 start our morning with H716, which is the bill that would give permanent lifetime fishing and hunting licenses to members of the Native American tribes. And I don't know whether we'll be able to finish with that this morning, but Ellen has come back with a redraft based on what we did yesterday. And we are also assuming that we have time and I think we will spend some time on education finance. Scott has done some work on a an idea on how to guess the way it characterizes how to bridge sort of some of the questions that we have about 21. And he's going to talk about that. And the other piece of business I wanted to take care of was the Hartford Tiff yesterday we voted the bill. I neglected to ask anybody to report it. And so I asked Peter Anthony if he would do that. And he said he would. So he's going to report that bill out. And Peter, I wonder if you could make sure that representative Christie knows that it's coming out and sort of what the timing is. But happy to do that. Great. Thank you. So unless someone on the committee has an announcement or a question before we get started, I and I don't see any hands. So I think I'll ask Ellen to walk us through the redraft that was based on yesterday's discussion of age seven and six. And Lois Porter is here with us. If we have questions for the department. All right, good morning. My name is Ellen Chekowski. I'm with the Office of Legislative Council. And as the chair just said, I'm here on age seven one six, an act relating to avanecki hunting and fishing licenses. You all discussed this bill yesterday. And I have drafted an amendment to it based on the conversation you had. It is posted on the website. And it is now on the screen. So the changes that I made are in yellow. And you did also pose some questions that you wanted me to look into. So I can talk about those as well. So so first in in drafting this bill, you can see that it starts with section 44 55, which is the license fee section. And there are a number of other permanent or free licenses in this section. So I added this language here, so that we didn't have to build any additional or new structure for creating this for creating a new license. What we're doing is we're really just saying that this group of people can have a free permanent license. So in having a license, you have to follow the requirements. And so so one of the questions you did have yesterday was whether or not there when the members would need to comply with the hunter safety course requirement. So the requirements for holding a hunting license are more generally are in another section. I do think they would apply to this section. But I do think it could have been a little more clear. So I did add the language that's in yellow. And I think it makes it a little more clear. So section seven A now reads, a certified citizen of a state recognized Native American Indian tribe may receive a free permanent fishing license, or if the person qualifies for a hunting license, a free permanent combination hunting and fishing license. And that references the qualifications for a hunting license, which does require a hunter safety course, or previous proof of such a course or proof of holding a license. Questions anyone has? I think I understand it. I've looked at it twice now. So it took me a minute. But so it has this word qualify is what matters. Right. Yeah. Right. There aren't any such qualifications for fishing licenses. That's why they're sort of teased out. So if a person doesn't do the hunter safety course, they can have a free fishing license. But if they do the qualification, they can get the combination license. So then I'm sorry, Pat has a question. Oh sure. Thank you. Going back to line 13, section seven A. What does it mean by a certified citizen of a state recognized Native American Indian tribe? Does that does that mean any Native American Indian tribe in the country? No. No, so there are four state recognized Native American Indian tribes in Vermont. Those are listed and established in title one chapter 23. So I tried to mirror that language exactly. And so no, it's just limited to the Vermont state recognized tribes. Okay, but the way I'm not going to question you, but I'm thinking a certified citizen of a state recognized means any state. Would it be helpful to make reference to the definition in title one? Or is that inferred? I'm not sure. I thought it was inferred. If it would help to clarify, we could add Vermont state recognized Native American Indian tribe. That would that might help clarify things. I mean, if somebody from out of state out west were to read that, I would take it to mean that they could come in and get a free permanent fishing license or hunting license. Just by reading line 13. That's just me, I guess, but Well, I think what we meant was Vermont. So Yeah, if we mean Vermont, maybe we should say that. Right. Alan, does that do anything else that we're not aware of? I don't think so. I don't normally work on the Damien is the attorney in our office that normally handles the Native American issues. And so I don't think so. I can, I can double check with him. He did look at this and did not see an issue there. So I can add Vermont if that would help clarify it. What I think would be because I don't know what it means to say a Vermont. So that's sort of a new concept. I, I would just say a state recognized Native American Indian tribe as defined in section blah, blah, blah, title one, whatever, whatever it is. That to me, that is absolutely clear that we're talking about that definition, as opposed to introducing a new concept of Vermont state. Sure. Right. So, so I think that yeah, chapter one of title 10 establishes the process by which a tribe can be recognized by the state of Vermont. So and then it's and then it lists the tribes that have been recognized. So I would refer to the list. Okay. I think that is that does that work for? Jenny, you had your hand up. Yeah. I think what you said, recognizing the statute, the title where recognition recognition occurs is the best way to to use it here. The best way to define what we're talking about. So I had I appreciate you raising the issue and we don't need to do all the drafting here. But but I think if you can, if you if you if Alan, if you want to check with Damian, that's fine. However, you want to do it. But it probably be good to make it clear. Okay. Okay. So let's see. So back to the bill. So you did also have a discussion about minors yesterday. So in rewriting some of the language about the minors, I pulled it out into its own section just because it was becoming a bit wordy. So the new language I added reads, a minor may receive a permanent, free, permanent fishing license, or if the minor qualifies for a hunting license, a free permanent combination hunting and fishing license. Upon