 The Monday morning meeting of the House Appropriations Committee and we have a couple of things on our agenda today. We'll have a full day of work, but first we're going to hear from Susanna Davis, who is with us from the office of the administration. Welcome, Susanna. And would you tell us your formal title? I have the director of equity and diversity, but I want to make sure that we have your correct title. Of course, it's the executive director of racial equity. Well, I was, I was not close enough, but thank you very much and I should know the title, your title. I just don't have my agenda, and I don't have your PowerPoint because I ran out of ink and I've been, you know how you use it for a long time on a shoestring while it certainly printed everything, you know, with nothing. So I apologize. So welcome Susanna. It's a pleasure to have you here today. And within the governor's recommended budget, there, there was a provision for a $2 million expenditure to lead to address for and we were left behind with the federal stimulus of $1,200 a single payment as well as the one payment per child of $500. And we asked to schedule you in so that we could fully understand the provision and how it would work for Vermont and and what and how you thought we could actually roll it out. So I want to welcome you to the committee today. I think Teresa has your documents so that we can put them up on the screen. And I'm going to, you know, you haven't been before our committee and I haven't met you personally and I'm kitty toll on the chair of the committee, and I would like to go to my left which would start with Peter and if you think about where you are around in the middle because our Hollywood squares are all different with the committee members like to introduce them. This is your first time coming to our committee I believe. So Peter and Susanna good morning thank you for coming in I'm Peter Fagan I am from Rotland City. And I guess I'm next going around the table. Good morning made a town from from South Burlington. Good morning. I'm Marty Feltas. That's okay I didn't I was in the struggling with unmuting myself I'm representative Diane Lanford I live in Virginia. We haven't been in the committee room and I'm representative. Right, we forget where we sit. I'm representative Marty Feltas I live in London and I cover the towns of London Sutton and Burke and Northeast Kingdom. Welcome. They don't let us out often. So this is my name is Dave Yacoboni. I'm from Morrisville. I represent Elmore, Wister, Morriston and Woodbury. Please to meet you. Good morning. My name is I represent the town of Essex in Chittenden County. Welcome. Hi, my name is Kimberly Jessup and I represent East Mount Pilier and Middlesex. Yes, ma'am. My name is representative Bob Helman I'm from Fairhaven representing for our towns right here on the New York State border. I'll jump in the head of me because I was having trouble unmuting too. I'm Chip Conquest I represent Newbury Groton and Topson. Hi. Oh, Mary, I forgot I thought we were around the table. No, the person who usually holds your on the high Susanna I am Mary Hooper I represent Montpelier. She doesn't usually hold my hand she usually kicks my shin until it's black and blue. I started to say that and I thought oh no this is really inappropriate. So welcome and Susanna the towns that I represent are Danville, Cabin and Peachham. And we're very pleased to have you here today and we would like to learn more about the position and exact the initiative not position the initiative, and exactly what the administration had in mind and we are thinking about instead of leaving this in the budget perhaps moving it as a separate bill. And, you know, and look forward to working with you in a partnership to see what this would look like. So welcome, Theresa put the documents up and I'm going to turn it over. Do you want the current testimony I received from Catherine Russell this morning or do you want the fact sheet. Susanna what would you like to work from first. The testimony that was sent over this morning is the formal testimony from the racial equity advisory panel that's the advisory panel that works alongside the person in my role. I do urge you all to review it if, if you don't, I mean, I'm happy to read it to you or you could read it yourself today. I will likely be touching on similar points that we make in our conversation today. So if you'd like to review that at another time that would be fine. The fact sheet is a little bit more concise. And it's perhaps I think it's bullet pointed if I recall correctly. So as a working document the fact sheet would be good but I do urge you all to review the testimony. Thank you, and we will do that. Okay, so some of you may have this printed and others of you just work from. I'm going to turn it over to you. Okay. You've summarized it accurately. Madam chair. This is a proposal to provide economic stimulus payments akin to the ones that we provided through the federal cares act. But these payments would specifically be geared toward Vermonters who were excluded from federal cares act economic stimulus payments due to their or someone else's immigration status. The reason that this is so important, just from the perspective of morality is because all of us in this country and in the state have been hit very hard by the pandemic. And so, as we talk about the humanity of this crisis and all of us in this crisis, the deliberate and really surgical exclusion of certain people because of things like immigration hold up is is a highly questionable act from a moral and ethical perspective. And then from a fiscal perspective, I mean, there is absolutely a business case for this proposal as well. After all, the state of Vermont relies heavily on industries that are bolstered by the labor of exactly the groups who were excluded from the federal stimulus payments. But stepping in where the federal government fell short allows us to bring forward all of Vermonters to move out of this crisis together and allows us to help keep people afloat who are in just as much need, if not more than the rest of us who did have access to a number of federally funded services and lifelines. I believe that each of you might have familiarity with this proposal to varying degrees or you may have technical questions. So if it's all right with you, I'd like to ask you all, are there any points about this proposal that are unclear on their face that I can elaborate on if not I could just do a quick, I can just continue Let's do the quick walkthrough and then I think that may clarify some questions and then do the questions after you do this high level sheet. You got it. So, we've discussed the purpose of the proposal. Now what does this actually look like how many people could it serve. Well, you're seeing on the screen, a breakdown in that in that table that shows a total of about 5000 Vermonters who could be eligible. Now this number was arrived at using best estimates from a number of sources, including US Census Bureau data, UVM, UVM extension and Pew and a couple others think tank research houses and organizations on the ground in these with these communities like migrant justice in Vermont. So we estimate up to 5000 Vermonters who would be eligible that breaks down to 4000 adults and 1000 children. Now, of those people, it's really important to note that this is widely viewed and commonly referred to as an undocumented immigrant relief fund and that is the bulk of the people who are intended beneficiaries. However, this is also something that ensnares us citizens, people who are who are American people who are here with lawful status and who may pay taxes. And the reason for that is the cares act explicitly tried to exclude undocumented persons from receiving stimulus payments, but the way they did that was by using social security number as a proxy for legal status. In other words, they presumed that if you don't have a social security number, you are likely you are more likely to be here unlawfully. And so what that ends up doing is also catching in that net a lot of people who are lawfully present or in fact who were born here, who don't use social security numbers for whatever reason, or who are affiliated with someone who doesn't use a social security number. So a lot of us citizens, many of whom are children have also been barred from receiving these economic stimulus payments. And actually the Vermont State tax department has confirmed at a couple hundred almost 300 at least filers for the 2019 tax year who did file taxes, but who would have been excluded from the cares act economics stimulus payments due to the social security number provision. And I'm going to ask Teresa if you don't mind if you could just scroll a bit for me just to make sure that I got everything. There's a bit of technical information for those of you who really want to get into the leads of how the cares act was able to do that it lists the specific provisions. That's about it that's that's the overview. Okay, let's open it up to questions if we can go back to the full screen thank you Teresa. And are there questions for Susanna regarding the the administration's proposal. Yeah, so my question is to two questions. How do you not use a social security number and get paid by somebody. And how can that happen. Yeah, so there are a number of categories of people. So first of all, everyone born in the United States is assigned to social security numbers. And many people who immigrate to the United States also receive social security numbers, but there are many people who immigrate lawfully to the US, who don't have social security numbers. And there are also a lot of people who do not immigrate at all to the US but for whatever reason they might do business in or work in the US. And so they're assigned a tax ID number, but not a social security number because they don't intend to reside in the US, or to take citizenship. So there are a number of different ways that you could file or be present or receive a check or work here but not have a social security number. The bulk of it is people who are working under the table. People whose employers have an agreement with them that they're, they're paid through means that allow them to work without social security numbers in that documentation. But there's also a large subset of people who file with what's called an individual tax identification number and itin. The itin is assigned by the IRS. It is assigned regardless of immigration status, and its sole purpose is for tax filing identification. So for example, you could be someone who's legally present in the US. And you file taxes using an itin, but you don't have an SSN because you don't really you're not trying to live here you're not trying to be a citizen, you just work here. And there are also a couple of others I apologize I just, there are also a couple of other categories, like folks who maybe don't work here but they are dependents or spouses and they're claimed by somebody who does, in which they may not have a social security number, but they're also accounting for. Alright, and that brings me to my second question so, and that was, how do you. If they're undocumented, my question was, they're undocumented, how do you have addresses and contact information. Yes, I think you might have just answered that through these other forms of being involved with the government right. I mean, but if you get paid under the table. You government has no record of that person. That is correct right. When I say under the table. Yeah, I would say that's probably generally true. I mean, there are a lot of people who are American citizens who get paid under the table and government has record of them to some degree so I don't know if I would if I would say that categorically but I think. And correct me if I'm wrong I think what you're getting at is how do we know who to send payment to