Welcome everybody to our Tuesday afternoon hearing for the house energy and technology committee. Today we're going to continue our work on budget requests that have come before the appropriations committee that to some extent fall in the purview of this committee. We have a couple of witnesses joining us today. I'm going to speak to a perspective appropriation on a funding study for public access television in the state of Vermont. This is a request that came out of a legislative study committee that mess met last summer, and was chaired by Senator balance and representative to be on Toshka from our committee was on that committee as well. Lauren Glenn Davidian is joining us. I believe that she served on that committee and also has done a lot of work with the two dozen plus public access television stations around the state. This appropriation was something that was not in H 966 earlier this year but there was language in that bill that said we would be funding this. funding stipulation in H 966 said that it would be funded by a CCD but I think the expectation was that we would find funding for that in the coming months so that is laying out there right now and wanted to make sure we had a chance to hear from Senator balance as well as learn Glenn to hear about the work that they've done and some of the support from this. I would also as members are listening to the testimony might refer you to looking at language in bill s 318, which was a bill introduced I think it was last year this year I think it was this year, which speaks to this funding request in some detail, but with that by way of introduction. I want to make sure we get Senator ballot in right now because I know that the Senate Finance Committee, I believe is meeting soon, and I want to make sure she has a chance to get there so thank you Senator ballot for joining us this afternoon and Good morning, Mr chair. Thank you for the invitation. I know that Lauren Glenn will be able to fill in a lot of the details since this really is her bailiwick. I think the most important thing for you all to know is that representative and Chachka and I both feel really strongly that before the pandemic hit. These public access stations are critical for Vermonters, many of our communities across the state, especially our elderly residents get a lot of their news about local government from these public access TV stations and we want to make sure that as the funding stream changes as more and more people do cord cutting and they're not. There isn't as much revenue coming from the agreement that we have with Comcast that we want to make sure that long term there is a way for these folks to stay viable. I think probably everyone in your committee can speak to how it plays out in in their own communities, but we just heard from, you know, across the state constituents, and many members of the community who either have shows on public access or regularly online shows, select board members, development review boards, everything that is the work of town and local government and state government people feel like they get so much of that access from public access TV and we just feel like, although it hasn't been a place in which we've offered funding in the past we do feel like it is work that we want to see continue and it's just been highlighted so much by the situation we're in with COVID-19 and people being homebound, and so it's completely accentuating that problem. So we looked at a bunch of different possibilities within the scope of our committee. There were only, I believe, six meetings plus a public hearing. It did not allow enough time to really dig into the details of what was possible that didn't run a foul of state or federal law around these issues and we felt like we needed more expertise connected to right of way connected to our communications providers and we just didn't have the time within the scope of the summer to do that but we felt like it's a place where we need to spend some money to get an expert in to do that consulting for us so that's why we are where we are. We couldn't come to an agreement within the study committee about what that appropriation should be and most of that was for political reasons but we got an assessment from Joint Fiscal about what it would cost to do this scope of research and that's how we landed on this figure and Lauren Glenn can speak more specifically about all the different details that this person or people would be looking at to help us figure this out so. Just a quick question for you, Senator. In terms of S318, a bill that you had introduced I think with Senator Campion, certainly not going to ask you to take us through that bill but would you say some of the work in that bill reflects essentially the need for and Yes. You know, it reflects your request and interest for what this money would be used for. Yes, that is a fair assessment. Yes. Okay, the reason I ask that is also if this committee chooses to be supportive and a recommendation for the Appropriations Committee on this. We would likely look to representative Feltas to perhaps use some language from that bill or from the bill we passed earlier this year H966 the CRF money bill to reflect specifically what that money would be used for it. I hate to leave. I hate to leave it to chance. Absolutely how this money would be spent. And we want I think we want to be as specific as possible to make sure that if we do make this recommendation. It meets the needs of the study committee that had looked at this. So, Absolutely, that makes good sense. Okay. I think we have the advantage of having Senator Ballant here I just want to see if there's any questions for her, I see that representative Campbell has his hand up you want to go ahead Scott. Yes, thank you, Tim. Senator Ballant I'm wondering if there were any changes that we should think about to S 318. Anything different that you discovered in the course of the study committee. Anything about. Got you know nothing comes to mind right now and as as you can imagine, my head isn't a lot of different places right.  I don't want to say definitively that there's not I just want a little bit more time. Thank you. I don't see any other hands up and just. So thank you, Senator Ballant for joining us I really appreciate you taking a few minutes and just, you know, giving a little background on your, your study committee you chaired, and also again welcome any more feedback you want to give to me directly and I would like to start with my committee. So thank you for joining us. And good luck and Senate Finance today will actually probably be releasing to some of that discussion as well since it affects the work of this committee so thanks for that work as well. And for why have you all here. Again, for all the work that your committee did on the broadband bill, because you did the, you did the heavy lift, and I just as a senator coming over to your committee I want you to know we absolutely on the Senate side appreciate the work that you did. So thank you. So thank you for that. And while Senator Ballant is running downstairs to get back to Senate Finance. I just want to ask Danielle, could you make me a co host of this meeting so that I can manage the, the hands that go up and down. That would be helpful. And with that, I want to turn the mic over to Lauren Glenn. And thank you for joining us. You've my recollection it was I think it was June when you were last with us to speak to some of the needs around the peg community and we had supported. You know that the two dozen plus public access television stations around Vermont with some coronavirus relief money. I'd love to hear about how that is going today. Although that's not the reason you're here, but you know if you have some, you know, specific or anecdotal information, and we have time for that would love to hear about that. But, again, thanks for joining us today to speak to this appropriation request for the study group. Was I correct in saying that you were part of that study committee. Okay, so good. So thanks. And welcome. Thank you so much. It's just a pleasure to see all of you virtually. I'm Lauren Glenn David and I'm the executive director of CCTV Center for media and democracy which is based in Burlington and I also represent from on access network which as you know, is a network of 25 community media centers that service across the state. Just to start, we are incredibly grateful for the allocation of $466,500 that was an H 966 section 18. This has proven to be incredibly valuable for all of our members. I've been the primary administrator of the, the billing for that. We have put together the first set of bills through the 30th of June. And that amounts to about 55% of those funds. So, anywhere from helping access or helping municipalities make the switch to virtual platform and getting them live onto YouTube to helping to manage graduations as you know, graduations were mostly virtual and it's largely with the support of community media centers producing the role and pre recorded materials and then editing it all together so that these could be seen at, you know, and in drive in movie, like people in cars, doing the graduation or watching at home. Access centers and have been in partnership with community institutions. Also providing educational materials for people of many ages. And of course emergency information recording regarding the coven health emergency so the access centers have been incredibly busy and we have been diligent in our record keeping so we're about to submit a bill to the Department of Public Service for, as I said about 55% of those funds. We will do another billing cycle through the end of September, which I think should account for most of it and any of the funds that are left for the access centers that are too small to spend it all at once will do a third funding collection for the 30th of September. So we expect to spend that money down and it is deeply appreciated. And I have a report that I will send you a one to pager that I meant to sing yesterday but I will send you that gives you a nice overview of the things that we've been doing across the state. So I just deeply appreciated your thoughtfulness to include us in that package. Thank you, Rep. Sebelia and breakland and members of the committee on helping with that. Any questions on that, should I keep going. Yeah, you know that is definitely something that will probably come back to in the coming weeks as we review, you know, just how all the Sierra funding is going but since we want to focus on the you know the current budget, why don't we move on to this study request. In the final hours of the age 966, Senator Kitchell included section 19, because I think we had harangued her so much about this peg study. And she was quite supportive as were your committee and other the Senate finance mean I think there is general support for this study as Senator Ballant outlined. And ACCD looked at it with due diligence and determined that it was not eligible for COVID funds, and therefore included in the governor's version of the F 21 budget, which, again, we're very grateful for that support. So what I did want to underscore were what the important parts of that study are. And, and where the emphasis we think is important to lie, I would agree that S 318 does spell that out pretty clearly. Pick apart parts of S 318 if you want there's a section on Vermont interactive TV in that bill that buildings and grounds are. That's not exactly their name I'm sorry but it's the big administrative agency is supposed to be looking at that may or may not be practical but the elements of S 318. I'm going to just emphasize for you what's important. They are included in the language that is an