they wanted 50, you know, 50,000 and they got 10,000. You know, and then how is if they're going to apply for some sort of dairy sector, who's of all this Mike, how do we do this. That's a great question I don't know how we would know if the farmer received a grant from another program the farmer is going to have to, they're going to have to ask, and then the farmer is going to have to be accurate. Oh, wow, this is cumbersome Marty. Oh, Diane, were you I didn't finish with you. I was I was just saying because it's cumbersome because that when I'm thinking we're thinking here, but it's it's a business entity, you know, so I mean I could apply here could apply for the availability and as 350 and if that's not there there's the next commerce bill. I would be applying for all of the above. Just because you never know what's coming through. Diane Marty and then chef. Well, it's a question of how many separate programs we have set up for particular sectors, such as if we have a dairy program and a forestry program. And then, and then all all other businesses as Mike has been trying to keep the commerce stuff being, you know, non specific. Yeah, my gut feel is that you're in a specific industry and you can apply for that particular one you apply for that one and that one only. And we leave the other big pot for everybody else. But we have the other question I have the other question of some of the money going out is not necessarily grants to well such as paying for utility arrearages with someone go to DPS and ask for the utility bills to be covered. And then also go to commerce and ask for additional assistance on the business. That might be another double. I don't think there's a question in there Marty other than the question of we have a double. Right. Right. Chip and then Dave. And mine's not a question either just a response to the, you know, the issue that we're discussing here, but the language that's in the bill says that you can't, you can't receive money funds for things that I wish I had the language for me, but basically you, you can't receive more money for things that you've already gotten funds to cover. And I think that kind of is part of the part of the CRF regulations and certainly should be part of what we say within the state that we have applied for a grant for, you know, to cover the losses for in a particular area, once you've been granted that you can't apply somewhere else to cover the same losses. Right, but here's here. Here's an example so in the in the we lab appropriation and in one of the, not sure if it's in economic development or if it's in commerce. There's a petition that says the book the board the working lands enterprise board shall not award grants to businesses in the dairy sector that are eligible for other assistance from the coronavirus relief fund, not that they receive assistance that they are just eligible for but not about what cost or expenses were already reimbursed, they are just out of the program because they have another path that they are eligible to pursue. Okay, and I mean that seems to me a little bit different than what we were just discussing and that's a particular provision in that particular proposal proposal. Right and maybe you just want to do it on a case by case basis. That's that's a policy call as well. I agree and I and I think and I think Marty brought that up and I'm starting to think that way too that we might want to say, particularly for those areas where we have created up a program for a specific sector, like dairy or even like the economy that we've created a program just for that you should not be. I'm not saying we should do this I'm just thinking out loud, but we might want to say for those particular areas where we created specific programs, we do not expect to have you apply to use a CRF funds from another program. So if we get rid of that where there is no specific program, we may want to let people apply to get funding to cover their expenses, wherever they can get it just acknowledging that they can't have the same expenses covered more than once. So if they get two different grants, it has to be to cover different, different expenses. And we have that double dipping clause and all of them so we've covered that piece. What we need to decide is with the dairy and forestry that's a real carve out. Other other sectors that if they're applying for this should they be able to apply for the grants we're going to hear about tomorrow, and that we passed last week. Dave, I'm going to say yes. Yes. In the commerce bill we did, I think last week I was looking for Linda I don't think she's here today, but maybe the rest you remember. There was a fair amount of money set aside for the regional economic development corporations. I thought to be a sisters to be helpers with with people through the process, my understanding correct. And if, if so, I thank you, Marty. If so, I would hope that they had their fingers on the utility assistance that we talked about this morning on the floor and any other lines of assistance, small business administration, etc, etc. And for the applicants who come into the door. What what I'm, what I'm increasingly worried about. I've always been worried about is we go back to the old therapeutic dose. I'm a business. I need $150,000 to keep on going, but I can only get 100,000 here. And if I can't get the balance anywhere else. Who have we helped. I can't do well you've helped the vendors that they vote that you know he was in in a rear stew, but you haven't kept his business going. Are we are we about trying to, you know, spread the manure so thin that it doesn't do any good. And, and let me just continue that a little bit more. I don't know. This is a $5 million figure I think we're talking about. I don't know as the forestry industry need 200 million. I mean, and yet why five because that's all there is it's around, you know, I'm not trying to be critical. And, and by, I don't want to waste $5 million and maybe it should be thrown into some other pot to make a therapeutic dose for somebody in some other sector. So I guess I have two questions one that I'm already answered the regional economic development folks play an important role. I've sent constituents to them. And the second one is how big is the forestry need. $5 million just, you know, is it just not real, not not wholly helpful at all. Do you have a sense of that chip. Yes and Mike might might remember numbers better than I do. So, in talking to people in forests and parks, who have a real, I think, pretty good sense of this. The need is bigger than the $5 million. But I, but I think that they, I know that they believe that this will be a real significant help to some people who really need it that that this will make a difference for a number of people in the in that in the forest economy. And, you know, I guess I didn't hear them say, I don't want to put words in their mouth. But the sense is that they were suggesting that this could make the difference between whether some people are able to stay in business or not. So I think, and I'll be happy to go email Mike Snyder and Sam Lincoln and ask them. But I think they would say this is a therapeutic dose. Thank you. Thank you to Diane. I just kind of thought so earlier in a couple of bills ago. We put specific language in that said nursing homes will have at least $5 million, but that at least that but it did not stop them from being able to access more. I think that's what we're doing with this. We're saying, listen, forestry, you're going to need a little something and probably a lot more, but we're going to make sure that you have just for you. This amount, and that you are still open to being able to apply to any other thing that we've also have. We're going to make sure that your industry does not have to compete with with x, y, z and w for this, but we're going to, we're just going to make a little, a little bit for you here. And then you can add to it as you want to apply or not apply to other things. That depends on the language in the other programs. Because this, this does, this doesn't have that limit. But some of the other programs may have that limit. And so, yes, but we didn't do it when we talked about adult days, nursing home, or we said, listen, we're going to, we're going to give you this and then but you have at least this, but you can still apply for more. But so, I know it's going to be on a case by case but we, we have a, we have a way that we've already been consistent with at least that part. I'm going to make myself believe that Mike. I'm shaking my head yes. So my question is if you if you want to apply for more than one just because you don't know what you're going to get. If you really receive duplicate dollars, it's up to the person who received those duplicate dollars then to get the money back to the state. And who is checking up on all of these grants to make sure they didn't apply for more than one. And the duplication happens. Does that to me. Well, no, I'm just putting it out there I know duplication is not supposed to happen but how do we check up on it with their receipts, they're going to have to show what they, you can't buy the same PPE, two times over, or the same expense. No, you're not going to use it all. Yeah, but if I, if I am paying off some of my vendors. How is ag going to know if I got it from ag or if I got it from commerce. So I just got, I just got an email from commerce from David Holley in commerce, and he says they're having the exact same conversation right now. And that chair my cot recommends that appropriation needs to make a decision on whether a single bit access Sierra funds through more than one source. Thanks Mike. Okay. That's interesting. And then I would say apply for more than one, but you cannot double dip on the same expense. Peter as his thumbs up Mary is a no, no. Do you want your hand is not Marty. Marty, are you going to. Yeah, I don't agree with Diana either on that one. I don't think. No. Mary, I just called on you Marty, but your hand was up. But I put it down. I was going to say something else but no. Okay, go ahead. Well, I was just going to, I was going to disagree with Diane's. First thought that the, the, the carve out we made for nursing homes, I thought was within the health stabilization fund, meaning that within that fund, we were going to use at least 5 million for nursing homes. And that was within the nursing home like, or they, that industry might get more than five, but that was within the 250 pot. Not in my mind, it wasn't then, okay, now you can go over to the commerce's program and ask for money. There's some confusion here. Mary. So I have oodles of thoughts here. Just, just for a second, let's, let's stay on the question of applying for different sources of money. So I'm a dairy. I got to interrupt you. I realized, Mike, we're holding you are do you need to be somewhere because this is way beyond your scope or, you know, be top beyond your egg. This is broad language. Are you good at helping us get through this or do you need to be gone. My afternoon canceled. So I am, I am available. Oh, Mary, I apologize. That's okay. Poor Mike. So he has to stay and listen to this. Mowing this. Yeah, I hope he can. I had a dairy producer who has a few other lines of business. So they're going to be eligible for dairy. Theoretically, they could be also eligible for the forest products thing because they, you know, they've got a stand of trees. They can apply for the assistance with a rear ages on their utilities. There's nothing to help to prevent that they could, you know, they're renting some property, you know, they to maybe to the folks who work on their land but they're renting. So they're going to be able to apply for some rental assistance. They're going to be able to apply for money across the board. And I come to Dave's question. He always frames it so nicely and succinctly. This question of a therapeutic dose. There, we are creating, creating doses so much larger for some groups of people than we are for others. Diane referenced what we did with the health care slash human services bill. Frankly, I was uncomfortable with the specific allocation of dollar amounts on the human services side. I really liked what health care did that really thoughtful analysis of it talked about sustainability, a regional spread, looking at what what was necessary system why not just to the single employer to sustain a valuable resource to the community. And I'm a day late and a dime short on this conversation I tried to think about how we could pick up that language and drop it into the ag bill, because to me that's the question that we have with agriculture. It's incredibly important to support it, but just spreading the peanut butter across every producer of a certain amount, rather than looking at what the system needs in order to survive these times is is wrong. I'm just really disappointed that we didn't get a proposal like that that so carefully thoughtfully laid out, you know how to think about the sustainability of agriculture, not just how to put money into people's pockets. I, you know, at the end of the day, I'm going to try I'm, I'm trying to support this but I'm just really disappointed that we didn't