 So this is the official start of the afternoon meeting of the House Appropriations Committee and we're very happy to have our committee of jurisdiction with us as we have been doing as we go through these budgets to expedite our work. And today we have Representative Marcott and the members from the House Commerce and Community Development Committee. So Mike, welcome. And before I get started, Mike, do you have a couple of words you wanna say in our introduction? Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate the invitation to sit in and work with your committee. And we look forward to working with you and with our members of the Agency of Commerce Community Development to hopefully put a good package together that will continue to help our business and business community and our economy and our state. Thank you, Mike. And this morning, your committee took testimony from ACCD which is also with us. So welcome. I'm looking for Secretary Curley. There you are. I'm looking at my Hollywood squares and people jump around. Welcome and in a minute, I'll have you introduce your team. But what I would like to do here today is to first do the budget. And as soon as we've done the budget, I'd like to move to the CRF and the administration's budget proposal does include the additional spending of the CRF dollars. So it's a blend. So if we could look first at the agency's budget and then move to the CRF and then I would also like to spend time. And I'm sorry, Mike, if your committee has already done this, our committee would like to hear where we are on the rollout of the CRF dollars that are appropriate here from our June bills and learn perhaps some of the issues that we've learned after it's gone out, any adjustments that need to be made and also focusing on the new dollars. So there's all sorts of moving pieces. Mike, as your committee agrees or have comments or suggestions on the budget, don't wait to send it as a whole package. Send the pieces as they come so we can start checking this budget off. And please don't do a formal, just a simple email. You don't have to cite sections of statute or sections of the budget. Just an informal email is all we need. And Linda is the liaison to those pieces of the budget and was also part of the Rural Economic Development Group. And so as those pieces come, send them to the members, but also to Teresa so that we all get them. Okay, we'll do that. Thank you. So welcome. We're really glad to have your committee joining us and we've found with other committees it's working pretty well and moving us along quickly. So now I would like to jump in and again, formally welcome the agency of commerce and community development and Secretary Curley, I am going to let you introduce your team and let you lead our way. And we have from now until about three o'clock, so we have an hour and a half to move through your budgets. So welcome, Secretary and please lead us in the direction I'd like to take us first. Great, thank you so much. Hi everyone, good afternoon. Thank you so much for having us all here today. I hope you're all well. I do want to send a congrats out to Representative Watson. I joined when there was a little conversation happening around that. So exciting news. My, the team that we have with us today from ACCD, we have Deputy Secretary Ted Brady, who will do much of the driving as we go through the budget detail. Our finance director, Kathy Fair Goslin is with us. And then we have our commissioners. We have commissioner Hanford, we have commissioner Pelham and we have commissioner Goldstein with us, as well as our policy director, Jess Mintoner. And I apologize if I'm missing anyone else on our team. I can't see all the participants. So, you know, we, as you all know, we've had a very, very busy couple of months. We appreciate your support in appropriating money to help us get grants out the door to these businesses that are trying so desperately to survive. So, you know, we've learned a lot of lessons. We've adapted as a team and, you know, we're proud of how we have adjusted and made things work. It's not always perfect. It's not always easy. But again, we're trying to do things the best we can. With that, I want to turn it right over to Deputy Secretary Brady to take us through the budget. Thank you so much, Secretary Ted Brady, Deputy Secretary of the Agency of Commerce here. If I could take everybody to page two of the presentation to start. I'm gonna do this just as the chair asked me to, which is let's talk about fiscal year 21, general fund dollars. Let's talk about fiscal year 21, recisions, changes from, not recisions, changes from our original proposal. And then let's talk about the total package, which includes the CRF money, the Joint Fiscal Committee requests, tax credit proposals. So this page in front of you is everything. But I want to bring your attention to the top, the summary and highlights, the orange bar. This shows that our base budget has a $397,000 reduction from what you saw a few months back. We'll take these through the up and down documents in just a moment. And then the only other changes to general fund dollars are the next two down, general fund one times. We have two one times, the equity stimulus program for $2 million and the public access television study for 100,000. The equity stimulus program is a new thing that evolved over the past few months. It's to fund stimulus payments to those Vermonters that were ineligible for stimulus payments from the federal government. So think people who are married to immigrants and immigrant workers here in Vermont. Those are the two most notable groups. And that was a $1,200 payment you're referring to. Yes, yep, a $1,200 stimulus from the feds. And the second one time is a public access television study that we were gifted by the legislature in the final days of the spring session that we'd hoped to use CRF money for. And after consulting with the consultants, they said we shouldn't use CRF money. So we need to ask for some general fund money. We'll get to the rest of this in a moment. But Theresa, if you wouldn't mind taking us down to page, sorry, while I drive my own document, take us down to page six, I believe, I'm sorry, page five. So I just wanna run you through our up and down documents. We have four of them because we have three departments, Economic Development, Tourism, Housing, and then we have admin, which is also a department, but it's just the admin features of our wonderful agency. So this first one, this is where these four documents are where the $397,000 show up. There's nothing more. Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry, I don't mean to keep interrupting. I just wanted to make sure the committee of jurisdiction knows that this is the delta or the change from the January proposal. And so Ted, if there is an initiative or a sum of money that you're remembering from the January proposal that's not reflected here or has been, is now off the table, if you could reflect that, that would be helpful. If not, we'll go back and reconcile between the January and August. Sure, thank you so much. I think the most important thing for all of us to reflect upon was that all of our special initiatives were one-time money, so they wouldn't have shown up in our recurring budget. Thank you. And sadly, the new budget that's been presented does not include any of our one-times. The only one-times that show up now are the two that I just mentioned, the equity stimulus payments and the PEG access television. So we should not see any differences between the January crosswalk and the August crosswalk. Only in these small dollars, which are not programmatic in general. I'll make sure I highlight them all for you right now so you are not caught off guard, but most of these are very small administrative changes that should not reflect on our capacity. I have to tell you, every single member of our 80-person staff right now has been repurposed. So what we were doing six months ago no longer looks that way. This is totally new for our agency. We have never been an emergency response agency. We're a recovery agency. We're a fully emergency response right now. 20 people from our staff are answering phones or administering a grant program that didn't exist six months ago. Our staff are taking questions, like can I cut hair in my parking lot to how many people can fill it, can I get my hotel to, can I stay over to hotel for college? I mean, everything about our agency looks different today and we hope we can return to some semblance of normalcy. At best we're doing 60% of what we used to do. So it's been a whole new world for us. So this is our admin up and down document in front of you. You can see that towards the bottom in the light yellow, the changes are summarized as $164,000 and $291 in a down to our admin budget. You can see where these show up. General service fees. We were fortunate that BGS and an effort by our staff to consolidate space reduced our national life rent reduction. The perfect time for that to happen. We courtesy of the $2 million the legislature gave to the one stop portal. We were able to eliminate a position that was funded through ACCD for that one stop portal project. So that shows up here. We have an operating reduction for travel, sponsorships and registrations, which is painful but not that painful because we're not traveling right now. And then the big one that will undoubtedly attract a little attention is the UVM data center grant elimination. So all of that adds up to $164,000. We've been giving a grant to the Vermont Center for Rural Studies to do census work for the past decade or so. It was about $100,000. Last year it was reduced to $50,000. This year we have to eliminate it in our budget. The good news is the census is important. We're able to find some carry forward money to continue funding them through the census work. So we're not taking, pulling the rug out from underneath them but in order to make our budget work going forward this is a structural difference for fiscal year 21, 22. I would anticipate in 22, CRS Center for Rural Studies wouldn't receive a grant. Madam Chair. I'd like to stop here. Thank you to see if there are questions either committee members from either committee. I have a, I don't see any questions. Did UVM weigh in on what the impact of that change would be eliminating that grant? Sure. I think what we'd anticipate is that they'd have to do some more grant work as it's, this work is integrated into one of the units, the UVM where they do all sorts of different work for different organizations. They do, you know, they compete for a lot of grant dollars. So we're certainly hopeful that they're able to find additional grant dollars out there competitively to