if we don't know where people are in the state. Okay, so what I would say there is there are a number of ways that we can do that. Number one, there are a lot of people who would be beneficiaries here who work on farms. Many of them also live on those farms and so their employers have close contact with them and are able to to identify who they are and a lot of other folks who would be recipients here have addresses and live in the state. They just for whatever reason don't have Social Security numbers or may not interact with the IRS in the same way that the rest of us do. The other thing is that in order to identify who people are who in order to pay them. We've devised a process that would include an application so that folks would present to us and certify their eligibility and then we would disperse payment. And then just, just if I may just one more. So if you're paid in Vermont, and you live in New York, New Hampshire or Massachusetts, the check would be sent to other states, correct. A requirement of receiving this proposed payment is that you be a resident of Vermont. Okay, we have a lot of border people that cross over. I don't know a lot, but there are some that cross over every day that then would not qualify. That's true. And that's why we also would urge our neighbor states to implement a similar program so that if they have residents of New York or mass or New Hampshire. Who also should qualify for these kinds of payments that they can administer that program through their coffers. Right. Well, who knows whether they're doing that or not. But, you know, we've got our own problems. Anyways, okay, well, thank you very much, man. You've been very helpful. Thank you Bob, Martin and then Mary. Yes. Good morning again. My, my only question so far is in the program that the federal government administered through the cares act to us residents that didn't have social security numbers. There was an income limit applied to those not everybody obviously received that payment. Would that apply as well to this program. We haven't necessarily worked to that it. First of all, I have to apologize for the background noise. This is the point at which a very large trust decide to be outside my window. So far as the noise. We haven't necessarily built that in just yet because what we found is that nearly everyone who would qualify for these payments does not meet the threshold that would have resulted in pro rating of their amount. So there was an income limit of $75,000 in order for an adult to receive that $1,200 from the federal government. It is then reduced proportionately based on how many thousands of dollars over that 75 the person's income was. So that by the time you reach $99,000 per person or $198,000 per couple, you receive no payment. The likelihood that a Vermont resident who has no social security social security number is making $75,000 or more is very low, but to your point representative, it is something that that could be baked into the program just to ensure again that you know the proposal is not designed to get anything more than what other residents were entitled to under the Fed. I understand that certainly and I also understand that the likelihood of this population exceeding that amount is is not very likely. However, if we're trying to duplicate the other program that went out the door, I think we need to keep that in mind as well. Absolutely. That's an excellent point. Thank you for that. Thank you, Marty. I have. Oh, did I cut you off, Suzanna? Were you saying? Oh, thank you Marty and I have Mary, Chip, and then Kimberly. Hi. I need some word, a description of some of the people who are eligible or not eligible. So if I am holding a green card. And I don't know if I pay Social Security or not and maybe so if I have a green card was I excluded from this. If you have a green card you are a legal permanent resident. You are not. Okay. And then, if I am not a legal permanent resident, but my child is. So is there, I mean, was born in the United States, therefore is a citizen that child did not receive the payment because of my parent, but because of my status. Correct. All mixed status families were categorically excluded. So even though, you know, there could be five people in a family, one of the earners in the family was excluded, everybody ended up being excluded. That's correct. Yeah. And then can you talk a little bit about I understand that you have a strategy for allocating these payments. Certainly there is going to be a good deal of fear about making oneself known in to the government, regardless of our intentions can, can you talk about how you're going to protect the status of people. Yeah, trust is a huge factor here and it's not just for the population of people who are who have questionable immigration status is also for all historically marginalized people who have ever been done wrong by the US government and let me tell you that is a long list. So in thinking about how we administer this program. It's really important that we keep that in mind and so one of the things that is absolutely paramount is that we be able to work with community organizations who are on the ground who have established trusting relationships with these communities, so that those groups can, if you will vouch for the state to those members of the public who may be afraid of coming forward. Another big aspect is making the application minimally invasive that is to say asking only the questions that are probative enough to facilitate payment. And nothing beyond that scope if we don't need it for the purpose of this program we don't have to ask it. Another thing that we can do is to, well, another question that came up was, which agencies or departments or entities would be administering these funds. There are some agencies that have closer contact with vulnerable populations who may be better suited to that. And we're still working through the details of what this could look like, who has the capacity in state governments to run this kind of a program, and what we think will yield the most positive and trusting interaction with the public. But I will say this is a, this is one step on a long road of trust building that the state wants to do with these communities to ensure that people know that we're here to serve them we're not here to sell them out to the fed because the policy in Washington is not the same. You did ever did anyone else lose lose just my just mine I'm sorry my my connections unstable I apologize. I think everyone's connection is unstable both figuratively and literally. But you know, Washington policy is different than remote policy and so us being able to demonstrate different monitors who are here. We're here for you and we're not. We're not proxies for a federal admin that has inconsistent views on whether you're a person or not is key. That's a wonderful statement and I know that we want that to be true. I think we also all worry about maintaining holding that up. Do you have a sense of what percentage of folks are likely not to so you've done your best it looks like a good estimate of who may be eligible, but what number of folks what percent of folks may not have that confidence in the system and step up. There's really no way to know I mean in that estimate of 5000 people we have estimated up to 500 citizens and legal permanent residents that's a green card holders who did file taxes well no I apologize. We identified somewhere between 295 and maybe up to 500 citizens and legal permanent residents in Vermont, who filed but who would have been in illegible because they fell jointly with a spouse who doesn't have an SSN, or for some reason like that. So, I imagine that group of people will be happy to forward applications because they're already here and their citizens and LPR is already so I imagine that group will probably come forward. We've also identified up to 500 immigrants who are here in Vermont with lawful status, but who don't have social security numbers and that includes people on student visas, spouses or dependents of people, citizens who petition for them to come to the US asylum applicants who received asylum but who have not yet received their work authorization. So, those that might be another chunk of people who are likely to come forward because they are here with legal status. But for everyone else it's so difficult to know. Mary, and then Kimberly. Thank you. Mary asked a number of the questions I was going to. I have a couple more is, is the social security number lack of it though the only thing in the federal program that explicitly excludes folks the folks who didn't get it I mean was there anything else in that in the the requirements or the legislation that that specifically keeps people from being able to get the payments. Anyone or specifically keep immigrants from. Well, the, the folks that we're trying to find a way to serve here. So there's one provision is that you have to have filed 2018 or 2019 taxes with the social security number. But there's another provision that expressly bars quote non resident aliens from receiving the stimulus payments and interestingly, non resident alien is not defined in immigration law it's defined in the internal revenue code. So a non resident alien is a person who is not a US citizen or US national and who has not passed the green card test or the substantive presence test. So those are two, two tests to, to determine whether a person has an established presence here. And so a non resident alien is a person who's not a citizen or a national and haven't gone through either of those processes. And then separately it also states, you have to have filed with an end. And then for those people who have something I had never heard of before the individual tax ID number. Are are many of the undocumented workers. Are they are taxes being withheld when they're getting paid through the use of something like the item. They may be using items to file taxes. However, the majority are not, and yet the majority in Vermont are still having taxes withheld because they do receive paychecks and pay stubs. And so payroll taxes are being withheld so they're paying into the tax coffers but they don't get to file returns and take advantage of any of the programs they pay into. So that's what I was trying to get at. So how, how are employers. I guess I just wondering how that, how you're creating a payroll tax ID or something for an employee if that employee doesn't have a social security number or an item, or anything else. I could probably speculate, but I don't think I'd be comfortable doing that because I'm sure it really runs the gamut how different employers do that. And I don't. Sorry. I guess really the, the issue is do we have any evidence or knowledge that despite the fact there may be various ways are going about it they may not be that these folks are the payroll taxes are being held withheld. And do we know sort of is that pretty universal or do we have any knowledge about that. It's not universal, but my understanding is that many undocumented workers in Vermont do receive and could present a pay stub. That shows payroll taxes being taken out. Okay, I would, I would hesitate to recommend that as a part as a requisite part of an application, because many still don't have that ability. But yes, it technically it can be proven as far as I understand. Yeah, my, my questioning is really trying to anticipate some questioning that we will that this program will get when it's presented and trying to know if we have any answers. And then, lastly, I think for now. So, in a, in a mixed status family, in terms of immigration status anyway. Yeah, so if, if, let's say that the, the wife is an American couple, the wife is a legal resident and the husband is not did and put the wife receive the stimulus payment just for herself. And she had a presumably had a social security number. If they find a single or separately, I believe not mixed status family. Basically, if you're connected to a person who doesn't have a social security number, the cares act cuts you out. I want to make, I want to make one point that I think a lot of people miss, which is that when you have someone who's in the country legally or maybe was born here as a citizen, and you marry a person from overseas and you're, you're working on not getting that person legal status. The first thing that any good immigration lawyer will tell you is, you should be commingling funds and filing taxes jointly because it helps to establish that that person has a presence in the United States. And so now all of that sound legal advice that helped to build a case for citizenship is now being used against those people because they've been filing taxes jointly as instructed, and that joint filing is cut the legal citizen spouse out of receiving cares act money. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Kimberly. Hi, Suzanne. Thank you. First of all, for taking this on, I think it's super important. The issue that I have concerns the timeline for standing this up. And the reason I'm asking about the timeline and I know it's a heavy lift and it depends of course on funding is how many departments across government may possibly be involved. And I know in the past that there have been challenges, for example, around the driver privilege card. And so if one was trying to stand up a program like this, and it involved multiple agencies. I'm just wondering if there's any thought at this point in time that you care to share about whether for example the agency of human services might take the lead versus tax because of potential complications. Thank you for the question. We're working that out, but I would say, and of course I don't speak on the governor's behalf, but I speculate that he might agree that minimizing the web of bureaucracy in the administration of this program is ideal. One, again, because we're talking about streamlining simplifying and trust building and having as few contacts with government as necessary is good for trust building. And second, because perhaps I'm being naive, but this seems like a pretty straight administration of this program seems pretty straightforward. You know, give an agency some money and they give it to people. So, I don't think that there's a great need for a lot of agencies and departments being involved, however, in terms of outreach and publicizing and community engagement. I would love to see as many agencies as possible drumming up this, this program and making sure that everyone across the state who could benefit has heard about it and understand how to access it. I hope that helps. Thank you. And I'm just raises a question or it's a comment not really something I expect an answer is just might there be a plan might there be planning underway for that sort of outreach so that this can happen sooner rather than later and I'm sure you all will be thinking about that. So, thank you again. Thank you Kimberly. I have Dave and then back to Marty. Yes, thank you. Thank you for all of your. Can you hear me. Yeah, I'm unmuted. Can you hear me. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for all of your hard work in this area. I had some questions from constituents over the weekend that I want to channel to you. I'll preface it by saying, I want to help people strongly. People in Vermont, who are undocumented, have no status, who are working, who will be benefited by this program. Yeah, I want to make sure I understand are they you're asking behind it is not. We hear illegally getting assistance. That's what the question was and I was trying to frame it in a kinder way, but I don't want anything lost in translation. So for me for if I'm framing it harsh way but there's a concern that there will be people getting assistance who are not here legally. Is that the case will they be helped. Is there. Yes, thank you. May I continue a little bit. Madam chair, please, please. Yes, please. Okay. So the people who are giving assistance, have an obligation to report them to report the people, the people who are here with no, with unlawful status. I don't believe so. No, and and Vermont has taken great pain to clarify its role in enforcement of immigration law. So, I think the state has demonstrated over the last couple of years on the whole that it does not intend to get involved where it doesn't have to on federal immigration policy so I think that barring another situation like what happened to be in the driver privilege cards. I have no indication that the state plans to report the presence of Vermonters who are not here legally and I mean it would it would work against the interests of the state to do so. If someone is undocumented has no social security number, no record of them, they're being paid cash. How, how will the grantee the person giving out the money, know if you're working in Vermont. Well, is that not the requirement doesn't matter whether you're working here an adult. Correct, it's not a requirement in the same way that the federal cares act didn't have a requirement that a person be working. Because, you know, the idea is everyone suffering under this pandemic, whether you're employed or unemployed, whether you are wealthy or not wealthy everyone's experiencing this so we don't want to put additional burden on folks like work requirements. So, yeah, the idea and this is a feature not a bug. The idea is that undocumented Vermonters would be included that there would be no requirement that they be employed, especially because the pandemic has upended a lot of people's employment opportunities. And the idea is not to be in cahoots with immigration authority. Thank you. Thank you Dave and Marty and then I have a question. Thank you. I'm very sympathetic to this program I think we need to look after residents of our state I understand that I have kind of a quirky question I think it's probably more for appropriations committee than than for you Susanna but I was intrigued by this questioning about these residents who are working and who are paying payroll taxes, the pay as I if I understood it correctly that their portion of the payroll taxes is just going into the big pot it's not necessarily so-called assign to them so that they could not eventually file for a return on those taxes or eventually file for social security or eventually file for Medicare as an example. So they're paying into the big pot but not getting individual credit for those payments because they don't have a social security number. I have a question more for the appropriations committee is, is there a way for the tax department to determine how much money that is, and can we take the funds that we would like to return to these people from some tax department as opposed to from the general fund and that may be one and the same thing I don't know, but I have a question for the tax department in terms of how we might be able to access funds there that are not specifically allocated to every other individual who has a social security number. And then we probably did not answer that. No, I couldn't answer it concretely but I would just like to tack on a bit of a caveat to it which is that whatever portion of tax revenue may be coming to the Fed or to the state from undocumented person whose labor is generating those payroll it's not going to, it's not reflective of the total population of people who who were looking to serve here. And so if we were to recapture those funds in some way. It wouldn't be the entirety of what's needed for this population. You know, I would also just remind us all that there's tax contribution on the one hand that that some are making, but there's also just the general contribution that they're making to our state economy I mean a couple million dollars is significantly less than what these folks are generating for the state. So in thinking about it in those terms I think it becomes a little easier to see the impact and the value. Okay, thank you. We still can run that question up the flagpole to the Department of Taxes Marty to see if there's any capacity there to build upon the governor's recommendation. And thank you, and Maria could help us make that connection. I do have a question. Just, you know, for folks listening and in the news that that we keep the facts really clear, and that assumptions are not made because assumptions are all right if they're based, you know, if, you know, if you can back them up with facts, but if they're just assumptions based on well the what ifs then then you know things often go in a very negative direction. One of my questions is, you know, the governor's proposal that this is put forth. How do we determine the population that we're working with, and that we don't hear about people flooding to Vermont to take advantage of this program. So what, you know, is there a time period set. What, what would you consider residency versus a seasonal worker who's in and out of the state that just came here for a day or two and was visiting. How do we narrow the scope and get the facts out to individuals so that we don't. So it's not misinterpreted as just, you know, everyone come to Vermont and you get $1,200. The residency requirement is a big one, and it would follow the same. Well, the proposal is that residency would be determined using the same criteria as outlined in the driver privilege statute. So it's not necessarily saying, oh, you arrived here 12 hours ago, here's $1,200, but saying you were considered a Vermont resident when this pandemic was happening. And if in March, the federal government issued cares act payments to people and explicitly excluded folks like you, then, and I'm just spitballing here so don't hold me to this but I might venture to say that, looking at the period around March or perhaps immediately thereafter if you were in the state around that time. Again, we're talking about parity and equity so it may, it may make sense to look at the time period in question. When COVID-19 upended everything. But I, and again there's also going to be a fixed amount of a limited amount of time during which people can apply so it's not going to be three, you know, three years down the line and people are saying I just got here a month ago give me $1,200. You know, it's supposed to happen now because now is when people need it. Thank you and I look forward to us crafting, you know, if moving forward if we move forward to how we craft that language so it's very clear and and eases maybe the minds of some individuals chip. Yeah, just to say that in the draft proposal that we'll all be looking at a little bit later. It does. Sorry my phone ringing. It does try to address that question specifically about what it means to be resident and specifically excludes people who are here for a defined duration time for a particular purpose like, for example, you know, my someone here's who's like on an h2a visa to do Apple picking for example they're here for a defined period of time with a specific purpose. There are other examples but but we try to define residency clearly but I think it's a good question and perhaps something we should think about about whether we have established a date by which you had to have been resident in Vermont and I think Susanna suggested that, you know, whether it's something related to the COVID period or some of the days that we've been using about March or something might might be worthwhile. The other thing to Dave's question which suddenly went about whether people, whether or not there, I think it was Dave, whether or not there would be requirements to report on someone's immigration status. By agencies that are helping Susanna answered it but it is also clear in that draft legislation that that is not that they have to that information has to be kept private essentially. I'll have a question about that for which