 of the House Appropriations Committee. We're going to do what I'm hoping is our final work on the supplemental budget adjustment. Everyone received this copy of it this morning. We went through at our 10 o'clock meeting and made some changes. And I talked to them, we had a couple of changes and I wanted to highlight the section that I've seen. So let's just do this really quickly. Did anyone have any questions on the dollar parts? Pages one through three, 13. Did anyone have any changes there? Made? Hey, not a question. If somebody, I don't think we're all muted. There's an awful lot of background noise from somewhere. Okay. It's hard to hear. Okay, so now we'll use hands if everyone's muted. Did anyone have any changes that they saw on the dollar amounts on pages one through the top of page 14? If there are any questions, changes there, Diane, you need to unmute yourself. Thank you. So it's not a change in there. I did notice that we had made a decision in the morning which wasn't reflected in the draft yet, but of the, for the legislature, the 750. So I'm thinking, I think we agreed that that would go directly to the budget for that, which would be a number change, not just language. Right, Maria, have you made that change? So we added it to the list of the CRT funding. And it's in the back of the bill and that 750 is an additional section and it goes directly to the legislature, to their budget. Okay, would that create a number difference? No, it doesn't. It's either one time CRT funds. When we get to page 22, I copied off the one that didn't have it on it yet, the one that Teresa sent out while we were working. And when we get to page 22, I reflect where it needs to be and it should be on the newest copy that's out. Okay. Shut this door. I'm banished to the twin bedroom again, so I can hear noises, but if I shut the door, all right. So if we start on page 14, I wanted to just highlight to the committee because we didn't talk about this on pages 14, 15, 16. Those are all transportation pieces and Maria has sent out a memo for Bob and me and talking about why there's so many X outs, why it's crossed out in the transportation on 14 and 15 and the top of 16. It's no longer needed because it's related to cover winter plowing and no extra money is needed for that. So it's unnecessary, so that was taken out. And then in section 58, where all that transportation language has come out on page, where's 58? 14. On page 14? Yes. Okay, thank you. The AOT, let's see, section 58 also allowed AOT to reallocate T funds to the extent necessary to keep existing projects on track with a shutdown of the construction. That was also not needed. So that's why those two sections. And Bob, I didn't get you with another phone call, but you, Maria has that response for us on the floor tomorrow. If there's any question why those, the transportation piece has been deleted. Are we good with that? Let's go, if we go to 16. I don't, Dave, this is your section. Is there any questions on page 16 or 17? I don't see any when I went through them. All the new money was reflected with the AG. And... Can I just ask a question on the AG? I'm just making the assumption, it's just more money came in from lawsuits, right? Right, that's right. But where's the DFR money? Okay, so that is just one second. That is, if you go on to page 18 at the top, there's a sub three. There it is. Yeah, I see it. Okay, I missed that one. So the DFR money, so that highlights all the additional money that we talked about this morning. It's in... The next section we moved to on 19, reflects the Corona relief language and the money that we're using to, instead of reserves as the bridge from fiscal year 20 to 21. Here it's all on one page. Does anyone have any questions on 19 and 20? I just have a clarification. So at the top of 19, in other words, what we're stating there is that the 18 million that we had in 21 is now in a different category. It's going to the bottom line. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, yep. That was my understanding when I read it, just checking. And Kimberly, you had a question about the VSA 308, whether it needs a C there. Right, like I tried to look up this site really quickly, but it was hard to absorb. Maria, I'm on page 19 under section 29. Yes. Under A2. And I just didn't know if, because one in three referenced section 308 C, whether inadvertently that was missing a C or whether... Oh, that's a good catch. Thank you. I will check that. Thank you. Okay. I think that you probably are correct on that, but we will double check. Okay. Thank you, Kimberly. And then, so that was the close out language. And then if we move to section 30 at the bottom of, Ian, at the top of 21, that was the language that the administration put in. We capped at 250 to transfer. And then we added the same line. This show is the same language for the legislative branch at 250. So where is the administration's under 250? The ninth, oh, that's right, because my pages were upside down. Yeah, okay. That sounds... Now I got it, my pages were not going the right way. Yeah. And then Kimberly had a question here too. Kimberly? Yeah, I'm not, I'm advocating one way or another. My question is simply, we gave both the legislative and the executive branch this transfer authority for the end of year 2020 close out. And my question is, whether we should also give the judicial branch that same authority? So my understanding, the judicial branch has one appropriation. It's, I can't remember what section it is, but they don't have to transfer between appropriations because they just have one appropriation. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, so that answers that question on the bottom of 20 and the top of 21. And then in the middle of 21, we have section 49, and these are dollars that brought back and we see USS Vermont there. And if we turn to page 22, we will now see the language. It starts at the very bottom of 21, the new section that we added, our committee on one time Corona virus relief fund appropriations. Number one is the 500,000 with the language die-in proposed that would do all of the legislature's budgets. And then is it below that one, Maria, that we put the 750 in? Yes, it is. And what would the number be? Would it be number two or one B? I think it's one B. I haven't, let me just see. I don't have it in front of me, but I think it's, okay, so number one would be, we'll just renumber what will be the fiscal committee, the 500,000. Number two will be legislature 750. Okay. And then, you know, judiciary becomes number three and onward. Okay. So that is where that is reflected that we did right at the end. And if you move over to 23, it moves right down through with the state colleges, UVM and everyone's checked these amounts up, check them, V-SACs. Kitty. And language. Peter. Kitty, so I've added a little bit of language in the Vermont State Colleges and UVM. As you know, it just says to cover the cost of refunds provided to students for two campus closure. I missed that, but at any rate, for campus closure, that's not explicit enough for the Vermont State Colleges. It will state to cover the cost of room and meal refunds provided to students for campus closures during the COVID pandemic and for University of Vermont, it will state to cover the cost of rooms and parking. I'll explain in a moment, refunds provided to students for campus closure during the COVID crisis. And Maria, if you would remove the word two there because there's, it doesn't read correctly. Yeah, thank you. We did find that, yes. So UVM contacted Sodexo, that's their food service provider. Sodexo issued UVM a refund for meals and UVM just forwarded, just passed through the money right to the students. So that's already taken care of, no meal issue, just rooms and there's parking issue in Burlington. So sometimes students have to pay for parking so they were refunded for that as well. So Vermont State Colleges room and meals, UVM room and parking, those will be explicitly stated in the bill. And Maria, that's already, have you already done that in your copy? Yes, I have, if that's okay, we'll- Perfect, yes, perfect. Can I ask a question about that? Sure, Chip and then Marty. Is there, and maybe this is for Steve, is there an advantage in leaving it, you know, sort of general and the way it is now, just to say for the cover the cost of refunds due to student campus closures. And if there's a question about it from the federal government, they will attract what those expenditures were for. I just wonder if leaving it more general might give us a little leeway and maybe not attract attention about what we're using for. Yeah, you know, I sort of lean that way. I sort of agree with you, Representative, that if you don't need to make it more specific, why not just leave it general? But I don't know that I have any really strong solid guidance. I just tend to think that, but it's up to you all. You know, this is clearly, as long as the general is okay, but it may be better to be specific so people know just what you're doing. Yeah, so you can justify it as CRF funds. Well, I think either way, it's just, there's plus and minus both ways. So I tend to lean that way, but I can go either way and it's up to you all. Marty, are you on the same topic? No, I'll come back. Bob, is yours on this topic? No. Okay, we'll come back to you, Bob. Is yours on this? It's not on this topic, no. So how does the committee feel? It sounds like we could do it either way to, if we end up having to justify it, we're going to have to be able to justify it anyway. So my recommendation, because there's going to be more COVID costs coming and because if we get into tuition, I haven't even thought about, you know, if it were too broad, somebody might say, what about tuition costs? Because we weren't at school. We were actually at home and I don't think we ought to go there. So my reasoning for wanting to be narrow here is to ensure everybody knew exactly what those funds were for. No question. That's probably fine. And we have more costs coming up that may end up as soon as the colleges have calculated some amounts for PPE and personnel costs. There were some other things that they needed in sanitation that they needed. So it was a good catch chip. Peter thinks we should keep it the way it is. Let's just do a quick vote of hands. How many of you vote to keep it the way it is? And by keeping it the way it is, that means we're going to be explicit. Right, with Peters. That's right. Okay. Okay. Put your hands down. And it looks like we have a majority. Chip, are you okay with this? Okay. Marty. My question was on the 5A, the BSAC. I understand the five part, but the A, where we're talking about our intention, I'm confused about that last sentence about the $5 million. If that means we're intending 19 million plus 5 million, I don't think that was what our decision was the other day. And it refers to that same subsection, which I don't understand. Great. I think that is the, actually, you stepped me there, because that is the intention with your $25 