Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good afternoon. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It's Tuesday, 02/17/2026. It's just after 01:00, and we're continuing to work our way through the FY27 budget. And this afternoon, we have first with us folks from the Land Access Opportunity Board. So welcome. Nice to have you here again. We saw you on budget adjustment, and now we're back to the FY twenty seven budget. So if you would, again, introduce yourselves for the record, and let's go through your presentation. Thanks.

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Thank you. Thank you so much for having us this afternoon. My name is Ornela Martha Figueroa. I'm one of the co directors of the Land, Access and Opportunity Board. And I'm Jean Hamilton,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the other co director of the board.

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: We begin everywhere with our touchstones. And I'm going read them out loud for us, which is that we listen generously, and we speak our truth from our heart and mind, that we make the way that we work together an example of what is possible, and that we trust that we each hold a piece of the puzzle and that we need each other's pieces to understand the whole picture. Do we have consent to working with those touchstones in mind during our time together? Thank you.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Great, thank you. And just to kind of set the agenda for today, first of all, thank you so much for offering us time to talk about our FY 'twenty seven budget with you. It's really helpful to have this time. And thank you to this committee, particularly for supporting Adjustment Act appropriation. It really has been very helpful to get our million dollars back. So we're really in the process of putting those funds to use. And it is so great that you've all supported that. So thank you. For today's agenda, we did get to meet with you all in December. So we won't go back to the beginning of what is the But we know that LEOB is complicated. So we'll do a little bit of a two zero one, 200 level overview of what is the LEOB, and then a deep dive into one or two of our program areas, depending on what we have time for today. In this deck, which you have, there are details on our other program areas. And as always, if there's anything you have questions on, we're really happy to set up one on one time with you to come back and talk with the committee. We did intentionally try to shorten our presentation to give a lot of time for questions. And so we just recommend that if you have a burning clarifying question while we're presenting, we welcome those. But more substantive questions might make more sense to just pause till the end, till our Q and A time. So we'll start with just a high level overview of our FY 'twenty seven budget. And let

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: me get it all up on

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: the screen for you to see. So our FY 'twenty seven budget is $3,200,000 It is specifically $3,000,000 $217,734 And because the LAOB's work is positioned and intended to really improve all of the investments that the state makes across all of our housing and land systems and broader housing and land investments, we are working towards getting our full budget into the base budget eventually. We have been in existence since 2022 and had kind of evolving and maturing appropriations over that time. But right now, what is in the governor's recommend for our base budget is about half of our FY 'twenty seven budget. We recognize and are learning about the steps it takes to get into base and then to evolve and mature so that that base budget reflects our actual annual operating budget. And that is a strategy that we have appreciated working on with this committee, and we intend to keep working there. So if one of you were to say, what's your dream for this year? Our dream would be that there's 3,200,000 in the base budget for LAOD because that reflects the true cost of us operating. The governor has recommended us in the base budget at the 3% increase that we understand was kind of typical across the board. And that's about a $1,700,000 base allocation. We will need an additional $1,500,000 to achieve our FY 'twenty seven programming. And just to be really specific, what we get with the $1,700,000 is almost complete coverage of our core operating expenses, so our staffing and our general operating. That what is currently in the base budget does not address any of our grant making or any of our program dollars. It does not even address the full breadth of our core operating expenses. So we would love, if possible this year, to see that our base appropriation actually increase beyond the governor's recommendation to 1.784 or seven eighty five, and an additional one time appropriation of 1.54. So I'm a little

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: confused on your notes on the side. Is that what the governor's recommended? So unfortunately,

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: this slide does not have the governor's recommend in it. But if you see on the side what is under FY 27, this is our proposed, what we would love to see is that this 1.784, that in the base funding would represents a 10% increase over last year's base. What the governor has recommended, and I'm just going to look at my cheat sheet here, is 1.68053. So that was 3%. 1.68 is a 3%. What we are suggesting we would like to do this year is 1.784. That's a 10%. Think it would be helpful for us to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: have that spreadsheet that says, here's what the governor recommended. Here's what we would like. Right.

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: If we can do that, that would

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: be really helpful because I'm It's a lot. I get confused and focus on the wrong things here. Yeah. Great.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Okay. And then the high level number is this 3217. That's the number we're trying to get to, and we want to work with you all to find the right strategy of what of this is based, what of this is one time.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: What's the total that the governor put in?

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: The total that the governor put in is not on this slide, but it is 1,680,005 and 30.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. The total is $1,000,006.80?

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: The total that the governor has recommended is 1,680,000 and yes. We can certainly send a memo with laying that out in a spreadsheet.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That would be really helpful. Yeah, thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Just to be clear, and or cutting to a chase, you just said that this is how much it costs to keep the lights on for the whole organization, but it zeros out essentially what programming that you've been planning and that you're working on.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So there's no one time for programming or anything in the governor's budget? No.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: And so that's the 1.78?

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Sorry, this was really confusing.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Sorry, we will present it better.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: The additional funds that we need to achieve our FY '27 budget is 1,500,000.0.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: You're asking for 1,500,000.0. Yes, exactly. Yes. Thank you.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: And just apologies if the way that I'm talking about base and one time is confusing. This is a new learning for me of what is the multi year strategy to move us towards the kind of sustained and sustainable funding that this type of organization really requires. That so what goes into one time versus what goes into base this year is something that I would love to just ask directly for your assistance with how do we think about that strategy and what's reasonable and what do other agencies and organizations work on in that regard.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So if I look I at your just want to go back to your spreadsheet. So you have programming costs of $1.28 And is that broken down below? Is that all add up to 1.28

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That's exactly right. Okay.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay,

