 Okay, we're live. Thank you, Theresa. We are now on YouTube. This is the Friday morning meeting of the House Appropriations Committee. We have, we only have about an hour, I think the committee members a full half hour before we go to the floor at 10 to make sure you're ready with your budgets. And I don't know about you, but not having my desk and things right in front of me like I'm used to, I need to make sure I'm organized in a different way than I am when I'm not feeling it. This morning we're going to do, we talked about S3-38 a couple of times we've taken testimony. Yesterday we spent some time for any final questions. So I'd like to take that up first and then we're going to move to the higher education language that will drop into the budget probably on third reading on Tuesday. Correct. And at 9.15 we have Steve and Stephanie here. There is a number sheet. We had some requests from members asking what the percentages are. So I want to make sure the committee is really clear what those percentages mean. And then we need to have next week schedule in hand. We're not meeting on Monday, but we need to meet Wednesday afternoon as we're going to meet a lot on Thursday and Friday because we are going to have quite a few hundred million dollars of CRF money on our plates with recommendations from policy committees that we need to sort out and turn around very quickly. So we, I just want to make sure that we're all set with our schedule on for next week. So let's start with S3-38 an act relating to justice reinvestment. Chip is not here. His ag committee is meeting regarding CRF funding. And so he didn't have any questions on the bill. We do have representative Shaw here. I don't see representative Emmons. I'm not sure if she is joining us. She's not representative toll. We're having a meeting downstairs right now. Then we'll get you right back to that meeting as I said. Thank you. Yesterday we talked about some different, someone has some background I'm hearing. Must be Peter's jazz again. Nope. We talked about funding opportunities due to the impact of the Corona virus. And I asked about further questions. So I'd like to know what the committee would like to do with S3-38. Are we going to move it if we are how or are we going to leave it on the wall for further consideration? What is the committee thinking? And this is a big part of Chip's budget and he's not here to do this. So, Mary, I know a lot of pieces are within your sections too, with corrections. So tag, you're it. You're having a bit of, let me try this. Anyone need it? No, so you're both doing it at once. So let Mary do it. Go ahead, Mary. Unmute yourself. There you go. There we go. Sorry about that, guys. So I would propose that we move it without the money in it. It's an extraordinarily important policy bill that's been worked on by scads of committees on both sides of the body as a result of long-term work over the past year and a half to look at how we can fundamentally change the justice system and with the goal of having some savings within the system as well as being a more humane, effective system. There are policy differences between the House and the Senate version that need to get resolved. And so I think we need to release it so that they can begin the work on resolving it. The reason I suggest moving it without the money is because there is still work that needs to be done to see what the funding sources could be. And until we have a full and complete understanding of that I don't feel comfortable saying let's do it this way or that way from whatever pot of money. We heard from the policy committees that they were willing maybe to allow the use of the Chin's money but there was some reluctance to go that way. And so I'd like to keep pushing and understanding what other sources of funding could be rather than using up those precious resources. And maybe the last thing that I'll say is the Department of Corrections is still full tilt trying to understand kind of where they stand financially and what their ability is to put some money to this issue. So I would recommend taking the money out releasing it to the floor so that a conference committee or the resolution can be made of the other of the policy issues. Thank you, Mary. I did ask Teresa to put up on the screen. We received a letter from the women's legislative caucus specifically supporting this bill. And it has been, if you haven't received it you will receive it in your emails. And I just wanted to make sure we took note of this and it is in a letter of support for the policy within this bill to move from on forward especially for incarcerated women. Representative Helm. Yeah, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. All right. So if we move it without money, it goes to the floor. What happens at that point in time? We can't simply pass it because it needs money to do what the desired results are in it. So Bob, this would be an example where the money will catch up with the bill because there are a couple of options that we know of that would allow for this funding. And because of the guidance of the CRF dollars and what is included within those federal funds, we need to be absolutely sure that it appears and we feel strongly that this would be a CRF expense but we're crossing every T and dotting I's so that we're not caught by surprise if we learn otherwise but it appears that some or all of this could be paid for with CRF dollars. So that we're moving the policy and we'll make it clear on the floor that the money will follow. And we talked about, we have a couple of pots of money, the Chins money that it's one time in nature and this is truly a one time expense because the savings and take care of the program as it did before. Right. Yeah, okay, yeah, and I get that, but I just, so what we do is, and we've done it before, I know we pass a bill and it goes someplace and sits because it doesn't have any money. If we don't ever provide that money, that bill never gets accomplished, right? Yes. Okay, that's all I needed. No, thank you. Okay, I have Marty and then Mary and Kimberly. Well, I wanted to, I guess disagree with Bob's comment and hope Mary can confirm, but indeed it sounds like in section two regarding parole and presumptive parole and number eight regarding furlough and number 14 regarding good time and victims review and section 15 are all changes from the current law. And so that is making changes in policy