million. Yeah. That's what I understood from PIS 5 plus that 19. That we would do the 5 million in COVID dollars. And the 5 is here, it's already here. The intention is to level it as well. 5 plus 19. Yeah, I thought it, I thought it, so I might, I know if maybe you guys need to decide. I mean, I think that it is supposed to be additive. It's a 5.1. You think you should just not say it and just have it be additive or do you want to clarify that? Peter, this is your section. Do you want to walk through this? So we've got 5.1 million in, sorry, I'm talking with my hands like I always do when we're not even in committee. We have $5.1 million that is in here for the BAA FY20 budget. So that they can push that money out the door immediately. And then for FY21, we have 19 million, nine and whatever that we have intent language for. So how do we say that and get it correct so that we don't confuse people? That's the question, Steve. Cool, my question is we're only intending to tell them 19. We're not intending to tell them 25 for next year, are we? For FY21 budget, it's 19 and change for next year. Plus the BAA, but the 5.1 is in the BAA. Hopefully it's going to be available. Right, but we're only appropriate at once in 20. I think we're all, I think, I'm just saying the same thing. The 5.1 is getting appropriated in 20. It's not going to get reappropriated. So it's there, but they're not going to spend it in 20. They're going to have it to spend in 21 really, as I understand it. And so that plus the 19 will be available to them in 20. Is that correct? I agree with, I see Marty's confusion. In five, we have the 5.1 is going out in the BAA. And in five A, we're doing the intent for the 19. Yeah, Steve. In the budget adjustment. I think we should cross out that lesson. Okay, fine. Yeah, I think so too. Okay, good. My only concern here, and I brought it up earlier, is that we need to make sure that it's reflected appropriately. And this is what was recommended, but no, I am fine with dropping that last sentence. To me, it thinks it actually clearer. Because it's two different pots of money. The 19th general fund and the other pot is COVID. Oh, that's a good point, Kitty. Yeah, that's a really good point. Yeah, no, that's a really good point. Okay, yeah. So, hey, Kitty. Yes, yes, Mary. At all. So maybe it would make sense rather than having that as a sub A, make it a number seven, so that it doesn't look like it is a subset of sex, which is kind of where the confusion came in. And just make it as a separate statement is number seven, that it's our intent to do that. Does that work, Marina, to do that, to just make it number seven? I guess it does work. It's not, this is a list of CRF funds. So seven is really, it's not a CRF thing. So, that's why we stuck it under as a sub A. Because it's related, but it's not exactly the same. Okay. I think if we just put it someplace else. Could, yeah, could do that. That might make more sense. Yeah, I think so. Okay, let's do that. Yeah. Okay. So where would you look where you would move it to? We could make a separate section right, right there before 34, or I'm going to talk to the people that are actually, I'll talk to Becky to see what's easiest, but we can make the separate section and call it intent on FY 2021, funding for VZAC, something like that. And then just have this sentence in there. You know, perhaps if you actually put that in front of section 33, Coronavirus Relief Fund as an intent section there, it would fit better. And then we talk about Coronavirus Relief Fund. Okay. All right. Yeah, we can do that. Thank you, Mary. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Bob. Bob, you're muted. You need to unmute. I'm all set. You're all set? Yeah. And then the section 34 below that is was brought by the Treasurer, which let's see, made it to your questions there. Tomorrow we're going to talk us up the whole rate at 10 o'clock and we'll be on, I'm just going to do the overview. And then as questions come in, I'm going to yield to whichever member has that section of the budget. And I think we're all ready for this, Peter. So the only thing that I did is, there is no indication in there of the meeting at which the Treasurer shall report to the Joint Fiscal Committee. So I did email back to Maria and what they're going to do is make sure that throughout the entire budget, the Joint Fiscal Committee August meeting, typically not August, but it's going to be August meeting is reflected every time the Joint Fiscal Committee meeting stated in here. Thank you. And then after that, if it's not ready, or if there's more than the Joint Fiscal Committee, we'll have that on their agenda. Right, right. Thank you, Peter. Kimberly? Just a quick note, we seem to have two section 34s there. Okay, so that's, I think it's going to be, it's all renumbered, it's being edited. So that'll be fixed, but thank you. And Marty. No, you're good. And Chet. There we go. I'm trying to do too many things on one screen here. So just a question, and I hesitate to get into the weeds about it, and I'm sure JFO is on top of it, but I'm just wondering how, so the treasurer will have to determine what the amount of money that needs to be to go into the state retirement system in order to account for these costs will be, those costs or those additional amounts may go on through the whole time we could, well, I don't know how long they go on, but they certainly could go on for a while. I'm just wondering, at what point will she have to make a determination about we think this is