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: so this is kind of the 200 level overview of what is the LEOB. Of course, in December, we were here and we did a lot about our statute and who's on our board. We just want to remind you all that we were founded in statutes in 2022 with the purpose of promoting improvements in access to woodlands, farmland, and land and homeownership for Vermonters from historically marginalized or disadvantaged communities who continue to face those barriers. If you have not familiarized yourself with our statute, we always encourage people to read it. It is really a fascinating piece of policy. Just the statute itself is worthy of celebration. What I want to highlight here for you all today is our statute has about nine dds listed in it. Many of them, the majority of them, focus on what we call our advisory powers. So really focused on systems improvement, systems auditing and systems improvement across all of Vermont's housing and land access programs. We'll speak a little bit about what our advisory powers look like. But often people think, oh, the LAOB is intended to make grants or do down payment assistance grants. That is something we can do within our statute. It is one of the purposes and powers within our duties. But the majority of our duties are really intended to focus our attention assistance and work in collaboration with the Department of Taxes, Agency of Agriculture, ACCD, VHCB, Sustainable Jobs Fund, and on and on and on. These are named entities that LAOB is intended to work with to identify how their programming has created and continues to exacerbate barriers to housing and way of access. And to illustrate what some of this work looks like, we have this slide, which is kind of at a glance of where has LEOB been, who have we been working with. We have been named to a number of official legislative working groups, which you'll see here in this first list. We have worked with a number of community collaborators, which you'll see here. Many of our community collaborators are just individual Vermonters who want to build houses or want to promote resilience in their communities. We haven't listed them all here, but this gives you a sense. We have had explicit advisory powers contracts with a number of agencies and institutions and entities, which is this list here. And of course, we have a very robust board of 12 entities, is listed here. So we're not going to spend a lot of time with this list, but there's so much, there's so many stories, there's so much depth that's represented on this slide. And we really welcome you, either today during our discussion time or later at another time, to come and talk with us about what does it look like for the LAOB to work with Vermont Chamber of Commerce, for example.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Yeah, so this slide is important because you're not just one organization. I mean, strikes me, pardon me, this isn't to diminish anything, but it seems to me like the work that you do is like cumin. Cumin by itself isn't a very interesting spice. It doesn't stand by itself, but when added to everything, it wouldn't sit on. That's I mean, I You wouldn't have been cumin,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: but okay. I'm thinking of chili. I

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: can't stand cumin by itself, but in chili, it makes it boosts its flavor and its and its heartiness. I mean, I'm looking at this going, how many how many committees are you testifying in in order to tell your story this particular year? I mean, because this is I'm I'm just I'm just throwing a number out. There's at least seven here in the House alone. How many people are you testifying to?

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: I mean, do you want to answer?

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: I'm trying to think. Four, five committees?

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Yeah, we're actively in both ag committees and in housing and economic development. As you're pointing to, we should be in judiciary. We should be in gov ops. We, of course, are in appropriations as well. So yeah, six, seven

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: And this will grow, as folks know of our work. So as you hear of where we should be, let us know and we will be there. So as our work grows, we are then in more places, and people are learning our contributions and how we are impacting the systems in different ways. So I think they'll give us the opportunity to tell our story there.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: And I think just lifting it up a little bit to the board, the way the board is made up, when you talk about people who have been marginalized, that was

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the whole

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: point, was to give voice as best we can to this list of organizations that list off just individuals in Vermont who didn't feel like they had a voice.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: That's a great prompt to say that in addition to people feeling like they didn't have a voice, I would really recommend that you all look at who's a partner that you have on this list and go ask them, hey, what's your work with the LAOB been like? And what I anticipate you will hear is working with the LAOB has felt very productive. It has brought us into communities that we have not been able to connect with because we have had not trusting relationships with those communities. We've had access to new ideas and new perspectives. And LAOB has brought capacity that we didn't have to fulfill the kinds of projects that we were trying to do. LAOB is bringing new perspective, approaches, and capacity to actually conquering some of these persistent problems, which we'll skip this slide. But these persistent problems that you all know because we live and breathe them every day. With that, I'm going to hand it over to you, Ornella, to do one more Before you hand

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: it over, go ahead, Rishi.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Give us a couple of examples of projects.

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Yeah, this is where we're heading to next. So I'm happy to talk a little bit about our resilience hubs. So the you wanna go Yeah, down the resilience hub toolkit is one example of how the LAOB is fulfilling our statutory purpose. We were invited into conversations with these frontline organizers after the twenty twenty three floods. And we participated through research and development phases, to trying to witness and then communicate what we were seeing and having a lot of conversations, specifically about FEMA's dwindling reliability, which we all know right now. We got reports back last week, right? No FEMA for the Northeast Kingdom. The critical lack of capacity at the municipal level, especially in the face of rising demands. The unsustainability of using public resources to treat the symptoms and consequences of systemic problems. So right, we've been putting a lot of band aids and fixing a lot of crisis instead of looking at what are the root causes. A clear need to build solutions that fix root problems, as I just said, and then build a preventative resilience framework. And that Vermonters across the state are eager to be a part of stronger communities and a part of being part of the solution. From all of the from all of these, like, conversations and from all of this research, we determined that the resilience hubs are a low cost investment that can catalyze significant returns for communities and the state as a whole. So far, with our resilience hubs funding, we've received 37 hub applications that are ready to serve all counties in our state. And applicants span the list of possible from conservation to municipal to grassroots to health care to education institutions, all represented in the Community Resilience Hub applications. Our communities have spoken. This is a meaningful structure to address many gaps. You saw in our proposed FY 'twenty seven budget, right now, we have $350,000 that are secured for our Resilience Hub grants. In the BAA, we're pending $250,000 And then in FY 'twenty seven, we're hoping to invest another $400,000 Our goal is to create a cohort of 16 to 20 hubs that are launching at the same time, so that hubs can support one another in learning and strategies, and that hubs can coordinate across the state, learn from the ground up. And as we were talking about getting impacted community members in the decision making, Here, we see an example of the LAOB listening to the communities, and then from that listening, developing a program that is definitely meaningful and where folks are wanting to access this program and this funding based on what the community actually needs and what they can and cannot do and how the state can most efficiently direct its limited resources to build the most impactful collaboration in communities. So again, responding to community needs after disaster teaches us what the community they taught us what the community needed, and then how to be ready to respond to disaster in the future, and what capacity and municipal infrastructures are needed to support the work that needs to happen? So we chose this investment because it offered infrastructure. We also have this resilience hub toolkit, which tells us what are the practical things needed, what do we need to buy, what are the specific actions we need to take to build a resilient community, and then the community of practice for these hubs that can offer a space and container for municipalities to connect with technical assistance and intersect with all of these support systems right now that we know are so necessary. Because at the municipal level, this lack of technical assistance support, this lack of capacity is impacting our enforcement of rulemaking all across the board, because we need municipal capacity for active 50 and zoning. We need municipal capacity so people can build and apply for grants and apply for federal infrastructure dollars. And

