 and we are back. So we've straightened out that we have 20 million roughly to deal with and that if we can find a way we're sure we can use it there might be more but the big question is how do we get this out the door with any surety we can use it and if we don't use it what's the backup plan and well Madam Chair one of the things that I think we do need to do is make sure that as we as we craft the bill that we leave sufficient flexibility that if those desirable things that we want to use it for just physically can't be done but we can get some internet into the hands of people who don't have it that we leave enough discretion so that it can be done and and with the least negative impact on the way we want it done on the long term yeah in the long term so it doesn't preclude a CUD going in when they're up and ready three years two years six months from now same time what we don't want to do is have a situation in which we tell people who have zero internet well you got to wait two years because we got to give a preference to the CUD and I don't think we I don't think that should be our policy I don't either I think if those kids are home for another three months next year and they have to go to Walmart to get their homework absolutely um yeah they they need to be connected they are missing Senator Benning's wife reading them a bedtime story every night so something wrong with discount homework ma'am chair pardon discounted discount homework at Walmart they might pencils okay so Brandy you and Chris have an amendment and Maria somebody has an amendment drafted something and it's based on what we've done and but it's by no means perfect over the past several days and indeed between the two of them maybe a couple of changes we make as we talk but it might be useful to have Maria go through the amendment and then we can address it as as as she's presenting yeah I think it would definitely be helpful okay and I just before we turn it to Maria can I just tee it up a little bit and and say we we I think broadly are trying to say yes to the house but not um being quite as conscriptive of as they have done they seem to maybe they are comfortable with their guesses of what can go in which pot but I I don't know that I have confidence that two million is the appropriate amount in the one slot that they have an 11 million somewhere else so I think broadly we're trying to give the department more flexibility um but also be protective of our sort of long-term interest and that's the balance and um I don't know that we've hit it but that's what we were trying to do at the same time recognizing that uh tomorrow or the day after we're going to go home for a period of time and that period when we're gone is going to be a very critical period for getting up and running what needs to what needs to happen and so we did uh place in here a role for the joint it oversight committee the joint committee that exists off session so as somebody providing some oversight of this process between now and the time we come back i'd like me to pull up the document now and faith can you make me a co-host you're all set thank you is that visible to everybody yes okay great so uh as the senator's just explained um this is essentially collapsing two of the programs the line extension program um and the getver mantras connected now program so there was two million and one 11 million in the other so this is now just one 13 million dollar appropriation uh but many of the provisions uh the conditions of each of those programs have been uh captured here so we'll go through them we'll just you know briefly go through uh subsection a to clarify what the overall mission of this new combined program is so it's called the COVID response accelerated broadband connectivity program the program administered by the commissioner consistent with the requirements of this section the purpose of this program is to rapidly and significantly increase broadband connectivity consistent with the federal parameters applicable to expenditures under the federal coronavirus relief fund in a manner that best serves the state's goal of achieving universal 100 megabits per second symmetrical service by 2024 as specified in section uh 202 c could just interrupt for one second uh chris isn't it correct that that 13 million dollars which is the 2 million plus 11 in the underlying bill is actually raised to 20 million based on the info that we got from uh senator kitchell yeah i was developed last night when we thought we had 13 okay but in that 20 there's also the 800 thousand for um there's two in the 11 but then they also have the 500 for the COVID response recovery plan and the 800 now the telehealth connectivity program isn't my recommendation is that we don't worry about the numbers right at this moment and come back but they have that it's the 800 that's in there for the cud planning community response right that's correct that's correct okay okay and that's the same number that the house had yes thank you uh okay for that particular program yes okay um so then it goes on to say to achieve this purpose commissioner has given broad discretion to allocate funding as he or she deems appropriate subject to legislative oversight as required under subsection m of this section to support the following programs and initiatives and so you'll see listed here and just um if i can just back up for a second a lot of the i'm going to call it boilerplate language but because the house had two separate programs there are a lot of similarities i took all of that language out of um each kind of uh sub program and put it in more general language um which will be captured uh in uh the subsections that come towards the end in this section um in any event there is still a line extension customer assistance