the amount that's got to come out of those, out of these Corona relief funds to be put in there and how will we encumber that amount when we're looking at what all of that fund, all of that fund might be used for. That will be at the August JFC meeting. Peter has recommended that we, that the report back date will be for the August meeting, and so it will be done there and by the Joint Fiscal Committee against the remaining balance of the 1.25 billion. Well, let me just, I just wanna follow up on that because there is a concern, the CF money can be spent all the way through December. So that there will be, you'll be continuing to incur costs, which will be impacting the retirement all the way through December. So my sense is you could have a preliminary report in August, but she's gonna be doing this collection of data all the way up until next January. So I guess that was probably part of the thinking of leaving a little bit big. I think you may wanna, if you wanna have an initial report in August, that'd be fine, but as long as you have CRF money to spend, you're gonna be potentially incurring a liability. Right, but hopefully we won't be here and then the JFC would continue that reporting as needed by the treasurer. Is that correct? Would that be? Yeah, although I think the final report will probably be sometime in January or February when the CRF 20 is all been spent and you're, you know, she'll probably have to, you know, the end will be a little funky because when the money has to be spent by December 30th, she'll need to get her last attribution to the timing system before then, but we may actually have not wound down all the spending going on. So it's a little bit of a, they'll be a little bit of a dance in December. And I think you'll, January is probably when you'll know exactly how much she put aside. Do we need to reflect that in the language here, Steve, or not? I don't think so. I think that as long as you maybe just say shall give a preliminary report in maybe August, if you wanna do that and just realize it's not a final report. Sure. This is only a process. Chip, were you finished? Yeah, I mean, I just, I guess that's, I just wanted to understand how that was gonna work. And I understand it will be a little bit funky at the end, but as long as, so as long as she's sort of making those determinations along the way, and we're encumbering that amount of money, I don't know what it's gonna amount to, but we're encumbering that amount of money out of the whatever it is, one and a quarter billion, then we'll know right at the end, we'll have to make our best guess, I guess. Mary? I wonder why bother even having a date that she would make a preliminary, words aren't working. Why bother having the preliminary report? I agree with the notion, we usually like to say a report by a date certain, but since we're not sure when that's going to be, why not leave it that we just expect a report and we'll get it when it's time to give it. I think that makes sense. Peter, what do you think? And not to be honest. I just, you know, it's just that we are, we, the legislative body need to understand the funds that are being allocated to wherever they're being allocated to, and to have the information all at the same time. There's a lot of August reference to Joint Fiscal Committee in this bill. And I just felt let's be consistent across, but if you want to leave it open-ended there, obviously we have a little better connection with Beth Pierce than most. So I'm fine with that. I think that Chip, does that address it better if we just left a report? Yeah, I mean, like Peter is saying, I think we don't need maybe an official report, but it would be very helpful to have an understanding as we go along, how much she thinks we're gonna need to take out of the CFR, CRF to use for this, just sort of tracking it along and recognizing that right at the end, we'll have a little bit of a question, but yeah. Okay, so two ways to vote, leave it as it is or have an initial or a preliminary report in August. So using your real hand, how many of you would vote to leave it as is? One, two, three, four, four. Okay, how many of you put those hands down? How many of you would like to have a preliminary August report? One. I'm not voting twice too. I'm not sure I know what the question is. I thought it was leave it as it is with a report or not have her have an official report, just sort of keep us up to date. Well, that's leaving it as it is now. Okay, sorry, I should have voted for that then. But let's start this again. Look at the language and if you would like to leave the language as it is now where the treasurer shall report the amount transferred under the authority to the Joint Fiscal Committee and to the commissioner in finance and management, use your blue hands. How many of use your blue hands? How many of you would like to leave the language as it's printed now? Chip, which way you wanted? I need a blue hand. I did, I just went away, but there it is again. Oh, okay. One, two, three, four, five, six. I think I have six. One, two, three, four. Dave, Diane, Mary, Chip, Anita, Linda. Do I have everybody? Okay, so that's six. You'll put those hands down. You lower your hands. And how many of you would like to move it to Peter's language? Six to four, so leave it as it is and we'll all make sure that we're following the treasurer's actions. That brings us to effective dates and the sections as Kimberly noted will be updated. And any other thoughts on the budget adjustment? Kitty, Dave here, just, hi, trying