 We are now live. So we're officially starting the Tuesday. I've gotten my days right this week, the Tuesday morning House Appropriations Committee meeting. And we are going to start with some testimony. We have JFO with us. We have Nolan Langwell and we also have, I'm looking, might go great from legislative council who has taken some of our discussion yesterday and worked off a base from the administration's proposal. And I keep referring to it as stimulus equity. It's the $1,200 federal dollars that went out. And this addresses the Vermonters who were left behind. And so I would like to jump in with a draft that Michael Grady has worked on. And Teresa sent this out and I apologize. I did not ask for the release of the draft to go to the committee. I forgot that little detail. And so this is a six page bill and I don't know if you had time to walk through it. You didn't receive it until this morning. So I apologize, that was my fault. But Mike, if you would like to walk through the pieces with us, and this is just our initial draft to see where we can move on this important bill. So Mike, I'm going to turn it over to you and do we also have with us, Susanna Davis, the executive director. I haven't seen her yet, but she did say she would try to jump in. Okay, thank you, Teresa. Good morning, Mike. Morning, this is Michael Grady with legislative council. As the chair indicated, you have a draft in front of you that addresses or provides assistance to those people living in Vermont that were not eligible for CARES Act assistance. You'll see that the bill proposes to establish a coronavirus relief assistance program for immigrants. There is a definition section. First, there is a reference to the CARES Act. Then there is a definition of who is an eligible adult. These are the main qualified recipients for assistance under the program. There's an individual who is a resident of Vermont and who is ineligible to receive economic impact statements under the CARES Act due to immigration status. So we're going to address the issue of residency in one second, but then you'll see a definition of eligible child. It's an individual under 18 years of age for whom an eligible adult is a parent or legal guardian. Then you get the default definition of personally identifiable information. This is generally the definition that's used in statute elsewhere. If you go further on to page two, you'll see that immigration status is part of personally identifiable information. Moving down to the definition of resident. There's a couple, there are... I'm sorry, Mike, just for the committee, there's some information that probably we'll have questions about, but let's have you walk through before we have any questions. Sure, there are a couple of different definitions of residency in statute, one of which is that it's just your domicile. It's an individual who's domiciled in Vermont. But then there's another definition, other definitions, for example, under the motor vehicle law, the driver's privilege card, which is available to immigrants. There's a qualification or certain people that don't qualify as a resident. And so we're using that definition here. So it's any individual living in Vermont who intends to make the state his or her principal place of domicile either permanently or for an indefinite number of years. Individuals who live in the state for a particular purpose involving a defined period of time, including students, migrant workers, employed in seasonal occupations, and individuals employed under contract with a fixed term are not residents for purposes of this section. So those seasonal farm workers that come in on a visa to pick apples or strawberries, et cetera, would not be eligible, neither would students who are here on a student visa. So I just wanted to be clear about that. Then you get the establishment of the program with eligibility and maximum award provisions. The program is established at the agency of human services to award direct relief grant payments to eligible adults and eligible children. In order to receive... Mike, I'm sorry to interrupt, but just for committee's sake, that was dropped in there. Our committee hasn't made a determination. I just said either XXS or put in AHS. And so that's, no decision has been made. I don't want anyone to think I've gone ahead and made decisions. These are all placeholders for discussion. Okay, Mike. So in order to receive a payment, an eligible adult certifies that they are a resident and that they were ineligible to receive an economic impact payment under the CARES Act due to their immigration status. Each eligible adult receives $1,200 and $500 for each eligible child, provided that an eligible adult shall not receive an award for an eligible child if another applicant received an award for that child. So there's no double dipping for your children. If mom and dad are both eligible adults, only mom or only dad would receive the benefit for the eligible child. Then you get to the administration of the program. It's administered by the agency of human services and consultation with the executive director of racial equity, AHS shall partner with public or private entities. And so that's a mandate. It's not a may, it's a shall. When I was drafting this language with Senate AG a few months ago, talking to the advocates, the concept was that the potential eligible individuals will be more comfortable approaching some of the organizations in their local communities rather than trying to approach a state agency or a state program. So it directs AHS to partner with public or private entities as needed to conduct the outreach, provide application assistance, process grant applications or deliver assistance payments to eligible individuals. The agency adopts requirements, guidelines, procedures necessary to implement it. They shall not be required to go through rule. They're determined to be, they can then, I'm sorry, I'm trying to follow along with Theresa, but I'm getting ahead of myself. They may utilize staff and resources from other state agencies and they may partner with any non-governmental entity to promote or implement the program. So then you get down to contract for implementation, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, meaning private contract limitations and statute, the agency may enter into contracts with non-governmental entities to implement and administer the program without the need to competitively bid such contracts for purposes of the program, the public health risk posed by COVID shall be deemed to be an emergency situation that justifies execution of sole source contracts under administrative bulletin 3.5. A contract with an entity that will implement the program shall, at a minimum, provide that the contracted entity shall issue grant payments to eligible adults pursuant to provisions of the section and pursuant to the procedures established by the agency. And then you come to confidentiality and personally identify information restrictions, or personally identify information that's collected by the agency through the program or by any entity implementing the program, shall be kept confidential and shall be exempt from inspection and copying under the Public Records Act. So just because the agency producer acquired the name or information from an eligible adult doesn't mean it's a public record. Then you see that the agency shall ensure that any entity of state government performing a function or any entity the agency contracts with for the program will implement appropriate procedures and safeguards to protect any PII, shall not disclose an individual's PII to another state entity or contractor performing a function of the program unless disclosure is necessary for administration of the program, complies with the prohibition on disclosure of PII under 20 VSA 4651. And that prohibits released by the state of PII to the federal government for creation of registries. It does not prohibit the release of PII for the purpose of grant assistance which is actually something that the federal government prohibits states and local governments from doing. And then it complies with all applicable requirements denying VSA chapter 62, which is the protection or personally identifiable information chapter of law. Then you get to section two, which is the appropriation. There is a placeholder for the amount to be appropriated in fiscal year 2021 from the general fund to AHS for use in fiscal year 21 for administration and payment of grants pursuant to the coronavirus release. The relief