 Good morning meeting of the House Appropriations Committee and we're going to be skipping around on our agenda a bit. The Commerce Committee is still putting some finishing touches and a vote on their bill and so we have Representative Coburn with us who would like to present a possible amendment that she may propose today to us and on the floor. So welcome, Selene and you have the floor. Theresa, can you pull the amendment up so that we're all seeing it on the screen? Yes, can you hang out? I just want to finish this email and I'll throw it right up just. Okay, okay. Theresa, Selene, while she is getting prepared to put it up on the screen, do you just want to say some opening thoughts about the gist of the email? Absolutely. Thanks for the record. Representative Selene Colburn from Burlington and here to talk about a potential amendment to H966 and so just to be clear, this amendment really is intended as an amendment to the amendment that's coming to you from Commerce and not to the whole body of H966. So I will talk conceptually about what the amendment is and does with the recognition that you know it's amending something that sounds like it's continued to be in a little bit of progress and evolution as we speak but I think I can't give you the general sense of things. Thank you. And we have our screen now. Do you see it as well Selene? I do, I do and I have it, I have it called up as well for myself. And just tell Theresa when to scroll down so we keep up. Sure, I'll start just by talking a little bit about the context of the amendment and I'm just going to be very frank here about what has led me and others to bring this forward for your consideration. And I think it really grew out of a sense of frustration or maybe just concern and questioning about the balance of how money is going out in our COVID relief funding with these CRF funds and particularly the balance between sort of workers, workers and businesses and business owners. So we, I think some of us have really wanted to see more direct aid to low and moderate wage wage workers who've really been the engine of our economy in recent months and have some questions about what I would call perhaps some trickle down strategies with debatable efficacy in some of our funding models. So you have another supporting document that I shared and I think this was something that came to your committee a few weeks ago in the form of a letter and certainly went to the Commerce Committee where Representative Kornheiser testified on behalf of a number of us about it and it was just something that came out of some members of the Working Vermonters Caucus and Women's Caucus had worked on this and it's called the Fair Jobs Proposal. So the idea behind this was that in the absence of more direct aid to workers that we would consider tying grants or loans to businesses to worker what we believe are worker friendly policies and you'll see a number of them outlined in that proposal including the one I'm going to talk about in this amendment. That proposal was not adopted by the Commerce Committee as I think you're aware and so this amendment really came forward as kind of a last ditch effort to do what I would call the bare minimum for workers by conditioning grants on an executive worker pay ratio and this is essentially so the state would not be subsidizing businesses who either had failed to do or weren't willing to commit to kind of the necessary internal work to ensure that any cost that they were taking the cost-saving measures they could to protect their most vulnerable workers. So at this point I'll kind of walk you through the amendment and talk about it what it does. It's really intended to only cover this package of this most recent package of grants largely to the business sector that is coming out of house commerce so it wouldn't I did not intend for this to apply to that first round of grants to businesses to the health and human services funding that we put forward earlier this week or to the other parts the housing and connectivity parts of H966. So let's see so that that is the first section is it really talks about the recipient of the monies appropriated from the coronavirus relief fund in this section and then it goes on to say shall not provide a grant or other assistance to a business that has one or more full-time employees so it's we're trying to limit the one person shop here and have this not apply to that so one or more full-time employees and then it requires a pay ratio essentially in which the highest paid owner or employee of the business cannot make 20 times more than the annual compensation of the lowest paid full-time employee and we went with I went with full-time employees just to avoid the kind of pay disparities that might come if someone was you know on the books working five hours a month and then being compared to a full-time employee and and then it talks about in section two or subsection two I should say about how eligibility would be determined and we I was quite tried to go broadly here so a business can provide documentation in the form of financial records that they have historically held to this pay ratio or they can if that documentation is hard to come by or to produce in a meaningful way they can submit an attestation that they comply and it also allows for businesses to commit moving forward over a period of five years to to enact that pay ratio so even a business that hadn't historically done this could still obtain eligibility by committing to do so moving forward and so that's the mechanics of the I'm in minute and I'll tell you a little bit about a little more about the why so just just getting into the math and I know I'm I'm not in a math committee you are but by my calculations and these are rough estimates someone earning eleven dollars an hour which is just a few cents over our minimum wage working full-time makes approximately twenty two thousand eight hundred and eighty dollars a year which is the sobering thing to consider I think and that would mean that in that instance a business would be eligible as long as the highest paid worker didn't make her four hundred and fifty seven thousand six hundred dollars a year so almost half a million dollars there if we looked at the state's livable wage calculation for a single parent with just one child in an urban area where that's the livable wage is set I believe at approximately thirty dollars an hour that would be an annual income of sixty two thousand four hundred dollars and that would mean that the highest paid worker could not earn more than a million two hundred and forty eight thousand dollars so a million and a quarter and then in a rural district where the livable wage is approximately twenty dollars an hour that drops down to an annual salary of forty one thousand six hundred dollars a year and that would mean that then the highest paid worker salary would have to cap out at eight hundred thirty two thousand dollars so this is really about trying to get and I will say there's a couple ways in the way the amendment is constructed that folks could meet this criteria if they don't already they could do it certainly by raising the floor of wages for their lowest paid workers but they could also do it if that's not a possibility and perhaps for many it wouldn't be um in the current conditions of our economy they could they could also do that by making some reductions to to executive pay or the pay of highest paid workers so there are a couple of ways that businesses could comply with this and really what we're trying I'm trying to get at here is um the issue of income disparity so there's a reason study that actually came out just this week I don't know if you all have had a chance to look at it but it was conducted by researchers in the learner college of medicine and it does a really good job quantifying what I think we a lot of us already theoretically um would expect which is that low income vermoners are disproportionately bearing the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and the form some of the forms that are taking that is taking is lost income reduced access to food and higher rates of deferred medical care so we're there we're seeing deferred medical care across the board because in some instances less medical care has been offered but those deferrals are disproportionately impacting lower income vermoners which tells us that's not just about the question of availability of services there's also emerging evidence at the national level that low income folks have actually really been the drivers of our economy during this time so upper and middle class consumers went into kind of a bunker mentality spending considerably less while lower income consumer consumers continued to spend at their usual levels and that's probably because they're only spending on necessities before during and after COVID because of the available resources that they have we've also seen a free flow of federal money with that's been dispensed with really an emphasis on expediency over oversight and that's already led to a lot of questions about for example whether the paycheck protection program really went to the people who need it in our economy or whether it continued to subsidize businesses who are doing well and who could potentially have absorbed the cost of this crisis at the local level we've heard warnings from the state economists and the auditor about being really mindful about this balance