to be helpful. This may exist, but I just haven't accessed it recently. If I were on the floor, I would ask, after BAA has proved how much of the CFR will be unencumbered? What's remaining? You know, this is an excellent question and Catherine Benham and I think Maria or Teresa are writing a letter to, that will go out to all 180 members that will tell about the actions of the Joint Fiscal Committee and the three buckets and what's already been approved. And then below that there will be two links. There will be a link that goes directly to the JFO site that shows what has been spent out of the CRF dollars. And then there will be a second link that will be the administration's COVID-19 tracker that tracks all those other dollars as well that have come in and where they've gone. And so they could go at that site and get the updated number based on the actions of the Joint Fiscal Committee and what's been appropriated from us. That sounds great. Okay, so we have a number tomorrow but I think there's some moving pieces and I wanna make sure all those categories are reflected correctly. And so I'm hoping that that letter will be out before we're on the floor. So everybody will be receiving that email. So everyone gets the same message with the same links and then we'll know where to continue to look. We could also just give you, will this do a total, just to give you a total, it's gonna be an approximate total. It's in the neighborhood of 200 million but I don't know whether it's 190, similar between 195 and 205. But we'll figure that out. Approximately 200. Thank you, thanks. Okay, any other thoughts? Tomorrow we have the caucus of the whole. I think we're all set to go over that. I'll do the highlights of the four pieces, the problem, the revenue coming in, the end of year construct and the COVID-19 dollars that we're putting out. And you guys are set to. All right, are we ready to take a real vote on the Supplemental Budget Adjustment Act? Would you like a motion, Madam Chair? That would be wonderful, Diane. I would like to move that we favor, that we report favorably the fiscal year 2020 Supplemental Budget Adjustment. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and we have a second. Do I have any hands, any thoughts or concerns? Any other corrections? Not. The clerk shall call the roll. Representative Conquest. Yes. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. You're muted. Sorry, yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessa. Yes. Representative Lanford. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Yes. Representative Yacobone. Yes. Representative Toll. Yes. That would be at 11-0. Excellent. And I believe that we'll be on the floor on Friday and anybody that please reach out to people that you know will want to know about the budget adjustment and we all have divided up the list of membership and anything that we can do to get answers, questions answered ahead of time and clarification just makes it more understandable on the floor so we can make any corrections or adjustments. So is it representative Toll, the reporter of the day? Yes, representative Toll. So Representative Lanford will send the vote record to the House Clerk and CCU and I and then you will confirm with the clerk that this committee bill has your permission to move forward and get a number. Diane, I'll send you the email and you can reply all to everybody. Okay, thank you. And just so that members know there's probably going to be additional CRF spending. It's continuing to go along and there's a proposal from the administration this morning but it has not had time to be vetted through any committees of jurisdiction. Marty, you'll want to follow it. It is to open the state parks and additional money needed for sanitation to get those parks open. Since it had not gone through the committees of jurisdiction and it wasn't simply a legislative salary for an additional six weeks, I think it has to go through the process because we'd have another one this afternoon, we'd have another one tomorrow and those will be continued to develop on the Senate side so we may have a proposal of amendment. I can't believe they've just accepted the way it is but maybe they will. And then we will continue with those expenses in the skinny bill and even continue them beyond in August, September bill as we spend down that $1.25 billion. Okay, but the only one I know of right now that's in the process, Peter, for the state colleges and UVM. I've got both of them. They just came in yesterday. I haven't looked at them yet, but I got both of them. And so you'll follow those in the Senate and Marty, this is the only other one that I know about that just came in was the state parks. Meada. If I could have any information with regard to this piece about state parks, since I've got the forest parks and rec budget, I'd appreciate that too. Yep, no, it's yours and not Marty's. I keep, she has natural resources and I always put them together. Yeah, I'll send you that memo, Meada. Okay, thank you. I think we're good. The sun is out. We should all go out and enjoy it a little bit. This was good work. I think we did some good work and of course thank you to the Joint Piscule Committee. No, office, not the committee, the office. Marty. I was just wondering if you have any idea when the administration will have the skinny bill available for us. I think Steve, you'd have an update on that. Steve, are you still with us? Maria, are you with us still? Oh, there's- We were just calculating here. So what was I