H 966 but perhaps not as explicit as might be as might be useful for the consultants. So the central purpose of the peg study is to assess the communications providers use of the public rights of way in order to determine whether and to what extent. The services may generate fees or rights of way assessments that don't come into conflict with federal law so as you know the feds have tied the state's hands in terms of broadband tax. And we need to look at examples around the country to determine how we might be able to. We have federal preemption and broadband taxes and look at broader more broad based assessments and in particular the right of ways and how the commercial use of what essentially are public rights of way may be a revenue generator for not only peg access I would just like to point out but possibly for the state and other public benefits. So how much revenue this could generate which is partly why we need a financial assessment as well as a legal assessment. And that would give us some good information about how this may benefit the work we do and possibly a broader brief. And then as I said would include examples from other jurisdictions. We've seen in the study committee that there are entertainment taxes obviously there are cloud taxes there are telecommunications fees. And we found in a pretty clear example of how right of way assessments would be structured. So that's why we need some more research again from someone who has some legal telecommunications legal experience. And ideally, the result would be financial models and policy recommendations that would give us revenue projections and also policy framework in which to think about this going forward. The secondary purpose of the study is to conduct a business assessment of peg access management organizations to see if we can operate more efficiently and effectively. I just like to point out, we are as Vermont access network actively engaged in that effort. And certainly we could benefit from some business planning. And that would help in that area. And I would say that the telecommunications legal assessment policy recommendations financial assessment is the priority, and the, the possible support of business planning, which was very important to the department and to Comcast could continue to be included in that bill. I would say that given the work we are doing this realm, that would be a secondary goal of the bill. Lauren Glenn. I don't want to lead the witness here but it would be helpful for me if we, or if you would lay out for the committee. Actually, I'll say for me. I'm sure there's folks in our committee who understand this full well. I don't know if you will. And just at a very high level my understanding of the challenge that is being faced by by by peg, you know, community access television is that it is currently supported, at least in Vermont, I'm not sure if it's internationally but in Vermont it's supported by a fee on cable television bills that is paid, and the conglomeration of those fees essentially is the funding source for peg stations. As folks have started to move away from cable television as their source for commercial television. I would say revenue source has gone down in terms of its support for for peg. And that's what's essentially set the the financial bind here in motion I know there's some other things but can you give our committee just kind of a sense as to what's created the challenge. And then you know that will, I think give more context also as to why, you know, studying a new path or an additional path would be helpful. Thank you. We've been concerned about the erosion of cable franchise fees since 1990, when the phone companies got into the video business. And this has been a long time coming that was hastened by fiber and the ability for Comcast to send not only video to your home in the form of a cable service, but broadband to your home in the form of internet service. Comcast is a good example, although there are I think now six cable companies in the state but they are the biggest. They use the same fiber to send cable to your home and internet to your home, but the regulatory framework for cable and internet are different. The Communications Act of 1934, which was updated many times. Franchise fees on cable service track to cable revenue, and have been on a slow decline, which is accelerated in some parts of Vermont in some parts of Vermont. They're stable right now, but we're expecting that they will decline as people cut the cord and move to entertainment and news and communications using the internet rather than cable, because they don't have to get all the channels on the cable system. So this erosion of cable franchise fees. The policy is no longer going to serve the purpose of the public benefit in exchange for using the public rates of way to string a cable. Now the access centers in Vermont have multiple sources of revenue now because they have started over the past 10 years in particular to diversify. So, BC TV and Brattleboro is a very good example they combine memberships fees for production services underwriting, as well as cable franchise fees, and we have a good chart that I can share with you that shows this diversity of revenue. It's not like we've all been, I know you know this but we haven't been sitting around just wringing our hands we've been trying to create some revenue diversity but the fact is that the cable franchise fees are the biggest chunk of money. Is that a Vermont policy. Do cable franchise fees support public access television in other states as well as that a national policy or is that something unique to Vermont that was set up in Vermont decades ago. It's unique to the franchise authority, which in some states are states and in some states are municipalities. And so a municipality quite often would collect the cable franchise fees and just put it into their general fund. So there are about 1000 access centers around this country, but there are many many more franchising authorities collecting cable franchise fees. So it's the discretion of the franchising authority, and in Vermont because we had a statewide franchising authority in the mid 80s when we really started this advocacy work. We were able to create a uniform policy that was then codified in what's known as rule eight in the statutes. So, so Vermont is very much a model for the rest of the country, but it depends on the nature of the franchising authority and their goals. I would add something I think that's important, which is why this what while our pants are on fire. They're not as on fire as they might be. Comcast won't sell you internet without selling you cable. Comcast is figured out a way to keep as much business as possible. Burlington Telecom will sell you just internet, you don't have to buy cable, you can just buy one of the triple play that they offer voice data and video. So Comcast is has a business strategy to keep as many cable customers as they can, which is why the decline has not been as fast or precipitous as we thought it might be. And what it is to say that now is actually a good time for us to do a study in this because we are seeing an erosion. I mean in our center we've probably lost the equivalent of a staff person in the past two years of revenue, but in the rural parts of Vermont where cable is being built out, their revenue loss has been less than that. So it's a good time to do this study because we would study it, and then we would talk about policy recommendations, and this might take one or two years for us to put something into effect if the legislature chose to do that. So I would see a scenario where you have cable franchise fees but you also have another revenue source, and that one starts to supplant the other as really the cable business ultimately collapses into the broadband business. And again, as you pointed out my final point, the federal feds in the form of the FCC have tied the hands of states and municipalities and said, we want unfettered internet, we don't want to put any, we don't want to hamper the internet business. So I would say that you can't pass any rules that just single out broadband for special taxes. So any policy we come up with needs to be a more broad based look at the use of rights of way that don't just single out the broadband users. Thank you for that background that was certainly helpful to me. So then we've got a couple of hands up if you don't mind taking some questions at this point. First representative chase and then representative Campbell. Go ahead, Seth. Okay, thank you. And there is a little bit of irony here I am currently on Comcast, which means that when I couldn't quite hear what you're saying that's entirely on them. I thought you were here. I heard. Yeah, sorry. I thought I heard you say that Comcast doesn't sell internet without cable and I was hoping for clarification on that point because I think my personal experience speaks otherwise. My understanding is that they package the internet with the cable. And so I'm not sure we should get them to verify that but that was my understanding of how they structure their packaging in Vermont. Okay, that if I could request additional clarification on that for, you know, the state as a whole that would be great. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, that was my question to I wondered. So cable is regulated by by the state level by the by the cable. What did you what did you call the cable regulatory authority or something like that. Well in Vermont it's regulated by the PUC, not prices but conditions of their certificate of public good. Right. Well, so presumably the PUC is allowing Comcast or whoever it is to package to require people to buy cable video as well as in order to get internet. What I'm trying to say. No, the PUC has no jurisdiction over the packaging or the pricing. They only have jurisdiction over the use of the rights of way and line extensions and peg access. So, we should get Comcast in because I, I have been trying to figure out the revenue numbers and the trends in the state. And from my colleagues. They reported to me because I don't have Comcast that this is how it's packaged. And that actually helped make it make a little bit more sense that we're not seeing the dramatic revenue declines that we anticipated. We're seeing a steady erosion, but not a big drop at this time. So let's find out from Comcast how they package it, but just to clarify representative Campbell, the PUC does not have jurisdiction over how they package their price. They lost regulation over price in the 80s. Interesting. All right. Thank you. So I don't see any other hands up. I'm glad I'm not sure if we interrupted your testimony with with questions if there's more you'd like to add or No, I think I think that concludes it. We were I just wanted to underscore that we were very grateful to Senator Kitchell and her committee for including this in age 966. And I think if we have the opportunity to emphasize what the primary goal is in this next in this FY 21 budget. We have a little bit more time than she did when she put it into that bill, which was, you know, in the final hours. And to so thank you for that clarification as well. What what my committee with the task before our committee, I think is to consider a handful of funding recommendations that are in the governor's budget that are coming before the appropriations committee that kind of fall into the bailiwick of this committee. I would say that this proposal in the governor's budget is really kind of on the edge of our committee. It's a proposal that is, if adopted would be funded through the agency of commerce community development, which is not really the purview of our committee, but we have done