[Unidentified Committee Member]: all

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: of this right now doesn't have a container to exist. We even have, right, a push to move shelter to municipalities and no infrastructure to do this. So this is an example of how the LAOB can pick one investment with our thoughtful, very small dollars and pick a lever that then can unlock potential in a lot of different ways for a lot of sectors in our state. Thank you.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: So we have in your slides, like, there's more detail in all of our programs. We don't have time. We're just going to go down. This is what it looks like. And we'll just leave this slide up for any questions you have. But basically, this is a timeline of what the LEOB has been doing since 2022. I think we told you in December, and we'd love to tell you again, that this is a timeline of success. This is a timeline of a legislative initiative that has methodically built out the core foundations. We have administrative capacity. We have an active, very thoughtful, skilled board. We have gone from two co directors to a staff of five. We have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Vermonters inside the system and outside of the system ready and willing to step up and work together on these thorny structural problems that really need more people power to fix. And we have built trusting relationships with the key players. We're launching programs now. This is the moment to double down with the investment, not to zero out the investment. This has been a lot of R and D and development that's brought us here today.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: You have done a lot of work. I do have a question on the shelter for all. And I'm just wondering if you are working with the Agency of Human Services, if they reached out to work with you about shelter because they talked about a shelter first date and a housing initiative that seems to revolve around shelters. So have you been in conversation with them? We haven't been in conversation directly with the Agency of Human Services, but

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: we are a part of the HHAB, which is the Housing and Homelessness Alliance. And via that network, we are in touch and communicating through and with them. Okay,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: okay. So a little more tangentially, but fewer

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: and And we are hopeful.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Yeah, and we also have a lot of inroads we've been building. So for example, in our work with the Developmental Disabilities Housing Initiative and the support we've provided to the Act 69 working group, that has given us I guess I want to step back and say so much of the structural reform is about identifying these little levers along the way. And so that's an example of just one of the communities we're in where we have been able to identify, ah, Okay, so we're connected with BHCB. And if BHCB comes to the table and then DD Council is at the table, and then what is happening at AHS, and where can we strategically bring the voices in to make those micro changes, like what's happening with group home licensing. And so there's a lot before we get to, are we working with AHS, background around support services, which similarly with the Office for New

[Ornela Martha Figueroa (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Americans and Another example for shelter, for example, is that with our grants, we strategically built a document that then improves services and then builds capacity for the services with our funding. So then to grow and make sure that we are using federal evidence based strategies within our shelter system and make sure that the local capacity is filled with our funding to be able to then improve rehab systems in the state through the shelter.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, I'm glad you're involved. That's good to hear. Okay, great. Tom, did you have anything else at this point?

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: No, just so, well, yes, I'll be in touch with them. They're part of my portfolio, so we'll go through a lot of the things that we didn't see or hear from. The other piece I just want to in the short time that they've been really working, I think what's remarkable is how other parts of the government are taking them as an evolution rather than just be able to say this is what we should be doing. So when I saw the quote from Mark Bosma, you know, in Vermont emergency management, I don't think any of us had an idea that LAOB would be tied into emergency management and be able to work with them, not even work with them, but be able to produce work product that was useful for them, especially with the lack of federal help on some levels. So it's those kinds of connections I

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: think that are going to

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: be hard for people to understand in general and trying to keep those threads alive so that people don't see you as a siloed organization, that how much it's spread out, spidered out into the world is, you know, I can't be happier to see it have happened like this and we'll continue So more of a

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: connector than a silo, which is connections.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: So I'll work with them in terms of whatever advocacy you need to get right

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: into And then we'll get an updated spreadsheet so we can understand better. So thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it. Is there one more thing you have? No, no, I'm just trying to get out of here. Sorry. You can be unhosted or something. Autumn can take you off hosting. Just unplug. That's okay. Yeah. It's how we do things. We just unplug it. Great. Thank you all very much. Okay. Now we're going to switch gears to the past or the present. And we have Emily and Grady. Who else is going to show up to talk to us about budget adjustment? And You might be handing out the Oh yes, switch. Okay. While Emily's getting ready, we've moved the Humanities Council to two forty five from 03:45. So they're going to be up first, and we're going to probably take our break. Emily might need an hour but she might not but we'll take a break by 02:30. While you're here we might just ask you a lot of other questions, I have no idea. So anyway,

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Not yet.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: You're going to share screen? Yeah, I'll pick it up.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I've done this before, I promise. Autumn is doing that hard to like that. So for the record, Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office, here to go through the Senate changes to the Budget Adjustment Act. The Senate passed H790 this morning. Sorry, reading, and that's worth with. There were not very many changes, which you'll notice. There are, however, I would say a few that probably warrant further conversation here or at a committee of conference.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Obviously up to you, but there

