Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Richard Westman (Member)]: We are live.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Live each nine fifty one council committees, point six of meetings. We are making progress. We are. It's my.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: You can say that every time we meet. Yeah. That's right. We
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: have any news.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Okay. So
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we'll just There's something you would
[Richard Westman (Member)]: We're but we have a cup Okay. Couple of things that we can do, and then we have some more things that are going to be taking a little more time, so we will pass that on. But we are making progress. Good. So on the first page of the gray out sheet that we have from last Thursday, I guess, online 14 was the ag and food and markets position, and we agreed with the we'll agree with the senate's position on not funding that new administrative services position. And then there they are. On page three, at the top, line sixty one and sixty two, We will agree to the one time for the Vermont Law School and the SBDC. Now I can pass under the economic development part of what we're trying to accomplish and build on the values that we have. When I show you our proposal spreadsheet, you'll see why we got that. So
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it's all is it all three of them? No. Just the two. Sixty and sixty one or
[Richard Westman (Member)]: sixty Sixty one and sixty two. The Vermont Law School and the Small Business Development Center. I know the SBDC needed that little bump more of $1.50 to fully get their federal match. And the law school, you said, had got some federal funds, that seems to have disappeared, that was for 100,000. Okay. So in case you need yet one more of these, my team, I wanted to walk you through what we're thinking of for money coming and going. You know, we talked before about, well, we want this, but where's the money coming from and all of that? So this is a whole, more or less a whole proposal just to review sources and uses. So on the left side, the chloride bill, S-two 18, was vetoed, so we have base and one time there. S-two zero six is not moving, so that's 270,000 in base. So these are mostly money from other bills. The benefits study for 50,000 and S-one hundred ninety was taken out. The biomarker study for 25,000 was gone. The CBOEO day shelter is an H-nine 38, so the second half of it we're taking out of the budget and that's available. The Language Justice Project for $150,000 they're using carry forward instead of general fund, And then, we asked people to pick between Granny's Closet and the Lake Champlain Derby. And your colleagues in this committee said, We want Granny's Closet. So, we took out the Deletion Great Derby. It's pretty extended. Granny's Sorry, Sorry, Grain. So that leaves 420,000 in face and 690,000 in one time available. So, the proposed uses are on the right hand side. We've already talked about the mediator position and agreed to put that in, and the ethics position. And I think we actually already agreed about the flood safety position too, because we had talked about that when the chloride bill was being out. And then we also had agreed on the grants administration for $100,000 to the Center for Crime Victim Services. The next one, we're working on a food proposal, and for the moment, we just called it Vermonters Feeding Vermonters for that 110,000 Not sure that's actually going to be, it may be with Vermonters feeding Vermonters that's gonna be part of the food construct. So we could have just said food, but we ran out of time, so food. We feel very strongly that the Vermont Council on Rural Development and Technical Assistance, which is rural and economic development, we would like to put that back in, a house position of 250,000. The legal aid hotline, is slightly under 60,000. We had already talked about meals on wheels. These all round up, so it's 125, it rounds up on this page to one to one hundred and and thirty.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, they're all meal, meal loss will be in your food construct, or that's still true?
[Richard Westman (Member)]: We had already all agreed to that. We'll show it.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I just didn't know if you were a boss, so we had
[Richard Westman (Member)]: No, this is the same one. This is not new. This is not new. Then putting back in the two eleven so they can be funded for those hours we're making the money. So, that leaves us short about $40,000 if I'm reading this right, which we can find So that's about.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Mhmm. Any clarifying questions? Have to input. Does you understand it? It makes sense. We have already agreed, however, to the first four items that we have, Yes. And then the last field.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, I can't remember if we did do the food safety position, but
[Richard Westman (Member)]: we might I thought we did. Can look at the gray, actually. Which one? And then the meals on meals. So there's really only a couple of new things
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: on Yeah, probably wanna see the food construct.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Right, we'll do the food construct. So the public employee's benefit study is in S-one 190. It's out. So we'll be looking at it. You know, It's S-one 190, Jim Walker House. Right, that's the $50,000 for the treasurer to do a public employee. Right. Which we were I had the impression that it was not. Understand that he was asking for more than $50,000 to get profit back. Uh-huh.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: There was still a benefit of doing that, but yeah, we'd rather spend money on the set of things. Right. Understood. Right.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Okay. So that's we got. That's everything on my list for this moment. We'll have a few other things when we meet again.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Things seem to constantly be evolving around this a little bit.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. And hopefully we'll have something for you as well. And you're going to be doing the educational panel on ten. Yeah. Right. Great. And are
[Richard Westman (Member)]: we meeting at 01:15 or 01:30?
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 01:15. I'll start making 01:30. We're back on the floor too. Oh, Canada. We're talking about having two two
[Richard Westman (Member)]: We might do a third. Yeah. And we might need we may need a third committee of congress from this group today.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So do you want to meet at 01:15?
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Let's meet at 01:15 and if something I've I've got other meetings we're trying to work out. We've done it myself.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Gmail hopefully could be done today, maybe. Be at lunchtime. Great.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Perfect. So let's assume 01:15 and we'll connect if we need to make it to 01:30 instead. I'm thinking that even as we discuss things, I can't imagine that being more than half an hour
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: to discuss the things supposed to be helpful. And then we'll do possibly another one after 03:30. At the end
[Richard Westman (Member)]: of the day. Yeah. Okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: With that, we can adjourn the 01:15. I would say fatigue always Yeah. Both sides just like saying they want to depend on that, and he wants to head on the house.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Oh, the OT, the AOT stuff that's in here. Yeah. Right. Well, it seemed to me that there was a third thing that was dragged So, into I don't know where it stands anymore. Is Matt back? Yeah. Yes.