Council later but just to say that those things are addressed in the draft and we can look at them in more detail. We have from the administration some draft language and Chip has been it has been working on this as well on his own to to fully understand what that language would look like going forward. Are there any other questions for Susanna. No other questions. Are you sure. We're hoping that as we work through this this piece within the budget that that was proposed to us that we can call on you for for assistance in your expertise in this area to to help us and in the in the governor's proposal and and and the the mechanism used to get the money out the door. I'm assuming that your position as a is as executive director that you would want to be involved in this process but I don't want to assume anything I'm asking you what would what would your role be. That's what I should be involved in this process. Absolutely. We have two more questions Mary and Dave. It's, it's not a question, a question, just a statement that I was very impressed that I saw the governor's proposal for this in our budget and I'm really grateful that he put it forward and I'm happy that we are talking about how to implement and expand this this concept. So it I mean I know we have to have a committee discussion about how this goes forward, but I just wanted to acknowledge that the governor initiated the discussion and I'm looking forward to us helping him do this important work. Thank you Mary, and Dave. Yes. Do you do you imagine should this pass, and the dollars be available that these dollars will be dispersed rather quickly. I hope so because if you're dispersed quickly that means people are getting the help that they needed five months ago. Quickly, I will say that we have written into the draft that any unused funds get returned to the general fund. And so I think instead of one instead of having them linger for a long time we really would like to get them out the door quickly. Yeah, I'm hopeful that we can do it quickly and I think that a lot of that will hinge on how many people affirmatively apply. And that's going to require a lot of on the ground legwork and very close collaboration with community groups to help spread the word and get those people applying. A couple of more questions. You, did you meet when you came up with your numbers. Did you use some kind of an estimate for the number of people who would not apply. Does this include all everyone in your opinion or did you say we I think 50% will apply. Can you speak to that. I absolutely can thank you for the question. We estimated up to 5000 people who could be eligible. And if you do $1200 per adult and $500 per child at that maximum of 5000, you arrive at $5.3 million. And again, that is the maximum and we have no idea if it is five, if it is that full 5000 people and even if it is 5000 people how many will actually come forward, because frankly, if I work at grave risk of deportation, then my anonymity might be more valuable to me than $1200, which is a sad reality for a lot of people in the country but this is the cost, this is the cost benefit weighing the people are doing. But I will say that the proposal before you is for $2 million and I would I would ask that you consider. Think of that as a floor and as the 5.3 as something of a ceiling. We don't know if 2 million is about how much it's about half of the 5.3 so we don't know if that's just right. I think we're higher or lower. It's not clear. But I think to representative Hooper's point. It is starting the conversation and this is kind of the level that we're looking at now but just so that it's on the record. The maximum numbers that we've estimated do bring us up to a higher amount than what's proposed but we have no way of knowing if we would even reach that point. Yeah, two more questions if I may. Do you believe it would be. Pardon. I was just going to add one more thing that I cut you off. I think I cut myself off. I don't know. The other thing that I would just say to that is that. Oh, gosh, no one's forgotten it. It'll come back to me. Please continue. It happens to us all the time, especially when we're. All the time. Do you believe it would be morally sound to approach this by doing an appropriation now based on an estimate. And then revisiting it we have something called a budget adjustment process that you may or may not be familiar with, but revisiting this in January. And if you and others came in and said, boy, we were flooded. We were, we were really amazed by the, by the uptake and the amount of interest. And the money disappeared in a month and there's still a need. Would you consider appropriating more. Is that another way of approaching this. It's certainly an option and if the need really was substantially greater than we estimated then again it would be the equitable thing to do to revisit it and try again to fill that need. And the thing that I was going to say earlier, I just remembered it now, which is, you know, I've been saying that we don't. If it's really as high as we think it is in terms of the 5000 people, but we're hoping that this exercise will also help us to capture more accurate estimates of who's here. And we'll also bring bring people more into the light. These will be the state so that we can have real relationships with this population. And just one more madam chair if I may. Yes, please. Did you. Does your estimate assumes some amount of I guess the 2 million that you would would go as an administrative fee to an organization that manages this, whomever it's granted out to you imagine they're going to need money to do this or is the infrastructure already in place and can all the dollars go directly and direct benefits. We want to minimize administrative costs as much as possible. And that's one of the questions that came up. Do you administer this through a trusted nonprofit trusted third party entity, which can help to keep keep an arms length relationship with the federal government and also can help people be more trusting and not coming from the state directly. However, that does come with the possibility for that administrative costs that you're talking about, compared to doing it in house where we could probably use existing capacity and systems to, to handle it's not, it's not firmly decided, but I guess your point very answer your question very briefly I would say we want to take an option that maximizes equitable distribution and minimize administrative costs as much as possible. We seem to, to develop and establish and promote the kind of enduring relationships that all people need, regardless of their immigration status that all children need to be nurtured and supported using perhaps our existing networks that know those networks that can build trust and refer people to on an ongoing basis should they need it has some value to it. I suspect though they're all overworked. And, but it's I'm going to think a little bit more on that. Thank you. And that's why partnership is so easier right the state can do ABC and the advocates can do XYZ and we put that together is when you get the kind of coverage and overlap that that ensures better. So I'm hoping that we can find some kind of a hybrid approach that utilizes the state and non state actors to do this out. Thank you. And we are at the 10 at the 11 o'clock hour do you have a few more minutes, or are you are you scheduled to be elsewhere. I am here for you. We're going to hold you to that. We have Bob up next representative helm and then I'll just work right around my Hollywood Square screen. I want to start this by just saying that I do not disagree with this and with what I'm going to say next I think it's a good thing to do. However, the stimulus that the federal government designed and put out was to yes help the recipients but also benefit the economy. And I think it, I think it worked to some degree. This stimulus will help the recipients, but it will not help the economy. Very much. My people around here, transient workers, whatever you want to call them. When the week they get that check, they will be at the bank on Friday, and they will wire that all to Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, or wherever their family is that's where all of their money goes they keep pennies to live on and send it all home. I just want you, I just felt I needed to say that from my perspective. It won't help our economy. It will. Most of it will be gone to other foreign countries. So that's all I have to say thank you. I thank you for that comment and I would like to respectfully disagree. I think that it will help the economy but perhaps not in the consumer spending way. That we might be thinking up because when thinking about these are most of these people are considered essential workers in our state right and so this is our way of stepping up improving that we mean that. And so I think helping our economy means helping the people survive who are upholding that economy. Even if they're not necessarily spending that money at local ski resort and fast casual restaurants I think in some way it is having a measurable benefit to the state and the other thing I'd say, because the question about remittances does come up in the context to this sort of proposal. And I would say that, you know, again we're talking about parity and equity and we didn't tell social security number holders, you can't send your money to other people we let people who received cares that money do what they wanted with it. And I think that it really is kind of the Vermont way to trust people to make decisions about what's best for them and their families. And this time around that means sending it back as remittances or using it for something else. I think I think we owe it to, to every Vermont or to be able to make that choice without without strings and I know you're not suggesting strings. But I just wanted to make sure that that that on the record things. I'm not even going to defend my position. I mean I just wanted to bring this out I still stand with what I said. And I had, I'm going to vote I'm going to support it. I presume I'm going to support it. But anyways, thank you. Thank you. Thank you Bob. Let me move to Diane and then we have Kimberly and chip. Thank you madam chair and committee and, and I too would like to join Mary and thanking the governor for bringing this forward because I don't believe it was as easier for him either. I appreciate him recognizing the, the, the huge impact of in Vermont of this of this community that that has on our economy, but here's where my questions are and I don't know. I feel like I may be asking uses and inappropriately so I have questions around. What are the next, the next steps. Are we good. I'm going to assume that I'm not going to ask you to have asked you to testify on some of the language that we have I think for our ledge questions for our ledge council around the process and the way that it's written so I'm going to save that for for that person. Same thing around the fiscal note for those questions for our JFO that are coming forward, but I have questions that I want you to know what I'm carrying in my thinking is, you know, are you thinking that this is a first come for serve sort of a limited hard number of dollars or more of a open ended. Let's see who applies and we adjust the budget towards that. Do you do you have a position or a place where you're thinking that that would go as we're looking at the dollars. I'm going to cop out and say, I think we should fund it to whatever degree meets the need. And if what's on the table proposed is enough, then great, we may end up returning some funds to the general fund. If not, I think this really gets that rep Yacolone point which is, it might be worth looking at again in the future, but I'm coming dangerously close to surpassing my pay grade so I'll leave it there. And I'm going to jump in. I think