assistance program for immigrants. And then there's also a placeholder in there for an amount to be used for administration of the program basically what the state would pay the contractor to administer the program. And then the bill would take effect on passage. So Teresa, what I would ask for so I can see the whole committee this is really a blend of some of our discussions some of the work that Mike had done with Senate agriculture a few months ago and also with the proposal that the administration has put on the table. So this is simply a draft that we need to clean up and adjust into make our own. And so my first question is does any committee member have a general question? And then we will go through by section so that we're not jumping all over the bill with questions, but is there an overall or general question that anyone has for legislative council? Mary? Thank you. My recollection, and it's not a good one is that when we were trying to do the driver privilege that there was some transferral of information transferral of information either by in again it's recollection that I don't know that the data was transferred but employees were perhaps telling law enforcement about someone who came to request this. I think I heard you saying we're marrying some of the what we were doing there how can we assure that an individual is not identified to law enforcement through the processes we've set up? So we're marrying or we're using the definition of resident from the driver's privilege card but what is different is that there's that subsection that is specific about keeping that information confidential, not disclosing it and not disclosing it to the federal government for creation of a registry. There is a federal law that prohibits states and local governments from having laws that prohibit disclosure of immigration status information to the federal government when the state is applying for a grant or other assistance. So that is the reference to 9VSA 4651. In 9VSA 4651 it says that personally identifiable information shall basically not be knowingly disclosed to any federal agency or official for the purpose of registration of an individual based on his or her personally identifying information. So as I noted earlier immigration status as part of PII so the state cannot knowingly disclose that PII to a federal agency for purposes of a registration. However, the section goes on to say nothing in the section is intended to prohibit or impede any public agency from complying with the lawful requirements of eight USA 1373 and 1644 and those two sections prohibit states from, hold on, this is 1373. Notwithstanding any other provision of federal state or local law, a federal state or local governmental entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from INS information regarding the citizenship or immigration status lawful or unlawful of any individual. So if INS request, they will look to see if the state has a law that has a prohibition on it. And that really comes into play when there's funding programs. There's been some significant litigation around the country where the presidential administration, federal administration has limited awards or has required disclosure of immigration status as part of an application for assistance. Or in some cases, when the state has applied has limited the award or prohibited the award to the state if the state has a law on its books that prohibits sharing of information with the federal government. I think our state has navigated that well. We say we don't provide PII to the federal government for creation of a registry, but we do not say that we're not gonna provide information under the, under 1373 and 1644. And we as a state can say under our state law that information is confidential and shall not be disclosed. So I think this navigates that well. Will you have people that don't understand this restriction and think that they have the right to disclose the information like the DMV law enforcement officers did? Potentially, and I don't know if you can do anything about that. Those officers were likely working or providing that information outside their authority. Thank you, Mike. I'm gonna have to contemplate this, but that's very helpful. Thank you very much. Okay, another broad question before we go into the sections, Marty. I just noted and I want people to keep in mind as we go through this that so far there is no discussion of timing of payments to go out the door or the types of a payment that would go out the door. So whether we want to specify that later on or not, I don't know, but I just want to point that out. Thanks. So Becky told me you discussed that yesterday, things like application date and termination of the program. I didn't have any instruction or detail on when and what, so I didn't want to presume anything. So it's not included in there. She also said you wanted to include a reversion of the funds. And I have some concerns about that on a timing level. She said you wanted the funds to revert in early spring. And because this bill probably won't get enacted for a few more weeks. And then AHS or whomever the agency is needs to contract with a contractor. And then the contractor needs to stand up the program. So optimistically that's middle of November. Realistically it's probably January. And then you have a population that might at first be anxious or cautious about approaching an application or approaching the entity that is providing the assistance. So the program might start off slow. If you're gonna have the reversion in early spring, whatever early spring is April, you're really kind of limiting the timeframe for when the program's gonna operate. And maybe that's okay. Maybe ultimately there's gonna be enough demand on this, but I just wanted to put that out there as a timing concern. If there's reversion in early spring, it may put a restriction on the program. Thank you, Mike. We're hoping to get some guidance on groups that are working with the individuals that have been left behind to understand what the timing needs to be. And also I lost track of the other thing I was going to say, but we're hoping for some guidance so that we can make an informed decision. Chip, a broad question. Well, just a follow up on this. Just to say that, yes, we did have those discussions. I was asked to converse with Susanna Davis about those specific, specifically about those questions and get her input, which I would hope coming back today. I would just ask Mike, if you're willing, if you, just in your experience, not to make recommendations to the committee, but in your experience, if you could just write me a memo, just say it, like you said, standing up the program optimistically in November, more likely January, just that kind of thing and about if you have any thoughts about the timing of uptake of this program, just based on your experience, just I would love to have that so that we have legislative council's experience with those kinds of timing issues as well to consider when we're making the decision. Well, I think you have a wealth of good examples from the CRF bills that just went out. My experience is with the Agency of Agriculture, you passed that CRF bill, the CRF bill in late June. They just stood up the program that they implemented with a contractor about 14, 15 days ago. And they're estimating that it's gonna take three to four weeks to process applications that they receive in order to ensure that they're doing their due diligence. So it took them two months to set up the program and it takes them three weeks to process an application. So I think that's a pretty good framework or example of what it's gonna take to set up this program. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mike. And my other question was when we're walking through this, whether or not we have to contract with a third party or whether we have entities aid in getting the applications and filling the applications out but maybe the process could be done in-house within whatever agency or department we choose. So that's something that I wanna learn more about if there are agencies that are more capable of doing this in-house with the help of these, with the help of independent groups to reach out into the communities and assist with the application process. So I have down the outstanding, we're going to work on the time, any deadlines, types of payments, when the reversion of funds should happen and those pieces. Now let's walk through the bill. Mary, do you have a question? You're muted. Sorry. Didn't we also have a conversation about whether we wanted to hold separate within the amount of money we're allocating funds for children that we wanted to make sure we funded children completely and I don't think we, y'all are kind of nodding like you recall. I'm not expressing this, but I think that's an issue that we need to talk about. Susanna Davis did bring up that 500,000 be set aside of the total rest of children and if it wasn't used, then that would fall to the bottom. Go back into. If it wasn't used there, then it would fall to whatever reversion piece. So I'll put that down. The children exclusion to address first. Thank you. That was 500,000. Yes. Maida? And whatever is the appropriate moment, is there room for us to discuss what the total bottom line is here? Yep. When we get to that number in the bill, we'll do it. That would be a... Thanks. I'm going to talk about what we're thinking and then Nolan is here to keep the fiscal note in our minds. Thank you. Teresa, let's put the bill back up if we can and I hope I can still see hands because my printer doesn't work and I didn't get a copy and I can't read it on my cell phone. So in the first section, obviously let's go down to the definitions. You went to... Yeah, that's good. Are there any questions here regarding the definitions that we need to ask Mike? I mean, there's lots of things our committee will need to decide, but are there any questions or definitions? Kitty, I do have one question. Hey, Peter, I just didn't see your hand. Go ahead. Sorry. So Mike, this is regarding eligible adult. It's both here. It's also on page three, line eight, is eligible to receive economic impact payments under the CARES Act? Should it be was or did receive instead of is because is implies future? You know, that's a good question. I used is because I think some of these programs are still viable and definitely the state programs that are funded through CRF funds are still viable until December 30th and potentially further if Congress extends that deadline. But the intent of us doing this is to match people that were not eligible to receive the stimulus payment check that came in March, April to that check like the rest of us received. So that's why I'm asking is versus was. So I thought it was not just the stimulus but it was also things such as the additional unemployment insurance, PPP, those other programs that our CARES Act authorized that do provide economic impact payments. It's you wanted. That has not been my understanding. We discussed the stimulus checks that everyone received March, April timeframe and a little more fair and equitable distribution of that money. So if that's what you want, I can revise that language to be clear as to the economic stimulus payments under the CARES Act who was ineligible to receive those. That's what you would like. I think that's up to the committee overall but that's my understanding. Any thoughts on that from committee members before we moved on on what the focus of this was? Mehta? Mehta? I forgot to unmute. Sorry, what Peter just described, that was my understanding also that this was with regard to the stimulus piece. Thank you Mehta. And Marty. As well, I understood it the same way that Peter described. Okay, so is that the consensus of the committee, right? I agree that that was the language we were using and maybe that is where we should land. I just don't know who else is not covered. And is there, if at the end of the, so one, there's the question of the equity and who was excluded from the payments, but I believe there is also an underlying issue of people who are in danger from their poverty, you know, from inability to earn an income and how are we supporting them? And if they are excluded from other opportunities that we're providing folks because of their immigration status, do we really want to exclude them from this? So I would have to ask Nolan if our fiscal note addresses more than the 1200 and the 500, because if we're working from a fiscal note either we have to change the fiscal note or we have to, if the intentions were working from the fiscal note, then that's five. So I, you know, we have to decide that. But Nolan, just very quickly, does our fiscal note address anything beyond the stimulus equity of 1200 and 500? Now, and my understanding is that's all it was addressing. That's sort of only, I only did the 1200 and the 500. Okay, thank you, Nolan. Mary, were you finished before I moved to Diane? Um, got it. That makes sense. Our timeframe is such that we maybe can't think about these other groups. We may want to come back to this at some other point. So thank you. And Diane? Great, thank you. I think I'm, yeah. So I just have a question around if it's a clear statement for people who were not eligible for the $1,200 stimulus that was before. We'd have to make sure that we include it due to the reasons of immigration status or whatever that defining pieces because I do believe that people were not eligible for that $1,200 stimulus because they were, their income was above a particular amount, right? And I, so I just wanted to be careful that we didn't open the door here for, oh, I wasn't eligible for the federal stimulus because I make a half a million dollars a year. So I would be eligible here. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. And is that covered here, Mike, that it doesn't open the door to every Vermonter who didn't qualify for the original stimulus because they're, you know, because of their, their economics? It's, you're only eligible if you were ineligible for CARES Act due to immigration status. So people that had, who were disqualified due to income or who were disqualified because they were, you know, a 20 year old dependent of an ineligible person, they would not qualify for this award. So it doesn't, it doesn't blow the door wide open for it? No, it does, it does not. Diane, are you all set on with your question? Sorry, I turned myself off already. Yeah, I'm good. Thank you. Marty and then Mehta. I just quickly reviewed the documents we've received yesterday, the fact sheet and also this is Anna Davis document. And both of those say specifically that it's for people who were excluded from the economic stimulus payments due to their or someone else's immigration status. So number one, I think we need to confine it to the economic stimulus program, the $1,200 program, but whether we say their own immigration status or include also as well someone else's immigration status, that might help clarify things. Right, so it doesn't say their immigration status, it says due to immigration status. So that- Okay, I see that now. Okay, and that was intentional because as Nolan's fiscal note points out, there's different categories of people who are ineligible due to immigration status and some it's because you're married to a person that is ineligible. And so there's going to be some implementation that the contractor or whomever implements this program will have to work through in defining who those people are that were ineligible due to immigration status. I'm fine. Question answered, Marty. Yes, but I do think we want to specify that it's related to the specific federal program that had the $1,200 last April. And so with the committee now, with the fiscal note we're working on, is the committee in agreement that the job set before us at this point is to address the inequity in the 1,200 and the $500 and that is our focus. So I just would like to know if anyone feels that the conversation was different than that. Okay, so as we move forward, our focus is on the 1,200 and 500. Is there a agreement with the committee on that? I just like to see, I don't have a whole screen so I can't really see individuals. There we go. Okay, if we're in agreement that we're moving forth on the 1,200 and 500, a hands up would be great. And I see, okay, then that's where we're headed. So yay, we took one thing off the table. Let's go back to the language and I think we can move to the next section. Theresa, can you pop the language back up please? I apologize, I need to get a printer that works. They have a mind of their own. And so the next piece, Mike, that we move to if there's no other questions or definitions. I think I would recommend that you look at the definition of resident in Vermont to make sure that that's what you want. Yep, so what page is that on? I need to. That is on page two, beginning at the bottom of the page. Before we get there, were there any questions on, I did, can you explain to me, Mike, go back up a little bit, Theresa, in the address, the name address, those identification factors, can you identify, can you explain more to letter E to me, please? Letter E? Yeah, no, F, F, F, F, I'm sorry, F, I'm sorry. Oh, sure, this one often comes up. If your DNA has been taken, if your blood has been taken, if your fingerprints, eye scan, those biometric data that might be collected in order to be eligible for a program, for instance, I had to give my thumbprint in order to be licensed as a lawyer. So that type of information is protected, personally identifiable information. Okay, it's protected then. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Dave, did you have a question on this section? Actually, it's the page above, please. If you could just go back. I was trying to raise my hand, but I wasn't quick enough. A question on, stop right there, please. Line 18 on the page number three, eligible child means an individual under 18 years of age for whom an eligible adult is a parent or legal guardian. Does that mean if I'm in this country with my sister's child and I'm not their parent and I'm not their legal guardian, I would not be able to, that child would not be eligible for any financial assistance. And my concern is that that might be a strong likelihood. Redraft that? I'm guessing many of the folks in the, go ahead. You know, it's drafted that way because for purposes of proof of documentation, for the applicant, if you want it to be different, I can try to work on that. Well, I don't know about what the committee feels. Maybe we could get advice. If it's common, I think it's a concern to me. I guess we're not in a business of dealing with anomalies, but we're trying to do social justice this year and it would be not justice to exclude somebody. Could I think on it a little more, Madam Chair? And maybe I can learn if others have a similar concern. Thank you. And then if we could scroll that. Our executive director of racial equity may be able to shed a light on the numbers. If that's true. Okay. Thank you. That's what I'm hoping. And then if we could scroll down and this may seem like a foods question, I can stop there, please. Letter E, immigration status. I'm worried that that will be a deterrent to people. If I'm undocumented, I don't have a green card, what have you. Is there a way to, is that necessary? It may seem obvious that it is, but Michael, is there a way to, my concern it could be a deterrent to seeking assistance if I have to tell you what it is? Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, that, remember the eligible adult is only eligible because of their immigration status. So there will need to be either an attestation which is part of the application or some other proof required by the agency implementing or the contractor implementing. But remember this is the protection. This list is the information that's protected and is confidential and is not supposed to be disclosed. So this is the list of protected information. You know, they will have to collect a person's name address. They're going to have to collect data for children, et cetera. That's all going to be protected. And I... Michael, what if it just said, I didn't mean to interrupt, but are you an immigrant? I'll say that, but... Well, I think the question would have to be, are you an immigrant that was ineligible to receive assistance under the CARES Act? And... I don't want to hold on to it. I just wanted to raise this. Thank you. So let's keep that in discussion. Dave and Chip, if you write that down, if that should be reworded or how it should be written and how it will be used. Okay, can we continue? Even we know that that's on the radar for continued assistance. Thank you very much. I'm going to lower my hand. Thank you. Oh, sorry, Lord. Okay, Mike, can we continue? I think the next section brings us to five. Right, I think... I'm sorry. This is the issue that I raised when I walked through. Do you want it to just be the kind of general definition of resident in Vermont, someone who's domiciled in the state and domiciled means they intend to make it their home, primary place of residency? Or do you want to have some limitations on it and to specifically exclude those people who are in the state for a temporary period, such as students, migrant workers, and people here on a durational contract? So that's really the question. If you leave it general, the agency or the contractor likely would have authority to interpret what domicile means and they could, because they have the ability under the language to set guidelines and requirements, they potentially could set their own guidelines or requirements for what it means to be domiciled in the state. So it's really a question of whether or not you want to be clear in the bill or if you're intending for the agency or the contractor to determine what domicile is. Chip, you have a question? Religious statement that I prefer to have it as clear and specific as we can in the bill. I mean, I think this has a couple of recommendations for one is that it, as I understood, might say it was, we use it elsewhere. So it's a definition that we know of and are familiar with. But I think it's also clear that it addresses the people that we are thinking about when we think about this, not people who are here sort of temporarily who don't intend to sort of be residents for the purpose of living or making a living here, but are here for, I shouldn't say it that way, but are here for a temporary sort of defined period of time for a specific purpose. I don't think, you know, and the examples that are in there about a migrant farm worker or a student are those are not the people that we, I think are wanting to capture when we're talking about who should get a stimulus equity payment. So I like this definition. Oh, that yeah? Oops, sorry. There we go. So thank you, Katie. The question that I have is really, I think for Nolan, like what was used in determining the fiscal note for the numbers? I just wanna make sure that we don't, if they've used a tighter definition or a broader definition, I just wanna make sure that because how we define this will impact the fiscal note. Nolan, are you available? Yeah, I'm right here. I mean, I relied on the numbers that were provided to me and vetted and I vetted them from the stuff that migrant justice, UVM extension and Susan Davis, and they looked at the population that they thought would be impacted, you know, which is mostly undocumented adults, people with legal permanent residents, folks who have a lawful status, but no social security number. So that's kind of, it wasn't looking at, it was sort of the broader, I think it was more of a broader understanding of who are the people that had not received payments who based on the proposal felt that the administration felt were should be getting. So I guess that I don't know how to answer your question in terms of this. That's the thing, Nolan. But Chip, that would be something that would be keeping in mind how we define that as you work with the groups and the entities of what they thought was the intent here. Absolutely. Nolan, may I ask a couple of questions of you that are on this topic just for clarification? Does your fiscal note include students and seasonal workers and people under contracts that are here for a short period? I believe it counts people who are residents. I would have to touch base with other folks. I don't think it does. I think it's residents, people of legal permanent status. But let me get back to you on that. What I'll also just remind is that the numbers are, you know, even if we tighten the definitions or expanded definitions, these numbers are guesstimates to begin with. So it's hard to know how much that would or wouldn't impact the actual estimates. But I'll look into finding out more information. Thank you, Nolan. Diane, may I move to? I'm done. That was it. Mayda, then your next please. Okay, thank you. So I'm looking to understand if the language as it's appearing in the draft does or does not include the folks that are working on our dairy farms? It includes, but I'm not going to answer that. I want Michael Grady to answer that. It does include those persons. And most of them are here for years, if not longer, and have made the state their domicile because it is their primary place of residency. Thank you. I was just looking for that reassurance. Thank you, Mayda and Mary. Thank you. I'm trying to understand this also. When I moved here 40 years ago, I said I am moving here for five years. So it was for a