in our work here so we all of course want to get Vermont's economy up and running again and I know your committee has just been working absolutely over time to ensure that that's the case and I thank and applaud you and we all want to get but we also all want to get resources to Vermonters who need them most and I think to do the latter we do need to have some criteria some thresholds that ensure that we're reaching those who are most impacted by this crisis we know our crf monies are not unlimited unfortunately and it's likely not going to be enough to address the long term or even the short term needs in our economy right now I mean we we continue to see food distribution sites full up and having to turn people away in the state thank you Selena um I I just need one piece of clarification did you um did you present this amendment to the commerce committee this this the amendment that's before us I haven't presented it to the commerce committee yet um I I frankly haven't been invited I think I mean I was told by chair mark hot that I would be um but I think they've been so deep in the work of just crafting this amendment that they have not had time to consider an amendment to their amendment I know they were working you know until last evening and sounds like picked it right back up this morning I will say um I'll just say by way of closing because I think that might it might address that question as well I think that for me and for the working Vermonters caucus members who are in support of this amendment what we're really saying here is that a bear at a bear minimum the state should be prioritizing assistances to businesses that don't have or don't intend to continue dramatic pay disparities particularly at a time when we know that income and inequalities are really amplified and amplified with some really dire consequences for working class Vermonters so I'm definitely eager to hear your thoughts on this amendment I will say that with what I hope will continue to be the addition of hazard pay to the commerce committee's amendment I think your committee for I believe your committee did a fair share of work on that and I I really thank you for that my sense of urgency about this has shifted a little bit in the last 24 hours this amendment really was born like I said out of frustration about the balance between aid to workers and um workers and and businesses and business owners so I'm I'm eager to hear your thoughts but I'm I am also really heartened by the inclusion of hazard pay assuming that when you do get that amendment from commerce that it continues to be a part of what we'll get to vote on today and so I you know I'm open to hearing your thoughts on this amendment both on this vehicle or if there's other ways that you think are um we could get at this question of pay disparity um thank you Selena um I'm just checking with um I just want to make sure um you're amending you're amending their amendment but it's our bill so I just want to make sure um that it's not commerce who needs to since it's their amendment but since it's our bill it would be us so I think it's still us that would entertain the amendment I just want to make sure that we're following the right rules of where the amendment should be first proposed so you um you're unsure at this time if it's coming up on the floor or not uh on you offering it I'm sorry couldn't hear you last question you're presented to all I'm just um I'm confused are you offering this for sure or will you make a decision on the floor I will make a decision on the floor and my decision will would be guided I think by um both your committee's input and reception of this amendment but also by understanding what is coming what is coming forward in the commerce amendment thank you uh Kimberley I have your hand up and um I we have another bill that's uh before so at nine o'clock let's get six let's do some question and answering here and some thoughts here and then I we really need to move to another bill too I'm sorry everything is so compressed Selena and I apologize for that it's totally understood I have Kimberly Mary Peter so Selena I think you make a really compelling case and I just want to thank you and all the people that you've worked with in the caucus and outside the building proverbial building to make this happen and my question is the very last part on be that five-year piece can you just uh elaborate that just a tad more sure I think the thought was if someone is I'm just going to call up the language so I'm looking at it right with you so oh and I apologize there is an F-35 flying over my house so you may struggle to hear me for a moment yeah um so this essentially says that for people who are um haven't historically complied but are saying I'm willing to do this moving forward that they would attest to that commitment for not less than five years following the date of the award so they couldn't just say oh I'll do that and do it for a month and and go back to um historic pay ratios great okay yeah yeah thank you very much thank you Mary um I hope it isn't a surprise to my committee or to you representative Colburn that I'm interested really like the fundamental concept that you're asking us to consider I I think these are important questions that we need to be asking ourselves as as we construct budgets and as we support for monitors so thank you very very much for that um we're the committee of math but also mechanics and so I'm figuring at a minimum wage rate which is you know likely to be the lowest paid person is the lowest paid so we're talking 21,776 so the 20 times just to be clear about what we're talking about is 435,512 dollars so that's the range that we have to be that this tells us to pay attention to and I don't know what we're amending um is it but it's clear to me that some of the grant recipients particularly the hospitals will be outside of this range but it's my understanding that's not one of the bills that you're interested in amending is that correct that is correct so this would not apply to the health and human services funds um that we we approved it would not even apply to that first round of business grants that we've already approved to those experiencing 75 percent loss it's only intended to apply to the provisions um that are coming forward in this most recent commerce committee packet where in particular the the business grants my understanding and I was listening to their testimony their discussion and testimony last night I can I cannot tell you what's going to come forward to you now but the the criteria for most of the recipients the threshold of loss has been lowered to 50 percent um so it really is intended only to um apply to the those recipients that they're identifying in their forthcoming amendment and the mechanics part of this is so they attest that they plan to abide by these conditions and so we're going to have to monitor that for five years going forward had had you thought about how mechanically this would work and then we're going to have to claw back the grants if they don't work and who would be doing that so I I haven't given a lot of thought to that I mean I think the attestation is as it's described here um and I don't see legislative counsel on the call to I'm sure because he is with the commerce committee right now uh I mean this is really meant to be a fairly low low bar good faith attestation um which I recognize has um then lots of questions attached to it I will say that I listen to um Tom Kovetz testimony from um earlier in the week in commerce and this was a question that he posed about all of our CRF funds and particularly in light of some of what's coming what we're starting to understand about the lack of oversight at the federal level is like what balance should we consider um investing in administrative oversight over all of these funds um and so I think that in some ways is a question that's even larger than this amendment but I I I can't tell you that I have a clear and thorough proposal for you about how that would work The scale of the grants we're going to be giving is going to be teeny sadly um through this program I wonder if this isn't more wouldn't be more effective attached to the policy that drives the veggie or the Vita programs where they actually give significant grants and you might be able to get at those at the fundamentals issues that you're talking about it's an intriguing policy I'm just not sure where the this is the right vehicle thank you thank you Mary uh Peter and then uh we'll have to come back to this because I have a whole other committee government operations in here that um I need to move back to and Selena I'm sorry but we're we're jumping back and forth all day long so Peter and then um we'll come back to this amendment please hi Selena thank you for coming in you know when we all do better we all do better and and so I absolutely understand what you're trying to do here and you're trying to raise everybody up and I agree uh just I have some some rather pointed questions so how many businesses are going to be impacted by this um what parts of the state are they in and uh and who's specific what specific businesses would be impacted um I think I caught the tail end of a question for me sorry representative helman I'm so sorry my screen rose um representative pooper's question oh representative fagan apologize so let me so yeah no that's okay so I started off by saying you know I understand and as