Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good afternoon.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: This is the House Appropriations Committee. Today is 01/20/2026, and we have just heard the Governor's budget address on the floor of the House in a joint assembly, and our guests right now are Adam Gretchen from the Department of Finance and Management, who will help explain some of the whole budget to us. And bring your colleague, Cardi Meryl as well. Thank you.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: You guys heard the speech,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Any questions? Yeah.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Pretty strange, though.

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: That's very strange. You.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Nice to kick off another year. This will be my tenth. Anyway, what we have done in the past is we have gone through the what we call affectionately a little budget book, and we take you through the general fund general fund overview, which with if you guys are okay with that, that's what I would suggest we do. And that it gives you an idea of kind of the structure of the fund, how we got the money, what we're doing with the money, and then we can go through in any level of detail.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: I think we're interested in perhaps where it's different from the current year's budget. Absolutely.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: If you flip to page 10 excuse me, this overview. And as we've done in past years, Hardy and I will tag team. I usually launch in and start with the revenues where how we got where we got. And then I hand off to Hardy who goes into the some of the the current services budget and then back to me for some of the policy changes. So we'll if you're okay with that, that's what we'll do. So, without further ado, starting at the very top on page 10. The first way that this differs from other budgets really is this page is quite a bit simpler. If you'll recall last year when I was here, there were a number of revenue initiatives on behalf of the governor. There are no revenue initiatives this year, so this page is quite a bit condensed. It's merely sources. The chief source of which and the the vast majority of our revenue being the eboard revenue forecast, two point five three three point five. I always, like to remind everyone that the lion's share of that comes from the personal income tax. I think over half or about half. So the personal income tax is quite large. We there is some additional property transfer tax revenue, kinda skipping down to, you know, much further down in here that property transfer tax revenue is not from the Vermont Housing Conservation Board. That is fully funded. Where that is from is there's a little bit of money that we take from, the, current use special fund that property valuation review uses to administer the current use program. They give us their budget each year what they need, and it's typically below what they get stat statutorily in the property transfer tax. So we take the remainder, and we put it into the general fund. That's about a half $600,000. The remainder, 2 and a half million dollars, is for the servicing of the housing that is outstanding till 2039. A million comes from the property tax, clean water surcharge, and, you know, a million and a half that when the bond is retired will go to the HCV, but now currently comes to the general fund. So that's the extra $3,000,000

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I'm sorry I'm late. That was Thank you, Elodie. So a few years ago, we did something with increased property transfer tax for homes over x amount of dollars. Is that just pulled right into the property tax? It's not separated out in any

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: That's part of the eBoard's revenue forecast.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. So what VHCb gets, that's all included in there as well.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Okay. Put it in there as well. So

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: moving down from the e board and the transfer tax or the direct apps, this year, 108,000,000. Last year, it was about 102,000,000. Most of these are similar, if not exact. The larger largest increase, liquor was 14,000,000 and change. This year, it's 20,000,000.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We had to we had to give them the money and budget adjustment.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: That's correct.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So now they're

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: That's correct. They right. They basically their direct app to the general fund was lower primarily to mitigate a deficit situation there, and so now we're off track.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah. Good.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: So there are general fund sources you see at 2.644. Those are base sources. Everything above there is, base revenue. There are two primary onetime, revenue sources. One is from reversions that you'll see in the budget, in the language document, roughly 9 and a half million dollars. And then the other is for a ultimately, will be, sent to the education fund, but that is, two sources of one time. One is from the budget adjustment from the governor's proposed budget adjustment he set aside. I think it was $74,900,000. So that is we're carrying forward and unreserving in '27 to you'll see later on transfer to the Ed fund. The other source of one time is a $30,000,000 temporary reserve that was set up last year as part of the contingent appropriations. Remember, there was 818,000,000 of contingent appropriations. One of them was a $30,000,000 trust set up for federal respond response to any federal reductions, property tax relief, or other important

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It was the fourth of the four contingent. That's correct. Yeah. That's we had the ABS, and then we had a 50, a 30,