program and we'll go through the details of all of these um but maybe just get through them once so you understand at least the context of what's how it's being allocated there's the get-for-monters connected now initiative there's and all of these are subject to the commissioner's discretion based on the need um there's uh the COVID response temporary broadband lifeline program again commissioner's discretion as to whether to uh create and implement this program and there's the connectivity initiative which is the existing connectivity initiative and this is just saying if there are grants that can go out through that RFP process within the parameters of the CRF funding that that is the vehicle that will be used and i did highlight a couple of things uh just to clarify that to the extent you want to provide funds for fixed wireless service um i think this is the vehicle this is the program and the conditions of that program to the extent not further specified here that would apply and we can um discuss that further and then i also just wanted to highlight that under the existing connectivity initiative the funds are to go towards underserved and unserved areas and underserved for purposes of that program are areas that do not have access to for one i just wanted to highlight that uh in case you wanted to hear that some of the wireless was for one oh so this is these are the areas that would be eligible for funding for it so they're under sir all right that's the air these are areas that are eligible under the current connectivity initiative all all of the funding and if this is specified later on through this program has to meet a minimum of 25 three service if you want to adjust that uh we can talk about right now that is specified that the funding here is for 25 three so let's just quickly we'll kind of go through it i mean at this at this point that there perhaps ought to be a definition that says that projects consisting that projects that fall under this particular paragraph should receive currently receive less than 25 three i'm sorry so do you want do you want them to receive what i'm really asking is in in term as clarity as to what we would be providing under this sub paragraph four would we be would we be saying that uh projects that could be completed consistent with the care act means a project you know has to be a project that delivers at least 25 three uh you you would be saying that you would be saying that under four okay because the current connectivity initiative requires 25 three and uh in a in a subsequent subsection it specifies that all of the funding here is for 25 three you can lower that or you can adjust that but so right now you're setting a floor and all of the funds would have to go to projects that meet 25 three i just wonder if you know should should we say that more directly so that people don't get lost in the verbiage like i just did uh quite possibly it might be helpful just to go through and see if if that's addressed okay and if not then absolutely we can make it abundantly clear so there's no confusion because we did hear that some of these wireless systems depending on the spectrum you're hooked up to did the ten ones but if you're getting four one ten ones a lot better um i'm thinking maybe at some point and we're not going to do this tonight we might want to at the end i i think you've got jtalk in there um say you know you can get a deviation from this with the permission of jtalk or joint fiscal just in case you can't get enough money out the door i think that's a good idea for 25 i'd really get it out the door for 10 then send it to the ui fund i think and then that's one of the things that that representative burglane was saying in terms of getting this out of his committee because he had several members like representative pigley from lull who basically they get nothing and ten one would be a godsend for them at this point yeah i got a lobbyist up north street that had loved ten one she had to go off when she was lobbying because her kids got up and got on so yeah hey you know okay maybe somewhere it might be quick quick helpful to kind of quickly just go through the programs and then come back and revisit the kind of the significant policy decisions that you want to make um so and then just in five there is that money for the department for their uh to reimburse them for their wi-fi deployment so this captures kind of all of the categories that were in the house proposal um it doesn't specify the amount for each of the programs and then uh in terms of the details of each of these programs i won't go through them right at the moment but you'll see in subsection b this is the line extension program and for the time being i left in place uh many of the of the house criteria that they established just for you to consider uh or amend as you deem appropriate subsection c that's where you'd find the get-for-monters connected now initiative and this is i'm here uh i just had a text asking if this could be posted um as long as there's the word uh draft or brainstorm i don't mind it going under my name or the other maria's name uh but it probably is fair for people who are trying to follow along to be able to see it thank you faith can you do that for us i'm just sending it to faith right now i have great faith that faith can do it i do too um i think i made a couple of changes from what i just sent faith um but it's well yeah this is a working document it is changes very fast yeah um so under the get-for-moners uh connected now initiative under the house proposal you had financial assistance for the kind of the installation the fiber to the home installations the conduit and the service drops they also included fixed wireless there you can see that i've stricken that language and