 Good morning, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. This morning, the first hour, we'll be looking at the amendment to S352 and vote on that. Then we will be looking at S353 with further proposal of amendment, looking at that and voting that as well. And so to begin, we'll have Damien walk us through the final time on the amendment to S352 and then S353, so Damien, if you could. Sure, and I'm actually, I just sent you 353. I'm gonna send you the updated 352 right now, which is just the order of sponsors since we talked yesterday. And that will just so people listening in, that we will post that on our webpage as well so that you can look at it at the same time that we're looking at it. So here we are. S352, you'll notice Representative Kimball is now the lead sponsor of the amendment followed by the chair and then the rest of the members of the committee in alphabetical order. The first amendment was to add the traveling nurse agency and the other nurse contracting agencies to the extent that they're providing nurses to other covered employers. And then the cleaning and janitorial service and the food service providers that the Senate added to the extent that they are providing services to healthcare or residential care providers. The second instance of amendment here is the change that we discussed yesterday. This is adding in the provision that the $25 or less hourly base wage requirement does not apply to employees of home health agencies and nursing homes as well as the contract nurses working for a home health agency or a nursing home. The third instance of amendment here removed language related to an employee receiving a direct payment from the state electing not to receive the hazard pay because they can simply choose not to apply. The fourth instance of amendment here requires employers to include their former employees. The fifth instance of amendment changes this from saying shall inform the employee that they may elect not to receive a grant to just saying that they're not required to apply for a grant. And then the sixth instance of amendment here complements the requirement that employers identify former employees by getting rid of the words may identify and instead replacing requesting that the employer or saying requesting that it identify those former employees. And that is it. Are there questions on the language? I believe representative Christie has found that you double represent Kimball twice in the sponsorship. Oh dear. And representative Christie is absolutely right. I will correct that and resend. Okay. Any other questions for Damian on this before we move to vote? Okay. Seeing none, I would. Mike, I am omitted from that list as well. Stephanie's not on it. Oh, thank you. Mark. Mark. And just for clarification representative Morris, not Christie, because I know we have a representative Christie in another district. All right. And, oh geez, yeah. We've got a couple of them. See, we get here. So everybody check to make sure you're on the list. We got two Charlie's for one Stephanie. I appreciate that you updated my name on there Damian. So thank you for that attention to detail. Very grateful. The computer program did it for me. So I can't claim any credit. That would be our excellent editorial staff here. So, and okay, let's see. We've got to get representative Morris. I apologize for that. The good news is the other one is a committee report. So there's no chance for me to accidentally leave people off the list. Not a problem Damian. Okay. Okay. So again, or any, anything else that anybody sees? Any comments? Any questions? Okay. Seeing none. I think we can go, Zach. Sorry, Mike, I'm, just before we vote, I was, this kind of goes back a couple of steps. But I was, I can't remember if we had a discussion about ambulance workers that don't work for municipalities. As when I'm just trying to think about who we might have left out. You know, most, most ambulance services are private privately contracted. So I, yeah, they were covered in 965. Okay. All right, cool. Just, just last thing. Yeah. Anything else? Okay. I would entertain a motion to report favorably on the amendment to S 352. All motion. All second. So I, that was moved by a representative Watson and seconded by representative O'Sullivan. Well, yes it was. Any further discussion? If not, the clerk can commence to call the roll and she is ready. This is S 352. The amendment to S 352 is the official title of this. Correct. The Kimball amendment to S 352. Okay. Thank you. Representative Bancroft. Yes. Representative Bach. Yes. Representative Carroll. Yes. Representative Dickinson. Representative Jerome. Yes. Representative Kimball. Representative Marcotte. Yes. Representative Morris. Yes. Representative O'Sullivan. Yes. Representative Tolino. Yes. And representative Watson. Yes. Okay. So let's hold that open when Charlie and Lynn join us and we can ask them for their votes. So thank you committee. Charlie will be taking care of the amendment as well as the main bill. And so now let's switch gears and look at S 353 and look at the changes there. Damien, did we hear back from A&R? Do we know if there's any private water system, sewer system businesses out there? Yes. Sorry, I was just unmuting. I just heard back from them this morning. Let me stop the screen share so that I don't show my email inbox. So the response from any plexic at A&R was to Michael O'Grady from our offices. We have very few facilities that meet that criteria. Most notably, however, is global foundries which commingles their industrial and sanitary wastewater during treatment. But this is an exception rather than the rule. The majority of private industrial facilities keep sanitary and industrial wastewater separate. So in other words, the private facilities are primarily tied to industry and are generally treating the industrial wastewater and letting the sanitary wastewater go to a public facility. Exception is global foundries and possibly a few others. But in most cases, not so. Our bill covers septic service providers, but it does not currently cover a private waste treatment facility. We know at public wastewater facilities serving like some of the cities and towns around Vermont, that there have been instances where they've found COVID-19 in the water that they're treating. It's, I mean, I can't say whether that's a similar concern that global foundries right now or another private wastewater treatment facility. The issue was just raised, was not raised by an employer or employee at one of these facilities. It was raised by AHS as, or as a potential, did we forget this issue? So it was more of a question of should these folks be included or not? The septic services were meant to be included and we've now clarified that. But this is a different group. So. Committee, what is your pleasure? Would you like to just add language in just in case there's some private wastewater treatment facilities out there that would fall into this? Christie? Yeah, just a point of clarification. We have a mobile home park in town. It's well out of town. It's not connected to the municipal system. And they have a wastewater collection pool. I don't know if it's treated beyond that. So that brought up the question with the private sewage treatment. Is it just like the septic service or do they actually have to treat it and maintain it? I'm just a point of clarification. It's the septic service provider. So the, in most cases, my understanding is that a septic service provider will go to the location. They'll empty the septic tank and then they'll deliver it to a municipal wastewater facility like the one in Montpelier that takes outside waste and it'll get treated there. During the two month period that we're talking about here, they were not doing that except in emergencies such as an overflowing tank or a failed septic system that was putting effluent on the ground. So that I think is something that's important to note in this. But I think for purposes of that mobile home park that you're describing, it would be the septic service that's actually going out there and pumping it to the extent that they had to that we're covering right now. So one of the things that struck me or is striking me now as I think about this is just the language around elevated risk. Yeah, so I think they would be covered because the languages has a high potential for exposure to known or suspected sources of COVID-19 including through providing in-person care or cleaning or sanitizing the premises of a covered employer. But that's a non, when we say including that's not an exclusive list. So if it's a known source of COVID-19 such as septic, I think that you've got that covered. But yeah, so that the bottom line though, representative Morris is that the septic service that goes out there to empty that and treat that tank should be covered. The only thing that we have a question about here is does a private wastewater treatment employee get covered or not? And they are not currently covered and all of the public employees are excluded anyway just by nature of being a public employee. So committee, what would you like to do? Would you like to just include them just in case it's not gonna do any harm if we don't if we do include them and there isn't any but it could be harmful to a few people if there are some and they would be excluded from receiving any hazard pay. I think it's a good idea. Yeah, if there's no harm, let's do it. Yeah. I feel the same. Okay, let's include them in the language Damian just in case. All right. That question. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I was just looking over the list and I thought occurred. So the pharmacy in Woodstock is closing made me think about industries that were eligible employers who have actually closed since because of the pandemic and are no longer in service. And do we have a mechanism for getting their employees at this hazard pay? I don't know how many employees there are but I know there is this one in Woodstock and I'm sure they're not alone that's closed closing or closed because of the pandemic and not reopening. I thought that was in the wording of the bill that they had to be open in the original context of the bill. Open but then the one out of business is what I'm saying. Sorry, not closed. I'm intermixing those. So they were open during the period and have since gone out of business. Is there anything in there, Damien, that deals with that issue? So that's actually an interesting issue that we hadn't considered. The way it's set up is it should go through the employer's payroll. So if the employer no longer exists or has payroll they wouldn't be able to apply under the regular program. However, with the new language allowing people to identify former employees, conceivably an employer who's in the process of dissolving their business and no longer has employees could file an application identifying their former employees with no current employees identified and then the state could reach out to those individuals and ask them if they wanna apply for a grant. So I think what the change is in S352 that the Senate added to allow former employees to get the grants that situation would be covered provided the employer in existence to the point where they would actually file an application. We do still have the issue of if that employer is, for whatever reason, let the state completely or is not willing to file the application those employees wouldn't be able to recover or receive a grant through the program because they wouldn't have been identified. And even if there was an individual application we'd still have the issue because if there's no employer to actually verify that they were performing the work you still wouldn't be able to get certified. So that's the start with the employer verification process that the individuals were performing covered work. So I guess the answer is maybe under the existing language. I think this kind of, and this was not intentional I swear that I was just thinking about it because the Woodstock Pharmacy was in the headlines recently but it does, I do wonder if this again makes adds to the argument that there needs to be some sort of mechanism for individual employees to be able to somehow trigger something that they can be included in this. I don't know how many people that is and I think it's probably gonna be pretty difficult to estimate but if we can come up with some sort of low bureaucratic way of at least triggering some sort of process. Yeah, one of the challenges that we have is that and this gets back to coverage under the CRF dollars is we need to be able to demonstrate that there's a link to COVID-19. And so one of the ways to do that is to have some sort of certification process which is somewhat easily verifiable. And so Pennsylvania and we have decided to do it and New Hampshire have decided to do hazard pay programs where the employer lists the employees whether they're in this case, whether they're currently employed or not because that shortcuts the state having to follow up with the employer to process the application or having the employee have to track down their former employer. Louisiana did it the other way where people had to file an application that their employer had signed off on but they still had to get their employer to sign off and so that's again the challenge with a business that has gone under. There's no one there to sign the paperwork to certify. You're relying on employees self-certifying which in an ideal world we could depend on people not to file a fraudulent application but by having some sort of second check you reduce the potential for fraud on these applications. And so that's, I'm not saying that it's a good idea or a bad idea I'm just pointing out one of the issues with the COVID dollars is we need to be able to demonstrate that link and this is an easy way to do it. It starts to get more difficult when there's a self-certification process. UI has been dealing with this too but they do their investigations on the back end using a whole bunch of tools that the federal department of labor provides them to help track down whether people are filing claims in multiple states or reporting wages or that sort of thing during this time period that they didn't put on their UI application. I don't know that our agency of human services could manage to do that. So it just, it's an issue that the committee would wanna consider if you go forward on that. Again, it doesn't provide a lot of help to these folks that you're talking about unless their employer can somehow be there to certify. Charlie. Seeing in a specific case that representative Watson brings up that company will not cease to exist after it is negotiating the sale of its customer-based list to another pharmacy. So that actual business will not cease to exist in its corporate structure. So they could still apply for hazard pay for their employees that were working during the covered period. So that is definitely possible even with that particular thing. And then there's a question about successor employers. So if somebody buys a business and the trade name and everything else and operates as a business name, then they are subject to certainly a lot of things for unemployment insurance, workers' cop and everything else is a successor business. So would they also be eligible then to apply? I probably, the case could be made that a successor business could apply for hazard pay for those employees from the previous business that they bought. So I think there's probably avenues that they could pursue without trying to anticipate other instances like that in the bill. I guess that does, I mean, that makes sense. I am, you know, for the successor businesses though, how can they attest that the employee was subject to these conditions if they weren't the employer at the time? And, you know, I also, you know, when we have the employer itself attesting, there is some, you know, it is a double check, but the employer is self-attesting for themself in some cases. I, you know, I think, I wonder if we could insert language that the individual employee could reach out or have their own specific application where then the human services goes and tries to verify the information with the person that was, that is listed as the owner of the business that had closed down or was operating at the time and they can verify directly with that, with the former owner of the business if we're looking for that backstop there. I think no matter what, it's the business that is the verifier. And so if a business has already put claims in and they've had these people that have left and weren't part of the initial put-through and the business is closing down or closing, I think they still have the ability to try to touch base with them, but I don't think that we have, or AHS has time to, they're going to reach out to them anyway. I think in the language that we have, they will be reaching out to those businesses for to see if they have any employees that were left off because they left employment. So I think that's gonna be done anyway. I don't know that we can make any more changes that are going to help people. I don't know. Just thinking at this late time now, we're getting down to nitty gritty and the more we keep digging, the more small issues that we can continue to find and then we wind up holding this thing up. Also, Mr. Chair, it's a voluntary program. Right. We're not mandating that employers do this for their employees. So that if we go down that road, then we're gonna go down the other road until we then make it a mandatory program for all employers to do that. And since we're giving employers the choice of whether they want to apply for hazard pay for their employees, I think by making that choice, we know that some people will get left out. Hopefully not, but there is a possibility there. So I guess I'll leave it up to the committee. Do you wanna continue to let's see if we can get some language to fix this or are you satisfied that where we're at now is a good place? I'm good where we are. Me too. Me too. I'm good. I'm good. It's gonna be hard to capture 100% of everybody and time is of the essence, I think. Happy to accept the committee's thoughts on this. I do just wanna, the reason we're doing this is we are trying to get money to employers, sorry, employees who were working during exceptional times to provide service to Vermonters who needed it. And the way that it's currently designed that is contingent upon the employer's interest in actually doing this, we are going to leave people out and those people that are left out are people that are just as eligible for this money as everybody else. And we're not giving them any means at all for them to contest that or to raise their hand and say, I deserve this money too. So we're gonna be, the people that we do leave out, it's for no good reason except that we don't have the bureaucratic capacity to actually handle it when I think there could potentially, we haven't even explored whether there is a simple solution for just an online form to say, hey, I think I'm eligible for this, can you check with my employer? And I know we haven't till December to do this, but we actually haven't even explored what type of options there are, but we are going to be leaving people out and those people are eligible just as much as everybody else. So, but I am at the will of the committee. Stephanie? I appreciate what you're saying, Zach, but I, in my mind, even if a business had gone, is no longer functioning, that what we do want is a former employer to verify that they were an employee at that time and to process the paperwork. So it would be on the goodwill of the business to make sure that these people could receive this hazard pay. Am I correct? That the business, even though the business was no longer, the doors no longer open, that the owner of that business, even though it's been closed, could still verify that this person was an employee and could still process this paperwork. They could so long as they're able to be found. Okay, so, I mean, it's been a short time. If they had closed, say, in this case, this pharmacy. Well, I guess the other question is, do we even know that there are employees there that were working and then left employment and got left out? We don't even know that. It's a possibility. I guess, you know, thinking as a business owner, I care about my employees and I would want to make sure that if I was no longer in business, I still would wanna make sure that my employees could get this benefit and I don't see how they would be left out in the current situation if the employer, I want to do the right thing. I think other things that are gonna happen also with this, no matter what, is that there's going to be employees out there that feel they've been left out, but don't fall into the criteria of being a frontline worker. And so, if we open it up to allowing anybody that feels like they've been left out, I think the agency is gonna get overwhelmed with people thinking that they should be getting it when they don't meet the criteria. So that's a, I think, a drawback. So I think the committee is okay with the design we have now and I appreciate what Zach has brought and there is a possibility that that might happen. Although I think it's pretty low, it could, but there's other areas too, I think that some people will get missed and unfortunate as it is, I don't think we can have 100% guarantee that everybody will get what they deserve. As much as we want them to. So Damien, if you could walk us through the language. Sure, I'm making changes on the fly right now. Okay. I've just been going back and forth with Micah Grady to get the language right on the privately operated water pollution control and abatement facility, I think is the correct term. So it's the new language is would add an operator of a privately owned water pollution abatement and control facility provided that such an employer shall only be permitted to receive a grant to provide hazard pay to its eligible employees who performed the performed work in the water pollution abatement and control facility. I'm sorry, I don't have this up on the screen. I'm literally typing us as we talk. Okay, Charlie. Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering as you had brought up before is that the number of people, number of entities that may own a facility is very small but there are others that provide services to those facilities. Are we thinking about trying to include those folks that may have a water testing service or a testing application for those types of facilities? They are not covered under that definition that you just read, right? So it's either the owner of a facility, the provider of that service. Yeah, so it's the employees of someone who owns and operates such a facility. I mean, we get into trouble trying it. I mean, it gets complicated the more we try to specify as to who's covered and who's not, but just bring that up is that if our intent is to cover people that are providing services to that facility, this don't do it. Yeah, I know it gets back and that whole thing about either they're an employee of that entity or they are contracted out. I just bring that up as a point. And if it's not our intent to cover that group, that's fine. But if it is, then this doesn't do it. Are you talking about labs, the test water and all of those private entities that are actually more plentiful than just the private wastewater treatment plant type people? Yeah, that's what I was talking about. That's the same reaction I had. So the private testing facilities that even public wastewater treatment plants may use? Yeah, every real letter that sells a house gets a water sample tested or something like that. It's a, I mean, it goes up. This becomes, I mean, where they, they must have been testing water. They have to test water and sewer and all those things during the course of this time. Well, I think the real estate was closed. I don't know when they were allowed to go back selling again, but I think they were not, they were not part of the essential businesses that needed to remain open. So it's also worth noting too that you're looking at two different things here. One is dealing with sewage effluent. So, versus when you're testing water at a house, you're looking at water or tap water from the municipal taps, which presumably has been filtered and treated. Well, well, well water, yeah. And presumably isn't exposed. The exception shallow well, which is supposed to be heavily treated. Before it gets to the house, but you're likely to have a whole bunch of other stuff in there rather than the virus if it's not treated. So the issue with the virus being found has been in wastewater treatment plants. It's not been in clean water systems coming into the house. Right, it's because everybody, you know, uses or produces wastewater, whether you're sick or not. Right. It comes to that point. So once it's been treated, they haven't found COVID in treated water, correct? It's pre-treated where they found COVID. I'm not the person who could answer this, but what I'm aware of is that they've found it in untreated septage. Right. You know, the municipal wastewater treatments have their own lab. There's someone who works in that lab that works and tests things. They're not necessarily testing for COVID, although now apparently they are, or somebody's testing it, but they have their own lab. And the community, I think you might be talking about like community water and sewer for some developments. There's some that had community systems. They probably have to test it anyway to stay viable for the community they serve. The state. Right, so they have to test for drinking water quality. And then they probably have to, whatever their system is, whether it's community septic or something like that, they'll need to get that permitted ahead of time. Yeah. They'll need to have it maintained. And that's the septic services that we've already got covered. I think we're pretty well covered. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't, yeah, thanks. Okay, so are we ready to take a stab at the language that we have so that within the next 10 minutes or so, we could possibly have a vote? All right. I'm sending that draft to our editors just to review. Yep. Do you want me to show, share an unedited copy on the screen? Yeah, that would be great, Damien. Thank you. I'm taking a moment for everything to move around because I can't be in the document. Editors are trying to review it, get in and out very quickly and then put it in a PDF for the committee to see. Okay. Apologize for the delays here. So I guess while we're waiting for Damien, Stephanie, why don't you get Charlie and Lynn's vote on the amendment to S 352. So far, everyone has voted in the positive. So it's to report favorably on the amendment to S 352. Okay, Representative Dickinson. Oh, this is the Kindle amendment. Kimball amendment. This is the Kimball amendment to S 352. Yes. Okay, and Representative Kimball, how do you vote? Yes. Very good, 11-0-0. That'd be interesting to report on your amendment. Yes. Let me tell you why I don't support my amendment. Not to confuse them at it, but did you check with the other member, the other Kimball member from Woodstock since they were two originally on the draft? You get to, you finally get to split yourself, Charlie, on both sides of the issue. I was just beside myself, Tristan. Oh, okay, I'm going to share my screen now. And I'll send this to the clerk's office. Yes. Is that correct? Okay. All right. So here's the updated version of the amendment. It's a committee report, so we don't have to worry about me making a mistake with names again. So again, just a little bit of a terminology change at the front because we've gone to those providing essential services to Vermonters. As we discussed yesterday, the guidance is still not clear on this, but it seems to be indicating and experience from other states seem to indicate, at least to me that the providing grants for hazard pay to private employers is now a little bit safer on that continuum of risk than it was when we considered this issue in June. The changes here, we've done some renumbering because of our S352 amendment. And then the big change today is to add the language that's highlighted here. We also added the or septic service language on the line above it. So I read this language to you. Are there any questions or concerns about it now that you're seeing it in front of you? Christy? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Damien, just in reading this and listening to our previous conversation, the septic service providers are excluded from this or included? They're included on the line above line five, little 21 in the Roman numerals, trash collection, waste management, or... There you go. Thank you. This is my oversight. Thank you. Yep, no, that's fine. The reason I have the other language highlighted is because our editor's already reviewed the septic service language. This is for their benefit. And then I've renumbered the remaining sections here. And again, this only changes section one of S-353. And then in section two, we've changed the appropriation amount from 19 and a half million down to 12 and a half million to reflect what was in the big bill when it passed the House. And I believe that we're going to let the Appropriations Committee figure out if there's another 7 million available somewhere. Correct. Okay. Any further discussion, clarifications, questions on S-353 has further amended. Is everyone comfortable voting for S-353 prior to it coming back from the editors? Or would you wait for the editors to the edited version to come back? Do we know how long that would take? I know the editor is looking at it right now, but I don't know beyond that. So generally they let me know when they've got it and then they let me know when they're done. Okay. Christy, did you have any other? I neglected to lower my hand, but just thinking about representing the Watson's request and I know we talked about it and then we decided but I'm wondering if we included the language that I'm trying to understand if that we're employed during the period that we're talking about, if that would give the opportunity for a closed business employer to try to apply. I just, you know, I commented on it and excluded it the first time but it makes you think and I'm just, I just want to be comfortable that this is a direction that we want to go. And I know other amendments, other bills have said that they needed to be employed during that time period. I mean, what if they closed next week? Then those businesses would not be, those employers, those employees would not be included. That's not accurate. So the employees had to be employed during the period from March 13th to May 15th, which is the period in the bill. The employer, the way the existing laws it says they have to be currently employed which does create a problem for business that's gone under or had to lay off employees. The bill that came over from the Senate on S 352 corrected that by allowing employers to seek the benefit for former employees to by identifying them and then allowing the state to send them an application. The, we've clarified that here to make that a requirement. So it's not optional for the employer to identify the former employees and then to affirmatively have the state request that employers who have already applied send that application. As representative Kimball was talking about if an employer is going under at this point or has gone under, they could still potentially as a going business identify their former employees with the change that has been put in with the house and then further clarified by this committee. So it's still possible for them to do that. There's no guarantee though, if it's a small business they struck closing down the business maybe such that they choose not to do it but they still have that option. Okay. Anything else? Okay. I would entertain a motion to report favorably on S 353 with further proposal of amendment. So moved. No, what the chairman said. Okay. Representative Morris has moved. Is there a second? I'll second. And by representative O'Sullivan. Okay. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, the clerk can commence to call the roll when she's ready. This is the hazard pay amendment. This is S 353 with further proposal of amendment. Reporting favorably on S 353 with further proposal of amendment. Representative Bancroft. Yes. Representative Bogg. Yes. Representative Carroll. Representative Dickinson. Yes. Representative Jerome. Yes. Representative Kimball. Yes. Representative Marcott. Yes. Representative Morris. Yes. Representative O'Sullivan. Yes. Representative Tolino. Yes. Representative Watson. Yes. Okay. 11-0-0. Just a moment. Representative Carroll. Oh, that's right. Jim didn't jump on. Are you there, Jim? If you are, are you muted? Yes, sir. Representative Carroll. Did you hear me? No. Did you hear me? No. Stephanie, did you hear me? I can hear you now. Do you vote yes on your note? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Representative Carroll. Okay. So 11-0-0, reporting favorably with further proposal of amendment on S-353. I need a reporter. I'll take a stab at it, Stephanie. I'll do it, yeah. Okay. Appropriations, we'll want to see you and Charlie at nine o'clock tomorrow morning to go over those amendments and I'll let Theresa know that that you will be reporting the bill. And so she'll send you a zoom invite along with Charlie. Thank you very much. Thank you, committee. I think it's great that we're able to provide provide this for our for our frontline workers that were out there taking care of us. It's a good job. So with that, Damian, thank you very much. You're welcome. I'll send the edited cleaned draft as soon as it's finished. Okay. I'll get to Stephanie and she'll get it to the clerk's office. I think the speaker will probably want to move that, take it off and move it to appropriations today. Okay, sounds good. Good, thanks. And I know you want it in other places. So thanks for your work. Okay. Well, now we'll switch gears. Good morning, Heather. Thank you for joining us. Morning, thank you. Yeah. I think we've heard a lot of news on the rollout of the $30 voucher programs, consumer stimulus program that happened last week. And I just asked you to come in and give us a report. There are some members from appropriations who are interested in the report as well. And so they're joining us, Chair Toll and Vice Chair Hooper and others are with us. And so we look forward to hearing your report. Thank you for coming. Great. Well, I really appreciate the opportunity to give folks an update. It did provide yesterday afternoon a link to the status report that we've put together. I don't know if members have had a chance to look at that, but there's some complete details in there that I will go over, but I think the highlights is that when the program launched, we had over a thousand businesses fully enrolled and approved of those in that status at launch. 93% of them saw business directly from this initial pilot program. We've had over and with, that was on the business side in terms of consumers, we had about 12,000 consumers for monitors who were able to sign up for the program. In terms of the types of redemption in the first week, we were now up to about 1800 offers redeemed and we are seeing the type of additional economic activity that we're hoping for from the stimulus. Right now the overspend is about at 53%. So in the first week, we've already injected an additional $25,000 into the economy on top of the value of the discounts. These numbers are all in that report that I forwarded as well as the breakdown of funds. So we were able to distribute this economic activity throughout all 14 counties of the state. We do have breakdowns of the number of businesses who received funds both by county as well as by sector. If you may recall, when we set up the program parameters, we did wanna target this stimulus to those sectors that really have been the hardest hit by this pandemic. And so you'll see in the reporting that more of the stimulus went to retail and restaurants as we had designed the program as well as you'll see that when you look at the average amount that went to different types of businesses, lodging is much higher than the others because the amount of stimulus to lodging was larger. So I could explain that a little bit more. The average gift was $30, but we know that some higher ticket items, you need a little bit more of an incentive to take the plunge to make that purchase. So for lodging, the stimulus amount was actually $150. We do have some great testimonials in the report as well in terms of what this has meant to local businesses. We just think about lodging as one in particular from a lodging operator in Stowe who with $150 stimulus, they had somebody book a four nights day and it's just kind of over the moon about it. So it's really great to hear those specific anecdotes as well as the hard data. So I can just kind of go over in terms of the sectors, the funds for business that we saw from it in retail average to $373 for restaurants 378 for lodging $1595, health and wellness $285 and entertainment attractions $476 all leading up to an average of $476 per business. The complete amount of the stimulus was distributed as everyone knows that the interest was fast and furious. So all of those funds have now been allocated to the different businesses and consumers now have until the end of October to go ahead and receive those discounts. And again, we hope they will spend more and we'll continue to see the additional economic activity that this pilot generated. And through this reporting mechanism we have we will still continue to get updated data as the project rolls out. That's the kind of really high level in terms of what we've seen so far. So if there are questions or you'd like me to go into any more detail any parts of that, I'd be happy to do so. Okay, Heather, how were businesses chosen or how did you filter out businesses that had no issues with COVID opposed to the businesses that were really struck hired by COVID? Sure. So we did, it was an open sign up in the sense that we tried to get the word out as much as possible in terms of businesses who were interested in participating. And then we did have a couple of parameters though we did follow the guidelines for other federal funding. There were a few, you know, restrictions for instance for firearms, cannabis, alcohol, some of those things are typically restricted from federal funds. I know we'd spoken about before we're not eligible for this. Also these businesses that had to be Vermont owned and operated so that national franchises were not eligible for the program. There was also an attestation that's part of the sign up process that businesses had to attest that they were did suffer financial harm due to the COVID emergency again, following other attestations that we've done in other relief programs like this. And each business through the sign up process was contacted individually. So that, you know, human to human talking to each other this wasn't just, you know, through cyberspace to make sure that the business understood the program that they understood the eligibility rules. And as I mentioned, we had just over 1,000 businesses who had gone through that whole process at launch. We've had since then another 600 businesses who have expressed interest. They would love to participate, should this be expanded? Questions for Heather, Charlie? Hi Heather, just a couple of questions. In looking at the value of the vouchers or certificates that could be redeemed anywhere from 10 to $150. I think when we first reviewed this it was a minimum 30 is how it was presented to us a minimum $30. And I don't think we fully understood that some could get a maximum of $150. So I'm wondering a couple of things. When somebody signed up for the program did they have the option of signing up for $150 worth of total certificates that could be issued? Did they have an option of only $30? So can you explain to us how that actually works so that some people got $150 certificates or vouchers and some people got $10? Sure, the voucher levels are based on industry research in terms of what it takes to incentivize additional purchases. So there were some $10 certificates in there for fast food casual restaurants. And as we've just talked about the higher amount for lodging. When somebody is presented with, when they show interest in participating in the program they're able to pick the different areas they might be interested in. So only those who chose lodging would have seen that higher amount. So it wasn't as if you were, you choose what you're interested in first before the amount of the discount. Okay, so if you did not choose lodging you wouldn't have the opportunity to qualify for $150 certificate or that total value. So if you only expressed your interest in coffee shops then your options would be limited to those lower value certificates, is that right? That's correct. And I think that the way to think of this is is that this is really a program designed to give economic relief to businesses. And so the equity that we achieved was what was available across different businesses to help in their long-term sustainability. And so yes, different consumers did receive different discount offers. But what we were truly trying to balance is to make sure that the economic help that we were providing was distributed across sectors, given to their loss and the lodging sector has suffered tremendously. And so that's why that higher amount was directed to them and across geographically based on population density. So there's only so many factors that we can control and this whole program has really been about helping our businesses survive, encouraging folks to shop locally. But that's why there was the higher amount for lodging in this pilot program. And I can appreciate that. And I think from a marketing tool perspective where you're trying to match up interested customers with potential service providers or sellers, it's a very good matching as to whether or not it meets the equality or across the people that are receiving that incentive from a consumer standpoint that that's problematic. I just guess the second point is the one thing I wanted to ask is, do you have any data on the profile, the types of people that were deeming the coupons or that are signed up for the program? Do we know where they are demographically? How old they are, what their income levels are or that kind of stuff? Do we know if they are in need or not in need of an additional stimulus themselves? No, we're not collecting personally identifiable information like that. We wanted this to be a low barrier. We're really looking at how much additional economic activity we can generate by these purchasing decisions. So we're not asking