in this presentation we will continue on with our comprehensive problem for the payroll register going to our second pay period that being september we have our first pay period here of august support accounting instruction by clicking the link below giving you a free month membership to all of the content on our website broken out by category further broken out by course each course then organized in a logical reasonable fashion making it much more easy to find what you need than can be done on a youtube page we also include added resources such as excel practice problems pdf files and more like quickbooks backup files when applicable so once again click the link below for a free month membership to our website and all the content on it we're going to continue with that information for september note that we don't have another header line down here before the september data input sheet what we're going to do is we're just going to freeze the pain which is going to be an excel kind of trick technique that we're going to use and that's going to make it so this sells above this line will stay the same now before doing that i'm going to scroll all the way to the left and then i'm going to scroll down just a little bit because i don't really need to see these two rows when we freeze the pain these two rows i'm going to scroll down just till we just see this header here and once we do that i want to put my cursor right above the header and all the way to the left so you want your cursor in a four uh a four then we're going to go to the view tab up top we're going to go to the windows groups these are the groups we're going to go to freeze pains select freeze pains and then we will freeze the pain pain has been frozen no more pain it's frozen and then we're going to scroll back down and you'll notice that the top rows will stay the same now just to get perfectly down there if i if i scroll down with my scroller it takes just goes too far and i want one more row to do that i'm just going to go down here and just click one more time and that'll give us on our on our tab here so it takes a little while to get used to that freeze pains once you have it it can be useful depending on the worksheets that we are using okay so we're going to go a little bit faster this time we're going to use the similar information notes that uh the so if we go too fast go back to the prior uh pay period and it'll be much the same that's what's great about accounting and payroll it's going to be much the same from period to period once we do this few times especially if we're working with the same company so we can get this information is going to be exactly the same if i scroll back up in other words the marital status and the number of exemptions won't change unless they're changed with an updated w4 so typically i can even just copy these i can right click copy and go down here and just say that those are pretty much the same right click and paste we're not going to make any adjustments in this problem to the number of allowances typically they'll be pretty much the same for most employees unless again they make a change to the number of allowances or you know someone gets married or or stops being married so then now we're going to go through and we're going to enter the number of hours so for anthony more we're going to say it has 163 hours for the month of september the rate is going to be the same as the prior month 25 the regular pay then we're just going to go straight through and calculate this everything that's the same we won't put as much detail into it to it we'll do it right in excel here we're going to say this equals the 163 hours times 25 the rate now note if i hit enter it'll go down to the one below it if i hit tab it'll go to the right side which is what we want so i usually get in the practice of hitting tab it goes to the right we're going to say that there's three hours of overtime and again these hours in the overtime we would have to calculate by a timesheet or a time clock so i'm giving you this data that we would have to compile through whatever time instrument we're using it's some kind of punch in punch out time clock system so we're not so there's three hours also note that the hours are our overtime would have to be calculated however that is done typically 40 hour work weeks anything over 40 hours would have to be overtime i'm going to give us the overtime hours here just for the purposes of the problem so uh that means that there's 163 plus three or 166 total hours three of them over time 163 regular time the ot rate is going to be the regular rate times time and a half so this equals the 25 regular rate times one the time 0.5 and a half so that's 150 percent of the regular rate tab that's going to be 37 50 then we're going to take the hours overtime hours times the overtime pay rate so this equals the uh three hours times the 37 50 pay rate tab now i'm going to add up the total columns or the total earnings which is going to be the regular plus the ot and that's going to equal the regular in f12 plus the ot in i12 and tab now we're going to go through and pick up the um earnings for oast i futa and suites now note oast i no one's going to hit the limit yet because it's only the second pay period and that's pretty high limit for the for the wages we're talking here so no one's hit that so it's can just be equals the same now remember that this number could differ from total earnings if uh there was some uh pre-tax deduction which could include cafeteria plans for the insurance so just note that if this was a qualified section 125 plan which we're going to say it's not for the purposes of this problem then we could uh reduce uh fight or fit federal income tax social security oast i uh and the medicare tax for it but we're going to say this is a post tax non section 125 deduction will be coming out of the paycheck but it's not going to be something that's going to be reducing the taxable earnings for fit oast i and medicare futa however uh is an area of difference here futa we picked up the same number but we want to there's a 7 000 cap so if i go over to the the earnings schedule for like anthony because it's only the first month the cumulative earnings are just the first pay periods earnings so it's really just this 4025 is the only earnings in the prior month but if there were more than one pay period we'd have to go back here not just to the prior month and see how much has been earned so that means that uh we need the lesser of what he got paid this time period or what takes us up to the cap of seven thousand so in other words to get to the cap here of seven thousand seven thousand minus this uh 4025 means that there's only we can only have 297 of wages if the wages he was paid is greater than that we have to pick up the 297 and not go over the seven thousand cap so i'm scrolling back to the left we're going to go back down well let's keep this so we can see this data so we can pick up that same number here since there's only one pay period so we could say he got paid this time more than that amount so it was two thousand something so we're going to do a subtraction problem so it's going to be seven thousand minus what he got paid to date which is just this one pay period so he needs another uh two thousand nine thirty seven fifty to get up to the seven thousand this plus this now being the cap out for his life of seven thousand or at the company's income the life of the company income we're going to do the same thing for sutex except the cap is eight thousand so again if if whatever he needs to get up to eight thousand is less than what he got paid then that's what we need to pick up which it is so we're going to say this equals the seven thousand minus what he got paid prior and that's going to be the two thousand uh i'm sorry eight thousand should be eight thousand equals eight