backfill this whole. And just that I heard you correctly that the grant was reduced previously from 100,000 to 50 and this totally zeros it out. Yep. Okay. Representative Kim both. Yeah, thank you Madam Chair. So Ted and looking at the ADS portal position you said that the $2 million that was allocated for this one stop portal eliminated the need but does that take that just a swap of funding or is it eliminating that person from your division? It's a swap in funding. So I think a lot of you know Alex, I be very well. One of the economic development IT people out there and he would still be doing this work but about three years ago, two years ago we ate this costs when the project was unfunded and we agreed with the Secretary of State's office to split the cost of this position and this would shift that cost to the CRF dollars. Thank you. Are there other questions on this budget before we move to the next? Okay. If not, let's move to your next budget or just a minute. We may have, Mary, do you have a question? I know you can't raise your hand because you're a co-host. I don't think you did have a question on. Mary? I'm trying to say I'm good. Thank you. Okay. I'm okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Okay Ted, let's move to the next budget. All right. So I think the next one is the next page, page six, housing and community development. So this has a total down of 146.901 this year. You can see the downs in the general fund column in parentheses, general fund salary reduction, a workers comp reduction and all of these downs are being covered by additional CRF dollars, additional community development block grant dollars. We're really knitting this together to make this work. And I don't want to pretend like this isn't painful, but this does not represent a reduction in any staff. It changes how we're paying for these positions. Representative Hooper. Thank you. Are you going to reflect elsewhere how the CRF dollars are replacing, say the general fund salary reduction in this section? We don't hear because it's not, we only have a very small portion of that general fund of the CRF dollars for admin. So we haven't actually been given those dollars. So I should be clear. This 146.901 aside from the allocated fee and workers comp, this is all likely to be balanced in the back of federal funds from CDBG or from the historic preservation side of things. And I should pause and offer commissioner Hanford to correct me if I'm wrong, but. Ted, good afternoon committee. You're exactly right. This will be covered under additional CDBG federal funds, mainly that's the main source of these funds. So if I may, and maybe I'm just not understanding how to read the crosswalk, I don't see money coming in under federal or special money to reflect that. Is in fact, are the, in fact, the general fund dollars falling to the bottom line and being swept? I think the best answer that I have is that our federal funding includes a base level of admin that we received additional CRF funding specific to CDBG that allowed a higher use of admin dollars than we usually are allowed to use. And so it's reflected in the federal 8.1 million on this crosswalk here, not really as an up because we'd already anticipated receiving that money, but we're able to use a little bit more for general admin that normally would all go out as grants. So it's still a pinch point for us and that those funds are being reduced to the sort of community projects that we normally are able to use, but we're able to shift that pain from general funds to federal funds. Okay, so the net result because you're able to use more of the CDBG money is a reduction in what you're able to send out into the community in grants. Yes, but I'd say most of that's made up for the additional dollars we received this year and our spending authority, we don't have to spend the CDBG money all by December 30th, like the CRF money, which is great. We have actually several years to spend that. And so we're going through a much more deliberate process of the needs of communities and our spending authority was divided over a couple of years. So it's not all reflected here in this year's budget. It'll be, you'll see in up the next couple of years in our budget of federal funds. Good, thank you. And if we read in our Zoom group chat, Kathy Therig-Goslin wrote that the spending authority was done through excess receipts. So I don't know if you want to expand on that or I mean, I think we all understand the use of the excess receipts. Kathy, did you want to add to that? Yeah, so that, so what happened was when we got, we were notified of the funding from HUD, we did an excess receipts request to finance and management to cover the new grants that are coming in and the admin money. So the spending authority came through the excess receipts process. So we don't need to change the federal dollars here because we already have it in the many budget that we have basically. Thank you for that clarification. And for the commerce committee, we're seeing across most budgets a 5% reduction in what we call our internal service funds. And those are, we've taken testimony from ADS digital services, the agency of digital services and building and BTS building and general services and human services, not human services, human resources. And they have work to find how they can charge departments less for those services that they typically allocate the expenses out to. And so we are seeing a 5% reduction in most budgets across state government. And those are the ones that you're seeing reflected here. The other piece was the salary reduction, which has been offset by other funds. And I think that's the end of, are there other, Marty, I'm sorry, representative felt it, do you have a question? Yeah, Mary asked my question. I was unclear about how the general fund was backfilled, but I guess I understand it now. Thank you. Thank you, Marty. Are there any other questions on this budget? Okay, Ted, let's move to the next budget development form. Theresa, it's the next page. It's economic development. This is a very simple one to read down through. It's a $47,908 reduction. And most of it's in the internal service funds. And I just want to give kudos to our finance management team for making that happen, because otherwise we would have had to eat more of a loss. And then the big one here is general operating, which is registrations to conferences, travel, advertising, purchase services. Like I said, we have drastically changed what we're doing right now. This one will be a painful cut to absorb in 12 to 18 months when we go back to what I hope will be normal and we send people around the world to represent Vermont, but right now, we don't need this funding. As drastically, so we're able to take this cut without cutting Commissioner Goldstein's ability to do her work. Thank you, Ted. Representative Kimball? Yeah, thank you. So Ted, is it safe to assume that any of the line items in your earlier projected budget from January that we may have had questions about or concerns about are just still contained in this budget, not one-time dollars, but regular programmatic dollars that you might have had in there? Yep, there's been no other significant change to our general fund budget, only one-times. The one-times look drastically different, but this budget does not look that different. Okay, there was a couple of things that come quickly to mind that we had discussed before, which was the support of the, I think like the Champlain Tourism and Convention Bureau and also Vermont Mountain Biking Association, their annual grant. So there's just two that stick out in my mind tonight without the benefit of looking through the rest of the budget. So those are in this budget then, is that correct? Correctly in tourism and marketing's budget and you should give a quick little primer. We were charged with reducing our budget this year, like every other agency. And when we went, we looked through, this is all we could do without doing damage and letting people go or stopping investment in Vermont's economy. So make no mistakes about it. The Chamber and the Mountain Bike Association were on our list of things that we considered giving up. If we gave up our pass-through grants though, it would do the exact opposite of what we are all trying to do as a team here, which is to make sure that organizations and businesses on the ground have the tools they need to recover. And so we made a decision to look only internally at these cuts, except where we absolutely had to. So yes, those two are still in this and they'll still reflect in our budget. Thank you for bringing that up, Charlie and Ted. And so as far as our committee is concerned, the letter of recommendation sent to us by the standing committees, they still stand because we are working off, unless it's changed here, we are still working off the January budget. And on March 13, when our committee finished almost 95, 98% of the budget, we were working off your letters of recommendation. And so in that letter, Chair Marca, was the recommendation not to fund the Convention Bureau or the Bikers Association. And unless your memo reverses that, we are sticking with what was brought before us because it was off the January proposal. And so if there's any change to those recommendations, we'll look forward to those in a very informal memo, but would make reference to those changes so that we understand your newer priorities. But for the members of the policy committee, I believe Theresa Germans sent out the language and on page four of the administration's language, you'll see all of the one-time funding that Ted keeps referring to. And there was 250,000 to tourism and marketing, that's now off the table with the governor, 500,000, well, one of those was for economic development, the next one was for tourism marketing, 250 for promoting outdoor recreation. And there's an entire list and you will see that those are now all grayed out, which means the governor, the administration has removed those from their proposal and they're no longer one-time asks. And so you may want to review that list of one-time money to make sure that you agree with those no longer being on the table. Are there any other questions are there any other questions that members have at this point before we move to the next budget? Okay, I do not see any. Thank you, Ted, let's move to next budget development form. Right, so page eight, I believe is- If you were finished, if you were finished here. Yep, page eight is tourism and marketing. Again, this is a somewhat simple, $138,214. Mostly eaten up in contracted services and this is our international marketing work, I think we all understand why we would make this a low priority this year. The hard part