have that same sort of careful thoughtful analysis. And I hammered that chip for an hour trying to find a way we could do it and it's just too late now we don't have any time, but I think we have to pay careful attention to this. Diane. So I just want to, so I'm what I'm, what I would probably not be comfortable with is somebody like saying to playing within the same sector, so to speak. But I what I am comfortable with is saying, well you can apply for let's say an ag relief and a utility relief and you know, but maybe not forestry and dare, but I am with Dave on the therapeutic dose it depends. And it's also going to come down to just like anything else. If you are a good grant writer, if you are a good communicator. This will work for you. And I don't know if we can fix that. Thank you Diane. Dave. Are we does this language I could look at just scroll through here. Does the ag money go to the secretary of agriculture. Does it go to the agency of ag. The same way the health money went to AHS. It does. So we could, could we not take the same distribution money language, excuse me, that we use for AHS and put it on to the secretary of ag and say this you'll distribute the money in the following begins to have some of that broader policy depth as opposed to who's first in the door. Is it applicable. I, I looked at that Dave, and realized how specific it was to the health care system. Mike is brilliant. And maybe we could, you know, take that as a template and figure out if there's a way to translate it into agriculture. I mean, we could maybe the committee on ag in the Senate and the house had this conversation. And I don't know if we have to get this out today or tomorrow but could we flip it to the secretary and say here's our concern do you have a have a question, and does this language work for you, and Mike may be able to make the language more transferable and appropriate. I mean if it's if in another 12 hours, worry, if we have that Madame chair, you know, we could the secretary might might welcome the opportunity to try to look at this in a more strategic sort of way. But we put this money out in a thoughtful manner and then it's done correctly. We also are on a huge time crunch or we're going to be in here into past next week into the following week which could put us closer to the July 1, but as long as a quarter budget is out, then we're all welcome to be here in July. What I would like now is I would like Chip to leave this meeting because I think that there may be some negotiations going on between the House and Senate ag committees. And I need you to bring this, this dilemma to the two of the, you know, to that group to be addressed because if they come to an agreement. And we say, you know, we had this dilemma but we didn't let you know about it so, Chip, I think you need to excuse yourself and get that communication. But before you do I want to make sure we're sending the right communication what exactly the dilemma is. And is it something we need to fix in other bills or is it just within this ag issue because it's it's specifically to the ag and forestry where the other ones are more broad, except Mary you're right you can get a grant from economic development and then you can get rental assistance and then you can go and, and, you know, with your utility bill and get help there. So, Mike, what is the message that Chip, what is the message. You can't ask Mike that. Why not I mean what what is the dilemma that we're seeing I know that you can't weigh in on this but I was hoping you could frame it for us. I was trying to find the age that a hs language you're referencing what what language is that section six. I believe has the guidance for a hs and the distribution. Let's get up quick. Too many bills. Second about the minimums. No, in the line in the bill describes how they'll distribute it based on a number of factors geographic distribution. Okay, Mary rattled them off this morning to me. It's on page 11 Michael. It's on page nine 65. Can you send at least a text to see where they are in those negotiations so that we don't miss an opportunity please, or an email, or mute yourself and make a phone call to Carolyn perhaps. I think I have Carolyn's phone number I don't have her in my cell phone. Yeah I can. So we're going to say what's the message that I'm carrying to the to them to them. We do we have a dilemma right now about how many programs that you can apply for and what is the record record keeping and making sure that we do have a double dipping clause. But I'm sure that's a question for them. I think it's a question for us about whether or not we want how we want folks to participate. I mean we can ask their opinion. Well if we're going to add it to the ag bill and the ag bill is a compromise we have to make sure that the other side is on board that they are aware of the conversation. If we're just going to put it in the economic development bill to relate to all bills. And then we can do that separately but if we're going to make a change to the ag bill, we have to let both sides know that change now to negotiate it in. I'm assuming that you're talking specifically here about dairy because remember the ag bill contains some funding for diversified or non dairy agriculture, as well. And processors and I don't know if you want to separate them out but the question is do you are you talking about just having this apply if we were to do something like this just applied to the dairy farm support. I mean for it to apply to the whole ag bill which would which would cover diversified ag folks and processors and of course forestry. And we have three minutes to figure something out because we need to move from this and move to Sarah Clark is joining us we have an amendment that we need to get done. So what I need to do this is something that is going to we're going to get bogged down with the whole committee, and a part of it has to do with chip and I would like to have a couple of members. I don't don't have a virtual room a breakout room I don't know how to do a breakout room, but if it chip and maybe you said you had some time this afternoon to consider some language. I think the L2 would like to join that that would be willing to get up on the DCF housing piece at a later date to make sure that we have some fairness inconsistency or to bring back to us to then work on not to make a decision to move the conversation so we're not just stopping. Why are you laughing Dave. I enjoy it. I don't see. I wonder if having Mike it looks like has looked at or is looking at the health care language. And if we could send him off to see if there's a way to create similar sort of language for us. Thank you for the dairy. Are you talking about the dairy bill Mary or to be. Well, if it's, if it's my bill. That that conversation has to get to the two chairs of agriculture now that there's. Yes, I understand that and it is particular to the dairy bill, but I think it also needs to be considered across the board. I mean this is an issue that we're uncovering with everything, but the urgent issue is ag and so I guess there needs to be a sort of, maybe chip can tell the chairs of the committees that we're concerned and we can ask Mike if he can see a way to get some sort of language similar to what we were trying to do on the health care bill that could then be worked with those two committees. So the language in the health care bill, the one that says the department health shall use the funds, and shall basically appropriate them based on factors such as race or ethnicity immigrant status sexual orientation. No. No, what I'm not finding what you're referencing. It's it's section six page 11. The bill is introduced. Yeah, so go to page 11 top of page 11 you'll see by provider type aggregate amounts awarded by region. Yeah. Okay. Right before section seven top of the page. While Mike's reading that I want to jump in here I'm confident that Mike could draft something that could be applicable that we could, if the committee decides this is the way to do it we could run by the secretary of Ag to see if they're capable willing, whatever. But there's two issues here one is, do we want to ask the agency to make those kinds of considerations before awarding grants. And the other one is, are we going to allow people across the board or within certain grant programs to apply for CRF dollars outside of that specific program there's two different questions there. That's that's one thing that our committee needs to to vote on which is, you know, if you're applying for a grant within one program should it exclude you from applying for a grant in any other program within this $1.2. You get a, you know, you need $100,000 and you get a $10,000 working lands grant. Should you be able to apply for other ones for additional help, or you could use the other argument, you got $100,000 a working grant. And you need, you know, $100,000 but you don't know if you're going to get it should you be able to apply for another program so you can look at it on the, you know, on the depending if you want to be the devil, asking the question so how, just think for a minute. Do we want a broad statement saying if you apply within this program you can apply anywhere else. Is that a fair question to ask the committee to take a position on. I didn't ask the question yet I'm just asking that question. If you apply for a program shouldn't be able to apply. Can you define anywhere else, because that's where I have a struggle. Yeah within the 1.25 is I think where our focus is right now is within the 1.25. To me that the question is a little more specific or maybe it is just in the dairy, not just but the dairy is a good example so if I'm a dairy farmer, and I have lost, you know $60,000 per milk check. There's no way that even the dairy program is going to provide enough grant funding to make that up. Should I be allowed to apply somewhere else in one of the Commerce Committee bills for the same kind of not not to replace the same loss because I haven't made it all up, but the same kind of loss. So my the loss of revenue for my milk check. That that's to me an important question and I would my own personal answer that is no I should not be allowed to apply for that same milk check loss in those two different places. But if I also have other needs that are unrelated to my dairy like as somebody pointed out I'm, I'm renting something or, you know, I have those other needs. And I think, personally, I think you should be allowed to apply to a different grant program for that. I agree. And I agree. This is Marty. So this I disagree. This is where we're going to stop the conversation. I have three DCF members that are here and so I need a small group of people that would like to go into a breakout room, and you can think maybe on your phones or however you can to break this up but we have to transition to the DCF housing piece at this time. Yep, you need to get this message to the two chairs of agriculture so that they know that we're, we're looking at perhaps putting a provision in their bill. Is there anyone who wants to work with Chip and Chip will stay in touch with Michael Grady, and catch up later on the DCF piece. I will. Okay, Marty, anyone else as well. Marty. Oh, I'll do what I can. Okay, the three. Well, I know you're trying to move us along. I've been, I get, I get to weigh in, but I have to stay here for this. Marty, do you have to stay? I have the DCF housing. No, I don't, but I care deeply about this and I've already told Chip everything that I feel about this, and we have not been able to agree on it. So, stay here. Yeah, yeah. Kitty. Yes. I actually have my hand up and have had it up for a couple of minutes. Peter, that's okay. I just wanted to make a point. We're talking about cross coordinating who grants here to ensure that, you know, we're talking about someone only receives one grant from the 1.25 billion. We would have to create at some level a master a deconflictor. And I don't want to do that. No. I don't want to be able to figure it out. I don't know if the computer systems in the state of Vermont could actually talk to each other to figure out if somebody's already applied for a grant. We need to remember that. We need to remember that. That's it. Okay, so we're not making any decisions. I just need a group to go off and work on this and make sure that, you know, all all points of views are being considered. Okay. So we're going to go back to this discussion back. And I'm sorry for this, but we are down to really 11th hour and we have a huge agenda because we have a municipal bill that we have to do on top of the, the amendment we're going to do on top of dairy on top of economic development and a couple of amendments all before 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I believe as long as I have six or more for the housing piece and you remember you're not making a decision, but we need to inform that group that's working. I'm going off with chip. I'm going to, where are we going. I'm going to tell Carol and to inform their, the both committees that this is what we're considering that after that I'm not sure how to have a group meeting. I think it's good on my phone. I'm happy to have a conference