 to day two this week, Thursday of our afternoon meetings. We have until about four o'clock and we will be getting to in the second hour, we're gonna be talking to members of the federal delegation that's going to give us a little bit of a lowdown on what the CARES Act is and what's been passed so far, especially as it relates to the work that we're doing. There's, I've been getting bits and pieces of not only and Damien's Damien summary from yesterday was exceptional and has been roundly praised as being really top notch in terms of a lot of the other stuff that's been out there, it's been very specific to the work that we're doing in the building, not just our committee, but in all the other committees as well. And so the federal delegation will be here to review that. And before that, we will hear from Kobe Schwader who is from Vermont for Mooth. Again, we discussed last week the omnibus alcohol economic development bill. We did not get testimony yet from Kobe. And so this is the section on the bill about the, about the vermouth and how it's being classified is really, is from what we gathered last week is the last section of the bill that we needed to really hear more testimony on the rest of it. We'd either decided to cut one section and keep the rest moving forward. And before that, we're gonna hear from, on the rental eviction section, we're gonna hear from Jean Murray and, and Angel Zekowski and David Hall. We had one section left that, primarily one section left that was still to be discussed. And they apparently have reached a conclusion and a compromise that will get explained to us by the end of today or tomorrow. And Lisa, I wanna follow up on the question that you had yesterday about voting. It is clear that we're still in a no, no voting out of bill process right now. I think between timing and the way that we don't know when we're gonna meet next as a body, whether it's electronically or with a, or with a quorum in the building. But basically the instruction I was given this morning is that we're still not officially voting on any legislation. But when it comes to this particular legislation, as I discussed yesterday, I would like to be able to take with this compromise that's gonna be explained to us. I would, by the end of today, like to take a straw poll on the eviction process, decide whether or not we keep the FMLA in it and then be able to share this language, just by taking a straw poll and saying that we, as a committee for this week, we're done with this bill and we want the Senate who may be able to act faster as Tucker was talking about. They're considering rules changes to allow them to meet and vote electronically. But the ability to say that we have come to a conclusion at this present time on this particular language and then share it with the Senate so that they can perhaps put it into a bill and then send it back to us as early as the end of next week. And then that'll take us closer to the third week of April, which may be a time when we'll be able to take up COVID-related legislation. So we will get this bill back into our court. But that's kind of the understanding that we're working with. Again, the Senate may make changes, but they're gonna meet tomorrow morning on this bill. And so it'd be nice to be able to give them something that we're proud of, something that we feel like is finished for the time being, and let them get it start through the parliamentary process. So that's where I'd like to go today. Let's start with, I'd like to start with very quickly. I hope the advocates Jean and Angela, I'll start with Jean today. And if you could just discuss the conversations that you've had in the last 23 hours, that would be great. And just to give us an understanding of, and then David after they give their intros, then we'll ask you to just sort of show us what we're talking about in language. So Jean, go ahead. Thank you. So when we left yesterday, we were something at the very top of the bill, which is in a section called duties, which is more or less reminders of what can still happen. So this is an eviction moratorium bill and, but certain things still have to happen. We had, you know, certain things still have to happen, like tenants still have to pay rent, mortgage owners still have to pay their mortgage payments. The section we wanted to talk about is the court will still be able to hold emergency hearings on landlord tenant cases if it's an emergency. And what we did is add some specific language that more or less defines or we're agreed upon what we're thinking about when we talk about an emergency. So those words are now in the bill. The other thing we did is we rearranged or just as you were speaking at the beginning of this meeting, we've been emailing back and forth and David will explain. He's rearranged section F, which is about what happens to rits of possession and arranged it in a more readable order. So we did that. The other thing in section F that we did was for people who have already received a writ of possession because court process going through and there were people who have already received a writ of possession, what should happen? Should those people get kind of specific notice of that their writ of possession has been stayed? And so we worked out language on that. So we're all agreed with all the language we have in the bill right now. Representative Stevens, you're muted. It's a tough one. I'm sorry, everybody, I keep muting because of ambient noise, but Angela, please feel free to chime in. Sure, thank you for letting me talk. I would echo what Jean said. We've been working diligently and this morning we came to consensus on the remaining two points as Jean described. And I think she did a great job describing it. So I'd again like to thank everybody for their hard work. We were all commenting this morning that we cannot remember another time when we have brought a consensus bill to the committee. Yeah, it's a long road. But thank you for your work. And I wanna, we have two questions before we get to David, John, you unmute. There you go. Well, maybe it's when David, I think at least Representative Hangover brought up yesterday and when we refer to changes, it helps us to see what page we're on. Because it was so, but I think it's highlighted in David's most recent version. But I think if we keep talking about it, let's go to the page itself in the bill that helps me to understand the changes. But I think that David has it, he'll show it to us. But for Jean and Angela, it's still a little hard to follow if we don't know what line we're looking at. So page number and line would be helpful. Okay, and David, we'll get there. I think Chip, do you have a quick question? Or do you wanna wait till after David goes through? Well, it was pretty similar. Sections are numbered, not lettered. And it was a little confusing, Jean, as to what you were doing. Yeah, let's let David walk through it. I think that's probably the best bet and then we'll go from there. Thank you, David, move it on. We have a bit of a change. I have to start the screen share now and I can then assign it to David. 11.1. Just gotta find your name there, David, just a moment. One more time, having trouble finding David's name. There it is, okay. So David, you now have control of the screen. Okay, I'm not sure what that means. It means that you can now, well. Am I doing this? No, you're doing that. Okay, and I trust everybody can hear me. Yes. I have a slightly different setup of my camera. I hope it's okay. I hope you're not spending all of the day looking up my nose. I'm feeling severely underdressed right now. The camera is down and I've got my TV now so I can see you all. It's great. David Hall Legislative Council draft 11.1 specifically on the housing related issues, which begin, I assume right now you just wanted to talk about what has changed. Is that correct? Yes, we'd like to see the information that you presented yesterday that still had to be resolved, which it sounds like it has been resolved. Sure. So I'm gonna scroll down to that. To be fair to Jean, I think she was just trying to give you the general information so I would still have something to do. Thanks, Jean. Okay, so we are in section nine again and I'm on page 10 of the bill. So again, page 10, section nine, subsection B, duties. So as Jean was saying, the function of subsection B here is to state explicitly what rules continue to be applicable for everybody, notwithstanding the slate of emergency changes you're proposing to make to the underlying frameworks for ejectment and foreclosure actions. So B one, two, and three we already had and that is you got to keep paying rent. You have to keep paying rent into court if you're under that order and if you're a borrower under three, you have to keep paying your mortgage. B four, B four is also sort of just an explicit statement of the court's continued ability to act in emergency circumstances. So let me just read it, B four. This section does not limit a court's ability to act in an emergency pursuant to administrative order 49 issued by the remonstrant in court as amended, including when a landlord terminates a tenancy pursuant to nine VSA, 44, 67, B two based on criminal activity, illegal drug activity or acts of violence, any of which threaten the health or safety of other residents. So those last pieces on 14 and 15, those are what is included in 44, 67, B two. Those are the grounds for termination under that subdivision and current law. So court still has its ability to hold emergency hearings. Again, under that order, it is in the discretion of the judge what an emergency is. And then this makes explicit that this includes these exigent circumstances that may be brought to the court. And then the court's gonna have to decide whether or not this is in fact an emergency and whether or not they will hear and or act in the case. Any questions? Chip, you okay? So far? Okay. All right. So now I'm gonna skip over C pending actions. I'm gonna skip over D new actions. I'm gonna skip over E Ritz that weren't yet issued when this act came along and we're gonna go to F. This was the question of what happens to Ritz of possession that a court already issued. So again, I just sort of restructured this starting at the most general level and working down through specific cases. But in the stakeholders have signed off on the wording, I certainly have not intended to make any substantive change to their hard work. It's just the way of organizing phrase. Some of these pieces under F one. Is everybody with me on page 12 F one. So here, a writ of possession that was issued by a court prior to the effective date of this act is stayed as of the start date of the emergency period and resumes running when the governor terminates the state of emergency by declaration under two, if a writ of possession was issued, but not executed prior to the effective date of this act. Then after the governor terminates the state of emergency by declaration, A, the plaintiff shall serve or serve again, the writ to the defendant and the plaintiff shall be restored to possession not sooner than 14 days after service. So let me just break that down for you to allay any fear or confusion. We're talking about a writ of possession already issued by the court. The court has already decided this case and issued this writ. The writ would have an execution date. The date when possession is going to transfer that the tenant is going to either have to be gone or be removed from the property. So this is a stay, excuse me, this is a writ that was issued but it was not executed prior to the effective date of this act, right? So we hit pause on that writ as with all the others, okay? But upon the date that the governor terminates the state of emergency by his declaration, plaintiff has to serve or serve again the writ to the defendant. And then after 14 days after that service, the plaintiff will be restored to possession. The last piece, subdivision three, I'm on page 13 of 15 at the top. We're still in F, we're still talking about rits that were issued before this act. So if a writ of possession was served but not executed prior to the effective date of this act, then the sheriff or constable who served the writ shall coordinate with the court to determine how to notify the defendant of the stay of the execution date. So again, this is a writ that was issued. It was served but they had not yet reached execution. And so you remember maybe yesterday, the issue was should the onus be on the sheriff or constable to provide written notice to that defendant that the writ has been stayed. And the sort of consensus proposal here is that the sheriff or the constable will coordinate with the court on how best to notify the defendant of the stay. So any questions on the subsection F? Yep. So I'm muted. Okay, so David, what constitutes how to provide this notice? Is that in