[Unidentified Committee Member]: are a few areas. I think we've maybe

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I'll catch up for a minute while you're getting ready. So I'm just going go over all the changes, and then it's my intent that we will do a straw poll. We'll not have it in our committee, that we would do a straw poll to vote for a committee of conference. I'm going to hold that till tomorrow morning because we have three people who aren't here today. So I'd like to just have everybody, maybe they'll watch this or not, then we can have the full committee vote on that. And the intent would be it

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: will be

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: on the notice calendar tomorrow. And assuming the minority leader is willing, we'll ask her to pull it off the notice calendar for the purpose of creating a committee of conference. I will stand up and say, did a straw poll and it was whatever, that we'd like to request a committee of conference. And at that point, the speaker will announce the committee of conference, which means then we can get going and start meeting maybe Thursday and Friday. I don't think it's going to take a long time, but we would like to get it done so

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: we can all focus on FY '27.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: So that's the plan. All right, thanks. Great.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So this spreadsheet should look familiar. Change it. And so you've got the House column. Now there's a column for the Senate and the differences from the House. There's a lot of gray. There are no changes until you get down to find I it myself. The very bottom of the page, row 63 for the Meals on Wheels appropriation. Blue. Sorry.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: What color did I say?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Blue. Yellow said light blue to me.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Light blue, yes. In light blue, row 63, the Meals on Wheels appropriation to Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living, the House had added $30,000 and the Senate added an additional $50,000 making the total two Meals on Wheels up to $80,000 Are you allowed to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: share what their conversation was? Believe so, yeah.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So there's one other change on the back page, so you'll see where the money came from. Because there are only two changes to the dollar amounts. First one is this additional $50,000 to Meals on Wheels. The second is on line 92, a onetime appropriation to the agency of agriculture for Vermonters feeding Vermonters. They reduced that by $40,000 to ship it to Meals on Wheels. The reason why there's a $10,000 difference is that when you all finished the Budget Adjustment Act, there was approximately $1,500 on the bottom line, and the Senate spent an additional 10. There's still about $5,000 left on the bottom line. But that is where the why the net impact is $10,000

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So that's how we got there, but why?

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Yeah, was their conversation. Mean, we heard from Wheels on Meals, whatever we put in the budgets, seemed to be that was what they asked for. And that was what we appropriated or proposed to appropriate. So what was the conversation?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And I think that would

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: be that's a good question, I think, for the senators, but I I think it was just that's where they wanted they wanted to think we

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: will end up feeding

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: seniors. Right.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I mean, I understand that we're all feeding people who don't have LCC access. It's just that the Seeding Vermont program is a program to fund farmers to provide the food and Meals on Wheels is providing food. So there's a difference in what

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the money is doing. We'll definitely, that would be a good question to find out why they did that. Because yes, you're exactly right. They requested $30,000 and that's what we meant differently. Okay.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Those are the two number changes. That's it. The next two lines I highlighted in blue, this is to what's going on there. It's a little bit more complicated, and it will also you can hear about it a second time when Gray walks through the language. But for in b 1,100 part two or you were amending section b 1,100 subpart b subpart two was the area believe it was section seventy eight and seventy nine. Okay. This was where you set aside $5,000,000 for the public housing authorities for section eight vouchers. What the House had passed was redirecting $5,000,000 of the $50,000,000 appropriated to the agency administration to be utilized by the emergency board in the event that federal funds went away. The so the House had $5,000,000 from the secretary of admin, and then a new it wasn't an appropriation. It was, like, redirect the money for that purpose, right? And then the language that Legis Council had recommended in terms of what

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the program should look like. The

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: technical letter from the administration said just appropriate it separately, not do this redesignation of the 50,000,000. So initially, was conversation about re just setting up an entire new appropriation, reducing the $50,000,000 to $45,000,000 and then setting up $5,000,000 Then there were some further conversations about the fact that the federal government passed a budget, and it included funding for Section eight vouchers more so than I think initially was anticipated. Still not, I believe, the amount that they need, but about 95% of it. Housing authorities won't know their final allocations, as I understand it, until early March. But the senate didn't have enough information and wanted more time to understand sort of what the implications of that were, what was the best course of action in terms of setting money aside for this. Rather than make it a flat 5,000,000, they said, like, the e board can redirect money for this purpose from that same appropriation

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: As needed.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: As needed. Yep. And kept the structure of the program the same as the house did in terms of how to allocate the funds, but changed it sort of based on that additional information about actually having a federal appropriation.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Then we can respond with the right amount if anything is needed. Then the emergency board would be doing it.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, so the language was that the emergency board would make the transfers if needed. There is a little bit of a challenge that the emergency board doesn't do that when the legislature is in session. So it would mean that if something needed to happen before the legislature adjourned, the legislature would have to take action, either through making a change in the budget adjustment accordingly, putting something in the budget, running a separate bill. Otherwise, when the legislature is out of session, the emergency board could take action, and that the program structure would exist in the budget adjustment.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And does the e board ever meet during when we're in session? Other than to accept the forecast.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right. The January meeting, and I think if there was a need to be another revenue downgrade in the community board meeting, we believe that their language does not allow the transfer of appropriations when the legislature has decided. So hypothetically,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: because I'm not suggesting I want to do this, if we found out everything and we could make a decision the week we're on town meeting break, does that mean we're not in session and the e board can meet that week? I am not a lawyer. I don't want to do that. I'm not suggesting you should