definite period of time. And I'm guessing that there are populations of people who said, oh no, I'm just going to be there for a bit, then I'm going home. That first sentence seems to mean they would not be included. Can you help me understand how they would be included? So, you've hit upon a curious aspect of domicile slash residency. It's largely about your intent. And if you intended to move to the state and make it your primary place of residency for five years, you would qualify as a resident for mom. But if you're moving here and you're only going, and you know that you're only going to be working here and the only reason you are here is to work here for eight months or nine months or something of that. And it's never intended to be your primary place of residency, then you would not qualify. It's not a black and white determination. It really does apply or rely on the intent of the individual. And that's why it says it's the person who intends to make the state is or her principal place of domicile either permanently or for an indefinite number of years. So I don't know if I answered that question to your satisfaction, but it is a curious aspect of residency slash domicile. And as you described it is that the way case law has tended to look at it? Yes, yes, it is about your intent. And that's basically what case law has said. Because, so my intent was to live here for five years. That feels like a very definite period of time that on the plain reading of this says no. Yeah, but you could also interpret it that you were that you were intended to be here for an indefinite number of years or that this was your principal place of domicile. I understand your question. If you want to work with that or try to refine that language, I can do that. This is based on the driver's privilege card and under the motor vehicle law. Let me ponder. Thank you. Okay. Dave, Dave, we know we have a delay. I think Dave's... That was muted for a sudden delay. My apology. I'm a migrant worker employed in a seasonal occupation. My intent though is if things work out is to stay here for a long time. Could you comment, and Michael you may not be the person to the contractor or the organization who gets the grant to operationalize this. There may be frequently asked questions and could it say one person is a migrant worker whose intent is to stay here for duration, they're eligible. Would that be in compliance with this law because it's their intent stated up above in line 17 yet in number 20 that says they're prohibited. Would they be eligible? I'm a migrant worker, but I do want to stay. Well, so most of the migrant workers that are here seasonally are here on a visa, H2A, et cetera. And so they're supposed to return to their home country at the end of the expiration of the visa. So if I'm a contractor and I see the language that's in the bill currently, one of my questions might be, are you here on an H2A visa or are you here on a seasonal visa or on a visa that's limited in time or duration? To me, that would be a disqualifying aspect for that person, even if they said that they intended to stay past their visa. So because they would be living in the state or a particular purpose involving a defined period of time and I could prove that in the application process. Well, generally children don't come with you on an H2A visa. Okay, I'll learn more about how our migrant workers are compensated. Thank you. I'll think about this more. Appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so I think we will continue our discussion with resident and those included. I'm sorry, I have a chip request next, Chip. And no other questions will move to the next section. Okay, I mean, I wanted to just kind of weigh in on this discussion, but if you think if we're gonna do it later. No, go ahead. No, go ahead. Mike, I need to know, Michael Grady's, what is your timeframe, Mike, because I don't want to hold you. Well, I was supposed to be gone at 9.45, but my next committee changed me to 10.30. So I am here until, you know, 10.20. Okay, so we can hear Chip's statement and then we'll move on to the next section. Mike, you're good with that. Yep. Okay. To me, it makes sense to use a definition that we know work to cover the sorts of people that we, I think, well, that I'm thinking about. And I think many of the committee members are thinking about. I worry that if we try to sweep in, if we try to create a new definition that sweeps in everybody that we can think of explicitly that we're going to potentially open this in a way that will mean that we won't be able to provide that the full, you know, equity, $1,200 and $500 payments to the people who we want to participate in this program. I think Mike has, I heard him say that this definition has been the case law indicates that people who come here with the intent to be here for a purpose to live here, the domicile here, whether they come with the intention of a very specific number of years, five years, for example, or an indefinite idea would be considered residence under this definition. You know, I think of a college graduate from Boston who says, I'm going to go work in at Ben and Jerry's for five years. And then I think I'm going to move out to Colorado. We would consider that person a Vermonter, a resident while they're here. I mean, they came here with the intent of being here for a period of living here, of participating as a Vermonter. And I don't think anything in this definition makes that different for someone a undocumented farm worker who comes to Vermont with the idea that he or she is going to work on a dairy farm here to make money for a period of years, you know, whatever they have in mind and then go, perhaps go back to their own country or their original country. That seems, as I read this, they would qualify as a resident of Vermont under that circumstance. And that I think is largely who we're trying to capture. I just want us to be careful not to, in our attempt to serve everyone that we can think of risk opening this up in a way that means that we aren't serving the people that we want to serve as fully as we'd like to serve them. Thank you, Chip. I want to remind the committee, when we start building new definitions, we're going to need to take more testimony and this bill will probably go to a policy committee and not remain in our committee. And it would become a January issue at that point. And it's not, I'm not intending that for to sway anyone's opinion on what the bill needs to say. I'm just putting the realities out there that we appropriate money and we rely on policy from the committees of jurisdiction. And so we're walking a bit of a fine line, but right now we are walking with a proposal that is in our budget and trying to address those points as we see fit. So we can take this in a whole other direction and we have absolutely the ability and the authority to do that. But it would mean going to another committee. And I'm not using that as a threat, just as reality. Runda, I think you have a question. No, I was going to agree with Chip. I mean, I am agreeing with Chip. And then I took my hand down because I thought, well, no adding to it, but I really feel that we have to be, there's a line we have to follow that says we want people who are living here for a period of time who are working on our farms. We're talking about our dairy farmers. And once we start talking about the people who are living down the street from me at a farmer's market where they have these fields and they're just in for a few months, that's not who I'm thinking of in terms of qualifying for this. So I'm thinking about those people who are here, especially those with children who are living here over a period of time. And that's, so I basically agree with what Chip is saying. Thank you. Thank you, Linda. Okay, Mike, I think we're ready to move to the next section. Okay. Next number. I just want to mention, while you were discussing that, I went to California's program to see what they did. They just said that the person has to be a resident of the county where they are applying. They don't provide a definition. So it is, again, based on residency and that general concept. California has already passed a bill similar to this? Yes. Oh, my God. Okay, thank you. California, New Jersey. The California program is a private public partnership. The New Jersey program was initially vetoed and then reenacted. And I think right now it's basically using private funds, but I can confirm that for you. Okay, let's move to, we're past resident