call on my house phone or something, but. And then I've just, I just wanted to inform the speaker of this larger issue and Mary, could you send Mitzi a more complete text of what I'm talking about just so that she's aware of the issue and she may, she's maybe she'll have a path forward very quickly. But now since you've been waiting very patiently and we're seven minutes late I apologize Sarah. I see you I see Sean Brown and I've seen Ken and Ken I don't know if you've been in our committee since your announcement to leave. But on behalf of our committee I want to thank you for your service to the state and what you've done for children and families in this state it's it's been incredible work. It's satisfying work but difficult at the same time and you're going to be a real loss to the department and I want to thank you for your longstanding time and effort. Thank you very much representative toll it really. It really has been an honor to serve I greatly appreciate you working with your committee over the last couple of years. I do feel very proud of the work that we've all done together so thank you very much. Thank you. And best wishes. And good luck with that dog you're picking up in Danville if it comes from Danville and from the kingdom it's going to be a sure. And so you have an amendment that we're working on and Sarah, I'm not sure what the Dave your hand is up. I do. Can I put it. You're doing it okay. I didn't I don't know the format if you want to give the overview or if Sarah wants to jump in with the money right away. Can you just give us a or you guys have the floor who's going to give the overview and then we'll hear about the month. How about if I just jump in for one minute. So, I just came from a meeting of human services where all 11 members as individuals have signed on to the language that Teresa is going to pull up. And that will be the services component that fits with what rep Stevens covered today in terms of the units being built as part of 966 and the DCF folks are here today to go over some of the numbers that lie behind this language. Thank you, Teresa you're going to get the. I apologize I'm a bit distracted I'm trying to text about this other issue at the same time that I am doing this. Oh good London's here. I don't have the language in front of me. Does everybody else have it on the screen. So represent told me I start. Yes, I'm sorry I had peoples. I had all the, the, what if the Hollywood squares in front of me. And if you'd like to walk through the language that would be great. I will just very briefly just introduce myself Ken Schatz, Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families. I do want you to know that we do support the proposed language that is being put forth as an amendment to age 966 as representative just have just pointed out we did just participate in a joint meeting of House General and House human Services, where we did talk about this legislation. So I want you to know that we support it and then we'll turn to Sean who can provide can walk through it and summarize what's in the bill and appreciate Sarah Clark the chief financial officer for the Secretary's Office of the agency human services being here today to also speak specifically as needed to the financial aspects of this. So I can turn it I'll turn it over to Sean. Thank you, Sean. Thank you. I too will miss can I've had the privilege of serving under two great commissioners commissioner Schatz and former commissioner Dave Yacoboni can will be missed. I appreciate all the support he's given me over the years. So we've been working closely with the House Human Services Committee and the General Housing and Military Affairs Committee to move forward. So the next bill that we're considering today, which is based on our AHS housing recovery plan, which we developed in response to large number of households that we are serving in motels under the emergency housing program and in response to COVID as the language in the bill indicates we might serve upwards of 300 families in the middle of the winter when the program has adverse weather conditions, given, you know, the impact of COVID we now have approximately 300 households in motels right now. And we truly believe that this is an opportunity and we don't want to return to the status quo into the system that existed prior to COVID where motels and shelter systems were made up the bulk of the service delivery delivery for homeless households in this proposal and this bill compliment and supplement the work of the other housing proposals by the VHCB and the agency of commerce and community development. The VHCB is trying to bring on new units, which are desperately needed in the state for homeless families. The ACCD proposal really looks at trying to prevent further homelessness in the state with their rental or free-range program and mortgage assistance program and also support private landlords and other landlords in rehabbing some existing stock to bring them up to code and hopefully bring them to market, which are desperately needed as well. And then our plan, which complements and supplements that brings some subs, proposes to bring some subsidies, some intense service delivery, some rapid resolution funds with the goal of moving all of these households that we have in motels right now in response to COVID to more permanent housing solutions. We aim to do that through one of our first goals is to end family homelessness. There are approximately 250 households with children in motels and then the shelter system. Our plan proposes providing a Vermont rental subsidy like subsidy to all of those households and move them into permanent housing with the goal to then bridge them to a federally funded voucher during that timeframe. Also providing some rapid resolution funds for other households that might include rental assistance, paying off a back rent to allow them to come into good standing so that they could lease a new apartment for a variety of reasons and then provide a surge of funding to our partners to do this work. Our public services are critical to moving families and maintaining families into permanent housing. It's complex works in the needs of the families we're serving are highly complex and they, and they hold host a range of issues that we need to tackle with those households. We're also with the hope to bring some private landlords back into the work we do and to work with us to serve some higher risk families who have suffered some loss in the past, renting to high risk families. We're proposing creating a risk pool so if they suffer a loss that we can make them whole. If they come to work with us and provide some units that we can move households into. We're also proposing to do that using just over $16 million of COVID relief funds through the first six months or so of the year into late December. And then our plan would leverage approximately another 7 million of existing funding to continue those supports and services through the next six months. This language here today before the Appropriations Committee focuses solely on the work and the dollars of the COVID relief fund the over 16 million. And so when we talk about that, just keep that framework in your mind that there are other funds within our existing appropriations that will be leveraging post December to continue this work. And so our original proposal kind of bucketed the money into these these categories that I just described of the different components of our plan and working with the committees of jurisdiction the policy committees. It was their intent and desire to instead of breaking it out by appropriation to appropriate as a sum which would then allow us the flexibility if needed to, if the grade, the need was greater in one area that we would have some flexibility. We think that's a good idea and we support that approach here in this bill. And so I'm happy to answer any question proposal. And I'm more than happy to break down the original dollars in the plane and how we were contemplating using them at that if the committee wants us to kind of review that with them. Please. So, Teresa, can you move down the amendment we were stuck on the purpose and, and so this is the 16 million so the 16 million is now reflected in the 68 million in the purpose section above is that correct. No. Yes. So it's 16 additional million. It's reflected in that number above. Okay. Okay, so for the committee. Can I see the rest of this amendment because I haven't had a chance to see it before. And Sean, I have to really apologize. I've been texting and I can't and I haven't been paying enough attention to both of these and I really am trying to sort out this other problem. So the 16 million for this rental assistance program. Is it all CRF dollars are we drawing down FEMA dollars as well. And did you go over this and I just need to get caught up on Mike. No, I didn't touch on that specifically so thank you. Right now our proposal does include approximately 5.8 just under 5.8 million dollars to continue supporting housing families and households and motels while we implement this plan. Those are in this bill as COVID relief dollars. We are certainly pursuing FEMA reimbursement for some of those costs. We do have an approved plan from FEMA to use non congregate motel settings for FEMA or FEMA resources. We have just submitted our first claim for some of the motel spending we've done when we opened the program up completely in March and April, and Sarah Clark can brief the committee on that a little bit if you want to talk more about that but we are contemplating pursuing FEMA money where appropriate to support this plan but we don't at this point this plan is based on what we know now. And obviously if we're able to leverage FEMA dollars we would do so but we would still use the CRF for the 25% match for that for the FEMA funding. And is that included within the 16 million. Part of the motel spending we would utilize it for that if needed. So Sarah would you like to put up the spreadsheet and walk through the spreadsheet with us that I think that would be helpful at this time. Teresa do you have that or would you like me to. I can't really set it to me. I'm happy to do whichever is easier. I can I can take control though makes me a little nervous. Let me let me try and I'm going to just I'm going to use the the presentation that DCF had provided. Just be don't don't screen your share until you've got it up. Okay. And is it is it is it legible. Yeah, yes, this is good. Okay. And so I don't know if you want me to kind of at a high level walk you through these buckets I think Sean is best suited to provide the narrative, but I can maybe kick us off and then Sean or can can can chime in. Do the high level Sarah fill in the they'll fill in the details. I think it's an important point to make that it's kind of overall it's estimated to be a $23 million package and you can see that number right here across a variety of activities. This plan focuses on doing using the coronavirus relief fund to provide a kind of short term cash investments to help transition households out of motels and into more permanent housing as Sean was saying. And so, for that end of this 23 million 16 million roughly is proposed to come out of the coronavirus relief fund across a variety of activities. In addition to the coronavirus relief fund we're also leveraging some ESG federal dollars. We received as this committee is aware additional tranches of funding from the federal government from for ESG. And we will be leveraging $1.75 million of those funds as part of this plan. In addition and the timing is important we are going to be using some of the existing general fund and DCS budget for the periods from January through July. We will continue the functions proposed here, as well as we are leveraging some global commitment dollars, both the general fund and the global commitment are within DCS existing budget so it's this plan does not propose to need additional general fund resources to support in fiscal year 21. With that said, and maybe you know Sean's kind of spoke to these buckets when he gave gave his overview, but as you look at the activities. So there's the family housing rental assistance for $2.5 million over the course of state fiscal year 21. That's a combination of coronavirus relief funds, ESG federal dollars, as well as some existing general fund in the base of DCS. And your second column where you have CRF FEMA and other federal funds and it totals to 16 million. Those are all CRF and not FEMA and other. Yes, they're all CRF right now and why don't we kind of drill on in on that conversation so what Sean was just discussing is the item on here that we know for sure is potentially FEMA allowable is the general assistance dollars from July to September of this $5.8 million roughly you can see my mouse hovering over that. The reason why it's, it's a potential FEMA allowable, and we are asking for CRF authority right now is that we, we know that FEMA has given us approval to use FEMA funding for congregate or non congregate housing. The emergency declaration period that right now is extended until July 10. This is a month by month, kind of, we make a request to FEMA and they, they grant that allowability to use FEMA funds for these purposes. And so we just received last week that permission through July 10. I don't know how long that's going to extend into state fiscal year 21. I expect that we will submit another request at the beginning of July, but I should be clear that's kind of outside of my involvement. But to the extent that we do submit the request and FEMA extends it we would anticipate drawing down FEMA dollars for the motel program in state fiscal year 21. 