some work in support of pegs in the past. So I think that's why it fell to us to make that recommendation or not. And that's something we'll be discussing. If there aren't any more questions for Lauren Glenn. Again, I want to thank you for joining us today and giving us some background on this. You're welcome to stick around if you want or listen online. For committee members, we are going to spend the rest of our time today as I just given a brief introduction to discussing some of the kind of line item parts of the budget that fall within our committees purview. I'd like to turn to that now. Can I interrupt and ask one question. Sure. Yeah, please. Would it be useful for us to pull out S3 18 language or compare it with the current language is. Do you have a thought on that what would be useful to the committee to serve. Yeah. Yep. And again, you know our discussion in the next hour and a half or so I think we'll evidence where support is for different funding proposals. And obviously, I'm sure that the appropriations committee is going to get recommendations from policy committees that exceed the amount of money that they have to appropriate. But I think it would be helpful. If you, and again working with with Senator Ballant might look at S3 18. And if there are pieces of that bill that give direction to focusing a CCD and how this money might be used with the very specific criteria that we want to accomplish in the study. I think that would be helpful. I mean you certainly highlighted that, you know, the two major things which is, again, kind of an assessment of the current franchise fee revenue stream, and how that might evolve or devolve in the future. So primarily this is a funding study as the as the legislation says, but it's also an opportunity I think that you characterize this kind of a business assessment. How does the business model for peg channels change going forward. And that obviously is wrapped up in the revenue model as well. So personally I would welcome that language and I suspect the appropriations committee would as well out of 318 and also looking at what Senator Kitchell had put into each 966. If there are recommendations you can make there. That would be really helpful. And again, we'll see where the, where the cookie crumbles in terms of the recommendations of this committee and ultimately house appropriations, as they kind of have the final word from our side of the building. Well thank you I will follow up with Senator Balin. Thank you. Great. Thanks. Thanks for being here Lauren Glenn. You know, as I said, I'd like to turn the committee's attention now really to committee discussion. And I will lay out kind of an outline if people want to make notes on this. I don't have a document to share. I have a list of, I believe it's five things that we have discussed in recent days, including this afternoon, things that you know I think we want to make a recommendation or not to the appropriations committee. And I will just say as a footnote to that, that it's, it's likely that in the coming days, we are going to be called upon to make recommendations to the Joint Fiscal Committee, not the appropriate one. I will say not the Appropriations Committee on some requests that have been made of the Joint Fiscal Committee in terms of additional CRF funding that would fall into kind of the bailiwick of our committee. One of those we'd heard about last week which was Secretary Quinn being in to talk about a $5 million request for a modernization of the HR software that basically manages the state's human resources system. That was a request we'd heard about two or three months ago. That request has gone to the Joint Fiscal Committee. I'm anticipating that the Joint Fiscal Committee is going to be asking us for a recommendation on that. So that's a footnote. That's not today. I'm just giving you a heads up on what might be coming down the path. So the, the, I think it is five things that I have on my list of things to make recommendations to the Appropriations Committee on one we've just discussed, which is in the governor's budget, there's a $100,000 request of one time money. And it is general fund money to support a PEG study. That's a study that would be, be conducted through the Agency of Commerce and Community Development. That study is going to be done according to language in H966. It's going to be done by ACCD, whether we fund it or not. So if we fund it in this budget, that frees up $100,000 or whatever it will cost for ACCD to do. If we don't fund it in this budget, there still is language and statute that says that ACCD has to do this work. So that is one request that we have to discuss. A second request is there is a request of $300,000 for telecom planning. And again, this is one time money in the governor's budget to support kind of the conclusion, if you will, of telecom planning. And I'll talk a little bit more about this when we get to this discussion item because I think there's a lot of history to talk through from our committee's perspective. And the effect that this will have on the budget and how we've supported this in H966, but a second item I want to go through is $300,000 of one time money, general fund money for telecom planning. A third item, and we talked about this a little bit last week with Commissioner Tierney is a request in the governor's budget for $125,000 for Wi-Fi hotspots. And that is something that, well, again, we can get into that a little deeper. There's more background I want to remind the committee on with regard to that. But that's a third item. A fourth item in the governor's budget is a request for $2 million of one time money to support funding grants for CUDs, and this is essentially equity financing, if you will, to support CUDs as they draw down debt financing, not only at VEDA, but I think it could potentially support CUD borrowing from other places as well. So that's a fourth issue and then a fifth issue, which is really peripheral to our committee's work, but it was something that we heard a little bit about on Friday, and you know, kind of falls on the border between the Agency of Digital Services and VTRANS, or the Department of Motor Vehicles, and that is a $1.2 million request in the governor's budget. Again, one time money for modernization of the DMV's stickering program. And we can talk a little bit about that. You know, I think that the fundamental request for feedback on that program basically went to the transportation committee and I've been in contact with them and I'll share that with the committee as well when we discuss that item. So those are the five things that I have on my plate that with as much alacrity as possible, I'd like to have our committee give feedback to Representative Feltas and the Appropriations Committee. In the past we've done this in the form of a formal letter. What the Appropriations Chair has said to me is, you know, you don't need to bring legislative counsel in to do this. Get your committee's feedback, put it in an email, and send it to my committee, which is how I intend to do this. So we're not going to go through the more formal process that we tend to. So before we dive into these individual items, Mark, I see your hand up. Go ahead. No, you said before we dive into these. So did you want to say something else before we dive into these or. No, I just wanted to set the table as the, you know, kind of those five items. Those are the things we're going to go through today. And if we're able to come to recommendations to the Appropriations Committee. That's that is entirely what my agenda is for the next hour and a half. Okay, if I could ask a question first under the $100,000 for the peg study. Is that just part of the $466,500 that they were talking about or is that something different? It is not. It is something different. And I don't, you know, since you brought it up, Mark, why don't we take that one first. And so let's turn to that. I've got another computer screen up and I'm going to bring some of this information up but I'll refresh members with language that was in H966 in section 19 of that bill. What you're referring to Mark was the $466,500 that was part of coronavirus relief funding that was is being used on an emergency basis to support work done by peg stations. For additional expenses they've taken on because of COVID. And we've kind of discussed that ad infinitum. Also included in that part of the bill. I'm flipping to it right now. I beg your pardon. The funding was in section 18 in section 19. And this was language that was added by the Senate. It's specified that ACCD shall retain a consultant to review the current business model for pegs and provide recommendations concerning how to ensure the future financial, financial viability and viability of peg channels. And there's a little more language in there. But basically there's language in H966 that says the ACCD is going to do this work. But there was no funding in there because it was determined that funding for that work was not CRF eligible. So, the way I view this now is we have said we're going to do this work. We simply haven't said how we're going to fund it. And I think the, the, the administration's reaction to that was, okay, we're going to put this money in the budget to go to ACCD to support this work. In short, I think that's what's happened. So, Scott, I'm sorry, go ahead, Mark. So I guess just so initially talking about ACCD shall.  But that is my reading of this, that that statutorily in H966, we said, ACCD, you're going to do the study. Conveniently, there was no funding put in there. I mean, this is a classic on funded mandate. You know, the governor in his budget has said, okay, here's how we're going to fund it. And again, I think if, if through this budgetary process in the next two or three weeks, we decide not to fund this, it's going to come out of ACCD budgets. It's going to come at the expense of something else, essentially. Okay, that's how I read it. Thanks. Yep. Scott. Mark asked my questions, I think I had the same same question what what happens if we don't fund this in this budget. It still has to be done. So, but I think you answered it. Yeah, I mean by my ready reading of the statute. Yeah, I think it's clear that it has to be done. So you said that initially they determined that the CRF funds were not, it was not an eligible use. So what we're looking at here is not CRF funds, but general fund money. That is correct. And I'm just going to pull up my governor's budget presentation to confirm that. Yes. This is in section B 1 1 0 0 and the governor's budget. And it's under one time general fund appropriations $100,000 to ACCD to hire a consultant. Yep. Any other thoughts or questions on this. On this funding study. Yes. I'm just. I think what would be helpful for me is a general. We know that funding requests will be much greater than the amount of money available. And I'm just wondering if. And perhaps we're not ready to do that yet, but we can prioritize these rather than yes or no, where they are on the ranking. I think that's a very fair request and maybe the best way to handle going through this process is let's discuss each of these items. And just as a preview, there are some of the things that some of these five things that I've mentioned that I have ideas that we might share with the appropriations committee that would give them more flexibility and how to fund these things. I think that would be some of which I've previewed with representative Feltas and the appropriations chair. So I think it's a good point, Robin. Why don't we discuss each of these things. I'd ask members to kind of take notes on them. And then let's come back and discuss them in total, so that we're not just, you know, putting money towards something that, you know, maybe ultimately would be at the expense of another program. I think that's helpful. Go ahead. Yeah, to go a little further with Robin's assessment of what we should be doing. I even look at this a little, little further along in, you know, we're in a silo here looking at our priorities for, you know, these three or four programs.  