that Suzanne has given us a nice range that she gave us, you know, the 2 million that was on the, you know, the it's to get started it's the, you know, it's the floor, and that the ceiling would be 5.3 with the numbers that that we are are basing this on so we do have a floor and a ceiling and then it will be our job to determine where we go. And we've been pretty flexible with other programs like we've seen in some of the business economic relief of seeing where it goes and, and where it's needed and responding if it's, if the need is higher than we thought or in the opposite direction. So I would see this similar. But thank you. Thank you Diane, Kimberly and then we'll finish up with chip. It looks to me, Suzanna like this go this does not require rulemaking and just the one thing I want to say quickly, if there are situations where there are going to be differences. I would just flag some consideration and event appeals I hesitate to find the right word right adjudication something like that, because better lay that groundwork now than then retroactively particularly given all the different factors in play. Thanks. Thank you for that suggestion. Thank you Kimberly and chip. Thank you. So we have a discussion for, you know, sort of our thinking around how much funding we ought to be considering in this program for later. As you say, Madam Chair, we have the rain. But one of my, I'll have to say one of my concerns about the two million dollar markets there now is. How do we demand, how do we, how, who gets the money, you know, if we simply put it out there until it runs out. In that case, are there questions about who, you know, who came forward. And does that get into thing, you know, worries about those who are more concerned about immigration status problems that kind of thing so I'll be part of the discussion later but I did want to ask Susanna if you have a thought about this, given that if we are able to fund it more fully and their potential that money would come back to the general fund, do you, is there a, would it be reasonable to think about putting in some kind of a deadline for application that people who are going to apply for it need to have made that application by a certain date in order for us to the Appropriations Committee and the legislature to know how much of that money will be used and how much might be coming back to the general fund. Does that present a particular problems in your mind or is that something that the committee was to discuss but would work. Speaking for myself I believe in application deadline would be appropriate and about the question of whom do we prioritize if the need is greater than the funding amount. We have no I have and I'm not a mathematician but I have run numbers as much as the person who can't count can run numbers about what it would look like if we did not have funding that adequately met the need and what I would recommend is that at the very minimum we fully fund all applicants made all applications made on the behalf of a minor. So if we believe there are up to 1000 children in the state who would qualify I would say that the first 500,000 because it's 500 for child. Okay, the first 500,000. We should earmark for any child applicants. And that, and again, this is just my personal thinking and recommendation and just sort of hold that that first 500,000 for any child applicants and then the remaining 1.5 could be pro rated among any remaining adult applicants as needed, or done on a first come first or basis at the full 1200, but first come first serve bases tend not to be equitable across the country for a lot of grant programs so I think the state is going to be considering in the future moving away from that kind of model model but for now, I would just humbly recommend considering earmarking that first 500,000 for any child applicants and then what's unused from that can go towards the adults and then what's unused from that can go back to the general fund. But I, again, I'll leave the greater discussion for later I only brought up my concern about if we have more demand than there is application for exactly that reason that that first come first serve seems to me to be a problem, or potentially, not the way I'd like to just put it personally. So, but we can have that discussion later I don't I don't want to suggest by that that I'm unappreciative of, as other people have said of the governor's putting this money and for whatever part you play and helping to get this on the table. I am very appreciative as it sounds like the rest of the committee is that that it's in the budget and that we're able to have this discussion and think about how we move forward with it. So, thank you. And if I may, sort of separate but not really separate point, which is, you know, the reason that we even have to do this. And the reason that so many of our monitors are being pitted against each other for the state money is because of the strings that were attached to federal recovery funds. And so another big piece of this and, you know, as we think about well what are we going to do if there's another round that's needed or if there's this doesn't meet the need. Another big piece of it is all is the state's advocating to the federal government that any future recovery packages have more flexibility so that we don't have to make trade off or or treat. So treat recovery as if it's zero some, not to suggest that anyone here is treating recovery as if it's zero some, but unfortunately, we're having to make difficult decisions with state dollars because of the lack of flexibility and recovery funds. So, you know, I know that our federal delegation has been advocating fiercely for more flexibility for states so that we can accomplish these kinds of goals without without so much difficulty but you know this really is us picking up for the federal administration and but it doesn't have not written in stone, you know it's it's a possibility that changes could be made with any recovery packages that come down from the Fed later on in which case we may have a lot more options in the future if there is greater need or a need for a second round. Thank you. One last hand up and I am going to make a hard stop after Dave Dave would you like to ask your question please. Yes, I will try to be quick. I don't necessarily support this, but I want to put it on the table, because it could come up and I want to get your advice on it. I do recommend assuming if DCF said, you know we have the capacity to issue ebt cards. And if you want to give this benefit. I don't want to use the word as a gift card because that would sound charged in another way. But if you want to give this benefit and food will will issue ebt cards, and that modifies or weakens the argument that they're going to send the money home. How do you react respond to that. I think it's ebt for food. Yeah. It's certainly possible, and there's always a need for food, especially if you're me. But I think that would be another way to limit the judgment of Vermonters who know what they need, and how they could use those recovery funds by bottlenecking it into only food related spending. And that may not be the thing that they need to keep them afloat recovery looks different for all of us. And so, you know, if you gave me an ebt card for food, then I would be sitting in a room with 1700 pints of ice cream. And I would spend that, but I don't, I don't know that that would be an appropriate one size fit for long strategy for people with normal appetite, or other. Thank you. Peter. Thank you. I'm breaking my own rules here, Peter. Thank you. Thank you so they've just brought up an interesting point. Thank you for coming into Santa. So if you all of a sudden have a family of, you know, three plus walking around with $2,400 husband and wife $500 per child. Let's say that's three so that's $2,900 in cash. I get uncomfortable if I've got more than about $100 in cash in my pocket. The safety aspect of having that amount of cash is what I want to ask you about and what are your thoughts. How can we help to ensure nobody's robbed or lose it or, or, you know, or other options and that ebt card where, and it doesn't necessarily shouldn't just be for food only because clothing and, you know, and some kind of housing is obviously also built built into needs and there are other things that I can't think of right off the top of my head at the moment notice, so I'll let you answer the question safety aspect please. Yeah, thank you for the question and I would say respectfully representative. We are well past safety concerns for a population that is being literally hunted by ice. I think carrying cash is probably the least of their worries and I would also say that one thing that we could do to address the structural inequity issue here is to help this population get access to banking. This is often an unbanked population. And so thinking about how can we get people access to financial services that they can trust so that they don't have to worry about cash under the mattress. It is a more meaningful intervention. Then, then putting it in card form this time around. Certainly our, our system of community banks might be of assistance but I haven't opened an account in a long time, I would tend to think that they need a social security number I don't know if an item would would would qualify but barriers everywhere and we got to work. Thank you. Thank you Peter and made up. Thank you kitty. I'm sorry, but I want to say to to my colleagues on the committee. I really, really appreciate all the questions that have been asked and to try and double check this piece and that piece and next piece. Thank you so much for joining our responsibility in terms of the committee. I just want to add this observation that is burning inside of me, the population that is the focus of this legislative proposal. We've been treated differently once the folks who did receive what one could have some of the same concerns, which have been articulated with regard to any number of remonters who, who were allowed to receive the up to $1,200 by the federal government. Various restrictions were not placed on them. So I would just, in my own mind, I'm just hoping that we don't get into treating the population at issue with this proposed legislation. Yet again differently. It feels bad to me, even though we're not trying to be disrespectful. I get that. Susanna, thank you very much for coming in this information has been helpful and I'm sure as we move through we're going to need you at the table with your with your thoughts and expertise. I want to transition to more than welcome to stay in the, in the committee and hear this. I've asked the joint fiscal office when we saw the proposal to prepare a fiscal note on the governor's proposal so that we would know the whole range of cost and it's within your ceiling but I, we needed an official fiscal note to move forward and so Nolan Langwell is here to present his work and his fiscal note on on the, on the proposal as proposed by Governor Scott's budget. So Nolan, Susanna, did you already leave? Did she leave? I'm still here. I'm with you in spirit. Okay, you're welcome to stay and again I wanted to say thank you. So now we're going to wall. Thank you. Nolan. Let's talk walk through the fiscal note and Teresa, if you could put that up that would be helpful. So Nolan Langwell, the joint fiscal office. If there may be a few typos so forgive me I had to make some changes on the fly. Moments ago. So, if folks printed it out an hour ago you'll see that there are some small changes. Hang on, I had to repost it so just got to grab it again. So the other thing I'll say is I can make this pretty quick because I think that once is ended that a really good job, thorough job of walking folks through the proposal into I think a lot of the pieces that are in my fiscal note came out through the members questions so I