thousand minus what he got paid prior and that's going to be the three thousand nine thirty seven fifty okay so that's going to be the new thing this is basically the new thing this time and we'll go to the next pay periods we'll we'll we'll see that this basically goes down to zero so now we're going to do the payroll taxes so we're going to scroll to the next item so we are in in 12 i'm going to scroll back down so we don't get confused on what we're calculating so here we are we're on the oast i we're going to pick up the oast i wages times 6.2 or 0.062 so this equals pointing to the four thousand one eighty seven fifty times 0.062 and tab then we're going to go to the medicare hi we're going to say this equals and we're going to point to the total earnings because there's no cap so we don't need a medicare wages times 0.0145 0.0145 what i missed the one 0.0145 so 0.0145 tab and then the fit this is going to be where we need to go to the table again so i'm going to scroll back to the left note that when we look up the federal income tax the fit within the table we will be using total earnings which isn't exactly correct we should be reducing it by the 401k plan because that's going to be a pre-tax calculation for federal income tax so in that case we're using a number here that's going to be a little too high when we look up the table the result of that would be that we're going to be withholding a little too much and if that were to happen then at the end of the year when the 1040 is filled out we'd have too much withholding which would typically result in a higher refund or a lesser tax owed at the end of the year at the 1040 calculation now it's going to be married four and the wages are going to be 4187.50 so we're going to go back here we're looking for the tables for married monthly four and the wages are 4187 so monthly married we're scrolling down four thousand one so it's going to be between here and here so i'm going to go over to the four and there it is so this one eight 187 187 yeah i think that's it so i'm going to go back here and note that again most of time most people aren't going to calculate this FIT manually like this but it's not nice to do from time to time so you can see kind of the complications of it the computer will typically do a better job and make a less likely to make an error in this area note if we do make an error on the FIT it'll it'll wash out basically the refund you should get a greater or lesser refund on the on the end of it when we do the the 401 the 1040 for the individual so when they do their 1040 they should get the refund or perhaps have to pay if there's an error involved in it if it's an SI if it's an error involved in the OASDI or the Medicare we have possibly more of a problem in some cases because it won't it may not be refunded when the taxes are done and therefore we would have to amend that but these two it's less likely to make an error because they're very easy to calculate okay so we're going to go to the insurance we're back to the insurance here it's just going to be the same we're going to give the insurance number and the insurance number will be i'm just going to pick the same up from last time last time it was this number tab the union dues are going to be the same tab the 401k is going to be the same so tab and again those will be dependent on the conditions then i'm going to scroll back down so let's see there's something i'm scrolling around a bit then we're going to do the net pay which is going to be the total earnings minus all the deductions OASDI HI FIT group union and 401k we'll do that with a formula this equals the total earnings minus the sum double click the sum function and we're going to pick up the OASDI all the way to the 401k shift zero and close it up and so there we have it so here's the growth pay minus all this stuff gives us the net pay now we're going to do the employer calculations and the employer taxes for OASDI same it's going to be the same amount but i like to do the calculation again kind of a double check i guess it's going to be this 4187 times 0.062 and that's going to be the 259.67 uh 63 which is equivalent to here we'll do the same for the HI which is Medicare so this is going to equal scrolling back over the total earnings times so you go back over so we can see it times 0.0145 that's going to give us the 60 which should match what we have here and then the FUTA we got to take the FUTA wages which is different than what we calculated in the last pay period that's going to equal this 2009 3750 times 0.006 tab and then SUTA which is going to equal the SUTA wages we scroll back over which is this one in M12 times 0.054 and ENTER and so there's going to be that information now we'll do the same thing for the next employee so I'm going to scroll back over all the way to the left we've got Sandy Lewis married for we're going to go through our hours here we're going to say that the hours were 161 this time we're going to have the same pay rate of 28 per hour multiplying out the regular pay it's going to equal in F13 this 161 in D13 times the $28 an hour and tab then we're going to get the overtime hours which will be one have one overtime hour we'll calculate the overtime rate again which is going to be equal to the regular rate times time and a half times 1.5 150 percent tab then the overtime pay is going to be the one times 42 we obviously can do the math in our head but we're going to calculate it so we have the same formula the one hour times the 42 equals G13 times H13 tab then we're going to add up for total earnings the regular pay and the overtime pay so in J13 equals the regular pay in F13 plus the overtime pay in I13 tab then the OASTI wages no one's going to have hit that one or they're not going to have hit that one 28 400 so it's just going to be the same equals that same number the we're going to have the same issue with the 7000 they will have hit that so what we need to do is just get the enough wages to get to 7000 it's not going to be the full 4550 for FUTO wages we need whatever it is to get to the 7000 which will be less than this amount we'll do that with a subtraction problem which will equal the 7000 minus the prior periods wages because that's what it was up to this date there's only one prior period and that's going to be 2005 73 meaning this plus the prior period equals the 7000 which is the cap so we can't use the whole amount because it capped out same thing with SUTA except there's an 8000 cap so equals 8000 minus the prior period SUTA 4,424 tab then this number plus the prior period goes to the cap of 8000 so we can't pick up the full number here we have to pick that up going to scroll back down so we can see our headers better and we'll go through the OASTI so this equals the OASTI wages times 0.062 tab the HI or Medicare equals the total earnings because there's no cap times 0.0145 and then the FIT so we're gonna have to scroll back over and we'll find that FIT for Sandy Lewis M married four monthly pay period the amount that we're looking up is 4,500 4,550 so if we scroll back over here we're looking for our tables which are here and we're looking for the married monthly the 4,550 so here's 4,550 now that one falls on the line here typically we'll do the higher amount so we want the higher amount because that'll withhold a little bit more and that's like a little bit more conservative we'd rather have a refund in other words at the end of the year when they do the 1040 then to owe money so we're going to try to err by withholding a slightly too much than too low although the dollar amount's probably pretty minor so here we have the 235 we'll go back to our table and we're going to put in just going back over to the FIT 235 group insurance i'm going to say that's the same so we're going to pick that up and again this would this could vary i mean this could differ depending on the terms but i'm going to pick up the same for the union dues i'm going to say the 401k is going to be the same it may vary depending on the earnings but we're just going to keep the a standard or fixed 401k contribution it just depends on the options that were agreed upon between the employer employee and the plan then we're going to do the net pay which is going to be the total earnings minus all the deductions and taxes so this equals the 4550 minus the sum double clicking the sum function highlighting the OASDI to the 401k tab it's going to close up that's good so there's our net pay so there is the net pay now we'll calculate the the employer taxes so OASDI should match this amount but i like to recalculate it so we're going to say this equals the OASDI wages times 0.062 which will be that same 282 282 the hi or medicare equals and we're going to scroll back over it's going to be from the total amount here times and then it's going to be the 0.0145 tab and then the futa we're going to say equals the futa wages which will be this amount in l13 times 0.006 tab and then the su ta will equal the su ta total in n13 times 0.054 entered i picked up the wrong number there so let's delete that it's going to equal we're going to scroll over just one more to find the su ta number times 0.054 all right so that looks that looks more reasonable next employee scrolling back down we're looking for jill and so jill here has a single one and 140 hours on regular pay and the hourly rate is 31 regular pay will equal the hours of 140 the normal regular hours times the 31 dollars an hour and then we're going to have the overtime we're going to say that there was zero overtime overtime rate will still calculate it even though there's not any overtime to keep in conformity with our formulas equals the 31 regular rate times time and a half or 1.5 150 percent and then the overtime pay then we're still going to calculate it even though it's zero equals the zero hours times the 4650 overtime rate then the total earnings is we're still going to calculate both numbers even though there's only a regular pay equal to the regular pay plus the overtime pay then the oast i they're not going to hit over jill hasn't hit the overtime yet for uh hasn't hit the oast i cap yet therefore this is just going to be the same number tab uh the seven thousand will have hit the seven thousand so same thing on the seven thousand we're going to say this equals the seven thousand minus the prior time period tab and so the prior time period is what they and what she has year to date in earnings plus uh the current time that makes it the seven thousand therefore we're going to pick that number up instead of the wages here same thing for the suta except for the eight thousand cap so it's going to equal eight thousand minus the suta wages from the prior time period time our tab that's gonna be 2005 90 this plus the prior time period is that eight thousand dollar amount then we're going to have the oast i so i'm going to scroll back down the oast i will equal the oast i wages times 0.062 tab the hi or medicare will equal the total earnings times 0.0145 then the fit we're going to use our tables again which is going to be single one and four thousand three hundred and forty so going back to our tables we gotta scroll up to the single table so married this is a single table monthly and we're looking for four thousand three hundred and forty and the one column is here so four thousand three hundred and forty is going to be in between here and the one column is this one because that first column is a zero column so that's going to be 491 wait a second that's 4405 it's actually 43040 we're looking for so 4325 to 430 it's going to be between this column which i believe is that 474 that we want yeah that 474 so we'll go back to our excel worksheet we're going to pick up that 474 i'm going to scroll back over fit will be 474 group insurance we're going to say that's the same as the prior period so i'm going to just say that's the same no union dues 401k we're going to say that's the same just to keep this simplified and then the net pay so we'll calculate the net pay that's going to equal the total earnings minus the sum double click the sum function of the OASDI to the 401k then we're going to close that up that's fine okay and then we want the OASDI for the for the employee or recalculating it equals the OASDI times 0.062 that's going to be the 269 which should match here and then when the hi is going to equal the hi wages which is going to be just the total scrolling back over times 0.0145 tab then we have the footer and the footer will equal we're going to scroll back over to the footer wages which is at l 14 times 0.006 tab and then the suta which will equal scrolling over to the suta times 0.054 and enter next one we're going to scroll back over last employee uh married three we're going to say this is a salaried employee so this time we're just going to say salary for the regular pay actually we're going to say salary for the uh regular hours and we're going to say that it's 35 000 and the total earnings is just going to be the same so we'll just say that equals the same amount now the OASDI she's going to get a lot closer here because she's got that 35 000 but she's not there yet she's at i mean if we look at the earnings so far 35 000 and then the 35 is the 70 so we got obviously be careful here on the OASDI i shall be the first one or the only one that will possibly hit that cap hasn't yet those so it's still the 35 and then the futa already hit the futa here so there is no futa so it's gone and it's going to be gone for the rest of the time period so this always happens in the in the early periods or the early payroll periods the futa is going to be everything and then it's going to fade away uh and then obviously if we weren't monthly if we were something other than monthly then it would fade away a little bit more slowly if we paid people weekly rather than monthly but uh it's it's going to go away after the first quarter or the first quarter and a half typically for most employees okay and then we're going to say the OASDI will equal the OASDI wages times 0.062 tab and then the hi or medicare will equal the 35 000 times the 0.0145 tab and then the fit now it's going to be the same we can do the calculation again but well let's take a look at it if we scroll back over here i'm going to scroll back up and we we have to use these tables up top so we'll do this at least one more time we might not do it next time it's going to should be the same but we'll take a look at this percentage calculation and so we got to go all the way up past these tables because the tables are not uh going to have enough numbers in order to calculate this it won't be high enough to calculate the wages now remember what we're going to do is we're going to scroll back up top and we're going to pick up this number first so 34580 so 34580 times 3 because she has three exemptions so this number this 1037 40 is what we're going to decrease the total earnings of 35 000 buy to then use in the table so this minus minus the 35 000 is 33 962 if we scroll down to the correct table now that's the number we're going to use at 33 000 or so we want to find the monthly payroll table and we're going to find the 33 is going to land in between here in between these two numbers so we we're going to say 55348 plus 32 percent over the floor which is going to be this 27 right this first number the 27 here 27 so if we take out the calculator here what we're really doing is we're saying how much is actually in between this this section well we said it was 33 962 60 minus the floor of of this category which is 227 1213 means that there's 6749 60 within this range and that's the 32 percent range so times 0.32 that's how much is going to be taxed at the highest 32 percent