 Okay, so we're going to move on to the Dr. Dinosaur Bill, which is a house bill as well. And what's the number on it, please? 430. 430. Okay. So we have the reporter of the bill and we also have Jen Carby, who probably was a drafter of the bill. Yes. Okay, so we know that this is to expand Dr. Dinosaur coverage. So, Senator Hooker-Shell, we start with you please. Okay, thank you. Thank you for allowing me to come in and talk about this important bill that would allow coverage for children and for pregnant women who are not, who have a status that does not allow them to be covered under Medicaid. So the bill is a new, really a new program. The program would be a new program. It would be Dr. Dinosaur-like in that it would provide the similar coverage, although it would be paid for by the state. So I'm going to let Jennifer Carby speak to what the specifics of the bill are and be happy to listen in and try to answer any questions. And we don't, I don't know if it's a lengthy bill or not. It's five pages. It's a five page bill. Okay. Do you want me to put it up? Yes, and we'll whip through it pretty quickly because I think what we're doing is what we're saying is we want to provide health care coverage to children whose status, immigration status, does not bring them in under the traditional Medicaid eligible coverage that would come from Dr. Dinosaur. So it's really Dr. Dinosaur, it's Dr. Dinosaur, it's just that rather than being able to get the Medicaid match, we are having to provide the coverage with state dollars only. That's right. And it was important to Diva that we not try to connect it and the reason it uses things like Dr. Dinosaur-like is because they, the proposal is for them to do a more streamlined intake process, determination process rather than having to do the full Medicaid eligibility determination, find somebody ineligible as a result of their immigration status, and then allow them to have this benefit. So it would be, they'd be evaluating people determining eligibility for this specific program. So we start out with some intent, basically saying in establishing this program, it's the intent of the General Assembly that the benefits and eligibility criteria should align to the greatest extent practicable with those in the Dr. Dinosaur program. And then it provides this coverage. It does say that term Vermont residents who have an immigration status for which Medicaid coverage is not available includes migrant workers who are employed in seasonal occupations in the state. So it's not just people who are here year round but also people who may be here seasonally to perform, perform work duties. It directs the agency to provide hospital medical dental and prescription drug coverage equivalent to that in the Medicaid state plan to the following categories of Vermont residents who have this immigration status for which Medicaid is not available and who are otherwise uninsured. So children under 19 whose household income doesn't exceed that for eligibility under the Vermont state plan Medicaid state plan and pregnant individuals whose income does not include the income threshold under the Medicaid state plan for coverage during their pregnancy and for postpartum coverage equivalent to that under the Medicaid state plan. So that's language because it's currently 60 days postpartum but there is an option for states under ARPA to extend that to 12 months. So if the state were to elect that in Dr. Dinosaur, it would same provision would apply in this program. It certifies that the confidentiality provisions set forth in under the Medicaid program that section 19 to a shall apply to all applications submitted and records created under the under this section, except AHS shall not make any information about applicants or enrollees available to the US government. So it's a state only program and to alleviate concerns about immigration information going to the federal government that says they don't share that information. It allows AHS to adopt rules to carry out the purposes. Then we have a one time appropriation for sort of this transition year as the program the program wouldn't actually be available until next year, assuming appropriations are made for it. So this has the sum of 1.4 million in one time funds appropriated to AHS in FY 22 be used for grants or reimbursements or both to healthcare providers for delivering services during FY 22 to this population. So until they are eligible for the actual coverage under the program would be money to providers to deliver the services to them. It also grants to Vermont organizations that work with members of Vermont's undocumented immigrant community or the healthcare community to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate outreach and information regarding opportunities for these children and pregnant individuals to access healthcare services at low or no cost both during this year and also later on during under the program, the outreach and information would include information on that confidentiality of records. And the third use of the funding is implementing the technological and operational process is necessary for Diva to administer the program beginning on July 1 of next year. Chapter three has the agency of human services providing information on the estimated FY 23 costs of providing this doctor dinosaur like coverage beginning on July 1 2022 as part of the agencies FY 23 budget presentation to this committee and to the policy committees. And then the section to that 1.4 million and one time money would take effect on July 1. Everything else would take effect on passage with a chess making that coverage available under the doctor dinosaur like program beginning July 1 2022 subject to FY 23 appropriations for that purpose. So it's Are they ready to implement July 1. They are ready. So this will be July 1 2022. They said they they need, you know, nine months or so to get it up and running. So that's why there's that transitional provision. Otherwise, no, they were not prepared July 1 of this year. Okay. Can I. Yes, go ahead. I can't, I can't move around in the documents. It's hard to pull it together but so this is doing a one time money infusion to get the program going. And then is it is it committing the state to go forward or are they coming back with data to the appropriations committee, a year out to to get that ongoing more the latter it's so section two is the one time appropriation is sort of a transitional year it's not really trying to run the program. Yet, it's doing it's laying the groundwork but also giving money to providers to deliver the care. Now, while things are getting set up. So a lot of it is this technological and operational processes that diva needs to do in this year, so that it so that they would be ready beginning July 1 2022, but