submission of a current and valid tribal identification card, or upon written certification from the minors, parent or guardian, who is also a certified citizen of a state recognized Native American Indian tribe, that the minor is a citizen of a state recognized Native American Indian tribe. So you did have a discussion about this yesterday. So by way of background, I do not know the exact age at which members of the tribe receive their card. And so I added the or either they can present their card or have written certification from their parent or guardian. So that is the choice that I made. I know that you did ask for the language about parent or guardian, who is a certified citizen. I initially drafted this to be as broad as possible to cover people who are members who are certified citizens. I don't I do not know a lot about the tribal members, but I do I can think of a few situations in which a child would be a member of a tribe, but their parent or guardian would not be a member of the tribe. If they were living with a family member, who is their guardian or if they were living with or if they had been adopted. I think there are other situations in which the child might not be living with a person who is a member of the tribe. So that's something to consider. Let me see if there's questions, Emily. I went to that same place around adoption and concerns about that. And I don't want to get too lost in every eventuality, but it does seem problematic that the parent or guardian has to be a certified citizen. It might even, you know, I could even see a situation where it was something that was very important to a 15-year-old to become a certified citizen and for whatever reason it was not important to that person's parent who might, you know, be a Benike heritage but not interested in becoming a citizen. I don't know. Do you have ideas for a workaround there? So my only thought was under current law, children 16 and under have to have their parent or guardian sign their license anyways. So written certification of some kind seems to make sense for minors. My other thought is that section 4267 of title 10 prohibits any false statements on an application for a license. Those are prohibited as a minor fish and wildlife violation. So if there's concern that someone would sign up their child for a free license who was not actually qualified, that is already prohibited by statute. Emily, are you done for the moment, Jim? Yeah, my concern yesterday had to do with, I guess, Patrick's question about someone wandering in from Oklahoma or something like that and with a minor in tow or something and trying to get a free hunting and fishing license. And I'm not sure the best way to word it. I think the way Ellen has worded it works for me. I don't find it particularly problematic but I'm just trying to establish some guardrails so that things don't get out of hand. And if there's a more convenient way to word it that does the same thing, then that's fine by me. Emily? Thanks, I had a long pause because I wanted to scroll Sorcia's computer and I couldn't, so I was bringing it for my own. My concern is that the requirement that the parent must be a certified citizen is still seems to be, the parent or guardian, is also a certified citizen. Still seems to be in this language and couldn't it just be that the parent or guardian certifies that the youth is eligible to be a certified citizen and that would solve Jim's concern but also make allowances for adoption and such? Jim, you were the one who had the concern. I think I'm with Emily. I think I would just say that they have to certify and the department will have to deal with the question about whether they fit within the definition that we've created here. But I want to be sure your concerns are addressed. Well, generally this is all going in a good direction, I think. In most tribes, I can't speak for all tribes, but when a child is born or adopted in a Native American family that's recognized, the children are automatically recognized as in my offspring are recognized, for example, so that there might be some instance where a youngster whose parents are blowing off recognition goes to the tribe and has to be recognized or included on tribal roles, actually, this way would be. Those situations may exist and if Emily's language accommodates that a little better, that's fine. So, Louis has something that might be helpful to us. Thank you. I just wanted to point out that from my perspective, there will be virtually no way for us to check this. Anybody can go in and certify we don't have access to the roles of the tribes. We don't have authority to even know what the criteria on which membership is based, and we'll have no way to check if somebody's child is actually a member of the tribe. It is, of course, against statute to falsify these. I can tell you we frequently have people falsify the pledge they make that they have passed hunter safety, which is just to save themselves a day of time in a hunter safety class, not to save themselves tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime in under license fees. So I can promise you that there will be a large number of people who certify their children are members of the tribe and we will have almost no way to check that. Thank you. Louis, is that true with or without the language that Emily's put forward here? Well, I think if they're at least presenting a membership card or at least they are presenting that they are a member of the tribe, that helps because it gives us at least a little bit of a way to check that they are connected in some way to the tribe. I'm willing to take the hit and remove and frankly, in the end, eliminate positions to save the money that it costs to provide licenses to members. I'm not willing to eliminate people's jobs to provide them to people who are not members. That's what I'm trying to get at here. I'm trying to be clear what you're recommending then. Are you saying that the language that Emily's put forward here is better than the bill as it came in and that it at least goes part way to address what you're talking about? Yes, I think it's reasonable to ask that people either have a membership card for their child or that they are a member of the of the band. I don't think that there's any age limit on becoming a member or getting a certification card that says you're a member. So if people, if I was the guardian of a member but I am not a member myself, I can get a membership card I expect for my child. This is probably throwing a monkey wrench into things, but what if we said if we stopped online 20 after the word guardian and oh I'm sorry we took out the who was also a certified citizen but added a senate saying that the department may require the parent to to show a card or whatever the so that so that you don't have to it isn't