 So I would I suggest we proceed and I'll go over to the stream channel to make sure that it's coming in. But we are now recording and we're now streaming and I'm going away. All right, now we'll stick around there in the darkness. This is welcome everybody. This is a Friday afternoon general housing and military affairs committee meeting. We today we are going to be hearing from members of the Scott administration they're going to take us through the proposal that was made last week and the text was issued earlier this week of their proposal we also have David Hall is here who will follow up their conversation with with what he's been working on he's been tasked with being the legislative council who's translating these words and bill form. And we're just the beginning of a process which is going to move pretty quickly. This is an economic recovery bill that's affecting. It's supposed to affect small businesses. In our case, what was proposed was was rental assistance and kind of a supercharged v hit program that we're well aware of of housing incentive program that would bring other apartments online. And so we wanted to give the administration opportunity to give us an overview of what the whole package is like, and then to be specific about the, the housing portion and I believe we. I'm not sure exactly how we had this lined up but I think we're going to start with Commissioner Goldstein is that right and then. And then, I guess I'll walk the commissioner speaking I'll go look at my agenda and see and see how we listed up folks but just in terms of housekeeping in our committee if you do have a question and that includes any of the administration folks who want to chime in. Go down into the under the participant section and there's the raise hand feature we use that in this committee. In order to create a line of folks who may have questions. I will mute everybody except for the speaker. And with that, I'm going to do that right now. And with that. Come back and unmute and and I think I've unmuted, Joan, but in terms of anybody else if I call your name you can unmute yourself I think is probably the easiest way to go about this so welcome everybody and the microphone is yours Commissioner thank you for joining us and for and for starting off this conversation. Thank you very much Mr chair and the rest of the committee to give us time to go through the proposal. I'll just do the broad overview, most of my work on this has been concerning the financial and technical assistance piece of the package and Josh could take you through the more detail on the housing and Commissioner Pelham is here to talk about the marketing proposal. Basically, as you may already be aware the agency pretty much changed our whole operation from the beginning of covid to be one of covid response we've got a response unit with phone and email, so that we could be in touch with businesses we were in a very unenviable position of closing businesses down and also working through all of the restart and all the extenuating circumstances for restart and what has to happen. As a result, we have been really like a communications hub. And so part of that being that hub we were able to collect information about the damage that's being done by the closures. It was a health, it is a health crisis but turned very quickly into an economic crisis. And we tried as best as we can to get impact surveys and the impact survey that we were able to collect was like 3500 businesses, which isn't a bad sample. Reporting upwards of $350 million a month in lost revenue so it was very quick to understand just how enormous this crisis was. As soon as we understood about the state allocation of covid relief funds we started to piece together a proposal that could impact all sectors and try to repair the economy and repair the structure of the economy. As soon as businesses were all closed became very quick to see how the revenues are going to dry up for the state. How do we get people back to restarting their businesses hiring people back and being able to sustain a level of operation, even though it's out of severely, in some cases severely limited capacity. And the one thing that the covid relief fund treasury guidance did say was that grant money could be given to small business for the business interruption costs so we designed of the of the 400 million I should say the 310 is the immediate assistance which we think we need in order to survive before we could even think about and go into this thrive mentality and repair. 310 of the 310 250 has been allocated for financial assistance the lion share of it. And again that is because so many of the sectors are still closed or partially closed and really really damaged. How do we help those businesses get to a point where they can even think about reopening. And the idea here was get money out as quickly as we could as feasibly as we could. There's no way that we could handle thousands of applications we did, we wanted as much as possible to avoid a bottleneck so having said all of that, just to give background and context about how we came up with this. So we thought that in order to distribute funds where they're most needed we needed a strategy and tactics and how to deploy people to be at the ready. So we immediately thought of tax department, they're able to process lots of data, lots of checks lots of distribution in a very effective fashion and in a fashion where it's auditable. Well, at the very least we could take care of the retail sector, the food and accommodation services sectors, because of this funds flow through tax. And we've designed a formula where as part of the filing process tax will make those funds available and we could impact over about 11,000 businesses they're about from the modeling that tax department did. So that's the first, you know, sort of, that's one avenue that's one way to get funding to folks. The other is the agency of agriculture they have this whole separate proposal part of this proposal though is $50 million for dairy producers and value added dairy producers they would administer that. So here is we thought we'd engage Vita Vita has already they do an enormous amount of loans we thought why don't we organize a similar structure where we could have advances sort of grant money and loan money through Vita we know that a maximum grant amount that we've said it's not going to be enough to take care of the revenue that's been lost we can't replace all the lost revenue. So what we can do is make loan money available to those who need more than just the grant and so Vita worked with us design a system where businesses can get like 0% financing for the first year. No repayment and it was predominantly meant for the sectors that were not covered by that tax or agriculture disbursements. And we know there are many others personal care personal services. We'll do that portion. And then the other distribution channel is really the regional revolving loan funds there are many around the state and underutilized how do we engage them to disburse funds for the very smallest of businesses so five and less let's say five and this these funds will help them with again grant and loan opportunities. So that's the financial part of the package the, the other part of the package that I worked on with the financial the technical assistance and so people need help financially but they also need some technical expertise they need some professional services. They've been closed for months they're starting to reopen. Who do they pay first how do they get the suppliers back. How do they reconfigure their space to be more effective in this new environment. How do they get a better online presence if they're a retail operator. So it's a portion of money where we could say okay. There's a lot of technical assistance where we could direct people to the right grant or loan but we also need accounting help or legal help or software consultancy or turn around special as debt restructures you know there's any number of issues that business is going to face as they as they open and as they operate in a limited capacity so that's the that we asked for $5 million on that. So I'm going to take you through the housing and Heather will take you through the marketing but you'll see the package is meant to kind of impact all of the sectors that that were harmed and how to, how best should the government intervene to help stem that that tide and how to repair and really not have this temporary crisis become permanent damage. So, that's all I was going to present and but unless you wanted to go precisely through the language of the bill or if there's any questions I'm happy to take that now. Yeah, there's a number of collected. Thank you Commissioner, I have two questions for you. Can you say the retail food and and accommodations are you including the cultural organizations as well like the Brattleboro Museum, or Paramount Theater in Rutland or Shelburne Museum are they included in that group of industries I guess. So one thing that we've noticing as we message this is that we need the message to be clear that the help is available to all. And even though they may not those those entities that you just mentioned would not be eligible under the tax disbursement scheme because they're not paying necessarily the rooms and meals taxes. And they would be eligible under the data portion data could make the grant and loans available to nonprofit sector. Okay, so they will be covered. Great. Thank you for that. And my second question is, some of those groups, I used to run the Flynn Center so some of the groups have gotten the PPP loans. And they are worried now that they will not be eligible to get state funding through these loans because they have this. Right. Is that true. No, it's so it's partly so what it is is. So we went preference to be given to people who didn't get anything that was like the most important thing was there are people who did not get anything and that the second is how do we work out the mechanism whereby we're not paying. There's there's a there's a stipulation and the guidance where you're not allowed to use the funds for things that have already been reimbursed by federal programs and particularly by programs that are covered within CARES Act so we have to figure out the best way to do that the way it's written right now. It looks like we are subtracting out the amounts that they received and I know a lot of there's a lot of pushback on that, because in some cases it'll wipe out exactly what their grant will be but there, there may be another mechanism we're working with tax on the tax piece and others to figure out how to really assess what the unmet needs still is and then figure out whatever portion was received by the other program so I think there's a workaround we just haven't it's not in the it's not in the legislation as it looks right now we we were piecing everything together and then we thought we need to get this over to you guys and so we are still adjusting but we could adjust that but it's not that they're not eligible it would just be