75% of that number would remain and then 75% would drop to the bottom line for other needs. That's exactly right. You know I expect as as we come back together again in August that we will be having these kind of reconciliation conversations with updates based on the information that we've learned over July. In that column the only one that you think maybe FEMA eligible is the general assistance piece or are there others. It's just that piece. And we, we did make a request of FEMA to utilize some of their other programs, a disaster case management and disaster rental assistance, which we were hoping to use to support this plan longer term that request was denied. So we were not able to have rental assistance and in case management where we were not able to leverage and we don't expect to be able to leverage FEMA funding for those components of this plan. Thank you, Sean for that clarification. Sarah, where did you was there anything else on this chart you wanted to, I think it's pretty explanatory can we go right to questions. That works for me. It's pretty self explanatory. It's a trans narrative so yeah perfectly thank you. I'm going to stop sharing if that's okay. Yes, that's fine. Dave. I think it's a really impressive plan. There's a lot of moving parts to it. A couple of questions are to clarify my understanding, all of our understanding I think the CRF money has a deadline to be spent by 1230. ESG money I understand as an aside, Jeff from your staff. Ken and Sean did a great job of walking me through this and I watch one of the YouTube's but my understanding is the ESG column does not have a 1230 must spend by limitation is that correct. That is correct. It's our understanding that we have a 24 month period to expend those resources. Yeah. And that to me, it's going to be critical because the need for, for many people for some it's a softer touch than others and for others it's much more it being the case management is much more intensive, and to have that capacity to keep it going a bit longer is a key or we're going to have many many people in housing from the various housing pieces we have throughout all this different legislation we've worked on without sufficient supports to make it successful. Just an observation comment though the $5 million for navigation slash case management, which ends the bulk of it ends 1230. And we're going to continue on for another 24 months which is great. Will that be given to your housing opportunity programs throughout the state will they get an allocation and told to manage that. And is it likely that some of those staff might continue on and the ESG funding for the remainder of the duration. Exactly are thinking representative that we would allocate these resources out to our housing partners who we rely on to do that that work intensive work, and that many hopefully those resources will be able to continue be on January with the ESG funding here, and then hopefully depending on our success. We do have our normal housing opportunity program. And this is a very ambitious effort to have and family homelessness and really make a dent and single adult household homelessness. And if we're successful. You know, we might be able to reevaluate how we spend some of our existing resources not reflected here in the plan that are available through our housing opportunity program to continue to support that work in to January and beyond. Because as you indicated, we know that many of our families getting them house is just the first step to permanency that many of them have very high needs, and that are at risk of losing housing without those supportive services long term. So hopefully in another bill, we have $30 million targeted toward rental arrearages. And hopefully that money will help prevent more people from coming over the transom into the homeless bucket. Hopefully it'll manage just just the 1400 families. But that's for people I think who are already housed that 30 million. It may not help you here but it could prevent people from coming into home homelessness here. Now that that allocation to the housing opportunity programs across the state is that some type of formula. Do they have that is an RFP do they have to apply, or sitting here today could you say no Franklin's going to get this and, of course, LaMoyle, which is a special area is going to get even more. The bill that I'm chair. So, so we're still you know we're in the planning process to implement this program. I think some of our funding decisions are going to be based on the numbers of households. We're going to look at the details in each district and look at what is going to be the level of effort needed in those areas to move that those numbers of family to permanency or households to permanency. Yeah, so that sounds to me like it's going to be adjusted depending on where the people are. Yes. Yeah, you wouldn't just divide by 14 counties and I got turned right you'll wait in some factor. Thank you. Thank you Madam chair. Thank you Dave, Kimberly. So, I'm back to that point about the hop network. Is that intended to be hop only or including hop so it could include some partners who are not part of hop. It could include partners that are not a part of hop we are always expanding the number of the partners we work with, whether it's through the hot program, or the general assistance community investments. Like we're fun where we're starting to work with a couple new community investments and in our emergency housing to the hot program. Just starting this fiscal year coming up we're auditioning some new grants out through that process so we are open to working with different providers to meet and make sure the need is being met for these families. Thank you. And then one more if I could Madam chair, the, the ESG money I do understand that it has a 24 month period but my recollection is that 2.3 million came from BAA to. So when does that 24 months clock start ticking. We will have I don't know the exact answer on that clock starts ticking we'll have to get back to you with the answer to that question. Thank you Kimberly. Are there any other questions for either Sean or Sarah or Ken. Do we know if the committee down the hall took a vote on this amendment today, Kimberly, or Sarah. Yeah, they did not take an official vote because they don't technically, well, they decided all to go on as individuals so all 11 members of human services are listed across the top of this as sponsors. Right, but the committee itself didn't take a position on the vote. Well, no, they didn't actually do a vote but 11 members signed on to it. Right. I see that but there there is individual they are individual members there and not acting as the committee so I would. They don't have possession. It's their amendment. No, they're amendment to us. You're right. It's there. It's our bill. It's our bill. It's our bill. My paperwork, madam chair. That's right. Yeah, there. I can see you. I will come on. Madam chair, I'm not sure your consists. You all have have the appropriate this is an appropriations committee bill and the house human services loves the bill we would like to make an addition. We have 11 members of house human services because we don't have possession of the bill, but we, we want to just add some things to your bill, which the commissioner and deputy commissioner and chief financial officer have walked through and everyone loves it. Thank you. I had for I just the clarification in my own mind I have about 13 things dancing in my head, and that we need we did not need. It would not come from your committee it would come directly from the appropriations with just 11 members, not just the important 11 members on the amendment. Thank you and this is Justin. This is an amendment for our committee to vote on to be on the house floor tomorrow or there any final questions for Sarah or for Sean or Ken on the proposal. It's an exciting proposal that moves us in a good direction. There's been a lot of angst and heartburn around the, the, you know, just the use of the motel vouchers and not moving in a more permanent. Thank you, Sean. Thank you. A lot of works are doing a lot of groups are doing a lot of hard work on on on trying to house and rehouse the homeless right now. Can you kind of put into context how this will work, instead of the proposal that was made in the, in the actual FY 21 budget to hand over the responsibilities for working with homeless over to the community action agencies. Just just and I'm asking for a huge compare and contrast here, but you had to have it had to have crashed your mind you know this is how this would compare with that. So, our housing recovery plan is if you step back and think about the proposal that was in the original SF Y 21 budget to go to a community based model. This plan is really what that vision was is having our community managed and rehouse families. It wasn't that proposal, but, but it's now being done in the context of a housing recovery plan in response to COVID. Our goal is still to move to that community based model in July of 2021 now I know in the conversations in the house there was a lot of people commenting our proposal and going to April 1. We believe that this really sets us up well if we can implement this plan and rehouse many of these households to make that transition to that proposal that much smoother and easier because we will be providing a surge of support to our community partners to do this work now, and instead of when we transition to that proposal community investment proposal. Gotcha and as as you said, I'll just confirm. This includes funding for service the services component for folks that are going to be housed in in the projects that are going to be done around the state. Correct. Yes. It really is vitally important. So, yes, thank you. Yes. And, and I know that you can't look into the future but I'm going to ask you to. How would you envision being able to continue to fund that in the future. And by future I mean two three years out, because this this program will need to operate until we have ended homeless homelessness and I would hope that that would actually occur. But I understand that that there will always be circumstances and instant incidences where someone's going to stumble into it so. Yeah, I would. You know, some of the feedback we had received from our partners and I think your committee heard it that there was two concerns with our proposal original proposal and SFY 21 budget one was the timing that they needed a little more time. And, and the other was that they felt like more money was needed up front to really implement it. And I think this proposal get provides that time and provides a significant level of resources to really do a lot of that work on the front and understanding that the funds that we were going to provide under a community investment then really are able to do the work that we need them to do because we've served so much of that work in the front end in the next year to really rehouse so many of the homeless households in the state and to keep them out. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Sean. Any other questions for the department. Ann is here representing the 11 members that signed off. Okay, thank you. Thank you for joining us and Sarah the spreadsheet really made this very clear and Sean you filled the details earlier and and so thank you for this thoughtful work we really appreciate it. And Ken, I'm not sure if we'll see you before this committee again because you're leaving on the 31st. Is that correct. Actually, June 26 is my last day a week from tomorrow. That's that's even. Anything you want to share with us about anything exciting you're doing or are you just I am really looking forward to retiring I'm looking forward to rest and relaxation it has been a challenging time. And so who knows what the future will bring. But I am definitely looking forward one of the advantages of covert is that I will be focusing my travel within the state of Vermont for the next couple of months so I'm actually great looking forward to that. And that has made a good point that it might be time to look to the 251 club and I appreciated that suggestion. Come to Virginia. I'm doing the 251 club as soon as this budgeting stuff is pictures of these obscure little towns I've gone through that I might miss on my next journey through so I've started documenting them. Great. Well, for the rest of the committee as I told representative told my first excursion will actually be to Danville, because my daughter has gotten a puppy from a farm in Danville and so we're going to go up there June 27 so I'm looking forward to that. That's great. I thought you, I thought you could only get kiddies in Danville. So much going on up here Bob there's almost anything you want. I can best of the best wishes to you and enjoy your retirement and enjoy some much deserved time off you certainly have earned it. Thank you very much. Good luck to you as as you take up the helm of this, the helm of this, this department. Thank you I look forward to continuing our work with the Appropriations Committee. Yeah, there's lots of challenges and we look forward to working with you when when a challenging budget comes into us. Okay, so we are going to move on and Diane. Yes, yes madam chair I'd like to make a motion if you're ready. I think I'm ready to entertain a motion. I'd like to report to make a motion to report favorably on the amendment to age 966 presented by representative Q and all. And is there a second. I second. We have the motion made by by representative Lanford and seconded by representative Jessups is are there any further comments or questions or clarification that committee members need at this point. If not, the clerk shall call the roll. Thank you am I representative conquest. Yes. Representative pagan. Yes. Representative felt this. Representative helm. Yes. Representative Cooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanford. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yacoboni. Yes. Representative toll. Yes. That is an 11 zero. Very nice work to your committee. Thank you. And please thank the other 10 members. We appreciate the work that you have done to stabilize housing for families across Vermont. We very much and thank you for loaning representative Jessup to us to help do it. We are hoping to continue this practice during the three quarter bill in August that as much as communicate this way and work together. It just to, since we only have a couple of weeks in August to get a whole budget out, hoping that this kind of communication can continue. Absolutely. If you do not need me anymore. Best of luck on the rest of your deliberations. Thank you. Thank you. I need you in. If I were you, I'd jump off. Thank you. Thank you. Sean, thank you. Okay. So we were able to take DCF housing off the list of things to get done before the end of day tomorrow. Chip and whatever group jumped off. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And if so, what would it be? And who's drafting it? Can you hear me? Yeah. No, we haven't. Linda had her hand up. I'm sorry. That's okay. He can, he can go and then I will. Okay. We have the group has not had a chance to meet yet. As a matter of fact, maybe we can use this moment to schedule a time. And I'll save any more for our group meeting. Okay. I think that right now we have time as a committee that, that we can meet and discuss this. I just wanted to make sure. That we, that we, that we were able to do this amendment and get the amendment ready for the floor tomorrow. So Linda, before we go back to this. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Um, commerce is. Putting everything together. David Hall brought up the issue about. Uh, double dipping. Can you get money from one. COVID pot and then apply to another one. And he's trying to come up with some language and he's, they asked if I would come to appropriations to the committee and ask what. I think that's a great question. Yeah. Well, our scour thoughts are scattered and we need to. It's a, it's really, it's a difficult issue. Uh, and we need to resolve it. And, and so, um, I think that we need to open that up just to committee discussion at this, at this point. But before we do that, I just want to tell you the timeframe of what we're doing tomorrow. Teresa, if you could jump on, we're meeting at eight 30 and rated the first to be doing. The economic development proposal. Is that correct? That's correct. And then at $915, you have S three 49 the municipal bill. And I just sent everybody an additional amendment to age. 961 that Stephanie just sent. What's 961. That's at the quarter bill. Yeah. I was just explaining what nine 61 was. Um, so, um, Stephanie sent, what was it just. I didn't open it yet. I just sent it to everybody. It's an amendment. To the quarter bills. Senator Ash and Sears floor amendment. And what does it say? Uh, let's see. Well, here, I'll put it up. How's that? Okay. Here we go. Okay. Okay. So this is work that they're asking for. To come. No, it hasn't passed yet. What they're asking for. Okay. I'm going to present a plan to the general assembly by August 18th, that will create capacity for each state police barrack to have embedded mental clinicians from a designated agency or contract provider. To more appropriately respond to situations involving individuals. And you guys can read this. I don't need to read it out loud to you. I'm going to read it out loud. I'm going to read it out loud. I'm going to read it out loud. I'm going to read it out loud. For statewide scalability. The commissioner. You shall recommend the allocation of funds for this purpose and explore potential Medicaid. Um, match. In, in, in fairness. And I have to tell you, um, I want to see all of you here. I dropped the ball a bit of a bit on this. Senator Ash did. Uh, I think this is a little bit more of a question in the quarter year bill. And I told him it would be very difficult at this time for our committee to take on. Um, something without testimony to understand. And asked him if there could be a plan put in place so that we could consider it in August when we come back for the larger bill. So it wasn't sprung on us without, um, Without, um, Uh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The committee could not take a concrete position on it to include right now at this time that it's something that we would need to do. In August. So I. At this point, I'm sorry. I did not get that to you. I just, I had not seen the final language. And, um, At this point. Does anybody would anyone want to take it on right now for the meeting? And we would have an awful lot of questions exactly what this means in the act. Mary. Um, Are you talking about taking on actually adding these people in? Or are you. Saying. Asking about this proposed amendment. This is just an analysis. Right. And, and what, what was asked for earlier. I, I didn't, I, I felt that we couldn't take this time and do it. Do justice. Um, or do due diligence and injustice to the proposal. And so I sent back to. Senator Ash, can we please address it in August? And this is what's coming to us. Kitty, I think that is an excellent call. I really appreciate you doing that. Um, we could not have taken a position on adding it now. Without understanding the across the board implications of that. So. It'll be great. They're sending us this information and we'll know what our other budgets are looking at and kind of what the consequence of doing this versus other things is. So it makes sense to handle it this way. Thank you, Mary. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just wanting to be clear. So the Senate. Um, added this today before third reading. This was approved and added into nine 61. Um, has it been, has Teresa has the, um, I'm not following the Senate actions. Has the Senate actually, um, voted on this and put it into nine 61 and voted out. Do you happen to know I, I, you shouldn't. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. Um, Stephanie said it was going to the Senate floor. I don't think it's already been. Yeah. Yeah. That's correct. So if we have great opposition to this, I can, I can jump on and say, don't add to the quarter one bill. Um, what I did have opposition to putting something much larger into action. Quarter one bill. I thought I needed more time. Um, to put it into action. I don't know if I'm going to be able to do that until I just, it hadn't seen this piece, but I, I, I just wanted to say, I personally think that if they, if the Senate, it is indeed putting it in, as Mary was saying, it doesn't mandate anything other than an analysis, which is a key piece. To making decisions. So. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mary. Just as a reminder in the budget that we had way back when and before this time, there was a proposal to put one more police social worker in the barracks that would have brought it up to either three or four, maybe to three. And there was also a proposal to create a police social worker. So. So that was the proposal. And those were both ideas that we had supported. Way back when. So this is all in keeping with something we've been interested in, as has the committee of jurisdiction. They supported it also. And so I would believe this is. If I could add. It's not as if this was something that was kind of, you know, forced upon them. They welcome this, at least had in the past. And so, Mada, I would believe this would be with you to follow up, or I'm trying to think of the Committee of Jurisdiction, would this be within, it would be across the hall. It really covers a couple of jurisdictions here, and healthcare. Government operations also. Okay, so if Chip could just make the judiciary aware of it, Mada, you make government operations aware of it, and Mary, you make healthcare aware of it, then nobody will be surprised on the floor. And at least the Committees of Jurisdiction will know that we thought this language was a good addition. So on a straw poll, how many of you would support this additional language as, you know, it's more fact-finding? Thank you. Great. So that will put us, we'll look for this information when we return in August. Okay. Now we're going to go back to the Economic Development Bill that's coming in at 830. Teresa, have we also scheduled Representative Coburn to come in? I know she's going to testify. I was trying to nudge you during the meeting, and you had 16 other things going on. I actually, if you look at your phone right now in the text, it has a summary. So Representative Coburn is going to House Commerce this afternoon. She's presenting the amendment, and they are anticipating incorporating it into what they are bringing to you in the morning. And I offered for Representative Coburn to come in with them in case there was any questions. They have agreed to the amendment? It sounds like they have, or they've worked it out. That's what it sounded like. So it's different than the original amendment? I don't know. That's all I know. But there is an email that you could. I would like to see the amendment. I did have some concerns with the amendment. I certainly understand the thoughtfulness behind it, but it would mean almost every hospital would not be eligible for a grant. The way it was written. Seeing it. Yeah, Mary, do you see it? Well, I can see the actual amendment. I'm looking at an email that says she's changed it to a ratio of 20 to one. The highest paid worker could. That means that at a firm where the lowest paid is earning the minimum wage, the highest paid worker could earn over 500,000 before the eligibility criteria would kick in. So it takes. By moving it from 10 to 20 to one. It. Doesn't. Limit it as drastically. As it did. I just would, I would just like a thoughtful analysis. What this means in every, you know, you know. It's a little confusing because the way she wrote in her email was that she was offering it at third reading. And. That was not what I got from somebody else. So. I think you're right. That is an amendment in third reading. Until we know we're just guessing. So we need to put that out. And then we take a position. But I have offered for her to come into the meeting in the morning. And I would like our committee to take a position if, if it's appropriate. Okay. Peter needs to leave for another meeting. And so then at nine, we only have 45 minutes tomorrow for that economic development bill. Linda, are you seeing any hiccups there? Or you've been following it and letting us know. I got to mute you. There you go. Well, Linda, you're muted. She'll have to do it herself probably. Can you unmute yourself? The hiccup. Right. The last few issues was where David was going. David Hall was going to put them together. The hiccup was the issue of double dipping. And that was the question that I was bringing back, but we can discuss that tomorrow when they come in, if you want to, or if you want me to convey what our thoughts are right now. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It came up in the ag bill as well. Okay. And so Chip, you were, um, you had some thoughts and then the group was going to break out, but then the breakout didn't quite work. So my question is, Chip, is this something that you would like the whole committee to discuss now? Or should this be like a committee of three or four that work on it? It certainly would not be a majority. Of members. Sorry, my phone's ringing. I think the committee, I mean, I think if a three or four of us break out, we're going to have to bring it back to the committee anyway. So if we have time, it might make sense to just do it as a whole committee right now. Okay. So as it relates to Linda's. By all, I have to leave. By Peter, we won't make a decision. Um, so, um, what I'm asking, I need some clarification because there's, there's several CRF bills out there and I don't see any, I have Maria here. I don't see anyone from legislative council and I know Mike was working on this and other legislative lawyers were too. The intent. There's different intent in different bills. And I'm not sure that there needs to be consistency because each bill has, has its own, um, you know, they're just not exact templates that we can move from one to the next. And, and so what is it, um, we've had double dipping clauses, um, in other bills to take care of that. What is it that needs to be addressed differently in agriculture? Um, I don't think that the double dipping clause does not cover. That's my question. Uh, Diane, are you answering my question? I hope. I hope. I don't know. I'm going to. We're, I, uh, So, Madam chair, in earlier discussions, you know, I do. I forgot, and I did relay this to representative conquest that it's got an automatic. I forgot that they're automatic. It's not an application or grant process that the, that what they're proposing is the X amount of dollars go out in this manner to everybody with no act application. So that was changing my thinking a little. So I just wrote to the group, and this is for food for thought, or was that if an entity chooses the automatic payment, then then they, they can no longer further apply to the A. C. C. D. Economic. Grants, they might be able to apply for other things that, that we've got out there, but not through those economic doors. But if they choose to not accept the automatic payment, then they can apply for the A. C. C. D. Or which could be a larger in size single support. And then I would say that any of the money left in this. In these rounds, then comes back to the bottom line of, uh, C. R. F. But the bottom line or differences is that forgot that this is an automatic. So if it's automatic, I think we can say, you can take the automatic, but give them the choice or you can say, no, thank you. I would rather apply. So the automatic is only, it's not for the entire bill. It's for certain pieces of the bill. So it's for the entire bill that I see, and I could be wrong. It's for the dairy, dairy producers, cheese producers. I don't know about the forest, but not the non, not the non dairy piece. So that piece. So that wouldn't apply to them. Right. It would only apply to the piece that, um, that are automatic. Okay. It's not, it's not automatic. I mean, you have to apply and, and indicate your economic harm, the loss that you've had. I mean, it's not like we're just sending payments to dairy farmers. Okay. Guard less. They, they, you know, as the bills written that I don't, I mean, I think if you. Apply and, and, um, Meet the administrative requirements, then you'll, then you will get a payment, but it's not. Anyway. Okay. Yeah. Not automatic. Yeah. Then for me that it's like, you can either take that one or you can take, you can apply the other one too. I don't, you know, the automatic part is, I guess it's the amount that's automatic. Up to, no, it's an up to amount. So it's not an automatic payment of X dollars. It's an up on the information that you put in the difference between this and, and the economic development. This is specifically for dairy and forestry. Yeah. Where the others are, are broader. Um, Mary and then Marty and then Linda. I may have misled you and I apologize for that. I didn't mean to. I have a question for Linda. Did, can you tell us, was there a discussion. Of what the grant payments may have. Are likely to be for the commerce people. I don't know what magnitude they are. Uh, I actually can't tell you that, but here's, here's why it came up originally. It was, um, Ellen Kelleher from the Vermont sustainable job funds. And it was a $5 million to working lands funds. And she wanted them to say that the board shall not provide awards to businesses in the dairy sector. I don't know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if you can, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if you can document. They're getting that. Related economics today. Well, once that came up, then the committee started talking about all the various different ones. We, especially they were talking about the creative arts. So if. They applied to one, and then there was another place that they could go to, could they then also. And if they got it on their first application, they would be able to do that. And they would be able to do that. They would be able to do that. They would be able to do that. Looking at all of them. Yeah. The reason I asked about the amount. Was when I look at the amounts that are, thank you for the reminder that it's up to. They are pretty significant grant amounts. Compared to what I believe in the dairy sector. Okay. Compared to what I believe is happening in the commerce bill. I mean, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that the businesses who would, who are not eligible for the dairy money. You know, restaurants and. Retailers who have experienced 75% of loss. What I'm hearing. Is a concern that they'll get maybe. A thousand dollars or $2,000. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point on the dairy side. And that's why I was just trying to find a comparability sort of thing. Yeah. And, and, and, and, you know, I'm not. I haven't been there enough to get this. Specific grants. I have what they have. But they, the, the amounts that are going to each, the sections do not seem to me. Overly. Opulent. I guess. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And so. The ability, the, the issue should come up that, you know, if someone gets $2,000. And they find another venue to go through. Can they also apply to that one? And, and I guess. Are the, the commerce. Do you have a follow-up? Mary, have you ever felt, are you. You have a follow-up or. No, not, I mean. If. Chip, do you know. How much in grants. Do you have a follow-up or a follow-up or a follow-up or a follow-up? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what it is. Are there some who are only going to get a thousand or two, as opposed to the 14 or 15. At the top end. So I can't, I can't say that I've heard testimony about that. I'm sure their testimony has been given and I'm, I don't know what it is. My. I think the. The majority of the. And the blue and milk dairy farmers. Are. The majority are likely to, um, have suffered enough loss that they might be. Near the cap. Um, of. The, the, the up to amount that the cap in. In awards. I think it's different for dairy processors because. You know, you know, You know what, I, I, I take that back. I mean, 14,000. Because I'm not looking at the most recent bill. So I'm. I mean, I'm not looking at the most recent bill. And so dairy processors might not. Reach the, reach the caps, the caps for the dairy farms range from. Um, 42, 42,500 to $110,000. For the largest farms. If. If you. Yeah. You know what? I, I, I, I take that back. I mean. I'm not looking at the most recent bill. Um, I may have that wrong. I can get it, but. If you just do the math. And I, I just divided 700 into 20 million. And I was getting that on average. And I know it's not an average because people get different sizes of different grant amounts. But each one. I can get it back. And that would be. And a half $1,000. That. Tell you what to do as if it would be helpful. Okay. That would be. Yeah. The latest bill we have. And it's on for those. It's the bill that came over from the Senate. It's a 14,500 for small farms. Excuse me, small farms up to 14,000, medium-sized 55,000, and large 100,000, and then there's definitions. Yeah. But if you just do the kind of gross math, and if the new number is 25 million, and if there is- There's a chunk of that going out to processors, though, to cheese makers, and so it's not just to the dairy farmers. But that sector, just generally what we're saying we're going to give to that sector. Is 20 million. Yeah. Well, nowhere, maybe more than that. I mean, they're talking about raising that to maybe 25 million. And just do the math. How many farmers are there? If there are 1,400 farmers to get that whole sector, then you're talking about a $17,000 grant. No, no, because you have to go all the cheese processors. And what's the number of cheese processors and people in the state? Because 5 million of that go to processors, so your group makers, the cheese makers. And I don't know that number. Okay, then go back to my original. How many dairy producers are there? I think they're about 700. No, there's about, well, we lost 14 in May. So there's in the neighborhood of 640. So 640 divided into 20 million dollars. And the wage is 20 million to them and it's 3.8 to producers because it's a total of 22.8 in the Senate bill for ag 22.8. 19 million something for the dairy and 3.8 for the processors. So it is 640 divided by 20 million, which is about the big picture. We're not talking, it doesn't matter if we're talking about whether they get 20,000 or not. The difference in the numbers isn't really important here. The discussion is about whether or not grants on this scale should be given in the dairy industry as opposed to elsewhere. I will just point out that, that some dairy farms are losing $30,000. They're losing $30,000 every time they get a check in there for their milk. So the scale of their loss is also different than the scale of their, then. Grants and other sectors. So in the commerce bill. There is, there is a language about double dipping and there's also language that. You know, you believe that they have to attest somehow, they have to submit documentation that they're not double dipping. Do we do the same thing with the dairy and just follow the same. Money. Converses. The commerce bill doesn't have this in yet. They're asking us what we're, they're asking my, do we do double dipping and should they then consider that and their reduced funds that are going to be going out. Well, I would assume that within the agency with the number of farmers that they have that we could demand the double dipping, but not just on the honor system that they don't do it, but they have to provide documentation. Did, you know, if they received other grants and that they're not applying double money. They're not applying double money. They're not applying double money. They're not applying double money. So that's one expense. But we had some other hands up. I needed to get. Linda, you were responding, but you had your hand up and Marty's had hers. Did you have something additional that and Dave is also. And then back to Mary. Linda. No, let Marty go. That's all right. Marty took my hand down. Oh, thank you. I didn't notice. I wanted to ask Linda, I wanted to ask you about the current, what are the risks that you're considering? Are you considering this that you're, you're considering in the second to budget. The second commerce bill. And are you dividing it up by sectors? Or is it just broad, like before. And what's the eligibility? Are you saying economic harm of a certain percentage? No, what they're talking. Am I on? Yes. So what they're, yes. like $59 million for this commerce bill, and they're talking about 5 million of it is like going to the arts council for the creative arts community, and there will be similar amounts for the various different sections of the businesses, so they're saying can let's look at the Vermont Symphony Orchestra, can they get their benefit out of that 5 million from the arts council, but then is there another way for instance, and they were looking at especially the ones that drew large crowds of people, that if they were losing that amount of money from large crowds of people, would we be agreeable to allowing them or telling them, and they were asking me are we doing it with all the other caches of money that we have through here, but are they signaling out separate groups like the creative arts is one, and they're doing 5 million for some other group, and 5 million for some other group, they are doing 5 million for the arts, and I have the bill in front of me is working 5 million for working lands, 5 million to the Vermont Community Loan Fund for women-owned grants for women-owned businesses, and minority-owned businesses, but again, they're $10,000 and of those, so that's how it's going through right now. They are Department of Tourism and Marketing, 3 million, 1.4 million for OCC of the Office of Economic Opportunity to provide community action grants of not more than $5,000 to provide technical assistance because they're offering technical assistance, it's just going on and on. I'm supposed to go back there at some point in time, they're sitting around waiting for David to come up with some language, and they're going to let me know and I'm going to go back to them to see what we might have thought about this. We may be. Go ahead, Marty. Well, I was just going to comment, I think it's unfortunate that they had broken it all up by sectors as opposed to just leaving it wide open and say anybody that's thought, you know, 50% loss of income or something like that, because then we could have this definition of economic harm and you either use your economic harm problem in the dairy industry or you use it in the big broad ACC area, but that's not the way they're going and so it looks like we've got 12 different buckets out there that people could