Teresa, let's move down to establishment of the program. And Mike has already walked through all of these pieces. And this is the program that we agreed upon when we took a raise of hands that we would, it's to address those Vermonters left behind under the federal stimulus. It's the 1200, the 500. And so I think that we have addressed this piece, but the administration of the program, we have not addressed. And I don't see any questions from committee members on this piece. So can we walk down to the administration? Teresa, please. Okay, are there any, we're going to have a lot of discussion, Mike, with you later about how we're going to administer this program and whether, you know, what agency or department we use. And I think that we will have some guidance from the position that we set up the executive director of racial equity. Marty has a question and then Chip. I'm concerned about that word shall that Michael pointed out on line 16, that whoever we asked to do it, they shall partner with someone else. And then it says as needed. So I guess I don't understand it. Either they shall do it and go ahead. Or not necessarily. We heard yesterday from Susanna Davis and I asked her if she wanted to be part of overseeing this program. And so that shall would mean that whoever we choose would work directly with the executive director of racial equity who would be at this time, Susanna Davis. And then to partner with that they will can, you know, they shall partner with others as needed. You know, if she feels that migrant justice needs to come in or other groups need to come in to weigh in, that they shall partner with them if the need arises. That's how I am reading that, Mike. That's why it's drafted that way. For instance, say that there's a need for outreach or there's a need for translation assistance in the application process, then they shall do that because the need has arisen. Marty, do you have another question? Okay, I just would think, I would just think May would be more appropriate, but. I think that that's a policy decision. I think that's up to you. If you wanna give that entity a little bit of flexibility, I think shifting it from shall to may would do that. Okay, so we'll come back to line 14 number one with the shall may issue. So that's a committee discussion that we can have. And then let's continue down, Teresa. Are there any other questions? Chip, did you hand up here? Yes, you did. I'm sorry. Sorry. So Mike, I think I know the answer, but I'll just let you say it. On number two, the agency shall not be required to initiate rulemaking. The reason for that. Timing. It generally takes five to eight months to work through all the APA timing requirements. And I think you'd be beyond the timeframe for when you want this program to operate. That's what I thought. Just wanted you to confirm it. Thank you. And Linda, Linda, are you there? You might. Just I keep up, I keep unmuting and my machine keeps muting me. So it's telling me not to talk. Anyway, you know, having served on the rules committee for, you know, forever, for a hundred years or more. And understanding how many times we have to delay an issue or rule because something didn't get done right or something like that. Just to me, I was really pleased to see the fact that we would not have to go through rules for this. So that's my opinion on it. So thank you, Linda. Thank you. All right, Teresa, let's move down onto page four, please. Further down. And I think the next piece is, this is where we have what, you know, the agency or whatever we choose to do. We'll work through all of these pieces of, you know, if they can go out to a third party, if it stays in house, if they have the jurisdiction. We have the bulletin 3.5 around the sole sourcing because if they do go out, the time constraints. And so it handles that issue when we're in emergency situation. And I'm just looking to see if there's the confidentiality piece and the contracts. So are there any questions on any of these pieces? I think that those will all be committee discussion, but are there a clarification that we need to ask anyone has for Mike? I'm not seeing any clear. Can we go to the next page, Teresa? I just have one kitty. I'm sorry, I'm not quick enough. Had Diane? On the contract with this entity, what is the report back? What is the responsibility for reporting back what they've done and provided? I'll go ahead, Mike. I was gonna say that's something we can write in, but go ahead, Mike. Sure, so you're still gonna be subject to the administrative bulletins. So you're still gonna be subject if the agency is gonna issue it as a grant to the contractor for subsequent award to eligible applicants, then it's subject to the grant reporting requirements. If they're gonna do it as a contract with the contractor, then it's subject to the contract provisions of administrative bulletin, what is it, five? So you have those reporting requirements built in to either avenue that the agency would take in pushing the money out to the contractors. Okay, thank you. Marty and then Mary. Oops, are you there? Yes, yeah, this is Marty. I, Linda brought up yesterday, and I think a very important point that any payments that go out the door should come from the state of Vermont, not from migrant justice as an example. In section two here, line 14 and 15, does that preclude working with migrant justice as an example to find people who, and to do the outreach and to find out who's eligible. But then, frankly, I would like to see the check that goes out the door to come from the state of Vermont as opposed to from an organization such as migrant justice. Can that happen in item number two here? I think I can do that for you. For example, in one of the Ag Assistance, CRF Ag Assistance programs, it was Vita that was administering, but the check was being issued by the state of Vermont. So that could be, that could be important to me. Is that a longer discussion with committee members or are committee members comfortable that even if we work with an outside source like Vita that the check can still come from the state of Vermont? I just, I only have a question on the, does that slow it down or pose an issue if it comes from the state versus your ability to have to report back if that, that would be my only real concern is if it gets slowed down. It takes time for the state to cut the check to review the request for the check in to cut it, yes. Okay. So any other questions from members on this topic? Is Mary, is yours on this topic about the check coming from the state? I'm just going to put that down and as we make decisions, Mike can make these changes. Is that one we're ready to make now or would you like to hold it until we have a package? Not Mary? If it takes time, it's okay if it's a day or two, if it is a month, then I'm concerned. So I'm not sure I'm, yeah. I don't think it's a month and I can check with some of the agencies that are running programs like this. I think it's a couple of days. It's not just a day and it's a couple of days probably up to five. That seems reasonable and I would be comfortable with saying, yes, the check has to come from the state. If it's more than that. So to your question, chair, if it's a long period of time, no, I'm not comfortable if it's a short period, I am. Okay, you'll come back. Could you get us that information and that will determine the direction we go? I'm not seeing from anyone else except Peter has a question on this topic. Just to comment, one of the things I talked about yesterday was building trust and I think that to have the funds, if we distribute the funds to an NGO, Migrant Justice or someone else and then they distribute and there's nothing on there that says from the state of Vermont or it's a check from the state of Vermont, we're not building that trust between the state and our individuals that are frankly feeding us and helping us. So to do the check directly from the state, I think is important. It is a small piece in building trust which takes a very long time and providing it takes up to a week, I'm okay. Dave, thank you, Peter. Dave, I think you have... Sorry, there you are. I think it can work. My concern was that some of these folks may not have workable mailing addresses in which things can be mailed to. But I think they could say, mail it to the Migrant Justice Program on Church Street in Burlington and then I would go there and pick up the check. I think it could be done with a workaround. I'll talk to the Susanna about whether that's an issue that a lot of folks