then it has the coverage, taking effect, or beginning on July 1 2022 but subject to the appropriation so they're coming back to you next year to say what they think it would cost, which I think and I think Nolan is here and can tell you about the about the cost. But there isn't estimate already. We would have already laid technological groundwork and we would have committed to it at that point pretty much. You would have taken steps to implement it yes. Yeah. So this is my question I guess gets into. This is a base ongoing expenditure starting in 23. Yes, subject to obviously to the appropriations for that but yes. It is no one have a fiscal note with you. I believe he does I will take this down and let Nolan speak to you. For the record and all I will the joint fiscal office I do have a fiscal notes. It's a little rough. But I can send it it's very similar to what was passed in the house. I can also pull it up if you want. Yeah, I'll send it out. In a minute but basically what it says is that the estimated on this is based on. I work with diva to come up with an estimate and they work with the advocates and they estimate that there's about 22 undocumented pregnant women. And that cost would estimate about a million dollars. Then there's about 100 children but they'd be at varying remember per month depending on what medic a eligibility Medicaid eligibility group they'd be in, but the estimates about 261,000. That's all of the estimated to be about $1.3 million. And that's gross no state dollars. That's what we think it will cost ongoing potentially. So, if we pass this, then, and get it set up the house. Right now it's one time for the startup and design. And some payment to providers. Right, but in the interim pain, but it is really representing an ongoing expenditure. And so that's something that will have to be accommodated in the budget next year. And just to just clear on the house side where the 1.4 was it was accounted for it was pretty much accounted for as a basic expenditure. That's what I was struggling with stuff because my impression from talking with you is that they had recognized that you're setting up something with a commitment to continue it. Yeah. Okay. And why is the first year, the same amount as when we get it set up and running. Probably because you've got a lag time between when payments are actually being met so the second year would be all provider payments and the first year it would be a combination of a startup administrative costs, programming, etc. And that would be a combination of coverage payments. I think that house when they did a part of it was they wanted to start getting money out the door to start helping people immediately while the program was being created by it. Well, this should help reduce uncompensated care. Right. So we're going to see a concurrent reduction on premiums. We talked about giving get more and then when you're asking them about that. Not this. No, I don't think so, because we just got the bill. Can I ask another question and go to Jen. A long time ago, Bobby and I worked on driver's licenses for undocumented migrant workers. And there was a commitment from Department of Motor Vehicles not to share the information. And then over a course of four or five years, it became clear that they were sharing information. Let me tell you, let me tell you the agency and the confidentiality. And requirements is very, very different than DMV that even sells data. Okay, that was my question is, can we take that to the bank when it says that they shall not share. I mean, this is a this is a stronger statement than we had in that bill. I just wanted to ask the question. I would have to say that all these benefit programs are the confidentiality is very stringent. It's very stringent. And people are don't release information. Whether we're talking about food stamp eligibility to Medicaid eligibility to other benefit programs there. There's there, it's a very different situation. So if we say it's confidential, I would say that based on 50 years of experience, it is confidential. Okay, thank you. The only thing I'm wondering is, we have seems like we have ample one time money. I just am wondering about a year from now. I hope that we have. That's what I have. That's why Stephanie's comment is so important, because the house when it passed it anticipated this as an ongoing expenditure and accommodated in their base. Even though it's one time to get it set up and to make these interim payments. This is assumed as an ongoing. And they have ongoing revenue to support it. Yeah, okay. Okay, so I just suggest that we remove this appropriation and we put it in the budget. And the reason for that is obvious. And that is a lot of what we're doing here represents general fund commitment. And that general fund is generated through some of the other parts of the budget that that free up general fund through the use of ARPA. And so this money is available as long as that construct and the budget is signed and becomes law. So this needs to come and be part of the budget and I would. So what I'm wondering, are you suggesting taking out all of section two are just making section to grants dependent on funding being provided. I want to make it. I wanted a contingent on appropriations and grants being provided. So basically the first line of section two coming out and to the extent that funding is provided in. Yes. Then the grants happen. Thank you. It's with the understanding that we are going to put it in the big bill. That's my only point is even though we'll put it in the big bill is a very straightforward case of money that says for grants for this bill will be law yet, but we'll reference the programs being set up. Yeah. Is that something you can Jen you're shaking your head that's something you'll take care of. Yes, and thank you Stephanie that's helpful to know what it should say and I will. Yes, I can do that. Okay, so once we make that change. So it makes it clear that you know this will move forward and it's a contingent on the appropriation and the appropriation we're going to put into the budget. Yeah. All right, so she'll, unless there are further questions. So we have our clerk. Call the roll. Yes. You did Mr. Clark. Quiet as she's been in a while. Oh, okay. You're back. Senator balance. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator nitka. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Senator Westman. Yes. Senator Kitchell. Yes. Okay, we are unanimous. I guess I'm the reporter because I have diva. I'm like the house, Jen. We all have to. We all have our budget assignments. So all right. Once we get that language, I will. Then send that in the vote and the reporter to the secretary's office. Thank you, madam chair and committee. Okay. So do we have. S 120. Is that are you the reporter on that as well? Senator Hooker. I am. Okay. Shall we take up as 120. Pretty sure we don't have possession of that one yet. Oh, we don't. There's a technicality. Right. It actually, they decided this morning to make it a committee bill. And so it has not yet been introduced. Oh, then I can. We can still look at it if you want. You can talk through it. It just your action today will have to probably be, you know, I think, I think right. Okay. So now we don't have S one 20. We have a committee bill. You do. Right. It's a combination of S one 20 and S one 32. And what are those? Okay. We're about to hear from the reporter. Okay. All right. So. This bill proposes to establish a task force on affordable accessible healthcare to explore opportunities to make healthcare more affordable for Vermont residents and employers. It would require an account of that's the, that was the primary purpose of S one 20 and S one 32. It would require accountable care organizations to collect and analyze clinical data regarding healthcare quality and provide the results of its analysis to the green mountain care board. It would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers from engaging in certain activities with respect to entities participating in the third, three 40 B drug pricing program. And then it would require accountable care organizations to collect and analyze clinical data regarding healthcare quality and provide information to the general assembly about the plan. And it would require reports to the general assembly on increases in health insurance, insurers administrative costs on accountable care organizations, care coordination initiatives, and on the likely impact of requiring health insurance plans to provide information to the general assembly about the plan. And it would require reports to the general assembly on increases in health insurance, and on the likely impact of requiring health insurance plans to allow at least two primary care visits per year without cost sharing. The bill would also direct the department of financial regulation to review Vermont's benchmark plans, establishing the state's essential health insurance. We've just done that in the budget. Well, yes, they weren't sure if you were putting it in. So they put it in. Okay. I think it was clear to us this morning. That we were. Putting it in the budget that was in her seven page memo requested. Okay. So would that be something you would want us to take out? I don't know. You need to decide what vehicle you want to use. We were putting it in at the request of the. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Would you rather have it right in the budget? No. No. I would. Jen. And the bill has not been introduced yet. So we could. Go back to the committee and take it out. And we had a discussion with the commission. The commission. And we have been in touch with the commissioner P check. He has indicated his support for the language. He's reviewed it. And so we had already made a decision that we would. Include the requested language in the budget. Okay. Thank you. You're lucky, Cheryl. I got out of that one easily. Okay. Okay. And if you want. Jennifer to. Go through the bill. Well, we're getting it because there's an appropriation. Right. I think probably that's what we need to focus on. Okay. Go ahead, Jen. Okay. Great. So I will put this up and direct you to the appropriation. And the appropriation is for this task force. Senator Hooker mentioned. So he creates starts out findings. It creates this task force on affordable accessible healthcare. It has three members of the house. Remembers of the Senate. The task force's duty is to explore opportunities to make healthcare more affordable for Vermont residents and employers, including identifying potential opportunities to leverage federal, federal flexibility and financing. To expand existing public healthcare programs. So when this task force then feed into our waiver. Negotiate. I'm just thinking about. Because we have language that the health commit health and welfare committee already has about directing CMS. In our waiver negotiations to. Right. To expand the flexibility. Yeah. The language is to increase the state's flexibility to use global commitment, investment dollars to increase access to care coverage, improve health outcomes, strengthen healthcare delivery, promote transformation to value based and integrated models of care. Right. That language is actually the language you just cited. There is actually from the way our current global commitment waiver. It's actually the language that we're talking about right now. It's actually the language that we're talking about right now. We're talking about how to maintain or expand our flexibility and global commitment investments. Generally. It could affect this. As far as, you know, we may identify. The task force may identify. Things that we could use global commitment investment dollars. For if we were. Afford of the same or greater flexibility. All right. The timing is not really intended to feed in the report from this. Yeah. Our intent, I think madam chair was to make sure that we heard from Vermonters. And what their concerns are about the healthcare system. And I would hope that it would feed into the negotiations. Have we not done this before. Through the past couple of years. Seems like this far as the task force, this kind of task force. The kind of information that's going to be worked on here. I think that. A lot of groups have worked on this previously. Well, maybe they could. Becca, do you want to speak to this? We felt like. Senator, that there was a particular opportunity here that we haven't had in years because of the new administration in. In D.C. So that was the impetus. What is the opportunity we have now under this current administration that we haven't had previously? And you're right, Senator Nica, that I mean, there is a provision in here about looking at what previous studies and analyses on affordability have done. So building on things that have been done in the past, but looking at this moment in time and what might be possible. And also focus on some other things like healthcare disparities, the particular impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the uninsured rate, it's like that. So as far as the funding itself, there would be a consultant, where is it? There'd be consultant is envisioned to coordinate the work of this task force and the bill appropriates 175,000 to the Office of Legislative Operations in FY22 for this consultant and to cover related costs of actuarial analyses, research meetings and the per diems and reimbursement of expenses for the members who again are all legislators. Seems like we've got a couple of things here. Usually coordinating activities could be as basic as scheduling public