a requirement in every single case but you can impose it in a case where you think there might be an issue. Right or or you could eliminate the entire section dealing with minors and just say you need to present a citizenship card whatever age you are get get rid of the guardian part it and eliminate the entire section dealing with minors and just say you know you need to present a citizenship card. Keep in mind that people don't have to have a fishing license until they're 15 although they do have to have a hunting license if they're going to hunt alone. Emily but they can't hunt when they're two years old right you have to be certain. We don't have any age limit on hunting you have to be able to pass hunter safety and and not have the instructor turn you. Right yeah Emily. Lewis I appreciate what you said I don't really know anything about any of this and so what I want to understand here is are you saying that someone can become a certified citizen of a state recognized Native American Indian tribe at any point in their life. Sure. You do that if they're 12 or 9 or whatever they can that's available for all four recognized tribes. You know I I hesitate to speak because I on this because I'm not I don't have a role in that and I don't know the processes for each of the bands. I I would be surprised if there was a limit an age limitation on becoming a member of the band but I encourage you to reach out to the Commission on Native American Affairs for an answer on that. Because if that's true then getting rid of all of this certification stuff would be great. Which is why I suggest it. Yeah but I would want to make sure that was true first. Yes and it's gotten much too complicated. It'll it'll figure it out. Okay Jim. Yeah I think Lewis is correct and I think that to explain a little bit about becoming a citizen if one is on the tribal roles of such and such a band that person is a citizen and that's basically by virtue of of birth and genealogy occasionally by adoption but for instance shortly after birth an infant child of Native American tribe can be entered into the roles and that person is then a citizen regardless of age and that can happen late in life too if someone finds out that sure enough they can establish clear Native American lineage part of the tribe tracing to the tribes members then okay fine that person is entered onto the tribe tribal roles and then as a citizen of the tribe. So the recommendation that is on the table at the moment is to remove the entirely is that what I'm understanding and that requires that there be some some communication just to confirm that you can become a citizen at any age so that we're not excluding I mean obviously you have to be able to pass the hunter safety course and I suppose Rod okay Peter if we lose the entire section as I recall unless it's elsewhere and I've forgotten it Director Porter did say that upon request at least a membership card or some form of certification would be language allowing the warden to request that or the issuer of a license to request that would be helpful it does say when we're not taking out a we're just taking out b okay I think that's right I wasn't hearing where we're gonna move remove a okay that does it then thanks am I am I right everybody nobody's answering me that's what I heard and that language is in a thank you just reminds me of when my kids were four and six and I used to talk and nobody answered so okay uh why don't you um continue for sure I have one other thing I wanted to add um broadly so there was a question yesterday about whether or not um general enforcement would provisions would apply to holders of these licenses and the answer is yes um the way that title 10 is framed is that it discusses wildlife violations uh and enforcement regardless if someone is holding a license and so uh this isn't creating a new class or type of license where people don't have to uh follow the law this is just uh giving a free license and that comes with the responsibility of following the law so there's there isn't anything different about this license other than that it is free and the way the way you've structured 7a I think makes that even more clear so I appreciate that so the other two changes um in the bell yep so then uh in section two uh the commissioner requested that we push out the reporting date um until uh two additional years so that there were three years covered by this so uh section two requires that the commissioner report back january 15th 2024 about how many licenses have been issued pursuant to this section and then I also changed the effective date in section three to january 1 2021 okay um so uh questions from the committee um so the the where I'm understanding this at the moment is that um we're going to consider uh removing b 7b so there would just be a 7 no a no oh you don't need a letter there um and excuse me we're going to um uh Ellen's going to confirm that referring to the list in title one is the best way to make sure that we're we've defined this we uh this is going to apply the way we think it's going to um and um with respect to be I guess I'm going to ask um Emily I wonder if you would be willing to pursue the question about whether this is um gonna work out but gonna work the way we think it's going to um and if we need to hear from somebody if you could let Sorsha and me know who it is that we need to hear from if it's just a matter of talking to somebody and confirming um I'm okay with that but if committee members want to actually have a witness then we'll do that as well um and so what I'd like to do is um at least get a show of hands on um on what we have at this point um we can't vote it until we've checked out those two things and so um and have a final draft in front of us so same I was just gonna say I like the idea if it works obviously of you should have a card in order to get the license I don't know if that works in all instances but that would be the cleanest in my mind yeah Pat uh I I've been sitting here thinking about my main concern about the loss of revenue and I had a brainstorm which may or may not be very well accepted um you know we for years our fishing accesses and boat ramps and boat launches and stuff have been um available to everyone whether they pay registration or use fees uh or not and if your boat is registered if you have a hunting or fishing license you are able to use those facilities and you do pay a user fee um but non motorized vehicles um is where I'm headed do not and have not and enjoy the use of those facilities um to this day and I think I I might offer an amendment to um recapture some of the lost revenue uh that would include an access user fee to all watercraft you know it had to be crafted uh I think there's a bill in the senate as a matter of fact it does just that um and it may fill