don't really have addresses the way we do that they can use reliably. Anyways, that was in the back of my mind. Not, I'm happy to go with the state issuing it, but I do want to look a little deeper quickly into that issue. Thank you. Thank you, Dave, and you'll get back to us. So, Mike, you'll get the timing and Dave does have a question about addresses, but that's different than coming from the state. Let's move down. Mary, did you have another question or was your, oh, you were, you're good. Okay, let's go down to the next section. We have the confidentiality that Mike went through to quite an extent. When Mary had some good questions overall earlier and were there any other questions on confidentiality that Mike did not cover earlier? Then, Teresa, let's continue down. And we're just on page five. My goodness, it seems like we've gone through pages. So, Mike, is there anything, any questions here from committee members? This is all about confidentiality still, Mike. Am I correct? Yes. Yep, so subsection E is about confidentiality under the State Public Records Act. Subsection F is about ensuring that anyone that's implementing the program doesn't disclose personally identifiable information. They're similar but slightly different. And so I wanted to treat them as two different subsections. And I think you spoke to both of those in an example, what happened earlier within DMV. Let's continue down, Teresa, because I think we've covered those. And finally, we have the appropriate creation piece. And then the other piece was for the administration use, which that could be an X as well, but we're working off. This was put together with several different bills. And so our appropriation, the proposal from the administration that the governor put on the table was $2 million to do the program, which is the $1,200 and $500 program, which our committee has agreed upon. The fiscal note was arranged from, I believe it was 4.4 to 5.3, knowing we have some work to do with money, are there some thoughts from committee members about what we would like to think of what this an appropriate number would be to do this. And I have made us, and I think that's my only hand right. Thank you. I'd like to put on the table $3 million. That's a million more than has been put into the budget by the administration. The reason I'm wanting us to at least discuss this is that we have seen through the fiscal note as well as the testimony from our Racial Equity Executive Director that the real cost of this potentially might be over $5 million, knowing we don't have money to just apply where we might want to. That's why I'm putting out there for discussion to just raise it a million because it would seem to me that there's virtually no question that more than 2 million will be needed. And if perchance it's not, then swept back to the general fund. So, Meida, I think what I'm trying to follow what you're saying, the governor has 2 million on the table. You're saying that we add a million more to the 2 million for a total from 3 million at our end to get to a 5 total. No, no, no, no, no, I'm saying 3 million, 3 million total. 3 million total, okay. And are there other thoughts on that? Mary has her hand up and then Diane. Well, I had been hoping that we could at least have the conversation around bringing it to a total of five given that that's the identified need. I certainly understand the press needs elsewhere in the budget, but I would like us to try to stretch ourselves to find a total of five. Okay, Mary. And Diane, I think your hand is up. Thank you. I would, I mean, we've seen the fiscal note. I don't know if that hasn't changed. I mean, I would like to see us be able to fund it to the point where we've done it appropriately for the demand, which would be somewhere in the neighborhood of five. But understanding, you know, we've got a couple of other things that we're gonna be working on in the next couple of days, right? Madam Chair, that may soften that number one way or the other. But I mean, I think it's in the end if we're gonna do the program and take the fiscal note seriously, we would try to get as close to five as we can. Okay. But I don't know if I'm ready to, you know, we've got a couple of other decisions to make before I fill in that blank. I have Marty and then Chet and then Mehta. Well, I agree as well that we've seen the fiscal note. We know we think what it might cost. It would be nice if we had $5.3 million, but I guess I'm siding back with Mehta. I don't think we have that amount of money. And I think putting in three, which is more than the governor had would be an appropriate amount simply because we don't really know what all this is going to be. But more importantly, there are other, I think, just as important issues that we're trying to fund with our other money. So I would tend to be a little bit on the conservative side, but I'm willing to look at more of all of a sudden we found a windfall of money, but I'm pessimistic that will happen. Thank you, Marty. Chet and then Mehta. So I'm not sure quite where to begin. So I along with others have been trying to look to find whether or there are any places that we could come up with that money. You know, at the end of the day, of course it's all of these spending decisions will come before our committee and we have to prioritize as we always do. But if we're able to fund the money, I feel pretty strongly that we should fund the program at an amount that will allow us as best we can determine to serve all the people who would be eligible fully. I mean, this to me is really about taking, providing equity. And I think that's what the governor, the reason he put it in his budget was the recognition that we are not treating all of our monitors the same and that this proposal is an attempt to do that. Adam, I can't remember if it was in our committee or somewhere else that I heard him say that their proposal, their number was a conversation starter that they wanted to come to the legislature with this proposal, which I think we all did. We're really thankful to the governor for having put on the table and it was a place to start the conversation about what we could do and how much we could do. And the legislature is gonna play its part in figuring that out. I worry very much about if we don't fund it at a level that we think will serve the people that are eligible, how we determine who doesn't get a payment or how you reduce the payments. And once you begin reducing payments then we're not talking about equity anymore. We're talking about treating a group of monitors differently than others. And so for my part, I'm gonna say I really want us to go forward with the idea that we're gonna put $5 million into this program. We believe that that will serve the people that we believe will be eligible for it. And then we need to come up with the money to do that. And the next day or two, we'll know whether we have that source for that money and then we can have a discussion about whether the committee agrees that that is a priority in a way we wanna spend it. Thank you, Chip and Mehta and Peter. Thanks. For the record, I just wanna say it's a rare moment when I'm the conservative one. So just mark that down, somebody who's keeping track. But also I would be so happy if we can come up with $5 million or whatever the full amount is that would support this. I would be happy as can possibly be and would support it wholeheartedly. If we can find that money, I will support that. No question whatsoever. Thank you, Mehta and then Chip. And I think then after we need to let my lady go, I have Chip. I think you meant me, Kitty. Peter? Yeah, I'm getting Peter. And then I have rep, rep must be Bob. It's just rep Bob. So, I guess so. So Kitty, if we're gonna do something, let's do it right. And that also helps to build trust. So let's allot $5 million into this. And if there is any money left over at the end of the year, it will be swept back at the end of the year because that's what happens at the end of the budget. I think we set out to do this right and we go from there. Thank you, Peter. And Bob, there, I have the whole thing now. I know it's you. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, very much. And I wanna echo what Peter just said. He hit the nail on the head, I thought. We've got a lot of obligations here and a lot of unknowns. And we've got a whole next year that's really unknown. So to get our cart financially ahead of our horse at this point, we're gonna do that anyways, to some degree. I think we have to be very careful. We've got, I don't wanna bore everybody with this, but we've got the Vermont State Colleges that is just lingering out there with major issues and costs. And I think we just have to be very careful. And we can follow this through as we see how money rolls in it. Money's actually coming in better than what anybody expected a little bit, but we don't know how that's gonna progress. It depends on the, I don't have to tell you how this, but anyways, I'm with Peter, thank you. And Bob, just to be clear, Peter's position was if we're going to do this program to fully fund it, to make it work, it was to address the $5 million if we can find those available dollars. And so the available dollars needed would be an additional three because there's $2 million in the budget. So there are $2 million in the budget. That is correct, but didn't he mention into going into next year? Not doing it all right at this point. That's what I thought I heard anyways. No. Do you want to clarify, please? Not yet. I did say, you know, let's allocate appropriate $5 million into this program, do it right. At the end of the year, if there is any leftover, it will automatically get swept back unless we make some decision at that point in time that it would do something different. Because that's what happens to the money in the budget. Yeah, I reverse heard him. I'm sorry. Okay, and then when we talk about, you know, the administration of the program, we can talk about no more than X amount of dollars as we did in some of the other programs that came before our committee percentages that could go out for any kind of administrative fee. So what I would like to do now, we've been only an hour and a half. And unless there's any questions for Mike, I think that Mike and Nolan may need to be in other places or prepare for other things that they have to reason. Can we have a full screen again, please? Thank you. Mary, do you have one final question? Yeah, well, and it is on this section, we had had a conversation about whether or not we were going to, of the portion of money we set aside for this program, reserve some piece of it for children. And that belongs in here. And I don't know if you would want to discuss that here or take advantage of them before they leave. I'm sure. I had that on our list of lots of open topics, but I think that that is one that Susanna Davis brought up. And if that's something we can take off the table quickly, then let's do it. And she suggested of the $500 payment, there's between 500 and a thousand children. So the most it would be the $500,000. And her recommendation was to make sure that the children were secure. And then if that money is not all used, then it would drop to the full payment going out of the 1,200. And then whatever of that that's not used is whatever construct that we bring back into the state. So that's the proposal Susanna had mentioned. Mary has put it on the table. Chip has a question or comment? Well, just about this. So just my recollection is that she brought that up in the context of if we funded it at less than we thought would fully fund the program, that that's how she would prioritize it, the money that we had. So at say the $2 million level, if we didn't think that would serve everyone, that she would, her recommendation would be to try to serve the children first or to reserve a certain amount. I will say that the way the bill is constructed now, I think we'd have to rewrite it in a way in order to do that. I think right now the children are tied to the eligible adult. And if it would take some doing to shift that, not that we can't do it, but we'd have to rewrite some of it. But in any case, my recollection is that her recommendation was in the context of if there wasn't enough money to serve everybody. And frankly, not frankly, but my inclination would be to not try to do that division if we can come up with the amount of money we think will fully fund the program. I didn't remember that. So thank you, Chip. That's an excellent point. So we shouldn't have this conversation until we decide the funding level then. So back off. Any other questions for Mike or for Nolan before they leave? And Nolan did get confirmation from Susanna, you asked her the question about seasonal workers, Nolan, would you like to relate that to the committee, please? Yeah, the estimate is for resident estimate and it does not include seasonal workers. Doesn't include the whole group of students, seasonal workers and people here on contracts. Correct. Thank you, Nolan. Any other questions, Mike? So going back to Representative Fagan's question about the definition of eligible adult and the fact that it references economic impact payments, I went to the Treasury, US Treasury's website to see how they're characterizing those stimulus payments. They call them economic impact payments, but they capitalize the term, which is actually what the administration did in there proposal, but are drafting manual, lowercase them. What I'd propose is I'll put in a definition of economic impact payments, which is the stimulus payments of $1,200 to eligible adult and $500 to eligible children underneath the CARES Act. And then that will be clear that that's what, looking at the Treasury document website, the children that were eligible under the CARES Act were 17 or younger, not 18 or younger. Do you want to be consistent with that? They were under 17. Yes. They were 17 or under. So once you're 18, you're considered an adult. They were just under 17 years old. So does that include a 17-year-old or not? Not as I read the language, no. So this is a policy question. You don't need to be bound by that. It's whether or not you want to set it at under 18 or under 17. Mary and Mary, your hand is up. Yeah. I would be very uncomfortable taking it lower than 18. As a matter of policy and other areas, we're driving up the age of childhood. In the criminal justice area, we're talking about 21 and under. So I get the desire to be congruent with the child. The federal program, but boy, that makes me uncomfortable to go younger than 18. Chip and Marty. So I'm trying to understand, did the feds then consider someone over 17 or over an adult and give them a $1,200 check? I mean, or did they just weave out two years worth of? I don't know. I'm gonna have to go and look at that. That's a good question. Is there a gap or did that 17-year-old get treated as an adult? I need to look at that. And 18-year-olds would have been covered. It would just be 17-year-olds that were left out. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I guess we need some more information. I'm inclined as much as we can to follow the federal program. But I do think that if it turns out that 17-year-olds were considered adults, which I'd be surprised if they were, but that would increase the fiscal note. Yeah. If that would increase it or not. I mean, usually we think of under 18 or 17 and under and not, I've never seen a 17-year-old just excluded from both definitions. Anyway, I think we just need a little more information. Yeah. Before we guess. Okay, Marty? I would agree it sounds like we need more information. My gut reaction is we should make our program as close to the federal program as it was, because that's our intent to extend that same benefit to people who did not get it before. And my conclusion from those remarks is that and 17-year-old could have applied as an adult under the federal program. And if that's the case, then that would be the same thing here. The 17-year-old could apply or the 18-year-old could apply as an adult under this program as well. So I guess just clarification on that. Okay, thank you. And any other questions for Mike or Nolan? Okay, thank you, Mike and Nolan. And as we work through this, Mike, we may pull you back in or send information through CHIP if your schedule is just jammed. Sure. No worries, have a good day. Thank you. Thank you, Nolan. And so what I think we should do at this point is take a 10-minute break and then come or 10 or 15-minute break and then come back. And we're going to, I'd like to take just about another half hour at the most on this bill. And so that CHIP, he will be working with Susanna so that when we bring Susanna back in, we make sure we can get some clarification of the direction our committee wants to take and that she can weigh in as well on our direction to make sure that we're serving the population, that I think she has a pretty good heartbeat on and if she doesn't, who we need to have come in to help us work through this.