meetings. I remember years ago, when we had the poverty council, we went around and met, we did it certainly with the child welfare after the child's death in Rutland Center Sears. It seems like to coordinate the activities of the task force, you're really talking about higher level activities, I would assume because you're not gonna have, you're gonna have, I would think Office of Legislative Operations do some of the, you know, the scheduling and, you know, they're in here. Yeah, so I was just wondering to coordinate the task force work, I'm just, it's more than coordination, that's all I'm saying. There's a report, I think that the coordinator would help to gather, to put together. I mean, that's part of the plan. No, I was just thinking that if you're hiring a consultant, you really are hiring them to do higher level work than organizing meetings, that kind of coordination of activities. Yes, we were real cheap back then. We just went around the state and held meetings and used the council. I just think it's just like, whoop, whoop. The council doesn't do work like this. No, no, no. What is the funding source? General fund. That's for us to decide, I guess. Okay. Where's that hearing aid, Bill? Sorry? The hearing aid. The hearing aid. What? They did not include, so they put that in, although now it's going in your, in the budget to be looked at in the context of the benchmark plan analysis because of the cost to the state of enacting a new mandate. It's all on their dentures and all the other things. Under the Affordable Care Act, the state would have to pick up the cost defray. It's called state defray. All the state would have to defray the cost of any new mandate enacted after 2011. Yeah, that's what most of my constituents have been upset about, is for the only state in New England that doesn't provide hearing aid coverage for Medicaid. Well, it's going to be looked at. And under insurance, so, yeah. Yeah. For a hundred and how much, how many thousands of dollars to look at? Well, they've got federal funds to look at, to do a benchmark plan review and market analysis more generally. So that's part of it. And that's what DFR is doing. That's what DFR is doing, right? In consultation with their partner agencies in the state government. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right, so shall we keep going? Data collection and analysis? Well, that's separate. That's the ACO. I want to take you through the rest of it, but none of the rest of it has a cost. All right. So the 175 is for the legislature to engage in a contractor or consultant to do, to coordinate the activities of the task force. It just seems like that's an understatement of what we want of this high level position. I mean, that's a lot of money for a few months worth of work. Well, not if you're having the person do an actuarial analysis, research. Research meetings or research comma meetings? I think that was the language that was provided to me. I can certainly. Well, what's a research meeting? Maybe I'll look at those two. Should there be a comma? I don't know. I would think it's analyses to cover cost of analyses, research comma meetings. It seems like you need a comma there between research and meetings. So that they do research. Certainly. You sort of put that in there. Is this a contract to sort of facilitate meetings as well? I don't know. The information, the languages that was provided to me was actuarial analysis, comma, research meetings and travel. I would think to cover the cost of research, I would think. Yes. Where's travel? Well, I didn't put that. I think we decided that was included in. That's going to cover the compensation and reimbursement. And it does state that the meetings can be remote. I think you need a comma because I think what you're doing is paying this person to not only do analyses, but research and then to some of the meetings. Got a comma. Yeah. So it sounds like if there were any costs associated with renting a space or something like that. You know, maybe it's better to support the activities of the task force by providing actual analysis. I'm just a little worried about coordination seems to be not at the higher level analytical level that I think you want here for a consultant of this nature. So I think you are retaining the services of a consultant to provide the task force with actual analysis, research and then split out meetings and per diems from something else because it just, it seems like it's not stating the level of expertise that you would, we would want 175,000 to pay. Becca, I know this is something that you have felt very strongly about. So maybe you could help us make sure that this money and the position here is at the level you had in mind. Exactly. And I think you're moving in the direction. I was just thinking, Senator Kitchell, that it's really not to coordinate the activities. It's really about supporting the research and the data that this task force needs to be gathering and understanding the information. So to what extent, thinking about our timeline, do we wanna try to wordsmith this now or should I huddle up with Jen Carby and the chair? Even that you don't have, I mean, this bill is still the Senate Health and Welfare committee bill. It may make sense for you to, and I made, well, I can't leave the comment there, but it may make sense for this committee to propose an amendment when you get the bill. I assume it will be referred here after, I guess after it goes to rules. Okay, it was voted out of committee. It was, I would say, softly voted out of committee. We're gonna have to go back because we just took out that benchmark and the DFR benchmark analysis. I'm sort of convinced about it. But Jen also, I was gonna say, this is a appropriation language. So you could always, if you're gonna pull it out and put it in the budget, you can think. Well, that's exactly what I'm about to say, Nolan, is that we have been saying we deal with this so we could have some general language about the appropriation, you know what I mean, subject to appropriation. Sure, would you still name the dollar amount or do you, when you say subject to appropriation? No, we don't have to, but we would obviously have to do it in the budget. Right. To the extent funds are appropriated, the Office of Legislative Operations shall, you know. Okay. You know, the agent consultant conduct meetings, whatever the language you guys come with. I would, okay, so we're gonna have to, when we get the, because it's been voted out of committee, then the committee can't make the change to do this. We're gonna have to amend the committee bill. They haven't, I mean, I look for Senator Hooker, but I don't think it's actually been provided because I only just put it into this format. They'd still been looking at it in the S120 format this