not because i don't think you want to support fixed wireless for appropriate but because i think that that would fall under the connectivity initiative the existing program and so now you're putting money potentially in the existing connectivity initiative which again is to build out projects that meet 25 3 so i i think that then would be the vehicle through which a fixed wireless provider would apply for funding um but you know let's we'll confirm all of this and make sure that it's consistent with what you were hoping to see um then subsection d uh this is the authority for what i've just called a temporary broadband lifeline program uh obviously this would just be for a limited period of time and this is if it's deemed administratively feasible um within the time constraints that you have uh e this is just the $50,000 for the wi-fi hotspots uh f subsection f this is again similar to kind of the boilerplate language that was in each of the individual programs um you know meeting the crf criteria about of significantly increasing broadband capacity for distance learning telehealth telework um and also coordinating with and reflecting the department's ongoing efforts with agency of education and vpqhc to identify uh addresses and clusters of students or vulnerable or high risk Vermonters who do not have access to broadband connectivity this would apply to all of the programs and funding uh through this program uh so here's where you'll this might be a place where you might want a little more flexibility based on what i've just heard but this is saying that any of this funding so right now it's 13 million we'll go towards projects that are at least 25 three meet that service however priority shall be given to services that are capable of 100 megabits per second symmetrical and then there was a proposal with respect to fixed wireless um that you're supporting fixed wireless that is served by fiber backhaul so again we can revisit this and the policy decisions that you'll make but we're almost done walking through the whole program so might be best just to kind of finish um subsection h is saying just at the location and capacity of any infrastructure that's funded through this program shall be part of a permanent public database maintained by the department subsection i i've just as you can see just highlighted put a maybe i know there was a lot of discussion about the role of the cd's and what kind of input they have on funding within their service territories whether they should have veto power um and if so how long the time period do they have to provide that input so i have some highlights and question marks because i know you're going to be making some decisions about that all right and for anyone that's watching the uh document is now up on our website if you've been trying to get it you may need to refresh but it should be there okay subsection j uh again this is kind of the boilerplate language about question um on the on the discussion of 30 to 10 days over possible vetoes our cud's obliged the worn meetings ahead times they they might we run afoul of um are they publicly held meetings which are obliged to be worn yes i believe they are i believe they are too um i don't know if you have if you have a 10 day warning um you or and you don't warn on the day you're notified uh that you have 10 days to respond if you don't have much do you or can you have an emergency meeting i'm just and i don't know the answer to yeah unless we have standard bylaws i assume that may vary with the cud so just i wanted to highlight that possible question and i'm gonna move along now good question okay um okay was there another question there okay uh subsection j uh just gives the commissioner authority to retain any award of financial assistance under this section until here she determines that eligible expenses have been incurred and properly documented by the intended recipient um subsection k uh so this is new uh to the house proposal this is specifying that any funds under this program shall not be used to support a provider's cost associated with line extensions otherwise required to be constructed pursuant to a cpg granted under chapter 13 of title 30 and this is the issue that senator pierson raised yesterday uh with respect to the cable companies uh franchise agreements through the state and any obligations that they already have um and couple good catch what my couple sent me um the language of for example the comcast uh cpg and under their existing uh tariff they would be allowed to use federal funds for their line extension obligations but not state funds these are federal funds and so um you're basically specifying here that for the purpose of these federal funds they may not go towards meeting their obligations subsection l is uh basically asking the commissioner to consider and coordinate with existing stakeholders and initiatives including velco and first net to leverage private and public assets to the greatest extent possible and further the objectives of this program subsection m uh this is the legislative oversight provision it specifies that honor before july 31st and then again on september 1st the commissioner shall report to the joint information technology oversight committee oh sorry joint it should be jitalk finance and house energy and technology regarding its distribution of program funds to date the amount of funds that remain available for distribution and plans for awarding the available funds by december 30th you'll note i highlighted that because there was a proposal to allow greater time uh to allocate the funding here as opposed to the december 20th date um and just want to flag that for now then based on the information obtained in the reports required by this subsection the committee may submit