and then we're going to add to it what was in there before from prior brackets which we can calculate from the floor already which is going to be plus this 5348.26 so that's going to be that 7508 so i'm going to go back over here and we'll see the formula for i'm all i'm going to do is copy the formula so if we scroll here the formulas here i'm going to copy this and just put that full formula right click and paste 123 so i just right click and copy right click and paste and then let's just take a look at it if we double click on it it looks really complicated here because we don't see the subtotals so it's almost easier to calculate this not in this kind of fashion but we can do it this way and it's it's nice to be able to see so what we're taking is this 35 000 minus the exemption amount of 345.8 times three because there's three exemptions so because of the order of operations it's going to multiply first and then subtract and then it's going to take this bracketed number whatever we get there and say that's minus the floor number 27213 and and then it's going to take that's going to be really the number we calculate this whole thing at the highest bracket of 32 percent times 32 percent then plus the 5348 all other brackets added up so that's going to be that number then the group insurance same thing as the prior month so we'll just say that equals the 1500 nothing in the union dues and then the 401k will be the same and so the net pay i'm going to scroll back down a little bit will equal the total earnings minus the sum double clicking the sum highlighting the oasti to the 401k tab and we're going to say yes that's what we want and then the oasti should be the same here but i'm going to recalculate it equals the oasti wages times 0.062 tab and then the hi or medicare and note this number matches this number equals we're going to scroll all the way over to this 35 000 times 0.0145 tab and that number should match this number and then the futa equals i'm going to scroll over to the futa wages and it's zero times the 0.006 and then the su ta wages which is also going to be zero times 0.054 so there we have those numbers


The awesome power of US propaganda. Notes from the edge of the narrative matrix. Sometimes I can only stop and stare in awe at the power of the US propaganda machine. Almost the entire global north has been paced into perfect alignment with Cold War agendas geared towards securing US unipolar dominance by an unprecedented propaganda and censorship campaign. There's nothing intrinsic in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which says the nation must be strangled to death by unheard of levels of economic warfare from Washington loyal governments. A huge international consensus needed to be manufactured for that specific response, and the public needed to go along with it. Just absolutely incredible. By securing control of global narratives via Silicon Valley, Hollywood and plutocratic news outlets, the US Empire has effectively supplanted the UN and international law in its ability to get whole groups of nations moving in a certain way with the consent of the governed.  Imperial propaganda is the single most overlooked and underappreciated aspect of our society. What is the functional difference between state media broadcasters uncritically reporting what the government tells them to report, and western news media outlets which always uncritically report, quote, scoops that are fed to them by government officials? The fawning hero worship of Zelensky is the most embarrassing and self-debasing thing liberals have done since those pink pussy hats. War is without exception the very worst thing in the world. The most insane, the most traumatizing, the most self-destructive, and the least sustainable. All of the parties involved in this war should have done everything possible to avoid it. And any who claim they did so are lying. The hawks from the First Cold War claimed the collapse of the Soviet Union vindicated their brinkmanship, which meant all those nuclear close calls we had during that period were worth it. But it turns out all that happened was a short break before resuming the insane nuclear brinkmanship. We see now that this is set up to go on for a very, very long time. This completely invalidates the belief that these great power competition games of nuclear chicken are sane and worthwhile. Because if you keep rolling the dice on nuclear war day after day and year after year, eventually they're gonna come up snake eyes. The only sane choice on the table is therefore to move into a cooperative, friendly relationship with these powers. Because facts and evidence show very clearly that trying to dominate and subvert each other will keep going and going until it eventually results in a nuclear conflict. We came close to wiping ourselves out many times during the last Cold War. Very close in some cases. And now we're back at the most dangerous levels of nuclear brinkmanship since the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is unsustainable. It says so much about the madness of our species that half of the controversies surrounding this war exist because we made up a rule that killing people with chemical and biological weapons is illegal, but killing them with bullets and military explosives is perfectly fine. If you have a problem with someone highlighting the culpability of the most powerful government on Earth in giving rise to this war, it's because imperial propaganda has turned you into a power-worshipping bootlicker. Uh-huh, I see you've been speaking critically of the most powerful government on Earth. That looks very strange and suspicious to me. Perhaps you are a secret agent working for a foreign government. I am very intelligent. Empire loyalists hold that the US Empire may stage coups and threaten foreign nations in ways it would never allow itself to be threatened, and that if those nations retaliate against those actions, the Empire bears no responsibility whatsoever. There's a common unexamined assumption that the US can't possibly have a villainous role in every major world conflict, that sometimes it's just other governments being evil and that's it.  Few people have trouble believing there's a uniquely evil tyrant in the world. They just have a hard time accepting that it's their own government.


Hi, I'm Janet Stringer and I'm a constable with the Vancouver Police Marine Unit. Today I'm going to talk to you about the effects of cold water. Even if you think you are a strong swimmer, cold water can still affect your ability to swim. Cold incapacitation occurs within 2 to 30 minutes of submersion in cold water. It impairs physical performance and leads to an inability to self-help, swimming failure and drowning. Sea temperatures in English Bay range from an average of 6 degrees in the winter to 11 degrees in the summer, and these temperatures are well within the definition of cold water. This is another good reason to wear your PFD on a paddle board at all times. And finally, no matter what you're doing on the water, have fun and be safe. Hey Andrew, can I give you a hand? Yes please.


Our paper presents a novel approach that uses Bayesian deep learning to model noise inherent in historical maps for semantic segmentation of hydrological features incorporating multi-scale contextual information through atro-spatial pyramid pooling, ASPP. The algorithm yields predictions with an average dice coefficient of 0.827 and outputs intuitively interpretable pixel-wise uncertainty maps that capture uncertainty in object boundaries, noise from drawing, aging, and scanning, as well as out-of-distribution designs. These uncertainty maps can potentially be used to refine segmentation results, locate rare designs, and select reliable features for future GIS analyses. This article was authored by CDWU, Magnus Heitzler, and Lorenz Herney.