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: do that. Believe you're still in session on town.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Like, the biennium has it. Like, you have an opinion. Okay. Yeah. All right. That's true. I'm just curious. It's a yeah. I don't want to make that big.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just want At the end of the session, she notes this.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I think one of the things that I certainly learned, and I hate that this committee heard when there was testimony about this, is that these organizations are already setting their budgets. And if they anticipate a 5% decrease in the budget, which is what is right now in the federal budget, that that will result in cutting vouchers now, because they don't have the kinds of reserves. They used a lot of their reserves last year in order to cover them. And I just wonder, how does an e board get called? Who gets to call the meeting? Well, the governor can or

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: two thirds, of So, the right, three people who run the e board, there's five of us, three people can call it, if the governor doesn't call it. Those are the two ways that can be called. But it sounds like in statute, which we have to look at, that might be interesting. We did that last year. I'm just but maybe we should look at that again. The statute says what the e door can do when. So what I'm hearing is that because we're in session, the priority goes to the general assembly, which makes sense to me. And then, yeah, so either we can put it in here or we fast track the bill, or I don't know if we'll know more about the time the committee of conference meets. This is clearly a reason to have the committee of conference to have this conversation. Tom and John. Where is the

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Ethical Committee fit? Can they appropriate money? Are they mean, no.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: At the moment, we've appropriated this for the people.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right. Nobody can appropriate except for the general assembly. The emergency board has the authority to transfer appropriations, but they can't make any new ones. So the Right.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay, John?

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I'm just

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: trying to think back of our conversation about the Section eight vouchers here. We proposed what we did here because of the immediacy, right, of Tiffany speaking to Eric. Otherwise, it would disappear. We would be in that back any place, correct.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So welcome to the Washington Post.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: It seems to be changing, and it

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: is have

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: it, but we just would lose it, perhaps not get that about it all

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, do

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: you want to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: answer that question? Hear Well, the whole

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: we did this because if we did not do this right here, the immediacy of the need would do what we intended to do and with

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: we would not

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: receive perhaps that amount on the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: federal things in the future. That's right.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Is that correct?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Once you have Once you have lost, you cannot get it back. And this is

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: a by application, so it doesn't commit to spending the whole $5,000,000 Correct.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: So

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I understand we're drawing down based on need so that the public housing authorities don't have to shelve vouchers in anticipation of a 5% cut. Or more, depending on the whims of

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: So

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: it's We need to understand this. Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: 5% is, if you transfer the 5% to the conversation about dollars, I mean maybe we've about last year about $93,000,000 in total for the program so 5% is Well 45

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: and so we'll have to hear what the sentence is already in there. If we are worried that there might not be enough money, and so that's why we took the case we did, we said we could take the five out of the 50 that was already set aside. Playing the devil's advocate here, what if we decided to spend that five anyway and in order to shore up these organizations so they

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: can have the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: vouchers while we wait to decide what or to wait to find out what the federal government is doing and so we say okay we're gonna authorize you, go ahead, take five out of the 50 and use it for this particular purpose. Does that then invalidate the purpose of the $50,000,000 as it was supposed to be for the potential loss of federal money and if we don't really lose federal money can we have spent that funding? Well if we are losing because if we were only getting 95% then we are losing.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: Right, but do we know that? That's as much as

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: we know from the federal government.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It may be that we also put language in, again talking off the top of my head, up to 5,000,000 to cover the loss, then the rest would Should they stay be covered. Right, right. I think there's ways to do a language that will protect us and protect

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the housing authority, but we clearly need

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: to know a little bit more than we have right now, and that Senate had access to other information and we'll find out more. And I think that's part of what we've trying to figure out this week. And I'm confused. No

[Unidentified Committee Member]: money, for this group of people. We put $5,000,000 and $50,000,000 because it wasn't going to be there.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Now, I just thought I heard someone say, all of you say, that whatever passed the Senate or whatever passed in Washington put back most of that money, there's smaller amounts that stop there.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So we knew they were going to get some money. We knew they were going to get some money. We didn't know how much they were going to get. We always knew they were going to get some money. It wasn't going to be no money.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: This is like in their continuing resolution or whatever they did right there based on last year. So are we still missing $5,000,000 or are we not missing $5,000,000 or is this still up in the air and we don't know?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: See. It's up in the air, but we think that they are losing money. Oh, wait, James?

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So Section eight housing vouchers are not funded at the moment for continuing resolution to receive a full federal fiscal year appropriations is about 95 percent of what they need. So they're taking their earnings allowance.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So it's actually not a cut from last year?

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's an increase from last year

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: of about Okay. 1% for

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But the Halloween authorities are estimating still only 95% of what they need to maintain for our union.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Do you have the vouchers that they have? Yes. Are those current vouchers? Yes. So

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: there is per the Vermont City Halloween Authority a 5% delta between what was passed nationally and what would be needed nationally to maintain the current amount of vouchers currently in

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: certain countries. So without this $5,000,000 or whatever the number is, people on existing vouchers would lose their vouchers?

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Public housing authorities would plan to retire vouchers as they can throughout the year through attrition, for example, anticipating that they received about 5% less than what they need to make ends meet by the end of the year. Anticipating that 5% shortfall, housing authorities would be retiring vouchers through attrition as they're able throughout the year in order to meet what they expect.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And nobody knew could come on with the vouchers. Currently, people exit the vouchers, it's because they don't need it anymore and they've qualified for more permanent housing that doesn't require Section eight. That's one of the ways that people don't use the vouchers. And then those are recycled to a new person on the waiting list who then gets off of homelessness or whatever and gets a voucher. But what you're saying is if we end up with attrition, people that get new housing get new housing, but nobody new can come on and you reduce the number of vouchers the following year for people who need it. And we already know that our homeless population is a lot higher than it used to be.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So what fewer was when we started, we began with, that they were going to be retiring some and they were going to lose some by nutrition, and they just wouldn't renew them.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: They got rid of the waiting list. They took vouchers back for people who were waiting. 130 vouchers are gone.