morning. So I think if it needed to be revisited, there was awareness in the committee this morning that it might need to be revisited. So I think it's up to you where you want to do that. It seems like they should put in some more meat in terms of what the consultant will do for that price. It's down so you can talk. We can, we can do an amendment that will take care of the language relative to, funds as appropriated and then deal with it in the big bill, but the rewrite of what you want this person to do seems like that should be done by the policy committee, not the appropriations committee. I mean, I can, obviously I've been thinking about how to rewrite it, but, or, Becca, do you want us to, if we're doing an amendment to deal with it, maybe by Monday, when we've finished up the bill, we'll put the money into the budget and we could move our amendment and it'll include a rewrite of what this consultant would do. I think you're putting a comma in as a step forward because I think the intent was for that person to gather information. There are only going to be up to eight meetings of this task force. I don't see how we can read all of the reports and stuff and gather the information that's necessary without outside help. So that I think you're correct, Senator Kitchell. Yeah, it's research. So you had a comment, Bobby? Well, I was wondering on line nine of the language that we had up there, it says something about payment shall be made from the appropriation to the general assembly. Is that, should that be from the general assembly? So let me just put this back up. So this is the compensation. The payment shall be made from monies appropriated. From monies appropriated. We're having to take it out of the legislative budget. Right. Really? No, but we're going to. Although it also then addresses per diem and reimbursement down here. So I don't, it's a little cyclical now that I'm looking. Well, I think what we're saying for the members for the members of the task force, they get paid the per diem like we normally do. The appropriation is for that to procure those consultative services. Right, but there's still the per diem compensation of reimbursement down here within that that could probably come out if it's up there. Yeah, I think so. Cause normally when we do that and we also make it clear for not more than eight meetings, but we all, is this all just members of the general assembly task force? Okay. Okay. And I don't think we need to do that. I get rid of that and the per diem compensation. Yes. In the eye. I agree. But we're going to rewrite that anyway. Right. All right. So committee, we could move the bill amending by deleting that section, but we don't have a replacement language yet, but. Okay, you don't have, the bill isn't the bill yet. Oh, that's true. So that'll give us some time and we would put the money into the budget. And then we would put in some language around as Stephanie just said, you know, as appropriated and we can rewrite what we want the person to do. So we've got a little bit of time on that. Okay. All right. So the main thing is the 175 and that's got to be one time one general fund. It takes it out of the general fund. I don't. That's the source you would use for it. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, we've got time to do that between the important thing is to have that money for have the budget reflect that money, include that money. And then we've got time to do our amendment that would be a rewrite that would not specify the amount of, I wouldn't reference a specific amount of money and it would just reference as appropriated and we will rework the language relative to what the consultant does. And we've got time to do that. And we could just do it as an appropriations amendment. So it doesn't have to go back to the committee. We'll just do both. And so my question is who wants to help write the replacement language on what the consultant does? Shouldn't the committee have a part in that? Yeah, the committee should write that. I mean, we don't know when it is they want done. Well, I think we know we want to have it. It's very clear that it's a very high level. Well, we cut it back. I don't think we... High level. Why should it be so high? Well, I think it could be up to, it doesn't have to be that amount. I mean, it doesn't have to come in exactly at that amount. So I'm gonna... Say up to. No, we usually do an appropriation, but it doesn't oftentimes something comes in less than appropriated. I'm gonna suggest that we... I'll work with Senator Ballant and see if we can do some kind of... And then we'll share it with the policy committee to make sure it's all right. But I think that we can come up with something. And Jen, maybe you can help us think about how to frame that. So it's clear that we are talking about a person who is doing the research, doing the actuarial analysis and a very high level amount of recommendations or whatever distillation to formulate recommendations. And I think the desire is obviously to inform legislative health policy decisions. So I'm committee rather than our spending more time on a Friday afternoon here, we're agreeing we'll move the bill favorably. And we won't act on it today until we get the amendment, but hopefully by Monday or Tuesday, we will have it. But as long as the money's in the budget that we pass, we're all set. Okay. Thank you. All right, thank you. I think that does it for bills. Senator Westman, do you have, I know that Stephanie came into natural resources this morning and do you want to clarify the funding on clean water based on the work that your morning committee did? Or are you ready to do that? You're muted. You're muted, Rich. I thought when the chair came in to present, well, was it 109, that he basically laid out the parameters of what on the weatherization piece. And we have, I'm not talking about weather. I'm talking about the clean water and the split of the testimony this morning that was important. We didn't make any decisions this morning about water. Did the secretary recommend a split between the Clean Water Fund and the DEC for the $100 million at all? She made a statement about what they would choose to do, but the committee didn't take any position. It'll be up to us then, just let it. All right, well, Stephanie, I'll talk about it and see what we recommend to the committee. All right, so- She basically said that the act that's in place was at Act 64, that we should just appropriate the money based upon that and let them spend it based upon that framework that is set in place. But the committee didn't discuss that at all. I don't know, Stephanie. I know that joint fiscal has had some discussions with Secretary Moore about what will work. Maybe we can just take that and see how it fits. Yep, okay. We have the