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: and a 30, and this is that second 30. And this 30 had the widest use. That's right.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: It specifically calls out property tax relief as an allowable use, whereas the other 30,000,000 reserve is specified for federal funds.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's right. That's right.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Which leaves a total of a 114,000,000 of onetime revenue. And when that is added to the base revenue, the total revenue that we have at our disposal it's 2.759. Are there questions on kind of the revenue component of this?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Okay. If we turn the page to page 11, we'll get into the uses of the general fund revenue and to Vice Chair Feltus' question about being interested primarily in the comparison between the current budget and fiscal twenty seven. I'm going to walk you through first the uppermost of the three boxes on this worksheet. What we're doing in the top box is to basically compare the FY twenty twenty six base appropriations current services with the FY '27 cost for to deliver essentially the same services on a current services basis before making policy changes. So, I'll walk you through briefly first how we're calculating the FY26 base appropriation starting point. The first number, the 2,319,000,000 is simply the Act '27 as passed base appropriations, which is the sections B100 through B1000, and then we're also adding to that the as passed pay act appropriations, which are from 2024 Act 113, Section G109, that adds 27,700,000.0, and then I'm adding a number here, which I think I felt was necessary to provide an apples to apples comparison between FY '26 and FY '27 current services, but I think it needs a little bit of brief explanation. This 4,035,000 was not actually an appropriation of general fund in FY '26, But what that number represents is excise tax revenue that should have gone to the general fund per per per current law, but the transfer to the general fund of the balance remaining in the cannabis regulation fund at the end of FY '25 was not performed according to statute with a complete sweep of all the revenue. 35,000.000 was essentially left behind at the close of FY '25, and this was written into the Act 27, you know, D section language. So the reason for that, I'll try not to labor on this too much, but for for three years, f y '23, '24, and '25, the issue with the cannabis control board was their operating expenses, which were originally intended to be funded entirely from fees paid by licensees to the cannabis regulation fund, that fee revenue was not adequate to cover the operating costs of the operation. In act one eighty five of 2022, construct was set up whereby the excise tax, which was supposed to go to the general fund, was instead sent to the cannabis regulation fund along with the fee revenue. The general fund didn't see any cannabis excise tax revenue in the current year. The cannabis control board used that great big pile of revenue to fund their operating expenses. And at the end of the year, whatever was remaining left after closeout of the fiscal year was then swept by the commissioner of finance and management into the general fund. So it's been it was a somewhat confusing and awkward structure that was in place for three years. However, that structure was to end according to statute at the close of FY '25. What we saw in developing the budget last year, though, was that then there would be a problem in FY '26, meaning that if all the revenue were swept out of the cannabis regulation fund into the general fund, the cannabis control board would not be able to operate on a con on a current law basis. So we set up that construct where we left the 4,000,000 behind, and that's getting them through funding their operations in FY '26. However, now we've got to do something about FY '27. What the administration proposes to do is give them a general fund appropriation, plain and simple, which they have not received in the past. So that's one of the current services increases, which is 4,500,000.0 in FY '27. In order to show this apples to apples year over year and reflect the current services increase, you know, at what I think is the true, you know, percentage year over year. I'm adding that 4,000,000, even though it wasn't technically a GF appropriation. It was money that should have, by law, have gone to the general fund. And so I just wanted to explain that, and any any questions on that?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Is this sort of the equivalent of one time? Is this a one time thing? Or are we gonna be doing this every year now?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: No. So so this this number being reflected in the base appropriation starting point as a starting point adjustment, that's a one time thing in terms of presenting the budget. What we are proposing is now having a base appropriation in FY '27 of 4,576,000.000, and that will we expect, unless there is a radical change in fee structures related to cannabis, that now they will have an ongoing base appropriation. One of the reasons we wanted to actually call it out as a base GF appropriation is that now it will since it is has been a general fund cost, but somehow below the radar, you know, and just in terms of reducing transfers and such, now it will be an appropriation like every other general fund base appropriation. You'll see it each year. You'll see the percent increase each year. It will hopefully be constrained somewhat just like our other base appropriations are and have a target and so forth. Okay.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I mean, that's a question.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Essentially, this tightens things up and makes sure that we actually appropriate and discuss the money that they're gonna get for operating rather than them just using it.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: I I think it will. And what we're I mean, the appropriate

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: They approve their budgets every year in the committee when they have it. So even if it wasn't general fund line, we approve their budgets every year.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: But what I'll add, what has happened is they've been in a real growth mode. And so they've been growing significantly. It's our hope that now with their and for instance, you know, this 4,000,000 of essentially general fund assistance received in FY twenty six is going up to 4.576. That's a pretty big, big number, but that's the explanation for that is they're really they're having this lab come online that was approved by the legislature. And, you know, it's our hope, though, that now they're kind of built out, and this they're now at the level, you know, we would we expect them to be, and hopefully not continuing to grow in terms of scope of operation. They've added enforcement. They've added the lab, and now we'll see them as a general fund appropriation, you know, year after year. So any other questions on the cannabis? Okay. So there are two other base appropriations adjustments. One called out by act 27, which said, you know, there was a million and a half added to the legislature with language saying, don't consider this part of the base appropriation starting point in the future. So there's a deduct there, and there's an add of 150 based on act 73 base appropriations increase And the millionth as

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: was if the General Assembly had to come back because of what was happening in Washington at the time we left. Had no idea. HR one didn't get settled till after we left, and we just didn't know what was going to happen. So glad we didn't all have to come back for special session.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: So, walking through those adjustments, that's how

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: we

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: calculate $2,350,000 as the starting point, as in terms of being the FY twenty six current services budget amount. And then if you, after this long line of rows of digits, you'll see the next bolded number down at the bottom of the box being $2,489,000,000 and so that is the increase of 139,000,000 that the governor referred to in his speech, which is essentially the cost of delivering the same services essentially in FY27 versus FY26, and that represents a 5.9% increase.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Which $14,000,000 of it is ADS when you head out there through the first?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: We'll step through the lines one by one from the top if you'd like, I madam

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: don't think you need to talk about salaries and wages and all, but ADS is kind of a big deal, as you know. We know about the pension stuff. We just talked about cannabis. So maybe the I think the ADS is sort of the one that's more unusual. Mean, we wouldn't normally see that in here this way, wouldn't it last year?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: That's correct. There are really three structural changes that are happening there within the ADS space. The three numbers to key in on are the $10,834,000 which is the increase in ADS allocation charges that are budgeted within the general fund. The ADS allocation is an amount that's allocated to all agencies and departments statewide. Some pay with federal funds, some pay with special funds, some pay with general funding depending on how the budgets are constructed, and some are a combination of funding sources. The theory behind the allocation is that these are sort of the basic services received by all computer users statewide. And we're going to add up all those basic services costs, things like providing the network infrastructure, things like providing cybersecurity, and the basic data storage, things like that that all users use. You've probably heard starting last year, ADS provide a lot of testimony about how their billing model and really structural budget and billing model was going to be changing quite a bit. The primary change in a one line summary is that a lot of services that were previously built out by the SLA or service level agreement model were going to be combined into the allocation, and the allocation would grow significantly in terms of the amount being allocated according to a formula, all departments and agencies, and the specific bills for certain services would no longer be billed in the next year in arrears. The biggest of those being Microsoft. Over $8,000,000 of Microsoft products like your Office three sixty five used by really all the state computer users. That would no longer be billed via SLA. That's one of the big ones moving into the allocation. There were also a lot of costs that were simply not being recovered. And the CIT fund, the internal service fund used by the agency of digital service, was growing into a deficit position. And in fact, if you look at

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Afghan speaking, Barr. Uses. General fund impact f y February past base appropriations 2025 act 27.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Sure. A voice even more boring than mine. I'll try to be hopefully less robotic than that one. So I was about to say in the FY '25 annual comprehensive financial report, which was just completed just before the first of the year, you'll find that the CIT funded ADS ended FY '25 in a deficit position of about $25,000,000 So that's the evidence right there that there were costs and expenses going out that were not being recovered fully for a variety of reasons. The solution to the recovery problem is now to significantly increase the amount that's being allocated out, and that cost is the $10,834,000 that's being borne by the general fund, and that's also being borne by other funds as well. The second thing that's happening is there's now an increase in the direct appropriation to ADS, which was only about 200,000 something of a minuscule token amount. We're now proposing to have a base appropriations at ADS, a base GF appropriation of the $9,080,000 The reason we advocated to have that as a base GF appropriation and not increase the allocation to an even greater amount is due to several factors. One of them being, there are a number of services that are funded by the Agency of Digital Service that are a little harder to define whether they're actually a service being received by end users, and whether it could justifiably be added to an allocation. Especially if you're dealing with federal funds, you have to be able to justify to the federal government that you're receiving the services you're billing the federal government for. And so some of these expenses that are covered within the Direct GF appropriation of $9,000,000 contain things that are artificial intelligence governance, for instance, data governance. There are a number of, you know, sizable units that are less clearly defined as a service directly received by an end user that could be justified to build into the allocation and direct bill for. And we were also concerned about some special funds, t fund being a good example of also of being able to absorb an even greater magnitude of increase in that allocated charge, which is which is certainly a burden for special funds that may have capped sources of revenue. So, are the first two components are the 10.8 and the nine point zero. They're offset by the $5,800,000,000 reduction in service level agreement charges that are being borne by the general fund, which represents some of the cost shift into the allocation.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So, the decrease is a one time thing. The decrease of 5,800,000.0 is a one time because you're just changing what you're doing. So that's one time. But is the 9,000,000 you're saying is based so we can expect year after year that

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: you're Well, actually

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: or more?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Well, you're correct, Madam Chair, that we'll see this change year over year, you know, one time. But the we would expect the service level agreement charges to remain at that lower level going forward. So

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But you only get that you only get to recoup the the change once then it just stays there.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: That's right. So, you want see

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: current services change is right. Want to see this year. That's right.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But will we see the 9,000,000 in a base budget for next year?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Well, won't see it as a current services increase of $9,000,000. You'll hopefully see a three something like a 3% increase for the governor's, if that's the target that the governor sets.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: 3% from the 9,000,000. So it'll be 9,000,000 plus.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: But it will be in their base

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Saying hypothetically, yes. Last year, it would

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: show up in their base budget.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Instead of seeing again, yes, instead

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: of

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: seeing current services increase year over year of 9,000,000, you should see 3% of 9,000,000 as the current services increase.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right. Right. We will

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Something of that magnitude. Yes.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: We

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: would expect that to apply to both the base GF appropriation of 9,000,000 and the increase in ADS allocation of 10.8. We would expect those to both be something like single digit changes, yes, in next year's budget. But this is the year the big change is happening. And again, what's driving this is the depth, you know, a structural deficit position that was existing in the fund.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: A few of those around.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: 3% estimated inflationary costs for

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Well, that's been, you know, what I'm not making a particular forecast based on my expertise, of which there is none to speak of related to forecasting technology costs, but that's the general fund increase target that we've set for some years now in a row. We we would expect to be setting a similar target, or who knows, perhaps we'll be back to the days of a level funded budget based on the revenue picture, and and perhaps that will be the guidance, and perhaps that's where we'll be in FY '28. But yes, I was just giving the example of