a memo from the to us and the recommendation from the joint legislative justice oversight committee is attached to the member on page three and what it is is essentially her the Capitol Bill and the discussions of the legislative justice oversight committee that the funding to go ahead to begin the very initial stages of how do we move forward with replacement of failing correction of facilities is that some work be done by BGS and they suggested some restrictions on how this work can be done and that's described in attachment. It's being necessitated by that house institutions and corrections committee by what I said a moment ago is failure of some of our correctional facilities they are just really on their last legs we had an instance in the past year where they had to shut the kitchen down in the St. Albans facility because of a roof failure they couldn't use it the facility in South Burlington has had kind of similar really fundamental problems. This isn't just about because it's a very broad and general analysis of what is it going to take forward to site something somewhere and it isn't just about a new women's facility because that was the kind of impression I got when we had our phone briefing on today so it's not that. So the women's facility which is the South Burlington facility is probably at the top of the list of facilities that need to be replaced but they follow pretty rapidly by the one in St. Albans and Rutland and kind of go around the state and have problems with each other so there's a view that we need to replace facilities and you need to kind of understand what the scope of the problem is not we're going to replace the woman's facility or we're going to replace St. Albans or we're going to build something of a certain size but just trying to begin to get your arms around what the potential citing needs are the potential costs some of the administrative issues and trying to just kind of go into this on the first level so that future legislatures can make decisions about how this would work. I'm having a hard time understanding the scope of work here we all know that our old regional professional facilities they're designed actually we replicated some of the same thing when we did the psychiatric hospital but the way that they're designed varied staff costly so and we know that there are hundreds of several hundred million dollars of capital needs so is this analysis to look at our population both male and female what would be the capacity what would be the recommended size of a facility to get the most efficient staffing as well as programmatic services we heard obviously our correctional health care costs are higher because of this you know community so it's like I don't know how you build something until you determine for whom for what size what you know what the component pieces so is this to really help do that first analysis that to me isn't bricks and mortar it's really that taking that creating that policy context establishing them getting the data and the numbers and the and the population needs and level of security and then that would determine what number of facilities for whom so that's what I'm struggling with Mary I'm sorry I appreciate that and I think that's something that we're all struggling with and I think that the answer from again at least the house institutions committee and this is the testimony that we heard in joint justice oversight is essentially because it takes so long to figure out where where to build something and how so citing you know but what it's designed but hang on so that we're going to do a parallel process and you'll see that in this the proposal from the Justice Oversight Committee it specifically references the work that we're having the Council of State governments do do for us and that that study will help inform this process going forward so it's a parallel process and it's because again come back to failing facilities that you know we we actually maybe Senator Ash remembers this in the last session of the Justice Oversight Committee had a discussion a fairly long discussion about facilities and what should we be doing we never really got off the dime and there's this notion that we need to we need to push this ahead so it's a parallel process I think it's absolutely intended to inform the decision that the the number of folks who are incarcerated the type of people who are incarcerated the reduction and the numbers that will be part of this of the end decision but that we're coming on the Council of State governments to help us with that thought making process but at the same time there is a notion that we need to begin figuring out some of these other just like how do you build it and some of those questions are regardless of a man or a woman is you know the type of fence etc it is just you know what size is the box essentially I just have a question about the shells because we don't know what the Council of State Government is going to bring back and that we shall accommodate for those results so if their results are if they conflict with three and four how can we already determine three and four when we don't know the recommendation from number two when they're all shells they may say do small facilities that are medium security with those sizes or they may say one facility of a larger size and then it doesn't accommodate for number two because three and four in my mind they conflict with one another so I think there was a strong feeling that we wanted any of the work that BGS is doing that was learned by the Council of State Government study so that's the shell on number two on number three I think there is a view that in the past we have built facilities in general to a very specific population need that is not flexible enough to meet whatever the population needs are that and we heard this from the Department of Corrections that they believe that it's necessary for it to be a medium security facility that we are always going to we don't have any high security in the state we ship all of those people out of state those handled very well can that continue to be our policy? well so that's an interesting question but I think it is a big discussion but medium security so the shell around the medium security is a way to attain the highest degree of flexibility possible with these facilities what the Department of Corrections will tell you today is they currently I think it's about 10% of their beds are not being used which means those 10% of unused beds are accommodating people who are out of state they could be brought in because those beds are not flexible enough in their use and so the view is a medium facility is the most flexible facility that you can get and still kind of meet overall goals of the state I am confusing you well part of it I've read some places it was like a 50 it was like very different sizes and then there was a limit of 200 that's a policy decision that is creating a constraint on if someone came back and said the optimum size for the most efficient for this population is 350 and that will give you better healthcare give you better education it will get you better then we basically have predetermined in advance of the analysis what is the most effective in terms of security staffing and also the kinds of services that our inmates would need that's why I believe one way to think about the sizing think about them essentially as modules that you could add on so it's saying it won't be any more than 200 maximum that they're going to consider the design for but it could be more than that on a particular site I mean we all have some very large tracts of land yeah so interestingly this memo initially said it won't be more than 800 beds in the discussion at the justice oversight committee said no bring it down to more than 200 beds because again so there's this interesting tension because we know healthcare costs and management and administration costs one large facility is much much less expensive to run per person but we also have rather strong feelings about large centralized facilities and that's going to be a policy question these bodies are going to have to answer going forward none of what BGS is proposing to do will limit those choices going none of what we're asking BGS to do will limit those choices going forward will give us sufficient information to understand kind of how those building blocks will fit together and what the potential costs are any clarification but could you have a question I guess I was just going to comment that that's not the way the words read to me what you're saying makes some sense but what I read here sounds much more perspective and smaller that's why we're not understanding what you're saying and I think this is the tension being kind of wanting to get data and being a little bit concerned about the consequence of some of that data so my question is exactly that so did you say Mary that there could be a larger campus where individual buildings for certain types of women or men or different security levels geriatric could be on a campus but in one pod there could be no more than 200 beds but there could be several pods on a campus that is certainly the way I have imagined this could work I'm not sure do you think that understanding is shared by everybody on whatever committee this is so