breakdown of the first year from the governor's plan, which is, I think, in the $40 million range, and that would probably fit. And then the remainder would go into Clean Water Fund. And she recommended it not go in the Clean Water Fund. Well, some of it should flow through the Clean Water Fund, but I thought her was not 100%. I'm not saying I'm just telling you what she said. Okay. All right, well, maybe we can get some clarification on that. Yeah. Okay. We had some other language, the study language for the fees and surcharges study to make it more expansive because of the testimony that we received from the court and the impact the declining revenues from fees or surcharges are having. So Senator Sears, you're there, I think. Maybe he's not, maybe we need him because this is his section. Do we have other language that we can go through or have I gone through the ones that I was working on? Oh, Senator Sears, glad to have you back. We wanted to just close out the language on the study committee to look at surcharges and the programs that are funded. Have you had a chance to go? Well, the VSEA would like to be at the table. On surcharges? Yeah, because all the victims' advocates are state employees. What's that got to do with relying on revenue? Well, let's look at the, let's look at our language. Okay. And see what, let's see what, where they would, this is kind of unusual to have a state employees on fees, isn't it? And tax revenue? Yeah. So, Chrissy, if you make me co-host, I can, I can throw up the draft that I sent to Senator Sears and Senator Sears. If it didn't happen, you know. Well, it seems like... Well, let's look at the study, if it's, I... The purpose of the committee is to address anticipated decreases in revenues and to develop a plan to ensure these programs are able to provide services. I would think that, I would think that it would suggest that VSEA should participate because tax revenues are, you know, support programs that are conducted by state employees. All right, let's keep going. I'm just giving you the request. Where does it come from? This is, yeah, go ahead. It came from the Center for Crime Victim Services. But I've also heard from the judiciary in various other groups that rely on fines, surcharges, and fees to fund their programs. And when those fines, as you know, and it's also the towns, quite frankly, that are also losing fine money because we're not, you know, there aren't as many, especially during COVID, not as many tickets given out. So they lose on the fine money, but... Yeah, but they haven't been doing anything either. I mean, they keep talking about... This is a national, you know, I sent it to Senator Sears. It's that, what is it? Route 50, which is really, I think done by NCSL is talking about, I thought it was very timely because they were referencing this very same problem and that it is regressive and that it's as a source of revenue for program funding is a national problem. So this is really not unique to Vermont. Well, and I agree, we had testimony that there were people who had been, you know, disadvantaged by this because they couldn't pay their fees and the cost of surcharges, but then we have competing testimony from organizations that will see their money dry up and so you in effect have organizations lobbying against the indigent because they want the money to come in, which is, it's a weird position to be. Yeah, it is. All right, well, let's keep going. This is all over. Once this is all over, shouldn't the revenues come back? No, they've been declining right along. They've been declining for years and part of the problem is rather than rely on general funds to start programs, it was simpler to say, all right, we'll take a certain amount of fine money. We'll put on a surcharge. We'll do this, we'll do that. And as a result, these programs- I know, I've paid plenty of that. I'm not getting it. And I'm not exaggerating either. Let's keep going here. The composition of the committee, we have two threes here. The one I added in this redraft was the one member from the judicial branch appointed by the Chief Justice. Am I hearing that you want to have, I hear that VSEA would like to be represented, but also do you want the league on here? Might not hurt if we're gonna add, then I would add the league in the VSEA. My question is one of precedent. Do we normally have the union involved in tax and revenue and these kinds of studies? No, no. I would strike them where I am. I don't see why you want the league either. That's right. It's really around a precedent of who is involved in this nature of discussion and work. I think that's a, actually, it's an issue that the judiciary committee should take up as a committee anyways. I mean, why do we have to have outsiders tell us what we should do and not do? Well, the problem, Bobby, is that we, the judiciary committee doesn't set fees, it doesn't set budgets, it doesn't do all of that. And so if you were to want to move this to the general fund, what would you cut to get in or what tax would you raise or how would you deal with it to fund these programs because they're hurting. If we, you know, right now, we're able to shore them up a little bit here and there with one time revenue, but it's still a problem. And we have to decide something. You know, I think it's no different than, we've got a shortage in the funding of 9-1-1. We have, we have, we have got, so I'm just thinking that I'm thinking about the membership as it relates to the nature and the task of this committee and the extent to which we expand membership outside the administering entities. I would rather request for the state employees and also. I think I just have a hard time thinking about this president or the extent to which we are, if we decide it's appropriate here, what about the funding of 9-1-1? What about the funding of X or whatever? It seems to me that that is opening up or establishing a precedent that is very atypical and I wouldn't necessarily think that we wouldn't want. I appreciate that and I'm cognizant of that. I mean, the house didn't have time to put this in or whatever happened, I don't know, but when it came to the house, it was just the Senate for crime victim services and talking with others seem wise to expand it to the others that are also relying on these fees and surcharges. We actually, what brought it home was the testimony that we had from Pat Gable and the impact that the loss in these revenues are having on the court's budget. And let's face it, once you're getting into revenues, you're getting into budgets, you're getting into administration, this is, I just think that the membership should be really as we have identified. The minute you start saying, well, we want employee representation, that could extend to just about every task force that