recommendations to the joint fiscal committee concerning re prioritization or reallocation of program funds as deemed appropriate uh and then finally is just the issue of unexpended funds and when you would like those monies return to the state most crf appropriations are required to be back by december 20th to allow for time for reallocation i know there's been a there's been a request to see about extending that and then maybe quickly putting it into maybe the ui fund if that's possible so i just wanted to flag those two issues yeah i mean unless some senate committee is meeting on new years eve no it has to be reallocated by december 30th right uh it has to be incurred um and expended by december 30th where it goes back to the right so i think we need to know it's not being expended by december 20th so some lucky committee can read meet over the holidays and quickly expend it somewhere unfortunately i don't think any single committee can expend money maybe other than the that's true before well we could give them authority yeah um we could say any unused funds by december 20th shall be allocated to and leave that blank and let appropriate appropriations is going to decide that so this is a larger issue that affects covid funds throughout uh not just what we're dealing with and what vermont needs is we need some receptacle to handle those funds and some process for determining what to do with them and that goes beyond what we have here in this committee i think i'd like a touch in on this one probably with j talk yep to make sure that the money is i mean if the money's not out the door by october it's not getting built so senator pierce and yeah well this is your point is exactly right ma'am chair and and i don't know maria maria's done a great job we center this at eleven o'clock last night or something so my hat's off to you thank you i um um unlike a lot of the um cares relief money that is going to businesses or farmers or what have you this is unusual in that we're going to pay try to pay for building things and i'm worried that um and and in in other cases restaurants and businesses etc the onus is on the state where if if we screw up because we give you a grant but it turns out you were not eligible the state is on the hook i i'm a little worried about that principle here not because of the eligibility but because of the timing and so i i had i tried to outline the idea that that if a provider is taking these grants and doesn't actually get it done by december thirtieth that we not be on the hook that somehow it come with a heavy onus or maybe it's a split but but something that actually says to whomever takes the grant if you don't get it connected by december thirtieth you got to pay us back because we're we're trying or you know pick your dates in there but but we just can't normally in this situation you would get a call or a letter or something on december thirtieth and say geez we're close but we got two weeks to go and that will really be a problem in this case and so you'll have the power to extend it and i i don't know i don't think that i don't see that reflected here maybe it's not possible but there certainly seems to be some i'd be comforted if we could try and approach that in some fashion so i i'm sorry senator pierce i may have misunderstood then i think the direction was um you know one of the things that you might want to consider and the department may very well do this already under their existing grant awards is to not actually uh allocate or disperse the funding to the recipient or retain a significant amount of it until they can show that they've gotten the folks connected so then it's not a matter of getting the money back there may be some initial capital costs that they'll require to start um but there may be a way of saying you know after that initial award you don't get the full award until you can verify the actual connection could we have the commissioner weighing on this just is the i would i believe is here ossess already established or not yeah this is clay uh if you can hear me all right uh we typically under the connectivity initiative do not pay providers until they certify that uh the project has been built and the customers are served and uh we go out and and see the project all right i think there's an additional component to that too and that is with the line extensions it's different under the puc rule the customer actually has to pay up front before the line is built and so that would be a situation that i think would probably be worth um replicating here because times of the essence but it does pose the risk that you're talking about i've been trying to think about a certification process of some kind or some form of bonding but frankly we've reached the point now where the press of time is such that i i don't have a good answer for you on this uh i think the best you could help for is put the money out there and if the project gets done it will be because it was scrutinized as best as we could ahead of time and if it doesn't come off um yeah that's that's a risk we're taking okay and that's probably the other one is really a contract between the customer you know the customer calls up and says i want you to extend the line to my house and i'll pay you right um customers are probably more likely to not have the three thousand dollars when the line gets hooked up than the state of remand is at least precisely initially maybe this year it'll be different but um yeah unless what i i can offer is that you know we when we put together our our processes we can do our best to give some thought to how to put that kind of check in there but um i'm at a loss to come up with something on the fly right now because um we're talking about such a short window uh i think it would make