the void created by this bill uh maybe maybe essentially leveling things off as far as loss of revenue um but it's it it was it's a quick thought and um it may need some uh fine tuning but I'd like to throw that out there and I don't know how fast we're moving on this bill but if it's going to be voted on today I I may have to do a floor amendment but I'd like to anyway put something together uh Scott and Robin um I just my two cents um I'd like the direction of the conversation this morning of um turning this into a two-step process citizenship and then application for for a um license I think that's a a good direction um I'm also you know sensitive to uh fishing game taking a revenue hit on this and um I'm not sure if uh if a new fee is the answer or the uh modification uh changing at some an existing fee but um you know we we're this is a you know it's a maybe a well thought out um so um for the Abenaki and other tribes to right the wrongs but um of the past but it's still a still revenue hit for fishing game and I think that we should we should talk about that uh Robin um thank you um I also like I like where this bill is going and and I understand it's about the revenue hit and um somebody who canoes in the Otter Creek I would be willing to pay to register my canoe um but I'm wondering uh Pat if um if you look at h 581 which is up for second reading today which is the funding of the Department of Fish and Wildlife if you're going to put an amendment somewhere seems to me that that would be the more appropriate place to put an amendment I have not read the bill so I can't claim to you know the title sounds good for what you're talking about I'm looking at it right now to see if I can find anything that's close to what's in there yeah yeah um uh uh Jim and oh I'm sorry Ellen okay yeah I mean to raise your hand because you don't have a blue hand go ahead um I just wanted to add something quickly that was not discussed yesterday um so the license does not include any of the tags that a person must purchase for big game or birds in addition they will need a second archery license if they want to take a second deer so um if a person is hunting they will need to purchase the add-ons um so that's just another piece of information um I have Jim and then Peter um yeah a couple of things um I wouldn't object have a problem with um some sort of registering for canoes and kayaks and stuff like that although I think would drive the general population out there crazy even though it's fair um if we do that we're likely also to see an amendment by somebody that we should register bicycles because we hear about what a pain in the neck they are on the roads at least that's an opinion and if those things were to hit the floor I'd prefer them to see I would prefer to see them in another bill rather than um messing up this bill about Native American fishing licenses and hunting licenses because I think um the broader discussion about registering freebies free riders um would um likely spend um take us a long time on the floor and get us nowhere and um so anyway that's my 10 cents on this thank you Peter uh yes I'm with Jim I really would not like to make what potentially is controversial even more so and I'd rather have it clean I do agree with Pat that this is increasingly a problem for fishing and uh wildlife uh I I am delighted that Ellen reminded me that if we're going to right or wrong as a moral issue uh we really ought not to only do a small job uh at just the license fee but the other add-ons and I'm sorry being not a regular person I did not in that area I just didn't think of that and I would be eager to hear from commissioner Porter I'm surprised that the committee of origin and representative Lefebvre didn't didn't say anything about the add-ons um but anyway I'd rather have this bill be focused simply on Native Americans right to hunted fish as is historically uh our moral promise so I can respond slightly to that um so the natural resources committee did discuss that and part of the discussion and I'm I'm not a fiscal analyst but part of the discussion was that that would potentially recoup some of the losses um in revenue if they were having to pay some of these add-on fees um there would be potentially new people joining the hunting sport and so those people would be paying these additional fees it would be significantly less than the cost of the license but it would be some revenue um so I I don't know you know I'm not an analyst but that was a conversation that they thought was a fair balance so they did look at it and they made a decision to leave it as it is and I have to admit I'm sort of inclined to do that as well um the um the the issue about lost revenue for fish and wildlife that date the reason why 581 is on the floor even though it hasn't it's kind of stalled out because of the stopping of the calendar um is because fish we know that fish and wildlife has revenue issues that are much much broader than anything that this bill is creating and um I have to say I would have a real problem uh loading this particular bill down with a solution to a much bigger problem that I think it's really a desidous service to the people that we're actually trying to assist here um that doesn't mean we won't entertain a an amendment in the committee path as a member of the committee you have will have an opportunity to do that but um but I would be strongly opposed to to doing that um the um and for what it's worth I'm not real wild about a registration fee on kayaks and canoes but um but that's a whole different whole different big discussion that we will undoubtedly have at some point um I've got two more people Peter and Scott no Scott you go ahead I think I inclined to agree with Jim on the uh keeping the the revenue offset idea whatever that idea might be out of out of this bill and somewhere else like that does make some sense the other thing I just threw out there to Pat um as far as a revenue source um maybe there is some sentiment out there that could be captured um regarding a license plate fees um I'm not very familiar with those fees or the process or what they all are but I think um I think Pat probably is and that might be a place to capture that sentiment and and monetize it um are you talking about in a different vehicle though yes yeah I think so yep the different vehicle yeah uh Jim and then I'm going to move on because what we what the um I want to set some things in motion but um I don't know that we're moving towards voting at this in at this point in the discussion so um so we'll get a question from Jim and then um I'll sort of summarize where we are and um and then we'll move on to education finance so Jim yeah thank you um I guess it was Scott Scott I have a bill I could say upstairs I think it's in transportation on establishing a