of how we want to do something. I think that's worth a legitimate consideration on the house floor and that can happen. It doesn't cost money for those things to happen. And I think that's a good bit of what the sponsoring committee had in mind. Yes, it would be nice to have money to actually implement more community supports and the transitional housing and those kinds of things that go with it. But even without the money, the bill does have some, I believe some important power that would be in our interest to promote. Thank you, Marty. Thank you, that is correct. And I was focused on money and sometimes I need to broaden that look. I have Kimberly and Mary. Yeah, I just wanna echo both what Marty has said and what Mary has said. I'm also committed to finding support down the road somehow, some way, because I think this is really important work that's been done by so many people. And I've been engaged also with the women's caucus in terms of past visits to correctional facilities. And there's just a whole lot of people who care deeply about this bill. And I'm glad we're moving it today and I'm glad to keep working with whomever to make sure that it gets the support it needs in the future. Thank you, Kimberly. Your hand was up and then it was down. And I wanted to respond to Bob's comments. Marty had it exactly. And that's part of the reason I'm anxious to get it out of our committee because in fact, the two sides saw some of those policy differences, a wee bit, policy issues a wee bit differently and we need to get them to resolve it. There's a lot of good hard work here that will really change the system and we need to support it. Thank you. Are there any final questions or concerns with the bill clarifications that are needed? If not, Diane, I'm sure you have your book ready in front of you. You are muted, Diane. So I have a hearing that a motion to amend S338 as proposed by house appropriations, which is to remove section 24 if I'm looking at that correctly. Okay. Does somebody want to check that? First, we would need the amendment to remove the money section. Just strike that section. And I haven't looked that up. While we're looking that up, we have Butch who would like to join in the conversation, Representative Shaw. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your consideration of the bill and it's always disappointing when you lose your funds and appropriations but understandable in today's crisis. Our hope was that at least something would stay in the bill so that the house could drive the conversation when this bill goes to the Senate on the Reinvestment II appropriation. However, I understand what's going on and I'm hoping for some. I'm not sure what you're talking about, Madam Chair, with the Chins money. Can you explain that to me? There's a couple of one-time pots of money that have not been fully expended that could be available to us for use in areas in state government if needed. However, it is identified for very important use at this time that we hope to honor. Okay, well, thank you. We thank you for that explanation and I certainly support anything your committee decides. We'll bring the bill forward and defend the House position vigorously when we get the conference committee. And I wanna thank you all for your time and efforts on this and we'll move forward. This is a good, great bill and we can do good work with it in the position that it's in now. Thank you. I would say, Representative Shaw, that it appears the committee is committed to finding the funds and that the funds will, as I said before, that these funds could marry the bill later. And then join hands and become whole. I get that, thank you. How all of our marriages are, we're whole. Thank you, Kate. Okay. You're performing a lot of marriages. I know, I know. I feel like it's... Officiating, yeah. Diane, Representative Lanfair, do you have a motion for us? So if it pleases the committee, I move to amend S338 as proposed by House Appropriations to strike section 24. Is there a second? I have a second from Mehta. And is there any comments or questions at this point on the amendment? If not, the clerk shall call the roll. Representative Conquest. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanfair. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yakovoni. Yes. Representative Toll. Yes, and I would ask that we leave the vote until ship returned. Okay, we have passed the amendment and now we're onto the bill itself as amended by House Appropriations. I would entertain a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to move that we report favorably on S338 as amended by the committee on Corrections and Institutions and further amended by House Appropriations. Is there a second? Second. Okay, I have a second from Representative Myers. Any final questions, thoughts, clarification needed? If not, the clerk shall call the roll. Representative Conquest. Representative Fagan. Yes. Representative Feltas. Yes. Representative Helm. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Jessup. Yes. Representative Lanfair. Yes. Representative Myers. Yes. Representative Townsend. Yes. Representative Yacoboni. Yes. Representative Toll. Yes. Leave it open for- Please leave that open for Chip as well. And who reports out this bill? Is this yours, Mary, or is this Chip's? Good question. I'm guessing it's me because the reason we had it was the underlying appropriation, which was to DOC and their mind. Perfect. So you will make sure it gets signed and what you need to virtually to the clerk's office. Yeah. One to make sure you- Diane will have to tell me how to do that. Thanks. Yes. With Theresa- Okay. Great, thank you. We are a little bit ahead of schedule and I see that we have two Ledge Council members from us. Jim DeMaris and Bryn Herre here and we're going to talk about the higher ed leverage. I just something popped into my mind and I don't want to forget it. I have asked the speaker to send the letters or the totals or the ranges that the duties of jurisdiction were given concerning CRF dollars. We did not receive one because we're working with the committees instead of we get to appropriate all of it actually and after they send their recommendations. And so just so that you know the ranges that were put in for housing, economic development, broadband, so that everyone has a clear picture what the committees are working on. And I asked those to be sent to Theresa and then folded on to all of you. So Theresa, I hope you've received those or will soon. I'm the speaker might need a reminder. She's quite busy these days. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. I've been trying to track next to each committee what they had stated from their letters as to what they're working from just so we have a context when we receive their bills. Thank you. And we should be getting that. I requested it yesterday morning so we should hopefully get that soon. So let's see, we have Bryn and Jim, I have to look around my screen. Did we lose Bryn? So she was here for justice. Bryn was here for S338 and she just sent the amendment to us. Okay. And I'm gonna wrap that up and Representative Hooper, Representative Lankford, I'll create the email that you'll just reply to and confirm and the packages and all that stuff. I'm waiting to hear from Chip though. I may have to screen share before then so it just be patient. Okay. Okay. We have 15 or 20 minutes to review the education language that is, has been run with three different committees. Peter has taken charge of that from this committee and this is a language that would analysis of the higher education system in Vermont. So are we starting with Jim going over the language or Peter? How would you like to roll this out? Depends upon how much time you wanna assign to it. If you wanna go through it line by line, it may take longer than what you wanna do right now. It will be an amendment to our bill and will be formally presented to us next week by the amenders, which is Kate Webb et al. And you'll see that there. What I would like to talk about, go ahead. I can go through the concepts instead of going through the language, if you'd like me to do that. So I think what I would like to do is, since Jim is here and I would like him to leave, I would like him to do the broad strokes of the language, Peter, and then you talk about the concepts. And we need to be done at 9.15. Members, this is not going to turn around quickly. This would be a Tuesday issue. And so if we need to come back and meet over this or we send a communication to Peter for any speaking that we think might be needed. So, Jim, would you like to just walk us quickly through the sections? And then we'll have a weekend to work on. Sure, yeah. And so for the record, Jim DeMaria, that's console, reviewing this amendment by individuals on the education committee. I want to first to thank Joyce for her work on this. She's done a ton. And I put this into a sector of language. She's really developed this. So thank you, Joyce. So I just lost, hold on, where'd it go? Okay, so it creates the select committee on the future of public higher education in Vermont. It will assist Vermont in developing a vision and plan for high quality, affordable and workforce connected future for public higher education in the state. The membership, I'm not sure who's there to control this document, is it me? Teresa does, she'll move it down, Teresa. There you go. And we don't have to go through each piece of the membership as we can read through those. Okay, so they're up to 22 members. The concept is basically there's gonna be a steering group which we'll get to in a minute. And the steering group will be naming some of these members. So as you see that, that's what's happening when the references to the steering group. If you scroll down through the membership toward the end of the membership, you've got two possible additional members in L. That would be at the discretion of the steering group. So it's 20 plus possible two more. And then the committee member may be appointed to fill more than one role. And that's the sign that keeps the numbers down if they can be kept down. The steering group that's being created by this and the members are five members and three are chosen by the speaker and the portem and two by the governor that provides leadership to the committee and works with a consulting firm. And it's authorized to form one or more subcommittees of the committee to address key topic area. Collaboration just simply the committee will seek input and collaborate with key stakeholders. That's designed to keep the numbers down on the committee for have people have the ability to give input to it. Powers and duties of the committee are three main things they're doing. So the leading language talks about building and previous studies offer recommendations on increasing affordability access, retention, attainment, et cetera. And then specifically there are three areas and these three areas tied to reports that will be issued by the committee which all come to an end. The first is looking at the financial sustainability of the public higher education structure. And its impact on capacity. The second is to look at the organizational structure of public higher education. And the third is to look at the tie-in to work with the other goals. The three broad areas are looking at. JFO and collaboration with the New England Board of Higher Education, NEVY would issue a request for a proposal of a higher consultant to assist the committee and that has to be in place by the end of June. The assistance is coming from JFO and from NEVY and NEVY is doing project management. I think on July, is that July, not June? Oh, yeah, July, I'm sorry, end of July, I'm sorry. Reports, so as I mentioned there are monthly reports. So there are three reports. The first is due by the point of this year focusing on the first group of duties we talked about, which is the financial side. The second report is due June 15th of next year looking at organizational structure and on the workforce development. And the final report would call it the findings from the earlier reports and include the action plan. And that's due by December 15th of next year. There's reports of delivery to the governor and the joint assembly. And then importantly, the speaker of the House in part 10 would select the chair of the committee. And with six, it's just on January 31, 2022. Typical compensation reimbursement language here. So nothing special. And J, we just move on to the next subsection. Stop here though, sorry, Theresa. So number three talks about the number, sorry, here. Talks about the number of meetings for which they would get reimbursed. So it assumes for each fiscal year, 2021-22, six in-person meetings of the committee, eight in-person meetings of the steering group and four remote meetings