writing or in person? Is that what we're talking about here? Are you referring to subdivision three? Yes. Well, that will be determined by the court and the sheriff or constable who served the writ. But what I'm saying is the options would be either in writing or in personal service. Is that what we're thinking about here? I don't know. I mean, it doesn't specify how, I mean, presumably it would be, I assume it would be by a mailing to the address where the writ was previously served. I doubt it would be brought in person by the sheriff as we're trying to minimize personal contact. So I would assume that it would be a mailing. But if there's an email on record they might choose to do that and might choose to do both. So it's really gonna be up to the court. Okay. Okay, further questions right now? All right, I don't see anyone raising their hand at this point in time. So again, I will say, well, what's this next point, David? Is that? I just, I highlighted this because I just changed a couple of words here. Same thing. And it's a much smaller change. I didn't actually send this around. I don't think anybody will be upset, but I also didn't want anybody to be surprised that there are a couple of words changed here just to be consistent with the phrasing and the rest of the bill. That's it. That's truly it. Oh, I changed the section number here because it was 11 and now it's 10. And David, so we are, again, I think we're gonna, if there's no further questions for you today right in this minute, I think that there's, we're gonna have a conversation about this after we hear, after we get through our other witnesses for the day and make some decisions on what we feel about, especially with the rental, with the whole bill, but specifically with the rental stuff. And I understand that you'll be meeting with the Senate. The Senate is interested in this language as well and moving forward with it as soon as, as early as tomorrow, perhaps Monday. So we just, as a committee, wanna be able to sign off on it as well before we, you know, just before we pass it to them in this way. Obviously they're able to do what they need to. But I think that it's in the scheme of things we're trying to get these protections out as quickly as we can. So I think we'll set you free and then be in touch with you via email to let you know what happened later on today. I mean, you're obviously welcome to be here, but if you have work to do, please feel free to duck out. Sure. And I'm happy to sign back in as well if you need me to. All right, if we do, then we'll have Ron get in contact with you. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you, everybody. And thank you. And I guess I'll say the same thing to Jean and Angela, because I appreciate again, all of the efforts that the two of you have put into this over the last several weeks to get to this point. And the committee will have a, like I said, we'll have a conversation later on this afternoon about this, but you're free to stay on or you can just sign off and we'll be in touch. And I'm sure you're gonna be working tomorrow. So thank you. All right, I see them waving goodbye. All right, so next up is, so Tucker has left as he said he would. So committee, do we have questions about, and Ron maybe, well, I don't know, do we need to see the language in the bill that we're looking at? I think the question in the section on the vermouth was that there is a, as written, the bill would say that we would be allowing a vermouth that has less than 16% to be sold as a Vinus beverage and that there would be, and then vermouth above 16% would remain essentially fortified wine. And the testimony we heard last week was from the commissioner who did send us an email saying that he took back some of the testimony that he gave regarding some of the conversations that he'd had with the board. The board had not yet made the decisions that he had testified that they were making, but also we received an email from Kobe Schwader. Am I, did I get that right? Kobe, and Kobe wanted the opportunity to testify in response to what he heard last week. And I think, again, given the multiple sections in this bill, this was the last section that we had all pretty much signed off on all of the other sections of the bill or made decisions. I believe we said that we did not wanna move forward with giving the department the ability to charge for their services at this time when it came to festivals. And then there was a question over this section of the bill. So with that, Kobe, I'm gonna unmute you if you can just introduce yourself to the committee and give us your two cents on what we're contemplating here and why it's important to you. Great, thanks. Can y'all hear me? Yes. Okay, great. So I'm Kobe Schwader. I just started a new company in Browlboro for my vermouth, focusing on making a pair of T-flines vermouths and other vermouth-related beverages. And some of this came about because of some of the miscommunication between me and the department of liquor, some of which the commissioner talked about last time, although I disagree with him on some of the points he said, but that I'll leave a moment. My main points for the bill are two, one is that I don't think the system is clear as it is and I have a couple of them. And two, addressing the, is this language just for one business? So to start, I'd like to say that I don't think this system is very clear at all in the area where I'm working. For one, the commissioner mentioned that the classifications are based on the use of spirits and not the, but that's not actually entirely true. For example, a non-fortified wine that happened to get over 16% alcohol would be classified as a fortified wine despite not containing spirits. So it seems that the definitions are around the alcohol level and not necessarily how much spirits are added. Occasion for fortified wines under 16%, at least fortified wines that are not vermouths. So for example, if a producer may have something like a light port that's 10% alcohol, it's not, the fortified wine definition doesn't include that it says anything above 16%, but that wouldn't necessarily fit well into the Venice beverage definition or the spirits definition necessarily. I bring this point up specifically because I have one product that's a fortified apple wine that federally is not considered a vermouth. And currently the Department of Liquor seems to be considering it a vermouth, but if they changed their mind, I don't know where this would fall. That's not necessarily, this is partially in reference to the earlier wording of the bill where it included more than just vermouths in the Venice beverage, which I'm still in favor of. And my last point in the definitions are not clear part is I think just my interaction with permit shows that the system is not clear given that initially licensing, the licensing department told me that it would be a Venice beverage. And then the enforcement department came in and told me it was going to be spirits. And then when we met with the board, the board seems to be leaning towards classifying my products as fortified wines. They have not given an official ruling yet, but at least from what the mayor said last week, that seemed to be where they're leaning towards anyway. So it seems like there could be some help in rewording these that show that everybody knows where all of the, any potential product could fall. Okay, so my second major point is addressing whether this proposed legislative change is just for a single manufacturer. Are we making this change just for me or do other people benefit from it? And yes, obviously the wording would benefit my business quite a bit. Part of my business plan was creating things that I would consider Venice beverages. But in my talks with other wine producers and bars and restaurants, as I was promoting my product, I found that lots of people would be interested in vermouths and frankly, other low alcohol fortified wines also, if they were to get that. So first for all other Vermont wine producers, if this bill, if this wording goes as it is, would be able to a lot of Vermont wine producers already make non-standard wines. They make maple wines or apple wines or blueberry wines. And I bet that with the current popular interest in local herbs and tentacles that you see at farmers markets and things like that, that we would see a boom in some creative products by winemakers and that would allow them to create these products without changing their licensing and still being able to go through their normal sales models. For wine stores, the second class licenses, they would be able to carry a variety of products if the legislature went through. So I've heard from a bunch of my contacts in wine stores that customers do come in asking about sherry quarter vermouth and they're often disappointed when they find out that they can't buy them at the wine store that they're going to, they have to go to the liquor store to get them. And I think the fact that a bunch of my local stores carried my and sold my product in when I was operating as a Venice beverage for the one week that I was operating as a Venice beverage shows that they would be interested in carrying these products and it would sell them to the public. And finally, the bars and restaurants would be able to order these specialty vermouths and if broader wording potentially other fortified wines from their wine distributors. I've heard from bar manager that they have great wine distributors who go all around the world and find these really cool small craft products from Italy and Spain and bring them over and the bar and restaurant, the bar managers are able to buy wines from these people but they're not able to buy say craft vermouths. And there's been a big boom in craft vermouths in Europe recently so there's lots of little manufacturers especially in Spain and Italy some in Germany too. And that trend of the interest in vermouths is slowly coming over to the US that's part of why I wanted to start my business the way I think there's going to be an increase in production and interest in the US too among especially cocktail drinking crowd on more interesting vermouths. And so this change in legislature would allow the bars and restaurants to be able to buy specialty vermouths from all around the world through their wine distributors and not have to rely on some small manufacturer in Italy getting into the Vermont state store through the state agency and then waiting for it to be listed and then ordering especially which isn't feasible and wouldn't happen from a small producer that's not necessarily in Vermont. So to summarize I think that the alcohol definitions are not clear the way they are and I think that they need some changes and I think that the change that is proposed at the moment would in fact benefit not just me but also all the other wine producers the wine sellers and the bars and restaurants throughout the state. So Coby one a couple of points I believe we allowed some wine stores to apply for a fortified wine license is that right? So if these stores if these wine stores do not carry fortified wines they could if they chose to get a permit is that your understanding as well? And that's with the fortified wine. There's the special fortified wine license but they still have to buy it through the state agency. So it allows them to carry it but all the products still have to go through the state agency. Right and then to your first point you were talking about alcohol beverages with a vines that you were saying that there are beverages that are fortified that are under 16% already that are considered vines beverages? Did I hear you say that right? Or did I? Not my knowledge. No, I said the opposite. There are potentially and I don't know if any of these are in the state but you can make a wine that's not fortified that is above 16% alcohol. It's definitely on the top end of the alcohol range but there are wines that are 16 or 16.5% alcohol and those in Vermont would be considered fortified wines even though they're not fortified. Okay, because one of the things that the commissioner brought up and this comes up every time we do legislation especially in the alcohol is the unintended consequence. And that was made clear in the commissioners. One of the commissioners responses was you don't know. I mean, what's gonna happen? And while you're focused on your product do you foresee any kind of unintended consequence of allowing for the alcohol into what's considered vines beverages now? I mean, I know it's again, it's your product but I'm trying to figure out like what you see in your world and I know you're gonna argue for your piece but what do you see as potential unintended consequences of this? I'm just, yeah, it's kind of a question to see how your world view is. I mean, I think a clear definition of what things are included in the vines