bicycle license plate like a you know wealth child what um I can't remember the terminology but we know um it would have a small fee that would go to bicycle safety and stuff like that there that at least what I'm saying is there's a vehicle out there that hasn't gone anywhere that looks at um bicycle revenues and that sort of stuff like that but it wouldn't be a required fee for everybody with a bicycle it was just a way to put a bicycle on your license plates and raise some money that might help right someday that's all and that's what I was kind of thinking of there might be a a similar sentiment that could be captured um that would maybe support this type of thing so um where I think we are um with respect to the draft itself um we're going and uh Ellen's going to look at the definition of who we're talking about the whether we refer to title one or how we do that um Emily is going to do some work on the um who who is eligible to get a card and whether eliminating that 7b language is going to work um Pat if you would let me know if you are going to offer an amendment um I can schedule the time for you to do that um and you don't need to let me know the second just let me know by the end of the day today I'd appreciate it um and um and then we will take this up tomorrow um with whatever amendment is out there um and hopefully be able to vote it tomorrow uh Pat go ahead well I I see this the that there is um I sense that there is support in the committee for replacing Revano and um maybe other than the chair uh on kayaks and non-motorized vehicles I I I sense a willingness to move forward but not in this bill um so I won't offer an amendment um to stick it in this bill um what'd you say the number of the uh fish and wildlife bill is 581 yes 581 and I've looked at it it's it's a it's largely aspirational but it sets up a work group to um begin to work at these issues and it might be a great place to put some actually some specifics about what we think the this work group ought to look at um because there's not a lot of guidance in it um it's long um but mostly findings and so on so yeah definitely um so yeah I'll hold off on uh loading up this bill in the committee I I sense that I wouldn't go anywhere but I do sense uh the committee members are concerned and I look forward to your support on the floor thank you thank you um so we'll schedule this for tomorrow uh did I get the plan right and I missed anything I don't think so maybe okay good thank you everybody thank you Lewis uh for being available as well um maybe he left well he's still there okay um thank you thanks for the time appreciate it yeah thank you uh so um we are on education finance um I'll just before we shift to that I um we're scheduled to meet at 10 tomorrow um I hadn't scheduled anything I assumed we might continue to work on education finance but we also have two uh local option bills h943 and h946 it just came into the committee I think they both came in um so it it may be that we end up scheduling those I have a 10 o'clock meeting which will go until about 11 so the committee won't start till 11 so we'll have at most an hour tomorrow um 11 to 12 um I just wanted to make sure people had that before we started signing off um Mark are you here yes good morning hi how are you so do you have something to start us off with um I don't I was under the impression that Abby was going to walk you through the bill um I wasn't sure it's that I couldn't remember whether you you had prepared something or not that's totally fine um and Abby's here and um so Scott has been working with Abby on a draft that would be um it would be focused on the yields and the tax rates um I'm not positive what I can't remember whether the draft actually has them in there I think we ended up not putting them in but um but the the framework is there but what Scott's been working on is more important for the framework than it is for the content at this point so I'm gonna uh Scott you tell me how you want to proceed and getting this in front of the committee um I could probably just if somebody can throw it up on the screen I can just just walk through it it's just three sections two pages okay that's fine I'll try to try to keep it simple and just explain the idea and then we can have a conversation and then if if Abby wants to weigh in on how it structures anything she can do that okay or anybody else yeah um so basically um there's three sections to this bill the first section in uh subsections A and B um it leaves a place for us to put in the the dollar equivalent yields for the income and the property um but there's been a lot of conversation about whether that should be the um the numbers that were available prior to uh voting day uh in subsection C it sets the um the non homestead rate at a buck sixty two eight and that's that calculated rate that that voters had prior to and most voted there at town meeting day um and then in uh section two um if you turn to uh most of the work there is in um in B and C subsections B and C and it basically um just gives the um the authority to draw the education fund reserve down to maybe drawn down to two percent in 21 so it's not a will or shallots a may um and then uh in subsection C it lays out a plan for repayment of any deficit that is occurred incurred right now if we set those rates at somewhere where they were around town meeting day and we draw the reserves down to two percent there is still going to be a deficit and it directs that the the deficit will be repaid first by available federal funding and second by some percent um of the remaining reversions and and surplus in the education fund at the close of the fiscal year so deficit repaid by reversions and surplus okay and then in and then in section three it basically just says that the the tax letter that comes out every year in December 1st has to reflect um this work which means that they would not be able to count any reversions or surplus towards the tax rate those would all be pulled out before and they would be um they would be part of the payment we did this actually for the surplus in session last year I believe so that's not something we haven't done before and that's basically in a nutshell we set the yields we let the um we let the reserve float down to two percent that will cause a deficit uh the deficit preferably would be refilled by um federal funds if we don't have the federal funds to fill it then it would be repaid over time by the reversions and the surplus that the education fund may generate on an annual basis and that's basically it okay uh question has George I Scott thanks for the proposal does does this in any way limit our ability to use the federal money should guidance change or should there be new money for does it limit us to use no other than the deficit no it actually it it it