And to me, I have to look or at least, you know, whether or not my input or decision or whatever gets to the far reaches but I'm looking at that as one of the top priorities. So when I look at some of these other things I say, Hey, wait a minute, you know, how long has this been in play? Is it really a huge priority? You know, this is all money. I mean, I can add up, you know, another $2.3 million to go to the, to the state colleges right now. So we are doing things like that if we are looking for this money and not hoping that it magically appears from the fed. So, again, that's, that's, that's how I'm looking at some of this. I know, you know, politically you'd get blasted no matter what you did if you said, Hey, you know, I don't, I don't like the, the $2 million funding for going to the CUDS but, you know, again, I think I mentioned this the other day we've, we've reached out and started this new program and there's VEDA funding there's, you know, an extra charge on our phone bills there's legislation we did to get them going so I guess where does it stop and we've got previous commitments for generations and that's that's where I come down with a lot of this stuff I'm outside the silo of the Energy Committee. Yeah, no, I appreciate that mark. And, you know, when you mentioned state colleges, that is a critical area to my immediate area. So that's a that's a soft spot in my heart. You know, at the end of the day, I'm glad I'm not on the appropriations committee. I think we have to give them our best thoughts on these programs. And again, I will share with the committee, you know, some conversations on some of these five programs where you know again I'll put forward for the committee's thoughts on giving the appropriations committee more flexibility. Maybe there are different places that can be gone for funding. So I think that's, you know, to your point where we can certainly be helpful. And maybe we prioritize, you know, these five things. You know, top to bottom, again, that's why maybe it's important to discuss all of them in full, and then come back and and kind of get feedback from members on these. So, Heidi, did you want to chime in. I just wanted to actually echo Mark's comments of, I'm really looking to really keep up to date on what is happening in the appropriations committee with regard to the decisions overall. And, and so I'm not quite sure. I know obviously we don't have, you know, we have to do these things quickly, but I'm hopeful that I'll have more information on, or, you know, on where they're on where they're heading with regard to the appropriations committee but I'm looking at it in a much more universal way than just our committee. So I just want to echo Mark's Mark's comments. Okay. Again, I want to direct us to what the appropriations committee has asked us for recommendations on. We've talked a little bit about the peg study and the background on that and why that is on our plate. Go ahead Laura, did you want to speak to that. I don't want to interrupt you. I'm ready. Yep, go ahead. I think we're all moving really quickly here on a three quarters of a year budget. This is not our normal process. So I'm hearing and I share the concerns that Mark and Heidi are putting forward around wanting to understand kind of the big picture and wanting to keep an eye on that. I mean, we do roll things up via committees. I like Robin's idea of prioritizing I think that makes a lot of sense for our committee. And, you know, in that regard that to the surprise of no one. I will say I think this $2 million for the CUD is imperative. To get what we have done with regard to the CUD what this committee has done we've told Vermonters that no one is coming to save them. That the situation is getting worse. And that it really is up to them no one's coming to save them including the state of Vermont, $2 million is not going to get the job done. What it's going to do is leverage the additional Vita dollars and it's going to allow the CUDs to move forward. Mr chair I think you have some of the CUD scheduled for later this week. You know I've been able to keep in good touch with them I think most of our committee members have kept in touch with them. They are getting their feet underneath them with the pandemic we have seen how urgent the situation is where there's no connectivity. I do have a sense of how to move forward and how to. I mean I'm hearing from them they may be able to build a quarter of a quarter of their areas out next summer, if, if we're able to provide them the additional supports. These are Vermonters dedicated Vermonters talented Vermonters who are coming together and so I appreciate the governor putting these funds in. And I think it's imperative for us to keep them and for our economy for healthcare education, all of those reasons so I guess I'll stop right there. We've kind of directed us to a second thing on the list since you kicked it off. Let's, let's have, let's move our discussion away from pegs and to a second proposal in the governor's budget which is for $2 million to support CUDs and to be explicit I think this follows from some of Commissioner Tierney's testimony on Friday, what this $2 million would be used for is it would support funding for CUDs as essentially equity financing that would be subordinated to funding that they would to support construction of fiber networks essentially in a CUD area and it actually doesn't necessarily have to be fiber networks but likely would be. So, going back to x 79 that we passed last year and the governor signed that bill, we stood up, I believe it's $10.8 million of Vita lending that can support work by CUDs. In order for CUDs to access that money, they have to put up, I believe 10% of project costs they have to raise that money somehow. And this proposal is is that this $2 million could be used to support CUDs in raising that money, it would essentially come from this, from this funding. Again, this is money that is not from CRF funding it is general funds, one time general funding, and you know could be used not only the next fiscal year but beyond that as well. Laura, I think your hand is up from your last question I'm going to go to Seth now. Go ahead, Seth. I know it's a long shot and you guys have heard it before I just want to say again that I fully support and endorse the idea of actually the state of Vermont coming to save everyone and deploying a full statewide internet access roll out. I know it's not necessarily a conversation for this budget or anything but figured it's worth saying again. So, thank you. Yeah. Laurie, you did have your hand up. No, okay. Yes, well, first of all, yeah, if we if if we had the the wherewithal and the will to just make it so that I would support what what Seth just said I, I strongly feel we need to do this I don't know how many times in the last few years I have had to, and you've heard it from me to explain to people, why, from the, the description of the, the unserved and underserved parallel so closely. The reason why rural electrification happened, but on the other hand, the will to make it so does not exist and is in fact, as we heard earlier, prohibited in terms of states, regulating the internet. So, I've been a strong supporter of the CUDs. They need the resources to actually start putting fiber out to places to the last mile in places this will take a while, but this is the only way that they that they can get started. I represented district with, with two CUDs the CV fiber that Worcester is a member of, and the newly formed well. And I do that, that Morrisville is part of. So there's an awful lot of interest and desire in, in, in my district to start actually getting this done and and and and not rely on short term stuff like hotspots representative Campbell then representative chestnut Thanks. Yes, I'm looking back at my notes from Friday and I wrote down something about this, this $2 million for the CUDs being possibly being the 10% equity stake to access the Vita loan money. And then I wrote where they have shovel ready projects but but there are a few or non shovel ready projects can this money be spent in time, but that was I talking about. So, so I mean I will chime in on that. If this money is appropriated. It doesn't have to be used in the next six months or the next year could be used over the next two, three, four years. And so we'd be setting this money aside for the department to be used on behalf of CUDs for this purpose, because it's general fund one time money there's not, there's not a time. There's not a fuse if you will on this money like CRF money in terms of it being used by CUDs and what CUDs can use it and how quickly. You know, there are, there are a small number of CUDs in the state that have evolved to the point in the last year, where they are going to be ready in the next 12 months to actually construct projects. And it's just part of these organizations, kind of ramping up doing the planning work that needs to be done. But that's not to say that there aren't some CUDs who will be ready to access this money. There will be. And for example, I know that CV fiber had a northern borders application in in the last several months that was a grant application for funding to essentially support them with equity financing to do this work, because they are on the cusp of launching some of that work. They did not get that grant. And that's an application that would be included here in the governor's budget. You know, potentially that could be used to support a project that is ready to to roll forward. My, and this is a, this is a guess, but you know for the CUDs that have ramped up and organized and come into being in the last month or two. My guess is that it will be challenging for them to access this money to be ready to use this money in the next six to 12 months. They may well be ready to use it in, you know, 18 to 24 months, but I think the more evolved CUDs will have, you know, more opportunity to use this money closer in. That's my expectation. I don't know. I guess I'm just wondering why I even wrote it in caps. Can this money be spent in time. And I, and I'm trying to remember what the time, you know, what the fuse was that I think June, apparently must have been talking about. No, this money can be used in calendar year 2021. It can be used in calendar year 2022. There's not, there's not a CRF like fuse on this money. No, I understand that. So, but I still don't get why I wrote this down anyway. All right. Thank you. Robin. Thanks. Would this money be administered by DPS. Yes. And I guess one of one of my concerns, which is a much larger picture and we will not come anywhere near resolving it. Before we have to decide on this is the question about, or my concern about our emergency allocations undercutting the viability of CUDs. You know, so I like the support of CUDs, the frustration being that it's not immediate. The results are not immediate. The need is immediate. So if we fund short term solutions, undercutting the viability of C, CUDs potentially. I guess I just, you know, in there is the caution of, I don't then want to throw money at a CUD that doesn't have a real future. But that's not really the purview of our committee. That's the allocation of the funds. It seems to me. I think it's correct. I mean, I think you're right. Ultimately, the Department of Public Service would control these monies and ultimately make a grant would be charged with making a grant to an applicant, a CUD that's looking to do essentially project work. Yep. Laura, did you have your hand up. Yes. Robin, remember that, well, what the commissioner has brought these dollars forward for is for the match for Vita. And remember that we, that the Vita loans require business plan that makes sense. And we know that Vita with the pandemic, we've heard anecdotally that Vita is becoming more stringent, not less stringent. And so I appreciate your concern about, you know, these funds not being used by CUDs that may be getting under, undercut. But we have that first safety. And the second safety of we did, I share your concern about, you know, providers undercutting some of the CUD areas, but the dollar amounts that we put in. I think they can have some effect. Some providers could have some effect if they wanted to in undercutting the CUDs. But there's really, we did, I mean, we did not put in enough money to finish the job. Not even close. So, and you're muted. So I don't know if you're saying anything worth the change. But thank you. I'm not saying anything worthwhile. Just muttering along.  I guess my question is, and maybe somebody else has the answer. How many CUDs are currently in Vermont now? What's the total number. Mark, I believe the answer is nine. 10. There is a map that Rob Fish keeps updated that is on the Department of Public Service website. And so you'll see study areas on there and then you'll see colors that each town is colored if they're part of a certain study area, CUD or a CUD. And he updates that as more towns vote to join the CUDs.  You should look at it. It's really inspiring to see how Vermonters have been answering this challenge and trying to work on this. So I guess my question is out of that $2 million for the CUDs that really aren't up and running completely yet. Is there a limit as to the amount that anyone CUD can request and receive? First come first serve? Yeah, I think it's first come first serve. There's no language in the governor's budget. And that's certainly our purview. I mean, if we wanted to put language in there, you know, directing that this money be used in a certain way. You know, that is very much in our wheelhouse. There's no language in the governor's budget that says, you know, a CUD couldn't commit and make a request for $2 million. I don't think that's the case. Just practically speaking, I think that, you know, again, this $2 million would go to support, call it 10% of a project cost. So if a CUD came in and made an application for, let's say $400,000, that would be to support a project that would be a $4 million project. But they would be looking for this $400,000 grant in order to get $3.6 million of debt financing. So this isn't just for $2 million of projects. This is, you know, for more like $20 million of projects. Right. So, so again, I guess my concern or for a conversation is should there be some, maybe based on the size as well but some limit to the amount so that the ones that are just starting out can eventually count on some, some of that grant money going forward. Again, I feel it's a little unfair that, you know, there's been some of these CDs up and running for some time now and they definitely do have a leg up in regards to projects that they're considering. Yeah, I think it's a point well taken.  So we have the purview to say that, you know, no CUD could, you know, access this $2 million by more than fill in the blank $400,000. So that this could be available to at least five CUDs and, you know, in two years, we'd have to potentially come back and provide more money. Again, Mark, I think your point is well taken. It's, you know, the, you know, we have, we have kind of blue ocean here to put constraints on this money that we want. I'm going to chime in here just because I haven't had a chance to speak on this and throw an idea or two out to the committee. And again, I've, I've spoken to the chair of the Appropriations Committee and acknowledge their excruciating task of kind of sifting through, you know, all these priorities across the whole budget. And also acknowledging, frankly, her prioritization of CUD work in her area in particular, there's real need for better connectivity. And, you know, a question that I have in terms of, or maybe it's a proposal that I have in terms of supporting $2 million of funding here. One is one question concern that I have about this money, which I try to articulate on Friday, which is, is this the highest and best use of money for CUDs. I think for some CUDs it absolutely is. And I think those are the CUDs that are most evolved and have the, you know, the ability in the next certainly 12 months, maybe 18 months to do project work, which is what this money would be used for. I think there's other CUDs who are not going to be ready to do that work, who are going to have other higher best use for funds. And one question I have, and I wouldn't put it in the form of a proposal, but do we want to put more flexibility into how this money can be used. And one of those for some CUDs, they're going to have other uses that are really going to be necessary for them to take on and fund and get done before they can actually even access this money. And we want to accelerate this work around the state. That's one question I have. The other is, and I don't know if this is possible, but giving the, or recommending the flexibility for the appropriations committee. If some of this money can be used in the very near term. And again, I made mention of CV Fiverr that had made a grant application that was turned down. Clearly they have work that can be done in the near term in this regard. A question I have is, can we potentially fund a portion of this money out of general fund, one time money. Say $1.5 million and allocate $500,000 instead of out of general fund one time money from CRF money if we are convinced a that it would qualify for CRF. Under CRF criteria and to that it can be used quickly because again, my understanding is that there are some CUDs who can put this money to work in the much near term. And if we can give the appropriations committee some wiggle room to use some of this $2 million in the one time general fund appropriation. That would be to determine that some of this money can be used in the near term and draw down under CRF. That would be something that I'd like to give them the flexibility to do. Robin. I'm just going back before to Mark's concerns and just wondering if one of the conditions in there to consider might be, you know, a allocation of in diverse geographical regions of the state. I'm not going to one CUD or or two but distributed with with with not strict parameters but that is a guideline and it's not a recommendation it's a thought I'm throwing out there. I'm just thinking out loud. I wonder if that would be served by saying that a an individual CUD could not draw down more than X amount of this $2 million. Just just the thought. Just, I wanted to put my two cents in that I, I could support some flexibility and use of these funds as you're suggesting with the recognition that that there are some CUDs that that can actually start putting fiber out on back roads. Almost immediately and there are others that are that are just formed and are not ready yet. Also, I'm going to be emailing you all the two Worcester representatives on the CV fiber board. I did an update on our front porch forum yesterday that I'll share with you because some of what we're talking about is kind of reflected in in in their report. Scott. So, I guess I'm wondering whether there are any projects that really could be done in the next three months. It seems impossible to me, unless the projects are already rolling. So, I mean, I'm in favor of flexibility and and but I'm just, it just seems like a real long shot that or anything that could be done by December 30 whatever the deadline is. I'm thinking about flexibility for other purposes. The Vita loan authority was for $10.8 million. It was it was an act 79 thinking thinking that that would fund $12 million worth of, worth of expansion worth of plant. $12 million is more than 10% of that. Presumably the two million that that if that was intended for for equity financing. Then that could be equity financing for other sources of loans, but maybe giving the flexibility to use some of that money for infrastructure building that is CU D infrastructure building administrative infrastructure building would be a good thing to So that's another vote for flexibility from what I hear. Laura. Yeah, I so in order, I have been keeping good contact with the CUDs they have actually also formed an association where they're talking about you know what are the next steps for themselves. And there are projects that they can do that various CUDs can do that we have not yet funded before December 20. Some of the work that is critical that Tim was referencing in order for them to borrow this money that this two million is for in order to build next summer. So there right now we have a window where we can help them. The flexibility, I think would be well served in helping, helping get those projects done so that this money can then be implemented next summer. And this two million that's leveraging for the for Vita that yes it's more than what we have right now at Vita but what we have at Vita. At some point we will need to, you know, we will need to examine whether or not. We need to put more put more borrowing capacity there will try to put more borrowing capacity there as more and more CUDs grow and expand. Yeah, but I will also say that this, this equity financing could support borrowing outside of Vita. We also live in a CUD catchment area where they know Vita financing, they access debt dollars other other other places and had to raise equity financing this could be used to support that kind of thing. Laura I had a question for you, because you have followed this so closely. I heard you correctly. One thing that I had brought up was, is it possible to try and squeeze some of this $2 million out of additional CRF monies. If it could be used in time, assuming that the time constraints are not loosened. I heard you say that yes it could be, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I want to hear your and I'll ask this question of the CUDs when they come in on Thursday. Yes, that is my understanding. And I think we're probably going to hear from them on Thursday. I'm about what it is that they feel that they can do with some urgency that they need to do in order to build next summer in order to borrow these funds. So the poll survey data which we really struggled with, whether when we did the original allocation of CRF dollars you remember this Mr. Chair, you know we didn't know if they could use it for that if it would be done in time. And as they keep moving along and developing and developing and developing, you know we have several CUDs that could do that work. I believe they could do that work prior to the CRF deadline, which will then allow these funds which are not CRF funds to be implemented next year. So yes, the flexibility I think would work here. I think it is possible for us to, if there are CRF funds available, perhaps reduce this a little or give that flexibility to the appropriations committee. Okay. Okay. I see two more hands up. Mark and then Scott. So my understanding is these Vita funds, these loans are that their loans. And so there's going to be continuing money this $10.8 million isn't going to all of a sudden vanish in a few years correct. That's right. And the other thing is Vita anticipated an amount of loss and I can't remember what that was but do you have that figure. I don't have it on top of mind, but there is a very specific figure associated with that. I think it was actually incorporated into act 79. So that number was, I believe it was an appropriated amount, based on an expectation for, you know, here are what loan losses would be projected to be from a program like this. I'm thinking it was 1. something million but I may be 540,000. Okay. So that sounds an awful lot like 5%. Okay, thanks. Who's next Scott was me. What was they're going to ask. Oh, I know about about what's eligible for CRF money. Should we have should we have somebody in who can talk about that about eligibility. I mean I know we've done that before but I guess I think the question using the money for, for a what do you call a poll poll study is, is that eligible for CRF really since it wouldn't we wouldn't actually you know put anything in place would just be preparation for putting something in place. I have a couple of questions there I think one was directed at me which is, should we get more visibility from our CRF experts on whether you know some of this would qualify. I would, I would say absolutely. You know the question is, is how much of that work we're going to be able to do with our limited committee time between now and the time we're going to have to make a recommendation the appropriations committee.  And how I see this is we are going to have to in the next 24 hours make our best recommendations the appropriations committee and I've already told us to some members the appropriations committee, where we may be coming back to them at the end of the week, saying, we've got additional feedback we want to give you on this, you know the CD reflection. So, this is going to go to the Senate, and it's going to be worked on over there and it's going to come back and we're going to have additional recommendations. I think, you know, it's not ideal but I think we have to do our best work as quickly as we can, knowing that this is a work in process. This is not our last word on this. And, again, we're going to be taking testimony on Thursday on this stuff. That's the best I got for you at this point, but yes, we do need to hear. I'm just wondering about getting getting somebody who's the state or JFO or somebody has retained a consultant to give us advice about what qualifies for CRF and it's actually the governor's office has a consultant that's working with them on all CRF recommendations. So yes, absolutely. Just worried about clawback that's all. Yeah, no I hear you. So, I would like to move on to another on our list of items here. Another, this is an issue. It's not a recommendation in the governor's budget, but it has brought been brought to us as an issue and there's a little history to share with the committee on this and that relates to funding for telecom planning. So, back in February, this committee supported and made a recommendation to the appropriations committee to fund $300,000 for telecom planning. It was a request that was in the governor's budget. It was in the Department of Public Service, it was something that we supported that recommendation. When all bets were off after COVID hit. You know, certainly came to our understanding even though we didn't finish a budget that the Senate was interested in more money for telecom planning. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $800,000 for a broader more comprehensive telecom plan. Some of the work that this committee did, and that the Senate supported back in June, was that we got the blessing to put $500,000 of coronavirus relief fund money toward telecom planning with the specificity that that would relate to some of the challenges that we have been dealing with in the COVID crisis. And also that that initial $500,000 towards telecom planning would be essentially setting the table for a more complete 10 year telecom plan that we would be completed with general fund dollars of $300,000. And that was the point of the FY 21 budget. That was, you know, I don't want to say there was an agreement on that but that was, I think the concept that certainly I was thinking through, and I think other folks were as well. When the governor's FY 21 budget came out. There was not $300,000 of funding for additional telecom planning. So at this point, what is, you know, before the legislature, if, you know, we choose to go down this path is, you know, whether or not we should look for, ask the appropriations committee to find $300,000 of one time general fund money this is not CRF money but general fund money to support additional telecom planning.  So, you know, I'll, I'll lead off the discussion on this since I kind of set the table as to, you know, where we are on this issue right now, which is this is, you know, this is funding this $300,000 of general fund commission money is something that this committee has historically supported it was in our budget letter to the appropriations committee back in February. And my view on this right now is that you know, I, as with almost any program, you know, more money would be helpful to getting this done. You know, I think we've gone to the mat and trying to get $500,000 through the coronavirus relief fund dollars to support this. I wouldn't be shy about asking if the appropriations committee can find $300,000 of one time money to support this, it would be certainly something that our committee has supported in the past. But personally, you know, relative to some of these other priorities, this falls down farther on the list because of the money we've already gotten to support this kind of work so I don't want to say that I'm not supportive of it, but if ultimately we are going to be making a priority based recommendation to the appropriations committee. You know, this is an area where I could see, you know, deep prioritizing relative to some of these other things so that's my top of mind. I see Heidi's hand up, go ahead, Heidi. Thank you, Tim.  And I think I'll just say at this time I realized that this is something that we have supported in the past but it's a different world out there. And a lot of people are stepping up doing things for which they're not being paid for. Or they're just doing twice the job that they that they used to be doing and that's it both in my business and then the private sector and in the public sector. I'm, you know, if they, this is just a different world I just I just feel like we need to look at again, a bigger universe. So that's just, there's a lot of sacrifices being made right now on a lot of fronts in a lot of families in a lot of businesses. And so I'm just just trying to put that in, in perspective here. Okay, thanks. I see two more hands up Robin and then Mike. I'm wondering if anybody can help me with understanding. What do we get for 500,000 versus what we get for a hundred thousand. I can only speak to that at a very high level. I'll tell you what we get from it from a budgetary perspective, we get federal money versus state one time money. Right. But that's that's more of a flip answer. My understanding and I think this was included in written testimony that we got or maybe it was offered verbally from the Department of Public Service that they were in the process of and maybe even have as of today hired a consultant to do that first $500,000 of work. And I say first $500,000 of work, you know that assumes that there's more money coming after that. And that that work would need to be completed by December. And that, and I'd have to go back and look at it's it's in statute, what that work was to be focused on because I think that there was a focus on, you know, some of the telecom shortcomings in our state that specifically relate to the covert emergency, because I'm not qualified for Sierra funding, but I don't think I'm speaking out of school to say that the work done as part of that study would set the table for kind of the completion of the plan that would be presented to the legislature. I can't remember who was eight, there was a deadline, but in April or May of 2021. So, I know that's not a specific answer as you're looking for Robin. If we go back and look at 966 it does give some specific criteria as to what has to be done by December. I'll look at 966 more closely. I just also have a sort of a gut reaction to $800,000 for a plan. You know, well I'll go back to what our committee's recommendation was for which is for 300,000. I'm not saying that that more resources won't result in a better plan. We can quibble about that. But our committee's recommendation was for $300,000 year I think the Senate wanted to see more money and I think how we kind of split the, you know, split the difference was finding money in CRF to support this with the idea that there would be additional one time money and I share some of Heidi's concerns and that, you know, it's harder to come by that general fund one time money in this place and we might have to either make do with the money we've gotten through CRF or look to the Department of Public Service to kind of put the finishing touches on a plan using the, you know, that the work that's done by a consultant in the next five months four months as a springboard for that work. So, Mike. Yeah, I'm sorry I got in here kind of late. I just, I didn't even know about this meeting until I got a text from Scott. So I apologize for that. And I don't know if you're going to give me an overview of what we're talking about. I know we're discussing funding. I'd be happy to, after we're done, Mike, but we just have limited time so it's, but we are basically discussing five potential recommendations that we would make to the Appropriations Committee. And there are things that were in the governor's budget, with the exception of this one, which is related to the telecom plan, but include the $2 million for CUD funding $100,000 for the peg funding study. $1.2 million for DMV work on the new stickering technology and something else. So, anyway, but Mike, I'd be happy to spend time with you after but we're kind of going through each of these proposals we've gone through three of them now. And at the end of our discussion, we're going to start putting together our prioritization for some of these things and how we might bring them forward. Are there any other thoughts on this currently not in the budget $300,000 telecom plan question any other things that people want to offer again we're going to come back to this at the end of our discussion. The next thing I want to move to relates to telecom, excuse me to Wi Fi hotspots. And again there's some history on this that I think is important for the committee to understand as we consider this recommendation. Roughly speaking, the Department of Public Service, and again these are rough numbers. The funding spent approximately, I'm going to say $175,000 Wi Fi hotspots. It was the understanding that some of that money would be reimbursed to the Department of Public Service through a FEMA application. There was an expectation that the Department of Public Service would be reimbursed for about $125,000 of that expenditure. We gave the Department of Public Service the ability to draw down on up to $50,000 of Sierra funds. This was in section 13 of age 966. So, we gave in age 966 the department the ability to draw down up to $50,000 to basically to pay for those expenditures. With the understanding that they would likely be reimbursed for the other, call it $125,000 through a FEMA application. That FEMA application did not come through. So, at this juncture, that $125,000 would essentially come out of the department's budget. And I think it's fair to say that there's very little room in the department's budget to cover that expense. One of the a proposal that has