is when we make it a low priority this year, we are in our general fund budget, anticipating that this will be a hard thing to restore in future years. So I just want to put a pin in that just because we're saying we don't need it this year doesn't mean that we won't be back in 22 saying, now's the time to reverse this, but that's where most of the savings in tourism and marketing come from. The one times that we have decided not to bring back to you in this revised budget, a large part of because our work has changed so much and also because some of it can be done with CRF money. And so that we'll come back to that in a moment, but that's it for tourism and marketing. Are there questions from Representative Watson? Thank you. It was just a comment that you made about needing to come back next year for and asking again for the tourism funding. And it made me think about the budget cuts you made in the previous section that would have support positions. So it sounds like you're probably gonna have to come back and ask for that money again. So my question is really, if, are we essentially assuming right now that, once the COVID funds run out and we don't renew those positions that those people would lose their jobs? So you would have to come back, sorry, I'm processing my thoughts as we go along. You would have to come back and ask for money for those employment positions again next year is what I'm hearing. No, we've given you a budget that we think can sustain our operations at the level they're at now. We have to do things differently. We have to prioritize things differently, but worst case scenario, we think we could come to you next year with a budget that looks very similar to this and be able to keep the same number FTEs. Of course, that's a lot can change in a year and we'll have to come back to it, but our intention is we're giving you a sustainable budget that we stand by this year and also would build our fiscal year 22 budget based on this budget. I'm telling you, there are some things that we're deprioritizing them this year next year might look different. So I guess that does make me wonder then, how are we able to get rid of, and I'm referring to page six here, how are we able to cross out $50,000 from the budget and then replace it with COVID funding, but then expect minus a code funding the next year that you can maintain the same amount of FTEs. How does that work out? Theresa, will you go back to the form before this one, please? Thank you. Yeah, so the 40, the... This isn't the right one, Theresa. Go back to economic... Oh, it is, I don't... Let's see, this... Yeah, if you go back one more, Theresa. Sorry, the one that you were just at. Yeah, the total personnel service change, the 142,000. How can, if you don't have that money again in the budget for 2022, how can you maintain the same amount of FTEs is my question. The simple answer is we're operating on the assumption that we can continue to use this federal money to cover those positions. And we have a little bit of federal money in reserve that could take us out one or two years, but yeah, every year, we come back to you and the cost of living goes up as our allocated service fees go up. We certainly would anticipate that there's gonna come a time where we have to ask for small increases to maintain our payroll, but this won't be the reason why. It'll simply be that the cost of living goes up every year by a few percent, and we have to address that. Some years we can eat it because finance and management reduces our internal service fees. Some year we have to come to you and ask you. Earlier this year, our budget, our fiscal year 21 budget that we brought to you actually increased our year over year budget in salaries and expenses for exactly that reason. And we found a way to cover that this year through using some federal money and some other sources. And looking at 18 months, we think we can swallow that pill as well, but yeah, I hear what you're asking in 18 to 24 months, like any other agency we're gonna have to come to you and ask you to true up our books again. Okay, thank you, Ted. Thank you, Zachariah. Also, as we use CRF money, and I see where you've said that you've filled with federal dollars, so those wouldn't be CRF money because they'd have to be expended by December 30th, but these federal dollars would go out past 2022, but you did note, Ted, that it could create pressure on out-year budgets because you're not sure of that funding past the 18 month mark, but 2022 looks like it would be covered. Also, we are hoping that our economy bounces back because we're using a lot of one-time money as a bridge, hoping that the coronavirus is not an ongoing forever event. And as the coronavirus is handled and we see our economy as it opens back up and our economy thrive again, we're hoping that these one-time bridges that we're using will be offset again with ongoing money. So we will learn as we go through the fall and through the winter. Let's move Theresa back to tourism and marketing, please. Are there any other questions on this budget or Ted, did you finish? It was mostly the 5% reductions. And then you did mention the international contracted services, which hopefully in the future is something that we're able to add back into the budget as needed. And for the future years, we'll talk about some of the ways in this coming four to six months, some of our other requests will help offset this. Thank you. I don't see any other questions on this budget. So that is the fourth one. Let's move to your fifth budget. I think. I thought you said you had five. Just four. I think you can take me back to page two and we'll talk about just the holistic other asks. Thank you. If only we were just coming to you to say that we needed $397,000 less, wouldn't that be nice? But instead we were coming to you with a whole package. So we have these two general fund one times that I already mentioned. We have some tax credit proposals that we care about that don't show up in our spend, but do certainly offset revenue. Important to recognize that we had early budgeted the governor's budget already included foregone revenue for the downtown village tax credit expansion. I think actually at 1.4 million. So this is a $1.3 million expansion. So that is in the budget as presented in January. So no, no real change there a slight down. The military retirement income is not ours per se, but it is something we care about. So I wanted to flag it another foregone revenue that is baked into the governor's budget. And then we have the fun stuff, the stuff we're candidly without we are going to be in trouble. Okay. Can I, I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I just ask a question about that military retirement? Yes, I was just going to get you Diane. There you go. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. Ted, could you, I believe that that 1.4 is only six months. And maybe you can clarify that for me. I can certainly hail Mary full of grace that our wonderful secretary might have a little more on that than I do. Otherwise I take the blame for not being prepared further on that one. No, no, I can't, I can't help on that one. I do not know. I would have thought that was for six months, but I'm now that you're asking, I will look into it. Thank you. I'll try to give you the answer now. I do believe it is six months in a full year is the 2.8 million. That was, um, It was referenced earlier in earlier discussion with our committee. Does anybody else remember when that, when that was brought up? Um, it may have been brought up when ways and means was meeting when they met with us originally when the proposal was brought forth by the administration and the chair reminded us that that was for a half month. I mean, a half year. Uh, expenditure that that is a half year, uh, tax expenditure. Okay. I think we're ready to move to the CRF one times. Now this is your new proposal. This isn't anything that this has nothing to do with the gen, the June bills that went out. This is the, of the remaining CRF dollars. This is your proposal. Correct. Correct. We are currently spending the, uh, Grand dollars you folks gave to us in June and we anticipate having all of them deployed to the field. Uh, by about the second week of September. Uh, there isn't a single appropriation that we haven't, uh, acted on. The big one being the economic recovery grants. We anticipate being, uh, down to or very close to zero. Uh, by mid September. So we need additional funding to do anything else. So this is $133 million request. I'm just going to really touch on it lightly and then let our commissioners go deeper on it. Uh, the business grant program line for 23 million here. This is a new $23 million that we would put into the economic recovery grant program that you folks authorized for us where we've put out the $150 million with tax and ourselves in the past couple of weeks, more than 3000 applications. Um, this is to cover three critical areas. One is businesses, uh, sole proprietors businesses that have no employees. I'm sure all of you have received, uh, constituent inquiries about why sole proprietors can't get money. This would cover that group. Uh, to it would cover new businesses. You've probably received those also. The existing legislation requires new businesses, uh, to have been formed before February 15th, but also requires them to do something they can't, which is to prove they have losses compared to last year. Hard to do that as a new business. If you didn't exist last year, so we need to change there. And we're trying to help businesses that have less than 50% loss. The existing language allows us to help a business that can demonstrate 50% loss or more in any single month or quarter. Uh, we've seen a lot of 45% or 40% that, that need help. So now we're asking for more money to help them. So I would like to stop, I would like to stop and do these, uh, four grants one at a time and spend about five minutes on questions on each. Um, Adam, commissioner Gresham, did you have a question? Or were you asking to come into. I think you were just gaining access to our meeting, I believe. I was just crashing the party. Thank you. I love it's always timely, Adam. I'd love to read the text messages. So the business, the business. Are there any questions from either committee members on, on the first 23 million. So I do have, I do have a question. If I don't see any other questions and then I see representative Hooper's hands up and I'm not going to be able to articulate this as well as I want, because I haven't had a constituent. Contact me, but I have heard of other constituents. Um, I believe in the, where in the governor's proposal, and I think it is in here in the administration's proposal. Uh, there