specifically states that if that money does become available whether it's a relaxing of cares three or some subsequent bill that um that if those dollars do become available they would be the first dollars used to address the deficit I'm sorry you said it specifically says that well yes beyond the deficit right yeah it specifically says that in uh section two subsection c mine that only applies to the deficit um right right yeah we're only talking about the deficit here yeah well does it but does it limit our ability to use it elsewhere I don't think so oops I lost my adjustment but abby but abby might have some thoughts on that or mark as well yeah um so to abby or mark have any thoughts about it sure um I don't think that this limits what you can use the funding for it just says that the first source if there is any available federal funding shall be that funding and then you would use the surplus or reversions I don't think it it says um that if federal funding is available it can only be used for this purpose um mark go ahead yeah we've talked about a couple a couple of different options for using that CRF money and I'm wondering if it does preclude the option of appropriating the money to the agency of education and have districts apply to it that was one of the uses of the CRF would would this preclude sending the money to AOE rather than having it appropriated to the education fund I don't know that should maybe be clarified yeah it's maybe just that isn't really the way this is drafted but part of the problem now is I'm not clear I know the committee is clear on wanting to use that CRF money to address this problem and I'm just not sure if one of the options one of the options is just would be great just put it right in the end fund and that would this bill would follow along with those lines the other options that appropriate the money outside of the education fund to the agency of education and have them throw the money out to school districts so I'm just wondering if this gets in the way of that option I'm not I'm not sure it does but yeah I'm not sure but I think if because it's any available federal funding right now that funding wouldn't be available to be used this way so if it became available to be used that way it might preclude another option so that's probably something that should be clarified I can try and think of a way to reach that yeah that's a good point other questions Robin thank you I'm I'm wondering about the and thanks for doing this Scott the the second option about repaying the deficit by reversions and surplus yeah since there won't be anyone we're going into it I don't you know do we have a how long is that do you anticipate that would be taking do we have any sort of timeline I mean could this be going on for 20 years is there an interest cost to you know if we're borrowing are we borrowing from the treasure I mean I'm not sure how that part of it works in deficit where's the money coming from well we can have we can have reversions but not have a surplus and that will likely you know that is likely occurrence in FY 21 but yes I mean there is certainly a further conversation here you know when the deficit if the deficit if there is a deficit if federal funding cannot close the entire deficit then there's going to be a further conversation about you know what is you know I think ultimately the treasure will have to borrow and what what will be her terms you know for length and interest and things of that nature I think that's definitely a further conversation yeah because I'm wondering if we could use the same theory that we're using with allowing the short-term municipal borrowing where that maybe some of the cares money could be used to buy down any interest that it would cost us to do this I don't know I may be getting too far out here but I am concerned about it not being federal funds and getting much more expensive and complicated for us and right I mean you know it would be a deficit and unless we can find dollars outside of the education fund to to retire it or pay off some of it then that automatically you know falls to the education fund and it falls to property taxpayers it will it will be a discussion over how many years that that repayment would be necessary right and it might expand extend beyond the next fiscal year as well I mean deficit you may have deficits in future end years if we were to continue because we're going to have lower property taxes and right we don't we don't know in the end what the deficit number will be right now as we sit here today depending on what that number ends up being totally totally influenced is how many years that it could be paid back we certainly can't I mean right now we're looking at you know 130 ish we certainly couldn't swallow that in one year right we may have we may have an extended deficit for FY 22 if the federal government doesn't come back we may very well maybe even beyond that right okay yeah thank you I want to see of course other questions so so the thing I'm struggling with when I I haven't quite got my thoughts in order yet but um and I believe it's true um that there's no constitutional or there's no constitutional prohibition to carrying a deficit in the education fund there is in a lot of states but there's not in Vermont and so we don't need we don't need authority to carry a deficit we do um you know we do have a sort of a quasi requirement in terms of the reserves it's not entirely clear what it is but it's there so that needs to be probably needs to be addressed but the not that I'm struggling with is that it seems to me that until we end fiscal 21 we're not in deficit we're not in deficit in January if we project a gap um that's true be filled by an exploding economy all of a sudden I realize it's probably not going to be but let's you know we can we can fantasize that suddenly sales come back and we'll get tons of money um and so there's no deficit until the end of 21 and so I guess I guess what I'm thinking um I like the idea of saying um these are the property tax rates we understand that we haven't solved everything um and the way we plan to solve everything is using federal money or if that fails um we will you know I don't I I guess we'll pay it back first with reversions and surplus that makes sense to me and it makes sense to me to say something about drawing the reserves down um but the part that I keep having trouble with in here is the um section um that talks about the deficit on or before July 1 2021 the deficit incurred under this section as though as though it's a given um and I think I think I'd feel better about this language if it said if a deficit is incurred um okay then these these are the steps that we're going to follow um to deal with it is does that make sense to I think it makes sense I think it makes sense to make it a