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: There are projects, development projects, that have a certain number of vouchers assigned to them. Without them, then those projects have to find other funding to make them viable. So it jeopardizes not just people, but the projects that are online.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right. I've talked to, there's one in Middlebury where they have a whole section of housing that's dependent on this fence there. John.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Well, with this conversation we just had here, I'm wondering if this is really, could it be, you know, just with some language here, maybe on a session when, in just a handful of months, I'm just thinking about the course of the year as things change.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, well, this is why I think in the, yeah, the committee of conference will probably talk about what language could be and what, try to get a handle on how it would work. I don't know if it'll be language or money, but it won't be new money, it's money that we've already set aside, so it's not affecting general fund, whatever we do.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Right, which being a member of the e board can be acted upon once we're finished with the session.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: After the session. After the session. Okay, so what this language says here is that the Senate is looking to use money from a contingent appropriation.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So I think when we get to the language, Grady will tell us the details and I'm going to turn to James for a second.

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I think an example of the switch, I think when you would hear from the housing authorities is that there's two kinds of voucher retirements that this proposal was contemplated to address. But first our routine voucher retirements through attrition the housing parties do throughout the year proactively based on their best guess of what their allocation

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: of plot is going

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to be. So that come year end, their expenses are in line with their spending planning. However, there are only so many opportunities to return vouchers through attrition because the hourly employees don't control when somebody graduates out of the program for one reason or another. That leads to a situation like what we encountered at the end of calendar year '25, where several housing authorities found themselves in shortfall at the end of the year needing to retire, cancel in use vouchers rather suddenly in order to bring costs in line with their second party at the end of the year. That's a much more disruptive conversation for program participants than retiring as vouchers are returned. That was conversation of taking away vouchers or actively using them in order to bring spending authority in line with operations at the very end

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: of the year. So I think what

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the housing authorities would tell you is knowing how much money is available sooner rather than later will allow them to more accurately plan how many vouchers they may have to retire through attrition during the year and help them to avoid a situation where there's a glut of vouchers that have to be canceled.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So you don't have your housing paid for.

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: At the end of the year. They would describe a trade off to you all. They don't know how much money is available now, they may be in a position having to retire versus to cancel. But it's nice that

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: you said, oh, can't do what? It's changed

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: with the whim of the federal government every So I think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: what he described is what I understood it to be, that they were canceling existing ones because they didn't have the money.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's right. Now there's been

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a new bill and now there is some money, but we're not exactly sure how much.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And they'll still probably have to cancel some.

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And I think that's the trade off I have many in conference to weigh is to what extent do you all want to weigh in during the year and this kind of more routine retirement vouchers to attrition or to what extent do you reserve general incentives for that year end conversation where you might be looking at a larger amount of vouchers actually canceled. I think those are the trade offs I think I'll be talking about. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it seems to me it's on two questions. One question is, do you want us to have $5,000,000 set aside for that purpose and do you want to change the language so it's only up to that instead of them taking it all?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: There might be more questions than that, but those are two questions for sure.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You want to give them more money.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Well, and I think that's why they took the dollar amount out. I don't know for sure, but when we're in the community congress, we need to ask the Senate those questions so that we better understand what they knew that we don't know as much and what their thinking was why they got to this language. And so we'll hear that from Brady when we get there. And that's Section eight at the moment. So let's go on

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to the next one, Emily. So the next one is a new section. There's no actual appropriations in it, but I wanted to put it on the number sheet because it does affect the numbers. So this is related to the Disability Services Payment Reform. There was language in the House versions of the budget adjustment that said It was sort of placeholder language, which I think everybody understood, to have the DAs and the state work together to come up with a solution that was workable to deal with some of the cash flow challenges and the challenges associated with implementing the new payment models and the transition period between the old system and the new payment reform. They did those parties, the DAs and the administration, came to an agreement on some new language that is now in the Budget Adjustment Act. It does, however, come with a price tag. I believe prior to this language, payment was 45%, I believe, of the anticipated costs. That threshold was moved up 60% or 65%. That means that AHS will have to put out more funds to the DAs to cover that need. It's anticipated to cost about $9,500,000 gross global commitment. The state impact of that is $3,900,000 of general funds. What was agreed upon was that rather than try to find money in the budget adjustment for that purpose, AHS and the administration agreed to take it from the human services caseload reserve if needed. So AHS, if they have savings or if they can figure out within their budget how to cover it, they will. But if they get to year end and they don't have any capacity, then finance and management can transfer money out of the caseload reserve for that purpose. CASELLE There's

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: no new general fund from our standpoint that we can fund.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Correct. Caseholder reserve is at about $91,000,000 or was it the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: 2025, so it's not it's in good shape.

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: That's the last was this also

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: a prospective payment and there'll be a reconciliation at the end? So the agencies, the DAs, whoever, will have to give money back if they were under the 65%. I think that's my understanding of that. And I

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: think, right, on a go forward basis, they'll get a prospective payment and there'll be reconciliations happening at the same time, so they can manage the cash flow. But right now, where they're only receiving the prospective payment without having the reconciliation process happening simultaneously, you can't afford to manage. And they

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: will Having a prospective payment, that was part of the problem. They were going to get paid for seventeen months, which most of us could not raise that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: not lots, but some significant issues to talk about. So, is this where I call radio? Yes.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay. Gonna go over to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the side, but I'll be here. Okay. Are you handing to South Brady? Yes. Oh, good. Thank you.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sorry, Grady next to David. Yep.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I assume it needs to be posted on our website. You. Read her vent sheets. Yeah. Yeah. It was a much bolder green, and it was very difficult to read. Right. Okay. Take us where do