think I will move through the spread to the quickly but I think a lot of this has sort of been discussed. So, again, this is the administration's proposal. Okay, awesome. So, it would basically this proposal would establish a corona relief assistance program for immigrants, and to be eligible you have to certify that you're a resident of Vermont, and are eligible or ineligible for to receive impact payments under the federal cares active integration status has always been discussed is $1,200 per eligible adult and $500 for the child. And it's estimated that it would be it would. It would affect about 3500 to 4000 adults and about up to 1000 children. Now, what I'll say about that is I spent some time talking to Susanna and looking through their methodology and I feel like this is as reasonable and fair of an estimate as there is. They showed me several they provided me all their sources and I reviewed the sources, and in no way did they ever pick the highest they always were very thoughtful and where in the ranges that they pick so I feel like they did a really good job, very reasonable job of providing how many people we think are affected. Again, it's, we don't know and from various sources from various years. So we're just, it's the best that can be done to figure out the amount of people at this moment. In that estimate there's 3000 undocumented adults, approximately 250 of which are folks that work in the dairy industry. These are citizens and legal permanent residents these are green card holders, who file taxes with undocumented spouses. Zero to 500 immigrants with lawful status but do not have a social security number so this would be folks with this examples of the student visa asylum applicants, others who are waiting for their asylum authorization spouses under dependents who have been petitioned by citizens, etc. Thank you, Ellen. I want to just interrupt Teresa, could you move the, the, thank you. Thank you. And then estimate between 500 and 1000 children. These estimates are consistent and then then they had another piece with this they looked at they provided a few research center report from 2016 and this their estimates in the aggregate we're very consistent with a few center names as well so again, I'll just say that I think that these are fair and reasonable estimates as there are at the moment. And based on those numbers, the estimate is going to be between 4.5 million and 55.3 million dollars a year. And as was discussed, the governor's budget restatement proposes appropriating 2 million of general fund for this program, which is less than half that will be needed. So can you go to the next page. So, things that keep in mind that would impact the estimate. And this was again this came up in conversation was the take up, which is how many people will take up the program. And again this gets to, I think a lot of it will depend on how the program is administered, and that gets to the complexity of the application process, how well the outreach program go is. And also how much to trust there is an intended of the by the intended beneficiaries for the state and or the administering program so the conversation about how many people we think will apply I think a big part of that will be the program administered who is administering it and how well did they get the word out. And then another piece that I think representative Yacobone brought up, Yacobone was that, you know, whether to the extent that the program partners with any private entities to assist with the administration there could be additional administrative costs that said that obviously would be the goal would be to have as little administrative costs as possible, but we'd be remiss if we did flag that as an issue. So that's the fiscal note in a pinch. And I'm happy to answer questions that that haven't already been asked I think, but if there's questions. Thank you, Nolan for walking us through the fiscal note, and I would ask committee members I think a great deal of the questions have been answered. But if there's specific questions related to the fiscal note. This is a good time to ask Nolan representative Lanford. You are muted. There we go. Thank you, Nolan for for this I know I know you're very, very busy. If I'm recalling the $2 million that the governor recommends. It is one time dollars. It's not ongoing, obviously, but and then I'm trying to remember if it was if this is in FY 20. One time dollars. Is the 2 million. Maybe that's not a fair question to ask Nolan. I think you could it's it's the governor's restatement by the fiscal year 21. So it would be a 21 thing. And I would assume that this is in one time, just federal cares money was one time. Yeah. Okay, thank you. This would be a one time appropriation. We would have an application. Well, we would consider an application deadline. So that it didn't go into 2030. But that's all discussion that the committee will have. I wanted to just state for Susana before she leaves that we did take some testimony last week from from Commissioner Gresham. And it was considered by the administration, whether this should go into the budget or whether it would move as a separate bill, ultimately the administration put it into the budget for consideration. Our committee talked about this yesterday, not yesterday, Friday or Thursday or Friday of last week. And we had, we had, we took a vote around around the screen here that it would be the desire of this committee to move it out of the budget and move it as a separate bill. And at this point, I'm considering not considering I'm assuming that that position has not changed from the committee, and we would go ahead and move this as a separate bill. Or nods of heads or is there any opposition to that I should ask, does any has anyone changed their mind about that. Okay, so we will move it as a separate bill and as we start. We have the governor's language to work from and as we start working on our own language, the fiscal note would be representative of the language that we will bring forth for the committee unless we made some radical changes and no one needed to repeat that language or revise it. Any final questions now we do have. I see Commissioner Greshin has joined us. Are there any final questions for the executive of the program or for Commissioner Greshin sorry Adam that's what happens when you show up, or for the joint fiscal office with the fiscal note, and if not we'll move into committee discussion. Good morning. Adam it's always nice to see you. Well I'm not seeing you yet I'm just seeing a blank a blank square with your busy. Okay, I would like to move. I would like to thank thank you Adam and thank you for your clarification last week regarding the proposal and and with your thoughts talking about whether it's a budgeted item or whether it's a bill item and we have made the decision to move it as a separate bill. Thank you for your work and bringing in this to us and to the governor for putting this proposal forward. We thank the executive director Susanna Davis for her work in this critical legislation and Nolan thank you for your work to provide us with a timely. We're just working like crazy in legislative council and in the fiscal office, just getting this, this information we need so quickly and we appreciate it. Not just the timely work but the incredibly good work that you do. Good move to committee discussion and we have about 30 minutes. Take a break at noon. And when we come back, I do want to get back to our budget, you know to the budget so I would like to shape this up with the format we will move forward with. And so that work can can start with legislative council. So with this bill, there were some pieces that the committee members brought up there were pieces around whether there's an application deadline. There was a piece regarding any unused funds where they would revert to what we would do with that I think Marty that was your question. Chip I think you had the application deadline. And there's been comments around restricting the use of the money or, or, you know, does the committee want to think about EBT cards or light provisions or made I think you talked about, you know, rolling it out as we did, or as the federal government did with the stimulus package that went out back in March to, to individuals. So let's start with those pieces and so that legislative council we can give them some, some information about the direction our committee would like to take. Bob, I see your hand is up would you like to. Yeah, I don't know maybe you covered it and I missed it but how about if there's more demand than there is money allocated. It would be what we do with anything else if there's more demand and reach up or with any program. They come whoever it is that's in charge of that program comes back to budget adjustment and pleads a case. The one difference with this program is, there would be a deadline to have your application in. And so once that deadline hits you know exactly the number you're working with, but with other programs that are ongoing. So maybe that's where we want to start with is with the application process. Susanna has said that she you know she wants to be intricately involved with this process but let's talk about a deadline for the application which she did I wrote down under her name she feels that is appropriate. What are members feeling about an application deadline. I don't know. Any thought any agree. It should be a deadline. Yeah, are there. Bob, you have your blue hand October one. Oh, I say there's a should be a deadline. I didn't that's not why I had my hand up. Sorry. I'm going to put it down. I think that there's agreement that there should be a deadline and and let's talk about that deadline Marty you have your hand up and I think you put out a date. I threw out October 1. Okay. So that is one month from today. I appreciate the date and I'm not pushing back against the date I would need to learn over 15. Yeah, I'm just thinking how long it's going to take to to get this out and get the awareness out and whether the program would open on the same day. So, Marty is that date to set up or to apply. I was thinking of it as an application date, but I agree with Kitty that's probably too short by the time we get our legislation done and we get some agency to actually set it up. But I think the idea is we want to have it right away. And I'd say October 15 or November 1, if that's makes it more reasonable. But the date to actually learn enough about it and actually get your application in by November 1. Okay, so we have a number first which I think that in fairness we would run that by Susanna but you know if we could act quickly we did hear in testimony from Susanna, they want this money to go out quickly. And so it's not something they want to do along. Kitty, and then Mary. Yeah, thanks kitty. I want to weigh in that I think November 1 is better than any earlier, because this has to go through the other chamber. You know, it might be the very end of September before this is signed off on. November 1, I think is so number November 1 is is is a reasonable kind of timeframe. Thank you, Maida. Dave and then Diane. Thank you. Oh, sorry. I think that as we think about this whole bill, we should keep stay focused on keeping it as simple as possible. They we don't need any level of complexity to it. On this topic, I would suggest that we simply say that there is a deadline for getting it out and let the people who are administering the program, figure out what the right deadline is. You could say as soon as possible, which is so mealy mouth that I know it's an uncomfortable thing. But I just, I, let's keep it simple. I'm very concerned about a deadline that is either too short, or too long. And I don't know what the right number where it is, which is the reason I'd rather give it to the folks who may know more than we do. Anna may be able to guide us on