hypothetical instead of an absolute yeah I can I think that's what I've been struggling with with with this um and I I um you know the other thing I was going to mention is Mark you sent me the one more promising story about that maybe having more flexibility you want to share that with everybody um yeah if I can remember and I I sent you an article um that I think it's so far I can't oh no route 40 route 50 route 50 is that what it's called Secretary Mnuchin um suggested that um rather than providing a COVID-4 and new money for state and local governments that they may be open to allowing more flexible use of the existing 1.25 billion that we have um right now um so um that would be great if that happened that would solve a lot a lot of the issue right now and then we wouldn't have to go through these proportions um yeah again that that may take that may take some time and so we're running into a time issue here about you know waiting for that to happen so leaving it leaving it open and saying if the money became available at some point we would use it to solve the problem I think allows you to go ahead with the bill if you want to in terms of setting tax rates and that kind of thing a lot of what I like about what scott's put in front of us is it sets the tax rates as it says this is these are going to be the property tax rates for fiscal 21 um that discussion we've we've decided that that this is where that discussion should end um and then clearly the the information that we're getting about the economy and about revenues and about the federal money and so on just it's changing so quickly that um or sometimes recently it's been a little more slow but um but it it it just isn't stable and I I don't feel that we can we can resolve that maybe even until certainly until late June and it may even be July or August before we have enough information to do it uh hopefully we would do it sooner but um and I I'm not really sure uh peter and then abby I thank you very much scott and I I agree that some certainty and commitment in the face of all the uh shifting sands is important very important I like the feature that we're promising to albeit at a reduced level uh carry reserves into the future at some positive uh greater than zero I I definitely agree that not having language in there assuming a deficit uh is is very useful it adds a certain optimism and flexibility lastly uh and this may be not appropriate for this particular proposal but I continue to worry about the fact that unless we've done something or should do something in the way of tapping the ed fund for school construction that's one of those things that's sort of dangling out there that we began to talk about and I and I I wish we had a way to give school some guidance whether those proposals would be welcome or not welcome under the unusual circumstances of today yeah and I I don't know if we've talked about it in committee but we do have the school construction bill in our committee that I think we should look at again um it's a it's a hefty price tag but it's also a much heftier problem um that we've you know we've moved the poise to move something on that so um somebody needs to remind me to put it on the agenda um uh abby hi um in rereading subsection c in the main section two um I'm realizing that it seems to limit it to only those two sources of um repayment so I if just for drafting to open it up a little bit I would recommend adding a third saying and any other funds to leave some um flexibility for the general assembly to find other ways to pay back the deficit if there is a deficit yeah I mean what I envision sort of um using scott's draft as a jumping off point is we say if there is a deficit this is how we want to have it dealt with and that would include any other source of revenue um or or um uh adjustments in spending um that occur you know um that that would deal with it so that we're not foreclosing anything um George I agree with that and I would you know so you know a line in there about any other any other available funds or reductions in spending but in line on line eight of that same section section c page two um I'm a little uncomfortable about setting a um percentage for the reserves for you know um perpetuity for any time that there's a any kind of deficit you know I definitely I understand you know lowering that that number for this year but I'm a little uncomfortable about that being in their long term I don't know how anybody else feels about it but you know I mean doesn't it essentially change our our law about um about our reserves well it does I mean that's um you know the law about reserves is changed in section b subsection b just above George when we were allowing the reserve that it may be drawn down to two percent so we are we are allowing for that at least temporarily um yeah I understand temp we're doing it temporarily but I'm worried that in section c line eight makes it permanent not temporary maybe we should consider a sunset or or um define the deficit on a calendar I don't know thoughts um I mean the only question I've been having is uh why why do we maintain a reserve if we're in deficit isn't the purpose of reserve to pay down a deficit well maybe there's another train of thought that um that the first thing you should do is deficit spend and borrow if you can do that within your own funds if because if you can't if you ever can't and you go out to the market they're going to want to know what your reserves are so there are some that advocate hanging on to your reserves as collateral against borrowing instead of using your reserves first but that's that's uh finance philosophy I guess right yeah I mean I you know um um I think this committee has been um in spite of all the uncertainties has been really focused on coming up with a plan for fiscal 21 that ends not in a deficit so um I don't want to assume that we're going to be unsuccessful doing that um I see this as a contingency plan but I would rather end 21 with zero in reserves and no deficit if I had to make a choice about it um no I'm not a state treasurer I'm not a financial but that just makes more sense to me um so um even though I legally we can have a deficit you know not something that's particularly desirable for something I want to do and a lot of that decision would I would have suspected the treasurer's level would you know um be dependent on what FY 22 is looking like as well yeah uh anyone else want to weigh in on this mark did you have any other comments um I just had some questions which which I shared with um representative Beck this morning and I think most of them have been addressed but I wanted to point out that um and this these are contingencies that may not even come up but um although there's no prohibition against running a deficit in the fund I agree going forward with