updating you on? Marty has asked- Do you know when they administrate? Do you know when the administration will have the skinny bill ready? This is a really, that's a really good question. So we talked to, this is something where I'm gonna rely on the chair to express concern because we talked to Adam last night and what he told us was that he was sending out the budget instructions sometime this week and then he was gonna give the eight departments a week to get back to him and then he would be produce the budget sometime after that, which is a problem for us because that doesn't get you out of here in time to a budget. So one thing we briefly talked about other than that, we probably is when they do the budget instructions at least they could go over that with three and say, here are all the questions that need to be answered in the skinny bill and maybe we would just start working on it. But you're, I, this is a, there's a potential problem here. And I think it takes a little bit of, it'll take some work from leadership not just your committee, but I think the leadership of the administration that things have to start moving. So it's, I can't tell you that there's a happy situation yet in that. So what, we'll have a conversation with Adam later today. What I'm hoping is this can get it to us earlier like they did with the budget adjustment that did come in on that Monday. And so that was good. If we cannot get it through though, we're going to have to start our work by going through the 21 budget language like we did with the budget adjustment language and see what language needs to be in a bill, which language is just off the table, which language pushed out to the next fiscal year. We can continue working with CRF funding and we can also hear from Steve as he learned about the different percentages and what they would mean for reductions in budgets in the first quarter, a reduced amount of appropriation going out as well as what things need to be funded like debt service. And do we fund just the full 25% for the first quarter or do we identify the full year amount? So there is, there will be some things we can get going on. That's correct. And I think we may, and what we may have to do is just start and it'll be where we just, because we know a lot of the questions and but it's a complicated process. And I don't know that these are the type of things that usually leadership have conversations about and figure it out. So sort of over my take rate. We're not going to stand still. We're going to have to start our work at least. And you know, we may not be working as often but we'll start it. So we won't be have meeting tomorrow. We'll just zoom in on the meeting at 10 o'clock. And then I wanted to know from the committee, we probably won't meet on Thursday. And we'll be on the floor Friday for action and we would start our work next week. The skinny bill. How does that sound? We're just listening to your cabinet. Yeah, sorry. I'm sorry. I'm not focused. So these are the numbers. Are you still muted? Is there a question? Steven, Maria, can you mute please? Yes, I'm sorry. Oh, wait, wait, wait. And I need to unmute. Okay. I'm muted. Okay. Now we're unmuted. Okay, Rita. Will all of us on the committee have a clean copy of the supplemental budget before tomorrow morning? Or is that not likely? Maria. So I think that we can make these few little changes and send it out tonight. I'm gonna make that statement. And I'm pretty sure I'm right. I think you can send it out. So you have something to work with. I'll talk to people in the other room. They may say like, thank you. Mary, Mary, sorry. I was wondering with regard to the skinny 21 bill, I was wondering if one could suggest what the ideal date was to get it out of our committee. I'm just trying to work backward in terms of what we're aiming at. Well, it's an interesting question. Look at our timing. You know, we were thinking about having it out of our committee by the end of May so that the Senate would get it. What's our timing looking like now, Steve? Well, so unmuted, I guess. Oh, good. So I mean, the hope is to get it to the governor at the latest would be by June 19th because that gives him a week to sort of, it's even tight because if he has five days to consider it, he needs to get everything put in place. That's the latest. So then if you count backward, you probably are going to need some time to conference and vote the bill. And so if you sort of, that counts back to a week down to the 12th. And then the question is, does the Senate take a week to do it or longer? And if you only give them a week, that gets you down to the fifth, which is pretty tight for the Senate because they still have to vote it. So I would say probably they needed it by maybe the third. And if you on the floor will take three or four days to take it up. So that gets you to May 29th. So we're already looking at, we're in five 12, which means that the bill has to, you're talking about 18 days between now and when that bill has to be either through the house or something. And so if it gets put off very quick for a long time, there's a real problem. So I don't, I mean... Yeah, and if you see this week as used up, Steve, because if we're on the 13th and the bill... Yeah, we'll give you two weeks. Yeah, the 15th is the Friday. If you started on the 18th, you will have... Two weeks. Two weeks and to do the budget. And if the administration is not going to get it to you for another week and a half, you will have three days. So it doesn't really work. So we, this