how do we properly subtract the amount that they've received so that we're not we're avoiding duplication of funding. That's great because as you know the Paramount and the Flynn's are going to be the last ones to open because they're such large venues or so they're going to close first and they're going to open last probably so they're going to have a much more extended period of nothingness. Yes. So anyway I appreciate your openness to hearing that thank you. Yes, thank you. Representative Triano and then Hango. Thank you for being here commissioner I just quickly, I recall back when we first got a report on our breakdown of the early COVID relief fund funds that came into the state and some of them were directed toward arts and nonprofits. And I guess my question is how are those two meeting up with with what you're telling us today. Yeah I mean basically the way the guidance looks like like anything that we distribute that there has to be some sort of reduction for what has already been sent out to folks so there can't be this duplication of federal funds because whatever we're giving this really coming from the federal. It's coming from the same act, basically it's the carousel. Right so I think that would fall into the same category I think what we're contemplating is an application where someone's going to state, you know here's their loss revenue, here's what they've received so far and then. Okay there's unmet need and we apply our formula if it's less than the unmet need. Great, they get it if it's more than they won't get, they won't get anything so. Okay, great thank you. All right representative Hango. Thank you. You happen to have any visual testimony that you could submit to us that kind of shows the breakdown. Sure. And I should have shared that if I knew how to do it on zoom I know how to do it on teams but we've got on a ACCD.vermont.gov website. There is a great infographic that Commissioner Pelham put together. It has the breakdown of the four segments. It also has one pagers that describe this. So it's much better to look at visually than just a bunch of text, but we could send that to you or just do you have that maybe to forward or share or something. Is it the same one? Is it the same one from the 22nd? Is that the most updated one? The one that came out last week because I think we did see the slide deck last week and representatives not just posted it again the link to it in our chat box. Yes, yes. So if that's not been updated then that's then that's there it is right there. That's there. It's good. And then, you know, that was phase one and then phase two that there's remaining money. We are expecting an ability to either use that for additional financial assistance, broadband, perhaps seed capital, you know, for businesses that are starting or scaling up. So those are things that are in discussion right now. We haven't finalized that, but we know that phase one is enough to digest right now. So, right. And to be clear, there are proposals in the works for other sectors. This is this what we're talking about today is economic recovery for these for these particular sectors, but that there is other. There are others in the works, I think, and probably all the branches. So, yeah, like AHS is going to be presenting something, you know, hospitals and healthcare. Yeah. Okay, next up, I have representative walls. Thank you, Commissioner. I just want to be clear about how these funds could be used by a business to pay rent to rehire folks. Are there any restrictions and how they can use the funds. Yeah, so the way I read of the relief fund is that it can't just be for general expansion or general business purposes it really is about helping the business with the costs incurred so you know from the business interruption so at first we thought of this as any fixed costs that they have like irrespective of being open or not. They're going to have fixed costs, they should be allowed to use it. The exceptions to that are they're not supposed to use it for taxes and not supposed to use it for getting confused about whether utility payments are allowed but we lay that out in the legislation about eligible uses versus ineligible. And I think the guidance is very specific about, you know, you can't just use it for a business expansion unless it's something maybe maybe a restaurant wants to expand it's outdoor seating. Well, that makes sense right. Things that they have to amend because of this coded or post coded world. Not just general business purposes. And we think there's plenty of need out there so I'll clarify that a little bit more. So, a definition of expansion is re hiring staff considered expansion. No, no, that would be an eligible use that would totally be an eligible use payroll went insurance costs, you know anything that they have to pay do to stay to stay in business. It's not things that would be sort of outside of the outside of their duress, you know, caused by the COVID crisis. Thank you. All right representative by wrong then soft. Thank you. How you doing commissioner. How are you. Not bad thank you. So, surprisingly, I got a PPP question for you. There's a there's a lot of operators out there as you know who are really concerned about if they fall out of compliance and the usability that turning into the short term loan, and you know high payment level. I am aware and following the PPP flexibility act that's, you know, making its way through Congress right now so I'm optimistic on some of that stuff. But has anyone given thought should Vermonters find themselves in a position where they've got a lot of key loan, if they could buy that out on the veto loan, so they could carry it over to a longer term of repayment. Yeah, we did think about that we actually talked about that. Again, part of the impetus for this was knowing that PPP was not going to be good for all for all borrowers. Some people are getting deep with that right now and I don't know if it's going to be a good thing if those terms don't federally change. Well yeah I mean that. So part of our issue here on top of vagueness on guidance on guidance on top of urgency of the need. We also have this thing where PPP, you know I think you have until November to apply for forgiveness so we're not going to know the status of that for a very long time. Right, I mean months seem to be an eternity in COVID time right so. So to answer your question, you know, we didn't want to wait for finalized guidance to come out we just knew there was a gap created by the federal programs and yeah I think the situation is that the PPP loans could turn into an 18 month repayment period, you know people would have a huge loan so I think a lot of borrowers are holding back from using it, because they're fearful of that. So it's not been useful for them and the irony is we're going to have to subtract it out of our, whatever we give out to you all, but I don't know a way around it other than being non compliant which is not an option. Yeah. You know, the only thing we could say is that it still makes sense for people to apply for PPP because it's a guaranteed it's a federally guaranteed loan. And, you know, when we talked to Vita about can they refinance it for people who are left out the thought was well, why would folks want to refinance it when it's an already federally guaranteed loan so if you can't pay it the feds come in and pay it there is some validity to that argument. However, no one wants to go. Yeah. Alone to go bad so no certainly I mean that's the uniqueness of the PPP they put those out so quick nobody has collateral or personal guarantees on it it's really kind of. I'll just say unique. So, right now I see your point I'm glad the conversation had come up already. Oh yeah. Hi. I tend to like to have some obtuse big picture questions. So forgive me for this. So I you know that the title of the slide deck is Vermont economic recovery package. And so, when I look at that it sort of conveys to me a certain conception of what the economy is. I mean, more specifically is I'm looking at it and it looks as if there's about 1% of the $400 million that might actually, and that's in this is only potentially end up in the pockets of consumers. So it seems like the Vermont economy is conceptualized by this eight package is not comprised of consumers in any way. And, and as I understand it, the, the, the program I'm referring to is the 3.75 million for the regional marketing and consumer stimulus grants, but there's no guarantee, even that that money will actually end up in a direct consumer stimulus program it might just be marketing and sort of downtown signs or something or, you know, an ad in a paper but it won't necessarily translate to money in the pockets of consumers. And so I was heartened to hear from the chair that there are more proposals forthcoming do you know if there are any proposals that include people from the spending side of the equation. I don't know maybe Heather is that more for you or I, I do not know of any but that does not mean that they're not being formulated as we speak. I don't really have a good answer for you we, we recognize that demand consumer demand and pent up demand will be an issue as people reopen we want to encourage them to spend in Vermont so I think that the package that's been determined by marketing will will do that. I think we have to balance that with making sure their businesses still around for them to spend the money in. So our first focus was really about reopening business and making sure we can get business to reopen. If they're open, then they could hire people and then people will have funding to you know, it's sort of like this whole interconnected ecosystem of the economy. You know, kind of it all has to happen at once. The federal, you know, government sent out stimulus I don't know if there's going to be a second one but yeah we, we do not have that in our package stimulus, you know we just we want to get businesses open and we want to make sure they're not being bought by the animal. Well, I believe it was the Josh Hanford who threw out an idea I don't think he was saying that it was a concrete idea I think he was just throwing it out as an example. That there might be local consumer spending cards that might have like a one to one match so you, you put $50 on this debit card but you get $100 of purchasing power, and that's something that you know I would be super excited about and support. I think we have to be prepared with people who, who are especially vulnerable and maybe get cards of a say a $50 value that put nothing towards it because we can't, we can't just rely on people who already have purchasing power and doubling it we have to also think about the people who have no purchasing power. Yeah, I think. I think Commissioner Pellin will take you through what the marketing pieces with the consumer stimulus piece. If it pleases the chair I'd be happy to address that subject. Well, let me take one more question from Representative Howard for for Commissioner Goldstein and then, and then we'll pass the microphone to you and you can, you can pick it up from there. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner. My question is along the lines of representative walls. I have a couple of constituents they are the sole proprietor of their business. They have received no assistance whatsoever. And so what expenses would of theirs would be considered in this plan. So, they, well I'm assuming they have expenses, right. So, do they pay rent. Do they have a constituent her businesses in her house. So I suppose the. All right, so the way that we've designed this is definitely to help people with their fixed expenses if they don't have fixed expenses it really sounds like it would be their lost revenue but I can't make that assumption until we knew precisely what that person scenario is. But suffice it to say they will have the opportunity to apply for either the beta grant or the revolving loan fund if their sole proprietor was only themselves or if they have even if they have some employees. So I think we'll be able to apply that there is assistance for kind of every stripe of business in this package. Okay, great. Thank you very much. You're welcome. All right, so thank you Commissioner. Thanks. And I'm just going to go right, right over to Heather. Thank you. You there you go. Welcome to general housing military affairs. And I don't know if you want to start off by talking about the question on the table or if you want to just start with with your review and then and then move on and then I'm sure we'll have some follow up questions as well. Thank you. So for the record, my name is Heather Pellum I'm the commissioner of the Department of tourism and marketing. I think I will just give you a little bit of a brief overview because it does include that consumer stimulus program, and then we can dive into more of the details. Let's get right into it as commissioner Goldstein explained the program. You know we see this as a bit of a continuum of aid so when we're thinking about how do we help these businesses recover from this pandemic and this crisis. Step one is giving the financial assistance and the technical assistance to open up. And then we see step two is making sure that that economic activity to get people back through their doors is stimulated so the two parts of the marketing part of this package will be one. And then there's a stimulus piece, and then there's a promotional campaign piece. So the promotional campaign pieces is the smaller part it's it's it's proposed at 1.25 million right now. That would be to encourage in state spending. So we're generally reliant on our state visitors and right now that's not possible for us to get the same kind of revenue stream from that population as we might otherwise so we're looking at, how can we encourage for monitors to spend locally to support those local businesses to help them get back on their feet, especially knowing that they will not be able to invest in marketing the way they might otherwise have at this difficult time when they reopen. So the other part of it is knowing that you know for monitors only have so much purchasing capacity how can we make that go so much further. So the bulk of the marketing proposal is about a consumer stimulus piece. And it is, it is just that it's like how can we stimulate economic activity to help make these businesses more sustainable so it's not. I'm not just about getting them open again but how can we make sure that they stay open so this, the consumer stimulus idea is that we would divide amongst the major regions of the state, large grants that they could develop a consumer stimulus program that might make the best sense for them. I've used an example of a gift card program as one such possibility there, there are others, but the way it would work is, as we're just sort of talking about, there would be any number of businesses in a community that had lost revenues from this pandemic. And as far as we understand the guidance we really do need to tie all of this funding back to business interruption from the pandemic so business services would be able to sign up to be part of this program. And then consumers would be able to, and in the example of the gift card by a $25 gift card, it would actually be worth $50 and that money would go directly back to the business so we would, it would put money into the hands of the consumers in the sense that they would then be able to purchase those services more affordably than they might otherwise but the business, excuse me but the revenue does go directly to the business, which as we understand is a requirement for this CARES Act funding. So the way we envision the program working is that we are in the process about to put out an RFP to see how we can make this as easy as possible for regions to be able to choose. It doesn't have to be a gift card program there are other by local type models that someone could use so that we could flesh out how a program like that would work so that the regions would be able to implement that as quickly as possible. And the idea there also just like with the financial assistance is that we would hope to touch as many businesses as possible so this would be, you know, not just for restaurants or lodging facilities but it would be for cultural institutions for you know came up this morning even a plumber anybody who any business who has suffered loss due to this pandemic and has a monetary transaction for their services. We see them as being potential potentially able to participate in this program. I've got our overview. I'm not sure if I completely answer the question, and I'd be happy to elaborate if want to rephrase it but so it's it, it is purchasing power for consumers, but the money does funnel through to the business directed directly impacted by COVID, due to the guidelines as we understand it. Okay. Representative Gonzalez. So I hear that one of the constraints that you are trying to work within is that the cares act. The way that the rule seem to be is that the money has to go to the businesses and so that's that's the needle that you're trying to thread is that correct. That's correct. Thank you. And chess, Vincent or are you still with the Department of Labor. I am. And so, when it comes to some of the employee issues I just wanted to touch on this because it all is really, it is all interconnected. But the idea that if you could remind us how long for the people who are unemployed and can't get back to work yet. The federal program of extra the extra $600 extends to when that extends to July 31. And the protections that we put in a state level. Are they still in place the protections of, if I feel like, if I, if I feel like I'm in danger of getting the virus through my workplace that I can still opt into the UI program is that still in place or is people reopen. And they offer, they say, Hey, we're reopening our restaurant. You want to come back to work. Do I still have the option to stay out of work if I fear like I'm going to come across a vector I don't want to come across. This is kind of a two part answer. So if you are going to refuse work for a coven 19 related reason, then you would be able to choose to separate from your employer and likely still qualify for unemployment benefits. Even under the law past being concerned about contracting the virus without kind of a bona fide health reason or without, you know, or without, I don't want to say proof but without a proof really that your employer maybe isn't following OSHA or CDC guidance that will not qualify you. So we say that if you feel like you are at risk because your employer maybe isn't, you know, providing PPE or they're not, you know, enforcing social distancing or something like that, then we would consider that as a you know a good cause quit if those factors were proven. And just to remind you because it's been three months where in a case like that I mean my memory of the UI experience rating is that if you are offering your the jobs back in time or the amount of jobs back in time that you won't be affected by the experience rating a year from now is that still in place for the employers. Yeah, so the way that the bill passed it actually extended UI experience rating relief for eight weeks. The commissioner and then gave the commissioner discretion to extend beyond that the commissioner has extended that experience rating relief through the governor's extension of the of the emergency order. So I get through June 15. It's likely that it will extend with the emergency order as well. We are doing some modeling at the department to see what the impacts to the trust one would be if it were to continue through the end of the year but for right now. The discretion is with the commissioner. Okay, and can I trust that the employers are up to date on these these changes as they as they develop it's really yeah we've been trying. Yeah, we've been trying to mass communicate but we also get questions single questions every day from employers that we're trying to answer on a timely basis. So, Okay, and before I get back to Josh. Just, and while I still have everyone else here on just the, I've asked this question of the folks in a HS and we owe and I'll ask you in your division because you're, it's a special treat to have you here is is, do you have anyone who is on plan E or F or G like what I mean this is we as government officials as as as politicians as legislators we're in as humans we're anxious to like have a linear direction for the end of a crisis. And the problem with this crisis is that we don't know what the end is and we don't know what twists and turns it may take in terms of another stay at home order might come up because there's a because there's a snap back Do we have planning that's starting in place that's you know someone sitting in the cubicle in the back just doing you know really scenario planning about what may happen because all of this work that we're doing is moving us forward and that's and that's to be expected and that's that's we appreciate it and we expected and that's what we're doing. But there's that thing in the back of everybody's mind. And I'm just curious to know if we've started that planning yet or if we're aware of that we need to have that voice in the back of our head remind us that things may change with with the advent of more negative news. Yeah, I can't say that we have a full on plan all figured out. But I think one thing the crisis has shown is our ability to kind of adapt and adjust. Having said that we do know that we need to plan for what if there's another. And so some examples which may sound more tactical but nonetheless, it's an example of kind of forward thinking and emergency management is, and I guess you should talk to them as well but we've been in contact with them about planning a PPE production in the state, as an example and what does that entail and how do we attract that to happen and how do we work with our existing businesses who have pivoted and tried to create that how do we partner with entities that are already supplying hospitals so that's one conversation in place. You know, another