that there is probably a practical limitation because um you still have to have the cash flow basically the fund education spending so um that that may be a question for the treasurer but um given your take which is that the the goal is to have no deficit at the end of the year that may not be a problem but carrying forward you know if we were for example to carry forward $150 million deficit whether or not all the education payments can be made is a question um I um I also question whether or not rating agencies would care whether or not the you how you divide this problem up between the reserve and the deficit in other words I don't I'm not sure that somebody coming to the to this looking at it as a as a rate person would say that you're really in any different position whether you have some in the reserve plus a deficit or if you just empty the reserve and reduce the size of your deficit to me it doesn't really from a ratings agency perspective I don't think it would make any difference but I could be wrong again on that that's a question maybe for the treasurer um third point was the length of time if there is a um significant deficit um as one of the ones we're talking about if you're only putting in you know money uh any surplus that we have or any reversions it would take a long long time to pay off any deficit they would that we would have and then the last point was um is it realistic to think about starting to reducing to reducing the deficit apart from the federal money by f y 22 in other words are we you know f y 22 is not looking great right now we got a little look at the at the estimates next you know for next year and we're starting to come back up especially in the education but I think we're in a position of first down and probably first back up because the problem is caused by consumption taxes which fall first and rebound first so it may not be a problem but um those are questions I have they're so a little bit out of my area there are questions so I think for the treasurer but um that that was all otherwise I think it I think it works fine yeah I guess um just listening to all this discussion um it and I'll ask Scott this but um my sense is that it would be really useful to have the treasurer look at this and yeah um if you want to do that on your own and then we could have her in the committee when she's had a chance to review it um I'd like to see a redraft that it is along the lines of if there's a deficit these are the things we're going to look at that kind of thing what would help me and I think it would help sort of explain what we're trying to do here um that we're we're saying we we recognize well I I guess we recognize the possibility of a deficit and the these are the plans for it um I hope when we're reporting this we're saying it's our intention to come up with a proposal um using as much federal money as we can that will avoid a deficit um not our plan to go into deficit um but but if if it happens this is what we want to do yeah I'd be more than happy to work with Abby on getting those points put in there and then have you know share it with Beth and have a conversation with her that'd be great um other and and then we'll have her in front of the committee but we sure hear her a bit I think um other other um other thoughts that people have I see that Kate Webb is with us um I I don't know if there's anything that she wants to weigh in um not at this time I really uh appreciate the the questions and and the deliberation you're doing um I think the points you're raising are interesting and we will I also really appreciate that you are starting to look at uh bringing bringing the yield forward just move moving that and getting that off the table I think that would be really beneficial for for everyone in the system so yeah thank you yes the clerks are the clerks are calling tell clerks are calling did you call on me again sorry oh I was wondering if we could potentially hear from somebody either like from our federal delegation I mean somebody in one of the federal offices or maybe like the NCSL must be looking at this issue I mean like in terms of the you know the the feds allowing us to replace loss revenue I mean yeah every state has got to be dealing with this and it's a much bigger problem in every state and I just wonder like what the status of the discussions in Washington are and I wondered if we could like get a brief update from somebody on that I'll see what I can do every state is struggling with it and they tend to everyone sort of does what I do is I see the story that says the Mnuchin is open to it I think I you know this sounds promising and so far it hasn't amounted to anything but um I'll see what what we can what we can find out there's a lot on the NCSL side about it um because they're very they're very worried all states are worried right yeah you know uh I if I were in Washington playing a game of chicken with the Senate majority I would be loath to expose my strategy and if the Ds are hoping for COVID-4 and Mnuchin wants to trade loosening up uh CARES 3 for CARES 4 I'd be a little afraid of saying yes uh anyone else so are people sort of agreed that uh as a way to proceed I guess we need to aren't we on the floor like soon here 11 oh not to 11 I thought the floor was at 11 it is at 11 I thought it was at 10 30 I was rushing through here um um I would have asked for 716 back but I guess you um other issues um on on this so we have a plan and I thought we were supposed to be done by 10 15 so we are let me just double check um the list of things so I guess I guess um what we'll do is we'll have a it'll be a brief meeting tomorrow but we will get through as much as we can and I think I'm going to um put this issue back on the table for next Tuesdays to give Scott some time to work with Bill Pearson uh Abby some time to redraft along the lines of what we're talking about but it would be great if we were able to actually move this next week and get this piece of the puzzle off the table um because I think that's really where we need to be um and um I will double check about school construction I think I might bring that up in the committee again just remind us what we had the work we had done um and the other two bills are the two local I think those two local option bills that are coming in and 716 so that'll be our work both tomorrow and next week anything else anyone has great uh so Sam you're all set on this line his tax I'm sure he is put his picture up there okay we'll see everybody I'm all set I'm all set excellent appreciate appreciate your backup when I when jumping in the the speaker knows the call on you would raise your hand and uh the only time I've ever raised it I'm not on the full floor but I was so excited that tax was supportive I'm going to go ahead and end the live stream now okay