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: you want us to go.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Thank you. Grady Nixon, Joint Fiscal Office. So as Emily mentioned, the senate did not make too many changes. So this document, you'll see on the left side, it shows house changes from the gov rec language. And then on the right side, senate changes from the house language. So we'll start with section 51, which is amendments to the one time appropriations. The house changed the gov rec language by appropriating 3,000,000 to AOA for ADEC. The house also appropriated 800,000 gen global commitment to DIVA for non emergency medical transportation. You you also see the appropriation in section 51 of the house bill for the general fund federal fund match, which is appropriated to AHS. House appropriated 167,000 general fund to the Department of Health for bridges to health. 228,000 substance misuse prevention special fund, and 192,000 general fund to recovery centers impacted by equal payment distribution, and increased the appropriation to agriculture, food, and markets for the Vermont Food Banks, Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program for a total appropriation of $900,000. The senate made a few changes, in this section. They modified language for non emergency medical transportation funding.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So pause for a second. So let's just go back to we made a change with the $3,000,000 they agreed. Yes. Okay. So let's sort of go make sure we're free for all of them, even if they didn't change it. Yep.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So you'll see on page two of this document, this language change appears twice again because the appropriations made both to the agency of human services for the general fund and federal fund match for non emergency medical transport, and then also to diva. So here you'll see the Senate changed it from saying supplemental to a one time payment increase.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Does that mean we're going to have the same problem again?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It does not impact the nature of this appropriation. It was a one time appropriation in the House bill as well. The language further clarifies that this is a one time payment increase, but in terms of the actual appropriation, it was a one one time appropriation.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That was our intent. May not be a question for you, but I do want to raise the question. If they've come to us with this, and if this is one time, I'm guessing we're going to hear from them again until we structurally fix the problem.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right, so it was not in Act 27, but it was in Act 113, which was the FY 2025 bill. So

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. But it wasn't in budget. It wasn't in the '26 budget?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, but this would add it to it. Then you'll see on the left side of this page, the 167,002 bridges to health. The senate accepted that. The senate also accepted the house edition of 228,000 substance misuse prevention special fund and 192,000 general fund, for recovery centers. And then, you'll see on the right side of the page continuing on to page three, this is a senate amendment, to subsection o Subdivision 6. In act 27, there was a $250,000 general fund appropriation for a grant to establish a new women's recovery residence, per the criteria of the Vermont Recovery Housing Program action plan. That was an appropriation that initially was in the capital bill and then moved over into, act 27, the budget. This language, the senate adds, clarifies that up to 50,000 may be used for activities otherwise designated non eligible for the criteria of that action plan. The action plan, prevents the use of grant funds under that program for operating expenses and personal service personal services costs. So this would allow 20% of that appropriation to be used for operating expenses and personal services.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Gets the 20%?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So this is a grant from the Department of Economic Development per criteria of this housing program action plan, which is mostly HUD funds. So this is not obviously HUD funds.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: DED wants 20% for administrative costs?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No. It would go to the grant recipient. It would just allow them they would not be limited to use those funds only for essentially the purchase of a Is physical

[Rep. Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: this money coming from some I mean, this new money added?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This is not new money. It's just adding language relating to an appropriation that was KDAC 27.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: All right. Thanks. Okay. Thank you.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: On page three, you'll see that the Senate modified the language for the Land Access and Opportunity Board. And I apologize that the original house construct should have been included here. The house language said that this was for the land access and opportunity boards, homes for all homes for all phase two initiatives. This language change has it just as Homes for All initiative and for community resilience grants.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We know what phase two was?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No more than that it was the second phase.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I wonder if it's covered in the Homes for All Initiative.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I would have to get back to you with an answer on whether or not Homes for All Initiative includes Homes for All Phase two. But I believe that this request came from the board.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: If you could just clarify that, that would Thank you.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Then you'll see that the House added, again, is the 800,000 global commitment element of that supplemental non emergency medical transportation funding. And the Senate again, modified that language taking out supplemental and switching in a one time payment increase. And then on page four, the final change is the senate reduced the additional appropriation to Vermonters feeding Vermonters by 40,000. So it's reflected as $860,000 in the bill.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We didn't have language increasing the 30 to 60,000 or 30 to 80,000 for Meals on Meals, the Vermont Senate Bridge of Not Living.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No. So you'll see later on the Senate added a section touching on that, but I think a house version of the bill, there's some language related Okay. To

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Section 58, the house added language in the child care contribution reserve, section, just clarifying that a transfer would be made after, the funds reserved were unreserved. In the administration technical letter, they clarified that that language was unnecessary. So the senate took it out.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We agree it's unnecessary?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: JFO reviewed the technical letter and consulted finance amendment. Yes.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: They're okay if they're okay.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Section 78, the house amended, this appropriation, the 50,000,000 to AOA, to address federal funding reductions. That's that e board money that, Emily was speaking about a moment ago. The house, amended the language to include a reference to utilizing the appropriation for other purposes related to federal funding changes. It also added carryforward language. The senate, agreed to both of those changes, but also added in language relating to allowing the appropriation to be used for extraordinary public safety costs.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Without a specific amount? Correct. People coming to To incur extraordinary public safety costs. So it's expanding the use of the $50,000,000 Correct. It's not guaranteeing it.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It would make it an allowable use if the eBoard would be able to transfer funds for that purpose.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. And so this sort of gets us back to same with HUD, right? That if it's the e board, it would be out of session. Correct. And if there was an urgent need to do something while the General Assembly is in session, we could put through a bill or something like that. Guess that's kind of our

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Correct. And the language that both bodies added, stating that the General Assembly may designate these funds for other purposes related to federal funding changes, that is the language that gives the general assembly the authority to touch that money during the session.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So if we have that sentence, why do we need the one above it or in the vent? Or I guess it's not federal funding changes. Is that why it's not really federal funding changes? It just increased federal action. Right, not federal funding changes. Okay.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And that that sentence solely applies to the e board authority, whereas that general assembly language is just more broad. It's a