beverage and that there's an alcohol limit. There aren't that many bad consequences. So I believe you just said anything under 16% as a vines beverage then you get into the question that you were considering at some point earlier about what other low alcohol spirits count as vines beverage, how much of it needs to be a wine product, those sorts of questions. But if the wording is specifically to vermouth sort towards other fortified wines then there's at least a cut that they need to be mostly wine. That they are mostly a fermented fruit sugar that maybe has a small amount of spirits added or other flavorings added. I would be all for more specific guidelines for that also. Currently with what we're considering now under vermouth, vermouth is a very federally is a very specific definition and that involves what alcohol levels and what the base product is and what other things are adding to it. And so I know that the federal definitions are not the same as the state definitions but at least in order for me to make something I'm calling a vermouth I have to go through the federal guidelines to do that anyway. So I guess that's a long way around saying I don't know what other consequences there are but I think as long as the guidelines around alcohol are you're not gonna get that many different changes besides allowing more people to buy and sell it. Okay, Matt Byrong has a question and Matt you're off. You're unmuted. You're unmuted on my end Matt. I am not hearing anything again. Try it. Matt, do you wanna send a text and I'll read it? Okay, so share with us a little bit if you can. You said you got licensed to do this to build your business in a certain way and then the department came and told you differently once you had made your investments and once you had made your product. Can you just share with us a little bit of that history while I'm waiting for Matt to send me a note? Sure. So when I started exploring the possibility of making my business, obviously one of the important things to do is to figure out what the alcohol laws were around what I was doing. And so one of the first things I did, this was in August of 2018. I contacted the department of liquor and they directed me to Mr. Prevo, the director of licensing. And I had several conversations with him about what I was thinking about doing and what I was planning to do and my understanding from those conversations was that if I made my products under 16% they would count as a Venice beverage. So I took that and made my business plan around that, especially around the ability. So in Vermont, you're allowed to get a license to sell directly to retail stores as a Venice beverage manufacturer. You can't do that for spirits or for beer or anything else. It's specifically for a Venice beverage. And so I had planned to do that and I talked with Mr. Prevo about getting that and so that had been my plan was that I wouldn't need to go through a middleman and I'd be able to have a larger profit amount get into the right stores and bars that I wanted to be in by selling them myself. I went through all the licensing process. I got the licenses that I expected from those conversations and then went on to start making my product. What happened then was when I, I basically in early February, my products were done, I started selling them and I saw I was contacting various stores, various wine stores around the state and asking if I could come talk to them and show them my product and see if they were interested. And one of them questioned, they said, well, hey, this is for Muth, for Muth should be a fortified wine which means you should have to sell it to us. And I said, well, I'm pretty sure that I have this right from because it's not like I did this without talking to the Department of Liquor. I'd talking with them. But, you know, I halted everything and set up a meeting with the enforcement agents just to make sure that everything was okay so that I wasn't doing anything illegal. And when they came down and talked to me, I told them the same things I told Mr. Prevo and they actually decided to classify my stuff as spirits, not even fortified wine. They said, no, no, no, you're not making wine, you're making spirits. And I said, well, that's weird because I was pretty sure I was making wine or something that counted as being this beverage. And so that's when I, for the declaratory ruling from the board of the Department of Liquor, just because I thought that was a weird answer. Like if they had come and said, no, you know, we think this falls more under the fortified wine definition. I don't know, that would have seemed more reasonable to me. But so that's when I went to the board and asked about it. And so it's not that I necessarily think that they were wrong about calling fortified wines is that I was very confused by sort of the change of tack by them telling me one thing all through my development and talking with them and then coming down for the site visit to make sure that, you know, the place that where I was making alcohol actually existed. And then all of a sudden the other, that was the licensing department, all of a sudden the enforcement department came down and said something different. That's obviously from my point of view, the department says that I misinterpreted what they said on the licensing end and that it's all my fault or basically making something and calling it something else. I can see their point of view on that, but it was very confusing, especially I'm new to the business. So I assumed that what the licensing department had told me was what I could go by. Okay, representative Byron's question was just he was asking for clarification. He just wanted you to walk him through the infused vine as beverage regulations pertaining to products with herbs, maple, et cetera. Did these fall under the fortified definition? He just didn't hear it correctly because you were breaking up at some point. So would you? Sure. So the fortified definition is only spirits added to them. Now, one of the ways that you can add flavor and one of the ways that I do in my products is that I steep herbs in spirits to make a tincture basically, concentrated flavor and then add that to the wine. If someone were to make just a wine that had herbs steeped in it, which I also do to get different flavors out of the herbs, that wouldn't necessarily be a fortified wine. So it is possible to make something that is like a vermouth but not fortified, that if it's under 16% would I think be considered a Venice beverage, but it's not exactly sure because if you were to do that and then the department were to say, that's a vermouth suddenly get pumped up in the fortified wine category, even though it wasn't fortified because the current wording is all vermouth under 23% count as fortified wines. So it would depend on whether the department would determine that what you may count it as a vermouth or not regardless of whether it had spirits. Okay. Okay, Matt. All right. I've got John, representative Kalaki. Thank you. So Kobe that commissioner said that he thought this had been resolved with you, with his board and then we got an email saying, no, they haven't met yet. But is it your understanding that the board is going to understand your dilemma and that it'll be a favorable ruling from the board or you don't know where that's going yet? I don't know where that's going yet. As far as I know at the moment, my products are still classified as spirits because that was the last ruling given by the enforcement department. At our meeting, we were talking about what defines the difference between a fortified wine and a spirit. I'm pretty sure they won't rule that it's Venice beverage. I hope that they'll at least rule that it's fortified wine, but I don't know where they're falling. From what the commissioner said, I guess I think that they're leading towards fortified wine. And that's what I asked them to of that vision. So if they go towards fortified wine, solve your dilemma about your distribution mechanism in the state or not? No. No, because fortified wines are basically handled as if they were spirits. The only difference is that, as we mentioned before, that wine stores like the salva. Okay. Your connection stops almost every sentence. So there's a little stuttering that's going on. I'm sorry if I hadn't heard it correctly. That's why I was asking you. But thank you. No problem. So essentially if every wine store had the fortified wine license, that would be better off, but not everyone does. Not everyone wants to have that license. But that's pretty much the differential right now, is the availability. I mean, if this were classified as a Venice beverage, it would be distributed by distributors who go statewide into the 14 or 1500 stores that there are, and as opposed to the 80 stores or 78 stores that exist for alcohol. Is that right? I mean, that's kind of the way, no matter how you distribute on your own. Okay. Yes, if it's Venice beverage, I can distribute on my own or I can go through distributors to anyone who has a first or second class license. If it is fortified wine or Venice, or sorry, if it's fortified wine or spirits, then it has to be sold through the state agency. Okay. And where they're doing. But yeah, only to the state stores. Okay. All right, and let me see if there's any, I've got a question possibly coming in here. Hold on a second. Representative Byron, I think the question, Representative Byron's question was, what does a fortified wine license cost? And I think that's, Coby, I would be surprised if you knew what that was for a second class. I think it's not much, but I don't think it was, well, that's not true. At least the local wine stores to Brattleboro, none of them have it because we were talking about what would happen. I don't remember the exact amount. I don't think it's that much either, but it's still, again, it's a choice. I mean, I know that we allow this to happen several years ago. There was a wine store in the Mediver Valley who wanted to serve cell fortified wines. And so this was kind of a, perceived at the time as a big change for the department to allow that to happen. But it is, I think you're right, it still has to be invoiced through the state in order to get to the store, in order to get the second class, as opposed to allowing it to be a vine as beverage, in your case, a vine as beverage and have the ability to distribute it statewide into 14, 1500 stores. So, all right, any further questions for Coby? Coby, I really appreciate you taking the time to testify on this and fill us in on some of the gaps that we had. We will, because this is a non-COVID related bill, I mean, we're gonna continue working on it and we'll have a further, we'll have a deeper conversation about this issue when we get back to it next time. So thank you so much for taking the time. Do you have any last? Thank you very much. Yeah, no, and good, I mean, regardless of how this happens, good luck with your business. It's the craft, the craft distilleries that we've seen or the craft. I don't know, are you a brewer? Are you a vintner? Are you a distillery? Yeah, it's really exciting to see this industry grow and we... It's a muthery. Of a muthery, yeah, there you go. It's always our goal to see businesses like yours to be able to grow and find the right place in our statute. So I'm hoping we can find a place for you that works. So, good luck. And you're free to hang out, you're free to hang out if you like, if not, enjoy the day. Hi, thank you. All right, so committee, we are heading into our second hour, four minutes early. I see that the representatives from the delegation have arrived and I'm gonna take us all off mute for a second just so that I can ask whether or not they have a preferred order. So I'm gonna unmute everybody just so that's Erica. Hello, Chris Saunders, are you here? I am, yep. And Megan, you're here. I'm here. Megan Foster, did you guys draw straws about who would like to talk first to us? I think you're all gonna need to have information for us. Yep, typically we go by seniority. So I think I'll go for Senator Leahy's office, then Erica will go for Senator Saunders' office and then Megan will represent the congressman. All right, so I'm gonna just give me a half a second here to mute everybody back up and Chris, I'll unmute you starting, where'd you go? Here you go. Okay, you are free to go. Thank you so much, all of you for joining us today. Obviously we are the housing and military general, housing and military affairs committee. We've been focusing on rental evictions in our work since about March 12th in response to the COVID crisis. Obviously we're interested in what you can tell us about housing issues, money that might be available for alleviating homelessness, rental assistance, rental arrearages, protections for people who are in tough places, which I think a lot of the