is if this does happen I know that public service department has a plan in place about making sure there's broadband making sure that there's every student can learn remotely every worker could work remotely, as well as, you know that's feasible but we don't want broadband or lack of broadband to be the reason. So those are some of the things that we're working on and we're thinking about. You know, we're also this idea of phase two is to set aside a portion of funding so that we could. We could see what happens after this initial days, you know, let's go and reassess and pivot if necessary, you know do we need more funding do we need more business assistance do we need more landlord assistance like we don't know really the outcome on this. You know, but we're all you know we're all thinking about it this is like the type of situation where no one knows the right answers, but where we learned from this experience and we're going to continue to adjust and try to foresee how how could we best be equipped. It's not there's no I know there's no good answer to my question and except to know that people are thinking. Yeah, that it's that it's a possibility. I have a couple more questions here. Representative Hango and then walls. Thank you. I think this question is probably, maybe it's not even a question but an observation directed more at commerce and labor just about employment. There are a number of small businesses in my district and actually Vermont in general and I'm sure in a lot of rural Vermont. They're small businesses where they're having trouble attracting and keeping workers because they've been the workers have been incentivized with extra benefits. So I just want to keep that in mind and are any parts of this proposed legislation addressing that particular issue. There was a lot of difficulty on the unemployment situation but the the extra funding that that came through that was really done through federal means so we can't do anything about that particular occurrence. I think the only thing that's within the state power is to adjust the unemployment stipend, which has its own issues. What's within the state's control, the other angle and some businesses have asked us about this like, you know, they, they can't get people back but if they got a PPP loan, and they got people back and were able to increase their rate of pay. So that could be forgivable. You know that could be considered as part of the payroll expense, and could be forgivable so that might be an inducement for them to come back. And the other is really just a question of the, you know, look it is a short term nature if it's over July 31. Is somebody going to risk their career on two months of additional funding. The answer might be yes, you know, and, and there is very little we could do with federal money to take care of what the federal additional funding created. You know, um, yeah, I don't know if Jess you have some other thoughts on, you know somebody refuses work, you know, they're really not entitled to unemployment. So, uh, Representative Hank, I think what your comment is what we're hearing a lot of and I think at the Department of Labor we're trying to balance the fact that, you know, the, that extra $600 for someone who's laid off and having to pay extra groceries for health insurance or, you know, I think that there, I think that there is a need in, you know, there, there is a need for that $600 for some Vermonters maybe not most or probably most Vermonters. On the other hand, to your question about what we're doing. This is a, this is a fine balance understanding that there are individuals who might have legitimate COVID-19 related reasons for not returning to work. But if your employer offers work to you and you refuse, we have set up a system on the Department of Labor website for employers to let us know that they've offered that individual work and that they've refused because there's not a COVID-19 qualifying reason that would disqualify them from benefits. So that is, you know, one, one avenue or one, I guess communications method that we're trying to like put out there as we reopen the economy. The other piece is that right now the Department of Labor has suspended work search. So typically if you are unemployed, you have to complete three work searches for every week that you are unemployed after 10 weeks. We've suspended that currently. And as soon, and again, we're weighing all options here and trying to make sure that we do it at the right time. But there, I think there will come a time when we will implement that work search again to encourage folks once the economy, you know, really reopens to complete those and return and return to work. So I think those are really the two mechanisms. That at least we've flagged right now to try to address that understanding that employers might not want to, you know, report employees for not or for refusing work. I mean, there's where, again, it's a it's a fine balance. Thank you. I think the the particular individuals, businesses that I've heard from most recently are businesses that had trouble finding employees to begin with before COVID-19. They're still struggling and their struggle now includes people who have been laid off from other jobs who have been in contact with them. They've reached out and people have said, No, thanks. It's good. I've got my extra benefits. I'm good right now. So I think it's the businesses that were trying to build their workforce before the crisis are still having trouble building their workforce and who may be small enough that this could be a make or break whether they're going to stay in business. So those are the businesses that I'm really most concerned about at this moment. If you could just keep that in the back of your minds. Thank you. And if and if you want to pass those along to me or my work for our workforce development team, we are working with businesses who are hiring, trying to get that message out there in their communities. So I would encourage you to, you know, if you want to take it offline, we can talk about it and we can help promote those jobs. Thank you. Yeah, I should get that. All right, representative walls and then Gonzalez. Thank you. I hope you can address this. This was a number of weeks ago, I believe the Central Mont Medical Center bought a large quantity of masks from an individual about them very cheaply and then sold them at something like 200% profit. And I believe the attorney general got involved. But I don't remember the outcome of that case but anyway, my point is I wonder if there are any safeguards against price gouging for example it makes sense to me if large consumers such as hospitals could purchase through the state, and there would be some kind of secure process. So I, I'm not that familiar with I remember reading a little bit about it and I know that the AG was very adamant about that there will not or should not or they will. They will pursue those who are in engaging in price gouging but what I did get a glimpse into was that emergency management. Emergency management and the health network in Vermont work very closely together to source and to vet the sources of equipment manufacturers so I was only involved tangentially but I know that those conversations took place from the very beginning of the crisis. We had done like an all points bulletin like who produces this, can you contact us and then we gathered together a group to figure that out and I know building in general services got involved in helping that. So we had quite a few different agencies and to help that effort yeah there were lots of questionable practices not just price gouging but in a sort of improvement that didn't fit the standards and yeah so there was a lot of coordination on that regard so. Yeah, I'm afraid you know a lot more money starts flowing it's going to be very tempting for scammers and others to try to take advantage for it so I hope their programs in place thank you. Thanks. It's a great comment representative Gonzalez. Just, did I hear you correctly that you are trying to. Sorry, I have a screen baby in the background that snapping so he's not screaming. Oh yeah you're a good person talk to you in the moment. That you're the connection between a business is if businesses are trying to have their employees come back business they're open and their employees are saying, I'm not in a position to do so. And that verifiable reasons. So you're asking businesses to connect to the Department of Labor or can you can you talk about that process and what you are setting up in terms of verifying because I think it is. Yeah, so, so if you. Yeah, so if you, if we were to receive either from an individual or from a business that are the Department of Labor would receive that, but if, but if we were to receive an instance where work was refused. And that individual is still filing, it would flag it in the system for us to say, you know, just vent in our her that that employer reported that she refused work she did not indicate that she refused work that week what's the we have adjudicators that will help us investigate those things. If I were to say, I refused work because I for a COVID qualifying reason so I'm at home taking care of someone who was at risk I'm at home taking care of my school age child or my baby because I don't have childcare. If I have been told to quarantine, then that would be a reason for that individual or that would be a qualifying reason for that individual to keep, or to keep receiving benefits. So each one of those cases is adjudicated there's fact finding and each of those cases. We just an event we just created a mechanism for employers I think to more quickly let us know if they think there's we've always had a mechanism for you know a system of fraud. So this is just a separate avenue just for work refusal that we've created but everything is goes into fact finding everything is adjudicated and both parties are involved in that. That's helpful. So, what my concern is that with the challenges that unemployment system has had that this is another layer that could be. Yeah, and that for someone who does have a qualifying reason but that it's that they, they still might be denied unemployment for a couple of weeks. Yeah. And yeah, so we have. Yeah, so we've actually just in the last three weeks we've actually we're we're below adjudication levels even before coven 19. So I think on our adjudication arm we've actually resolved a lot of the backlog if not, I won't say all of the backlog I don't think we're we will ever be down to zero in that respect. But our adjudications are taking, you know, less than a week. So we're talking like five to seven business days. And so with that individual were to have applied during that that time, but was deemed eligible they will receive that back pay, but obviously but yeah so that adjudication time and that backlog has been, again, we're below pre COVID levels right now. So I'm hopeful that and we haven't gotten I don't think I would have to check but as of two weeks ago, we haven't received a lot of work refusal