have been some individuals who, uh, receive confirmation of receiving a grant. Um, and then, uh, later learned that they would not receive the grant because, um, the money had run out. Can you articulate that concern that I'm hearing? And then I've also heard, and this, I just need confirmation on this that there's consideration of money left. Oh, see, this is in a whole different place. This is all new money. So is any of that new money needed for grants that have run out in this business grant program of 23 million? Sure. Commissioner Goldstein, would you like to address that? Sure. Um, I'll take the first part first. Uh, good afternoon, everybody. Um, yes, indeed. We, we aired on the women owned business, the two and a half million set aside. We approved more than we had money for. So there are about 48 people left on hold. We did not say that we would deny them. We have, uh, until September 1st, according to H 966, where if there is any residual funds in the two and a half million minority set aside, we, uh, those two pools of money merge. So we do anticipate that there will be residual. Um, obviously we're not sure because this is a rolling application, but, uh, we will do our utmost to make sure that that, the, those people get funded. In addition to those who we had previously approved, there were people in line that we had to notify that we ran out of funding for that set aside. Uh, to be clear, the set aside was, um, by legislative language, uh, meant for those with zero to five employees. We actually set it aside for just those with zero employees. The reason being that if you had one through five, you would be eligible throughout our much larger pool. And we didn't want to take up that space, um, for people who had no other option, but to come to us on the, uh, women and minority own soul props. So that's the first, um, piece. The second part of your question was what exactly, I'm not sure if I understood it. You want to know if there was residual, right? Well, I didn't, I shouldn't go there because we're on the 133, which is new money. And then at the end, we're going to talk about, um, other grants that are going out the door and I'll, I'll just give you where I'm going with that. I have heard that there's consideration that, uh, you have, that there has been a grant group that you have gone through and you're at the end of that group, but there is, there is money still that has not, uh, been granted out. And there's consideration to go back and relook at some of those that receive grants and perhaps giving them more at this time. Is that correct? That is correct. Last week we announced what we called the supplemental award program. And so in our, um, report and there was a interim report issued last week that I hope that you've received a copy. If not, we could send it to Theresa, but you will see the distribution of this grant money to be airing much more on the small business side, um, which is great. However, the people sort of on the larger side, uh, didn't get kind of, you could argue not their fair share. The 50,000 cap, um, is good for small businesses. The larger you go, the less impact that's going to have on saving your business. So the supplemental grant is available, uh, award to supplement people who already received the maximum, um, and people that are in the most damaged sectors. So really defined as travel and tourism or event related sectors. And that was announced last week. Tax has already accumulated, um, about, I want to say it's like $40 million in ask. And, uh, we have a smaller subset since most of the travel and tourism related were handled by the tax department, but we do have some. And our estimate on spend there is about 6 million, but the combination between tax and ACCD, we will spend that residual down with the supplemental. Okay. And can you tell me how much of that was left on the bottom line be after you had paid after you had granted out all the grant requests? How much was left on the bottom line? Uh, before the supplemental or after before the supplemental, how much supplemental we have about, uh, as of today, it looks like about 39 million and taxes somewhere around 13. And so when we do the math on supplemental tax, we'll need 30 million of our residual. Uh, and we will use the rest of our residual for our supplemental. Are there any questions, uh, other members and I see several. So first we have representative Hooper than Yacoboni and conquest. So my question is about the proposal for the new money. So if folks want to finish the conversation that you began with, um, I just wanted to ask, um, I think I have a question. I'll probably be chair to hold what I'll wait. Um, Dave or chip. Do you have a question, uh, it's following up on the conversation that just finished. Yes. Represent. Okay. I do. Thank you. Yep. I didn't mean to jump in front of chip, but I did mention the first. I'm confused between residual and supplemental. or failed harmless or fail safe if you will for those was it 49 people who received a letter saying they were approved but then received a letter saying they there were insufficient funds so that if there's not a residual or leftover that they would be covered out of this 23 million assuming through. Yeah so we did not promise anything but we also didn't deny so what we did is we held them in an on hold status to a first find out the results of 911 like 911 is the date where the two pools of money merge and if there's funding there we will pay. We also know that we're coming in with this ask of 23 million for those that we've left behind by the original legislation and if not we could pay from there. We will. Yeah, I mean it they were promised the money so we have to come up with it is kind of the kind of the attitude that we're that we're taking that to find to find the funding. I don't know if did I answer it did I answer your question okay. Thank you did I thought I heard you say that you're going to take care of them from where the other. This is secretary curly if I may. I think you know we we feel that you know folks relied on this email and made decisions based on it we want to make it right. We are going to need some help to make that right so we can't currently just grab from another pot of money that we might have left so we will need some help to to write this situation. It's unfortunate it happened but it happened again we lifted the system very quickly and now you know we want to we want to really come around and find a way to do it. As Joan mentioned come September one if there is money in the women and minority owned set aside, we could use that but applications come in every day so this is where we struggle to say that we will absolutely have money there because it's hard to tell right now because things are fluid. So I guess we would look to all of you we didn't when we proposed the 23 million in the business grant program, we were unaware of this situation that being said, we suspected we would have more people applying. So, I think in the mind in our minds we were going to, we were hoping to continue to help sole proprietors, but we weren't necessarily thinking about these 48 that we have issued an email to say they've been proved and that they would be receiving a check so, again, you know we would be grateful for any, any ideas that you all might have as well. Full disclosure. Just to clarify. Thank you. So, if the 23 is provided that would give you the help I presume you need. But can you tell me the dollar value of the commitment made to the 49. How big is the end of the number. It's $325,000. We need 325,000 and the proposal for the 23 includes also proprietors so that's why we feel one way or another to get the help to pay them. Thank you. Before I move to you, Chip, I'm just a bit confused. So, the money needed for the 48 individuals that had confirmation that yes, they call and check would be coming. And then they got the email that the check is not coming. They're not included in the 23 million. And so what part of money, what part of money was completely depleted which, which CRF pot did they fall in. In each, in age 966 there was a $5 million set aside for Vermont Community Loan Fund, two and a half of which should go to the women owned, and the other two and a half go to minority owned. On September 1, those both, both of those set aside pool into one pool of funds. And so we know that the two and a half million and the women owned business was exhausted. The problem is, we didn't know it until after the automatic email goes out once an application has been approved they get an automatic email. On Tuesday, we will know whether or not there's a residual funds and the minority owned bucket. And on September 1, both of those buckets become one. If there is payments will be made, if not we have to wait until we can get additional funding either through this $23 million bucket, or any other possibility to to fund these applications. And that's where I wanted to go so I understand about the two 2.5 and the 5 million that we passed from minority owned and women I totally understand that. I'm not sure why we need to go to the new money in if if money in another pot was not really extended instead of switching gears was there any thought about not doing a double grant, but coming back to the legislature and perhaps putting a proposal for that money that has not gone out the door to go to this group before we do a double grant to another group. Yes, so another way we could do it and this has will be proposed is that, even though there's a $23 million there's also an ask in the existing legislation to right now the requirement is you need at least one employee that we could strike that then we'd have the ability to fund those applications from our residual funding right here right now, but we don't have that capability because of the requirement that the that the business entity has to have at least one employee and these full props do not have employees. That's the technicality so if if that piece could be changed we could fund it from everything else that we have but right now everyone needed at least one employee. We'll wait to hear then from the Committee of Jurisdiction Mike what your committee chooses to do with. So now I'd like to move to representative conquest and then the other two it depends on which topic we are Diane whether you're after Mary or before Mary is yours on this topic. Yeah, but I think it's it's been pretty well covered I, I mean it sounds to me like that there's going to need to be some, some legislation to ensure that this can happen and I guess I'll just add my voice to the, what sounds like a group of us and to say that I want to be sure that those people who have been awarded grants but not gotten the money are taken