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: What's an inflationary risk increase?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: 3% is the kind of budget increases we've seen based on the budget targets we've set for agencies and departments statewide in recent years. I'm just using that saying that that's a likely target for us to set for '28. So, you'll see some of, I guess I would highlight some of the other large year over year increases are the health benefits employer contribution of $15,000,000 the retirement plans employer contribution increase of $10,700,000 and then if you also consider the state teachers retirement system pension contribution increase of $10,200,000 and the VSTRS OPEB 13,500,000 increase, you know, we're knocking on $25,000,000 related to the retirement systems. This year, there's no increase in the pension plus payment. This is the first time we're now leveled at that $15,000,000 for each system. But even though we're not seeing the pension plus increase, just the basic contributions to the systems are still costing 25,000,000. I mentioned the new GF appropriation to the Cannabis Control Board that's the 4,576,000.000. The increase in global commitment GF match for federal funds is $26,000,000 A large part of that is related to the FMAP percentage change, which doesn't have to change very much at all to result in a big a large change in the amount of state funds. So it's going we we were just chatting with Nolan informally before the meeting, but it's, you know, changing from something like 4.1999 to four point, you know, to point four two. A magnitude of like that can be something like $1,516,000,000 dollars right there, and we're seeing increased utilization is what's really driving the Medicaid experience.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Question.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Just a quick question. FY27 affected by the decrease in the provider tax? No. No. FY28, it's 20 or something.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And then higher ed is going up by 4,000,000?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Yeah, and that just represents the 3% target that we gave. If you calculate 3% of the FY26 appropriations for UVM, VSC and VSAC, you come up with the 4,100,000.0. Only we're not forecasting a large change in pay act GF appropriations at this time, but we'll see where that ends up landing.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And then what's your all other category for 7,700,000?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: That's all other. Just accounted.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: What kind of things would be in there, since we only have a look Absolutely at

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: everything in the state that's not described by one of the lines above. And some are up and some are down. It could be costs of fuel, for instance, or operating supplies tend to be smaller items, but their prices change, and everything else that doesn't fall into one of those buckets, literally. It's just hard

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: to call out everything on one sheet.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: I wouldn't I wouldn't ask

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: you to. I just wanted an example or two of what might be in there. That's all I'd

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: ask you.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Yeah. Think about every kind of operating supply, every tangible thing the state buys. I didn't refer

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: in there.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: And I didn't I we didn't refer to a single thing. We didn't we didn't refer to a single, like, tangible good in any of those lines up above as an example.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Okay. PGS, self forbid. Yeah. Lovely. Yeah. Okay.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So next slide.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Questions on current services before we move on?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Not seen.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Alright. So governor's initiatives, I I think using a similar format, calling out stuff that I think requires explanation. Some of these are self evident. But the first one on the list actually, I think, does require explanation. It's different than past years. That is specifically the fund reappraisal and listing payments. We are switching the fund source for this appropriation in b one thirty nine. If you go to b one thirty nine, you'll see 3.1 $3,410,000 at fund sources general fund. We are continuing to appropriate the same amount, but we're appropriating the pilot special fund. Recall that the pilot special fund is the fund that is populated by local option taxes. When a town institutes a local option tax, the town actually because of your work last year, now keeps 75%, used to be 70%. They keep 75%. The other 25% goes to the state. It goes into this fund, and the majority of this fund is used to make pilot payments to municipalities that host state proper. So that fund the balance in that fund has been building as more and more towns institute a local option tax. And so our suggestion here, is to instead of having a straight general fund appropriation to municipalities, why not take money that municipalities are sending to us and recycle it back to the municipalities? This money specifically for municipalities goes to, or pardon me, specifically these, b one thirty nine appropriation goes to municipalities for essentially four purposes. There's an $8.50 per parcel fee that helps with appraisals. The there's another $1 per parcel fee that helps with the statewide equalization study, which leads to the statewide CLA or town CLA. And then there's two smaller pieces for a $100,000, I think, is for training listers that need training. And then I believe there's a $70,000 piece for towns that host hydroelectric plants to appraise them and also to potentially, be able to staff for appeal. So that's what that 3,410,000 appropriation does. But it it's important to note it's all four municipalities. And so the local option tax, which is paid by municipalities, we are going to recycle back to them through the pilot payment.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And there's sufficient money in the pilot to do this and still pay a 100%?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Yes. There is. And, actually, this has been when you have our colleagues in the Department of Taxes in Yeah. Andrew Stein and his group have done a fairly extensive amount of work on this. So, anyway, that's the nature of that. That's why you see the negative number of 3.41. We're we're not defunding it, but we're simply changing the source on it. There's a a few smaller appropriations to the military, which they will come in and speak to you about. In the in agriculture, there's one new position for audit and procurement where in their business office, they've been pretty hard pressed. There's also a a backfill. They're eliminating the what they call the LFO, MFO fees. LFO is a large farming operation. MFO is a medium farming operation. And those farms pay a fee annually to agriculture, which is supposed to offset the cost of various clean water inspection and the like. And, you know, I mean, this is kinda one of the things where we look carefully at our programs, and we realize that it cost about as much, if not more, to administer this program to get out to visit farms and inspect them as it does for, you know, what what we get back in fee. It's a bit of a hardship on the farms. So we're suggesting or Ag has suggested actually, this is not the first year they suggested this, but they're suggesting we would just eliminate those fees. And, you know, I think it's a good idea. We're gonna backfill it with general fund.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So if you're if you're reducing fees because the costs wash out or it costs as much, does that mean that some positions you won't need anymore?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: No, there's no continuing.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: The function is going continue. We're just going to be paying with it. Instead of paying with the fees, we're going to be paying with the general fund. We're substituting general fund for fees.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: So you're not deleting that? No. You're not defeating the function of the inspections and that's

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: No, no, no, just the fee.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: We're now funding it with general fund rather than with fee. And Ag can explain this in much greater detail, but they'll explain that the fees did not cover already the cost of the program that's being conducted. The fees are only assessed to certain farms that fall into the certain definition of medium or large. Small farms receive the same program, have the same program costs, but don't pay any fee. And there is a, there's concern about, there's some equity concern there, as well as there's certainly, there's something of a philosophical concern about being required to pay a fee to operate a farm.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Like we do for our cars?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: So we have that discussion, madam chair. And to Hardy's point, mean, will be happy to come and explain this.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yes. Another place where the fees aren't covering the cost of running a program.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: We've already had a couple of those.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: The next one down DCF, they will, of course, be very happy to come in and explain all about this initiative, which is kind of has a number of different components to it. But I think what I will explain here is this is represents a kind of a first of a two or three step process whereby we are moving onetime funding into base. And the you'll note further down, there is still a $21,000,000 one time appropriation to DCF to help with the emergency housing program and specifically to help with the hotel motel program. But we are starting to build up our base funding with the idea that we are trying to move beyond to the next step instead of what you heard the governor say in speech warehousing people in hotels and motels. We're trying to actually build permanent shelters for them, and we're trying to gather resources around that to help them move on and provide more stable housing for them long term. You know, this is a very much discussed topic in this building and elsewhere. Yes. But I just wanted to represent to you that, you know, when I started in this business years ago, there was a just under $3,000,000 appropriation and general assistance. That, during the pandemic, more than doubled to about $8,000,000 in base. This is base. And it wasn't a one time, actually. Was just base. So that moved up to $8,000,000 where it still is in base, and then it was supplemented by, you know, upwards, I think, over $40,000,000 at one time for a couple of years. What we're doing here is we're taking that 8,000,000 and we're adding 10,000,000. And next year, you'll see that there'll be additional base additions, and what we hope to do is phase out entirely from the one time. I mean, it's a stretch goal, but I think it can happen. And the folks at DCF will be far more articulate on this topic than I, but, you know, I just wanted to represent that this represents a fairly substantial increase in base funding. In Dale, you'll see the opioid recovery fund that's called pardon me, ma'am. Did you have a a question?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I was gonna have a question when

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: you Yeah. Say what you

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: I'm haven't talked for a while. So the the opioid recovery employment program, that's Hirability Vermont, which is an organization that works with people who have either addiction or other disabilities. So that's for hireability of Vermont. The pretrial supervision, that's an additional two that's not the total cost of it. That's an additional 200,000 to add to past appropriations so we can roll out what originally was a Newport, Vermont pilot program statewide.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So we're gonna go back up to hireability, and that's for Tiff's question.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Hi, Yacovone. So in past years, this has been, I think one or two years, can remember, it's been in the opioid settlement appropriation, as recommended by the Department of Health and the committee. This though would be then in base, and you not come from that fund. I just wanted to make

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: sure. Is gonna be a base appropriation. It will not feature an OSAC.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Okay. It will not yeah. It won't appear in the OSAC. Okay.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Great. I'm going to make a note of that, and I will confirm with you. But Okay. Virtually, sir.

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Thanks.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: From Mountain Care Board, I think you'll recognize they were given some positions in act 68, and this is predominantly due to reference based pricing. These are people working on that initiative among others, but I think that was what inspired that. There's some additional base funding for AOE. This is taking positions that were originally one time, and we're moving it into base, kind of acknowledging that transformation is gonna take some time. And we want people to be able to attract good people. So we're giving the agency of education the ability to confirm that these people will be there at base.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Sorry, I just said that so if memory serves we made a $4,000,000 appropriation to the agency of education right for education transformation.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: That's right.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: So this would be in addition to that. I mean it's

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: I think the $4,000,000 is one time. Yes,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: it was one time. Expected to carry, it wouldn't have always

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: been by now. There must

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: be some carry forward you're using for this or something.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: So you can check, I

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: don't remember how much of that was carried, I guess we could check to make sure.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We were not expecting that they'd be able at all, at least, to spend $4,000,000.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: It was several different pots.

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I'm

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: like, 400 apiece.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Over the course of fiscal twenty six, I'm sure they are investing in various things. So whether or not they spend 4,000,000, I don't know. But also keep in mind that would be supporting employees, you know, limited service positions too. Yeah. I'm happy

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: to follow-up with the amount currently remaining in that appropriation. I did look at it during the past month. I don't remember the amount, but I saw that a significant portion had been spent, Because we've been looking under every couch cushion to find dollars to refer, so I put my eyes on all the appropriations out there. We'll get back to you within a minute.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Okay, that's great. Thanks.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: The VHIP ACCD, my housing improvement program, I think that's a familiar topic that I don't think I need to repeat. But I mean, this will be our second, maybe third request to move that into place. You know, we have a lot of a lot of like for that program.

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I don't share. Yes. Go ahead. Excuse me. Excuse is that an up or down? I know they're out of money right now because they're exhausted, it's been so popular. Is there an addition to this investment over this?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: So 4,000,000 was the one time amount, I believe, but it was a one time. The big change is that this is now being proposed for the base, so this would be an ongoing annual amount.

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Excellent.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Yep, but to answer your question, it's the same amount as last year. It's just a base versus Different location. Good. Thank you. Within the onetime appropriations or uses, the DCF, you see the emergency housing that predominantly is hotel moto, but it also a few other things. It involves housing insecure individuals. And the temporary secured youth treatment facility, that is known that's the Red Clover facility that's currently operating in Middlesex, and but we are hopeful of moving on from that facility.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Is that what we're waiting for with the things that didn't work out in Newbury or Virginia? Or is this

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: No. That that's that's different. That was

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We need we need something for that.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Newbury or Virginia was the old Woodside.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Woodside. And so we need something for that and we need something more permanent for this group. That is correct.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: There is a full list of the so called other one time you'll see on page 12 of this document. And, again, I don't know if it's going through entirely, but you'll notice there's money from the truth and reconciliation commission to finish their work. $900,000 is also another extension of the ideal program, inclusion, diversity, equity Should be not. Yes. Put the a in the l r, but, anyway, that that's a program that, you know, the opposite racial equity is very beholden to. They think it works, and it works municipalities. The two d diva are are the first one is really just costs that are incurred due to HR ones. They're trying to offset. There's a fair amount of federal money behind that too, by the way. And then there's $2,000,000 but quite a bit smaller amount than in past years for provider stabilization.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: There's 14,500,000.0 in the budget.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Yes. So we're So this is in addition to that. China's step it down, but also there's some rural health initiative coming in. And so there's I mean, there's a lot of reasons why we think that we had stepped at that level. There you see, as I mentioned before, the emergency housing proposal and treatment facility. The VOREC grants, that's a program we funded at higher levels over the past years. This is slightly lower level, but still, I think, keeps what is a really beloved program going in many of our communities. And the the two other appropriations that's onetime appropriations that's near the manufactured home improvement and repair program, which I think should be familiar to this body, that actually is being funded by a $830,000,000 or a thousand dollar reversion from the mobile home condemnation program that originally actually was an emergency board transfer. They used about half of that amount, the remainder we are reverting, as you'll see, and then we're reappropriating it to the MIRROR program. And finally, there's a continuation of the office that that we have contracted with Montreal to try to keep Vermont's name out there for Montreal residents. So those are the so called other one time. There's only a couple of more, that I think, to go over. The transfer to the mob police mobile radio replacement fund. That is a fund that actually you'll see in language being set up, and that is to provide kind of steady and secure isolated funding for radio replacement, which is a little bit tricky because DPS, you should come in and speak to them. They'll tell you that you can't it's hard to replace radios on a one year, a little bit, one year, a little bit. They need to all speak to each other and need to all be kinda circa the same year. So it tends to happen in blocks, and that's hard to do if you just put it in their base budget. It could be spent otherwise, during lean years, say, or it could be spent to plug a different hole and where they know it, the money's out. So if you isolate it in a special fund, you allow it to accumulate over two or three years, and then you have a bulk of money that you can use to replace all your radios.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: So that's what we're I'm that's saying.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: There was a significant one time appropriation here. Replaced about half

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: of their

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: radios. So the idea is we may not always be able to count on large one time appropriations whenever we decide we need them. So creating a smaller amount of general fund transferred to a special fund every year to fund to fund that purpose.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I like the $53.07 27. Right? You don't wanna just wait and pay it once at the end.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: And then the last two, I think both were mentioned in the speech. You'll recall that the purchase and use tax that people pay when they buy a vehicle, a third of that is dedicated to the education fund. Currently, the line item is about little under $52,000,000 for fiscal twenty seven. That's the forecast. In the governor's speech, he mentioned that the transportation fund has available revenue that is used in other for other purposes that ultimately hurts the transportation program. Their revenues have kinda flatlined. So we're trying to kinda decouple transportation revenue from uses outside of transportation. You'll remember that we, last year, eliminated the what's called the JTOC transfer, which wasn't really a transfer per se. It's that the state police used as a source of funds $20,250,000 of t fund instead of Last year, we eliminated that. This year, we're starting down the road of slowly but inexorably eliminating the use of the purchase and use revenue for the education fund. So, unfortunately, that's a pretty heavy lift. So we're doing it $10,000,000 this year, and we hope we have a goal. You'll see in the language, we have a goal of eliminating five years. So there's you'll note though to keep the transfer the education fund whole kind of interesting, you know, our three major funds, they were all tied into this, which is kind of a cool thing. But so to keep the education fund whole, we are transferring $10,000,000.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: When you're taking it from the education fund, property taxes go up Right. Unless you backfill what you're taking from the education fund. And that's what we're doing.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: So And you'll see and this is a one year thing.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, but you've got to find your thing.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: You've to

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: see where you're getting the money from after

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: this year. Got a plan.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: But I think it's important. This was instituted years ago when G Fund was flush and the other funds were struggling, and that's no longer the case. So yes, you'll you'll see the plan, but we we do intend to phase this down. So that too, you'll see as the actually the transfer is one transfer of 114 point

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: 115,000,000. Right?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: But it's there's two different components.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Only 105 of that is actually Only property tax relief. Yeah. 10,000,000 is just replacing

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Property tax stabilization. Existing revenue. Marty had a question.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Well, just to clarify, then the purchase and use tax under this plan will contribute 40,000,000 to the Ed Fund this year.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: I think 42. Yeah. 41.9. Yep. 40. Okay. I'm going to toss it back this way, and we're going to finish up on this sheet anyway.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: So the bottom box, the transfers and reserves from the general fund, these are primarily statutory obligation type things. For a few years now, we've been making a transfer to the general obligation bonds debt service fund, as opposed to making a general fund appropriation. And you may recall the history there and the reduction of the reserve requirement that's achieved as a result. Last year, the transfer for debt service was about 81,000,000. And this year, the costs of debt service obligations are about 77,000,000. However, there was a balance remaining in the debt service fund of some $3,800,000 so we're only transferring new general fund in the amount of the 73,800,000.0 that you see here. So that's what's happening in debt service. So nice to see that number coming down, moving in the right direction. The transfer to the capital infrastructure fund, that amount is formulaic based on 4% prior year appropriations, less debt service costs, so that's where that $17,000,000 comes from. This is the so called cash fund, so a capital fund that's not bonded debt that can be used for capital appropriations. The transfer to the Tax Computer System Modernization Fund is formulaic. You'll find that in the language. This has been two or three years now that we've been following this new construct in which there are transfers made from both the General Fund and the Ed Fund to the Tax Computer System Modernization Fund, and this is the general fund component. And then we've got our two reservations for the budget stabilization reserve and the 20 seven-fifty 3 reserve, And those are formulaic amounts and are based on the 2,753 reserve contribution is based on the report we provided to the JFC in November. And the budget stabilization reserve is to maintain the statutory maximum amount of 54% of prior year appropriations is the statutory maximum to have in that reserve, and we're keeping it full. So if you get all the way down to the bottom bottom line, you'll see that the $2,759,000,000 number hopefully matches or at least closely approximates the $2,759,000,000 amount on the sources page proceeding on page 10. And it looks like they do tie out, and there's nothing being left on the bottom line unallocated.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Took it all. There it is.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Wayne? Just for more education,

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: the bonds between the capital bill, because general obligation is all the same. We only have one bond in Bob or is there two different one in place? All bonded dollars are there both in the capital bill? Something Well, all

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: you've got transportation infrastructure bonds, but we're hire those. Yeah. So there I mean,

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: I wanna say yes, but I'm really not the best person to ask. I'm just the guy that pays.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Just the reason why I asked is I just wondered if there was more than one bonding process with other agencies called independent bombing authority or something?

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: No, no. That's there's not

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: The the transportation fund through the infrastructure bond program, which no longer exists, but in fact, it's

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: still the program, just

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: not borrowed.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: They've got the ability to borrow, but they have not been borrowed as of late. The transportation infrastructure bond that was retired a few years ago, but they have the authority to borrow.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: So there's no addition to the rainy day reserve?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: The rainy day reserve, there's no specific transfer, but as you're aware that at the end of the year, this actually, at the end of fiscal twenty five, there was about a million and a half, $2,000,000 of exhibit. That's after all the contingent appropriations were met. Half of that went into the rainy day reserve, the other half went to pensions. So that's the way we typically will add to that.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: I thought we sometimes actually put a an appropriation a transfer, a direct We

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: moved to the stabilization reserve, our main reserve, but not the rainy day. Okay.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: We haven't made an intentional transfer, you know, other than the sort of waterfall process at the end of the year in five years anyway.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Alright.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: So, obviously, we're not through what's happening with the federal government. Are we going to be sitting in a decent place in case something comes down with unanticipated costs that might hurt some of these areas or doesn't will it wash out?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: I think and that question has actually come up today. I think the answer is we don't know. I think we're as well set up as we can be, but we don't know. Will say that despite, I guess, our original fear, we're actually anticipating more federal money this year, not less. That's in large part due to our Medicaid program, which not so much the number of members it's growing, but utilization is growing. And that's formulaic. With more utilization, we get more federal money. But also, we are worried, as anyone else is about federal programs that may not continue or may be cut back. So I it's a long way of saying I don't know, but I think we're in as good spot as

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: There's some pluses perhaps, some negatives perhaps. Maybe I

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: think they are up and down, but if you look, just to answer the question, I went to page 14, and I found a line for federal funds total in FY 2026, the gov rec anyway, which may not align exactly with ads passed, but I think it does, shows 3,201,000,000.000 in federal funds. And for FY '27 gov rec, I see $3,237,000,000 in federal funds, so that's a $36,000,000 increase. It's I mean, that's only a 1.2%, but that's a bigger number in 'twenty seven than in 'twenty six.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But the thing about it is, when you think about we got a downgrade, it was only 8,000,000. There was a lot of chaos and things went up and things went down so even if it's not a very big increase we don't know what's going up and we don't know what's going down right so the net may be pretty level but all that happens in between we get from one end to the other we have no idea what's going be

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: some of the money may not be usable to fund a certain thing exactly

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: exactly and that's the part we don't know so we may end up at a nice little number that shows no difference but we don't it's like the

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: duck paddling It's a show notes go home.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: What's your turtles? So I have a question. Yes, Mark.

[Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: So do we have a listing in here someplace of our reserves, what our reserves are? You do. The current balance of the

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: general fund operating statement actually and T fund and Ed fund operating statements too in this document where you'll be able to see the general fund operating statement is page 21.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: On mine I see page 21.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: At the

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: bottom you'll see the general fund reserves and you can see the reserves and fund and fund on the subsequent pages. So, stabilization reserve will increase to $127,400,000 in FY '27. Caseload reserve maintaining constant at $91.81 to $2,753 increasing to 26.83 and the balance reserve remaining constant at 99,000,000 unless there is unallocated revenue at the fiscal year closeout

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: that

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: would flow to

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the bottom. The last one, the other reserves are going down by a 111,000,000.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: So one of those reserves being the reserve created in the governor's Budget Adjustment Act recommendation.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Correct. It's a 105.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Exactly. There there's two. There's the 30,000,000 reserved by the legislature for various uses, including property tax relief that's that we're recommending be unreserved and used for property tax relief. And then there's the 74,900,000.0, which is proposed for reservation by the Governor's Budget Adjustment Act. And then that Which would

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: comes from the increase from July. From last year. From last year. There was a $77,000,000 increase and you took 75, you're proposing to take 75

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: of it, give it to the Reservable.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Adds up. I would note just as a little kind of chest wisdom, the only reserve that we statutorily have to contribute to is a twenty seven fifty three. The other reserves yes. The other reserves, including the stabilization reserve, they have a maximum cap of we can't contribute more than 5%, but we doesn't say we have to contribute up to 5%. We always have, and I'm sure whoever succeeds me will, and whoever preceded me will. But it's just kind of interesting. It's just like Vermont is one of the few states that doesn't have a balanced budget.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We're the only state. We're that the only does not have a constitutional requirement to balance our budget.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: I mean, it's just kind of fascinating.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Seems a lot of states start with deficits and we don't, we balance our budget.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: So Madam Chair, what is your pleasure? We have a shorter than most years language document that we can go through or we can come back. Just wanted to know what the budget was.

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I think it will need to

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: be done by about 04:15. Are people do you want to go a little bit or are you guys like ready for a break and to have them come back? Is a good breaking point with people? Forage? Think everybody's brains are full to the brim, so we'll get you back for the language and whatever else you want to tell us from the numbers.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Okay, the one thing that we didn't actually mention that was in the speech, I just want to make sure we, was he mentioned the EBM.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, Thank you.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Transfer from the Higher Education Endowment Trust Appropriation.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: He didn't mention where it was coming from. He said just it wasn't general fund. General fund.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: It's not. And I just, that doesn't feature anywhere in this document because it's not general fund, but there is $15,000,000 appropriation to the University of Vermont. It'll actually go technically, it'll go to the agency of administration for the shift to the University of Vermont. And that is because they in 2019, actually, the board of trustees passed a measure to build a facility that could house games and various Sunday recreational pursuits that was twenty first century. They put a bunch of money into it, and then nothing happened. And the previous president had other priorities like housing within Burlington. And so the trustees for UBM are anxious to move on. They've levered they have at their disposal a fairly substantial amount of additional money that will make this happen, but they have been waiting for state to say, yes, we support it. And by the way, here is how we support. So it's been a bit of a waiting game, but this has the support of trustees, it's got the support of the governor, and we think it's a terrific economic benefit

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: opportunity. And you said where it's come from, the higher ed trustees? So it's coming

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: from the Higher Education Endowment Fund, keeping in mind that this fund received a fairly beefy amount of estate tax excess. When the estate tax forecast is set, let's say, at a $100, anything more than a $125 they take in goes to the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. Last year, they took in something, I think, south of 30,000,000, but north of $25,000,000

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: Sounds like 27,000,000

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: windfall. Yeah. The and that money, the higher education endowment trust fund is parceled out. The the earnings from the investments are parceled out to VSAC, Vermont State University, and UVM. And so even with this appropriation to the University of Vermont, VSAC, University of Vermont, and Vermont State University will get more this year than they would have any other year. So it's a good year for everyone. So we kind of thought this would be a good way to use some of that surplus. Anyway, I didn't want to leave the room without explaining it.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, so that was sad. I think a few of us heard that and were wondering where that Right, was coming exactly.

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: As I spent the time, I actually met with the president, this person about that, looked at possibly like about a month, But we're sure we're planning land, perhaps in terms of why, how much, if any, is it where we are. Do think it's good to

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: negotiate with them so we could get at least a library card?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Discuss that with rep Kascenska over there.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: So try to pass me, could be a long time.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We'll we'll get you back into talking about

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: language document too that I think most of which we've covered but there are a few things that we haven't that we'd be having. The

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: good news is the language document is 34 pages. So for comparison, 27 has passed. If you exclude the 96 pages of the B sections, all the numbers, which are not included in this printout, was 193 pages. So it'll

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And we didn't be a lighter hold our bills in like it's been done in the past. We kept other bills separate. Well, threw in the T bill, I guess. Dave? Just a quick question. Will Diva go through the 26,000,000 in global commitment action? Mentioned twenty six million in global commitment?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: There's 26,000,000. You can see

[Hardy Merrill (Department of Finance & Management)]: where yeah. If you wanna see where the ups and downs are within global commitment, that is it's the GN match amount. Thank you. It'll show you in their individual departmental budgets the global commitment increases. Okay,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: so we'll get you back. Thank you so much. We appreciate your time. We're going to start at nine, but our agenda is changing after the 09:00 point a little bit. I'm not sure where we are. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, David. So, more to come on after the first 09:00, but at 09:00 we have Dale coming in to talk about, again, what we heard from Theresa and House Human Services, so the movement of money and all the what they're thinking is so that how it jives legislative intent. How long do they want them for, Robin?

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Well,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: at least forty five minutes if we think that should be enough time.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: Okay, you'll be ready. I got my card.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. All right, so that's

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner, Department of Finance & Management)]: we'll

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: be ready at nine.