reports from employers so but yeah no good point we don't want to create absolutely create another backlog or another list somewhere that people are trying to sort through. Yeah, is there any way in your system and I know that your system is hard to change but to include information about the COVID qualifying reasons for denying. Because that I think it like in the moment of being able to say yes I refuse work but I refuse work because of these qualifying reasons. Yeah, actually that's a really good point we have added some of the health care ones. So if someone does refuse I think if someone does refuse work or quits because of a health care COVID 19 related reason they can indicate that. But that's a good point I'll see if we can make those changes to the weekly application. Thank you. Let's see we're going to. I'm going to say let's we're going to move to Josh now. I'd like to thank the three of you so far for weighing in on the economic development pieces of this of your proposal. And I understand that you're all probably scheduled to go or some of you are scheduled to be in commerce at 230 so if that's the case and you would like to duck out. Please feel free we'll keep a shackle on Josh as long as we possibly can. I believe our attorney is also David Hall is scheduled to be in commerce at 230 as well so I think if we can hear from Josh. Now, and then, and then committee will have further discussion after after everybody leaves I'm not sure we're going to be able to get David's walk through of the housing sections but I think again we've heard from Josh. Over the last couple of weeks and so I think we'll get I think we'll get the bulk of that information it's pretty clear based in the text that we've seen so far so. Thank you, Joan. Thank you, Heather. Thank you, Jess. And we will have you back when we need to. Thank you. Josh. Welcome back. We spoke, we were at a place where we were waiting for the language, and so you were you presented to us as best we could, as best you could. What was going to be in the package. I mean certainly what was in the media proposal. So if you could share with us just the, the fuller picture of what is it section six and seven is that are those the housing sections. And I would be asked. Yeah, that would be great so again we have two sections we have the $42 million in rental assistance and prevention and then $8 million in the. Again, I'll keep calling it to be hit program I'm not sure if there's a better word, I mean we know the program well enough to call it that I'm not sure that's the right phrase yet but. It's super charged to be hit program compared to what we've been contemplating for the last year or so. So if you could just fill us in on how the text came out since we saw you last that would be great. Great well for the record, Josh Hanford commissioner housing community development. Good afternoon. Quite muggy afternoon here in Randolph, I must say, with the window shut because there's some hanging going on across the street. Yes, there is language in the housing section starts on page 16. I don't know if you have that I don't know if it was on your, your website but this is what was drafted and discussed in the economic development earlier in the week. And, you know the language just puts in the text that I went over with you previously to create these two programs Vermont rental housing stabilization fund we're calling it, and the Vermont re housing recovery fund. That's the VHIP component where we're trying to rehouse some of the homeless individuals in existing housing by reinvesting in it. You know one of the things I want to just put out there is I've been doing a lot of research of what other states are using for doing for rental assistance. There's a dozen or more states that have already stood up programs that are very similar to this, you know it's rental or rearage, it's rental payments. There's a whole bunch of variations whether it's three months, two months, a number of them have put an actual contribution that the tenant needs to pay 30% of whatever whatever their income is. The others are restricting some anyone that has rental assistance or is in public or publicly subsidized housing from participating. So there's 2,500 different ways to come up with this exact sort of program. The steps are all in here, as it is and you know my plea is that, you know, I'm open to whatever changes fit within the rules and regulations is this fund, this money to get into people's hands as quickly as possible. You know Montana the state of Montana roughly the same size as us a little bit more population. They already have a $50 million program doing exactly this. It includes mortgage assistance. The applications online millions of dollars have already flowed. You know they went through a different process to stand those up, but that I sort of see some of these elements of this current relief fund is being very similar to a block grant from the federal government that states get, you know every year and that, you know I've been involved in $100 million of block grant funding over the last 15 years, you know, including Irene emergency money neighborhood stabilization money, regular CDBG, and it comes to the state. Through a formula through a funding process the state, you know, authorizes the acceptance of it and approval of it with broad guidelines for how it's to be used within the rules. We do that every year. And you know each year, we don't go through a legislative process that defines, you know you'll use X amount of mobile home parks and X amount of new construction in Burlington X amount on sewer and water or an ADA accessibility at a library. Those are all eligible things that we address on a needs basis through an input process from projects and I would argue in the big pictures I know you know Dave will probably go through the various components of this that what's most important for us to get right is what's really allowable acceptable and the actual mechanics of the three months or how far you go back or how far you go forward. I'm open to what any of it I just think it's best to design some of that in post haste and in a way that we can signal that this is available and coming because people are asking and thinking there's proposals out there. You know legal aid and Vermont apartment owners Association, put out a sort of an overview that they recommend they've been working together, you know recommend that we grant this to must housing authority and they've added a few other provisions and very deep thought about this. All that is completely open. We're acceptable open to that I, I think the biggest picture here is the concept is endorsed with high level language that everyone's acceptable with with room for flexibility what I'm most what I'm fearful of and you heard a little bit of some of the questions were talked about is we don't know everything we don't know that we have every right answer every right program, figured out to what the needs going to be in September. And I would hate for us to button this up so tightly that we've thought about everything and we've pigeonholed in in September what we really need to be doing is shifting a little bit money in a different area. And now we're going to have to, you know, amend this legislation and change it and so those are real sort of issues for everyone to think about as we move forward on passing, you know, a ton of money in short timeframe with, I would argue, take the approach of a big block grant approach to this that get set the framework set the thresholds, put it in a box everyone's acceptable with and give us at the agency and our partners who are ultimately going to apply for this money, the ability to keep this flexible and meet the need that could change from month to month. You know, I'm second guessing myself that this first phase should have included mortgage payments right in the beginning and not hold that for phase one. But the way we're going through this with a, you know, you know, a typical process with lots of input and dialogue. I don't know that it's going to lend itself to get us the product that's going to be most helpful with enough time to make a difference that's needed to that's a big picture sort of soapbox piece and then I'll dive into what this says. So, so the creation of the program it charges us with creating this this rental housing stabilization fund to fund statewide and regional housing partner organizations who will administer and distribute these funds to tenants and landlords in need of rental a rearage assistance. It will be directly distributed to landlords on the tenants behalf. It will be developed in partnership and coordination with other service providers and other agencies and require them to develop a streamline application process, provide support services and promote upstream homeless prevention and housing sustainability. The purpose is clear it's to prevent, you know, further evictions and possible homelessness from folks that have received received loss income, and resulting in reduced rent payments in this case, and also addressing the needs of the various property that need those rent payments to maintain a healthy, habitable housing for folks, pay their bills, pay service folks to come out, make some cases pay actual mortgage on that property that they're under threat of foreclosure. And that the program will be appropriated and, you know, be in compliance with the federal cares act. You know, I think that's that some of the key things to make sure we all are on the same page of what is eligible what is what is risky. There's a lot of people looking at that you know we know the timing pressure, you know we've heard that loans aren't eligible at this point but yet, you know maybe the first instance if it's a grant and if there is any repayments, it's fine but you might have to return those back to the So there's a whole bunch of unknown things, and this is an environment we're operating in, which makes it increasingly hard to have, you know, exact legislation that gets all that right with what we know today to help people tomorrow. And that's why I go back to this block grant approach where there's authorizing language, and many programs in a state that says, Yes, you can administer these funds we authorize it for these general uses. Now go run the program, and report back, check in. That would be my argument for how we move this stuff fast and get need. You know this is another area where you know we're saying that this has to be, you know, the department shall develop eligibility requirements for the statewide and regional housing partners to implement this program and to ensure funds are applied towards tenants and landlords, And those in the most need. We need to have a needs test here that that that is clear we need to make sure that it's going to folks in need, but if you start to spell that out, we had some testimony, you know in the Senate, the other day and you know if someone didn't use their stimulus check or they're They used it on their car because it broke down. Are we going to spell that