care of before we even consider increasing the size of grants to others or, or creating new systems. So I appreciate that the agencies work on this and no blame at all for them. You know, having made a mistake given how much money and how many programs we asked them to create them in a short and get out the door in a short time so I just will be interested to see how the Commerce Committee takes us on and look forward to seeing how we resolve it and trust that we will. Thank you, Chip. You stated that much better than I did I appreciate that representative Lanford are you on this topic or a new topic. Well I'm on, I'm on the topic of, you know the these grants, but it is going sort of in this vein, you know we we touched on it with the current CF, CRF dollars that are out there that was in h966. I just want some clarification because I'm looking back at my notes and they may not be as reflective of reality as I often like them to be. I'm seeing that in the the economic relief bill, a CCD received or at least 56 million and the tax department 26 million. Is that correct. Yes, that is correct. Then you stated that before you're thinking about this next supplemental award round right. You've got the ACCD has left right now 39 million of that 56. If I could interject just to be sure there were two appropriations one through Act 115 which was a total of 76 between us and tax we had 20 million they had 56 and then Act 137 gave us 56 and then 20. So that was what we started with so when I gave you that number before about 39 million that was from the original 76 million. Yeah, from ACCD. And that was in at 115. Yeah 115 was the first act and then two weeks later. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Mary. So I'm moving on to the 23 million being proposed if we're ready to go there are ready to go and then we're going to move. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I wondered if you could provide us information on how you propose that 23 million be divided out between the three classes you described and how that in whether or not how you divided out will cover. So what are your priorities? Yeah, so proprietors are a tricky bunch in terms of aggregating and getting a dollar amount not everybody applied so we couldn't really say the represents the number that we turned away. We, as you may already be aware, you know, Josh's team, Commissioner Hanford's team had CDBG funds for sole proprietorship stabilization program and we fully expected that to be over subscribed and it wasn't. It's hard to get a handle on that we to be honest I don't think we broke it down between the three different categories we just wanted to make sure that we covered all those instances that are not currently covered in the existing program. So props new businesses, and the only one that there really is a significant numbers for is the people with 30% to 50% loss I know that tax was able to do some calculations. Based on the tax filings of particularly the hospitality and retail. And that's where we, we, we think that that would be, you know, the right dollar amount. Thank you. Maybe I'm under misapprehension misunderstanding. I was of the impression that sole props were the major area that had outstanding need in terms of trying to give them some sort of assistance is, is that not true. No, I think it's true I think in terms of numbers like sole props it's the largest number of businesses are sole props it's like I don't know every time we try to get an account it's really hard to get account because they generally file taxes under personal returns and they also don't have Department of Labor data since they don't that you know they they have not hired many people I'm speaking specifically of sole props with no employees. So in terms of numbers I mean they, they, they represented quite a large percentage of the numbers of applicants we had. You know, any, which way you can it could be like their 30,000 sole props right so we do think it is a big need. It's just I can't really aggregate the dollar amount if they're not coming in right. There's a lot more work a lot more hand holding a lot more financial statement preparation. You know, in the CDBG. Again, we thought that that would be overwhelming demand but there really wasn't so I can't explain you know why people have not come in but just we want to make sure that we don't preclude them from coming in by not having it as a capability of the program. I appreciate that and and I hope that the Commerce Committee will go into this in some detail in the, again, my impression. Kind of the small business backbone of Vermont is our are these small small props who hopefully grow into big ones with lots of employees and it just strikes me that we want to be figuring out a way to keep their feet underneath them and that they may have more trouble hanging on during these times then the larger organizations who sort of the businesses they've experienced less than a 50% loss. They may also have access to other sources of funding if they're larger, you know their credit lines may be better etc. Those are policy questions and couldn't couldn't help myself from going there. Thank you. Thank you Mary representative felt us. Yes, I'm looking at page four that gives up some text of the use this program that we're talking about. And a fourth item that would be covered by this 23 million is apparently for nonprofits, and you described that many were deemed ineligible because they have unique revenue situations. Can you explain what those problems were and how they can be resolved so that those nonprofits can get some relief. So, we did also issue grants nonprofits, but they fell within the same guidelines. So for example they needed an employee. There were a few nonprofits that did not have employees and were therefore denied that was one issue. Another issue with nonprofits is that in each 966 there was a stipulation that the Arts Council grants would be would be taking into consideration the program service revenue or the revenue of that organization separate and distinct from grants and donations. So we treated all nonprofits in that manner. And I think, you know that's another area that needs some work because some of the nonprofits really got much smaller grant than what they were expectation was so we didn't feel right treating one nonprofit separately and another so we treated them all in the same fashion that we treated the Arts Council nonprofits so that is just another area we're bringing out that may need some amendment. So are you proposing a change or the or the Commerce Committee might be proposing a change to rectify those areas to make it a little more equitable. Yes, I think that is the intent. Yes. Thank you. Teresa is going to these. This is the first one. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I think that's a good point. I'm going to ask a couple of questions at this time for 23 million before we move to the. The expansion of consumers. If I may just observe a concern that I have had as we've been hearing across the board from state government about how they're managing their revenues is that they are we the. They're using grants out to the communities. So in many cases that is nonprofits. And I just want to bring that to people's attention, particularly in the Commerce Committee, again going forward as they have the policy discussion about where we may need to be kind of putting some emphasis, given the role of nonprofits in our economy. Thanks. All right. And we look forward to the Commerce Committee issue set their work on this issue and work with the, with the agency. Mike doesn't have great service Mike so I hope you're able to follow along with the presentation but we're going to move now to the expansion of consumer stimulus. The 50 million. This is the. There's a rep who wants to enter but I don't know without a last name if I dare do that we may have that it's representative helm. Okay, thank you. We have heard some about the 150 or two households and exactly how that's going to work and how it's going to remain local. And so what could we have an overview with some more details on this please. I'd like to give this one to Commissioner Pelham was closest to it and is administering the pilot project that this is based on commissioner. Great thank you good afternoon everybody might be happy to give you a broad overview of this program. As folks may recall, in the original appropriation there was $2.5 million for marketing initiatives. There are different strategies that we tackled in terms of bringing economic activity to our local businesses and one of them was for our consumer stimulus program. We allocated $500,000 for that program. It has taken some time to get off the ground, due to the need to have a competitive request for proposals as to exactly how we would structure that program. To iron out all the details. At this point we are looking for that program to go live on September 8. For anyone who's actually interested I will let you know that we're having a webinar tomorrow afternoon at 330 for businesses who may be looking to sign up for that program. But the way that the pilot program works and and I'll get to this new one in a second but the way that pilot program works is that businesses throughout the state are eligible to sign up for the program. They will create the incentive for their particular business and then consumers that also have the ability to sign up for the program to receive a minimum of a $30 gift card that they can use at any of those businesses that have signed up to be part of it. So we've allocated the funding to make sure that we are distributing funds to the sectors that are most impacted so that includes lodging restaurants retail. You know how personal services excuse me and entertainment so that's how we can the back end workings of the program will make sure that the businesses that sign up, we're able to allocate the most money to those that have been impacted the most. As I said that program will go live on September 8 we've had a lot of interest in this program they are the goal for that pilot program is that we might be able to get minimum of $30 gift cards to 20,000 Vermonters with additional money based on the learnings of this pilot program we're hoping that we could extend that to all 300,000 households in Vermont so that's where the estimate of 150 per household comes from which would total up to the additional request of $50 million in funding to make that happen. That's a broad overview of how it works. I'm sure there are questions so let me know where else I can enlighten folks. So we approve. So, if I were, I would receive my household receive $150 gift card, and it would be a list somewhere I could go to see a list of businesses that are participating to determine what I could do with this gift card. So if I took it to let's say my local ice cream shop, and I use $15 of it on my first trip can I do that or do I need to go somewhere where I have to spend all $150. So I can tell you the details of the current program that we are rolling out. It would be open for discussion if we have this new money follow the same proposal. But the way the pilot program works is that as a consumer when you sign up, you indicate some of your interest so you might say I'm interested in restaurants or going to a sporting event or a coffee shop. And then the the that's like machine learning behind the scenes to be able to match up your interests, and you can also indicate what area you're from so maybe you want to support a business right in your local community. Maybe you're looking to take a trip to another part of the state. So you might want to find us an incentive that works someplace else around the state, you have the ability to basically customize your ask, let's say, and then you will be presented with several offers of different businesses that you could use that incentive. You don't like any of the ones that you're presented with you have the choice to say show me a different set. The gift card amounts will you do need to use the gift card amount in one transaction but they will be. There will be some gradations there so that you wouldn't necessarily have to spend if you chose a lower value let's say $15 to a coffee shop you'd have the ability to get the another incentive for more money at another business so that even out to have folks have enough incentive to actually go into the store and make that purchase and support that local business. We're still spreading it out to as many businesses as possible and making it available to as many residents as possible. How much does it cost to to roll out this program. Like if I wanted to have $150 worth of $15 gift certificates and someone's paying that much attention to me for 10 gift certificates and the business is putting them in and getting them all online and making it work. What's the cost to administer this program. The administrative cost to administer the program so it's one of the main criteria that we use in selecting a vendor for the pilot program that we are running right now. The pilot program the administrative costs are 15%. So the full 85% of the rest of the funding is direct incentives. I know that we're having a difficult time with a 7% I think chip in agriculture or forestry so this would be double some of the administrative costs for other programs. Some of the proposals that we received administrative costs that were several times greater than the 15%. So two and two plus times more. Representative Carol Kimball and conquest. Thank you madam chair. To the commissioner. I got distracted for a minute or so but are you saying that, you know, the incremental spending of this $150 at fifth, let's say 15 bucks at a time that there would have to be re re application to spend the rest of it. I think there would be the ability to extend the pilot program. If the legislature felt comfortable with that. But we also have the ability to to change the program if there were other concerns about how the pilot program is being structured right now. I don't think that was a very clear answer. Sorry to be persistent. I guess the thing that we, you know, we have a pilot program that like I said is about to get underway. If you folks wanted to extend the funding to just make that program larger we could absolutely do that. No I'm not asking that I'm saying that you know if these gift cards, whoever applies for this 150 bucks. Unless I misunderstood that 150 bucks has to be spent in one place. Is that correct. No that is not correct. The way the pilot program is structured is that there are different offers of different incentive levels depending on the type of business. So, you know, so for instance if you were going to get an incentive at a lodging establishment, you know we would need to give you a lot more than $15 to incentivize you to complete that purchase that might be several hundred dollars. All right. So just to be clear. If I've spent 15 bucks of that $150 and then stopped and then went to another place are you saying that I would have to reapply. That's my question. You would not have to reapply. We did a consumer just has to sign up for the program once. Then the customer can choose which incentive they would like to use. And then they can choose another one if they choose a lower value one that is presented to them. And how is it going to be rolled out. Did I miss that. So we are starting tomorrow afternoon is the first webinar for businesses to sign up for the program, so that they can be a part of that. Like I said if anyone is welcome to join we will record it so it will be available online certainly if you can't join live. The first step is to get businesses enrolled and then our plan is to launch on September 8 for consumers to sign up for it and start taking advantage of those offers. So how are you how are you reaching these businesses. Is it through Vermont tax or a CCD. We are using all of our partner partner organizations to do that outreach so we are working with the downtown organizations the chambers of commerce. We are bringing it out through all of our regular communication channels to make sure that businesses are aware of this opportunity you know we're really relying on the robust network that we do have through some of those other business organizations I mentioned like the chambers and so forth and we've had many discussions over the last couple of months with different regional organizations who are really looking forward to this opportunity for businesses in the region to be part of this effort. So this this will be, you know, far and wide trying to make sure that everyone is aware of it. I think that the, the press coverage hopefully that will be receiving will help with that. But we're, you know, we're really looking to make sure that we're doing our part and business organizations around the state are doing their part to make sure that their regions are well represented in this program. So you're relying on businesses to really do the PR work on this to get it out to citizens and, you know, the focus here, if I'm unless I'm missing something is that we want to get for monitors to be participants in this but you're going to rely on businesses to engage Vermonters, which I don't think it's necessarily bad but if we want full participation shouldn't it go before Vermonters in general. There's, if I could clarify there's two phases to this. The first phase is to have the businesses sign up. And that was the average that I was just describing. The second phase is to have consumer sign up in terms of having you know we, we want to make sure that we have all the businesses ready and have all those offers ready before we have the consumer sign up so the second phase of outreach to have to be part of this program. We, obviously we would welcome the partnership of the same organizations represent their businesses. We will be much more proactive in terms of reaching out to Vermonters far and wide to make sure that they understand this ability to sign up it's just a different phase so I was describing the first phase to get the businesses signed up. Okay, and one final question. And engaging consumers. How are you going to go about that and did I miss that. No, I didn't, I didn't elaborate on that yet we will be using, you know, our local Vermont media outlets, using all of our social media channels all of our normal communications channels to make sure that that Vermonters are a prize of this opportunity. We first come first serve. So this is again the reason why we're calling this a pilot project. I definitely anticipate that we will be oversubscribed, but I think it's a great opportunity to get the program off the ground to get some experience running it and then hopefully we could look to additional funding to make sure that that opportunity is available to more Vermonters in the future. All right I lied. I've got one more question. Jim and Jim and your thought your question is fine I just want to remind committee members we have about 10 minutes left and so if the questions could be condensed and those that are going to go with the policy committee if they can with those but policy and money really intertwine there so I know it's difficult. Jim. Thank you. Thank you madam chair and my only question is the administrative cost. Thank you. It's 15%. The last that cost earlier I believe it's 15% of the 50 million is that correct. It was 15% of the 500,000. That's the. Thank you madam chair. I'm sorry I'm sorry I was going off the entire 50 million so the 500,000 is for this is for the 300 household $150 gift cards. No. Right now we have authorization to do this pilot program. $500,000 that we're starting with, we did a request for proposals. The program that we decided to go with has a 15% administrative cost, which means that 425,000 is going out into direct consumer incentives in this first pilot program. Okay, I'm sorry I had missed that my question had nothing to do with the existing program. Mine had to do with the shop the buy the local buy with 50 million. So, so I can clarify that that we do not yet have a proposal for what the administrative cost would be to administer a 50 million program my guess is that we would be able to come in, much less to your to your point that it's just several many years ago layers of magnitude larger. If we did decide to fund the exact same program that a lot of that would already be set up. I did not realize that we had morphed into the existing program I was I was sticking I was still my head was still in the $50 million I was wondering how this program was going to be going out in a few days when we hadn't approved the 50 million. That was about the 500,000 that was previously that was previously appropriated. Exactly. Okay, thank you. Representative conquest, and I think there was representative Kimball and then Lamper. I want to say I really appreciate the agencies, sort of creative thinking and in how we get stimulus money out, limited to Vermont businesses. And the challenge of not being able to simply provide money to Vermonters that that creates a need for creative thinking and I appreciate the agencies. Thank you for doing that and come up with this. I will say just, you know, to avoid the policy discussions what the Commerce Committee do that but in a concern about whether or not if we put $50 million into this whether that money actually gets out the door. I think the more, again, I understand the logistical challenges here, but the more we can stay away from