a world of sense to do what maria said which is withhold payment until you know the very end but you you we're all cutting it so close here in terms of the dollars have to be at the door uh by december thirtieth you folks need an opportunity to reappropriate if um if you don't like the direction things are taking in october and the more of these very um reasonable but um difficult uh details and checks that we put on this i think the less likely it is we're going to get takers and that may just have to be where the chips fall here but not paying until the project is you may pay if you gotta buy cable up front um but not paying until the project is completed is standard operating procedure right that's right the only the only reason why we would be even thinking anything different today is because of this concern about getting those funds out the door by december thirtieth right but if we get them out by december thirtieth and the lines aren't up and running then we're going to have it clawed back so i'd rather have us hold on to it until the lines are up and running that's a very that's a very reasonable assessment of the situation and if it if it functions as a deterrent then so be it but i think we're at that place where um those kinds of hard choices need to get made and it either you folks come up with something today or tomorrow or you give us a charge to come up with something and uh we will do what we will execute on that like us tonight and since it's 526 and we set kind of a 530 deadline um i'd like us to come up with just an agreement you know this is we put it all together this is a general concept um and then tomorrow perhaps we can start you know they i think what the the appropriations needs is this big we got one big tranche here and then we got probably the 800 for the cud planning and um anything else that's there and then tomorrow and i wish we could meet in the morning they need jane says she needs it by noon and what i asked her was could we just send you the you know the big divide up and then work on criteria and then tomorrow afternoon write perhaps an instruction document saying in giving out these funds you know priority will be given to lower income neighborhoods you know priority you know not to damaging the future development of cud's not to um you know all the other you know protecting us as far as possible from exposure to clawback do you want to meet them do you want to meet in the morning madam chair for an hour um i'm not meeting but i have a feeling senator sarotkin's committee is meeting our committee is meeting tomorrow morning we're meeting at 9 30 9 30 to do exactly the same thing yeah so i think maybe and i think we need more than like a half hour or so to to flush this out so i think the question is can we agree on this kind of broad framework where we've just put everything together and we we we left the 800 thousand for cud planning right separate is there anything else that's separate maria yes um there's we didn't talk about this yesterday but there's the 800 thousand for the telehealth connectivity program that goes through vpqhc yeah and they i think they said that i think they said was separate from us yeah i don't know that's separate from from you i think that's considered part of the broadband 20 million from appropriations but i will have to confirm that with okay well we'll include it if that's what they want done there's the 500 thousand for the telecom plan the recovery plan the recovery plan so i believe these numbers match with the house sent us or are these yes okay and then we can adjust tomorrow afternoon work on like you said guidelines so the numbers freeze because again senator kichel had advised us that we could go to 20 million and what the house sent us did not go to that number okay we're getting funny you haven't had an extra five million dollars i think the house had about 15 million 15 corporations is suggesting 20 million where do we spend five million dollars i yeah i mean did you guys consider that last night senators i'm just wondering if is that in your calculation that additional five well my sense is that because we have put the bulk of the money into one pot and then given the apartment flexibility on how to use it it's easy to increase the number my my my contention was i was never quite convinced that two million was the right amount to go to the one program they had and then 11 million for another so i think it's pretty easy for us to put in 18.4 whatever the balance is into this the construct here but the bigger question is our you know this is an attempt to come up with the guidelines in legislative ease and are we you know are people thinking this is a beginning that makes sense or are we back to the drawing board or or what i mean it's harder than you might think based on the last week of my life anybody got a better idea so just i don't see anybody jumping up to have a better idea i just have a question so i'm sorry that i've missed this part so your calculations did include the additional five million and that's in a pot where we're giving greater flexibility to the commissioner no that the as you see in the draft this is just puts the house's money all in one pot that's where it's 13 million so my point is that could just as easily be 18 million since we have not i see ourselves to try to figure out how to divide up the money we're i see yeah i guess i follow up if i may what does it make sense and i wasn't part of those house discussions how did the house land at 800 000 for the c uds should we bump them up a little bit more this is 800 000 it was estimated about 100 000 per c ud and that's for the recovery planning okay thank you one problem in this of course is that maria did her draft last night before we got to know but notified