of up to four subcommittees a ceiling compensation reimbursement for up to five members of each subcommittee. And then appropriations, there's an appropriation of $40,000 approximately for per day compensation and reimbursement. And then two talks about transferring money from another section of your bill to fund the consultant. So I think JFO can explain that better than I can. And then last, we had to change the effective date because we had to work in this new section. So if you scroll down further, all we're doing is we're adding the second line mayor of reference to A9, going effective upon passage. Okay, and so before we ask questions, I would ask Peter to talk about some of the broad strokes now, you know, how it landed in the structure and also Peter the timeline. Can we tighten that or do we have to stay as it is? So let me start with how this all transpired. This was, this is a very much shortened version of what had originally been proposed. Kate Webb and I talked and I can't remember who else was what's a part of that discussion. And just it was, oh, Peter Conlon and a couple of others. But at any rate, it was just very, very dictatorial as far as do this, do that and did not allow for the exploration of alternatives that might come up while they're going through their work. So we coalesced around an idea of getting enabling language in the budget and this is what you see. And then a letter from the committee chairs will be sent to the basically states, make sure you look into these areas and these concepts. That letter is, there's a lot of pieces to it. I don't have any of the pieces, but Kate is managing that and that letter will be produced for the chair of education, the chair of commerce and our chair of appropriations. And one would presume that the Senate counterparts will be asked to sign it, but I can't speak to that. So that's number one. I just wanna go through the timing and then the appropriation piece. As far as my input to policy, other than the two individuals that were added just in case, I was, as I term it, working in the background on Zoom meetings, just listening because I'm not a part of that policy committee. If I was asked, I offered, but they were stuck on how do we get other people involved that they really could use and so that's the piece I offered is let's do it to two people floaters. And so that's the only piece in there that is really my handiwork. So just to run down briefly the timing here, the steering group, the five members of the steering group that comes from the total committee of 2020 up to 22 people, those five members shall be appointed by 29 June. The speaker and the pro tem shall collaborate to a point three, the governor shall appoint two. At the same time, JFO and Nebbi are going to release an RFP to hire a consultant. The RFP shall be released by the 17th of July with the intent to select by 31 July, very tight timeframe. The first committee meeting shall be called in August on the 28th. That'll give enough time for the steering committee, for UVM, for Vermont State Colleges to determine who their participants shall be. And Jim did a great job, so I'm not really gonna get into any of the intricate pieces here, but the Nebbi is project manager support to the committee. And since we have been paying them all along, Kate asked them to do this as part of the funds that we've been paying them, they have agreed. So they are at no additional cost to the state. The funding for this, the $40,000, it is going to the agents of the Secretary of Education and I have talked to Kate Webb this morning, who will talk to the Secretary. The Secretary was chosen, it needs to be an executive branch, someone from the executive branch somewhere. JFO does not pay people. They may move funds around, but they don't pay individuals. So that doesn't work. So then it's between the legislature and an executive branch function. Really not appropriate for the legislature pay function to pay these individuals. So because we don't normally do that. So it came down to a member of the executive branch and the best option that we could think of was Secretary of Education. So that's how we landed there. The funding for this section, and I'm trying to remember off the top of my head here, wait a minute, I can go right to it. A4B, that's our bridge funding section of the bill. Right now it has $5 million of general fund allocated to it. That's A3 and not A4. I don't have our bill in front of me. I have the proposed higher ed language bill in front of me. So we need to double check that out. It's within section A3, small letter B. Yes. Madam chair, I received some language last night, kind of late from Stephanie and they were renumbering things and she assured me that it would be A4. So it may be changing as we speak, I don't know. Okay, then I need a new bill before I go to the floor in half an hour. But we'll get that number right. Well, I mean, if it gets renumbered because this is being amended, it's okay. We'll fix that, yeah. Yeah, it's okay. So whatever number it is, the $5 million of general funds that are the bridge funds and whatever is added to that, that's where the funding for the consultant will come out of. I like the idea of pulling it out of there for a few reasons. Number one, we don't have a whole lot of additional general fund dollars. Well, I should restate that. We don't have any additional general fund dollars. The interim chancellor, she wasn't fond of it but she did not object to the funding for this coming out of that. And by doing it this way, we are not signaling to any consultant groups, this is how much you can bid for it. Typically, we'll put up to $300,000 and guess what the bid is, $300,000. So nobody knows. This way, hopefully we'll get a good universe of consultant groups that are capable of doing this job and to help us figure out what the future should look like so that we can move towards it. And that's it, Kitty. Thank you. Thank you very much, Peter. So we have about five or 10 minutes before we move to the joint fiscal office for another piece. Are there questions for either legislative council or Peter on some of this language or need to be included? I have Bob and Kimberly. Okay, there we go. Oh, there you go, Bob. Okay, on a side note that probably most of you won't wanna hear. We've got this one. This is the first of what I see as three so far coming out in a series spread out over a couple of