unfortunately I was not at the discussion for when I actually was there was part of the writing of this and I know they wanted their shelves but I wasn't there when they actually said yes we voted on this but they did vote in favor of this they believe that it is important to go ahead with the release of this funding because we are going to be sitting here in another year saying we don't have enough data to be making these decisions and we have people out of state because we can't bring them back in because we don't have the beds for them I'd just like to say that the sequential approach versus the parallel approach strikes me as a fundamental question and I totally respect that everything you said speaks to the reason why nothing's changed and that they would be planning for things without having the CSG work complete to me signals that we'll find ourselves in the thing we're trying to avoid anyways which is after we get these sort of pod and different style assessments then we're going to have the CSG then we're going to have to revisit all the things that BGS has told us in order to take what we've learned because it's not going to be like they can talk in real time it's going to be more like this council state government process is going to work its way and then produce a report of some kind so I don't want to second guess the committee it thought about this at a greater length than we have here but I think it's pretty likely that we're going to find ourselves facing the same timing problem and then revisiting and wondering what we got for the 200 there is an expectation that CSG will be talking with CGS and that they will, there will be communication back and forth so that they're understanding what those needs are and I it seems to me this is much more than designing a facility it's really looking at a variety of options it seems like you need a structured analysis of the advantages disadvantages of cost implications for the different choices for legislators to ultimately make good decisions so I'm just wondering how BGS I don't see this as an engineering or a design issue as much as I see the analysis of the inmate characteristics and needs and so forth so and what we have for different options and sometimes our perceptions are not to necessarily bear out in reality so I'm just wondering is BGS hiring somebody to do this or is BGS is here or is the commissioner going to do this analysis I'm not going to say part of it would you just stay back there I think my concern in all of this is it says that BGS will work with the council state governments and you know they'll be communicating but I can see the council state governments coming in and saying you got to build one great big or whatever they come in with if they come in with some it would not be unheard of for us to say yeah we agree with everything you like but we still want to have something else in the meantime we've done a study that we haven't seen or read to yet what we're asking the council state governments to do is to help us figure out how to reduce the population we have diversion and we have some very good ideas for what need to be done but CGS CSG is going to help us think through that regardless of how we can address our numbers we still have facility needs that have to be addressed and rather than waiting to find out if we're going to have what we have 1600 people incarcerated in state today and rather than waiting to figure out if we're going to have 14 or 10 you know a thousand let's begin the process of figuring out because we know we have to replace those facilities let's begin the process so that's the parallel getting an estimate as to the cost of the the septic system the acreage required I assume if we do one big or we do one alright I think it's not been clear and then the last thing if I may we have an or the JFO staff received an email from Senator Sears last night when he said he couldn't come and that he supported this I just wanted to make sure that's all the members knew share that do we have to take action today I mean I would really otherwise right on your head Mary to you know present this you know recommendation these questions are I was just wondering whether so the problem with tabling it is that the amount of time that it takes BGS is going to um um it's not BGS staff they're going to have to hire folks so they're going to have to go through an RFP process which it stopped about a year um and so tabling it pushes it off for a couple more months the house capital the institutions committee was hoping that it would be able to put this into its budget proposal and the timing won't work so we will if you push it off so if we push it off they will not have time to do an RFP to be able to budget the study in the capital it does it does strike me your explanation is more helpful it's helpful in understanding CSG and I'm familiar with what we've done before in terms of recidivism trying to reduce recidivism reduce the number of remoders incarcerated etc so they're they're a great resource on that so that's helpful to remind myself that's what this is talking about not facility design etc but it just but is there anything that would keep BGS from beginning to work on a draft RFP that is going to be is due at August 29th and we're going to be on September 17th it's like that seems to me like there's nothing that they need $200,000 for to do the draft RFP I would have agreed with you but their testimony at the oversight committee meeting was very clear that they would not begin drafting an RFP until the money was released I think on that we're going to have a commission rather than need what I'm going to tell is what he says is being asked to do and what his time frame is for the rare Chris Cole commissioner buildings and general services so in terms of the time frame we're already up against it I doubt we'll be able to meet the March 31st deadline it takes us more than 30 days to draft an RFP so right now the language that was approved by the joint oversight committee which I did not attend has this presenting it to this committee in August 29th I doubt we'll be able to do that to the oversight committee to the oversight committee and then next time I come back so two issues there not sure I can meet that deadline and number two I'm not sure what the review is going to be regarding the RFP we generally aren't used to having the legislative branch review executive branch RFPs you asked us to go out with a golden mind to the policy rejection or a policy issue so that's just something to discuss that would be helpful thank you I was going to say you didn't have any don't know all of them so the council state governments is going to finish their study December 31st there is a large part that we need to review in terms of their recommendations to you folks they're going to be talking about incarceration levels as you mentioned and what other states do and what are other programs and policies that's going to inform us as to what we develop I was there for the testimony in the house I was there for the testimony oversight while it may not say one's correctional facility that's what from our perspective based on the testimony is what this is all about because of the correctional facility in Chittin County is not one of our worst correctional facilities in terms of condition it's just not being used as it was designed and it doesn't have space it doesn't have space to expand to offer the types of programming for inmates that we would want to offer and so in large part it's about building what is an appropriate replacement for the women's facility and this is why you see the numbers 5100 and 175 the 175 is a recommendation by DOC as to what they would like based on the number of inmates they have and the 5100 are numbers that are just scalable that we could go down in size for that type of facility and it says the facility shall not be an assessment of the 100 beds facility in northwestern Vermont is 350 so we already have experience with what that costs you know when you're getting to larger facilities I think there is a magic number with a stand-alone facility I don't know what that number is in terms of optimization and efficiency we don't know what that number is but I do think there is a number out there the committee was not supportive of a larger campus-like facility which we believe brings the greatest number of operational facilities but that has not been in the Vermont historic experience so it's kind of an outlier for all of us as to what would that look like how would it operate and does it deliver the type of quality that most people associate with a smaller centrally operated or stand-alone facility I don't know how much I can't really tell you how much of this work will it be of value to the state until we see the work that comes from the Council of State Governments and how will they mesh clarification because I'm hearing that this is really focused on the women's facility and I'm hearing that it's not I think I'm hearing that it is so my question is is it is the Council of State Governments focused on both men and women or is it focused on women I just I keep going back and forth in terms of what I'm told so the commissioner wouldn't know the answer to the CSG question and it is my understanding that the Council of State