out that that's not a good enough need. I mean, I don't think we want to get into that level of sort of look back and adjudicating you know what people use their their stimulus on what we do know is that the stimulus money that came And the unemployment insurance and the increase has prevented lots of missed mortgage payments and lots of missed rent payments. There's a few studies on this out now already that said it could have helped as much as 50% We could have had, you know, 23,000 rental mortgage payments missed and 21,000. Sorry, 23,000 mortgage 21,000 rental based on Vermont's population and our sort of housing needs, but at least half of that was prevented by that initial stimulus. But this equitable disbursement on need, you know, we list what at least needs to be considered here that the limitations of what's eligible needs to include what income level should we go up to when I scan the two dozen states that already have programs up and running, it was all the way One state allowed up to 140% of am I others capped it at 80 and there's everything in between. We didn't propose a magic number because I think that the folks that are going to run this should say yep it's at 100% it's at 80% But we need to have an eligibility cap to keep this fair and equitable. We need to have, you know, forms and guidelines so that the tenants in the landlords can agree on what the missed rent was, and that they're at a risk risk of eviction. And otherwise show proof that there is this need for rental assistance. That's clear. We also need to have a mechanism that prevents the landlord from evicting people, or at least prevents that eviction period for a prolonged portion of time. You know, there could be cases where some folks that are seeking these funds had six months prior, you know, rent or rearage before COVID and, you know, I'm hearing that it could be our choice that some of that could be included in this. You know, the March 1 deadline for COVID related expenses is that the state couldn't incur those well. You know, an individual that didn't pay rent and the back rent being paid as part of something that goes forward. Part of COVID related may need to be paid in order for the landlord not to proceed with eviction, because if they rode six months and all as we're saying is three months forward is eligible. That's not going to prevent that case if there's flexibility there. We're completely willing to look into it. You know, that's another reason why I've been asked what the metrics on this are. You know, we designed this based on three months at that gross median rent in Vermont with a buffer for admin to try to reach 15% of the rental stock. But that percentage of people served goes up and down depending on how long the rental assistance we allow and how deep the subsidy need is if you will. You know, whether it is $1,000 a month or some cases, if we're helping folks that do receive some rental assistance, it may only be $100 a case per month in those cases. The number of people that can benefit and the length is all adjustable if we leave the flexibility there to meet the need on hand, which is probably going to change month to month. We also contemplated a limitation on the number of units owned by any single landlord, but we didn't put a number on that. You know, if the committee has strong views on what that should be. Let's put them in there or should it or leave it up to the service provider, which will likely be you know a statewide provider that is working with many partners on what that limitation should be. And then also we're saying there needs to be a limitation of what the actual cash benefit is, there should be a maximum that's eligible. What that exact amount is based on a monthly period or based on a total cap. It is also something that we are open to dressing the needs, the real needs, not what we think they are, you know, right now and what we've researched on by leaving some of this open. As we move forward and then there's the 42 million that's allocated for this which has an admin percentage built into it. Because someone's going to have to deliver this they're going to have to have people hire, you know, legal counsel coming up with these contracts and, you know, I will just say that if that you know this is contemplated to go out to a competitive grant proposal system put out in NOFA. And you know, I don't think we're going to receive dozens of grant proposals on this maybe one or two. Because this is a lot of work and there is not a lot of different folks that could probably deliver this. I think we know who the main players would be. And you know they're going to have to evaluate what their costs are internally and spell out what percentage they need for admin. But it's fair to say we've built admin in there. If you if you do the math and figure out how we reach 15% with $3,000 per unit. There's some funding left over for admin, which should definitely be enough to cover anyone that would bid on this expenses. So, I can stop there and take detailed questions on this one before I jump in the next. I have a couple questions here very quickly though when you mentioned the other states you mentioned Wyoming already has a system up and running and was a Wyoming Montana Montana, you know, and I guess, have you had enough time to even see, you know we've heard a lot we always hear a lot about well the state does this and the state does this and, and, and we're really good at this and maybe the states better than you know I mean there's a lot of that. But have you had any time to actually study this. I mean, whether or not they've done things that you would consider risky in the way that they've done it. Rather, I mean because I mean we can all look at the Wyoming website and or the Montana website and go oh that sounds interesting maybe we should grab a piece of that and see if it works but the, I mean it really comes down to what are the rules. What are the interpretations I mean we can, again, my concern from day one has been we can create whatever programs we want. But if we bring this to the finish line and somebody that is there with the book and says no. Right. No, that's a fair question. You know, I just started. I was just made aware of Montana's program last night and you know went on the website look, you know they have notices that they're having tremendous demand already. You know a little bit of bottleneck. But they have their entire crown relief funding. They have grant proposals submitted for every industry we've talked about the arts public sector health business ag. All on this one website you push the amounts are available they're dispersing money. I think what I liked about their program will one, you know, they combined their rental assistance and mortgage assistance and a few other things, all into one pot, and said, you know, we don't need three different pieces of legislation to develop this. They didn't use legislation, let's let's start with that place. You know, many states as you're probably aware, the governor just decided how the money was going to be spent in these programs are stood up in their under operation. There's a majority of states, you know there's risks in that you know I think they probably are crossing their fingers just like we will on some of these things but it's clear that rental assistance and mortgage assistance is absolutely eligible for this there just has to be a connection to the impact by the the pandemic. So, a quick bit of a testimony that was going on early today in Senate economic development and on the rental rehab piece there was maybe a little question about how that relates. And I would argue that we're doing this to rehouse homeless people that were impacted by the virus. They're living in motels. There are ways to make housing available for low income brahmanas that need affordable housing that's not available. They're impacted by the coronavirus. Those seem to make the connection to me but I'm sure that there is lots of other interpretations and, you know, we will get into this sort of risk analysis approach, you know, at every every step and I know that that that's going to be a problem. I've heard the governor say the areas that are them that we have the most risk, and we're uncertain. One would have time to sort of litigate to see who's right for the next four months, but let's keep those risk higher risk proposals. The numbers somewhat low so that if we made a wrong decision, it doesn't bankrupt us, you know, and so the rehab component, the ability to rehab housing that quickly across any sector across any partner is risky in this short term. And that's a big reason why that there's less money in there. Not that there isn't need and that it's also more efficient and quicker relief comes to folks that have not experienced the homelessness or the inability to find housing because they're already in it if we can keep them housed. Hence the most money in this first section. So should I jump into the next section in more, more detail. No, let me let me get a couple of questions in here we have representative triano then Kalaki. Thanks again for being with us today Josh. So, I know I realize that in the next four months that time constraints would have us moving forward, maybe faster than we would like in some instances but I'm thinking in terms of accountability now certainly not in the terms of red tape that would prevent this money from going out but more in the terms of accountability so that these funds are protected from possible malicious use and from folks that would see fit not to continue renting to homeless people or low income people as such. And you know weatherization for years as with landlords have had qualification that they continue to rent to to folks in need after they are weatherized. You know that's a concern I have but the other piece that still is is of concern of mine is that I'm just not hearing what support services will be available, how much they will cost, and what they will do to keep homeless people in these homes once they're put there and that's a that's such a big piece of this whole puzzle. We all know it's sitting here today. Well, sitting standing whatever we're doing. That it's, it's, it's got to be considered. We have to really think in better terms about as particulars on this, the services that need to be provided. And on the, you know, that's, that's more to the to the rehousing component after the rehab. You know, and I've seen the proposal that that legal aid and their landlords association in consultation with must hit housing authority are working on that basically supports the these concepts and they're developing, you know how they would partner to to create, they would run one of these or both of these. And there is language that addresses that on the rehousing component such that, you know, after a unit is is rehab and we're matching up a, you know, homeless family that one part of the rental assistance above, because we can we can do this if we can find some units quickly is prepaid as a bridge so there there's say four months of rental