involves state government. Yeah. Hi. I realize you've had the request, you've made the request, we've considered it, but I would recommend that we keep- I would draw the request. Well, you don't have to. Well, no, Marley just barked at me and said- Oh, okay. So we need to keep going. This is, so it really started out- It got into the dog when I said, come here, not to you, Senator. Well, we started out with crime victims because the loss of revenues and the declining revenues is really having a detrimental impact. Then when the courts came in and said, we're having a real budgetary problem because of the decline in revenues, we decided that rather than looking at just one area that's impacted by this loss, we should look at it in a comprehensive way. This is what this draft is designed to do is reflect the decision to take a more comprehensive approach around the impact of these declining revenue streams that support programs or support the judicial branch of government. So I'm thinking we should keep going here and if we can close this out. So is this the composition that you want of the committee and it's 13 members, six legislative members and then the other seven listed here? It's a lot of legislators, isn't it? Yes, why so many? Well, because you've got ways and means because of revenue, judiciary and appropriations. Yeah. That's when I said if Senator Sears was all three, maybe he could get triple the pay. Yeah, I'm not on finance. No, you can only get double the pay. Dick, you've had a chance to look at it. Do you think the membership in terms of the, yeah, okay. I didn't change subsection C at all. I'm still having the executive director of the Center for Crime Victims call the first meeting and then the committee itself would vote for the chair. And if you want, if that process is okay. I don't know. Do you think we should have I like the chief justice. I was gonna say, I think from a protocol perspective, we should have the chief justice. Or the first meeting. Yeah. It's what does the knee, correct? Yeah, yeah, the member from the judicial branch. Yeah, I think, I think from a protocol perspective, that's what we should do. Yeah, I think so at this point. I've been watching the crown on Netflix so I think it's more. Okay, so we'll change that in subsection C. Are you, does that talk about Elizabeth the first and her fight with Parliament over the prerogative? Oh yeah. I'm beyond that now. I'm up into the 70s. Oh, okay. Once they had Winston Churchill die. Yeah. I lost interest. Oh, well, I guess I'm not on the same. Or no breaking up Charles's marriage. Oh, well, let's keep going here. It's Friday afternoon. And let me tell you anything you don't know today. We're going to have to do. Oh, I'm supposed to be with. I'm supposed to be at a meeting. I'm sorry. Let's wrap this up and then we're going to have to. Oh, you just did. Yeah. Steve Klein just said another note that it's being rescheduled. How come he just said I was supposed to be. Oh, oh, it just said resched. Oh, okay. All right. All right. Let's keep going then. So powers and duties of the committee. This I changed around a bit because it was all focused on the crime victims. Services piece. I did leave in sub four. Specifically in regard to those programs. Well, I think that's obviously we want the focus. We, we certainly want to make it. That the center needs to obviously. We need to make it clear that that's one of the areas that needs to be examined. Cause that's what started the whole discussion. Anything. I'll keep going down. Provides. And then can we keep going? Oh, yep. Sorry. It says. Need to go meet with the speaker. But does that mean I don't need to go? He does anymore. They canceled the meeting. I'm going to reschedule. Oh, okay. All right. November 1st. Is that a good day? Or should we give him a little more time? That's, that's the reason I highlighted it. Just given given how. Do you want to push that out into December or even January 15th? Well. Assuming that you need legislation. Senate can introduce legislation after December 15th. Oh. That's. I mean, we could do November 15th. I mean, we could do November 15th. I mean, we could do November 15th. That's. I mean, we could do November 15th or something like that. It's fine. Okay. You want, if there's legislation proposed, you'd want to have it ready to go. I don't know what our date is. You know, remember that some point, like December 12th or somewhere in there, we were not allowed to introduce. So the date probably should stay the same then. Well, the latest, it could be with November 15th. If we have to introduce by December 15th, you said that. I think it is somewhere in the, you know, usually between, I don't know how John Blumer figures it out. It never did. Usually somewhere between the 10th and the 15th. Okay. Well, do you want to change it to the 15th? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. All right. We'll just change it to the 15th. All right. Do you know how long we're going to work, Jane? Well, I'm just trying to think. Dick, you probably are not going to. We're going to have to do. We've got the courts. We've got both. Two pieces one time and. And any adjustments we make to the base. Do you know how long we're going to work, Jane? Well, I'm just trying to think. Dick, you probably are not going to, we're going to have to do. We've got the courts. We've got the courts. We've got the courts. We've got the courts. We've got the courts. We've got the courts. We've got the courts to make to the base. So. Are there any other loose pieces? I know people are getting tired. It's Friday afternoon. It's three 30. But the more, as I said, the more little things that we can get out of the way. Are there any other little things. After this. But first of all, before we go, are we ready with this language? We changed the date. Yep. Okay. We're always, you know, we're making changes when we get into a committee of conference. Or, you know, something. Are there any other pieces, Stephanie, that we could do. Easily without taxing people, but I'm thinking three 30. We're going to meet on Monday starting at nine. The only other thing I can think of it. I don't know, Senator Westman. The language around the adult days. I don't know. I don't know. To go into that one, but. You may have left us. He may have. I think he did. Probably won't take very long on Monday. No, all right. Then we're, we'll inventory the language that we still need to close out. We've got a couple of draft. We've got a draft. A draft. And we've got a draft. We've got a draft. That has come over and we're going to. Basically put in the language. That was proposed to go with the $41 million emergency housing. Plan. That we could go. Rental part of that. They already have the CRF in hand. Okay. So. And that is to. that they need