come to it was included in the governor's budget was to ask for an additional $125,000 out of the CRF funding to pay for this expenditure. And I'm looking for this. It's in section B 1104 in the governor's budget. And it's under the coronavirus relief fund. It's one time funding for the department for $125,000. And it says for the purpose of installing Wi-Fi hotspots, it sounds like that work is yet to occur. It's actually work that's already occurred to be clear. This isn't money for future Wi-Fi hotspots to reimburse the department for work already completed. I think it's pretty clear that this qualifies for CRF funding. So that was the proposal. Another way, if you will, to skin this cat, or to skin this bird, Mike, I'm looking at your bird, is to give the department flexibility. For H966, again, this funding is allowed in section 13. Section 13 provides $17,466,500 for a variety of things. If the department would be acceptable in increasing that $50,000 to $175,000 to give them the flexibility to use up to that amount for reimbursement on the Wi-Fi hotspot work that has been done. I have talked to the commissioner about that and have emailed members of the Appropriations Committee, the chair, and Representative Feltas about this. So that is another way to do this and acceptable to the commissioner. The reason they would have the flexibility to do that is because not all of that $17,466,500 has been specifically allocated to certain programs. You know, up to $2 million of that amount of money could be used for line extensions. I think the bulk of that money is going to be used for connectivity initiative opportunities. And the flexibility with which the department can allocate that funding. What I would suggest we do is give additional flexibility for the department to use that money to reimburse for these Wi-Fi hotspots. But again, there are a couple of different ways we could we could go at this. So that's some history on this issue. And just bringing the committee up to speed and conversations I've had with Commissioner Tierney and with members of the Appropriations Committee as to how we might solve this kind of funding question request. Any thoughts or questions on this? I like the latter idea of increasing the flexibility for DPS to take it out of money already allocated for connectivity. Because I mean hotspots are connectivity. To me, it's the, you know, it is appropriate use of those funds under the bigger umbrella. Yeah. Just want to chime in and say, I like it too. Let's do that. Okay. I've actually, well, actually, I'll give representative Feltas credit for it. She's asked Maria to draft up language that would support this. Literally it's changing the number in section 13 from $50,000 of reimbursement to $175,000 reimbursement. It's not a real heavy lift from a drafting perspective. So, okay. If there's not any other questions on that, I think the last thing that we would turn to on my list again just for general conversation is the is the governor's request for $1.2 million of money for the Department of Motor Vehicles. We're getting a little bit outside our lane, I will say, but this is something that ADS would work on. And since we had the advantage of having them in committee last week, I thought we'd ask them about that. This and I think the appropriations committee would, you know, welcome if we have any thoughts on this. I didn't want the committee to know that I alerted the leadership on the transportation, the House Transportation Committee. Over the weekend of the testimony that we took on this and I referred them to our YouTube testimony so they could watch it for themselves. And also, you know, let them know that we're not trying to get outside of our lane here and into the DMV world but you know just from an ADS perspective we were interested in this. And the feedback I got from them, you know, for the for the committee's situational awareness is that they are unequivocally supportive of this program this is something that they're going to recommend, I believe to the appropriations committee. So, you know, again, we heard the testimony that we heard on Friday and I will also say that, you know, I sense that ADS is very supportive of this program from an efficiency perspective, both on the administrative side, and on the enforcement side. I think I heard from committee members, you know, some questions about, is this kind of 1990s technology in a, you know, 2020 world. Personally, I can't speak to this technology, that's something I know a whole lot about. I do take what the, what the secretary provided us in terms of testimony about the efficiency upgrade here both administratively and from an enforcement perspective but again I couldn't tell you the first thing about the world of DMV stickering so as I said I'm a little outside of my world there. Are there, are there thoughts and questions on this? Yeah, if I can just speak up. I'm sure there's a lot of folks out there would appreciate no stickers at all. So, there you go. No license plates either. Yeah, you're right. I don't know. Again, you know, is this a time, is this a time for spending $1.2 million? I don't know, I didn't, I didn't see the urgent need that this is going to save a lot of money or create a, you know, or solve a huge problem that there is out there so this is again one that I could, I could put at the bottom of the list. A couple more hands up, Scott and then Mike. Well, I feel the same way I mean I just, I guess I'm puzzled why between a license plate number and a VIN number, we need stickers at all. I just, so I guess I'd like to hear what the enforcement angle is on it. But obviously that's, you know, that's not really our purview. So, I don't know. Before I would feel comfortable recommending it above and other expenditures I want to know more about why we can't get away from stickers at all. Mike. Yeah, so just on a Wi-Fi hotspots totally in favor of that. I know that we're looking to put some Wi-Fi hotspots for folks in Charlotte that don't have adequate internet access on the stickers. We're talking about the inspection stickers or the little tags like the one you licensed, which stickers we talked about there. I'm assuming it was the inspection stickers. Yeah. I think that we need them. How else do you know whether the car's been inspected or not? Yeah. Yeah. I can make a sticker and stick it in my window that'll say that it's approved, been approved, you know, I could make one pretty easy, but just to, you know, just an idea. Not sure about that point. You're muted. That's the first time I've had to be reminded of that. Thank you. That's the first time in a while anyway. In terms of the sticker thing, I, you know, I also, I don't know enough about this. I don't think this, I don't see this as a priority for our committee. I don't think we should oppose it if especially if we know that that the more relevant committee that knows presumably knows more about all of this is very enthusiastic about it. So I don't want to, I'm not suggesting that we oppose it. I'm just saying that this is not compared to other things on on on this list larger and smaller. It's not a priority for me and I suggest that that's we find a way to say that, not oppose it. But we, we have other things on the list that are higher priorities. Well, you know, along those lines, I'm the only reason I'm neutral on this is because I don't know enough about it. This is not at all my area of expertise. I don't know enough about the DMV from my five minutes of interaction there annually as I go to renew my whatever my registration. So I don't feel qualified to make a recommendation as to whether this is a good DMV program or not. I think we took testimony on this because we had the advantage of having ADS in here. This is a program that is being funded through DMV, you know, some of the Laura, some of the questions that Laura had last week, you know, why isn't this funded through ADS. You know, this is work that DMV has made a determination. You know, along with the governor's recommended budget that this is a priority. My, I think where I'm leaning on this is where Avram is going, which is either no recommendation or because I don't think we're qualified. I'll speak for myself. I don't think I'm qualified to speak to what DMV program should receive prioritization and instead stick to the prioritizing of other recommendations where I think we do have, you know, more experience as policymakers. So I'd be inclined to leave this either off our list or kind of on the bottom of our list. Rob and I see your hand up. Yeah, I also get to speak from a position of vast ignorance on this topic. But my general impression is from the last several months. There are so many areas in DMV that need to be brought up to speed computerized made more accessible. And I'm not in a position to say which what which of those should be prioritized. And in light of that, sort of uncomfortable backing this one as a priority. So I'm inclined to to go along with what you and Avram were talking about. But I think DMV needs to make over a rethink top to bottom, rather than lipstick. From a firsthand perspective, something I do have expertise on is people getting their driver's licenses, which has been a real challenge in my household in the last two months is I've got two teenagers who are been trying to get their drivers tests. Although it saved a lot of money for me in the insurance world in that regard that slowed them down. But that aside, let's use this as a jumping off point. And again, I don't want to, I don't want to get in the way of kind of recommendations from members but as we consider these five things, I would say that we maybe only refer to the DMV recommendation parenthetically that it's something that we heard testimony on that, you know, from a policy perspective. It's not in our committee's purview to, you know, look at prioritization of programs in DMV and leave it to the Transportation Committee to make their recommendation. If that is acceptable to people, I'd like to turn back to the other four programs. Start to craft what our recommendations are on these four things, you know, potentially prioritizing or potentially, you know, not necessarily putting them in order. But Mike, just to bring you up to speed those four things are the $2 million one time funding for CUDs. It's general fund money in the governor's budget. It's the $125,000 for CRF. Excuse me, it's the $125,000 for Wi-Fi hotspots. That would be CRF funds. That's the second one. The third one is do we ask for $300,000 for telecom planning money that would be general fund one time. And then the final one is there's $100,000, $100,000 request in the governor's budget for the PEG study, which is was required as part of H966 but not funded through ACCD. So those are the four things. And I'd like to have the committee start to kind of hone in on a recommendation. And the one caveat I will say, particularly with regard to the $2 million of CUD funding is I expect to whatever conclusion this committee comes to today, it is not going to be the final word on that program. I think there's going to be a lot of discussion on this in the next couple of weeks. And in an imperfect world where we don't have an infinite amount of time, I think we've got to, you know, do the best we can with the idea that we are going to continue to revise these recommendations through the appropriations process. This is all general fund money and not CRF money. No, the $125,000 for Wi-Fi hotspots is CRF money. And yeah, that is the only thing that is CRF money per the governor's budget recommendations.  