assistance from the covert rental emergency assistance attached to the unit immediately. Um, the local continue of care organization has an MOU with that landlord. You know, party to the to the household that's in there with service commitment that they could not least rehouse that individual without having that commitment in place for those services and rental assistance. On day one, the challenge is, can you get rental assistance permanent rental assistance on day one, you know, there's not enough of that available there's a waiting list we have, you know the state one year rental assistance, we have priorities on other permanent houses like this, but we have this emergency one that the hope is it could be a bridge, and that we could more stably house people and permanent housing through this combination, then we've ever been able to do in the past in short order. So it's something to reach for, you know whether we're all successful and not pretending this is solving all of the, you know the needs out there in the homeless and permanent support of the housing world. But it's it's something to, you know, I think stretch where we can and reach for and use this slug of federal funds, you know to do what we can now. But you know you're right it doesn't work there would be no point in putting in someone in a unit without the rental assistance on day one and services matched up because it wouldn't be successful. We all know that. So. Okay, thank you. A representative kill lucky, and I'm sorry before john. Josh, are you on a time constraint. Um, not necessarily. Like the dinner tonight but Okay, no I just I know that other folks had to be in the next committee. So I have representative clackie then representatives on. Well, thank you Josh for coming back to us I appreciate it. You know I hadn't seen this for, I don't know if it's a proposal this for my legal aid thing you've been talking about so I look forward to that. I just have to two questions about what's in the bill as I was looking at it. Last week you said you would be open to either tenants or landlord receiving the money to pay the arrears is that because of the bill it looks like it's just to the landlord. Well it's to the landlord on behalf of the tenant. That's how all these programs work across the board. It's the only way, you know that that the landlord is receiving the payment that the tenant should have made and it keeps it all. Yeah. Okay, and then with this kind of complexity for a lot of folks. Is there any room do you think to have additional support for for an organization like Vermont legal aid to help tenants work through all of this. We don't have a lot of resources because it's going to be complicated. I think even as simple as we can make it. Right now there's nothing like that in the bill. Well, so so that was to the point where I talked about the administrative support in there. There is substantial admin dollars built in that the different people working on submitting a proposal to access and run this program. And I think it's very reasonable to think that you're going to need some coordination services I'll just call it that between landlord liaisons that help, you know, legal assistance through these different scenarios and that can be built into the administration budget. So, yes, got it. Thank you. Sorry, I was being distracted by my son that was trying to get my attention knocking on the window that he's going to play basketball up the road. Okay. So socially distant basketball is at some defense. Right, right. All right, a representative son. I was wondering if you could help me understand. As I was reading the draft legislation language. It appears that the limitation for rental arrearages is three months and then at the end of that three months there's a ability to reapply. Is that correct. Yeah, so that our original concept was based on three months because some of the HUD CDBG COVID special money we received we've already submitted our application received our grant agreement that had a three month limit on it. And so we were kind of crafting these and somewhat unison, but we are open to it being longer than that you know this allows that three months and said you can reapply. I think this is one of those cases where we should allow the rental arrearage rental assistance to cover time be be available for time frames longer than three months. Okay, that that's helpful and encouraging because to sneak ahead just a little bit when I see when I see these sort of $30,000 caps for property owners. And then I'll think about what rent is and I think about what three months of rent is relative to $30,000. There's a huge seeming equity disparity there. And if we if you know if we can find a way that we can extend it to a year or however long that it becomes, it somehow becomes a little more equitable and in terms of property owners versus renters that would be great. As I sort of mentioned earlier there, there, I'm hoping there's a chance to merge some of these on the same property, you know, if, if folks get the green light that this is a go at some level, they, you know, I know folks already in the community, you know, the cap Sumiter with capstone and others are surveying landlords right now. And would you be interested, how many units, etc. If they get to go ahead to start repairing these units that are offline right now that have health and codes, get them fixed get folks in them and then match this rental assistance up you're having a situation where you're the property owners is fixing up their apartment with this, this money, and then you have the chance where the tenant is having rental assistance because they don't have income right now. It's sort of helping both. And that could be a, that would be very welcome for for many folks, many communities. So one follow up again I'm skipping ahead a little bit to the next piece but so in terms of the range of things that you were talking about being flexible on in terms of the details and not wanting to be too hamstrung with is the five year number for keeping rental units affordable something that you're really committed to or you would you object to stretching that timeline out further. I wouldn't object. I think that the folks that are talking to the property owners about these funds are asking that very question, you know what what would be their appetite to have a commitment of a 30 $30,000 grant that they have to keep their, you know, grants pegged, you know, the low market for 10 years. Is that something that they can, you know, live with is that going to work is going to be really critical to whether this is five or 10, or even further the guidance around this loan item being a problem with the current relief that we had structured this so it's forgivable so it ends up as a grant in the long term. But when I'm thinking about now hearing some of the guidance that we just heard last night is, let's say someone doesn't meet the conditions of these funds. And they only comply for two years of affordability. Now they have a $25,000 loan to pay off, which then we can't keep and recycle in the housing market in our Vermont we have to send back to the feds. I'm not sure that that is meeting our goals and that, you know, once again why I think this has to be somewhat flexible and open to meet the requirements right up to the last day we put this out because maybe, maybe more there should be grants and we have to think of other creative ways to keep commitments in place and not have this this forgivable loan which was going to serve as that mechanism to encourage and stretch affordability commitments in exchange for these funds. I'm not somewhat in question right now in my mind, but your point I get your point and I would, I would, I would push for as much affordability period as we can get with these funds. Thank you. Representative Gonzalez then walls. So, thinking of that $30,000 I think about that number, because that's a down payment on a house and and looking at our land trust and BHCB and how we could have permanent affordability with that $30,000 per unit in terms of housing and so this proposal doesn't have to be about supporting that and so that's that's a concern of mine and looking at that and that there are houses available that our land trust could buy and have permanent affordability instead that same exact price tag, except for so that wanted you to address that. Yeah, I guess I would need to learn more about that number because I'm not, you know I'm very familiar with permanent, permanent affordability, the land trust homes and the different models there. And I don't think $30,000 is buying permanent affordability and in many cases. You know, there might be down payment assistance you know we fund the tax credit program to VHFA which provides a down payment assistance grant, but those aren't don't come with permanent affordability restrictions on that program it's a subsidy. And that also is used for mobile homes and 0% homes. I think that the subsidy needed to guarantee permanent affordability and have an ongoing relationship with, you know nonprofit group or VHFA to have that stewardship. The price tag is much higher than than that. On another issue the sort of the challenge with the homeless, you know folks in motels and the fact that we have so many deficient available housing across the state is an ongoing one that we, we should use this time to address because I would argue, if we didn't have 19,000 substandard homes across the state and had been investing small sums of public money into the 85% of you know the housing stock that has private ownership, we would have less of the homeless challenge today. And so that I haven't found a model where this immediate relief can ensure perpetual affordability in the timeframe. And maybe there's, you know, I would love to say instead of having a, you know, some rental assistance we could have you in a home, you know, permanently and ensure that that's going to be successful for you. You know, and also, you know, I said in the very beginning, I'm second guessing myself and that holding the phase to the mortgage foreclosure prevention, and not doing it all at once so this could be one pot of flexible money that we could adjust. You know, maybe we have more mortgage foreclosure issues and less rental assistance and, you know, we're going to have a separate, you know, so I, I want to be able to address all the needs openly and fairly with under the constraints we have. But, you know, I appreciate your question and know that, you know, homeownership in the models that ensure that those homes don't rise above a cost that the next family can afford, you know, work with the shared equity model. You know, they often work in markets that are, you know, you know, Burlington and Montpelier that have an appreciation that it's very consistent. They're less efficient in Bells Falls or in Rutland City where often that affordability mechanism, you know, you're buying a home with that affordability threshold that you've invested in off the market and other incentives that don't cost as much can achieve the same goal, but that's just my take on some of those initiatives. And for me, it's it's thinking of that expanding the thinking that that we're having as we're looking at these proposals because I agree that that the proposals in front of us have the pieces that we need. And I think we also need other pieces as well and investing in the HDB or the different land trusts across the state are part of that that I see missing in this proposal. Yes, thank you. My apologies ahead of time. You were just talking about an area I'm very much interested in my wife came in with to ask me about a shopping list. So you may have covered this but I'm sorry if I missed it. I'm concerned about the folks would not be covered by this pending legislation. So if you're touching on that. I'm just wondering, is there something more concrete that's going to be coming down the line to help address that, you know, we've got nearly 2000 homeless. What we're proposing here is not going to house them all. So, where are we going with that. Right. You know, so my understanding is AHS, you know, has a proposal in the works that you should hear about at some point which which deals with much of that issue. You know, I think it's fair to say that this attempt here were the goals of the re housing program and rehab is to serve homeless families. We have had a consistent sort of 200 to 300 homeless families in Vermont for years. It's a problem we should be able to address. You know, it's the unit. I would argue the units already exist across Vermont to hold house every one of the folks that need it. They need reinvestment and they need some services and rental assistance matched up. So this is a step that, you know, we feel we can make a big push on, but other supports are needed. Other plans are needed. And, you know, I would look to our partners in AHS and others out there to bring some of those other, you know, multiple phase continue the emergency, you know, rental assistance from hotels and hotels as long as they can, using this funding, transition people where they can as units open on a priority basis, start to rehab units to make available, you know, to transition people as soon as those come online, make a conscious effort to fill the vacancies within our no one affordable housing network where there are some with priority. Take every step everyone's going to have a role to do to do that and meet that goal. Thank you. So, Josh. I guess the question. I just, I think I just want to wrap up for today, unless someone has can is going to pop back in and I appreciate your time. Of course, because this is this is ongoing and I get the need for speed. And I get the need to think as quickly as we possibly can on on how we get this money out there. But you brought up the laundry list of complexities between income qualifications between whether or not someone's choosing to pay rent or choosing to fix a car I mean there's a whole slew of things here that are rife with. I think when we do our work we try to avoid this as much as possible we also are aware that there are government programs that are in place that on a much smaller scale have dealt with similar programs to this. So I think we're going to be looking at, you know, can we lift the rules from the hop program in some way shape or form to use for the rental or rearage program, which is, you know, by my account at least 45 times bigger than what we do right now. In terms of the size of the program the hop program is pretty rental or rearage program is pretty small comparatively speaking. So I'm just, you know, there's a lot of there's a lot of these details I think that are that can mitigate against speed. But I think that will also, you know, when we can identify like programs that already exist that are successful or that need to be funded. I mean I think we're going to look in that direction to. But I think that it's, it's, I appreciate your, your enthusiasm for trying to get this out and for trying to get it to the people who need it most and will keep working with you. And I think that there's two to really formulate a program and again I can I'm going to keep coming back to what is it the Treasury says that we can do right. And I'm committed to you know sharing, you know, I've, if I learn more talk to colleagues in other states talk to our partners about what is already working that we could quickly add to this or change or remove. I think we have to sort of look at this as a, you know, that a document that is still live and that we should be adjusting to get it right and to serve the need right to the very last day, because we should be learning about what other people are doing what is working what isn't working, and then also, you know, hearing from the folks that are going to be administering this from their experiences and who they've talked to what they think is going to be set them up for success so happy to keep talking through this and keep an open mind on changes and anything you also hear from from your partner so thanks for for being partners on this. You're very welcome. Thank you for your time. I mean, and for being as open as you have been for the last three months really, as we've been working through this because this is this is a big deal and while I'd like to be able to say that we'll solve the homelessness problem and we know that we won't completely we know that we will provide as many residences and I want to go back to what Representative Triano said earlier about the need for services and and I think in the in the very near future we're going to define what those services are I mean as I've had these conversations with folks about what it takes to house people who are homeless I mean again there's so many different categories so somebody who's suffering you know a job loss and loss had to get out of their place whether it was a foreclosure or rental because they lost an income whether it was a mental health issue. Whether it's a combination of all I mean, this is a very multifaceted population of her mentors that requires specialized services it's not just like having somebody in a cubicle someplace to take their call and answer a question about what should I do about something if this is and it's more than just having enough money to pay the rent in subsidy form it is. This is some pretty intense. These are some pretty intense individuals and households that require some pretty intense services and so having that component in place will make the chances of success. So much better. Yeah, and so how we get there whether we can use this money how we figure it out is is still. We won't have the answers by Tuesday. Yeah, I'll think I'll think about if there's a way to incorporate. Even if it's short term funding into the you know the rehousing the rehab component if there's a way if, if one of the barriers is going to be a commitment on some initial support services can that be built into that budget to also fund the provider to pay the local, you know, continued care council organizations for their increased support for the folks we rehouse if that you know I mean how can we use this money. You know, focused. I know it was focused on the rehab and the housing families and have always been thinking other groups are going to be coming to the table with their what they do best, you know that the resources and the specialty from that community, but in absence of seeing that soon, you know, I'm open to start shifting some some of that money to say that's available in here, just so you know service providers. There's some money built into this so that this can hit the ground running while those other systems are still being tailored to to to help on the long term. Sorry now my dog wants to get out of the room. It's hot. And, and, and, and then I guess I'll just leave you with this is that idea that you know working with private landlords or even even the nonprofits, you know housing. When down street opened up their new facility in downtown Barry, it was right at the beginning of when Governor Shumlin was requiring that anybody who received state aid for housing have 15% of their, their units occupied but formerly homeless households. And it took 20 applications to find four households. And so, you know, just on a basic application on an in an industry at a nonprofit housing group which has as part of its mission to house the, you know, the as deeply as we can possibly go, you know it's still a business proposition. And so having those other supports in place whether it's services and or rental subsidies is so important. That's very fair I don't want to also take advantage of you know, as you said you know small private landlord oh I'm going to get $30,000 for the state to fix up this unit and just sort of hoping a prayer great and then, you know they're left with a unsuccessful, you know, Tennessee which turns their upside down on both parties, you know has leaves a lasting impression that I'm not going to reach, reach out to try to serve folks and you know that that wouldn't be fair for us to do either so I appreciate how hard it is to match up these two goals. Is it always open for the private landlords I mean I took testimony earlier from from one of our peers just about how difficult it is to, you know, try to form a master lease, but you know damage water damage is expensive. And all it takes is one misused dishwasher to for that to happen and, and, and then, you know, that scares people away, and, and it makes it very difficult so those are, you know, the parameters. You know, the parameters that we're working with again while we're built where we understand and hear that and we're also working against the clock here. It won't make much sense if we don't get money to people in September from this from this package. So we are all working on a deadline of pretty darn soon as well. So, no, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it and we'll see you soon. Thank you. All good weekend. All right. Thank you. Committee, I was looking at the schedule for next week and so we have as a whole we have Tuesday, we, we meet at 330 for caucus of the whole, which usually runs for an hour to an hour and a half. On Thursday, there's at least three hours of floor time, followed by either caucus meetings like the working Vermonters or chairs meeting Thursday we as a committee don't have anything scheduled, and there is a huge block of time. On Wednesday morning from 830 to 1230. That is free according to that according to the map that I received from Catherine LaVassar. On, I mean, on Wednesday afternoon there's time in between in between the floor sessions but that's pretty brutal if we try to do floor time and then a couple hours of, of, of that. So is Ron the answer is no, we can, we can go off YouTube. Thank you everybody for watching we're just going to do some housekeeping now. Thank you. No one was free. But those are the times those are the times and so does Thursday morning is any block of Thursday morning work for you want to see the schedule in front of you and do you want to stay live. No, you can take us off.