I said when we all do better we all do better so hopefully you know this is a discussion that needs to continue um but how many businesses statewide would this impact uh how many of those businesses have applied for or might apply for a a crf grant under this um where are they and and who are they I don't think I can answer that question for you without without access to the commerce committee's final proposal okay um you know I I would also ask how many jobs are at risk if if those businesses don't receive a grant um what happens to those employees that if that business goes out of business because they do not receive a grant um are there enough jobs to backfill all those employees that that go out of business so those are my questions you know I know that they're they're nitty gritty sorry but I think I can respond to the second question I think your your first question is spot on but I just simply can't quantify that for you at this point um because we just don't have we don't have the the final element in front of us but the second question as as representative hooper um rightly I think pointed out um these are going to be small grants unfortunately a small number of grants ultimately that there is no way that we're I think likely to meet the demand um for assistance that will be out there and so what this essentially would create is some prioritization um which I've heard from the state economists is actually what we should be doing with some of these funds to ensure that the businesses who are receiving state subsidies have done the necessary work to um you know make make the progressive internal and by progressive I'd simply mean like that they have addressed this pay disparity issue and that the funds that we're sending are then more likely to impact workers those frontline workers those lower paid workers in the businesses we're supporting okay I I have some other questions but I'm just going to ask the one mechanical question that Mary started down the the path of asking and and maybe she did but I'll phrase it differently so if at the four-year mark a business does not comply um those funds would need to be returned to the federal government um how are we going to effectuate that so that's the that's the question because those funds are no longer ours they are ours to be spent by 31 December as you know and if we decide four years down the road that you did not spend them in accordance with with uh statute then we're going to claw them back but they're not ours to keep so I think that's oh go ahead Selina and that's it Selina go ahead oh I think I think that is a really important mechanical question representative Fagan and uh I I think it's a question my understanding is it's a question that ACCD is grappling with a bit in the in the larger sense about oversight of all of all of these funds um and how they're going to find the resources and how that's going to work um and I think you know if this was an amendment that the the other committee was seriously interested in I think we could look at at resolving that thinking about whether the five-year mark really does create more problems than it solves um but I'd certainly be open to looking at that with you if I had the sense that this was something you know you really wanted to move forward at this time but I do think it's part of a larger issue beyond this. Thank you thank you Peter thank you Selina um we don't have the amendment in front of us so for us to take a position on amending something that we don't have with I'm not comfortable doing the cart before the horse um I think from hearing the committee that we certainly understand the sentiment behind it I think we're concerned with some of the mechanisms and um you know how it would be rolled out and and also would the state of Vermont that money would have to go back to the federal government even if we didn't collect it we would then the state would have to repay those dollars I believe from what I've heard from the Joint Fiscal Office um that ultimately were responsible for those monies so um I think that we need to hear from Mike Marcotte and also uh hear what their committee is is thinking and then we will circle back to this um so I don't want to take action until we actually have their amendment to actually amend you know a possible amendment to but thank you for bringing it in and we're going to switch gears and go to H um through uh S 349 it's a municipal um it's a municipality bill getting CRF dollars out to um our municipal our municipalities and let's see who do I have I have Representative Gannon Representative Harrison I'm looking around my screen Representative Gardner um Abby Shepard and uh from JFO uh from Legislative Council Abby Shepard thank you I apologize not JFO um Legislative Council which one is it she's Legislative Council Legislative Council I said JFO I apologize Abby so welcome um Mata this is your bill and so I'd like to hear from Representative Gannon you can just do the overview and then I would are you having Abby just do a quick walkthrough of the bill yes um Madam Chair that's that's what our plan is so this is it yes just where can I find the the current language that they are actually offering because there's a lot of email in my email chain here so S 349 has not changed since I gave it to you last night and I gave it to you this morning and it's also in the one drive in the bill's folder and on the committee webpage thank you and and and John just before you start I do want to explain to Representative Coburn that we have two bills that we need to get to the floor by 10 o'clock that's why I'm pushing this so hard I'm really not being dismissive I want to wait till commerce's bill is here but we have to there if we pass these out we need them passed out by 10 o'clock and we're just under a huge time constraint and so I apologize because I think our conversation could have gone on much longer um on the pros but also of some concerns that we have so please know I'm not I'm not you know setting anything aside I I just need to hear this our committee needs to hear this bill and consider it if it's going to make it to the floor today so John can John just I'm sorry Kenny Diane I'm like sort of with Peter could John can you when you start whoever can you just tell us what draft number and what time just to make sure we've got the right one thanks I'm just going to put it up on the screen so we will see that so you all follow the same one and I think maybe people got confused because Abby sent two drafts this morning and it's just they're the same it just um they basically just show it in a different manner one's a strike all to make it easier to view and Abby can explain this okay they're not different so we're going to work off the strike all amendment so that everybody's on the same page and that is draft 2.2 of s 349 um so um Abby can do a detailed walkthrough I'm going to introduce it and then um uh Representative Harrison and Representative Gardner are going to talk about the sections that they worked on and I will talk about the section I worked on so this is a strike all amendment to the senate um bill um the senate bill originally um requested um 16 million dollars which was to basically go to cover COVID-19 um municipal expenses um we have uh in our fiscal responsibility um made a request for 10 million 200 thousand dollars total um 5.2 million um will go to reimbursing um municipalities and solid waste districts for their COVID-19 related expenses and another five million dollars uh will go to digitization of municipal land records um so Marsha's going to start off talking about the solid waste districts and their COVID-19 expenses and then um Jim is going to talk about municipal COVID-19 related expenses and then I'm going to talk about digitization of land records okay thank you John so are we are we going to move to Marsha first or are we going to do Marsha first okay Marsha welcome I tried to unmute myself on this end uh am I coming through to everyone yes you are good so um our solid waste workers were on the frontline of COVID in the very beginning they were considered essential service employees and their companies have incurred expenses because of this um PPE um thermometers things to keep them safe as they work through this crisis so they have come to us asking for some reimbursement for the expenses that they have incurred and there are 10 solid waste districts um their president uh Paul Tamasi was able to contact them pull together numbers from all of them and their total ask is 173 thousand 174 thousand dollars which we have rounded up to 200 thousand in case they have some extra expenses going forward and I think that's all I have unless people have questions thank you Marsha we're going to go right to the next section and hold the questions for the end thank you we get through this and just for the committee's sake I need to wrap this up a little before 9 30 because we have all of commerce who has now come to the table and we may have to come back to this bill but for the committee I want you to hear all the the testimony from the committee of jurisdiction so um representative Harrison I believe you're next yep thank you madam chair if you if I sound garbled please tell me I'll shut off my video feed no you're good right okay um so my section of the bill um is dramatically change in the sense of the appropriation from the senate um we are allocating five million dollars uh instead