asking Vermonters like my mom, who's 86 to have to manipulate some app or some, you know, pro some computer to access this, the more the better off we're going to be the more we're going to get that money out the door and the more Vermonters can be able to take advantage of this. I just, I think it's a great idea. And every time I think about, you know, the description of using some kind of an app I think while there goes an awful lot of folks who are not going to be able to do a very big advantage of this in the way that that they should be able to a way that many others are able to. So, I'll leave that to the Commerce Committee to work out the details but I just wanted to get that out there. Representative Landford. I think I think I'm fine I think my questions really. I can take that offline. And representative Kimball you're up and now it was down I dealt with. Yeah, well thank you. And we just lost power here beautiful thunderstorm coming through central Vermont awesome. But I just might, I'll take it up in the policy committee later but my concern is that we're looking at a $500,000 pilot project right now I'm blowing that up into a $50 million program, which is a huge increase and I just would like to see some more committing that kind of resources. Thank you, Charles. And I also do want to reiterate chips concerns with we do have an older population. And I mean I can just think of the, the, a number of individual people who still live alone that are in their 70s and 80s that wouldn't I mean they don't some of them don't know what an app is and some of them can use an app perfectly well but I think it creates, it creates barriers where we don't want to have any barriers. So to the next, the next piece please which was the $10 marketing piece please and if we could get a quick overview this we're down to just a few minutes. I can take that as well. This would be, again as I just mentioned as I briefly gave an overview on the last program. This will be to continue efforts that we have started in terms of taking advantage of this opportunity to really make sure that our being able to to get all the economic activity they possibly can to survive from this crisis so we have a promotional effort right now that we have underway to bring visitors from those non quarantine areas specifically at the moment and then looking to expand that as we're able to bring those visitors here, as I think as everyone is very familiar with out of state visitation is a huge driver to our economy and anything that we can do to make sure that we make it keep Vermont top of mind for those folks who are able to travel here we clearly understand that there are some barriers right now. But we are also in even more of a competitive market than we ever have been in in terms of bringing visitors here as they're able compared to our neighboring states. We are again underfunded compared to our neighbors in that regard so this effort is a and acknowledgement of that to make sure that we can keep up with that, especially as Vermont is definitely seen as a well positioned in this crisis because we have handled the pandemic so well so there's an opportunity here, not only to bring visitors here but to encourage folks to relocate here to think about what it might be like to make their life here in Vermont. We want to be able to have the ability to consider continue those conversations. And then again in terms of just you know this isn't a one size fits all in terms of our strategy in terms of how we can help our businesses survive it's making sure that we are continuing with other ways to have folks think about their existing decisions and so there will be an element of this to buy local products to make sure that are Vermont producers and manufacturers are able to to get whatever activity we can help drive to them. So this will be a combination of tourism marketing as well as economic development marketing to help folks relocate here and to support local products in Vermont. Are there questions from other numbers on this section. We will look forward to the policy committee further testimony on it. I don't want any comment I'm just I'm just thinking that the proposal before us in March was for a million dollars for for tourism or 1.5 that the tourism caucus was working on there was a group of legislators and I'll be interested through the conversations in the Commerce Committee's discussion and I do realize it has another component the economic development piece but how that amount of money can be utilized, especially by December 30 when we were thinking of 1 million or 1.5 million in the original budget. So the targeted hospitality and tourism the 50 million could we have a review on that please. Yeah, combination. So, once again, we, we know that the hospitality and tourism sector, the most adversely impacted by this COVID they're still operating within some constraints, we're not sure when those will go away. We know that fall and winter could be extremely challenging and so we want to set aside money specifically for them so that we could see them through this and that we could next year actually see a tourism and hospitality sector. So the we, it was not going to be a different it's more supplemental funding. In other words, we have a program set up let's continue to fund it. And this money would all be expended by December 30. Yes. Any questions committee members on from either committee representative conquest. Just a clarification about what the money. So would this be a larger amount of money to replace lost revenue for these businesses. They've lost up to this point. I just trying to understand how this qualifies as CRF funding and how it would. Yeah, I mean, once again, it is it is due to the COVID crisis that they are losing revenue on. So we do see the direct nexus to utilizing the funds. So, we put a fair amount of parameters on our money, like first it was a $50,000 cap. We also have a 20 million revenue cap for participants and we know of some ski resorts that would not have been eligible for this yet are hurting and are in very very important to the state. So we want to have that flexibility to be able to help see this sector through. It is COVID related it's not just because they're, you know, losing business. They're at 50% capacity constraint they're also, even if those constraints are lifted people are traveling less. You know, there's a myriad whole host of issues with this sector. I'm not I wasn't questioning whether it was a valid use of the money I'm just trying to understand how, how it's being used and so it's asked. Tell me if I'm wrong that this is essentially supplementing or increasing the amount of existing grants under under programs that we already have to those kinds of businesses, hospitality business. That's that that is what we contemplate we did not get very specific this is a much more broad brush than what we did the first time around about. Yeah, the expectation is that it would be more more funds from an already existing methodology. Thank you. Sure. The original $150 million that we've been appropriated between tax and us was under the assumption that 10% of the revenues would roughly be two months of fixed costs. The overall and hospitality and restaurant industry has more than two months of fixed costs that they need to make up. And so we're recognizing that the next couple of months, we're going to need to help them. There's also a small set aside in this $50 million for a skier is to do proactive work. The industry will not be able to have the season, if we don't help them manage their capacities and allow them to have more people than 50% of their ski lodge could potentially hold. So we're going to have to do something to help them comply with the capacity limitation so there's also a small set aside of that $50 million specifically for skiers. Thank you. Thank you. Representative mark hot and then looking that we then have the pieces that are before the Joint Fiscal Committee, which really is. Those are those are initiatives that were brought forth before the Joint Fiscal Committee, however, I believe that those have been put on until our next meeting. So representative mark hot. Thank you Madam Chair. I just. So as we look at the funds that we want to move to some for supplemental grants in the original program that we have going on now. I think is about 52 million. Those would be going to pretty much the same category the tourism sectors they're the ones that got the bulk of the big money. And then we have new dollars that a new 50 million that we want to again into that sector. And we have 50 million that we want to do and consumer stimulus that will go primarily to those same sectors again. My, and I don't, I'm not saying that's bad or it's a good thing, I think, but I'm just worried that are we looking at, you know, the same times application by the businesses that have already received the monies. If we go this route, not, and I'm not leave out the consumer stimulus that has, but so they've applied once I've got 50,000. Now we have another 52 million that's left over there where you're going to have them reapply again for another 50. So this other 50 million are we then going to have them reapply again for another 50. Yeah, I guess if I could jump in and answer that I think that if you're getting at sort of the duplication of benefit risk. We understand that that's a risk for for some of them. Probably do but as I said we didn't have every single detail hammered out. We do know that some of these applicants have have losses way in excess of the 50 K or even the 150 K. So, you know, perhaps it's a more selective, you know, pick to say okay here is your loss. Here is the help that you got you still have on that need. You're eligible, you know, there will be a way to be able to determine it. And as I said before, the ones that have over 20 million in revenue have not received anything from us. So, I think there's opportunity there to size it. We'll know a little bit more. I think that when we get through the supplemental point, the stimulus is really, if it's 150. Like, I don't know an aggregate how much each business would possibly get but as Heather rolls it out and we could determine who's participating would be in a better position to understand that. I just want to be sure that we're able to get that money out. If I can add one more piece to the to the additional money for the, the, our different scenario is that, you know, as both Ted and Joe mentioned the original award amount was based on 10% of revenue. You know, we still have many smaller lodging properties who have extended periods of loss months and months of fixed costs that they are still facing, even though they have received the maximum cap because of their revenue. So they're at a different situation then. Yes, it's, so it's a combination of factors that that's what we've been seeing and what we've learned as these grants have been rolled out is that, you know, as Joan mentioned, you know, there's, there's the larger businesses that haven't been, haven't been fully made whole as best that we were able but then there are also some, you know, medium to smaller businesses whose fixed costs and extended losses are greater than the amount of award they were eligible for their revenue levels. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Heather. Our last question is going to be representative Hooper and then I just wanted to touch quickly on the JFC requests. Mary. Thank you. So you're going to touch on the JFC request that was part of what I wanted to ask about so I'm leaving that aside. I fully are, I can begin to comprehend how the magnitude of damage to our tourism and the associated sectors, recreation, etc. I wonder about needing to also make investments in other sectors within the economy that may help lead us out of this problem. So rather than returning in focusing entirely on just on turret, not just but on the sector that's been most damaged. And this is the request of the Commerce Committee that some thought be given to what are those sectors of our economy that could help lead us out of where we are. There were some really interesting proposals that you weren't ready to act on yet from a CCD around the energy sector and batteries and stuff and I don't know if that's them. But I do wonder where else we ought to be making investments and kind of take advantage of the opportunity to make investments. Thank you. Thank you, Mary. I'd like to talk about these other investments or that may be part of the Commerce Committee. Okay, you weren't looking for a response. So the bottom box here Teresa is this the last box but it feels like there's, can you bring this down is this the last box in this presentation. There were four pieces that came before the point the Joint Fiscal Committee yesterday and and actually there were five but one piece did was approved and then these were put on hold until we come back on Thursday. We needed a little more information the Joint Fiscal Committee is solely for emergency use for money has to get out very quickly and the legislative process would either we're not in session or would take too long. Knowing that we were coming back into session today. These four were put on hold until Thursday and not to debate but would somebody from a CCD like to just comment briefly on the emergent need and what these needs are addressing. And, you know, about 30 seconds on each one or a minute on each one because we are over our time and we do have a hard stop at 315. As long as the as long as the secretary is available to stay for an extra six minutes. Are you. We are fine. Thank you. Thank you. So, Ted or who would like to just comment very briefly on these and then we'll continue our conversations. We include these four here because we don't think they can wait four to six weeks to be approved because they are emergent. The first one the 754 administrative costs. Like I said before, much of our staff is no longer doing their original job. We're doing full coroner relief fund, coroner relief virus work and that includes answering the phones to businesses asking for questions about whether or not they need to quarantine their workers need to quarantine asking for advice to administering different current relief funds. And if we free up this money immediately it's going to give you additional general fund dollars immediately. I'll go to Commissioner Hanford, who has the expertise in these. Hi, hi again. Many of you sort of heard an overview yesterday in joint fiscal committee. Or some of you I should say, but the, you know, downtown's are vibrant core of our communities are really under threat right now. In the summer they've been able to put outdoor tents and sort of move some of their operations outdoor. This is just going to get increasingly hard as the cold weather sets in. And they need funding to make implement changes to their their downtowns to allow retail and services and and food and beverage to continue. The organizations need funding to survive. They're not getting their sponsorships and donations. They're not holding their special events. And they need to help support the changes, the safety measures that need to be put in place to help our vibrant downtowns through this crisis. And the last one is a municipal facilities where we hear from libraries rec centers, community centers that they need funding to help support safety measures as well. I know there was some comments that maybe, you know, we don't need to stand up a new program maybe this additional flexibility could be added to the existing tax 13 made our program that that's already approved and we can look into that but we have been hearing from other sectors and municipalities, you know, particularly, you know, libraries, like I said, rec facilities town halls, senior centers, activity centers that they are, you know, core to civic sort of life and engaging in it in downtown, and they need help making safely opening and serving their community. So that that was a little over 30 seconds but fairly short. So we wait to fund these for four weeks from now or six weeks from now, the construction season that 10 companies all these things won't be doable as doable. It won't be much harder to do in late October than it would in late September. Thank you. If you have any questions, were there any other comments on on any, any of those other JFC pieces. Any other comments that that the agency would like to make on any of the four. Okay, if not a representative O'Sullivan. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I, I just want to step in on behalf of Burlington to say that the last presentation is desperately needed. One of the things we are struggling with is 10,000 students, and we don't want them in house parties. So we have to have a vital downtown. This is essential for us. So thank you for your consideration and thank you for your time. So we are at the end of our time and I would like to take just a couple of minutes first I want to thank the agency for coming in and the commissioners for for sharing this information. Thank you very much. But I'd like to take this time to have representative Mark hot to outline the work of your committee so that we can see where appropriations is fitting in if it's moving exactly like it did in June. The timing of your committee because I believe these CRF dollars that will be considered will be reflected in the budget as the administration has has reflected them at this point it doesn't appear to separate bills will be moving. And if they don't our timing, we're a little time sensitive. So we've got to get a bill to the Senate, and then hammer out the differences and get a bill to the governor so that we have a budget before October 1. Mike. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just received the language from the administration this morning. So that's been passed on to David to draft. So, I think we will my plan is that Tuesday we will start looking at that language and start understanding it. We are though going to hear tomorrow from many of the tourist businesses in the next two days. And then there's some tiff issues that we have to deal with to, but we're going to we are starting to take, take testimony from the businesses and especially the ones that are having a really hard time. And I think our, our goals I believe are the same as, as your goals. I think the same question that your committee members have been asking will be the same questions that will be asking, along with probably many others. I think that, you know, we want to make sure that sole proprietors are taking care of. We want to make sure that that that our tourism businesses are taking care but I also agree with Mary that that we should be looking at businesses that can help us get out of this. We'll be taking some testimony from David Bradbury deal. I think in prior. There was some language that was brought to us it was, I think a little too late on V set and things that we could do in the technology field. We'll listen to that we didn't have that opportunity before to see if that's a way that we can help get us out of this through the tech field so that's that's my plan will be working long and hard and we know that I already told my committee that we're on a tight schedule like we were in June so we're looking to work very closely with you and and with our partners at ACCD. Thank you. Thank you Mike just to tell you how tight we are today is Tuesday. Next Tuesday, if you take testimony, we have a very aggressive timeline that we may not hit was is passing the budget out on Friday, the fourth, which means we'd have to have everything wrapped up Thursday so we could proofread and pass out Friday. That's, then that would be cutting it really close. And the very next. This is our drop dead day if we don't get it out Friday that means everything would have to then be completed on Friday. The next Monday the seventh is Labor Day so on Tuesday we would come back and just proofread and pass out on Tuesday. So either all of our decisions are made on Thursday of that of next week or Friday of next week Friday's is very last day so that we can pass it out on Tuesday and then have it on the floor for Thursday and Friday of that week. So if they, if, if your testimony on this is on Tuesday, it is really just going to give you Tuesday and then Wednesday, giving us something. Unfortunately, we just received their language that needs to be put into our language. Before we can look at it so if we get it back I might be able to move some things around so that we can push it off and and possibly get to the language by the end of the week. And I've been given that timeline and I'm not I understand. I have to work under and we have to work and we have to work under your timeline and we will. Okay, thank you. And thank you members from commerce it's nice to it's really nice this working relationship and I think with the agency you'll see this go more quickly and smoothly and we look forward to working with you as we get through these finer points so I really appreciate you know this this this group effort to move quickly move responsibly and to out to Vermonters. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mike before you go as soon as the budget piece will be a whole different piece action on to give us an informal recommendation prior to the CRF spending so if we can close out all the budget pieces that would be that would be great as soon as you were able to do that. Okay. Thank you.