years. All right? Some place I would like, and I'll tell you, it's at a time in, I believe in Vermont State College history that is crucial. Because after this is all said and done they're either gonna be propped up or they're gonna be out of business, all right? One or the other, whichever it is needs to have, I believe, historical explanation in writing. So what my thoughts are is, and I just want y'all to think about this for now as we go along, how can we put together a, well, if you will, whatever you wanna call it, which includes all of the developments through the financial process of trying to prop up the Vermont State Colleges and put it into a document that is sealed as accurate and something that in 10 years somebody can go back and look into and see, wow, this is what they did to save Vermont State Colleges or whatever, that's all I wanna do is put this down. Memorialize it. Exactly, yeah, yeah. So Bob, we will have that conversation and find the group that would help to collate all this information, get it in one place and keep it for future decisions. I'm not sure what that is right now, but Peter, do you have a thought? Well, I do have a thought and I don't know if this answers the question, but certainly it can be a piece of it. This group is going to pull all the past studies off the shelf to ensure that anything that is relevant that was done in the past is considered as part of this and then put together their study and the last thing they do is they'll issue an action plan at the end of next year, by the end of next year to move forward. That action plan could encompass, probably ought to encompass just as a statement upfront, these are all the things that have been done in the past and this is what we need to do now to be able to go to the future. Peter, would you please circle around with the education committee and ask how this can all be put in a file together and the file would stay not only with house education, but also it should go to the institutes of higher education, the public ones. Thank you, Bob. So that it would be housed within the state colleges, UVM and the education committee, Bob, a file with all this information. That's a good point because right now I think VSAC is the holder of all of it. And maybe VSAC would hold it too so it could be in several places and in 10 years we could at least try to get our hands on one of them. Thank you, Bob. Several places would be good, actually. Yep, it's always better. Kimberly and Mary. Hi, I'm missing the whiteboard at this moment. Just want to clarify there, you have the per diem, in terms of funding, you have the per diem, you have the five million in bridge funding or whatever figure is ultimately agreed upon and the consulting fee comes out of the five million bridge. Did I get that correct? That is correct. So, and Kimberly, the $40,000 is to pay for monitors. The legislative piece will come out of our, the JFO summer study piece that Steve has told me, we got it, no issues. So that's not what we did in here. Yeah, it says legislators shall be paid the way we normally do for summer studies, but we haven't assigned any money to that because funds are available. But the Vermonters that would need to be paid would come out, that would come out of that piece and the analysis would come out of the bridge funding. We would include that in the bridge funding. Bingo. Mary, thank you, Kimberly. Were you done before I moved to Mary? Mary? I just wanted to appreciate what Bob suggested. I think that's a terrific idea. And so thanks for that, Bob. I just have a process question. You were concerned about getting the right number today, Kitty. We are not dropping this on the bill today, correct? Tuesday, well, on Thursday. So we will have a, I'm not reading this right now and I want to sit down and reflect on it. Yeah, that's your weekend reading, Mary. Oh, is that it? That's all I have to do. Yes. And watching a whole bunch of videos to see, you know, what policy committees are talking about with CRF funding. Peter, can you tell me there's an interim report to be filed December 20th of this year. And I'm just trying, I'm looping back up through the bill to see what that report will address. Okay, so that's the first of three reports, if you will. The last one's an action plan. This one talks about the, let me just make sure that they don't alert us. Financial sustainability of the public higher education structure and its impact on institutional capacity to innovate. In other words, we need to make sure that we continue to move toward the future and meet state goals and learners' needs, including in that a comparison of higher education programs across all the delivery places, delivery models, i.e. distance learning, sitting in the seats or a combination thereof and then also look at the structures in other states, the educational structures in other states. So that's the first report to end of this year. So would you envision legislative action being necessary in the first year of the next biennium? Or do you anticipate that to be in the second year, which is always harder? But just wondered, would there be any action needed? So this is conjecture on my part, truly, because it will really depend upon what this report says. I think that when the report is delivered, unless all of a sudden the system itself has an influx of students that makes it much more viable to the future, I think that if that happens, then this becomes much less an urgent issue. If that does not happen, I think it would behoove us to do something at that point in time. That's my conjecture. Thanks. It's up in the air then. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Dave. Diane? Oh. Well, now I am. So not that this is now, but that the A9 is hanging out there, that I thought this language, we were saving space in section A9 that's reserved. Yes. So there might be a bunch of changes coming, but I'm just hanging that out there. Yep. So A9 is where we'll put it in the bill on Tuesday. Thank you, Diane. You're welcome. Kimberly? I think I just found it. I was looking for the place where student voice would come in and I think I see it now, page two at the top, line three. Okay. Nevermind. Thank you. Any other questions for Peter? Diane and Dave, are your hands up new or are they from before? Okay. And so Peter, I'm sure there will be continued tweaking of the language. I'm hoping that the speaker has seen it and she has roles within this and has weighed in and it's a bit of a work in progress and so the committees may all work as it still travels to the Senate and travels back to us. Right. And Kitty, I just want to make a, also a few thank yous because Joyce Manchester really did Yeoman's work in doing this. The New England Board of Higher Education, NEMI, really a lot of work in doing this and then to all of a sudden dumping into Jim Demere's lap and say, here you go, figure it out. Jim really did a good job as well. This was a very much larger, it would have had to have gone as a bill. We couldn't have amended it based upon the first cut but they all did a good job and a lot of, and I know at least twice when I clicked off it was, okay, Joyce and Jim and NEMI, you're going to collaborate, we're all going away and they did so they did very well. So I just want to thank all. Thank you, Peter. And thank you, Joyce and Jim. We appreciate it and we know it was a lot of work over the last few days to get it to this point and we appreciate that. Okay, we are going to, oh, I want to ask of the committee before we go further. The funding mechanism right now to use the bridge funding, do we have support from the committee? If you are supportive of using that mechanism, can I have a hands up or a virtual hander? Okay, we're unanimous there, so we're good. Steve, you sent us a document. We had some legislators yesterday outside of the committee that asked about percentages. This was a language bill, really built on language and percentages but I believe it was Maria from the time yesterday coming up with a sheet that looks like this, Teresa, if you would put it up. And I didn't ask the calls to members who had contacted me with particular on what the theme. And so I would like to see if you would like to walk. Yeah, and Stephanie's in the room too if we need to. I am, I look like I'm on Maria's but we're both in the office today. And Stephanie, I think you worked on this as well with Maria, so thank you to both of you. I know it was a tremendous amount of work. There's this sheet and then there's also the coronavirus tracking sheet. So there's two fiscal sheets. Yeah, this one I'll just go through quickly and then Stephanie can answer any copy of questions but the general fund is listed at 36% even though we know it's 25 because there's a lot of items that we funded up front like the pensions, the debt service and state colleges and extra five million. So all of those types of things bring the number from the 25 to the 36%. Transportation fund is 58. I think it was, we funded a lot in advance. I don't think we funded the TIP in advance but I think the Y-58 is different than the 60 is the reason there. It's also, it probably has to do with state police because they're only in at 25% of their transportation fund but the rest of the agency of transportation is in at 60%. Okay, and special funds includes the pilot money and that's why it's higher than the 25 because we fully funded pilot which is about an eight million dollar item. So that may have been what brought it up to the full 32. Well, the other piece in the 32, sorry to see is that we did 50% of A&Rs funding and they have a lot of special funds. So that's what we're gonna do. Tobacco funds, state health care resource fund are 25. Fish and Wildlife, the education fund did 100%. Fish and Wildlife at 50 just because of timing issues of when those dollars roll out the door, right? Yes, it's part of the whole, you did the entire agency of natural resources at 50%. Thank you, thank you. And the federal funds will probably reflect the transportation funding being higher. Exactly. Plus the CRF money. No, CRF money is not included in this total. Oh really? It's on a separate sheet. Okay, so there's probably more related to the, whether it's the transportation fund and other matching funds like that. So there were some large ticket items that really did push these numbers mostly in the general fund because we're obligating, we're not paying. That's correct, Stephanie, tell me if I'm correct. We're obligating the money that we will have it, but we're not going to push it all out the door the first quarter for debt and pension obligations. Is that correct? I'm confirming that, but for the past several years we actually have moved the money, the large amount of state general fund dollars out the door early in July from the state into the system. I don't know if that's, we're checking on the cash flow implications of that on the Senate side, but that, it wouldn't be surprised if that happened with the retirement pieces. The other piece that you have included in that general fund total obviously is the pay act piece in the back of the bill. Oh, okay. So that would, okay, and pay act. That one does not go out. I mean, a big chunk of it goes out in July, but the rest of it does not necessarily. I'll go out in the first quarter. Okay. Committee questions. I have Marty. Yeah, my question is related to that actually spending the money out the door. Do you know what the prospect is on the education fund? So the education fund- Are we gonna take that money and spend it out the door? No. I mean, 34% goes out roughly. We goes out in, I think it's in September and September. And that the rest of it should not be going out the door until later in the year. Okay, thank you. Oh, let's see. I have two other hands to see who they are. Dave. So are we in effect looking at, if you look at the 1.6 billion general fund to act 88, and then you take away the 600 million. And so that leaves about a billion of general fund left for the August, September budget. And are we looking at about a $200 million hole now? Yeah, but there's two things to remember. One is that the general fund in August will have to be higher than that because when you did the bill, when the governor did the original 21 bill, it was not 1.655, it was 1.7. There's a little bit more in what we expected to spend in 21. And you're correct. There's still this $230 million shortfall, but that'll probably change between now and August. I'm hoping it changes for the better and gets down a little bit. Plus we're also doing everything we can to find ways to use CRF creatively. We're hoping that you don't have that problem. A lot of movement left to come. Initially, I think we needed a 14% reduction in looking at this. I said, oh, we need a 20% reduction, but it's just too many moving parts to say that at this