is a big deal. This is like a problem. And you're asking the right question. And I like the three-day timeline, Steve. I mean, administration days, too. That's all you need. And that's just it. I mean, we took what? We spent two weeks on the budget adjustment, which was a very... One week. One week. One week. I think it was about a week and two days. Yeah, it was not really long. But there's virtually nothing in this that is a hard decision. The skinny budget is going to be an extraordinarily hard bill to do. Yeah. I see that. It'll be very complex because you're going to be cutting across the board to a lot of departments. Yeah. Be having some exceptions and you're going to have... The lobbyists will be in force because everybody has got things in the original big bill and they're going to want to make sure that they're protected. So it's not going to be as simple. Okay. So, let's hang on. Yeah. There'll be an interesting ride. Can't we at least take testimony? Well, it's hard to take testimony from the departments if the administration hasn't approved their changes. And so what they tell us they... I understand that, but I... Right, I meant testimony, joint testimony with the Senate once we get the skinny bill as opposed to our doing a whole bunch of review and then having them do a whole bunch of review. Once we get the skinny bill, we have more information about that. Can't be in the Senate. I think that's a great idea. I think that there's going to have to be some coordination with the Senate and perhaps we can do some joint testimony even with our work like, if there's issues within DCF, the judiciary, state's attorneys out, whoever's office it is that we can get the same information and move it faster. Yeah, that will be fun. I wonder who will be in charge of those joint meetings? Oh. You. Yeah. Can you maybe ask a question? Yeah, yes, Dave. And this may be a Steve question, I don't know, but we've heard AHS has granted what they referred to as, quote, stabilization and, quote, grants to different provider segments to stabilize them during this unsteady situation. I assume that those are COVID funds. Pretty sure they are. So where does that end? Could someone say, hey, I want to stabilize dairy farming. I want to stabilize restaurants. I want to stabilize, pick your choice there. Are there any limits to that? I know that's a policy there, but what one might say, you ought to be doing it if you want to stabilize them sooner than later and BAA wasn't the appropriate place, but the skinny bill might be. Do you know if are there limitations on that or did they get to decide what needs to be stabilized? Well, you're asking the hard question. So the answer is that how the Senate may put dairy farmers in, for example. And you're going to a little of this, you know, there's already been a hazard pay bill and there's a lot of talk about EMS as being an issue that is coming up. So the this is like 1.25 billion of which you, just to give you, we'll write this down, but you spent 190 million, which means you have about 1.059 billion to go. So there's a lot of money out there. And you know, there's a lot of uses or things we could stabilize, you know, broadband, housing, homeless. And so one of the problems, and you hear the administration tomorrow we heard is going to be offering some sort of business plan. I don't know what it is, but this is like a little bit of a, you know, on the one hand, you have this quarterly quarter bill of the 21 budget. The other hand, you have this large amount of money out there, which can be stabilizing lots of different things. And that's what creates this sort of sense in me that the timing may not be a slam dunk for three days. You know, there may be decisions that you have to make. So it's, they're very real questions. Well, yeah. And they're sitting and reacting to somebody proposing something where they're taking the initiative and saying, hey, House Commerce do this. Hey, House, I'm not picking on commerce. Taking the initiative to lead on it because by the time we vet those kind of things through our policy committees, I don't see how you can do it in three days. Right. Yeah, I do think the House committees are working, you know, I believe some of, I know that, you know, the chair and I don't know how much the committee has met in technology, but, you know, they're well aware of broadband issues and they're thinking of ways to address it. So there is some of that work going on, but you're right, Dave. It's, instead of just, put it on the table. And in a sense, and the chair is gonna have to, you can't take me virtually, which is a problem. But if I go too far in the direction, but the Senate is also talking about local aid. Like, can we give $25 million of the money to local government? Yeah, two municipalities. Yeah, so that may come back in the budget adjustment. There's also, we heard today that the parks department wants to open this summer and that may be $2 million. So there's gonna be a lot of things which are good to do. One of the things that, and just conceptually, one of the things that happens in Congress when they have a budget they have lots of people knowing that and is they have what's called a budget resolution where you sort of say to yourself, all right, we have that money, let's just set some parameters of how much will be used in different areas and then work to that. And maybe that's the concept that needs to happen where the Senator House or leadership have to say, we have a billion dollars left. How do we, what is sort