by senator kitchell of the additional availability of money that's why it's not thank you so we'll put that in yeah so sir piercings idea i think sounds sounds fine yep get more money but i think it might be good to have a check back in october i think the committee is going to be there because if we put 18 million in and we've only gotten six or seven out the door this is covid money it could go to businesses it could go to all kinds of things that show up and there's no sense about because you get to october and and you know you may have something that's a week from starting and they can put up some wireless but if it hasn't been applied for by october it's not going up by this is why i as i look at maria's draft on the last page page six of her draft she has on her before july 31 and september one the commission will report to the joint it oversight committee and the very the other committees and i would suggest that it should read that on of a four july 31 and every and on the 31st day of every month thereafter until december 31 a report should be provided so that we know what money is being expended and what's pending and then based on the information obtained of the way it reads now by it says the committee and i think it means the joint it oversight committee can submit a recommendation to the joint fiscal committee or you know if we're in session the committee's a jurist and in terms of being able to make a change of this yeah that yeah it i think we should make it maybe even clearer that if the money isn't spent you know that that well i guess that we could just say that you know depending on how the money is being used the committee could recommend that it be reallocated to another covid relief project yeah now how we do that we can do that with j talk making the recommendation through the joint fiscal committee when the legislator is not in session and the committee is a restriction being responsible for when the committee went when the legislature is in second right and that would probably end up being appropriations to reappropriate but um and we could do with the advice of you know after consultation with us but um yeah because i i we need to to make it very clear time is of the essence and don't come dawdling in and you know november first and say well i guess i'll do something we have do we have so i think we're all i'm hearing agreement and and i actually think there's baked in uh with our what is proposed to be our fall schedule or or late summer that you know we'll have a chance to think of this through again but i think we'll be here in october do we have appetite right now to talk about the this whole c u d public the the feedback process because that seems to me to be one of the i'm not hearing broad disagreement but how we do that um has could use some tuning oh the 20 30 days yeah all of that uh it's there mcdonald i mean 30 days is almost it's like a quarter of your time frame yeah i i thought it is but i i uh yeah i mean at least notice that the c u d is going to come out and say no i mean i don't think the c u d should have a veto authority in this quite frankly i think anything just give it time frames we have that the commissioner will evaluate these applications to determine if if if the commissioner believes that it may harm the prospects of a c u d that will then enable the commissioner to put a hold on on on on that process otherwise i don't think there should be a veto power here well what was the veto why was the veto power put in i mean we haven't taken any testimony on this have we well the rationale was that some of the c u d's were afraid that by extending other providers into their network it would make their c u d less competitive once it got up and running and therefore less people would subscribe to the c u d because they'd already belonged to other providers it was a competitive reason that's that's well before we take our way moving in that direction i before we make that decision i'd like to talk to my c u d i also have representatives sibilia my district has been really involved in this i'd like to have those conversations okay well mike um sandra campion the what we'll do instead of this is in the guidance we will say the guidance is you don't give you know a grant to somebody that will negatively impact you know the c u d's ability to expand i don't think we want comcast running cable or fiber through cable you know through the center of your c u d and taking up the one flat road on the other hand if you got some guy that wants to put wireless out there and your c u d is still in the formative stage and they aren't going to be ready to string anything for three years or they may not make it i don't think we want to say sorry people in that district you can't have anything well trying to thread that needle i understand and i appreciate that very much i'm just wondering is this something that you want to decide now or is this part of the guidance that will ultimately put together tomorrow this is the guidance will ultimately put together tomorrow right so i'd like to talk to my folks uh commissioner has an idea sorry commissioner i can't oh there's the commissioner yeah you know senator campion as you have those discussions maybe you would like to think about whether um it would be good to have a charge on the commissioner to check with the c u d so the c u d has a chance to provide input and then that i think addresses senator brock's concern because it's not exactly a veto but it also addresses your concern about ensuring that the the cudd's have a good opportunity to make their case and then it's pretty clear that you know from life where i'm sitting we're doing no harm to the cudd's and uh commissioner what did you with that your your opinion in the house as well is