Governments work is at reducing the overall population not specifically on women's yes we have been focused on the flaws with locating women in where they are currently located which is the reason there has been this discussion about women but it's been very clearly stated in the committee hearings that I've attended that this is about again not for a specific population of people but generally trying to the overall costs of when you use the word this you're talking about Council of State Governments you're talking about the buildings and general services buildings and general services because I just heard you say women I did thank you the cost of the facilities so facilities exist to support programs and until you know what the program is you can't adequately design or cost estimate what the one-time capital cost would be to build and so we can we already know what it costs to build correction facilities in terms of the square foot number the question becomes the add-ons beyond that do you have trauma supported rehabilitation in your correction facility what are the different programs what is the treatment program you have what is the educational program you have what is the worker training program you have what are the transitional programs like the community you have all of these programming informs your design and until we know that what CSG is recommending in terms of programs for whatever types of facilities and population we're talking about it's difficult for us to do that we can do the commissary we can do the recreational space all the other stuff the CSG program where you're looking at a variety of different policies that the legislature could enact in terms of reducing our inmate size directly correlates to the work that we'll be doing so I can't give you any assurances the value of this exercise when they're running currently side by side there's a desire to be moving on it did BGS express that at the not you said you weren't there but did anyone at BGS say quite the way you just put it at the Joint Justice Committee meeting in terms of the challenges that you guys were faced to will you do the job the way you would typically do it in encompassing the programming as well as some of the basic physical needs we've been trying to thread a needle legislature in their efforts to get this information we'll study whatever you would like to study it's just been challenging for us because the ball does seem to be moving between a women's facility or a general facility and it seems now that the desire of the legislature is on a general facility study in terms of those costs and you know your biggest cost in a facility is choosing your site you have a lot of work to do to get that site ready to house your facility so that's really critical and this study isn't going to do that it's going to pick out the elements of what a good site looks like but we already know all that so in answer to your question probably not in this level of specificity we've been really trying to cooperate and get along and trying to achieve the goals and where this started out from which was in the House Corrections and Institutions Committee so if I may so this has been discussed by the Justice Oversight maybe twice and you and I were at the first time which is what's discussed and yes my recollection is that we had this specific conversation about and it has been difficult my interpretation has been that BGS has not been particularly this would not have been your chosen path for how to do this it was the chosen path path of the capital bill which is where this came from so it was the chosen path of these bodies we had this conversation about how to run these two processes parallel and this was the attempt to continue to kind of thread that needle and I just come back to the concern of got to get off the dime something needs to be done and this was a way to try to push both to push the construction of a facility to meet our needs forward while trying to understand what the policy issues are that we need to be addressing which CSG is going to help us do thus the parallel business and I we've got a lot of questions I don't think we're going to get any better answers than we have at this point and I'm just wondering if this committee feels ready to move forward or do we want to table this until September which point Justice Oversight will have a chance to meet and know our concerns which I think boils down to we haven't seen what CSG is going to recommend we don't know what the program is we're going to be building a facility to house and until we do we're kind of wasting time do you already know a square footage to do some cement walls and floors and living kinds of things that we've done before so why spend money until we know what fine tuning we want on that and where we want do we want it in Central Vermont do we want to go back up to the kingdom where land tends to be cheaper do we want to go you know do we want one two or three I think that's what we haven't really answered so committee I'm looking for a motion or another question alright I'll put it out there I make a motion we accept this and get off the dime and get it going okay so Representative Fagan has moved I believe the official wording should I read it thank you attachment alright so I was just making this comment subsequent to the motion what I hear from the commissioner of BGS is that they do not need $200,000 to come up with the answers to the questions that they already have the information about generally building a correctional facility and size and so if we support this I don't understand why they would spend $200,000 the testimony I heard today is now already have the information I'm happy to support the BGS going forward in providing the information I'm frankly a little bit confused as to why I mean I agree we need to get off the dime so the testimony that the commissioner appears to be providing is that they don't need $200,000 to do the assessment that is being asked for and I think what we are essentially we're being asked to do this because we've got $200,000 to do the batch so if we approve it we are approving the spending of $200,000 I'm confused so is that an accurate assessment I don't believe I testified that BGS did need the funds to do the study what I testified is we already know the square foot currently of what it takes to build a correctional facility but until we understand from council and state governments what a modern correctional facility looks like with all this programming in terms of its space I know the state of Maine just built a new correctional facility expressly for women and it's a very innovative and progressive and policy-forwardly design which is completely different than what we build here in state of Vermont and so in order to educate ourselves because we are not familiar in order to have project managers that design those types of facilities we would need to hire a consultant who would need to detail best practices in terms of programming in facilities that would hopefully line up with council and state governments work and that we're not too far off the market we've educated ourselves and can give cost I know how to build a cost associated with the correctional facility and attention facility not the type of policy and rehabilitation facilities which differ from what correctional facilities would look like to make these policy I feel like you need to have that policy framework or those decisions in order to know what you need to build so I don't know perhaps we're tasking BGS to do that policy work that legitimately should be undertaken by the agency and the department of corrections I've never had BGS I would not want BGS to say this is the kind of programming that we think is the most effective and state of the art for a particular group of inmates but maybe you want to morph into that role but it seems to me normally the administering department outlines what it is for the building's needs and specifications so I think that's what we're struggling with the role that BGS is being given here and that's why we're having a hard time it was never the intention to ask BGS to do any work on programming and that sort of understanding was simply to understand the shell of a building and the site sort of questions you all clearly have more questions than you're comfortable voting one way or another on I think we did give a submission or say that even in this time frame given the current wording which asks for an RFP to be submitted to the justice oversight he can't need that so we're already slipping the deadlines I'm hoping JFO is listening to this hard to have a conversation with the justice oversight committee at their next meeting to come back to the original motion so my representative is him I don't want to vote your motion because I don't want to kill it that's kind of where I'm going I'm hoping I know so I'm going to begrudgingly recommend that I withdraw my motion I'm going to withdraw my motion in my concern here and I did reach out to Butch Shaw and the representative Shaw and I had a discussion with him and while I didn't get into specific questions about this it was very clear that the discussion that went on at the committee meetings was very beneficial and that they really wanted to get going with this instead of continuing