of 16 um and for grants to local government basically uh we work with the league of cities and towns they took a survey of their members above the hundred that responded the expenses for one month in April range from zero to 200 thousand dollars these are the extra COVID related expenses sometimes alterations to town halls sometimes overtime sometimes you know PPE equipment etc um this does not include potential county expenses so as um Abby can walk through uh we put some bumper guards in we wanted to make sure that if the grants exceeded or the grant requests exceeded the amount that they could be prorated uh and that some preference was given to small communities this may or may not happen um additionally there is 150 thousand dollars which was in the senate version of that five million that is allocated for regional planning commissions to do the technical assistance again this would probably help small towns more than say perhaps a large city so um there are again some additional bumper guards in terms of how it's allocated uh again Abby can walk through that uh these types of arrangements were in the senate just downsized a little bit for the house version because we're dealing with less money thank you thank you thank you um and now John you were going to do the last section yes so during the COVID-19 emergency um most town clerk's offices were closed and so the access to municipal land records was severely circumscribed so many Vermonters were unable to engage in real estate transactions whether that was buying or selling real estate or more importantly refinancing their mortgages many people are refinancing their mortgages right now to put themselves in a better position in case they have already lost their jobs or anticipate losing their jobs because of COVID-19 um so what this proposal does is appropriate five million dollars to digitize municipal land records this will not cover all towns across the state that would cost 18 million dollars um what we are doing is prioritizing town clerk's offices that were closed or where access was severely restricted and prioritizing towns that had a high number of real estate transactions based on the data from the department of taxes property transfer tax data um so basically this would allow um certain amount of towns to provide online access to the municipal land records which would allow attorneys and others to do title searches um and get um Vermonters able to access what's called probably their largest asset their home thank you thank you john and so this would be um perhaps the first phase of a longer program to to provide digitization across the state is that correct that is absolutely correct and this is this idea came from the digitization tax force i'm having trouble pronouncing that word too um and so they've been working on this for some time um and you know this is a way to ensure that many people can can access the the value of their home thank you john and so abby when we walk through this bill i don't want to read it we've all read it on our own last night we received these copies we just need to uh there was some comments when members read it last night that the numbers weren't adding up and so we need to make sure that the numbers are adding up i believe to a total of ten ten million two hundred thousand dollars but if you would just walk through the highlights of the bill because we've heard from the three members and we have all read the language so i don't want to do a a word by word please peter a question yes thanks kitty really it's it's before we go word you know before we do this this walk through i just wanted to ask about the solid waste district piece i know that that kasala has had to pick up a lot of a lot of expenses statewide for the solid waste districts is the intent here to make sure that that an organization that has like kasala stepped up done more than perhaps they were they thought that they would need to do at the start of this is the intent here to ensure that they get a proportionate share of this two hundred thousand dollars well each each solid waste district submitted a number and so chitenden county has a substantially a higher number than many of the other solid waste districts so i'm hoping that that they have added in everything that they felt was appropriate to reimburse them for what they have done so the but the question obviously kasala is not a solid waste district they they provide services to so the question is is whether they will be part of this package that's been put together i can find out about that they are not listed separately right if you would please thank you thank you peter um and then mary and then we're going to move to the walk through of the bill please um with regard to the money for digitization um that can be a long complex difficult process and i am concerned that this get done within the time frame that were able to do it and so i would suggest that somehow we and i see the reporting section for august 15th but somehow we need to know if how much of this money is actually going to be spent so that we can pull it back and i would rather not wait until december 20th when we're pulling back others to drop into the pot i would like to know in august so that we can redirect it so i'm just suggesting that we may want to have some reporting on numbers there so that we can pull it back and reuse it yes we did take testimony with respect to the ability to do this by december 30th 2020 um and they indicated both the the clerks and treasures association as well as the other proponents of this bill that this could be done um by december again i'd like to have those so that we know no i got it you're you're also going to have the issue of if this was a work in progress prior to will it be eligible for these funds it was not a work in progress there is just a fast force set up to look at this issue i'll take it offline with you guys thank you okay so my my question is mary are you asking for an additional language change on the reporting or you just want to be sure government operations gets the um and made a will track this that we know how the money is going out when we come back in august that we get a so that we get a better feeling of it i hate to ask for a language change because i know what that means but it's just weekly updates and a report but not an accounting of the money so i'm suggesting that i i'm open to the committee telling me and the other committee telling me that's not necessarily got it covered but i'm saying this is a concern i have um i think that's an easy language change that we could make okay thank you so you would offer that on the floor john um we have not voted this out of committee yet so there we go but we can begin yeah okay we have um we did take a straw poll 11 000 and and okay is my understanding is is this to be on the floor today or is this a monday issue monday okay so for the committee what i'm going to do now is we're going to um i would like to um i would like to then um i really need to get to the the economic development bill because it needs to be on the floor john so i'm i'm apologizing for this we were trying to squeeze in a lot of pieces when we had a bit of extra time and so what i would like to do now if i could get a walkthrough of the bill very quickly from legislative council we're going to hold our questions and send them through madea and and have madea relate them to you so that we can get to the economic development bill and i it's not that one is more important than the other but they're on different time schedules totally understand thank you so abby let's walk through this uh quickly please if we could sorry i was on mute for the record abby shepherd office of legislative council um i think just to answer your question about the amounts um i'm glad actually we have the strike all as the draft that we're looking at because it really lays out how the appropriations are split so there it is a total of 10.2 million there's 5.2 million going for the local government um in general and then that split into three buckets and then there's the five million for the digitization so the 5.2 what might have been confusing was that there is the 4.85 million that's going to city's towns um and their various um expenses there's a hunt up to 150 000 that will be going to um one or more regional planning commissions for technical assistance and then there's the 200 000 that would be for solid waste districts so there is it is 5.2 it might have i don't think i highlighted the 150 000 maybe that's why it was sort of off the radar of the committee okay thank you so um the first section and section one it adds an appropriation of the agency of administration it's only for eligible COVID-19 expenses um it's all of the same requirements that you've been seeing for your different um CRF funding bills so they do have to meet the federal requirements the types of uses are not explicit or exhaustive in this list it provides possible uses which include hazard pay supplies equipment um sanitation facility all alterations overtime redirection of staff and any expenses not covered by other funding sources such as FEMA so if there are other bills that are providing funding sources then um localities would not be eligible under this bill for this appropriation so if we scroll on down to subsection B the secretary of administration or their designate um it was opened up in case um the secretary wishes to designate um the development of this program such as to ACCD um they must develop grant guidelines for determining the eligibility and also requirements for reimbursement so there's an overall requirement for the secretary or designate to come up with um guidelines for this and and what's a change here from the senate bill the underlying S 349 bill is that the committee on government operations proposed prioritizing need in particular local unemployment rates and the percent of the eligible expenses relative to the total budget so that's a slight change from the underlying bill um also because the overall amount was reduced um subsection C sets out those three buckets for how the 5.2 million will be distributed um and this is a new cap for so it's 4.85 million um there is a new cap of $200,000 per recipient for reimbursement of the expenses um and it's split out into counties in subdivision A versus cities towns unorganized town scores etc in subsection B just because of the way that counties would um be using the money and the the head count because it's based there's a maximum based on um the number of the population in that area so counties get um one dollar per person cities towns etc um only get up to twenty dollars per person this language is again different from the senate by no longer having a minimum the senate um S 349 did create a minimum for the very small town so this that minimum is removed in this language in subdivision two that's the 200,000 um allocation to solid waste management districts this is only for those that are organized under title 24 chapter 121 it allows the secretary or designee to create the limitations the amount of grants allocated um so it's not a per head type of um split in subdivision three this is the up to $150,000 um I believe that certain regional planning commissions work with JFO to come up with this number in the senate so that's to provide technical assistance to any of these units of local government um to identify and document their expenses and the language again from the senate allowed that contract to be a sole source if necessary um subdivision four um states that if there isn't excess of in requests based on the amount uh appropriated the secretary may pro-rate and the house government operations added a priority for municipalities that are on the smaller end so under 2500 in population so this section does require a reporting requirement it is different from the digitization so it's one month later it's september 15th the secretary of administration has to report to the joint fiscal committee um and then also provide any legislative changes so that's for oh sorry that was that's for the first section and I apologize I'm not as familiar with the following section so I might just give you a very I realize we're probably running out of time um we're going to we we've read the definitions and so we can move through the definitions so this is for the digitization um appropriation of five million oh sorry so we can scroll down and what's highlighted was from some of the committee discussion yesterday where uh suggestion was to make sure that um any recipient of these funds has to actually put the land records online so that's a requirement from this um so a municipality may apply for a grant for an eligible use um and I'm I may I don't know if there are any particular questions on this again I apologize I wasn't the drafter of these sections um so my knowledge is somewhat limited on the next few sections if there are any questions I could bring them back to the drafter okay if there's questions we're going to run those through madea to you and to the committee kitty yes peter just one just one question so this this appropriates 15 million 250 thousand dollars is that correct uh no the there are two different appropriations one of 5.2 million and one of 5 million so the total of 10.2 thank you thank you peter okay um and then Teresa are we where do you want to be now Abby um so we're on section three looking at the five million appropriation um and let's see so the requirements for the grant applicants I don't know if you want me to go through this I'm not as familiar with this part of the bill so I think it might be more helpful if there are any specific questions um if uh we are going to send the as I said we'll send those through so let's let's continue through the Teresa let's and the next part are there any other parts of this is all part of the grant process for the digitization digitization correct so there is a reporting requirement um which there were questions there and that again as um representative Gannon explained this has not been offered yet so we can make any changes they'd like okay and Mary and Mary you'll work with me to uh section 4a okay and then the consultation is this new um this does require um the agency of administration to consult with the league as well as municipal and clerks and treasurer association and the bar association so I believe that is a new addition and then there is the reporting both weekly updates um but also a report august 15th so it is a month earlier than the report for the local government um grants okay and that's Mary where you want to put in about the money that has gone out and can it actually be um correct and lose by the due date and the effective dates abby thank you thank you for your passage rush you I really apologize for that and to the committee excellent work um we will uh wait for your committee to take a vote because we can't take a position on it um well we can but you know we'd like to hear from your committee and in that one uh change with the reporting and any other changes the committee has please send those through made up today uh early today um so that uh the committee can the gov ops committee can finish their work thank you very much and thank you for your work and um as soon as those changes are made and you have a vote let us know so that we can take action do plan to vote today um I will check with our chair but we will try to get this done okay sooner you can vote um the sooner then we can look at the final um the final bill right thank you thank you uh representative gannon and representative harrison and representative gardener and thank you abby for the walkthrough of the bill we are going to very quickly shift gears to um to the commerce amendment to the bill that's on the floor today for third reading at 10 o'clock welcome representative marcott thank you for taking endless phone calls into late at night last morning glad to madam chair I think all of our spouses have about had it with us I don't know yeah no comment so uh I mic um at this point should we just have legislative council walk through uh the presentation or were you or charlie who was going to walk through it I think if we let david walk you through it and then we can answer any questions that you might have okay and I would ask the committee just to jot their questions down on a piece of paper so that we can walk through the entire amendment um let's see where I'm looking for all are you on oh there you are I just didn't I just it's like hollywood squares but everybody's shifting around um can I just ask Teresa where it is on the one drive does she have it up there yet the most recent oh I just barely put it in um it I just um put it over the old one so it's the phase two in the one drive page 966 nine's okay thank you it was also emailed to us at 9 14 this morning I know but I need the draft number this is a number is 4.1 8 30 there's one extra page on here than the one that I've got for the right I'll follow okay this is this is the one that we're using draft 4.1 and we'll have david hall I'll walk through it and we've all read the various versions of this and this is the final version so be looking for any pieces that might conflict with what you may be thinking of david welcome and let's start our walk through please sure thank you good morning david hall legislative council um so this amendment to um week 966 has um a couple of instances the first instance of amendment on line six you'll see is to strike out and replace the purpose section because it needs to reflect the new totals for the expenditures in the bill so those first two well the second third numbers are unchanged relating to broadband and housing but the fourth number is the total of the appropriations in the commerce package and that includes commerce expenditures that number the 121 7 also includes the proposals that have been incorporated from other committees um allotments so don't be confused by that and then the total of all three is 232 830 100 David can I just check the math and you're right not that I didn't think you would be but we had some questions earlier about what the totals were so thank you yeah no I appreciate that please I'll never be uh upset about people double checking my math which is you may be surprised to know I didn't major in math in law school all right um on line 15 the second instance of amendment is uh inserting the slate of commerce proposals the way I've done this just mechanically is to make them numbered and lettered sections 10 a through e that way we don't have to mess around with renumbering a bunch of sections to follow so um you'll see in 10 a subsection a on line 20 and into the next page just the sort of the stock provision that this is necessary due to the coven 19 public health emergency and then the appropriations start online for so these are all from the coronavirus relief fund two named recipients for purposes specified the first appropriation subdivision b1 five million dollars to the working lands enterprise fund which the working lands enterprise board shall use for grants to businesses within the agricultural food and forest and wood products industries for two different purposes um subdivision a and b um I I have to please allow me about 45 seconds to go turn off this I hear that somebody's not turning off a kettle and I don't want to burn my house down no please don't that we want oh these poor people they're just working so hard there it's it the demands have been brutal tell me where to find it again I have one version but not a not a numbered line version right I can't find let me just pause and I'll send it to everybody now and I share I just can't do it while I'm sharing so just okay thank you so kitty it might be helpful if because I get so it's one page difference if he could just tell us where it's different so I don't have to reprint the whole thing or just where it's different I'll print that page or something I don't know I need a good copy you mean printed for you well it's for the copy for when we vote I need to make sure I've got the right that I reference the right document you are referencing this document which was 4.1 4.1 yeah and then I'd like to when we're done I'd like a good copy of it so I can send it yeah risa's about this email to us so all right I just did thank you thank you Teresa we're just waiting to make sure that there is the tea kettle is safe I don't hear the the fire trucks coming up the road so you're okay mercifully I'm not burning down my house thank you for your patience I apologize no this is we need to get some other I'm gonna print it so I've got the right one okay David let's continue this we are on a tight time all right I'm gonna go faster so b1 five million dollars working lands enterprise fund board will use it to pay out grants a for recovering verifiable losses due to COVID-19 and b developing new products and markets necessary for the sustainable viability of businesses because changes in supply chain relevant markets so that's their five million dollars the next five million dollars goes through the community loan fund it's two different allocations of two and a half million dollars for grants of not more than ten thousand dollars half is for women on businesses and half is for minority so you'll be eligible if you suffered a 50% greater loss between March and September from zero to five employees at least 51% women or minority owned and Amisa standards of bgsf for their minority on program and then you have to certify that you meet your requirements the expenses are valid you'll spend the money on time and subject to audit fraudulent claims will be prosecuted etc commission on women will design an application and host an online application process commerce will provide notice to applicants about allowable expenditures and outreach efforts and then the commission on women and a host nonprofit that works for minority businesses will conduct outreach necessary within their respective communities if any of the funds are unencumbered or and unspent on September 20th the agency in the fund can assess the participation rates in the two programs and really reallocate funds between them if necessary under three here it's three million dollars through a ccd through the program set up an s 350 to provide an emergency economic recovery grants to eligible businesses that provide highway and bridge maintenance services for aot or municipal highway departments are both that have suffered economic harm so that will be subject to all the criteria of section three of s 350 that is the transportation committee's proposal subdivision four three million of tourism and marketing to provide marketing support to businesses that have suffered economic harm due to the public health emergency number five three million to commerce to establish this called restart vermont technical support network so that's an rfp out for a professional assistance to businesses lawyers and architects and it people etc that's three million dollars you can scroll down to subdivision six one million dollars to dhcd for grants through what's called the better places program that would be for leasing equipment or buying equipment like masks sanitizing stations door pulls outdoor tables and chairs etc to allow communities to adopt public safety measures for outdoor events etc number seven here this is seventy point two million dollars so this goes to a ccd in consultation with tax but it's really it's an allocation between the two programs already set up an s 350 how they allocate that money it will be subject to approval of the joint fiscal committee um there are some deviations from the standards in s 350 you'll see for instance you'll see an a uh this it drops from 75 percent to a 50 loss between march and september under b if not all the monies are out from s 350 by august first then they will just roll those monies into this new pot and keep going under eight uh one point five million through a and r for the outdoor recreation business assistance program the program is spelled out in greater detail below in another section but it's basically 30 up to 30 000 grants to businesses non-profit etc to help adapt outdoor recreation uh to public health measures and that's from the committee on natural resources so uh number nine here five million dollars uh it's two southeastern vermont community action as a fiscal agent but it's a statewide program restaurants and farmers feeding the hungry uh which will basically provide meals to vermonters who are food secure through vermont restaurants working with local farms so you'll see an a sevica is supposed to work with partners throughout the state in government and outside government um under b they will establish uh multiple community scale hubs across vermont engage a broad range of restaurants um you can keep going down next page uh try to on average purchase at least 10 of the ingredients from local farms and augment existing food distribution network uh the last one number 10 five million dollars to the arts council for grants to non-profit arts and cultural organizations that have suffered a 50% or greater reduction in revenue same standard for this one you'll see online eight revenue does not include tax deductible charitable donations so we're talking about revenues they have lost from operations not from donations so see uh administration of funds and reporting um so if you get an appropriation under this section under one you can use the funds for administrative expenses provided that the expenses represent an increase over previously budget amounts and are limited to what is necessary that is a standard uh based on directly on language in the FAQs and guidance under two um they have to require applicants to attest to the intended use to commit expending the funds by december 20th um if it's a business organization has to be domiciled or have its primary place of business in vermont and then under d um it has to either be open at the time of application or closed but have a good faith plan to reopen um three they have to disclose all expenditures are subject to audit and may change um for any funds that are both unencumbered and unspent as of november 15th will revert to accd for emergency economic recovery grants and under five there'll be initial reports on august 15th and final on november 15th concerning the appropriated funds so d prohibition on multiple sources of funding so this is specific to the appropriations in this commerce proposal under d one a business may apply for a grant of crf monies from multiple sources provided however that under a a business is eligible to receive only one grant of these monies from among the programs and sources authorized in the section and b in general if a business that receives a grant of crf monies from another program of source that's not in this section cannot get a grant from programs or sources in this section except on line seven a business in the dairy sector may apply for a grant under subdivision b one b provided that the award is not for the same documented coven 19 related economic loss covered under other assistance from the fund so what that means specifically is if a dairy business receives um crf monies from another source not in this section it can go to the working lands enterprise board to request a grant to adapt or change its business model um due to changes in its market or supply chain so it's a very targeted uh exception to the general rule that um businesses can really only go to one source as far as this section of law is concerned under two um commerce tax partners need to provide businesses with guidance and support to help identify the appropriate programs for which the business may be eligible for assistance under e these are just standard provisions that say that who gets the money and how much are public records under one but under two and three um if it's uh if it includes financial uh tax numbers or information like that federal id numbers then this is under e two on the next page then that's um considered return information and protected and then three uh data about um costs and expenses of a business is considered a trade secret under the public records act and is not open to inspection so under 10 b here a new section this is this was just much longer than the other ones this came from natural resources that's why it's broken out in its own section it just really sets up that outdoor recreation business assistance program but the money is above this is just sort of the standard and it's you know any business that does outdoor recreation they have to do an application grants are a max of 30 000 um you know it's first come first serve after accounting for geographic distribution a lot of the same standard provisions i don't feel the particular need to dig into the details here unless you really want to again this is this is just straight from natural resources commerce did not change it and i did not read it michael agreed he did um so can we move on to tin see i believe yes we can move on i was just telling representative marcott he needed to send this to the clerk's office so i apologized no no worries no worries um let's see keep going all the way to the next section age 16 all right so just to give you a sense of what's happening here this just sets up the framework and statute for the better places crowd granting program um it while there's a million dollars technically allocated or appropriated to dacd and in and you know through the framework of this um this is not the full program and funding that the administration requested they had asked for five million dollars for various purposes for this program um the commerce proposal just has the million to buy public health uh equipment and help facilitate communities with being safe in public venues this just sets up the statutory framework for ghcd at a future time to be able to use crowdfunding for um you know uh public space making but there's no otherwise there's no appropriation to this uh program along the lines of what the administration requested um so we can keep going so this is again this is all just setting it up in statute thanks to applications they can use a fiscal agent they can use crowd granting they work with communities blah blah blah um you can keep going to the next section i think so this sets the workers compensation rate of contribution for the year um that's what i know about that these next two pieces are damians i'm not sure if he's with us but i'm sure representative mark out and kim bilan was all of them can speak to these if you want so that's again this is for the next year you have to do this annually sets the rate i think it's the same as last year and then the next uh section is the hazard pay uh grant program at 20 million dollars um which i think i'll defer to uh the commerce members to address if they care to um uh we will address it all at the end i i if we could just finish the walkthrough that would be this is it that's the rest of it okay that's the end of it for the hat and we all come back to our uh the full screen charisa thank you i think we all have copies of the bill in front of us as well or on another device and so are there any questions um the hazard pay is a new addition uh from some of the original work that the committee is has now considered and brought on to the bill are there any questions for the chair or for other members of the committee or for lunch council um i would ask the chair there there's a possible amendment that may be on the floor i am wondering if um if the committee took an informal position on the amendment from uh representative coburn we have not um the committee has not gone through that yet um we will do that um after we um finish here we'll go back to committee to listen to represent coburn and her look at her amendment thank you mike i have a question from representative yacoboni thank yes thank you the 70 million that's appropriated is it is it is there a limit in the statute as to how much um applicant may receive oh that's that that would that would be will be set by the agency of commerce and tax um through s 350 thank you thank you Dave uh peter so thank you and mike thank you so um there's 70 million just i wanted to ask the question about that as well so you've got 70 million dollars here that is added on top of if memory serves 50 million dollars for businesses that have suffered uh economic harm the first 50 was 75 harm and this 70 million is 50 harm is that correct and and um what did you get any sense in your committee of what the the total need was mounting up to um mostly correct um actually s 350 was 70 million got it it was broken into 50 million to tax 20 million to accd um this is another 70 million um where we're leaving it at their discretion after they get some data back from those grants going out um on the first tranche money um so that they can adjust um where they see the need um coming up the most and um of course that can't be done it has to have the approval of joint fiscal before they can uh they can allocate those funds and we have not um we have not received any any data of any kind of what the need is out there i think we we anecdotally know that it's not going to be enough um but um i think it'll it certainly will help some businesses thank you uh thank you peter and mike um i have mary and then dave so two questions um how many businesses are there that could potentially be eligible for these grants and i guess that's a question of saying how many businesses are there in vermont that in therefore they would be eligible i think upwards of 60 000 that's what i was guessing and then totally different subject but you're setting the comp rates um any thoughts or i mean this is pretty straightforward just do the math but i need to pay attention so it's it's what we do every year we somehow and it's hard to believe that we missed it but usually it's done uh jointly with with uh ways and means um this is the same rate that we set last year so it hasn't gone up or hasn't gone down and um we just need to set it every year and and you've talked to ways and means about it about i did i had a conversation with the chair and and um she thought we had done it also but apparently we hadn't okay i think it was on the radar and ready to go but never never was inserted into language yeah thank you um let's see i am meida and then back to dave uh thank you thank you um mike i've looked at the hazard pay section 10 what is it 10e just really quickly um are the i know there was a lot of conversation along the way with regard to the grocery workers are they included here or not they are not um that was one of the big issues that we had um previously yeah because the the guidance that we were looking at seemed to be telling us that we could not use those funds but it wasn't direct um but we were trying to be prudent and didn't really take the bill up until we received guidance that said we cannot use it for for grocery workers it's only for high and very high risk employees in that that the federal guidance allows that those funds to be dispersed as hazard bay so before you that's what we have whittled it down to um is the high and very high risk employees and face the front facing the facing the public thank you for that explanation i know that's going to be disappointing to an awful lot of folks it was disappointing yes it was disappointing to us too um because uh you know we were hoping that we would be able to get some some of that hazard pay out to um people that are still front facing but not facing as much of a risk and generally those are lower paid employees that could have really used the money but yeah unfortunately the federal government's not allowing it well thank you for trying um thank you made a uh Diane um thank you mike so i've had people who are uh bank tellers who have been handling cash and in front do would they qualify no okay um that was a quick answer um is the follow-up Diane are there any other questions um uh representative osellovan i think ma'am i'm sure i just wanted to pop in and say the federal guidelines are very specific that the way you can look at it is physically you have to be in the presence of covid-19 i mean you've got to be hands-on respiratory therapists nursing home that and that they're very that it's unfortunate it would be lovely to expand it but they're very clear you literally have to be physically handling handling a covid-19 patient or be close to one thank you for that clarification um representative Townsend do you have uh it's just up from before are there any other questions or comments uh for the chair or for the committee okay um if not um is the committee ready to take a vote on this bill and then we will uh then um i'm not do we take a and then we'll work on the amendment but if the amendment hasn't been proposed yeah we'll still take a vote on the amendment even though it hasn't been proposed i think that we still vote on it because the the amendment selena is it will be is that correct it's on the table you may take it off the table later is that correct that's correct and i believe i'm gonna i'm visiting the commerce committee as soon as they um this is used to jump off this call okay thank you for their discussion so are there any other final comments or questions uh or clarification that is needed from the chair or the team that he brought with him or from lunch council if not i would in motion representative plan for uh uh represent i would like to move that we report favorably on the amendment to h966 as presented by representative marcott and all thank you representative plan for is there a second second i have a second from thank you so the motion is made and seconded to accept the amendment to h966 as offered by representative marcott at all um are there any final comments clarification needed questions to be answered if not the clerk shall call the roll thank you madam chair um representative conquest if you're muted sorry yes representative fagan yes representative feltas yes representative helm yes representative hooper yes representative jessup yes representative lanper yes representative mires yes representative chowson yes representative of the acoboni yes representative told yes that's an 11 0 0 on this and this will be presented on the floor by Linda will be presented by the committee and Linda you will speak to the amendment the vote and you'll just do a broad statement and the committee of jurisdiction will walk through sections of the bill okay so you may want to yield to the member from not the member from Marcot but the member actually be the member from Burlington I think so it's represent well I will I'm just gonna give an introduction and outline of the bill then okay yeah gene gene is and and several others will be giving the floor report okay so don't worry about that Linda you start out yield to Mike and then their committee will follow so we amendment that was brought to our committee earlier at 8 30 this morning from the representative are you Burlington or South Burlington you're Burlington Slater thank you and the amendment we have reviewed we have asked some questions is there any other further clarification or comments that any member would like to make regarding the amendment okay if not okay thank thank you just very quickly I wanted to say that I believe the issue is terrifically important but I I am very troubled at the prospect of it being moved here for only this very narrow application with regard to our working population in my mind it's an issue that brought up overall not just with this narrow focus thank you made representative akaboni thank you I've been grappling with this because I want to support it but for the same reasons made a articulated and I think Mary alluded to earlier I'm not I worry about the unintended consequences that I'm not aware of but having said that what makes it a bit easier for me not to support it is the hazardous pay section of the bill that's here now that wasn't there yesterday at least not many versions I had and while that's not perfect in terms of providing relief for Ramoners I can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good so many in any event for those reasons I'm hesitant thank you thank you Dave any other final questions or comments if not I would entertain a motion madam chair I'd like to move that we report favorably the amendment to H 9 6 6 as presented by representative Colburn okay I take a second I want to make sure that I have that I can do this I representative Coburn raised her hand just as you started to talk Diane so I'm going to interrupt the motion and take and take your comments Selena and I could offer my comments now or after after your vote but having been called on I'll just do it now I was just going to say I really appreciated the suggestion from representative earlier about the possibility of looking at these or similar criteria as part of the veggie and Vita programs and I think a commitment from this committee to to really delve into that issue and the budget that will look at it in the coming year would would help me a lot in terms of feeling like I could withdraw this amendment just wanted to share that thank you and those budgets Vita and veggie which member do those fall into Linda there within your purview we will take we'll circle back around with that later but your point I will be noted thank you Mary well I have a mechanical issue question can we vote on the amendment since we don't really have it yet well and you just trying to get us through the process well we do we do that the amendment on the floor and we vote on amendments all the time before they're on the floor we ask for people who are bringing forth so yes we can so I am now looking for a second we'll go back to the motion it was I have a second Linda seconded it no no she did not the motion for is to I'm sorry that was a different one I seconded thank you the motion has been made and seconded to vote favorably on the Coburn amendment to age 966 any further comments or questions okay the clerk shall call the roll representative conquest no representative Fagan no representative Feltas no representative no representative Hooper no representative Jessup yes representative Lanford no representative Myers no representative Townsend no representative Yacoboni no representative toll no great Selena please the vote I think you understand the the dynamics that were within the vote and and Mary did bring up a suggestion and I'm going to ask her to follow up with the committee in charge of the budgets and and whether it's an August issue or January issue will determine will determine that and I just Mary I just wanted to say that my no vote was with the intention of following through I heard representative Colburn suggested that there was another path and I appreciate that and so I look forward to working with them and the other committees of jurisdiction to figure out a better way to accomplish this thanks mine mine too I'd like to echo that I feel strongly about and Mary I did task you with that too to do the follow-up okay thank thank you very much Selena and you all thank you appreciate the discussion and the thoughtful consideration of this and what I know is really short so thank you yep we're juggling but we haven't well I'm sure we've dropped some balls but we're trying not to so H H 349 if Mary if your pieces to John Ganon that would be great because if they vote on that today I just want to hear about the dairy bill what's the status of that ship do you know when the dairy you know when the House and Senate ag committees are those two determining what should be in and out of that they were meeting this morning which I was invited but we were doing the commerce bill so I don't know the outcome of that my my understanding is that they were just about to all say yes to everything but I'll find out and they may have done it already so I would like to check back in at two o'clock I know it's a Friday but if we can check back in at two o'clock and if these two bills have been voted by committee I think we're ready we're ready to proceed with an up or down vote and that way we would have all of these pieces off our table for the weekend and I and I think to save all of you from endless phone calls from me you you might like to come back at two o'clock Friday then hear from me all weekend about proceeding with these two votes did you notice that she was threatening us she's just throwing up the parameters I asked a question before we split here for the floor yes yes do we have through JFO or wherever the most current would be through today the most current tracking of how we've spent one point however much it's been of the 1.25 billion Maria would you get us that I know I think that that would you get out when you have a chance thank you I will yep that would be great thank you and the good news on the committee is we have covered except taking a position on Diana's Diana Diana's on the AG's office we have covered all parts of the quarter year budget changes in the Senate we've had to walk through with Stephanie all of you have met with your jurisdiction all of you have worked on the pieces and so when we get that if there are questions you need to get those to me over the weekend because I think we have done a full circle several times do you want me to mention the fact that that I think the Attorney General pieces cleared up yes let's take that off the table I had a conversation with the Attorney General's office yesterday told them about the Senate's return bill that's got $50,000 going to the Director of Racial Equality and I got the okay that they are fine with that they are fine with that they have some other things that they're working on with the Burlington High School that that will keep them busy but I don't think it's the time to bring anything in around that but just so you know they're fine with it $50,000 although we could make it 30 if you want Madam Chair but the Attorney General's office is gave me the green light that that is acceptable for them so it's done thank you Diane for that update and Kitty yes I give my update with regards to the policing amendment very quickly because yeah putting on the floor yep okay so for everyone's knowledge I caught up with Commissioner Stirling last night and he assured me that he is in full support of that policing amendment which was added before third or on third reading over in the Senate and he reminded me also that all the concepts in that amendment are in the the modernization plan that he presented to us and to other committees back in January so underscoring full support from DPS on that amendment and I've let all the committees the chairs and the committees of jurisdiction know of that support thank you made so I think you've all done your full circle and made sure everyone knows if you think of a committee or a member that needs to know a piece that that is in you haven't followed up with make sure to do that you know by the end of day Monday all right we need to jump on the floor I'll see everybody back at two o'clock you work on dairy and work on s 349 and you guys maybe you have a great weekend