those types of questions from the folks who sign up. And the reason why the higher amount for lodging is that if we only provided a $30 incentive to lodging, other programs like this have shown that that would not incentivize people to choose that lodging deal. And thus those lodging operators would not receive the benefit from the program. So those are the things that we're trying to balance here. Right, and I guess it's been painted for some folks in, I don't wanna say in the press, but in conversations about this is really good for consumers. And we lose that kind of argument when we talk about it's not really providing consumers that need the assistance. And the fact that we can't differentiate within this, we lose that ability to say that. Well, I think that this is a, I see it as a win-win for consumers and businesses. This is about helping businesses survive by encouraging folks to support their local businesses. And whether someone, I think it's okay that folks that are in need were eligible to this and folks that maybe had more disposable income were eligible for this as well. I mean, the fact is they're participating with their local businesses. And that's really what we're trying to do, that this was not meant as a financial assistance for individuals. I think that's a benefit in the sense that we had it open to everybody who could participate, but it was really always designed to make sure that the aid helps the businesses per the CARES Act funding guidelines that we're really trying to support those businesses that have suffered so much. Okay, thank you. That makes it clear for sure. Thank you. Kitty? Thank you, Mike. I just have a couple of questions, Heather. So the vouchers that were allotted to individuals, if they weren't based on a total amount that one individual could receive, was it based on a number of vouchers? Like if I went in, would I be limited to one or two or did it vary depending on the category I picked? So most consumers would have received at most probably one because the average gift amount was $30. So if you chose a $10 one, you might have, if there was still some left, you could be offered a second $10 gift. But for most everybody, this was a small pool. This was not a huge amount of money. They had one chance to kind of choose a gift. And so it wasn't set as a certain amount per consumer. It was set to divide the total amount of funding available amongst as many businesses as possible based on the sectors that they were in. So it wasn't possible for one individual to get two of the $150 vouchers? No. And then my next question, if this were to continue, now that individuals know, well, I took the $10 and I could have gotten 150 and taken my family somewhere, do you think it's going to now skew people to choose certain businesses over others since it's based on what you choose and not the amount of money? So should this program continue, we have the opportunity to reset a lot of these different kind of parameters that we set up in this pilot. So one of the things that we can do, and this is conversations that we did have with the Senate when they were considering this proposal, was if we were to set, again, if we were to kind of flip it and say like, well, instead of thinking about the number of businesses and how we divided that way, if we were to say, this is a certain population and we want them to receive this exact benefit. So let's take $100. We can set up the program that way. It's just set up a little bit differently that then the customer would have an account that they would then pull down on that, that they could pick multiple offers. We did also talk to the Senate. They were interested, especially if this was targeted to lower income folks, what if they wanted to spend it all in one place? So that is also a possibility. If this program goes forward, that they could choose to use their entire, say we were talking upwards of maybe $400, if this went to the population of those in front of monitor who are unemployed or on pandemic unemployment assistance. So if it was $400, we could set up the program that they could use it all in one place, perhaps to allow them to purchase a higher ticket item that they didn't have access to, or they could spread that across different businesses if they, depending on what their needs were. So we do have that ability in the pilot program. This was how it was kind of pitched to us. As you recall, we had a competitive RFP process to set this program up and it was paid that gift amount was based on how it's performed in other markets, but we definitely have the ability to change those types of things going forward. Thank you, Heather. Mike, I did have two other questions, but if there's other people with their hands up, I don't want to monopolize. Go ahead, keep going, Katie. There's no other hands up. So I just had two other questions and I think other members around the table heard from constituents as well about the equity piece. I live where I don't have very good service or some people don't even have computers or any computer access. And if some people were at work that day, the money went out very, very quickly that they didn't have the option to even weigh in. So there seemed to be an equity issue that I think would need to be considered going forward, especially leaving out pools of Vermonters who don't have access. And my other question, my second one, and you can answer them in any order, is did the agency consider any other initiatives that would achieve the same goal, getting money into businesses that seemed, I know the focus was on the businesses and not on the consumer that was receiving the benefit. However, as Mike said, it really appeared the other way around to individuals that were looking at it. They weren't thinking so, they were thinking more of what individuals would receive. But what other initiatives did you consider that didn't make the cut because this appeared like the better approach to getting money directly to businesses to help support them? Sure, well, we did have a competitive RFP process to see what programs were out there that we could access. This particular program was the one that was able to get the most amount of direct stimulus to the most amount of businesses. And it was quite obvious that it wasn't really very close in terms of the other alternatives. Some of the other types of programs that we did see were what we are now seeing, if you may recall, we have an additional grant program, a regional marketing stimulus grant program where we have had an application process for municipalities, communities, chambers of commerce to be able to run these types of programs in their own locations. And some of those programs are more like the kind of downtown bucks or passport programs where you have a certain amount of purchases and that makes you eligible for a different incentive or a different discount. Those are some of the other types of programs that we saw for this larger pilot program as well. The nice thing is that since the alternative, the regional approach is also happening at the same time. As those programs get underway, we're also gonna have the benefit of the experience that they've had for those types of programs. These things are happening concurrently. So we don't have the benefit of the metrics from those other tactics at this very moment, but there are different ways to do this. And going forward, the state will have that evidence. On the piece about the consumers, this was a pilot program. We tried to get the word out that to folks to be excited about it, I do admit that we could have done a better job kind of framing out the expectations. I do understand that in terms of making... So I agree, we did not set the expectations that not everyone would be eligible, or I shouldn't say eligible, but that it wasn't gonna be as easy for everyone to access because anybody was eligible. Again, should a hindsight is 2020 going forward, could we mail these to consumers? Yes, absolutely, they don't have to have... Are there ways that we could have addressed that technological barrier? We had thought if it hadn't gone so quickly, we had had brainstormed with some of the capstone agencies in terms of setting up events where folks could either go to the local library and sign up that way or just other ways that we could get over that technological divide. It just would have added more time and expense to the program and that doesn't mean it's not worth doing, but we just wanted to... We knew timing was short to kind of see what a consumer stimulus program could do. And so that's why we set it up the way