We had talked about possibly some flexibility, suggesting looking at some flexibility at the $2 million, right? That was a suggestion I made. That was not the governor's suggestion. That was something I threw out there for our committee to chew on. And I certainly don't want to speak for the appropriations committee. I know that they would, if that's possible to do, I know that they would probably breed a little bit of a sigh relief on that, but that's a place we can go there. So if we're looking at, you know, if we're looking at issues for, you know, for this year, you know, it seems like we probably reduce, reduce that million for Vita and in order to get to the Vita, they're going to need some dollars for additional work to be done. That additional work, I think a lot of it can be done prior to the CRF deadline so we could pivot over to CRF there. So we can reduce potentially the governor's recommendation on general funds and see if there's some CRF available so that we can make sure we leverage those. Yeah, I mean, again, that is something that I would like to do if we can do and something that I would like to recommend which is reduce the general fund recommendation there to 1.5 and see if we could bridge that gap to get us to the governor's $2 million by using $500,000 of CRF money. If we can do that.  I don't know if you're looking for a stop time at three here but would it help you for us to do our prioritizing one through five, and then you analyze them all and put them in a, in a lease for now, and then go back to talking about them. So, one thing I am perfectly capable of and would love to do is to have your proxy and giving you all giving me your priorities and then me kind of putting it together. I don't want to take that. I don't know if that's it's not appropriate. So thank you for for drawing the attention to the clock mark. We have the ability to at people's convenience, obviously, to carve out an hour to have more discussion on this tomorrow. As you know, the speaker's office every week gives us prescribed times in which we can meet. I have asked her if we need to, can we get another hour tomorrow to meet. You know, again, we can use a few more minutes today to kind of kick this around. And if people want to kind of email me their, you know, priorities and suggestions. I can pull that together and, you know, come up with a committee proposal if you will tomorrow that we can kind of look at a little more generally so to speak, and then make a final recommendation. I don't think that would be a good starting point, Tim. I mean, you know, somebody somebody's going to have to take in it.  And I, as far as the time goes, I mean, for me, we're meeting on the floor to correct. We're meeting on the floor at 2 o'clock. Correct. Okay, so for me, if we're looking for another hour, you know, 1230 to 130 would be the best for me so that I can at least get in a half a day. Okay, rather than rather than 10 in the morning. Yeah, I hear you. I want to circle back to that. I want to hear from our room or quickly and then and then Laura as well. So, go ahead. Just a comment on the, the $2 million and the possibility that that that we could use CRF funds for projects that could be completed in that timeframe. We should. My concern is, we don't know whether whether that will actually happen or not so I feel reluctant in reducing the $2 million by a like amount if I would rather see if we can keep that amount and if we can get some of the work done before the year with the CRF money then then we would not need to, we would say we would then take that out of the $2 million and not spend the whole thing. I'm done. Well, I was just going to say, there's certainly way to incorporate this into our recommendation if that was the way we were to go opera and I think we could present that to the appropriations committee in the context of that. There is absolutely $2 million of need, if not significantly more in the communications union district community. You know, if we can support that in general fund money that's terrific. If we can use $500,000 as a starting point. We have CRF money to support some of that work. In the near term, we would recommend using that amount of money in CRF dollars, in addition to one and a half month, a hundred and a half million dollars of general fund money. I've been giving the appropriations committee that the flexibility while acknowledging the priority here that if if if if we can deduce, you know, again, we're building the plane here as it's going down the runway. If we can deduce that $500,000 of money that we're talking about here could be used in the very near term and would qualify for CRF use. Instead of general fund one time money which is, I mean that's platinum plated money in this budget. So, at any rate, I think that's something we could incorporate into a recommendation on Laura. So, can I, can I just take us. So I'm hearing that we may want to meet tomorrow we may want to but I'm going to, if it's okay with you, I would love to just take a stab. If, see if there's a possibly agreement and if there's not we could meet tomorrow so here is what I would suggest. So, what if we were to include in our it's not even a memo is it is it an email. Yeah. So the 125 for the Wi Fi hotspots because those did not qualify for FEMA. They've got to get paid for 300 K for the telecom plan. Because that was something that the Senate felt really, you know, like let's let the Senate have something that peg steady 100 K.  And you've said to us that we're, we're all going to need to be flexible as this is moving. Is that something that the committee could get behind and, and I'm fully prepared for the answer to be no but I'm also happy not to meet tomorrow. The answers. I think where I'll speak to myself. I think where I'm not entirely on the same page is with regard to the telecom planning. Again, I would say that in a perfect world, we would have more money and more time to put towards those planning down, you know, towards that planning effort. Again, I'm just looking at historically what our committee has supported with regard to telecom planning. And I think we've exceeded that in the support we put behind the CRF funding. And, you know, we've got a little we've got to leave a little meat on the bone for the Senate to ask for and you know if this is a priority for them to get even more than I wouldn't want to step in the way of the heroic work that they would do. You know, is it something I could support. Yes. Is it something that of these four things that we would make recommendations on. I would probably put it as number four. Yeah, I don't know that I think we need it either. Again, Senate. And I would also remind you that this is something that is not currently in the budget. This is something that we would have to, you know, basically hammer into a budget that it's not money that's currently in there. Unlike any of these other other things that were that we're talking about. So, any other thoughts on prioritization and or meeting tomorrow. I guess what I would say with regard to meeting tomorrow is I had personally I have a hard stop at one o'clock. So I would suggest that if we're going to meet tomorrow that we meet at noon sharp. And to facilitate the quick work that we would do, I would ask that members share with me. Just an email form doesn't have to be long. Your thoughts on these different programs and I will try and conform that into what I think as a consensus proposal. And that's what we'll start talking about at noon. You know, who knows if we'll have to vote on each line item we've done that before, but that that might be the easiest thing just to bring us to consensus.  I'll say that. And, and we can do that then. Well, can we really opportunity will noon work for people tomorrow and Danielle I don't know if you can hear us at this point. I don't even know if you're available. I'm here. Yes, I am available tomorrow at noon. Okay. Robin. I just want to point out to Heidi, that we will all have our lunches with us at noon tomorrow and we'll all have our cameras on and she's welcome to join us. I like to eat by myself. You are brought up so properly. Okay, so again your, your homework is take a few minutes, hopefully in the next six hours to send me an email with thoughts on prioritization here. And I will consolidate those thoughts to be kind of the starting point for our conversation at noon. Again, I've got a hard stop at probably, you know, 1257 except I've got another meeting I've got to go to. But the goal will be to come out of that discussion tomorrow with. Here's our recommendation to the appropriation committee. So I appreciate everyone's time today and digging into this and your thoughts overnight and Danielle if you could send us out an invitation. Zoom invitation for tomorrow at noon that would be great and just you can post this on our committee agenda as committee discussion for budget recommendations. Okay, we'll do. Okay. Thanks everybody.


SuperCloud 3 is coming to the Cube. SuperCloud, the abstraction layer for cross-cloud applications, requires new thinking about cybersecurity. Join John Furrier and Dave Vellante as they explore the latest industry trends in cybersecurity and generative AI with practitioners, technologists, and thought leaders. SuperCloud 3, security, AI, and the SuperCloud begins Tuesday, July 18. Only on the Cube, the leader in live and emerging high-tech coverage.


This is the VOA Special English Agriculture Report. Precision agriculture is a way of thinking about how to improve production and get more from existing resources. It often involves the use of technology. An example found mostly in wealthier countries is a computer-guided tractor. The computer does most of the driving. It uses signals from satellites in the global positioning system. GPS technology helps the tractor cut rows in straight lines and put the right amount of fertilizer in the right place. Jimmy Messick is a farmer in Northern Virginia. He says the GPS guidance system makes it easier to come back later and plant the seed in his fields of maize or corn. The tractor with equipment for planting seeds has the same guidance system as the one that spreads fertilizer on the fields. Because of the GPS guidance, Mr. Messick now pays half what he wants did for fertilizer. Bruce Erickson is an agronomist at Purdue University in Indiana. He says saving even a small amount of seed, pesticide or fertilizer computes directly to cost savings and less environmental damage. Raj Khosla is an agronomist at Colorado State University. He says farmers in the developing world can use precision agriculture even without large complex machinery. And he believes they could use something as simple as a bottle cap. The idea is to use a bottle cap to pour a measured amount of fertilizer right next to each plant. It takes more work than simply throwing handfuls of fertilizer across a field. Raj Khosla says researchers taught this bottle cap method to farmers in Africa. They found that it was worth the extra effort if they could only afford very little fertilizer. He says there was a major difference, more than double in terms of productivity. New technology is not always cheap, but Mr. Khosla says farmers could form a cooperative or combine their resources to pay for new equipment. He and other researchers worked with a farmer in India to precision level his irrigated wheat fields. That kept the fields from developing wet and dry areas that reduced productivity. The farmer also added better fertilizers and insect control. As a result, he was able to grow almost three times as much wheat on the same amount of land. With the extra money the farmer made and a small loan, he bought his own precision leveler. And now, for a fee, he offers that as a service to other farmers. For VOA Special English, I'm Carolyn Presuti.