choose from and then we have the problem of you're going to have to stay within your own bucket. Well, I will tell you that they, you know, had originally said that they weren't going to divide it up into sections, it was going to be kind of here's the money and now all of a sudden this whole issue of the creative economy is what they're referring to in terms of the arts has come up and they want to give this money to the Arts Council for that. So Linda, out of the larger amount has most of it been identified or is the larger amount still a chunk to go out to businesses? There's still a larger chunk that's going out to businesses, okay. The five million right now is for the creative economy, but then there's 59 million in now for all of the other businesses that would be coming to them for money. Okay, so the 75 went out to all the larger group and another 59, 60 is easier for my math is to the larger group and then there has been, so 86, so about 21 million has been identified in smaller chunks. Right, now there is, again, that's five million for the working lands funds in addition, so that's why it brought the number down to 59 million. Okay, thank you. Can I ask Linda a question? Yes, go ahead. A couple things, because in the quarter budget or was in the BAA, didn't we put a significant amount of money in for working lands from the CRF fund? We put one million dollars in. Not closer to, okay, well that's good, that's good. And then my other question is the Arts Council, which is much, the direct, I don't know which is, I think it was like the Corvall number two budget that went out, that went directly, Vermont got about 400 or half a million dollars to just go directly out to Arts. That came in and went out like, yes, that's already gone. Right, it's already gone. I just wanted if the committee took into consideration that if you got that, can you not apply for this is another issue, because that would be another COVID dollar support, that they've already went through that application process. That was in tier one, right? Yeah. Yeah, no, well, no, it was it was direct. It was different. It was different money that came through the state. It wasn't part of 1.25. It was that whole spreadsheet that I call it the latest spreadsheet that, you know, that they had brought us very early on that was going out directly. Okay. Okay, I'm going to move to Dave. You've had a while and then I'll be back to Mata and then back up to you, Mary. Thank you. I have a couple of thoughts. My understanding is the overall pot of funds that we're dealing here are stimulus funds. And if I'm correct that what the guiding principle should be, will these dollars stimulate anything? Where I'm headed to on this is the sustainability question. I've been speed reading the 24 page ag bill. So I may have missed it, although I've read it twice, but it speaks of harm. Demonstrate your harm. You're eligible for some help and depending on the amount of your size. But the, just yesterday, and you might remember the question on the floor from one of the members, I think from Springfield and Representative Donnie, you and I both said the same thing. You have to be able to demonstrate you're sustainable. So why would we for an adult day or a nursing home or home health agency say, I'm sorry, you're not getting any help because it's clear you're not sustainable. But yet in another sector where I don't see that it has to be sustainable. Now I would be willing to let someone double or triple dip all they could with different applications as long as they had, they could show some sustainability. If not, I don't think we're stimulating anything. We're giving somebody money, it might be half a loaf here, and they pay some bills, which is very important to them. But I'm not sure we're stimulating the economy if they go under. Having said that, while I am a champion of working lands and agriculture and appreciate the impact on agri-tourism, maybe our ag industry is in such dire straits that it's not about sustaining, it's a lifeline, and hoping something additional comes along later. It could be that bad. Chip and others know a lot more than I do about it. So I was trying to offer something. I was trying to say yes to the dipping, but there ought to be a question of sustainability. We've done it on healthcare. Why wouldn't we do it on others? And I don't know if there's a draft person in the Hollywood squares here today. I can't see them, but it may already be in the bill. And if so, I apologize. The double-dipping, Dave, I look at as two different things, and maybe we need to clarify what the committee considers double-dipping. I'm thinking of double-dipping as I'm getting money from two different pots to pay the same bill or to help, you know, patchworking is different to me than double-dipping, that I have $10 in need and I can get $250 here and I can get $250 there. But if I can get 10 from you and 10 somewhere else, that's double-dipping to me, and you can't pay the same bill twice. But if I have $10 in need, it's just like going to college. I'm going to apply for every grant that I can get to patchwork together. And so I think our committee first has to decide, is it okay to patchwork? I mean, part of this, you know, there is this honor system, but then how do we do, there's going to be an auditing system. So anyone who takes this money takes it under, you know, we need to put it in there that you have to spend it as you're saying you're going to. And you can't, obviously, if it's already been paid for under penalties of perjury, you're, you know, you can't pay for the same bill twice and get away with that. But is there some kind of mechanism where entities that, if we think patchworking is okay, that they have to attest that these are the needs and that they're putting this money solely to that need and it's not being covered by something else? Thank you for that clarification, Kitty. Well, and I'm kind of asking a question too. I get it. And I would agree with what you said. Let them do all the patching they can, but we don't want to pay them twice for the same bill. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. No, no, no, I'm done. I'm sorry. Meada, looking right at you. I didn't know you were looking right at me. Okay. So following right along on that, because I've been sitting here feeling very simple-minded and didn't know if it was worth offering, why can't it be going along with this patchworking concept? Why can't it be that if an entity has received CRF money through one of the mechanisms that we're putting out there, but it comes nowhere near dealing with all of the harm that they've suffered when they make application because everybody's got to be applying for these grants and all. When they make the application, part of what has to be listed is we got X amount in CRF already for X, Y, and Z purposes. And here's why we need additional and why we're making the application from this other pot within the CRF. I don't know if that's useful or not, but it seems to me it could work. I wonder, let me get back to Mary and then Kimberly. Dave, is your hand back up? Just I just want to make sure I get back to people. So Mary and Kimberly. So I'm in the get-or-done mode. I believe that the parameters of the ag bill are more or less set. I think it would probably be very hard to go back in now and deal with the sustainability and there are other ways to allocate this out, even though that, and I say that, having begun there and wanting to do that. The reason I was reflecting on kind of what the average amount of a grant could be there is because it strikes me that compared with other opportunities, it's pretty substantial, particularly with the way the program's written, which is, if there's still money left in the pot, you can reapply. And other folks don't have that in the other grant programs that are being set up. So I would leave that alone, the general framework, notwithstanding how much I like the sustainability notion, but I would say you are, if you choose to be in that program and to receive those grants, then you cannot come over and receive the grants that for which you may be eligible in the others, perhaps for the time being. So leave the ag people in the ag pot and keep the other pot free for other people. And then in the other pot, the commerce pot, we can have the patchwork double dipping conversation. But let's just separate out the two and say, if you choose to participate on the ag side, at least for the time being, you may not come over here and participate in the commerce bill side because you got your own special bill. One of the things we need to pay attention to, this money needs to get out the door. And we cannot make this a really complicated process or slow people down while they try to sort, should I do this or should I do that? We need to keep it simple. And so that's my thought for the moment. Can I ask a clarifying question of Mary just about that? When you say you can't come over, let's say in the commerce pot, do you mean in order to address your milk income losses or do you mean for anything? Not knowing or understanding the ag world, my inclination is to say for most anything out of the commerce pot. I guess I presume and so I'm not talking about the other federal programs like the payroll protection and all about which it's not our job to think about. But at least for the time being, we may want to realize that we're just trying to push this out and we're going to be here, God help us in six weeks when we can rethink the whole thing, when we see how everything has worked and has it worked or not. And at which point, we may know that we're not succeeding on the ag side and we may need to grant more money there or that there's too much money in the cultural side. We can reevaluate in September. I'll wait my turn to respond. I didn't hear you. I just said I'll wait my turn to respond to that. Okay, I need, I have Kimberly that has been waiting and then I came in a tad late because I was in human services, but I heard that there are no car routes for this second piece of commerce, Linda. But the question I have is, has the criteria shifted? What is the criteria, even if there are car routes or there aren't car routes? Well, as I see it right now, there are car routes. I mean, in a sense, because if you're telling the creative economy that you're giving them $5 million, that's a car route, right? It goes to the arts council, which then distributes the money. In also in the bill, they're giving the Vermont's sustainable job funds, once $5 million to go to working land funds. That's another car route. Right. Can I just pause for a minute? I do understand that there are the car routes My question is, for the piece that's remaining after the car route, do we have solid criteria? I haven't heard them say anything about that, specific criteria. Is it still the 50% loss, Linda? Is it still that they have to have achieved 50% loss? Yes. Kimberly, did you have a follow up? Yeah. So the answer is for the pot that is, so to speak, outside the car routes, it's a 50% loss. Right. Okay, thank you. Let's see, my screen jumps around so I know where my last hand was, but I think, Diane, you're up and then Chip. So I know that we're wrestling with and we need to get things done, and I agree that we need to get the money out fast and all of that. What I'm wrestling with right now is the differential in the amount of money for, just in the amount of money, we've got tens of thousands of businesses with a pot that's down to 50 million, and then we've got 640 that have 20 million. That's where I'm really wrestling with is the disproportionate, not because there's not need and people have lost, but it just seems a little less equitable with the dollars that we have. And I know that we're not going to be able to totally change any of that, but if you're going to be a part of the bigger pot, then I don't think you can, there's tens of thousands of businesses on this side, but I want to make sure that I can take eggs, peace in the mind. So what is our job? What is our job here in this committee is to balance it? Right, our job is to also, I think our job is to also make sure it's a process, it's easy, but it's a process that's not taken advantage of as well. Yeah. Chip. So it's a good conversation. I appreciate it, and I appreciate all the points that Mary made, and I'm only going to disagree on the last little decision point there. I would remind us that Vermonters as a whole, and dairy farmers are no different, dairy farm families, tend to have lots of different things they do in order to make a living, right? I mean, I think that's something that people have recognized about the life here in Vermont, and it's true, just as true, maybe more so, but at least as much for dairy farm families that they have a number of different enterprises that they do to try to make a living as a whole, or some people work off the farm, some on the farm. To me, that recognition makes me want to say, absolutely, I agree that if you're getting support for your loss of income in your fluid milk check, and we have a program for that, you shouldn't go over to some other program that's in a commerce bill in order to get help making up