we did. Thank you, Heather. Probably going to the library, you wouldn't have many takers with COVID. Or similar, understood. Well, yeah, and I did talk to some constituents that wouldn't go to the library because they don't trust the using library computers with their personal information that they might input. So there's that too. Mary? Thank you. These pushy appropriations people coming in to your committee and asking questions. We're more than happy to have you. Thank you for the welcome. Yeah, I appreciate the one, the deep need to support, particularly some sectors of our economy and the trouble that they are in. And I understand the creative thinking that the agency is trying to engage in to provide that support to some of those sectors. You talked about trying to provide economic relief to individual businesses. I am curious about how real that relief is. You gave an example of somebody having received $150 benefit and booking for nights of a stay, which clearly is a win for that institution for that period of time. But four nights of a stay from one party doesn't strike me as being the sort of substantive relief that a business would need to survive. So can you try to flesh out the value of this to the individual businesses in terms of what sort of difference it's going to make to their bottom line? Yeah, no, I appreciate that question. I would encourage folks who haven't seen the report to read the testimonials that are in the back. We have 10 businesses right there explaining in their own words what this meant to them. And I think it's a combination. I mean, with the amount of money in this pilot program, this is not the economic assistance that's going to get them from here to next spring. That's really more the amount of money in the economic recovery grants that provides that part, that level of financial assistance. But that said, what we've seen from the businesses is that this really was a huge boost to their, just a shot in the arm in terms of believing what might be possible. That here in one day that they got 15 to 20 new customers is what it was for most businesses who immediately now knew about their store. The stores we've heard are like, I'm just so thrilled to have these people now they never would have known I existed. And now I have an opportunity to have them as long-term customers. I can continue speaking to them. And that's really part of the benefit here is it's getting folks to think about their purchasing decisions, to form a relationship with a local business they might not have had before. And that was the reaction that we got from the businesses that they were just so thankful. Even for so it's only 20 orders and that's not gonna carry them through six months, but it's 20 orders that they didn't have the day before and it gave them hope that there is potential out there for residents to support them. And it's a way for them to start creating a relationship going forward. So what we were really hoping to do was it's, we've really thought about the types of proposals we've put forward is that, what can we do to help sustain that business initially? But then what can we also do to influence purchasing decisions going forward to sustain them in the long run? And so this part of the consumer stimulus was really about those consumer decisions thinking about buying locally. And again, what we've seen from the businesses is that maybe it's the $436 is not gonna get them through but the new customers and the access they had to those customers and what it did for them even psychologically was quite beneficial. I can appreciate the morale boost that this definitely would have provided and one cannot underestimate the value of that. I think the interesting question for us as legislators is weighing the value of that versus the value of cash in the pockets of people who are wondering how to pay rent next week or how to put food on the table. And that's one of the things that I'm struggling with here. I think I wonder if you cannot accomplish the same. If you don't have the ability to drive businesses to business to these businesses through some of the other initiatives that the agency has taken. I think we provided what some considered a pretty generous amount of money for marketing. And I know you intend to market directly to Vermonters to drive business to these folks and there may be other tools to accomplish this. Yeah, and in some of the conversations that we had in the Senate where, should we expand this program, how could we think about the population of Vermonters that is able to benefit from it as being more aligned to income sensitivity so that we're able to either income sensitivity or circumstances. So as I said, the population of unemployed was where we ended up. But to be able to accomplish both. So to be able to give folks who are struggling as the businesses are struggling, this is a way to really hopefully identify a solution that helps both. This was a small program. And I understand that seeing what this small program could do is definitely instructive to see what would be possible going forward. But we definitely have that ability to tailor the consumer side of who's eligible based on their needs to help them survive as much as we are for the businesses. Yeah, but I think our hands are kind of tied on the businesses that we can direct people to because they would have had to been directly affected by COVID for business revenue loss. And I think the point I think Mary is getting to is that the people that and people that are on UI or didn't get into the PUA, whatever reason, they probably have more food insecurities or needs for fuel assistance, things like that. And we just can't provide it with this stimulus money because it's got to go to either our lodging businesses or our restaurant businesses. And I think that's what some of us are struggling with. I mean, that definitely is, one of the trickiest parts of this is that the CARES Act funding comes with specific guidelines. We felt like that this was a creative approach to be able to accomplish both so that, yes, the money is going to those businesses who have been harmed by this pandemic, but in a way that gives consumers more purchasing power, which we can't directly give to those folks. So that was really, that was our intent of pursuing this. Jean. Thank you, Mr. Chair, two questions. One is if you could, where would you improve the program? But the other question I really have is, I'm wondering, since you have it up and running now, and we have the deadline of 12.30, and the state really wants to see the money by 12.20, I'm wondering whether this program would be a good catch-all for any unexpended funds that come back to us in December. Could you, you know, I hate to have it go back to the feds, and you've got everything going, and would that be an opportunity to just literally sweep cash into this program, because then it's discretionary Christmas spending, and we could figure out how you allocate it, but if we can't get it out the door any other way, can it on December 1st, could you be able to get this thing going? We certainly could, I think that in terms of kind of both parts of your questions, I think in terms of lessons learned. So on one hand, yes, the program is up and running, and we could put more money into it, and we could give discounts to folks tomorrow. So we can do that very quickly. The second half of that is, we could only do that very quickly for the folks that have already signed up for the program, you know, and we have heard again in lessons learned, like, you know, could we either change that population of people or expand it? So I think that if we were going to do something like that and open it up, you know, near the end of the program, we would just want to kind of talk through who would be eligible for that extra spending money for the holidays. And if we wanted to enroll them sooner to get as many people involved in that, I wouldn't want to set false expectations to get more people to sign up for the program in the hopes that they would benefit, you know, with that very small tail of data and not knowing how much we had. So I mean, I love that idea. Yes, we could, this program could be expanded very easily. We could change the parameters, you know, depending on which ones they are, some are ears and the others, but we can make all those changes. It's just a question of, you know, that the popular folks could benefit from it and how quickly we could get that many more people enrolled, especially if we want to offer, let's say, you know, a mail-in option and that type of thing. Thank you. I