time. Right, and you have to remember that there is already rolling forward from this year to next year. Oh, I don't know what's going on. There's some money rolled forward. I think it's about 30 or $40 million and there'll be some carry forward. So you'll have other pieces that we just haven't incorporated. And the other thing to think about in August, December is to the extent that this, and this is the downturn of 230 is a double type of problem. One part of the problem is a one year shortfall and the other part is an ongoing reduction in revenue. To the extent that it's a one year issue, it doesn't, we shouldn't rule out using reserves because there is a case of reserves and rainy day funds, which could be used to cover the sort of the hasm of FY 2021. You don't wanna use reserves if it's the ongoing shortfall. So I think in August, a lot of those decisions will be on the table. I'm following you. Thank you. Thank you. So I think that we can easily explain these percentages on the floor to members, you know, what is pressing some of them and any final questions is we need to move to the CRF sheet. Okay, Teresa, could we move to the CRF sheet? Do we have that one, Madam Chair? It's coming up. And Maria can go over this if you want to. Was this sent? I hope this was sent. I didn't see it. I just got it and I have to apologize because my outlook completely died in the middle of the meeting. So I will send it as soon as I stop sharing here. Okay. These are just the totals of where we've spent CRF money and they're on all of those COVID trackers. You know, we can talk on any of those, but this is one that's handy for the floor. And so while we're waiting for it, I think that we can talk about it. Steve, do you want me to talk about it? You're gonna talk about it? Either way, Maria prepared this. Maria? Maria? Yeah. Hi. So are you ready for me to talk about it? Yeah. We're gonna talk about it and we'll jump up on your screen, but the numbers are in all of these COVID trackers. So go ahead, Maria, please. Okay. So this is a summary document and it includes the big numbers. So you'll see that it's the CRF dollars from the 1.25 billion and it's from the house perspective. And is it up yet? Is the document up yet? Yes, it must be. I'm looking at it. Oh my gosh. Okay, so the first thing approved by JFC on May 12th, that's the tier one and tier two spending, that 167 million, you can access if you wanna know the details, the link there is a live link. It's also on the Joint Fiscal Office website if you go to the Joint Fiscal Committee. And then there was a total of 225 million, I believe that was set aside for the JFC to allocate. So they only allocated 167 million of that, that leaves a balance of 57 million that I have on the second line, well line seven, let's say, it's the JFC allocation to be determined. And then on the eighth line, adjustment for FEMA items, that's what we estimate at this point might be covered by FEMA. So that's why it's a negative number. I'm sorry. Was there a question? Clearing up a voice. I'm sorry, I need to mute myself because I'm... Oh, okay, all right, sorry. Okay, so then the next line, the H953, the supplemental BAA, that's the combined number for the House and Senate what was added in CRF funds in that bill. We also, the House also passed out the H951, which is the municipal lending bill of 2.7 million. The next line down line 11 is the Treasurer, this hazard pay true up. We don't have a number for it, but I thought I should include it in this document. It has to do with allocating funds for the retirement system. And we'll hear more about that, I think when the Treasurer has a chance to estimate what it should be. And then the next number down on line 12 is H961, which is the bill that you're looking at today. And that has a total of $47.3 million appropriated in it, which gives you a total allocation of 265.9 million. And then if you just reduce that the 1.25 billion by this 265.9, it gives you a remaining CRF balance of 984. And this, as I mentioned, it doesn't account for other bills out there that haven't been passed by the House. And so, you know, you have heard of other things, but they're just not accounted for on this document. And so for the House position, there's $984 million left that we know has not been assigned at this point. And from that piece, there will be, this is what committees of jurisdiction are working on. And they are not going to spend the full $900 plus million dollars. We are going to, I believe the speaker and others are thinking of pulling back some dollars in case guidance changes and it can be used to replace lost revenue. And so that's why committees of jurisdiction are working on two different numbers. They're working on what we can get out the door now for economic development and housing and agriculture, you know, whatever, all those pieces broadband. And then a second phase, which can be built in the first or different items for remaining dollars depending on what's available in August and September. So the big numbers for the floor today are we've spent to date about $266 million and we have 984 remaining. And this brings us right to 930. I think that we're in good shape for the floor. Stephanie, Maria, Maria, thank you, Stephanie and Steve, thank you for this information. It's very helpful. I just want to quickly go over the schedule for next week because we are going to need big chunks of time for Monday. Madam Chair, can I just jump in quick and just ask representative Conquest how we'd like to vote before we... Please, please. On the amendment to representative Conquest that was a motion to hold off on the appropriation so we remove section 24. How would you like to vote on that amendment? Yes. Thank you. And then on the full bill, representative Conquest how would you like to vote on S338 as amended? Yes. Thank you. I assume there was discussion about the money. Deep and wonderful. How we might make sure that we fund it one way or another. Yes. I think representative Cooper will be recording this on the floor and she could answer those questions so we don't take time now. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Diana. Thank you, Chip. So if you would like to get your calendars out wherever you do your calendars, I do not think we need to meet on Monday because committees of jurisdiction are not going to be anywhere near having their work done. Tuesday we're on the floor from 9 to 10.30 and 3.30 to 4.30 but I wanna leave you open on Tuesday to be listening in on these committee discussions. Wednesday morning I would like to leave open because I bet there's going to be a lot of scurrying to get these bills done by noon. And we're on the floor at 2 but I think I'm going to have to ask permission from the speaker for us to be working because we've gotta turn this around quickly and we can't turn it around if we're not in committee. So Wednesday we're going to start getting these bills hopefully before noon and by noon. Do we wanna do it in two sections so we have a bit of a break like from 12 to 1.30 and then maybe 2.30 to 4 or do you wanna do one long session? What's your pleasure? One long session for me. Peter's two, Bob's one. They're all long. One and one and a break. We could have some breaks in there. Yeah, I guess we could do a big chunk of time and then just take a committee break like we do anyway. Teresa, what is best for you working and keeping us on Zoom? What would be best? If you do whatever you want, I'm flexible. I mean, I can make it work. However, people wanna do it. Judy. I will guarantee that if the vast majorities of committees will not have something to us by noon. That's forever memorialized. Well, but we just know how hard this is for our colleagues. So I would suggest a little later in the day and somehow we're going to need time to into the really digest what they're sending. So maybe we gather at one, see what we have and then take a break and then really rock and roll later in the afternoon. So let's do one to four, 30 or five and we'll break it up as we need. I'm gonna put in one to five. Okay. Yeah, and then in the morning, be ready to gather. So we may not be officially meeting, but we're gonna be getting information all morning long, right? Right. And I'm sorry, I'm sorry on Thursday. Kitty, Wednesday afternoon, we have a house floor. I'm going to get permission for us to not be there because unless there's a critical bill and somebody could step off to go down and do a bill, we've got to go schedule. I believe or we'll never get this work done. Depends on what's on the calendar, I guess, but I'm thinking if there's anything. I guess we could duel and Teresa could let us know of votes and we could have dueling screens and new work. I could listen to the floor. And she can keep us surprised of what's on the floor. I have a 30 second delay with the YouTube, but it still should be okay. Okay. So we're just to read, so it's one to five on Wednesday, the 10th. And then Thursday, let's meet from 8.30 to, I think we have to meet until 11.30 and we'll take a break in there or we're not going to get done. We've got a tremendous amount of work to do. And then break at 11.30 with a break before that. Come back at one o'clock and let's plan until 4.30 and we'll break in the middle of that too. And then Friday, we're on the floor at 10, but if we could get started at 8.30 and let's work until 9.99. Maybe we can skip floor that day too. I'm hoping we can. Depending on what's, yeah. Well, let's do the same thing, 8.30 to 11.30 again. And if I don't know if we can get this out Friday, let's just put in, I'm really sorry to do this. No, it's okay. No, let's get it done until 4.30. One to what? One to 4.30 and I'm really sorry. The sooner we get this done, the sooner we get a summer break. This is true. We gotta go track the Senate. So I just, maybe our hopeful goal to get them voted out on Friday night. That would give. Progressive, but wouldn't that be nice? That would be really nice. It would give the JFO and everybody the weekend. And then we could, you know, wherever we're at, come back with that kind of weekend overview. Remember that JFO has to prepare this work. Yeah. Yeah, we give them, we give them that, like we usually do with the budget. It's like. So I think we probably ought to count on meeting at 8.30 on Monday. Oh yeah. The next Monday, you're talking next week. No Monday the 15th. Yes. I'm holding off on that one. I'm not. I'm already put it in. I'm gonna do Giddy. Yup. So Giddy, we should bet on it. Giddy, so we need to establish a time to hear amendments to the budget before third reading because I know we're gonna have one. Okay. That would be. That should be on the floor. Is it nine o'clock on Tuesday? Let's meet at 8.30. It's 8.30 enough time, do you think? We've heard it already. Everyone will have an opportunity to read it. It's coming from a policy committee. You know, we're good with where the funding is coming from. I think half an hour ought to do it. Okay. Let's 8.30 committee for amendments. Thank you, Peter, for that. So. What day are we gonna do that? Let, yeah. Tuesday. That's the ninth. No, no, no. Tuesday the ninth. Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay. Giddy. Yes. I've got an issue. I have a doctor's appointment at 9.20. In Rutland. So that means I have to leave here by quarter to nine. I probably get home about 10.15. Okay. So we're on the floor from nine to 10.30. You may miss third reading of the bill, Bob. I know. Okay. I know. And if you have any issues with that language, you need to talk to Peter if you're going to be gone when we vote it. Okay. So, so Giddy, did I just wanna check to see if I, am I on? In the right spot. On Tuesday, the ninth, we're also on the floor from 3.30 to four. Or what was? No, that's a caucus. Oh, okay. Thank you. And Marty, your hand is up. You have a question? Yeah, I have a question about all of these CRF requests. They're gonna come in from various committees allocating some of that $964 million, whatever. Then is the idea, we will put all that together in one single bill and say we appropriate this for this and this and this and this and this. Yep. So we will sort through the requests that we get, vet them, decide which ones we think are appropriate or not and present one bill with all of them together. Yep. That's a lot of work. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's because we can do it. I have everything. Okay. It's just all of them. All right, I'll see you on the floor. Where our bill is up first and everyone is fully prepared. And I think we're ready to go. Trisha, I'm sending this. What's that? I'm sending the photo. I'll wait for the email from you. So I sent the email to you and Mary and to the whole group that you need to reply all to. All right, I'll find it. There it is. Okay. And I'm gonna go off live now.