CARES Act handled. And then certainly we have some questions about paid leave, but the microphone is yours, Chris, start us off. Okay, so Chris Saunders, I'm a field representative for Senator Leahy here in Vermont. I primarily work on business and economic development issues, transportation and telecom. And just not having spoken to the committee about the various recovery bills. One thing that we are stressing that as I think needed to be mentioned is that the package that has recently passed or the three packages that moved through Congress, they're really focused on stabilizing where we are at the moment. We feel like individuals need support, systems are at risk, and this package was really designed to get resources out the door hopefully quickly to help states, hospitals, transit systems, housing providers, colleges, schools, make it through the next couple of weeks and next couple of months. And so there's gonna be a time to talk about stimulus and recovery, and there will need to be more initiatives coming out of Washington, but this has been the focus right now. As for what is coming down the pipe, I will admit I'm not our housing staffer when we got the topics you were interested in. I'm not sure we saw that. So let me go off the cuff a little bit and say, you know, there are resources that are coming via formula to the state, specifically through the Community Development Block Grant and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program, both of which the state can utilize for assisting folks with housing needs. So, you know, emergency solutions grants, rapid rehousing and helping folks find shelter are some of the things that that program can be used for. And then the state has pretty broad authority to be able to use the CDBG funds in a number of ways. I was planning on the delegation, we kind of split up topics that were under the impression you were interested in. So I was gonna run through some of the supports for employers if that's okay. Does that make sense, Tom? Okay, so there are three primary things out there to help business owners, nonprofits, sole proprietors, independent contractors that were part of CARES. And the first one is a program that the Agency of Commerce worked really hard to get stood up and conjunction with the Small Business Administration. It's called the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. It's a program that would provide a loan up to $2 million to a business with the ability to get an upfront $10,000 grant at the time of application. Within a couple of days, SBA is supposed to provide that $10,000 grant to a business. It is available to nonprofits, sole proprietors, independent contractors. Currently, we're having a little bit of a struggle convincing them that farmers and folks working in the agriculture industry should be able to participate in the program. But that's under review. So that's one program that's available. There's another program that I think a lot of businesses and nonprofits have been focusing on and anxious to hear all the details about. That's the Paycheck Protection Program. This program would provide up to a $10 million loan to a business with the ability to have the first eight weeks of the loan forgiven if they were using the loan to pay salaries, to pay expenses they might have, such as rent or a mortgage, utility costs, et cetera. So Treasury is working on finalizing those rules. Organizations that would apply would go directly to a commercial lender or VEDA or other entities that are gonna be approved to participate in the program such as the Farm Credit Service Agency. So that is gonna be a program that's coming online. They had hoped to be able to start taking applications for that program starting tomorrow. That feels ambitious, but that is what Treasury has been saying that they hope to be able to do. And finally, there was an additional infusion of funding for the network of providers that provide free business consulting, so the Small Business Development Center, the Women's Business Center. There are resources that are going to come out to allow SBDC and Gwen Picallo's group to get additional resources because we know a lot of businesses are having to work through what are some really complicated decisions about how they participate in these programs, which one is a good fit for them and just how they get through this really challenging time. So there are a whole bunch of details that we can go into on these programs, but at the risk of overwhelming folks with stuff that is or is not pertinent to them, maybe I'll pause there and hand it over to Erica for her to talk about her portions. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I think we'll go through Erica and then Megan and then we can open up for questions too. Erica, you're on. Okay, thank you, Representative. And for the record, my name is Erica Campbell and I am an outreach representative and policy advisor for Senator Sanders. And thanks to the entire committee today for inviting our office to testify. I just wanted to say before I start, I am going through my computer and if anybody can't hear me well or I'm starting to break up, just unmute and holler and I can call back in on my phone. So far so good, yep. Okay, great. The federal stimulus package signed on March 27th as Chris mentioned, it was far from perfect but I do want you to know that Senator Sanders fought hard to ensure relief is going to working families. It is the largest emergency relief package in American history. And a significant part of this law is the expansion of unemployment insurance. I did want to let you know that Senator Sanders has called on the US Department of Labor to do everything within its power to help states rapidly disperse these unemployment benefits. And there's still a lot of work that we all have to do to really effectively implement many of the programs that are in the act. So I'd like to briefly go over unemployment insurance. I can also talk a little bit about the paid leave. I think you may have already been briefed on that. I did check your agenda this week and it looked like you did talk a little bit about that yesterday. I don't, I am not the housing person for Senator Sanders but I do just find a tiny bit of information about that but I think it may be best also if we, if I'm not sure if Megan can speak about that a little bit more but we could always send you some information and then if you had more follow up questions about the housing we can get one of our housing experts on to speak with you more. So the act provided 260 billion for unemployment. The pandemic unemployment assistance is really it's a brand new program and it covers individuals who cannot qualify and are not normally qualify and are unable to work because of the COVID-19 public health emergency. So these are self-employed workers, gate workers, independent contractors, sole providers and part-time workers and folks with limited work histories. It will be state of minister but fully funded and the Department of Labor is working extremely hard in getting this program up and running. We did just hear on our office did here there was at two o'clock today there was a town hall Vermont DOL did a town hall and said it might be a while maybe a couple of weeks for these folks to apply. So it's, you know, we're hoping it's was sooner than that. We understand the state DOL is just completely over. It is just inundated. So there's also the additional $600 compensation to every weekly unemployment benefit. That's effective up until July 31st and did just want to note that that is a taxable benefit. I think I'll say that's all I'll say about that. Also there are expanded unemployment benefits are expanded. So to include part-time self-employed and gig economy there's an additional 13 weeks of federally funded unemployment benefits for individuals who've like have already exhausted their state benefits. You know, I think throughout the last year but there will be that sort of expansion and it does provide federal funding to the states that do not have a waiting week period waiting week between applying and receiving the benefits through the 31st of December. A few, we've, you know, I'm sure you have gotten calls and our office has gotten many, many calls from all of our offices from Vermonters with questions about this. And as we know them, we are trying to get information out. A few questions that we have gotten pretty frequently is around this income piece. And it is treated, these benefits like normal unemployment they're treated as not, it's non-work income and it's taxable. So it may affect the eligibility for most government programs like food stamps or three squares from on SNAP, supplemental security income, SFI, low income, energy assistance, LIHEAP and subsidized housing. So that's kind of a big deal. And we wanna certainly make sure that nobody ends up losing benefits or becomes worse off because of this. The bill did though include, it did say that UI and pandemic unemployment assistance will not count towards income for Medicaid and shift eligibility. So it's something for us to consider for the next bill if there is one and just really thinking about how to make sure we mitigate the effects of any negative effects that that might cause. And also just wanted to mention TIP workers who normally would qualify for unemployment can get that additional $600 per week. If they don't have enough income to qualify for UI payments they may be eligible for a smaller payment under 600. So most everybody is gonna get the $600 but for TIP workers that don't quite qualify they may have to work out like a smaller payment. I'm not really quite sure what that looks like. And then also the workers who received the unemployment are not eligible for paid leave. So Tom, did you want me to go over paid leave at all? I know that you had talked about this yesterday. Committee, if you wanna nod your head if you wanna hear more about paid leave or if we wanna hear from Megan first and then maybe come back to it. Let's do that, because of the paid leave program I mean it is a spiral and it gets more complicated as how does an employer balance paid leave versus the unemployment, et cetera and so on. So plus the 50 employee piece of it really affects I think Damien Leonard testified yesterday our legislative council testified yesterday that by that definition alone it doesn't affect 92 point some odd percentage of Vermont businesses. So yeah, so let's pass that on right now and we'll go to Megan and then we'll go in question so far but Megan it's all you, let me, you are unmuted so. Great, thank you Chairman Stevens, members of the committee. For the record my name is Megan Foster. I serve as, sorry, thank you, is that better? I serve as Congressman Welch's legislative director in his Washington DC office. Today I'll talk about the economic impact payments and please note that the information I'm providing is current as of the latest IRS guidance which was published Monday the 30th and we had a brief update last night that provided some good news for social security recipients. As we know people are expecting if you're single with the adjusted gross income of $75,000 you'll receive a $1,200 payment for and that will be $2,400 for married couples under $150,000 and then $500 per dependent child. The definition, one of the most frequent questions that we're getting is what is a dependent child? The definition that was used in the bill is a more restrictive definition. So it's under the age of 17 for what you filed on your tax return. If you filed in 2019 that you had a 17 year old and a 15 year old you will only get the $500 for the 15 year old. You will not be able to get it for any college students, for example. And if you have claimed a dependent on your tax return you are not, they will not be able to get a separate check or separate benefit. I think we, I know our office has got a lot of questions. I assume the Senator's office have gotten a lot of questions about this. Congressman Welch has co-sponsored a bill led by a colleague to fix this problem for future packages if those come in, if those come into play. But it's definitely something that I think we're all very concerned about. For the other big question is for social security recipients, there had been guidance that if you receive social security and you don't normally file that you would have to file a simple tax return. Luckily, the Treasury Department and IRS reversed themselves and said, if you receive social security and you meet the income thresholds you will not have to file a separate form. This is very good news. We're very happy about that. There will still be some folks that will need to file a simple form that IRS will push out and then but they have not finalized what that will look like for very low income people who don't normally file. And what all of our offices will do