as I've turned it chasing ourselves around a poll just trying to answer questions etc my concern right now and I am going to withdraw the motion is that now we're into the next legislative session and we may not finish the work that this entails in time to be able to affect anything at the next legislative session and that's the reason I'm begrudgingly withdraw I understand that but certainly the further we kick the can down the road the more after we are to lose the ability to take action can I get another motion so I'll move that we defer action until the September meeting I think in the meantime it would be very helpful if we got a clear understanding of the work CSG it's going to do because I don't think they get into the facility of details that we perhaps some people might think I think we need to be I think there more in terms of how you reduce the population what are effective strategies so I think that would be helpful to get some clarity around what that product would be so I'll make the motion that we defer our action until September Sandy Kitchell can I get a second Sandy Kitchell has moved seconded that we defer action on we don't have numbers number G until our September meeting further discussion is not all those that fail to say aye those say no that motion carries and Steve talk about being between us and last just jump in I just want to make some clarity on what we've decided to do with the web security before we close out while we're still sitting here we're writing the letter did we put on doing that and when is that going to get done and how I'm just a little unsure if we did I think it's really important that we weigh in on this but I don't want to just give it so we hadn't actually taken an action and talked about taking more so there's really two approaches we could take as I see this one would be to write a letter from the committee or authorize the chair to write it or to have the chair contact the attorney general's office asking them to intervene or do both my only view at this moment is that I think the attorney general's office should be the one who does it but that's my view and it's because we're going to be back dealing with the wrinkles around the TIF legislation like we do every year trying to customize especially now that we're community doing it so I'm not going to make the motion but I view those as the two choices so I think that I would think it makes more sense for this committee to weigh in rather than the attorney general weighs in it's just the lawyer arguing against another lawyer and the chair of a committee that deals with TIF I have some real concerns about about the way this issue is being handled and being addressed and so I don't mind writing a letter I'm happy to have the money chairs could write a letter I think it would be important that the letter come from me since I've probably been the biggest supporter of TIFs and at least the senate I know you and I aren't generally on the same page funded and so I think that a letter coming out with my name on it somewhere as head of this committee would be on behalf of the committee but to say you're risking your biggest supporter because this is concerning so is it appropriate to make a motion that we authorize the chair to write a letter on the two issues on behalf of the VEPSI committee that's a motion Senator Ansel has moved that it means representative that's Trump it's Trump the chair to write a letter on behalf of the committee requesting that VEPSI not postpone that perhaps he postpone action on informing municipalities given the joint clarity on the lives of clarity on the legal until the legislature is able to meet and wait in to provide clarity you got that Steve good we'll look with you on thank you okay for the discussion if not all those in favor say aye opposed say no I just wanted to take a couple minutes to just say people have asked what is the remedy forecast need for this as we had a 51 million dollar surplus in FY19 we talked about that in FY20 there was a language in the bill that said if the surplus exceeded 20 million dollars for that year we would go to the teacher's note surplus came in at 18.4 million so there would be nothing going forward other than just money available budgeted so is there some place where the actually forecast is telegraphed yeah it's not in the document actually there was a I think a sheet sent out an operating statement could it be something like that the one page sheet because I didn't really understand I saw John's charts in his wonderful cartoons but I had no idea what was happening he didn't say the bottom line today and so that wasn't that probably and we'll be excepted at the board but what becomes meeting board comes not everyone here so we will definitely send out the operating statement after the meeting it would also be what we anticipated but in fact it's going to be the revenue upgrade how much of it was sort of anticipated to support the obligation of funds to the clean water does people have to remember that so and we do have a sheet that has a four at white one page on that but we don't get it in 4-2 we can't encourage our respective members to vote yes or no we won't maybe step and you can send that sheet out but yeah we have it all done and sent right out now the FY21 is a little more confusing on the available bill we're up about 20% we're up 1.7% the problem is that since a lot of what we passed were fees that we're still trying to work with the administration to sort of net out that and figure out how it really ends up but um they turn into direct apps they don't need that even though the revenues are revenue something we actually should consider over time to a lot of the direct apps I'm sorry that's a technical thing it's something we it's revenue we have a lot of revenue that is something to think about how much revenue comes in not through the available revenues we may want to propose something next year to look at that so the raw numbers are driven the 18.4% we'll send out right away the 28 million or so is still being worked on for the next year and since our budget is about 1.6 billion it's about 1.7% growth and that's assuming we don't spend more this year on base expenditures so it's not given our usual cost pressures there still is going to be a gap a pretty sizable gap talking about 4.8 to 6.9 or that's what we're going to work on just a couple of the quick things we're going to send and notice to all of you there's a reference to my fiscal report the past commission has just done a report on demographics it's really interesting what we have a chance to read it we'll send out just a soul link I know it's part of my report and there's a link in that but we can send that out again the other thing is this new federal agreement that's being done now about spending in the last few years not being as concrete as we plan one of the things we're thinking about is to really look at what we should be telling our congressional delegation about needs that we have because there is some more money to play with than there was before and I think maybe some of you work with the administration on and try to think about what type of guidance and I know we're losing the enhanced match that would be an example but are there things that we should advise them on that are important for federal funds? Just a thought we'll play with haven't done anything on that yet but I think we might have an opportunity and that they're all going to go to the budget with a different balance than they had before that's that's it we're trying to show this flag we haven't heard the exact number 7.5% I think they're probably close to the 6% return this year so that will go downwardly that will be work out in the actuaries report there's a question I don't think there are things in the report that you all wanted to focus on we still have clothing and fun that's right we're going to have clothing we're going to take a couple minutes from there sure just we're going to cut you out that's right we can't okay what is it the actual revenues for FY19 came in and the education fund was the revenues were pretty much as estimated so that year looks good we did see a significant downgrade in the sales tax for FY20 so a downgrade over the estimate the sales tax revenue the estimate has come in about $6 million less than we previously estimated which as of right now has eaten up that deficit that surplus that we left at the end of the legislative session we did that yes so and this will all again get updated in November when we do the December 1 letter but as of right now we're fine because we didn't have that that surplus good always good not to spend that on the last set alright would have spent into the reserves yes we would have spent okay other questions always be last yeah alright committee I think that's it unless you have any other business we'll be back in September 19th right 17th 16th Monday 16th that's 16th first that we came up with making sure everybody's okay with those things I have no idea I think the 16th and November 1 should be at 133 Street and 4th October October we did have to send this lots of reminders don't expect this it's up to you by the way okay yeah still have we need a motion to adjourn so moved second wow yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah