 So I think we better get started. Sorry Chip and Kimberly, I hope you have a good sentence. Susan, welcome. And so Mary, I was late coming on. You've already set us up with live on YouTube and we're going to continue our discussion on the stimulus equity bill, Susana. And our committee has some questions that we need to work through in order to get this bill done and move it. We talked about the definition of residence and we'd like to know what problems that creates with any of the individuals involved or definition that we need to be as clear as possible of the definition and if the one in the language work or if it needs to be tweaked or if we work from the driver's privilege card and we wanted to talk about the timing and how fast you think that we could get this set up and getting the money out and the length of time in reality that people would need to fill out the application to come forward and fill out the applications. And so we want to talk about deadlines a bit and then there's some other places in language about your involvement in the procedure in the process if we should use a May or a shell with the agency with your involvement and with other groups involved. So now I've just scattered the language everywhere. So if Maria, Teresa, if we could bring up the language I think that that would help us move through in sections at a time. And I know that you had worked on language and if you could share some of your concerns with things that we're thinking and help guide us that would be helpful. So let's move down to section one definitions. So we've talked to Mike O'Grady and I think committee we were all set with these definitions or was there something within these definitions that we wanted to run by Susanna that Mike was not able to. He's going to add some language in the eligible adult that goes back to the original definition for the $1,200 payment. Mayda, do you have a question? Yes, did we have questions about the definition with regard to eligible child that the year issue? Was that something that settled already or? No. And Susanna, the problem there is the federal in the federal law, they have under the age of 17 and so we're waiting to find out if it meant 17 year old was treated as adults or 17 year olds just happened to be left out. Do you happen to have any, was that anything that came to your attention ever? It wasn't actually, I wasn't aware of that oversight and I imagine if I had to speculate and it's so hard to speculate on what Congress means when it says something, but I would imagine they might have meant 17 and under. Right, and I asked that and Mike said, no, it was under 17. So I asked, I said, does it include 17 year old? And he said, no. So that's something that we will tease out and if you keep that on your radar, anything else in the eligible adult or child that we'd like to run by Susanna? Mike was going to cite a piece of the federal law in number two. Number three, we'll get clarification on the age. Marty? Dave Giacoboni brought up the question of, did the child need to be with an, yes, haven't the eligible adult had to be a parent? What if the child was here with an uncle or an aunt as an example, not actually their parent? And our question I think was how common might that be? And I don't know if Susanna has any indication of that or not, or whether we're just better off to leave it the child and a parent. Would you like to weigh in on that, Susanna, on number? Yeah, I would say being as inclusive as possible to make sure that we're serving as many children as needed would be ideal. So including language that allows for guardianship and understanding that there are some family structures that maybe guardianship is not as clearly defined in legal terms, but if there's an adult who is effectively the caregiver or the guardian for a child who's in Vermont and they were excluded from receiving such payment, then I think that just as a matter of equitable policy, it would make sense to shape the language in a way that's inclusive of that child. So I wouldn't limit it only to parents. So how would, if we have parent or legal guardian, do you have access to our screen? Are you able to see our screen that is, what would you recommend that we include there? What would a recommendation be? I would say for whom an eligible adult is a parent or legal guardian, and this is just off the top of my head and I have not run this past any of our other attorneys yet, so just me spitballing, but we might consider, we might consider if there's a situation where a child has a guardian and it may not be formally, for whatever reason, it may not be formally final in the law, but they can demonstrate that that child does have a guardian here in Vermont, then maybe on a case by case basis, there could be an opportunity for the state to review any supporting documentation they have and include that situation. I hope I've explained that cohesively. I understand where you're going and so you need time to develop some language there and Chip, will you? I'll check into the mic. Excuse me? Yeah, I have a note to myself to ask Mike if there's a way to do this, to cover what Susanna is talking about. Okay. In language. So the committee is good with that section and Chip will work on that. Jen. Yes, I can't see you Mary because I have this. Go ahead Mary. So under eligible adult, it says that they're eligible due to their immigration status. There are people who did not receive a payment not because of their immigration status, but because they are married to somebody who's immigration status prevented them from receiving the benefit. So I wonder if we need to expand that language to make sure that we pick up those other groups of people who are excluded. Mary, I think Mike commented on that. It's not due to there, it's just due to immigration status. And he said that which should bring in the other groups I thought because it was due to immigration status that me as a, maybe as a legal citizen and my husband isn't due to immigration status, I wasn't able to get it, but it doesn't say it has to be mine. It's, did anyone else here, Mike say that or did I just assume he was, does anyone know? No, I- That's exactly right. But this was just about the child though, not the- No, I'm on adults now. No, I'm on adults. The language that I've been using when discussing this is due to there or someone else's immigration status. And I think Mike said he took those words out because he thought this made it cleaner, but we can go back to that and see. I- Justice Mike's explanation. My concern is that a plain reading of this leaves it open to interpretation. And if one wanted to be limiting in one's interpretation, you would not include those other groups of people. So I- Okay. So Chip, we have that to bring to Mike and he can add it or if he needs to come back and explain if, you know, I can't remember exactly, but he said that this is, he did this way for us, but we want to make sure it's not limiting. Okay. I think I can't see hands and have both up. I don't have hands that I can see. So let's move on to the next section and- Madam Chair, if I may, I do have a little bit more clarity on the question of 17 year olds. Oh, okay, great. So evidently under the CARES Act, 17 year olds were not eligible for the $500 augment for children. In fact, I believe no dependent over the age of 17 would qualify a person for the $500 augment. Were they eligible for the 1200th? I think if you were a tax, that is unclear still to me. I don't even want to pretend to have an answer. I don't, but I do know that 17 was the cutoff for the child amount. And when we were figuring our estimates of the Vermont population of eligible children, we took children, I believe, to be people under 18. So including 17 and 18 year olds in Vermont would not add, to my knowledge, would not add anything to the estimates we've already had. Okay. And the language before us has under 18 years of age. And Diane, you have a question on this? I was just thinking, you know, if I think they probably in the federal law, it was like, if you were 21 years old and you're still being, you're a dependent in that family, you didn't get the $500. But if you were 15 and a dependent, they got the $500. But if you were 17 and a dependent, you would not get it. Correct. Right. Or 18 or 21. Right. But 17 year olds, you're not legally an adult. There's really a difference between a 17 and 18 year old. Not to drag it out, but I don't know. I've been asked if you're 21 and you're a dependent or being claimed as a dependent, you couldn't get the 1200 alone either. You got nothing. No, I think anyone who was claimed as a dependent, if that person was eligible for CARES Act funding, then it was received by the person who claimed that person as a dependent on the tax filing. Okay. All right. Okay. So since we're going to come back to number three for our first decision, unless you think we can clean it up right now, can we agree to under 18 years old at 17 and under or is this going to be a long discussion because I want to be sympathetic of Susanna's time spending with our committee. Well, we were going to hear back from Mike on this issue specifically and maybe we should wait until he comes back with that information. Yes. 17, 18 year old. Okay. Okay, let's move on to the next question. Did you call me? Yep, your hand was up. Okay, I really like, I really like what it says right now under 18 years. So if you're 17 years old and 11 and a half months, you can still get the money. Once you hit that 18, then you're not eligible. And I really like that. So that's just my opinion on them. Okay, thank you, Linda. I think we'll wait. There was a piece that Mike was going to come back for clarification and then we'll just take a position as a committee, whether we leave it to match the federal or whether we move it to under 18 years of age. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And now let's, we went down through number four and Mike spent quite a bit of time on the personally identifiable information and that this was to outline what types of information would be protected. Are you okay, Susanna, would you like to weigh in on any of these pieces or do you feel that number four is okay? I know that we had spent some time on concerns of what information might be made public. Yeah. If I could just get a quick scroll through, I can just quickly. So it starts with name and Theresa down on page two, please. Here we go. And it goes to, here we go. But these would be protected. We can go up some more because just name is on number one, Theresa. And it goes down to letter I or singularly or alone any of that information. I think this, yeah, I think this is consistent with the first draft. It doesn't look like anything's different. So I would say that this would be great. And then we move to number five, which is resident of Vermont. And Theresa, will you move it up so we can have all of the resident of Vermont on the screen? Thank you. Were there questions here for committee members regarding resident of Vermont that we'd like to run by Susanna or Susanna, do you have any concerns you'd like to share with our committee? I don't. And was it, go ahead. I was just going to say, I reviewed it and I am comfortable with this language. Any questions for Susanna, Bob? Yeah. And Mary. Yes. I just read this quickly. Where did it was at? It went on to say, oh, resident of Vermont means any individual living in Vermont who intends to make the state his or her principle place of domicile either permanently either permanently or for an indefinite number of years. So what does that mean? Intends maybe for permanently and maybe not. I don't get that. And I must say, and we need to change, I don't think it's that important, but it's not. I don't think it's well, I don't think it's well written. But the question was if you keep going, it's those workers who are living here and have been here for quite some period of time, the individuals that would not be included in this bill. And we talked about the H2A and students, people that are just on a contract that have sent over to work for a company not be included in this language. And so do we have to do any more to clarify? You know, I chased this down really quick because I got the feeling we were leaving it. And I haven't even had a chance to really totally read it and digest it. It's not bad. So I'm gonna ask to move on. I'm not gonna hold everything up over this. I think it's important that we all come to a common agreement on what a resident of Vermont is. And so we have clearly stated which group would not be included, but do we have enough clarity on those who are? So I have Marty and then Diane. Well, I'm just reflecting on Mike's comment that this is a standard definition that was developed when we were talking about driver's privilege cards for persons who were here not necessarily properly documented as far as the US government is concerned. And I think that's the same group of people that we're talking about now for this economic stimulus program. And that's the definition that's in statute now to refer to that group of people so that they can get driver's privilege cards. And I would think that would be the very same group that we are talking about for this. I like using a legal definition that's already in place. So we have Diane and Mary. Bob, did you want to comment on that? Thank you for that clarification, Marty. I did not remember that it was the definition for the driver's privilege card, but I did write down that some committee members mentioned to keep the definition as clear as possible. And if it's already in statute and it's working for the driver's privilege card, it's something for us to consider. Diane? That was exactly what I was going to say. Marty and I were on the same page on the same note that this is already and sometimes, and I'll be the one to issue the warning that you said, if we start messing with already law policy, we might need to involve other committees or things. But Marty's right, that's my notes too. It's based on the driver privilege. That definition already exists. We're not creating it. Thank you, Diane. Mary? I don't need to say it again for the third time. Everybody's covered it. I'm uncomfortable, but this is existing law. I would rather end it halfway through that sentence. But if it's existing law, let's move on. Any other questions about the resident piece? And I'm going to check that off unless there's questions there. I'm going to ask Teresa to send you all an email from Michael Grady. He is, he has weighed in on some of the definitions of a child and so if we will bring that up after, but if we sent that out in his email, that would be great, Teresa. Let's move down past the resident. Now we'll move on to page three. And Mike's answer may answer our question. Teresa, there you go for the 17 year old. This is where we're going to have to spend a little time about the establishment of the program and where this program should be run out of. And if we need to contract with a third party or if we feel the agency of which our agency we choose has the capacity to do it. Susanna, when you were looking at your original language, I think you were using ACCD. We were thinking or at least I was wondering about the agency of human services because they have put out so many grant programs, especially revolving the welfare of families and children. And I know if there was some thinking within the administration that a third party contract was not needed, but definitely to hear from groups to help identify and help with the application process so people weren't left behind. Can you talk about that a bit? Yeah, so I think that in terms of whether it should be done in-house for the third party entity, it would be, and this is a personal preference, but I would really appreciate if there could be permissive language in the bill that allows for the contracting with a trusted third party entity if deemed necessary because I think that that will give us more flexibility. So perhaps not making it mandatory, but rather permissive to say that we may contract with a third party to administer this program. And if that were the case, it would be helpful to include a cap on the administrative costs that would be allocated for that third party contract. Okay, thank you. So let's move down past one, two and three because I think these have already been established in one, two and three. And then the program, this is on C where we get into this piece. And so Zana has put forth the possibility of including if it's necessary to reach out to use a third party and to cap, which is in this bill, but this was a combination of three different ideas. Do we wanna talk about, I'd like to hear from the committee about which agency that you would like to consider to run this program and your thoughts on allowing for a contract if it's deemed necessary. Do committee members have any thoughts on that? Then I'm going to put it on the table. I would like to run it through the agency of human services because of the nature of the group that's being involved, that being considered, I just think it leans more toward the care of families and children. So is there any opposition? I will check with Mike Smith and Sarah Clark, but is there any opposition from this committee to go with the agency of human resources? Mary? No opposition. I cannot think of a better place to put it. Not only do they work with marginalized or underserved communities, but they also have access to language resources and experience in reaching out to communities who may not know how to work within our existing governmental structure. I think it's a great idea. I just wanna note that I agree in all of what Mary just said is exactly right, but Kitty, you said agency of human resources and I think you meant agency of human services. And then services, thank you. And then Marty had brought this up earlier and Susanna, maybe you could to weigh in here. So in C1, the administration of the program, the program shall be administered. And I think that we have agreed, I haven't heard any opposition for AHS in consultation with the executive director of racial equity. And so the program shall be administered by AHS. I don't know legally if that means they shall consult with you. And I mean, so somebody shall. Well, it says shall be administered, but does the in consultation, does that, is that a shell as well? It must be a shell. From my reading, the consultation is also a shell. Okay, and can you talk about the importance of your position working with AHS if we should have a shell or a May there? I believe that there should be a, you mean a shell or a May with respect to consulting with me? Yes, because I think that the committee is going to agree that AHS shall do this. And should we dictate that to AHS? It's not that we're not considering you. Should we dictate that to AHS? You know, I would leave that to the committee. I can say that whether or not it's required by the statute, I and AHS will eagerly pursue that partnership. Actually, I ran into the secretary, Secretary Smith earlier today, and we chatted briefly about this and we're both on the same page, 100% that I would be honored and pleased to be involved as deeply as possible in the administration of the program. So I leave it up to you to decide whether you make it mandatory, but you should be aware that either way, it'll happen, definitely. That's good to have. I'll weigh in to say, I think the legislature should take the position that the agencies shall, well, in this case, we'll work in consultation with the executive director. I think that's a policy piece that we, I would like to take that position on. Okay, and so Chip, I'm going to put that on the table. And I think it's an easy one that we don't need to just, you know, a long discussion unless there's some points that haven't come up. But if committee members agree to leave the shell there, can I, if there's any opposition, I'd like to know that is I don't, if we're in agreement, we don't need to hear that. But is there any opposition for the first piece with AHS and with the executive director's position? Okay, I'm waiting for delays in some of our, then let's leave the shell there and let's move on to the next piece of the agency. No, don't go down too far with the agency. Go back up a little bit, Theresa. Shell, stop right there, please. Shell partner with public or private entities as needed. Does the shell, does that need to be a shell or does that, or should that be a May? Let's just clarify these fine points. Kimberly? Yeah, I'm thinking that could be a May but I'm raising my hand on a slightly different topic in that same sentence. It gets to Peter's point about trust in a state issued check. I'm wondering if we could add in something along the lines or deliver assistance payments of state issued checks to eligible individuals. But I don't know if that's the right language because there may be electronic transfers or whatnot but that may be a place to land what the actual vehicle is. So before we move to the state issued checks I wanna stick with the shell or the May and then we'll move to the last sentence there with the state issued checks. So Kimberly has put on the table. It could be either way in her mind. It could be a May. What are committee members thinking? Linda? I'm definitely a May. I think that the Human Services Department has the knowledge, the experience and everything else to do this. If they feel they need help from some other organization or something or other, the May works better than saying that you absolutely will get all done with everything. So I'm a May from the beginning on this one. Thank you. And Susanna, do you have some thoughts you'd like to share with the committee on that? I think that May would be perfectly fine and if it were shell, I think that's still relatively permissive only because it says as needed. So it probably would get us the same result but I'm very comfortable with May. So then we would take out the as needed because... It's redundant there. Yeah. So where would the committee like, I know it's a little point but I wanna get this language done. A shell or a May, would somebody put a recommendation on the table and we'll take a position on it? I will. Linda has actually put a position on the table to change it to a May. If you agree with the May, it's a yes if you'd like to leave it at shell, it's a no. Can I get squares? Yes. So back to the squares. If you agree just changing it to a May as needed, raise your hand. One, two, three, four. Okay, we have a majority there. And if you want shell, let me just do the democratic way. I'll take a hand. Okay, we will change that to a May. Thank you, Kimberly. I got that. If we change it to a May, do we need to take out the word as needed? Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you. Chip, are you taking notes on this? So. Anyone taking notes on this? We trust Chip. Okay. And then we'll bring it back and we can clean it up. Tell him where he was wrong. Kuzena, we talked a little bit about the delivery of the payments and we really thought in order to start creating some trust between the state and others in front that we wanted a state-issued check, not to scare anybody or frighten anybody, but more of a goodwill and to start building this relationship. What do you, how do you feel about that? You know, one of the challenges is that the population we're talking about, and we talked about this I think yesterday, all the days blurred together, but I think it was yesterday, this is a population that is often unbanked. So that's one thing to consider. I don't know if there's an opportunity for us to work with any finance institutions on the ground to serve as, I don't want to say safe havens, but trusted partners for folks who want to present their checks at those institutions. There's also, I mean, it's certainly easier if we can print up checks in-house and send them out. We can keep track of it much more easily. So perhaps that is a good solution. And I'm not sure that there's a great answer here. Marty. Is a prepaid Visa card anything that would make sense? That way, it's not an EBD card for just food, but just a prepaid credit card. You know, those debt, those gift cards you buy at the store. We pay, so. No, that, pardon me. We pay for those. I think that there's a percent that we'd lose money on them. Well, may I also add? That would be a consideration. Yeah, it's an idea that we should put out there, yes. May I also add that just in the way of trust, I think any kind of a card, whether it's a gift card or EBT or what have you, always bears the shadow of your spending being able to be tracked. Even if the state of Vermont is not tracking people spending with these cards, I can't imagine why we would or that we would, but the perception on the part of the recipient, I think might be that. Also, again, this is a population, many of whom operate under the table or in cash or informally. And so issuing these payments in the form of cards might limit their ability to use the funds as nimbly as they might need to. Marty, do you have a follow up? We have some. No, just, I understand that's an option. I mean, that there are difficulties with that, but I guess if we don't issue a check because people have difficulty going to a bank and we don't issue a card, how else will we get benefits to these people? I'm certainly not in favor of handing out a wad of cash. I don't know, what might be other options? Well, I think we can do a check, but how they would receive the, where they would receive the check and where they could cash the checks. Is that the issue, Susanna? Well, yeah, those are two issues that I can identify. I think if we're talking about checks, cards, or cash, a check would probably be ideal of those three options. And if we were talking about how they would receive and cash those, then in terms of receiving them, again, that may be where it comes into play that we work with trusted third party entities who may have the stack of checks physically and who say, okay, go to the office of such and such organization or go to your local health center. I forget what is the name for our state health department regional centers, but maybe that means going to one of those because they are the ones who have or something like that. And then on the topic of cashing them, yeah, again, I mean, I wonder if there's some way that we might say, hey, if check cashing places in Vermont, if someone comes in with this particular kind of check, maybe limit the, you have to limit the fees that you can charge to them or something like that. Okay, so I have Mary Chip, and then I have a whole long list. And this may be something that we take offline and some legislators, some members work on it and bring back a proposal to the committee because I think we could stay a couple of hours on how to cash checks. But Mary, if you have an idea, let's put it out there. No, I think we need to take this offline and there's the question. So I think it's a two-part question, is how do we deliver a payment to the individual and then how does the individual receive the payment? You can't just hand the check. They then need to think about how they're going to turn that check into cash. So there are two issues there, but rather than speculating it on here, I bet the treasurer's office may have some ideas and maybe a couple of us could go off and think about that. So I would like to know- I'm not volunteering. Yeah, I have a lot of stuff, so I want to know if with the hands up, Nolan, were you going to weigh in on this piece? Yeah, I was just gonna say that given some work I've done with things with DCF, there tends to be some administrative fee sometimes around EBD cards that don't exist around checks. So there could be, I don't know if there is or isn't, but I'm just flagging at different kind of administrative costs to do cards versus paper check. Thank you. Thank you, Nolan. I would like to send this off to a work group, but Chip, did you want to weigh in quickly? Yeah, rather than, I mean, given if we had time, I would say, yes, us digging into this and figuring out a solution or possible solutions would make sense. We don't have time. I would recommend that in number two in that section where it says the agency shall adopt requirements, guidelines and procedures that necessary to implement and administer at the program, I would add something like including providing how to provide payments to those who don't have access to banking services or an address, something to cover those two that leave it to the agency to have a little bit more time and a little bit more access to people who can help figure this out. And I will just remind us that they will be working in consultation with Susanna. So the issues that we're bringing up here, the concerns I think will be brought to them as they try to figure out how to do that. So we're going to have a work group with Chip who will work with Legislative Council and Susanna and other groups to develop that language so that it addresses how we deliver the payment and how it can be cash and how it can be equitable. So Peter, and then we'll go to Dave. Peter? Yeah, so I just reached out to Chris Delia, Bankers Association. If individuals, if we issue checks to individuals who have itens or are here under a visa or some other type of a government program, then the banks can cash the checks, no issues. If they are here, let's say under the table, then the banks will not be able to cash the check. So I agree with Chip's comment. We're going to need to put something in there to allow for the funds that we intend to get to individuals to be able to actually get to them. Peter, did you just volunteer for that work group on that language? Dear God, I suppose I did. Thank you. And thank you, and Dave? Yes, I'll be quick. I knew we're going fast. We don't have a lot of time, but I want to try to channel the work of Ruby Payne on bridges out of poverty who stresses how important it is to develop relationships with people to help move them to another place. Yes, this is a program aimed at doing a transaction. See, are you eligible? And you'll get a check issue to you. And $1,200 is huge. But is this an opportunity to do much more than that? Can we work with a population that has a lot of needs, children who have language issues, who at some point be entering our schools, families trying to integrate into the Vermont we know so that they can succeed? If an agency or an organization that AHS contracts out to has the power to cut a check and hand it to a person, that goes a long ways. And if they're trained to say it at the same time, Marty, if you ever have any challenges, feel free to come back here. We'd like to help you and your family. That creates, I think an enduring relationship and an opportunity that will pay many dividends down the road to helping people in our country and in our state truly integrate and be successful. If I could think and give Chip a sentence or a sentence and a half to include in the language that might enable AHS to think about this or give them the latitude to do something like this, would that be okay? I may not be able to. I know, perhaps Kitty, if you said, Dave, you're just moving too far into policy, I understand completely and I'll let it go. It's certainly worth thinking of. And then if it moves too far into policy and expands the bill into something else, we may have to come back in on it. The other thing you may be able to do is attach to the check a list of resources, available resources that they, I don't know if it's a silly idea, but on a card, that educational resources for your kids or that they could contact, they would have information they could do on their own. But you think about it, Chip and bring it back to the committee. I could be wrong. You went out or maybe it's my, maybe I'm unstable. No, I stopped talking. No, you're unstable. I just stopped talking. Okay, Susanna. I'm sorry, I know we're moving fast, but I just had to say, I'm so grateful for the representative's comment. I think that's spot on. This is one step out of many that we're gonna take to build or rebuild trust with this community. And I don't think I could have said it better. Thank you representative for highlighting that. And so Dave, work on language, bring it to, and we'll bring it to the committee to see if, we're just trying to stay within the lane, Susanna, because we're not the policy committee. Of course, of course. Too far, then we're going to trigger a bill that really needs to go to a different committee for full vetting. So Dave, you're on that. And then the next, we have about eight minutes and then we have somebody else testifying. Number two, allows that the agency adopt the requirements in the programs. And it also, Linda talked about, it's not going to trigger rulemaking. And I think that we talked about that when Mike went through the bill. So are there questions about not triggering the rulemaking provision? Let's go down to number three. This is utilizing staff and resources. Are there any questions on allowing the agency in order to administer it? And then D comes into the contract for implementation, Susanna, and this is where you weighed in that you thought it was important to keep this if it's deemed necessary. Correct. And so Chip, if you could add those words if deemed necessary, I think that's important. Okay. Before we go too much further, I think some of the real key questions that we had previously may belong up in the section we were just in and those revolve around whether we set a, do we set any kind of a deadline for the program to be stood up? Do we set a deadline for people to apply and a time at which the money, unspent money would revert to somewhere? Susanna, could you speak to that please when you were, when the administration was putting this proposal together, what the timing issue was knowing that this money needs to go out quickly to help individuals, what did you think reasonable timing was? You had used ACCD, we're using AHS. So it's, we're still using a state agency. Could you elaborate on some of the discussions maybe? Yeah. So, you know, two of the points about timing and deadlines for application and deadlines for us getting ourselves together, I think that a fair deadline for applications, I'm thinking about working backwards which is why I'm starting with that. And I think a fair deadline for applications to be received could be the end of the calendar year. So about December 30th, December 31st. And so if we work backwards from that, giving the public maybe two months to learn about the program, because that takes time to apply for it and then to supply any other necessary documentation that may be needed. If we give them two months for that, then that would mean that we would have open applications around October 30th. And so I understand that we still have to go through a sort of legislative process and I don't know what the timing looks like on that. So if we consider maybe a month, month and a half for us to complete this, and that's just me completely spitballing, I have no idea what will happen here, but it would be fair to give the agency enough time to stand up this program, to figure out whether it needs to contract with outside agencies. And that's gonna take, it's gonna take up time. So the bill would move separately depending on how quickly it moved through the Senate and then came back to the house without many changes or with no changes, it could ultimately get to the governor's desk by mid, by mid September. And you're thinking that if we gave four to six weeks to set up the program and try to have applications open by the 30th of October, which would allow two months for educational purposes, getting documentation in order, having entities help individuals fill out applications and then have a deadline for the application on December 30th. That is what came out of my mouth, yes. But again, I would check in with AHS because they're much more aware of their own capacity. I don't wanna speak on their behalf, but just on the topic of how long do we wait until we assume that the application, how long do we wait to administer this program? I think giving applicants until the end of the year would be fair. And if our process ends up dragging on longer than we expect, then I think that we should extend the deadline tremendously. Thank you. Peter. So this kind of goes with what I was saying, that the budget itself is a document that at the end of the budget time, unless we have indicated otherwise, money reverts to the general fund. So that would be my recommendation. I think that there's going to be a lot of things that the administration's gonna have to overcome as they find them while they're trying to administer this program. And we need to give them a lot of latitude to be able to maneuver through them. So to put a fixed timeframe by which we're gonna revert any funds at the, maybe our March or April timeframe might unnecessarily cause individuals who would qualify to not be able to receive. I think we just need to leave it flexible as possible within this budget year. And at the end of the year, 30 June, funds revert back to the general fund. My recommendation. General fund or back to the fund that we made, maybe we take the money from. Correct. Yeah, that's a good point, yes. Or back to the Chin fund. That that would happen at the end of the calendar year when all of them. At the end of the fiscal year. Yeah. End of the fiscal year, 30 June. At the fiscal year, yes, thank you. But she's saying a deadline for receiving the applications for them to have an application. And again, I think that we need to be very flexible here because I just, we're going to be talking to individuals that we're going to be trying to build trust with. And you can't do it with one conversation, I would imagine. So let's allow individuals on the ground maximum flexibility and latitude to be able to make this work. Thank you, Peter. Okay. So we'll look at that December 31st and doesn't need to be pushed out or does it just need to be flexible? Mary, and then I think we're going to have to move to our next conversation. Mary. My interest is in trying to get the money out the door to individuals as quickly as possible. So I don't care about the end date, but I do care about a beginning date. I appreciate and will remind us that we heard from O'Grady that it took Ag two months to set up the program and a couple of three weeks to process the applications. So I'm comfortable with, I would like to suggest that we set a date of expectations on getting the check out the door because I don't just, I mean, and let's remember how overwhelmed all of these folks are with other work we're giving them. And I don't want January to roll around and hear that they haven't started issuing checks or making these payments available to folks. Well, in January, if we had a deadline of December 31st the payments wouldn't start going out until January 1st. If that's the conclusion, I wasn't clear on what the deadline that you were talking about was. A deadline to have a program start to ask, you know, I don't, I'm trying to ask that we set up something that gets payments out the door as quickly as possible and to be realistic in that. So because I do have somebody else here that I need to be respectful of their time. I need a work group. And I have Peter and Chip on the work group. And is there anyone else that would like to join this group to, I think that we've heard it above earlier of issues that we need to look at regarding the delivery of the payment and how to cash the check. But now it's also the timing of this piece and how to make it, as Peter said, fair and flexible, but also that we don't push it out so far that it just doesn't happen. Is there anyone who else wants to join in with Peter and Chip or are we going to leave that a group of two? Do I see any hands up? I'll help. This is Marty. Okay, so I have Peter, Chip and Marty. And Susanna, thank you very much for coming in. And I'm sorry we didn't get through this language, but Teresa, if you just scroll up a little bit more from here, the confidentiality piece we've already walked through with Michael Grady, unless you have issues there, Susanna, that Chip can address with us and keep going, Teresa. Before you go any further, in D1 contract for implementation, there was, you mentioned something and I missed that one a little bit that Susanna had, I thought there was something. Oh, contracts as deemed necessary. Oh, okay. I think that was the word that was used there as deemed necessary. The other thing I think that I had mentioned earlier was putting a cap on the amount of administrative overhead. So I think one draft of this had no more than $50,000 for administrative. It is a double less for there. Okay, good. So make sure that that is in your work. And I'm hoping that you guys will have some time this afternoon to work on this because we really need to start shaping it up tomorrow and making a decision probably on Thursday. I know, Chip, you looked at the calendar. Okay, thank you. I think we're going to stop here. And if anyone in the committee has any questions, please move those questions on to Chip and Mehta. No, Chip and Marty and Peter. And Susanna, will you be available to also to, if there's questions that you could answer as this work group works on this language and massages it a little bit? Absolutely, I'm at your service. Thank you, we appreciate your help. And I'm sorry if I seem scattered, but I have a hundred billion budget things that I'm thinking about at the same time that I'm trying to concentrate really and be focused on an important piece of legislation. I think you're doing it very well, Madam Chair. So no apologies needed, thank you all. Thank you.