we will push out this information as soon as we have it and we'll definitely depend on your good committee and others to push it out to your constituents as well because I think that's gonna be a real challenge to reach those folks who don't normally file and who are very low income. The other update that we received last night is we should expect the check or expect the direct deposit the week of April 13th. That's the goal that the Treasury Department has put out. We're really hopeful that the direct deposits will hit then and then for paper checks those will probably be issued start being issued about three weeks after that. And the goal of the Treasury Department is to go from lowest income to higher income and getting the paper checks out. So we're hopeful that that process will go smoothly. We will definitely be in contact with everybody to answer questions as those go forward because I think that's gonna be a big important part of it. But I think it's always important to recognize that this will meet a very small part of the need that's in our community right now. So as we go forward with future packages I think we're gonna have to look at ways that we can continue to prop up folks who are getting left behind right now because it's definitely a scary time for everybody. That's really what I was gonna focus on. So I'm happy to take questions from the members and I appreciate your time and all the service you do for the state. Great, thank you, Megan. I'm gonna unmute Matt Byron, the representative Byron. Are you back on with us? Check your volume. No, do you wanna just leave us again on the chat screen? Do you wanna leave a question on the chat screen? I can't, we can't hear you at all. All right, I'll move over to representative Gonzalez. I know some folks are having, well, firstly, thank you so much for being here today. All three of you. But statistically around the check from the taxes and filing taxes that there's been some confusion on what taxes or if people can file their taxes. How do I phrase this? What, because it's based on your latest tax that you filed that I know some folks are trying to get their taxes done now and the check timing seems very soon in a lot of ways, even though it'll be, feel very late for a lot of folks who are hurting right now. So I'm wondering about that timing of if there's folks can file up until ex-date and would have that most recent tax return be counted or what that, if you know. Yeah, I just double checked the IRS website because they are still advocating that people file their 2019 taxes to use that information to get the payments out, but there's no deadline corresponding. So we don't have a good answer. Given the timing, I would say if people should file within the next week, and that would probably be in the IRS system in enough time for those payments, but I don't know that for sure. Thanks, thank you. We also just found out that if you're on social security and you do not file, then you are automatically going to be getting the payment. You do not have to file. Does that sound right, Megan, to you? That is correct, yeah, that is correct. Okay, Megan, I don't know if you can see in the chat box, but Representative Byron's question for the one-time money, are you using federal adjusted gross or federal taxable income and also taxable income from what year 2018? Question mark. Great question. It's adjusted gross income and it's for whatever, either the 2018 or the 2019. If you had filed your 2019 report, your taxes, it'll use that number. Otherwise, it'll just use your 2018 tax return. All right, Representative Kolecki. Yes, Chris, there's been a lot of, I think hope in the business community that the small business loans could actually be also transferred over to a grant. And for instance, one of our restaurant folks from the farmhouse group, as you probably know, had to lay off 250 people. And so he said there's really, in his five restaurants, there's nothing to get him on against. And so is there a possibility that some of this can be considered or transferred into a grant for the business owners? So the way that would work as a business applied to receive a loan, they would be able to have eight weeks of the loan forgiven. And I think that is what Congress has and Treasury are seeing as a way to incentivize businesses to continue to pay or help them get through the current crisis. You know, I've talked with Jed and a number of other restaurants that are concerned about this. You know, one of the things that has changed in the last couple of days. And so I think we're urging some of the same patients that the governor was urging yesterday because things are rapidly changing. And there's a lot of information and there's a lot of interest. One of the things that has changed in the most readings guidance from Treasury was that this was originally as passed by Congress a 10 year loan window that the business would have 10 years to repay the loan. Congress has moved or the Treasury Department has moved that up to two years. And so some restaurants are saying to us, you know, how am I supposed to pay back a significant loan in two years when I'm not sure when I'm going to start to be able to open my doors? So that's a very valid question and one that a lot of us are scratching our heads at why Treasury took that step and are engaging with them today to see what kind of flexibility they'll put there for a lender to make a loan of a different term. So yes, for restaurants, they're in a very challenging spot and there are a lot of folks working to try to see how we can make sure that the aid is as flexible and as you suggested, becomes a grants and not just a pure loan. We heard that loud and clear as a concern. Okay, and the eight weeks of loan forgiveness is if it's paid for employee salaries, is that correct? There are some criteria that what the loan would need to be used for for it to be forgiven. And I have a, I can share in the chat a document that is a small business owner's guide that lays out some of the details. One of the other key components is that the loan forgiveness is tied to a business maintaining some employment levels. So if they would need to keep on staff or hire back by June, the number of employees that would match what their employment level was around mid-February. So the amount of forgiveness is intended to say we want you to get people back on payroll and be paying them their salaries. And so if you do that, then you will have the loan forgiven. Okay, and this, thank you. And this first $10,000 immediate, is that, you did say the word grant, but I think that grant, what is this first $10,000? Sure, so there are two programs. So the program we were just talking about is called the Paycheck Protection Program. There is a second program called the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. And that is the program where it takes about 15 to 20 minutes to apply for. You have upon submission, there's a box at the end of the application says, please send me an advance $10,000 that would be a grant. And businesses and nonprofits are supposed to receive that funding within three days regardless of whether they are approved for the loan or not. So that for many businesses might be a very viable option and something that makes a lot of sense for them if they're a very small business or don't need a longer piece of operating capital. There are a couple other quirks about that loan. One is you don't request an amount. SBA will tell you how much you are approved for, which is, I know some people have been scratching their heads about. And yeah, the desire is to get money out to people quickly. We do not know yet if it is a guaranteed $10,000. For example, if you were a very small business that maybe only had $20,000 of income a year, we're not sure whether SBA is going to pro-rate that $10,000 based on your economic hardship. So those grants, to my knowledge, have not yet gone out the door, but SBA is working to figure out how that mechanism is gonna work. All right, thank you. Okay, Matt, are you on? Did you could? No. No, the sound didn't happen again. All right. Sorry about that. Representative Triano. Yes. You are unmuted. Okay, so I have two questions. One is I haven't heard from anyone regarding the hold harmless on the experience rating for employers. And we had heard a fair amount about that prior to the release of this package. And I was wondering if anyone could comment on that. The other is that the $10,000 grant that you just spoke of are there earmarks for that money once it's granted? Chris, do you wanna talk about the hold, do you mean the hold harmless for an employer when their employees go on a deployment? Or do you mean? Their experience rating, yes. Their experience rating when they have all their employees go on employment. I understood that to be a state issue, but I could be wrong. And I thought, I think maybe it's both, but I thought I did see that in the Vermont legislation around something around that. But I'm sorry. There were provisions in the federal law as well that took care of that issue. Did. Okay. And we can work on getting you the specific section that clarifies the hold harmless about the experience rating. Okay, thank you. On the $10,000 grant question, the purpose of the loan is really to help businesses with their economic hardship that they're experiencing. I have not yet seen a piece of guidance though that specifies a business has to spend in certain categories of uses for that $10,000. But the goal is to cover expenses with the loan that they would have been able to meet had the disaster not incurred, such as payroll or other operating expenses. That that's the intention behind it, but it's a valid question. Okay. Thank you for representative Gonzalez. So Chris, I had this, but you mentioned that to your payback instead of the 10 year payback. And so I'm wondering if that's for both of the programs or if it's just for one of them and if so, which one? It is for the two year payback is for the paycheck protection program. And I'm trying to look through my document right now to see if there is, whether it specifies the terms of that loan. So let me find that for you and I'll provide the answer as soon as I have it. Thank you. And Chris, I'm not sure if you saw representative Byrongs chat for a request to connect after clearly there's a muting issue happening here. And so if you could reach out, perhaps start with email and then Matt representative Byrong, when you ask your complicated question here, if you could share the information with us on with the committee on email, that would be great. Happy to do that. Representative Hango, you are unmuted. Thank you. Matt's question just made me think of a constituent who has a business that wrote to us today that he has people not showing up to work because it's easier for them just to take the money and stay home. So is there anything being addressed? I mean, since the extra $600 came from the federal government is there anything being addressed about that or talked about right now? So this question has been coming up a lot particularly with folks that are essential workers right now. And so just so I understand your question, are there any tie to the $600 additional unemployment insurance benefit that is tied to trying to help that person stay in their job as opposed to take unemployment? Yeah, I think that would be a good way of phrasing it. As I understand it, somebody who is leaving their position to claim unemployment voluntarily needs to be drawing a connection between COVID and why they are not working. So an at-risk person, for example, would be allowed to stay home and file for unemployment which is a direct connection and a different situation than somebody saying I'm just gonna make the choice on my own. So the framing of it has been people are supposed to have whether they are caring for somebody that's sick or those kind of broad categories and we can share those as well. I will admit, I don't know how DOL is going to interpret those claims and verify information from people. But that's been a concern. One piece, some of the regional development corporations have suggested to us and wanted to clarify that there would be nothing that would prevent a business from taking the paycheck protection program loan and paying workers more during this time. We've all seen a number of businesses either negotiate with unions or find other ways to increase pay right now to keep people in their jobs. But one solution that's been suggested by the regional development corporations is that a business may take the loan, have the loan forgiven because they're using eight weeks of the eight week forgiveness period and could be paying people a higher wage to keep them on the job. But we realize that's not gonna work for everyone and that's kind of a cumbersome balance to a problem that the business did not create. So the business, the business operator just really needs to make sure why his employees are not coming to work. If they have a valid reason, then it's a valid reason. And if not, then they have to address that with the employee who's not coming to work. That's my understanding. And I know there are, I think some provisions and did you guys just pass bill 781? Is that the number of what was just cleared? There are some provisions that call out specifically why an individual can lead. So yeah. Thank you. I think to just add really quickly that Congress is considering a hazard pay right now and talking about that and for essential workers. And I know it's not completely related but I think that having a bump in pay for the folks on the frontline would also potentially also help retain some of those workers. Obviously if they have to leave, they have to leave and we need to have that protection as well. Thank you. Chris, you mentioned earlier in your opening comments and about where farmers have not been included in this yet and I'm just curious to know what steps we're taking to, I mean, and if they do become, I mean, I don't recall anything except through their own farmer's insurance or what have you where they might be available for the same kind of same kind of income replacement that we're talking about for other independent contractors. Yeah. So the farmers are eligible to participate in the paycheck protection program. It's the economic income injury disaster loan program that they're currently we're trying to work on to make sure that they can participate. I guess we gave the Treasury and SBA a little bit too much leeway in writing the rules on this. And so the delegation I think is sending a letter today. Erica, correct me if I'm wrong to the Treasury saying, you need to fix this. And Erica's an ag specialist where I'm not but additionally in this package, the Senator included $9.5 billion to assist agriculture businesses. So there are other forms of assistance. Dairy was specifically called out in that package and we're working with USDA on how they are going to implement those payments to help folks that we know are really hurting, particularly given the price of milk right now. But Erica, if you do want to speak to the ag component. No, that was well said. I don't think I need to add much. We really just need to ensure that that additional money for agriculture comes to our producers. It's really unclear what USDA is intending with this money. And then the other piece is pushing for farmers, small farmers to be able to fly for the idle loan. So yes, we will be hopefully that letter will be going out by all three of our offices by later this afternoon. Great, thank you. Representative Byrong had a question on the chat. What about bringing the employees back off unemployment for regular wages under the PPP? This can be less than that max UI plus 600. And then he throws in $15 by 40 is $600 by itself. I mean, you could do that. They can't be obviously on both unemployment and PPP, but you could have them go on unemployment. If they're on unemployment now, or if they're about to go on, you just, I think that you just have to rehire those workers back by June. It's slightly unclear by the legislation, but the employees will see that as a bad financial decision. That's right, right, absolutely. It's like, if you, sorry, I think I muted myself. You're good now, you're good now. Okay, but it's a huge thing that a lot of the businesses are asking, like, well, am I gonna be able to get my workers back? Through June 31st, they are going to have this extra $600. So for some lower wage workers, I mean, that's a pretty significant amount of money on top of what they would be getting for unemployment benefits. So that's why some of these creative conversations around can the PPP, can we pay more? Can employers claim more additional extra bump and pay, hazard, not necessarily hazard pay, but extra pay to make sure that they're well compensated? Or maybe there's other ideas on the table, I'm not sure. And that's kind of type in. But the employees will see that, you saw that, yep. If they refuse to come back, is that a voluntary separation by the employee? And that would make them ineligible for UI. I mean, that's a, I don't know that question. That is a good question. I mean, they technically are able to receive it up until July 31st. The $600, this is with the UI with the $600. Right, with the 600, right. But then again, that's given the conditions that they would be allowed to get it in the first place, given, meaning various impacts from COVID. So if somebody starts back up, Chris, do you know, or Megan, do you know that? And it, well, it's an interesting interplay too with the state. I mean, the state, we made it lenient enough so that if people felt that they were at risk at work, that they could be self, self, they could be self unemployed. They can choose to go on unemployment if they felt like they were unsafe at work. So it plays right into Matt's questions too. Chris, did you have any further on this? I don't know the answer to that, but we'll work on finding it out. Okay, and if we're paying them to stay home, then they, yeah, right. Yep. Matt, these are, what are you, a business person or something? You just have these questions there. I just like to take a minute now and just thank the three of you for coming in. Given how busy you all must be in answering these kinds of questions for all of your constituents in all the different many sectors, I'm kind of pleasantly surprised that you didn't pull in interns from 2017 to help you answer all of the screen time that you need in order to help us out, understand this. And certainly when the rules start being written, that's kind of the next chapter. And I think we're gonna need you again. And I'm sure we will be in touch with you as a whole body to find out what the rules are as they're being imposed. Cause some of these programs sound great on paper right now, but our local experience after Irene with FEMA in particular and with the public private insurance plans is that it's never that simple when it's dealing with this federal money. So if there's no further questions from committee, I would just, I'll just thank the three of you for filling us in and get some rest and do good work. Thank you so much. Thanks, Tom, I appreciate it. I've added a couple of documents to the chat. Our housing team did put together a housing summary. So rather than have us read it to you, put it there for your perusal as well as a small business owner's guide. So we really appreciate the engagement and the work that you're doing. It's a good partnership between the federal government and the state. And I know our office will be happy to come back anytime. Great, and just, if you get a chance to download Damian Leonard's, the summary that he wrote that was published yesterday, it's a really good, it's a really good breakdown from the state's perspective about what he sees and if there's some stuff that you can correct or make better, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you. All right, thank you. So committee, we have a few minutes left here. I wanted to get back to our next steps with the language with respect to rental evictions. We have a committee bill that has several elements to it that we've gone over. We have the elements of the family leave program. We have the whole rental eviction and then we have the section asking for funding. Part of the documents that Earhart Monk shared with us last week was a breakdown of what money was coming to the state as Chris Saunders had mentioned. There's a formula for a lot of these things we get a small state formula as well. Burlington area gets their own as the only urban area in Vermont, they get their own chunk of change on top of what the state gets. And so we still don't have any idea of how that money is gonna be disseminated but a lot of the money that was in Earhart's document is going to be used for programs like what we have put in the bill, whether it's rental assistance or arerages, whether it's housing, whether it's through the emergency services programming. As we heard yesterday from the Vermont State Housing Authority there are gonna be some protections for people who receive section eight vouchers or are in housing that have section eight vouchers attached to them. So there's a lot of different things going on but I would just sort of like to get, I'm gonna unmute everybody and sort of get an idea of where we are with this in what we think we are comfortable passing along to the Senate as language that they can then use. My understanding is that they are meeting as early as next week to try to determine, I mean, GovOps, their committee, as Tucker mentioned earlier today, their GovOps committee is going to be meeting and starting to talk about what the changes they need to do to their rules in order to have remote voting, but they are much closer to having remote voting on individual bills than we are in the house. And so in conversations with the chair of the Economic Development Committee and general committee over in the Senate, Senator Sorotkin and his vice chair, Senator Clarkson, they have heard our bill. They will be hearing, regardless of what we do today, they will be hearing the agreement that was made between the Landlord Association and Legal Aid tomorrow morning and their request to us is to be able to take the work that we've done and pass it to them and let them put it into a bill that would then come back to us. And so if they made any changes, we'd obviously have an opportunity to review it and then make either further changes or concur on the work that they do it. But basically what I would like to be able to do, if we can, before four o'clock is to have a straw poll and make a decision as to whether or not we feel comfortable passing on the work that we've been doing for the last, I don't know, almost two and a half weeks to get to this point. So with that, I'll just leave it open to conversation everybody, I've unmuted everybody, if you choose to stay on mute, that's fine. But any thoughts should we, so I guess what's in front of us is, should we keep the family leave language in the bill as we see it or just take it out for now and return to it at a later time when we see how more of these programs sugar off or there and so mics are open. Lisa. I guess I'm still not certain how I feel about all of the language. I would like to see it, I think John said the other day, let's take out the employment piece and make this about housing and that would make it simpler, I think, because I feel like the Federal CARES Act is covering a lot of what we were gonna talk about. It seems like a number of things have been taken out of the employment part of ours. The housing part, I'm still very, very unclear about the money coming from the feds that is going to go into various programs that we support. And I just wanna make sure that there's not a duplication of effort. I would really like to see where the federal money is going. The part that we worked on with the advocates that David Hall was with us for, I think all sounds good, especially given that both sets of advocates on either side of the equation were in agreement. So that part I would have no problem with going to the Senate. I'm just really, section eight, I just really don't know because I don't know where that federal money's gonna go and the whole employment section, I'm not sure, I think that's section five and four. I'm not really sure if we still need it all. But I think we do need some of it because some of it addresses very, very small businesses. So I guess I'm too confused to take a vote. Sorry about the stuff. If you can see it on my screen, I gotta figure out how to get rid of it. But I'm done talking. Thank you. We just see you. Oh, okay. John, sorry. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Deanna, you did have your hand up, Deanna. And then John. So I was just looking through the fact sheet that we just got to thinking about, Lisa, your question of the federal funds and in the fact sheet about the CARES Act, it is coming to the state. And so then we can use those funds in the way that we are asking that this bill in front of us does. So in terms of duplication of efforts, it really from this fact sheet is not a duplication of efforts, but instead is getting an impugn of cash from the feds. And so what we have in front of us is a really great structure to bring in that money from the feds and use it. So the fact sheet, I have a question on that. Was that just made available this morning? No, it was just tied with us right now. I'm sorry? It's in the chat. Oh, I can't. For some reason I can't read the chat. So that's a problem for me. So Lisa, what you need to do is you need to click on chat. I do, I have the chat up, but I can't scroll down, Deanna. So that's been a problem all along for me on my laptop, which I'm not super familiar with how to use, but I can't scroll down any farther on the chat. So all I can see is like very small pieces, but it would be great if Ron could somehow put that on a committee page so that I can read it. So that's something that just came to us. He can easily do that. And so my point, Lisa, is that the federal money and the way that that is written is, it solved your concern because the way that the federal money is coming to us, that if we have a scaffolding of a bill and we have plans of how we're going to support the monsters, that we will then have federal money to do that. And so that's my point. Okay, I would have to read that for sure before I weigh in on that. And then my question is, why do we have a placeholder of $5 million for appropriations for our portion of the bill? And second part to that question, does DCF already do all of these things that we're stating in our bill that they should now do? So that's a two-part question. I'll address the $5 million placeholders. It's been there since we started working. It was done as an estimate and it was done as taking into account what we know of how much it's been costing to provide, for instance, the emergency shelters that existed between November and April, what the request was for the rental or rearages. I believe that we had a request to move it from the 800,000 that's in the HOP program now, upwards to $2 million, if possible. That was prior to the COVID event happening. The programs that are listed are programs that DCF and their partners as listed in the bill have direct access to, but the question ends up being that this is a placeholder. It is not usually our place is not to appropriate money directly, but it is appropriate for us to make suggestions that an appropriation should be made. And so this wouldn't get passed. It wouldn't even get passed through the Senate unless their appropriations committee was going to okay that. So that's the best explanation I can give right now. I think this is back when we were still in the building and we were compiling those services that we were putting together. Those were put together with the help of administration officials and advocates as well to make sure that we were covering as much as we possibly could imagine. So now I'm still confused because we're gonna get this money from the federal government. So why do we need to ask for money from the state? And I know that DCF works with various agencies but are we going to second part of the question? Are we going to be asking them to do something new and different that they don't currently do with all of this outreach and data collection, et cetera? I believe that DCF does all that already. And again, in terms of the appropriation itself, again, it would depend. I can't answer where this money is going to end up. It may end up in the general fund which would make the language here. But again, for today's conversation and your points are well taken but the point for today's conversation is what, obviously you're uncomfortable with that language and that's, I can appreciate that. The question will be, how does that, I guess a short way of saying is that that money may flow to these sources anyway because that's what they are intended for. This is language that's a little bit more specific. If you are more comfortable with taking the number out, I mean, I think it's important for us to say that we've identified these kinds of services that are gonna be necessary for people who may be experiencing the end the need for those programs. But I think the number itself is something that will either change or can change. If you're uncomfortable with passing that number along then so be it, we'll consider that. John? Well, I have a couple of thoughts. My first is that I think for the time being I would say let's take the Page Family League portion out of this bill until we really understand it and can include that somewhere else. But to expedite this, I like leaving the appropriation in but I think I like that it's to be used with the issues that we list on page eight of the bill, 21 lines, but that we don't create a new structure for it that it is actually the Department of Children and Family Services is able to use as a appropriation of up to $5 million to fill in emergency services that includes these kinds of things that we list so that when we finally figure out the federal dollar is coming in that the agency can work with this part and say, okay, what's falling between the cracks now? And so the thing I don't like about this is that there's like a new structure that has to be created. And I think in this emergency, we just have to trust the good work that's happening and not make this more complicated because it's not that much money. And so I think that would hinder responsiveness. So keep $5 million and keep it just to Department of Children and Family Services. And then the eviction stuff I think is great and we should absolutely send that to the Senate so that we can actually get consideration because the fence have done the thing with HUD, five of our counties have done one thing. We hear from the judiciary that it's essential that there's a guidance from the legislature on this. This is imperative right now to stop evictions and keep people safe. So to me, that's almost the highest priority in these components of the bill to get immediate action on. So those are my thoughts on those three sections. It seems to me that the HUD money would be coming to Vermont in the form of a block grant. And the notion that $5 million might get past appropriations at this point in time, certainly causes some doubt in my mind so that again, formating these monies into a block grant, it seems to me that the question would be, can we use the HUD money for this $5 million placeholder that we're looking at? And I disagree with you, John. I think when we're talking about paying rental rears and things that are absolutely pertinent to what the rest of the bill states as far as evictions and foreclosures, I really do think they belong together. And I would be in favor of keeping all the pieces of this bill together. All three pieces? Yes. Including the family leave portion. Now that you mentioned it. Well, I think we discussed this yesterday where there was some discussion that the family leave portion can be dealt with if it needs to be soon after that the eviction protection is the number one. Yes. And that the other services are definitely number two. And I just remind us that, we will see whatever the Senate sends us back. This is the odd thing about this crisis is that we're not finishing our work with a set solid vote that's gonna send this bill to the floor or to the next committee. We're sending this to the Senate who's then gonna send it back to us. And that is admittedly not the way that we usually, we are usually doing this, but we were both in a position of trying to get this, expedite this as quickly as we can. And that might be through using this. So some of our concerns and some of our confusion may be we have more time. We have more time to contemplate this as it moves back to us. Mariana, did you have a hand half up? Were you looking to comment? Yeah, I was thinking probably leaving the family leave, the family leave portion of this out at this juncture is probably a good thing. And I also have concerns about that earmarking money at this point, which will, is supposed to come from state funds, at least that, because this is, I think, I also am not so comfortable with that because we are gonna be getting an influx, an infusion of funds. So I don't know if we need to designate $5 million from state funds. So what if we use language when we transmit this to the Senate of something along the lines to the extent that federal funding is available to cover the expenses incurred, comma, we think these are the things that we need to focus on, that the money should be spent on. Is that sufficient? Yeah, yeah. Okay. It's a classic line, but it at least puts across the intent, which again, the reason I think having the money even to this point, to have it be part of this conversation is to really illustrate how deep this problem may be. I mean, I'm still receiving emails from our local homeless shelter everybody is stretched thinly here and it is impossible to a degree to put a number on it, but I definitely hear that perhaps the best way to move forward is to say, rather than take it directly from our bank account, which we may not have is to use money to the extent, because there is, I mean, I can look at the list of money that's available and figure out that there might be up to X number of dollars, but I don't know, you know, I haven't seen the spreadsheet deeply enough to know whether or not that money can be spent on rental assistance or rental arrears. So- I think that's a more prudent way to go though, because you can always put the money in. I mean, we can always go back and say, okay, we will earmark a certain amount of money. But the issues to be clear though, for today to be clear, is the committee comfortable with the language if it didn't have the number attached to it? Well, I'm looking at the summary that we did receive from Leahy's office that I printed out and $4.6 million of housing assistance scheduled for Vermont through HUD. So, you know, that's pretty close. So I do think that attending to earmark this money in these categories that we have listed here is an important piece of the bill. Okay, and so- Tom, I wanna be clear, I love earmarking it. I don't like setting up a different reporting structure though. So you're asking about the language in this bill. So I would- How do you, how are you talking about that the DCF will be working with those agencies and those groups that have already, you know, that are listed in there like the HCE? Page eight, line 20, Department of Children and Family shall develop a process for outreach to community partners, landlords and tenants, develop an expedited application progress for emergency relief, develop criteria for prioritizing emergency funding based on, and they, it's like, well, they're already doing this. And so why are we asking? It's like an added layer of structure. That was my question. It was you. So I would suggest we, I like what we've identified as a part of this. I would strip that out. I would suggest stripping that out, but not setting up a separate process. If I understand it, it's that language isn't isn't about making them create a separate process, but about allowing them to keep control of the process. And so that it's not saying, oh, you have a process, scrap it, do a new one. It's saying it is within your control to decide how you do it. And so that they, they maintain the authority to do what they've been doing right now is the way that I understand it. And if people feel like that language isn't as clear as it needs to be, if that's also the intent of what folks have, then maybe there's a way to augment those lines in some way. Okay, Lisa. So the reason I thought that it was obligatory, and I think John's reading it the same way is right in the beginning of section eight, which is on page eight, it says the Department of Children and Families in coordination with blah, blah, blah, shall adopt policies and procedures to administer funding for housing related emergency relief that is necessitated by the spread of COVID-19. However, this is a new situation, and I'm saying this to clarify for myself as well as for John, because Deanna just brought this up. This is a new emergency situation that nobody right now has jurisdiction over. So this is something DCF likely already does for other housing situations, but because this is a new emergency situation, and I see Deanna nodding her head, they have to be directed to add this to their list of duties because of the emergency situation. Am I correct, Chair, in saying that? Because I think that's what the intent of this is. I think the, well, I'm gonna have to like split some hairs here, because the intent is, the intent, my memory of the intent is along the lines of what Representative Gonzalez was saying, which was to direct DCF in this particular case to use the tools in their toolbox and the people that they already work with in order to do this. I don't think you're wrong in saying whenever the word shall is used, and shall with respect to this particular crisis. I think that fit in with the immediate, as we discussed yesterday, that this is session law, right? This is applicable only to this particular crisis. So there, you're both right. So. I'd say I'm not wrong either if I could interrupt because eight follows seven and seven was five million to be appropriated from the general fund to DCF for housing related stuff as defined in section eight. If we take out the five million dollars and we're just are