that what i don't recall testifying on on the vision in the house but i think um however it was very early it makes a lot of sense i think the idea was to give the cudd's comfort but i think you heard mr pervis earlier today say that when you step back and look at the scale of this the the amount of time and money i don't think is going to permit for existential threats to be created to the cudd's but you have my assurance that i'll be looking for that thanks yeah i i do i do like the idea of some process that is short that lets them give you feedback and that you know and maybe you have to look at it and say well you're going to lose five houses but there happens to be four four families with students there you know the yeah the other good thing about that would be that it addresses the pressure that i think senator Cummings has talked about frequently now which is you don't want to make the the cudd's the the the bet noir in their communities either uh so you blame the commissioner that's a really good point that's a that's why i i have the job so you can blame me oh this committee blame you never never all right i've got senator mcdonald's who's been patient commissioner um with that authority and it appeared that a cable company was running the cable and cherry picking a certain area that would make a cud more problematic for the entire region you would say no i think that's pretty fair senator i mean we have rob fish on staff now and rob's job is to know the cudd's business up and down so i have a pretty good way of making sure of that yeah now i'm not interested in them checking cherry picking anything i hear you loud and clear so committee do we want to give maria a whole evening uh to rest so that tomorrow we can get a copy make we're on the floor at noon 11 30 noon noon maybe we could meet at 11 30 senator surat can can you work with that um i probably yes okay so maybe we can just put in in some of those final things we talked about and then we can finalize this it's not a bill i don't know that we have to vote but we can and send it over i think it's health and welfare did a 36 page letter but um well i i would just say that uh i my hunch is if we could give them actual legislation that they would be happier be pleased and probably be more likely to follow our i think the letter was legislation but um there was a lot of discussion of course we've had eight weeks to do it about you know getting very specific about things we wanted considered in health and welfare in every tranche i think we can flesh this out tomorrow afternoon as long as they have the round numbers and the basic wording and so um commissioner is this seem you know you've heard this conversation are are we wildly off track or does this seem workable the way we're we're contemplating this here you mean comprehensively the rework of 966 or do you mean something more specific no yeah i senator uh i'm an old army lady i'm gonna tackle the mission and get it done and i i think it's great that you guys are trying something and i think you set this up for as as much certainty as you can have so yeah is it workable we're going to make it work and as you heard the consultants say earlier you know we may wind up doing things that in retrospect are not fully perfect but it is so much more preferable to doing nothing i think i think if you i reflected on your conversation from earlier today during the break and i wish i had emphasized a little more that we have this data about where students are it's we're talking 1100 state students give or take you know if we can get a good portion of them some help you've done a good thing that's that's those are kids who are going to be home being able to do remote learning if they're ordered back home and if we can't do much more than that that's that's regrettable but that is not on the state of ramon that is on the federal government and you know if we can get the if they've got nothing and the best we can get them at the end of the road is 10 something yeah it's something um maybe at the beginning of the road it's 25 free but it should go out the road it gets weaker and there's a point beyond which it doesn't go so i would add to madam chair for what it's worth um you you know that the department is working on a plan for what we're defining as universal broadband and we're hopeful of you know they're being subsequent federal funding and if folks get something in this bill that is not up to that standard 25 three then they're still in the mix to get something if and when we get that funding so help us away we don't want to do that preference will go but we may that's what we were talking about um madam chair i do need to we have language by 11 30 tomorrow to sign off on or not sign off on um you'll have language for me it doesn't sound like i'll i'll wait to hear if there's additional input i i think i captured or understand what you're thinking is about the cd's giving them an opportunity to provide input but leaving it up to the commissioner's discretion um other than that i think i highlighted earlier i just wanted you to know that the commissioner does have the authority to retain funds um and not disperse at all at once for a grant so you know it's just broad authority to structure as she deems appropriate as well and then i were there other particular um provisions you wanted me to add or clarify you're you're going to add the provision that says the commissioner's authority can be used to see that cud's are not being undermined yeah okay yeah i think that's in there and there's also the authority that says nothing under 25 3 right that was in the first section i did it is in there that all right i think i would like to put an escape clause in um um with j talk permission to get a variance on any of though because