that which she what she thinks would be a good whether it needs to be. I mean, we as we don't know when the bill, you know, will ultimately end up being passed and signed and then the, the whole process being set up and so whether there needs to be some more flexibility there or if she, if she has a date in mind that she could help guide us with. And she did Mary to your point talk about simplifying the form that that was going to be key. The $1,200 that came into other Vermonters and and people around the country. There was no form. There was just a check that. So, let me see, I don't know who was next Linda, I'll go to Linda, and then Dave, Kimberly after that Linda. Thank you. Thank you, kitty. I am very much in favor of a deadline for having the form not just leaving it for someone to decide at some point in time. On November 1, I was in favor of Marty's first October 1, but I was willing to be changed to the to November the first, but in regards to what you just said about that $1,200 for that $1,200 that originally came out to all citizens that went out. And there's no way I mean they're, they're, it, you looked at the, at the social security numbers you looked at their tax payments and, and it went out. We don't have that opportunity with this which is why I feel that we really need some kind of a specific deadline date. You know, November 1 works for me. Just because I think there's enough time for the state to get, get its act together, and, and, and then move on from there. And while I've got the screen here. One more thing to say is that I really feel this should come definitively from the state of Vermont, not from another organization that we move it to. This should come from the, the governor's office or from the House of Representatives or the state of Vermont or the legislature, but not assigning it to another even a nonprofit or something like that to move this out. This is, this is coming from the legislature, this is coming from the governor and that's how it should go out. Thank you. And you're saying using a government agency to put the money out and not a third party. Yes, exactly. I went to Kimberly next and then to Dave and I'm just trying to, I'm losing track of who I say first. Just super quick one consideration Lynn, I appreciate your point, but I think this is going to involve multiple languages and so on so that it doesn't fall flat and so the outreach is meaningful and I don't know what the capacity is for the state of Vermont and I'm thinking about some recent experiences in elections around that, but I take your point but, and I also agree with Mary about leaving the details, but I would be comfortable with the deadline only if it allowed a really robust outreach program that was carefully considered for the populations that we are trying to reach so that if there is a lower uptake, it's not because the outreach was inadequate. Thank you Kimberly. Dave and then Diane. Yes, I'm listening and I want to be open to all all ideas. I should say though right now I've not been persuaded at all as to why there would be a deadline on assistance. For me this is humanitarian aid. Why would I have a hard, fast deadline and not provide assistance to someone? Why would I say to people whose lives that I cannot relate to, but I read about and I try to empathize with. I'll never know what it's like to be worried to go to Walmart and have somebody take me away from my family. I'll never worry what it's like to have to live underground and to be hidden. I think it will take time for the networks that exist or that will emerge to convince people to be helped. And if a deadline is intended to help us for accounting purposes, I'm not quite persuaded by that. Somebody wants to put a deadline that's reasonable on government standing up a program within a certain period of time. I probably could support that. Linda raises a good point about whether it should be the state or not. I think many fear the state. But there are network organizations who might have the relationships to persuade people to step forward and go to a state office to receive assistance. That is a scary thing for many people. I don't want to be redundant. I'll stop there. I just I just worry that people who desperately need help might might be denied with a hard deadline and that that gives me pause. Thank you. Thank you, Dave. Diane and then we'll move to chip them back to Linda. Oh, good, because I wanted to respond to I wrote down Dave, my, my feeling on a deadline was, was exactly what you said is a deadline on us we've seen, whether it's in the chins program or in the substance use disorder program where five and seven million dollars have sat for years and not, not that there wasn't good work around trying to get it done. But that was my concern around a deadline is more about getting, getting to the point where maybe or my feeling would be committee is that we get to a deadline for when we start outreach so that they have some time built in. So we want to be as soon as possible to be able to start outreach. And then there's a window of time whether we have to define it or not, that outreach occurs while taking applications. And we could ask just like we've done in these other bills, which by the way off topic, the meals on wheels report that I finally read yesterday is fabulous. But that's, that's a check in report of, Hey, we gave you money what's going on with this, and are we meeting the goals of where we wanted to reach. So I would look for a check in. And kind of just a two pager of like what's happened how many people are applied where's the grant gone. I don't have a problem with it going through ahs and if they want to grant out some of this. But ahs will have to be the one throat to choke on this so to speak. So that was where some of my thinking was is that I would want to move as quick as possible to that they've got the program ready to go to outreach and then I don't know about a deadline on the other end but I wouldn't want it to be eight months. I'd want it to be shorter than that. I'll stop talking. I just, I just want to clarify with the committee, a deadline means is this an open ended program that we will, we will fund for years and years and years or is this parody to the 1200 that went out for stimulus to coven 19. And so we need to define exactly what we're doing. The program that's brought to us from the governor is parody to the coven 19 expense. And so I would, I would be a little hesitant to create a program that goes on forever without it going to a policy committee that would be a January issue and rate to a policy committee because appropriations does not make going programs. We have been appropriating CRF money those are not available for this for this group of people. And so, you know, if we're looking at something more than addressing the coven 19 $1,200 parody and 500 for children that that is going to have to be go out to the committees of jurisdiction. So we have to think about that which then does push out the 1200 because then it becomes a different program than what's in front of us right now for a budget committee to consider. I have no idea where I am with hands I think this was to Linda next and chip chip okay chip and then Linda and then I'm not going to get ahead of myself I'm going to then call on you one at a time. I'll be very brief because Kenny you've just said pretty much what I was going to say I want to say first I really appreciate Dave's sort of way of viewing this. And I think that's, that's incredibly important. But, but this is a sort of a one time program to get that money out the door to those people in the same way that stimulus money went out. And therefore I think needs to be limited in its in the time period that it that it can take it's not an ongoing program as, as I think, you know, would be lovely to be able to consider and that and that sort of addresses the view of it that Dave has I think. But for me this is a one time program that needs to get out the door and and you know there's a fiscal, like it or not there's a fiscal aspect to that which part of which is that we're asking, we're going to be asking some agency to administer it. I don't think we want to ask them to take on that burden for any longer period of time and then it's necessary they need to know kind of the scope of their work that they're going to have to do. And as much as, you know, again, we hate to have to say it, if there's money left over that this doesn't isn't going to go out because people are unwilling to apply for it or whatever. We should know that sooner rather than later so that that money can go back into the general fund to support other programs that are important that we all care about that that could also do important humanitarian life work. Thank you. Linda. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify the statement that I made about having a deadline that a deadline that I was talking about, whether it's November 1 or whether it's October 15 or whatever was for the application, not that people should have already received their money will will have received their money. So it has the program has to start up. And so I would like to give the, you know, the administration and this and the state, the opportunity to put this program together so that the people that want it, get it, or have the opportunity to get it, and have that ready by say the that by November 1. And that's when people can start applying for it. So that was just a clarification I wanted to make. Thank you. Linda. Peter. Thank you so I think I've in my own mind I now have three deadlines here that are paid to call them deadlines but three timeframes that we need to be looking at the first of which is the date that that people are residing here in the state of Vermont for which they will be eligible for for this and on the table the dates February, March and April of calendar year 2020, that if they were residing here and fell within one of the parameters as identified in the design of Davis's document that they would then be eligible for that that so that would then take the calendar of the time frame that we're looking at and then the, the date to stand the program up Linda's is as good as any. The date by which they should apply we can either use the budget document itself which, which, which finishes 30 June of 2021 as the date by which they must apply, or we can bring it, bring it backwards a little bit to the March, April time frame next year which would give folks a full year to to apply for this, if they were here in resident time and work it from there. So, we really have three dates that we have to, I think, look at here. Okay, can I can I comment on that that's great here. Love it. Can I just I like the part of the April made that end date. It allows us that we still have the budget so if there's unused funds it comes to us before our budget adjustment is out to, well the maybe budget adjustment or the budget next year. Yeah. Peter, can you I want to write. So again, again, three dates that I think we need to be looking at one is the date where they were residents in the state of Vermont and because the the original intent of why the rest of us received funding was was because of COVID. And I'm looking at the because of COVID. And I just right off top my heads in February March, April, March is kind of the date when it really went wham, but February was the lead in and, and, and April certainly hurt or you can do March April May. So, or you can do all four. But just that timeframe for residency, you know that they are residing here in the state. That would be the first. The second Linda's you know to get the to get the program stood up sometime in, you know, late October or November, I think would be very as we have said, needs to be very simple. So shouldn't be difficult to get it stood up. And then the date by which is the you have to apply for it by this date, because this is a budget document we can say through 30 June. That's, and that's it, or we can move it forward a little bit and say I would time it actually my preference would be the same timeframe, one year later from the date of that they are residing here so we're going to use February March April I would say and a month April of next year. If we're going to use January February March I'd say in the month March next year. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Marty. And then Mary. I can agree with the date of residence and the date to stand up the program but I would certainly think we want people to actually apply and therefore disperse money, much sooner than next March. I would, if we allow them to start applying on November 1 I would think we want to start. To have a deadline of when they have applied by December so we can start sending money out the door. If we don't put a deadline on the application that means it's totally open, and we're going to be doing the first come first serve situation. If we want to prorate it if we think we may have to then you're going to have to know what your pool of people is. So you can prorate it before you start sending money out the door. I thought the intent was to get money out as quickly as possible. And it would seem to me if we had a hefty outreach program I agree we need that. But we would ask people we would have it available to apply for by by the first of November. People would have four weeks to think about applying and actually get an application in by December, rather than stretch it way out. And, and again then we're stuck with the first come first serve, and not knowing whether there's enough money or not. That's a good point with other grants that we've put out we don't start putting out the money until like you know with the dairy or the or the loggers, and then the money goes out after the applications are in. So we have to think about it. Extend it to March. Do we dribble the money out or do we wait until the end of March and then all the money goes out. We dribble it. We send it out. Okay, and I agree with what Marty said but what I'm doing is thinking about the trust piece here. What I would anticipate some to many individuals will do is they're going to wait and see what happened to to you know someone else I know who is applying for this early let me see if anything bad it be here. This month or did somebody come and take him away that kind of thing. I think that we need to to give it enough time such that it and of itself will build enough trust in people so that they will actually apply hence my reasoning for saying, let's give it a year. I know that that means it's going to go out dribbling. But if folks decide, I could really use the funds now, and I'm okay enough with it I'll go apply. Just one minute, Diane, I think that this. These are the questions that we don't have the expertise we we don't. Right. Right, we don't. This is where Susana Davis is office we signed that office to help us answer these questions. And so I would suggest chip that you bring all of these questions about, you know, the, you know, the, the date of that you had to have residency here in Vermont. And then the date to get a startup program and then the date to apply by and you know do we strict or not restrict that date or put the funds out. Peter brought up a point where you know my neighbor apply and see what happens and if it works out then okay, I will. Or, you know, people may be so desperate right now they need the money now. And we don't want to put barriers to get get it rolling as fast as we can. So instead of us trying to guess what it should be. Chip, would you bring all of these questions back to Susana and then we could have her back into the committee to help to help walk through some of our concerns and then we can make better decisions. Once we hear from her and the communities. Let's see I have very next and then shift Bob Marty. Thank you, and I, I agree that we need to ask advice on how to do this I, I would like to suggest that taking the question of whether or not you are a resident way back when off the table. I think what matters is that you were a resident when we began offering this service, not what were you doing back then because what we care about is who is in the state right now who is in trouble, and how do we give them help. We know that if you say if you were a resident by September 1, for example, you have not, you didn't move here to what would have to figure out the date so that you wouldn't move here to take advantage of the program. I hear I presume that's the issue that you're addressing. Peter by suggesting a beginning date. I don't think it matters when you came here, as long as you are here. And that's what those are the folks that we need to offer this opportunity to. I agree that we do not want to pass something into law, and then have people move here to take advantage of it. That's a different question, then were you here in March. Can I respond to that. Then it can help with that as well. Diana. I'm sorry, not Diana. It's all right there's I answered almost anything that's done. I the only reason I will the reason I would track back Mary that I don't disagree with you totally but if we're trying if this program is a not a new program it's just in response to the fact that these people were left out of a program that the fed set up that the rest of us were able to benefit from. So we're trying to parody it to that program that it was, you know, a specific point of time, right. So, I was somewhere in the United States at some date, and I was eligible for the federal program. Why shouldn't I be eligible for this one that you're trying to make. So you're thinking that being a resident of Vermont is not as much a requirement as a resident or have been in the United States. I'm just trying to say that we didn't have residency. We didn't restrict people when they got the federal money. When I don't think we would restrict people who didn't receive the federal money. That's all I was just trying to draw. I don't think residency in March in Vermont is particularly relevant. The question is, do you have a need today that was not met in the past. Yeah, I'm trying to also think about and I know they're having discussions tough on zoom of like some of the programs that we set up for relief in the business community. Had you had to be in business within this timeframe. Of course we were talking very specific COVID relief dollars. You know, we also saw, think about all the problems we saw with that. Yeah. Instead of 50, you know, et cetera. I'm going to move to Bob. Bob, you have a question or comment. Oh yeah. Wow, this goes back always but you know I don't know who what types of people y'all are talking about. What I have here come in, and they're hired and whether it's 10 of them 15 of them or whatever it is to a farm to a quarry to a business. And that employer is going to deal with this forum, the employer is going to step right up and say hey guys here's what I got for you. And he's going to walk them through it. He's going to do that within 24 hours of finding out that it's available. In my, in my world anyways, none of them are in financial trouble. They don't have any money anyways because as I said earlier, it goes home every Friday, they'll they'll run from the sleep glories they run a bus up to the bank you can watch them march right out of their single file right into the bank and out the other door. So, you know, I maybe have got other types of people wandering around the state that are not under an umbrella of that nature. But I sure don't that's that's the only type of folks I have these, these guys will be guided, and the employer will do it because it's going to make him look good and he wants his guys to get as much money as he can. I mean, they were getting. I know the Brazilians were getting 12 bucks a day, and now they're getting 17 bucks an hour. They're wealthy people. Anyways, in their own eyes, and if they can throw another 12 in their pocket their employer is going to look like a real great guy to them and everybody will be happy. I think it's a great thing for my, my people, but I can't imagine anybody could could lose on it but anyways I've said my thing. And I will be now so you all can have lunch. Yes, Peter. So, Susanna Davis can help us answer all of our questions and otherwise we're just going to continue to discuss discuss discuss discuss and not end up anywhere. So that's where that's where I'm going but I want to be able to wrap up because I'm giving a lot of pieces to what I want to say to the committee is, we have a proposal from the governor to find parity in a program that came out from the federal government. If we are going to move this into a larger or different type of program. It needs to go to the committee of jurisdiction. If we're if we so so we just we just really need to decide as a committee. Is this something that we feel that we can work with and take. You know, we need to hear from Susanna and chip and I see that she's joined us but because we're at the noon time and we've been sitting here for two hours. During this break. I want you to really think you know there's all sorts of questions about the little bits of detail and what it should be. So chip is going to bring our questions and is our focus on the proposal brought to us by the governor for parity for money that went out and and to address for mantras who were left behind for that issue, or if it's a larger if it's if it's the parity issue from the budget. Our committee can move forward with it. If it's something larger that individuals are looking for it leaves our committee and it goes to the committees of jurisdiction to take full testimony and it becomes probably a January issue. Unless we want to be here in October. Okay, so chip, you get the final words and then I'm not going to I'm not moving after chip because it's afternoon and then come back and work on the budget. Yep. Thanks you, you again have covered pretty much what I was going to say and I will forward our questions to Susanna. I think the residency when we discuss a, a draft. I think that's probably the place to discuss that. I think there's some real questions that have been brought up here that they're going to have to nail down I know how I am thinking about it but maybe, maybe I could suggest that we wait to that when we get to the draft of the bill. And you've heard some questions and so if you could take these to Susanna, and in a committee members want to weigh in with you directly offline, and you bring a first draft of a bill for us to then to then work with. I want to remind the committee though, we have to work through this thoughtfully and carefully and really responsibly but we have a budget that we have to have all decisions made by Friday. If this is going to be a second bill addressed by this committee, all work we have to be done by Friday as well. Otherwise, it doesn't have it doesn't have the time so keep your time the time frame in mind. And made it I'm sorry but I did say I was going to stop with chip and so we will catch up with you. I'm sorry otherwise I know it will be another question and another question. I would like to come back at 115. And I want to go through some more of the web report language and new language if new languages if anyone has any and also our language that's existing to close out pieces and then at the end of the day. We may come back to this bill. But if you have specific thoughts get them to chip and he's going to be in touch with Susanna and legislative council and we should have some sort of draft legislation that we can take a start working on tomorrow. Okay. Okay, that was actually kind of fun. Madam chair to have a little policy. I know that but if we go policy, it's going to the policy. Okay, I think we can go offline Teresa and we'll be back at 115.