that loss in your fluid milk. But if I think it was Marty or somebody else brought up, if one of the things that your family needs to do is to have a rental property where you fixed up the house on your farmland and renting it out as part of your income, and now you have rental arrearages, if there's a program to address that, I think that you ought to be able to take advantage of that. It seems to me that those are separated enough to my mind that makes sense to allow people to take advantage of sort of one program in each of those sectors of their family's livelihood, if that's what they need to do. I think to me it's always worth remembering that the scale of the loss for dairy while compared to businesses as a whole in Vermont may not be that different, but each one of them is just more money goes through and out of those dairy farms than in almost any other business in Vermont. So people are losing on the neighborhood of 30,000, 60,000 in some instances of lost income every time they get a check. And so I know that in that bill it does say that if there's any money left over, it will revert. I can't imagine there's any money left over. It's in the first two months for March and April, the losses were calculated to be $40 million. So it doesn't seem like that pot is going to go far enough to have any money left over, but I'm getting down the road, really I'm just saying I think you ought to be able to be confined to one program to make up for your losses in that area and not be able to go to commerce for more make up losses in that same area. But if you have a different part of your family's livelihood that you need help with, and it's a different program that you should be able to do that. Okay, a common theme here though, the two big programs are the commerce program and the dairy program. And would you put the forestry piece into within these two bills that if you take advantage of one, you don't go to the other. However, if you have another business entity or you qualify for something else, that you are able to apply for the rental assistance or to public service for assistance on your utility bills. Is that a common theme that Mary, you are saying that if you apply for one, you don't apply for anything else? I hear this and there's not enough to go around. I would lay bets that state and main street businesses in Montpelier for the two hardest months of shutdown saw $40 million in losses. I can do that doing the calculation of what I know certain restaurants lost. And so it's the equity piece. And they are just as much as the heart and soul our beautiful built environment is just as important as those working lands. And I'm struggling with the different access to money that is being experienced there. I'm just not resolved yet on that. I keep repeating the same thing and I need to stop and let other people talk. Marty, thank you, Mary. Marty. I see in all the bills that we have passed are considered so far. We have carved out or attempted to carve out something for dairy, something for forestry, something for working lands, and then something for health care, health the health stabilization fund. And it seems to me that if we have carved out those four areas and now maybe they want to carve out creative arts as well, that then you try to recover your economic harm from the area in which you belong. And if you don't belong in any of those, which is restaurants and everybody else, you go to the general funds that are available under commerce. I could see that in addition, if somebody also had utility arrearages or they also had a rental problem that they could apply under those, because those are not based, they're not carved out by industry, they're carved out by a use. So my suggestion, not on how we do it, is that say if people have tried to recover their economic harm by going directly to either dairy, forestry, working lands, the health stabilization, or creative arts, that that's where they go. And that everybody else goes to the big pot that was the 70 million and this now 59 million apparently. Okay, we're back on that theme. This is going to, I'm going to move into the MADA camp of simplicity a little bit and the expediency is we're talking about different entities that are all businesses. They're all businesses in Vermont. And why isn't this just one bill? Why isn't it just a business or an economic development bill, which includes that the money that it's not 59 and 20 and 13, you know, and I know the carve outs are important for these smaller groups, but it could be one bill where they just all apply to one place. They all have to apply now that it's not automatic and they all have to apply. Why isn't it not 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 million dollars in a pot that says businesses, this is what you apply to except for like Marty had said with certain areas you can go to first, which is like the arts or something. It's just really simplistic, sorry. Thank you, Diane. And then we're going to go to Dave and then we're going to find some resolution here. In the spirit of trying to offer resolution, I'm going to try to build off what Marty said. Propose a categorical approach that we have a needs-based categorical approach that people stay within their industry category with the exception for any other side supports like rental or utility. Diane, you make a good point, but I think we're past that. I think we're too late. That was the governor's proposal, not being critical of him, but it wouldn't have helped the state colleges, it wouldn't have helped child care, etc. And that's why people started to do some of these sector carve outs. So in any event, following what Marty said, we have industry categories. You stay within your category of industry, but you're eligible for any additional support that anyone else might be able to get from a benefit program. Dave, you do bring up a big, a good question and I don't want to compare or talk about the governor's program versus ours. But when we think about economic development, we have to remember we chose to keep the state colleges going and that would have been a huge crush to many areas of the state had those closed. And so the millions that we've been putting in there and our commitment for bridge funding, that really is part of the economic development total. It's not totally educated. And there's other areas throughout if we go through the other dollars that have already gone out the door. And as we said, our hospitals are huge economic engines and not only are they a healthcare system, but they double as an economic, that was also economic recovery by keeping those entities sustainable. And so I don't want to get hung up on dollars at the end because sometimes dollars serve in two areas. And so I went to your point somehow, but now I've spun out of your point. So it sounds like there's a categorical approach here. And I think Dave has a point about the trains already down the track. And Diane, you have a good point, but I think we've gone beyond at this point knowing that we need to get these dollars out. And for the administration, for the Senate and for at least members of the House, the dairy piece got carved out on all three sides, you know, in all three areas. And so now that the carve out is there, do we want to do a categorical approach where if you apply for, if you're a dairy farm and you apply for that grant, then you don't apply in the grants that Mike Markoff, his committee, is working on. That seems to be the theme that I keep hearing. And so I think at this point, if you want to keep working in that theme, I'd like to see a raise of hands because if we don't have a majority, we're not going to go down that road. If you want to keep going where we do some kind of categorical approach where then we'll decide if it's patchwork or not. But if you want to do a categorical approach where if you go for the arts or for dairy, you don't go for the commerce one, that raise your hand if you want to go down that approach. I think so, but I want to make sure I understand that so if I apply in dairy and I have a different business or my farm family has a different business, can they apply in? That's the next vote. That's the next vote. Okay. This is just for the big economic development grants for your business. So I have one, two, three, four, five. I have five. Do I have one, two, three, four? You got to put your hands up longer. Don't take them down yet. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Okay. I think some are real and some are blue. So we have a majority vote there. So we're going to do something there. Now my next question for the committee is if you have applied for a grant, no matter who you are, as long as you don't double dip and pay the same bill twice or the same need twice, do you feel that if you are an individual who received a grant for your small business, should you be able to, and you have apartment houses too, should you be able to apply for rental assistance for other programs? That's the example I'm going to use. Or if you apply for one thing, you don't apply for anything else. So yes, if you want to be able to do some patchworking to meet your needs and a no vote if you want one grant and one grant only. So if you agree with patchworking that if you have like two separate needs and you can go to multiple areas and to get money as long as you don't pay the same bill twice, raise your hand if you agree with that path. Okay, good there. Okay, now how do we write language? That's where we need legislative counsel. I'm not writing it. So back to the one with Derry, are we including all the other sectors in there too? So if you apply, if you're an arts person, you have a choice. You can apply through the arts grant or you can apply through economic development, but you don't do it twice. Is that what we're agreeing to? If you're a Derry person, I can either apply to my Derry program or the other one, but I can't do both. I'm just, I'm slightly hesitating because I'm thinking there must be businesses that I can't think of at this very second that don't fall neatly into a sector and that's what's just giving me slight pause here. It may apply for the regular economic development grant. We're just singling out those few sectors that have been singled out. So Bob. Madam Chair, whatever we do, however we do it, I guarantee you, there'll be some crossovers or some bump intos and there'll be some issues. So we might as well admit to that, formulate what we feel is reasonably correct and go with that. Or we're going to be talking about it for another week. Right. We're not going to be able to solve every problem. You're right. Exactly. And somebody will figure out a way to, you know, get around it. But I need a legislative council. We've never, who's our drafter, Maria? We've never. I'll try to get somebody. I just know that there's plenty of, there's a lot of people in house commerce, I think right now. So let me just see who's actually, if we could talk to house commerce, that would be really good. Can we merge in and maybe we could all do. Yeah. I wish there was a way to do that. That would be great. Wouldn't it merge two committees? I know. Mary, you perfect very well. Let me see what's going on over there and I'll get back to you in a minute. Okay, Dave, can I ask, like what are they looking at? I try to find Dave the bill on their website. I see the amendment. You said 24 pages, but I found a 14 page bill. I'm looking. I don't have a draft of it. No, I'm looking at commerce's page. Right. And they're doing a working draft right now, Diane. So anything you don't watch, don't look at it. Is that correct, Linda? Yeah. I have the 14 pager, but you're right. They're, they're moving around. Mary, what's our timeframe? Do we have to vote this out tonight? No, we have four. We have to have it ready to go tomorrow morning. Tomorrow morning. The dairy bill we could, we could do that's going to move separately. So the dairy and forestry bill could move out. I'd like it tomorrow afternoon at the latest. And S 349 made a, we'll put a proposal on the, on the table tomorrow. Commerce is on a break. We can invite Mark, Mike Markot to our committee. I just got a text. Teresa, do you want to do that to grab Mike? And maybe we can resolve this right now with Mike and Diane. Who is that? Hang on one second. And I'll send him the link. Yes. Diane, the bill I was looking at came to us in an email from Teresa Tuesday at 541 p.m. S 351. If you want to look at it. FYI. Oh, that's the ag bill. Yes. I've got that. Yeah. I thought you were looking at the commerce bill. No, no, I was looking at eggs. Oh, okay. No number for that one yet. No, I looked at the ag bill. Yeah. Hey, Bill, I'd like to get out Friday if we can't get it out. Friday, Monday is the drop dead dime, but it because it's moving in a separate bill. This is the big one that we have to move. And I'm looking for Mike Markot's number. Teresa. What? Did you find Mike Markot? I'm, I'm emailing him right now. Is that our biggie's kidding? We have commerce ag government ops quarter bill. Yeah. Why don't we take a five minute break? Yeah. Let's do a break. Coffee. And I'll try to find Mike. We'll come back in about five or 10 minutes.