just, I'm glad you're here to hear that because it would kill me to give the feds any money back. We just break my heart. So it's nice to know that option might be out there. Thank you. You're welcome. Kitty? Thanks, Mike. Is there another hand, though, before me? I don't want to. I just, and Heather, I really appreciate your comments. It's bringing a lot of clarity to the program. You mentioned about the testimonials at the end. I think you said that they were 10, knowing that there were over 1,000 businesses that were queued up in this initiative. Did you hear or learn from any of the businesses that didn't feel it was successful, what could be done differently and why they didn't feel it was successful? Yeah, I mean, most of the businesses that we've heard who have, you know, I guess I would put that in kind of a customer service bucket, you know, who had issues. You know, most of what we saw where there was some confusion about how to redeem it, those, as far as I know, have all been resolved. So if any came to us, you know, we were able to pass that on to the, you know, to the folks implementing the program and those were resolved. You know, I think that there were some businesses who thought they might get more out of this. And, you know, so that's a little bit about expectations and there is an element of consumer choice. So that, you know, even though 93% of the businesses who were up and running, you know, with the program, when this happened, there were 7% who didn't get any business from that. And so, you know, we have heard from a few folks who didn't receive it because there is an element of consumer choice in there. So, you know, the other part of the program that we have built in that we don't have, and I can't report on this right the second, but we had it set to go out for, you know, in three weeks to do a full feedback loop in terms of how merchants are feeling about the program to make sure that we're capturing that type of feedback, you know, not waiting for someone to volunteer because, yes, usually you hear the good stories or, you know, you hear the outliers, let's say, when people volunteer that feedback. But that is part of the program that we had set up was to have feedback from businesses as to, you know, what they felt about it and, you know, again. And as well as the ongoing, are they getting repeat visits in terms of, you know, what the multiplying effect is on top of just the initial redemption? Charlie. Yeah, thank you. Heather, I'm wondering because in the different division of ACCD, they've had to calculate as to how many potential affected businesses there are in this universe that could participate. So I don't know if you're working with that same kind of understanding as if you've got 1,000 that signed up before the program went live and then you have another 500 applications or whatever for businesses. What, do you have an idea of what percentage that is of the total businesses that could apply based on how ACCD is looked at that universe of businesses in the state? I don't have that number off the top of my head. I'm sorry, I could definitely ask. Okay. I'm just wondering, because I know in estimating as to how much grant money would be needed to be available and anticipating that, I was trying to figure that out as well. Okay, thanks. Yeah. Any more questions for Heather? Mary? Sorry, I'm struggling to raise my hand to find the bar to raise my hand. The current program or the pilot project took 15% administrative overhead. Would that be the case going forward? I would highly doubt that. If this program were to be expanded, we would ask for an additional proposal as to what the administration's cost would be. I would hope that we would get that down to spitballing, but less than 5%. I certainly would not expect it to be that high. The program is already set up. So depending on how much we changed it, depending on how much we changed it, I think that would influence if there was additional development costs involved, but I would expect it to be much lower than that. Thank you. That's excellent to hear. Some of us were rather aghast at the administrative costs and also that those funds went to an out-of-state entity to manage the program. Anyway, we can figure out how to keep money in Vermont is really to be looked at. Thanks. I do understand that that has been frustrating. The administrative costs were one of the major factors as to why we made the decision of the vendor that we did is that the administrative costs were much higher for the other proposals that were released. I'm in the wrong business, clearly. Thanks. Any more questions for Heather? Stephanie. The lower rate, the lower commission, that NIFT would charge for if this was to go forward? Was that in their original proposal? No, that is my guess. So if that was something that needed to be established before the program was expanded, we could certainly do that. I'm just knowing that if we're talking about the kind of money we're talking about, we would expect to have huge amounts of economies of scale. And have they done that in other regions where they've run these sort of NIFT card programs? I don't have that information as to what the costs were in other programs. So you're sort of guessing that they're gonna reduce it to a 5% commission? Yes, that's my best estimate as to what I think at this moment. As I said, if that's the part of the decision-making that needs to be established before, there was any thoughts about going forward, we could certainly do that. More questions? Okay. Heather, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for the report. We appreciate it. I think it brings a lot more clarity to what's happening, Charlie. Go ahead. Sorry, I just had this thought and I've been thinking about it since it's already set up, Heather, and you know that our recommendation was not to include any funds for this particular continuation of the program, but because it's already set up, could you envision a situation in which the participating businesses would help support that program because of its marketing value? So if this was run as a private venture that offered the matchmaking between consumers coming in and also the businesses that would be participating, is that a value to the businesses that would participate in the potential consumers if they offered the discounts but there would have to be some kind of purchase? Yeah, there's definitely that possibility that if businesses liked this mechanism that they could decide on their own to go forward with it. I'm less familiar with exactly how that works, but it's my understanding that yes, private businesses can utilize this type of program on their own if they wanted to fund it or it was funded a different way. So in that sense, I mean, you could almost say that it's seed money. If the structure's been set up and the system is put in place, you could think of it that way, that the state has created this tool. Anyway, just a thought as to what that looks like down the road. Yeah. Well, I did wanna just, Chair, thank you for the opportunity to come in here. I know that last time was in the committee, the program hadn't launched and so it was a lot of it in theory. And so I really do appreciate the opportunity to come back and to present the report and to answer questions so that I could just clear up any, if there were misunderstandings or obviously report on the results. So I just wanted to acknowledge that. I appreciate the time. Yeah, no, thank you. We're glad you were able to join us. I think it's very helpful. We appreciate it. And do wanna thank our friends from Appropriations for coming and joining us today too. It's always good to have you with us. Always good to either join you or you join us. So if there's nothing else for Heather, I think our work is completed for today as far as committee goes. And so again, I appreciate everyone. I appreciate the committee and appreciate members from Appropriations, Chair Toll, Vice Chair Hooper and Representative Myers for joining us and especially Representative Myers for sticking around with us for, I don't know how many committee meetings but we do appreciate all your work. And thank you committee. Just a reminder, we're on the floor again at two today and we're back here and committee at 1030 tomorrow morning. And tomorrow we'll be looking at unemployment, the unemployment trust fund and looking at what we can do to alleviate penalty weeks for people that are serving those so that at least during a pandemic they can receive unemployment to feed themselves and their family. So with that, Amy, I think we can.