i don't want to find out that we can get 25 3 to half the road but then because of the technology and the trees it drops to 10 one and we say to those kids at the end of the road you get nothing because it's not up to our standards i it would take a variance it would take permission from j talk after listening to it but i you know i'm listening to the wireless guys and that does sound like we're going to get some of that just in the time frame to get it up and out and up those back roads um i want to make sure that there's some flexibility in the funds to make sure that as many students as possible get as much as possible and 25 3 i know it's not perfect it's not our goal 100 100s our goal i know that i know that 100 100s our goal and we're settling for 25 3 i know that senator i've said let's settle pretty less uh-huh but we're going to call up that kid up the hill in orange and say well you don't need our standard so i don't get nothing so i want to give that kid a chance to get something you if it's under 25 3 um i know where the ticking's coming from and it came by door but the underlying technology as is just as well our underlying technology that was built out the fiber is just as robust as what it would have been if it had been 25 3 that's one thing but if it's not 25 3 because we're allowing permanent installations to bring it down that shouldn't happen and i think the commissioner understands that and she could yeah would would would see that that didn't happen we told her so Maria i thought the feds wouldn't let us buy build anything under 25 3 uh no no uh the federal funding that's available now is for 25 3 service under the i'm sorry under their the fcc's ardof program and under the r us program that's the threshold they've set for those previously existing broadband buildout programs the state with the crf money um as long as you meet the other conditions for broadband there's flexibility on what speeds you you want to fund so okay you're trying to get those as many kids as possible hooked up um in case we can't open in september so basically we better give maria some ideas ahead of the time we meet if we want real changes here right yep yes any other real changes i've heard too so far just the cud making sure that input is allowed and allowing jai talk to potentially recommend that funds go towards service that is below 25 3 allowing for that recommendation or or jfc rare circumstances we also had some reclaiming the money dates and some changes there i thought yeah if money has not been expended by october 31st jay talk jay talk reserves the right to to ask the appropriations committee to reallocate in consultation with the commissioner you know if you've got 20 million dollars everybody's interested in it we need to have the ability to reallocate it maybe into the uh the 20 million dollars to help the folks pay for their cable hookup um kind of thing but well she already can do that we already built in the flexibility under this but but you're you had mentioned it earlier maybe it goes to a small business and has nothing to do with it yeah i mean if this is all covid money and if we're not going to be able to get it out the door to wait just the build out money if it's not out the door by the end of october the chances that it's going to go and anything's going to be built is pretty small and i'd like us to have a process to get that reallocated and out the door before the end of the year because i think everybody's got the same date does that work i'm not seeing any nose i think santa mcdonald has fainted he's at least disappeared from my screen that all makes sense to me randy do you want to talk to brighlyn you'd started that conversation or should we wait another day or what do you think makes sense to help us succeed all the way here randy you're muted muted no i can i can send him a note i've sent him a note earlier today with part of it but i can send him a note just outlining what it is we're thinking about where we're going and making sure that it would be something that that he thinks his committee could support you know this i think is all going into some bill and it's going to get negotiated out between the senate and the house and i'm not sure what i have a feeling it's going to be the appropriations committees but i'm sure there'll be input from us and they'll want agreement on everyone i don't think this is the end of the line i think it's going to be out i don't know if we'll be here saturday or if we'll be here next week but but in talking with brighlyn though uh having maria's draft in hand before doing that i think it would make it easier because then we won't be going to the court yeah so you're not free tomorrow morning big time i'm trying to just want to make sure you've got time i have all the time in the world madam chair okay yeah me too all right i got tomorrow morning off i might get a walk in okay maria will you send us all the the most current draft or when you've made these little tweaks please i will i'll i'll work on that now and try to get that to you tonight and i'll email it to all of you okay now you know you have you been told my rule i don't want to get anything from any staff that's dated two a.m. what about three a.m. no three a.m. isn't good either madam chair this feels like again to just thank maria and face because they thought they were going to be done with us back in in march or april i know that maria is one of like two-thirds of our you know legislative staff that have kids in home so i know that you're going to get off this call and then be wrangling children and so thank you that has family and children that are hanging around and come home okay thank you everybody enjoy the next few hours and i will see you at 11 30 in the morning ending live stream