that appropriation, but they don't need what brings it up to 41 is the CRF, but that's already been appropriated to them. So they need the 36 millions, what I'm saying. Yeah. Okay. And then the piece that you talked about on reach up. Is any of that for landlords of that money? On the emergency housing, it would be mostly in the hotel arena. So it's not. There is money for landlords and it's in it's being administered by the Vermont State Housing Authority and it's $110 million that is going out in rental assistance and it can pay up to 12 months. The people have to have incomes under 80% of area median income. In addition, there's also assistance for utilities for those households, including arrearages on electrical or water sewer. So that money just is starting to go out through the Vermont State Housing Authority. And there's a website that you could refer people to and I think landlords can apply, but I think they would have to have agreement with the tenant because they've got to determine the income eligibility, but there is money for that. And the other part, so I'm going to say that we should move the requested language to appropriate the $36 million that is necessary to support the emergency rental help that planned that we had Commissioner Brown go through in exhaustive detail. In addition, there is a possibility and I mentioned that under that second emergency rental that we could do more money to assist reach up families with their rent. And so this would be a language that would allow them to make use some of these of these rental federal dollars to go out if it's possible because you've got the problem with that 12 month limit, which still isn't been clarified. So if the second round of the emergency rental doesn't can be extended beyond the 12 month period that was in the first round of rental assistance, there's it says up to 15 million would be that could be used to supplement, continue or extend the rental assistance program for reach up as permissible if permissible under the federal rules. So they just want the authority that if that's possible to do and under that second round, we would allow 15 million of those dollars to go out and rental assistance. So I'm going to suggest we put those get that into the budget as much language as we can get in. Rich, do you have the adult day language? You've got one with money and without money. You might as well go to the one without money. You're muted. Stephanie has it. I will open it up and just a second. Let me open that document. We're absolutely going to be done by four, Bobby. Stephanie, I have it. Do you want me to share it on the screen? Do you need to go? Yes, you put it up on the screen. Thanks. What time do you have to go, Bobby? You're muted. He said right now. Oh, okay. I said I've got a funeral that I should attend. Well, you should attend it. If we go to quarter four, is that going to be too late for you? You need to leave right now. That'd be really good with quarter four, too. I want to get this language. Bobby, if you don't go to the funeral, they won't go to yours. They won't be going to mine anyway, but they're family in town. Bobby, you should go right now. This language, I think you'll be fine with whatever we decide. Okay. And then once we get through this language, we're going to call it a day. Okay. Thank you. And have a short weekend. We'll see you Monday. So the first piece is the language to go with the five million for the adult days. And this language came from the adult days themselves. And what you see in yellow is the edits from Dale itself. So both Dale and the adult days have come up with this language. So I don't see that as anything controversial, but they both would like the language. Okay. I think that that clarification of rewrite seems fine. All right. So now I had said, I thought that we would let them try, we would send out something instructive and about getting the adult days back operational in both Rutland and the Barrie area. And so one is with money and one is come back and budget adjustment. The first, well, can you slow up a little bit? Right. So here's two choices. I asked Dale to come up with language to talk about giving them some instruction. The first part was the language they did. They left the line where the dollar amount was blank, but that was the language they came up with. They said to me, it costs on average $73,000 a month to run an adult day. The $438,000 represents six months in it. The second language is language that I came up that just instruction. They'll work with community partners to seek organizations interested in opening adult days. And Shell request funding in the 22 budget adjustment process to provide restart grants. I like the latter. I think six months at this point with so much work, I think instructing them that they have a role and a responsibility for getting these programs started is really important. I would say to you that I think it's been hard for them to get to the place to understand that people think that they have a role. They see the adult days as private businesses, and they see that it needs to be somebody coming up in the community to do that. But the problem is in the section with the $5 million, we're giving existing adult days that are going to reopen what it looks like about half of the money that they need to run their business for the next year. The problem with a new adult day that would open in Barry, Newbury or Rutland or any place else that might open because they have no history, they would not be eligible for any of that money. The only thing I'd say about the top piece is, and it may not be possible for if anybody could get off the ground before next January, I wouldn't want to hold them back, but I'm easy. Either way, we're going to do it. And if you like the second one, let's go with it. Okay, I think that in light of how tenuous it is, there's a lot of groundwork to be done with these communities to even get to the point where there's a proposal that is fundable. Yep, I understand that, but I want to give somebody, if somebody is willing to take this on and do the work, I'd like them to know that it isn't just they'll come and ask for money. I want to give somebody confidence that because I think these adult days, particularly in those two bigger communities, are vital. Yeah, well, I think you've done that by they shall request the funding in the budget adjustment. So it really gives them a time to work with the communities, come up with a proposal and a commitment that the funding will be provided in the budget adjustment. So it's almost quarter of four. I'm going to suggest we go with the second one and let Senator Sears, he needs to call it a day. And if other people say they really want us to keep working until midnight, let me know. Alice doesn't look like it.