giving guidance that we want them to include the list of things here. So let me just see is three weeks old. They're already doing this work. And well, let me, let me, let me just, let me just throw out different, again, I'm treating like I'm treating my next communication with the Senate as a, you know, as an email or as kind of like a memo of saying this is what we, this is what this committee felt like. And I don't have a problem saying that, you know, we're solid on the eviction stuff. We don't need to, we don't need to talk about family leave. And when it comes to this portion then, and what I'm hearing is if you're going to include this in your, in your work to focus on, you know, to the extent possible, to the extent that these funds may be available that, I mean, that, that, and then just say we're, we want to make sure that there's not a, that there's not a new infrastructure being set up that, that, that works against what's already been in, that's already in place. And I will share that email with everybody when I do write it, if that's where we end up. And then, and if I get with the, with the, with the invitation at the end of that email saying, hey, committee members, if I've misrepresented this, please feel free to, to chime in. But how, is that sufficient to say that we're, we're not, we're not, we don't want to see a whole new structure being created, but that we want to make sure that the existing structure is addressing this particular crisis for these on, and with these particular spotlighted issues that we, that we've pinpointed. Is that? I see, that's not a, Yes, as long as this is what DCF typically does in any situation where emergency housing is needed. Then I think that's, I think, I think it is. I think, I mean, in, in all of their, you know, I mean, this is when we talk to Sean Brown, this is when we've talked last year to Karen Vestine and this year to Jeffrey Piffinger and me, people who are these, this is, yes, this is the category of the people, this is directed towards individuals and families that have the least. And these are the folks that they work with, these are the partners that they work with all the time. So, but I, but I think what's, what I'm hearing is that, is that it's not about creating a special emergency process. It's not, it's, I mean, they deal with general assistance. Everything is an emergency in general assistance. So, but it's not creating a cubicle that says COVID-19 only and that it's, that it's operating within its, within their existing structure. And we're not going to have the appropriation in there because it does say they shall work to administer funding. That could be any funding. To the extent that funds are available from the federal government is where we'll start with. How's that? That's fine. There was one other section in here and I'm just trying to find the line. Oh yeah, page eight line 17 says they could use this funding for the purchase or lease of existing housing units for the purpose of isolation or quarantine. I don't know how likely that ever would be with the, with them taking over places like sports centers, auditoriums, national guard armories, you know, places like that. Are they really going to need to spend money to buy or lease existing housing units just to isolate or quarantine people? Short answer, yes. The, and I believe the administration has, I want to say, I want to say almost two weeks ago now has gave the approval to do that if necessary. So this is, this is, you know, Sheppley and Housing Trust could identify based on their reading of real estate listings, five motels in Chittenden County that were for sale. Okay, I wasn't thinking motels because Christon Lee came in and talked about that. I wasn't even thinking motels. I was thinking more like houses. No, it's, no, this would, this is geared towards, this is geared towards the motels. And, and I don't believe purchase, you know, purchase was something that came up in the first blush and it's more probably more geared towards leasing right now. Okay. So. See, I believe that all the barry shelters, Tommy, you might know more about this, were emptied and all their residents were placed at the O'Connell Lodge and those vouchers draw down from DCF. So that's already happening in their scope of things. That's correct, Chip. That has happened now in the O'Connell Lodge. Yeah. And that's what they're working on as well in Chittenden County, but they haven't been as expeditious as they have been in barry. That moved quite quickly. And I thought that was an outstanding piece of work actually. And actually in the O'Connell Lodge it's actually slowly being emptied out as well. Oh yeah. Yeah. And I don't know the reasons exactly why, but they have been, they were, they were available and I just don't know exactly what happening. But again, this is going to be an issue with homeless population is finding places that are more permanent than what we're used to. Right. And they also provide support services in that same area actually as well. Those people that are placed do receive support services which we know keep people or more likely to keep homeless people in residence where they're placed. Okay. And I see David Hall has joined us. David, are you there? Do you want to be there? Or do you want me to just contact you? I can't unmute him. He's got me on super legislative council mute. Oh, there we go. David, are you there? I'm here. So I'm going to just verbalize what we were just talking about in terms of where we think, and I'm going to write an email to Senator Sorokin and Clarkson and CC the whole committee and you. But basically what we just, I think we're just about finished discussing was our recommendations to the Senate if they're going to use this language in their considerations tomorrow and in a Monday. Basically, we don't feel like the family medical leave language is necessary right now. When it came to the sections that had a direct appropriation, we were just going to suggest that we support language along the lines of to the extent that funds are available rather than a specific number. And that rather than, there's a conversation about whether or not we were saying that the DCF should create a whole different system of implementing these emergency procedures. And we just want to make clear that we want to make sure that they're using their existing emergency procedures to address, to then address the things that we listed. And then the eviction proceedings that we've been working on for the last two weeks are clearly the highest priority. And this committee seems to be comfortable with passing along that language to the Senate as it's been negotiated through up until this afternoon. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay, Emily? Yeah, I just wanted to ask a question. Do you think if we're gonna move forward with doing what you just outlined there, do you think it makes sense to have a couple of our committee members sit in on, listen in on some of the work that's going on in the Senate related to this language and maybe sort of be a liaison? I'm thinking more along the lines of trying to expedite a process to get to the end game as soon as we can, as smoothly as we can. It's just a thought, and I think it has been employed by other committees, but it's just something I wanted to throw out there. I think that that's a good idea. If we want to, is there anyone who has time tomorrow? They meet at 9.30. Is their first, I think they meet from 9.30 to 11.45. Tomorrow, someone wants to sit in on that. If anybody besides me wants to sit down. A question about that. I mean, I've listened to some of their calls back before we were doing Zoom and of course couldn't say anything. So now that everything is on Zoom, would you be suggesting Emily to actually speak because that just seems to me like it's going way outside of what we're typically allowed to do? No, that wasn't my suggestion. Okay, so no speaking, just listening. I said sitting in on committee to be aware of the process that they're entering and we can help advise offline if need be, but no, I wasn't, I'm just trying to sort of make a connection between our committee and the work we've done on this to the work that they are going to do so that there's no misunderstanding and just for clarity and expediting the process. That's all. And that, and we have always been called in as witnesses, at least as introductory witnesses. And so that we would not be, I would not want to be a junior member of a Senate committee in this process. I would rather be a, Matt, I think they're meeting at 9 tomorrow morning if you're available. I could certainly be available as well, but if there were, we can ask Ron if a couple of people want to be invited in, I think we need to just work through Ron to make sure we get that invitation. One, and the nice thing about this process is that since we're sitting in, we don't need an invitation. We just need to go to the YouTube channel and watch what's happening. That was my suggestion. Yeah, so it, yeah. So... What time is our training tomorrow though? 11. 11, okay, thank you. And that's expected to take up to upwards of an hour is what I've heard from Ron. So, so David, again, I will send an email this afternoon or early this evening with again, with a written explanation of what we've come down to. And it's just something, if you're working with the committee tomorrow that you'll know in advance, but we're solid on the, because we spent so much time on the eviction thing. I hope we're solid on that. And then again, this is, a different process than what we're used to. And we're not gonna get used to it because eventually this crisis will be over and we will be back to our old rules and we will be back to being in the building. But in response to what we're seeing that we need to get done, this is probably the quickest way to expedite it at this time. So thank you, Emily, for that suggestion. I think obviously YouTube meetings are available for everybody. John? Well, I think that this is the nice opportunity in this crisis that the House and the Senate can work more collaboratively like this. I think it's a really nice model for us to, rather than all do our separate bills. So I hope we learn from this and see how this plays out for us. And if we come together with, you know, I think we're both starting with the same ground. It's kind of a great opportunity. So I hope this really works. I hope so too. I mean, I really do. So last thing I have on my list is to just say that, I'm not sure yet what our meeting schedule for now and next week is going to be. We still have to work on, I don't want to have a conversation now, I'm tired, but we still need to work out what we heard about the Vermont Vermouth situation a little bit. So just make sure your notes are fresh for when the next time we meet and we'll talk about that. But I expect to hear more. We, I think we're all gonna receive an email from the speaker this evening, perhaps this evening, hopefully as soon as this evening, perhaps tomorrow morning on an update on when we're gonna be able to get together next. And also I think we're, she's got to check with IT to make sure we're Zoom capable. And then we can, and then there's security issues that have to be developed as discussed in the beginning of the meeting so that we will probably not know tomorrow what our schedule for next week is going to be, but as soon as I know, you'll know. Can I ask a question about that just to know if we should be keeping Mondays free as well or not? Do you have any idea? I think we're adhering to, I would only, I think we're adhering to a Tuesday through Friday schedule until I hear differently. I know that the Senate may meet on Monday, but they also do that on occasion as well. So I don't think I would ever call a meeting on like kind of Saturday or Sunday before a Monday meeting. Okay, great. We would be getting an email from Ron regarding this training tomorrow. We did. We did. Yeah, it was early afternoon maybe. Yeah. So, Ron, I think- If anyone didn't get it, let me know and I'll happily resend. Okay. Was it a Zoom meeting? Yes, it was. It was a regular outlook invitation, outlook calendar invitation. Okay. You came at noon, Chip, 1203. On lead Gmail? Yes. Yes. Okay. Remember, we also got the email to IT to make sure we signed in to this account ahead of time. So everybody has to follow that email as well and that didn't come from Ron. Great. I have a question about that because the chief sent us an account set up which I've done and I've also downloaded Everbridge as an app onto my phone. So now I'm assuming I'm ready for the training, but I'm not sure. You're done. Yeah. That's what everyone else has to make sure. That's what I did this afternoon right before this meeting. You're way ahead of me, Tommy. So, all right. And anything else, Ron, if you could just sign us off and...