of the, what's the frame that you wanna consider that in? But even that, I mean, all of this is sort of types of approaches that are longer than a matter of days or even a matter of weeks. So it's, yeah. And so if you have thoughts, you should be reaching out to committee chairs to see the direction their committee is going in. Mary, did you have a question? Your hand was up and then it's down. I've been putting it up and down just because I have some thoughts on this, but I'll wait. I think other than to say that whatever we can do in advance of receiving a budget is wise. And I would prefer us to be saying how we want to be spending this money rather than reacting to a proposal from the administration. We know what is needed out there or we are learning. So let us be setting the parameters for that, in my view. Meada. Meada. Was that me? Yeah. Just to add to the list as people were referring to many good uses of the money to which we have access. We can't forget, we need to be building that bridge for the state college system. Oh yeah. We need to be working on these. And what dollars would be available? Yes. $19 are not available to do that. Where do we find them? Yes. Current budget, yeah. Good reminder Meada. Okay. So we'll be on the floor tomorrow and Friday and we'll start. We'll get an agenda out. I'll work with Teresa for probably we should meet on Monday of next week and get started. Would all committee members agree with that? Okay. So we'll set up time. Is Monday morning or Monday afternoon better for committee members? I'm fresher in the morning, personally. We have joint fiscal at nine on Monday. Okay. I like the afternoon. Oh, I do too. But I'll meet anytime, yeah. So with the joint fiscal meeting, the earliest we could meet would probably be 1030. So we could meet from, if we want to meet over lunch, we could meet from 11 to one and get started. Does that or does 1030 to one? Sure. 1030, 1030 to one. I need a little break in between. So if... Yeah, why don't we start at 11? 10 and 11. 11 to one or 11 to one. I think two hours to get to get organized on the city bill would be good. I'll start. Some language. Okay. So is that, that's already 18? Right. Oh my God. I think I'm going to be needing to spend this little off time here to put in like, Dave's, it's sketching out in what Mary said, what should it be looking like? Yeah. So 11 to one, and I've got to get up, I need to get a calendar to Catherine so that she can do our Zoom meetings. Do we want to meet? So it's 11 to one now? Yes, 11 to one on Monday. Kitty, are you meeting anymore this week? No. No. So cancel all the ones this week? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So we got said second reading on Thursday and third on Friday. No, it's going to be, it's all. How's this working? Probably rules will be suspended if there's nothing controversial on Friday. We'll learn. And we do it all on Friday. We'll probably do the whole thing Friday. All right. Okay. Mary? So 11 to one on Monday and then why don't we leave the rest of the week the way it has been, which is the, what, 8.30 to 10.30 and one to three and we can adjust according? Okay, except on Wednesday, I'm getting a crown at eight o'clock in the morning that I've got to get. So if you want to do the meeting without me I'm fine with that. Nah. We see where we're at. If we go get the crown, we don't want you to have a toothache. I'm not canceling it. You'll get grumpy. Not kidding. So I'm going to book it in my time just so that it's already booked because we might just be working. You may be getting your crown and we might have just even off Zoom just be working on stuff. On a Tuesday, 8.30 to 10.30? Katie, I have to leave. I'm not being rude to just have that. We'll get it to you. I don't think we need the morning or noon because I don't think we're going to have enough to do those five without knowing anything from the agencies. Yeah, but we could be working like we said. What do we want to be able to do instead of just reacting, spending all of our time reacting? What do we want to do? So I think that then if we can be doing a lot of individual work in the afternoons for the rest of the day. So Monday is 11 to one. Tuesday is 8.30 to 10.30. What do you want to do Wednesday? If you can't join us, Katie will meet in the afternoon instead. Hopefully we won't be drooling or anything. All right, one to three on Wednesday. Except the house is so on the floor. Oh, that's right. Yeah. Never mind. We'll take Wednesday off then. Let's hold on. 10 PM. And then Thursday, let's do 8.30, 30 to 10.30. OK. Yeah. And then we can also reserve the afternoon in case we have something to work on. One to three. Somebody going to send this to me. I'm so confused. I can't see straight. We will. Friday, next week, we're on the floor at 10 o'clock. But why don't we? Surely by then we'll have a budget and have a reason to be meeting. So we may want to just count on 8.30. Yeah, 9.30. Our priority is going to be to get the skinny budget done and we're just not going to be able to go to the floor. Probably. OK. Good point. Yeah. All right. Sounds good. So we'll be 8.30 and that can be open on Friday because maybe Adam will have a presentation on Friday. If not, we'll give him ours. It always works, too. All right, Steve said, if you have priorities in areas that you're thinking of, that of areas that need big dollars, get working on them. OK, get outside. It's really nice out and thank you. I think we're in pretty good shape. Kitty, I'm going to stop the live stream. OK.