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: question about when you see a phrase when I see a phrase like this, my question goes to, well, is federal action defined? And does it

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: matter? This

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: language was drafted by legislative councils who we could have them come in if you'd like them to speak to that. I'm not

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: sure if there's a strict definition. I know what they're talking about. Yeah. But any increased federal action, does that mean they want to pave more roads for it?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: If they want to pave more roads for us, that would be lovely. If we incurred extraordinary public safety costs. So, I guess if we had a

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: lot of

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, well, then we might want to do it. They're willing to give us a million bucks.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm being a

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: little bit picky about it because it's a phrase that's very, very, very, very broad. Yes. And if we could either get a definition or narrow it without being whatever, you know, okay, we

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I know what think we're talking that's why we're being careful about, because it could be, there could be other things that might make sense to. And it would be the board would have to do this. So the e board could decide if they wanted to meet due diligence.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Section 79. So, this is the, HUD voucher language. The house designated 5,000,000 of that appropriation, for assisting housing authorities while maintaining or with maintaining housing assistance payments and preventing voucher termination. The Senate, as Emily mentioned, modified the language to allow the emergency board to utilize that appropriation for the same purpose. And you'll see a couple changes related to that. So in subsection A, the senate added language clarifies in fiscal year 2026 and 2027, while the general assembly is not in session, the emergency board shall have the authority to transfer part of the appropriation in 2025 accident results number 27, section b 11 o one b two. So that $50,000,000 appropriation. And then, because no state entity is being designated in the house language, it was, the agency of administration. Here, the senate made a few corresponding changes reflecting that until the emergency board were to determine that they would like to utilize that appropriation for that purpose. In sub b, sub c and sub d, you'll see the language now says, if funds are transferred for this purpose. And then in sub d two, the senate added language, clarifying that if the emergency board were to make funds available to each housing authority, they must do so proportionally based on the number of housing assistance payments in use statewide as of 01/01/2026. And then in sub a, a housing authority shall notify the designated state entity of its intent to utilize funds on or before 10/01/2026. And then in sub b, in the event a housing authority chooses not to utilize the funds, the proportional funds be set aside for that housing authority shall be made available to the remaining housing authorities in accordance with the procedures that the designated state entity establishes.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So they don't designate a state entity here?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So no. Yes. It would be for the emergency board to test.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: The board will designate the state entity. Right. That's one big change. They'll be knocking on our door and I'm wondering about the October 1 date.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right. The language in sub A and sub B was added, quite late in the Senate Appropriations Committee process. And the joint fiscal office and Legg Council flagged potential issues with that language that would need to be addressed in the conference.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I think that's too early, given what happened last year. I I can see they might have picked that date because it's the start of a new fiscal year for the state government. But if we have another government shutdown, yada yada, that's not going be enough time. So, okay, I'm going to make a note. Anybody else have other questions for Paul?

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yet. Section 83, this language was added by the House, and this is the quote unquote placeholder language that would direct data to consult with the General Assembly, the DAs, and the SSAs to identify solutions that address short term financial challenges of payment reform. The senate wholesale replaced this section with language directing Dale to adjust the payment model for DAs and SSAs based on a minimum assumed utilization rate of 65%. This is what Emily was discussing a moment ago. And then in the final subsection of this section on page seven, in sub e, that's where you'll see the language relating to the unreserving of the human services caseload reserve if necessary.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I have a question.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Yeah, go ahead. Just wanna kinda go back up to this date piece on page six of you.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: On page six? Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Mean, you think the October 1 is too early, will it be too late to utilize funds within that calendar and you have to go back to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right, so it might be December 1. How late did the shutdown go this last

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member)]: year? November 11.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's right. Was like five weeks or something. Okay.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: I'm thinking the same thing here, or if something happens again, it gets-

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right. So if we did December 1, that would be two months after the beginning of the fiscal year. But we'll work that out, I guess.

[James (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Yeah. Stay from

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I would note that this particular language was initially drafted as a proposed amendment to the house construct before the other senate appropriations changes were made. Yeah. So it doesn't quite mesh with this section as written just generally.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And so the joint fiscal office and lunch council worked on this and have some proposed technical recommendations.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I'd love to get your opinion on that. I've Thanks.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, it's too early. The legislation is not consenting to join the jury.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right. It will be

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: a new biennium. But this would be until new people are sworn in, it would be the current e board that we have now. And so that's why we want to do it in December. Because once we get into January, then we're back to the general assembly dealing with it. All right, so we're back to the payment reform and I did get some, I'm not the only one who got this, but Nolan sent me something about the dates and timing around when people should meet. When the report comes back, when the meeting with legislators and advocates happens, when would be the best time or good time to have the meeting with legislators? Because I think at one point it was written here in June and I don't know that everybody wants to come back in June to have a meeting about this, if we can do something. So, just letting you all know that the dates that are in here, we have an April 15 date on a progress report, which may be fine. Do we want to have the meeting before that and have a later progress report? And then what happens on this convening a meeting. So how we set the how this all plays out in order, what the best order is for the meeting and the report is what we're going to work on. And thankfully, they also have designees, The meeting at the moment is with chairs

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: House and Senate Appropriations, Human Services, and Health and Welfare, or their designees. So I will be designating. Probably to representative Yacovone as this is his specialty. Yeah. But we also have a June 30 meeting. Right, that C section, yeah, with June 30 and then April 15. So I think the Senate just kind of put dates in, but

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: we need to think that

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: through a little bit how it's actually going to play out. So I'm guessing those dates are going to change. But they did what we wanted, which was to put payment reform, figure it out quite a bit more than we were able to in the two days that we had to figure out payment reform. That was great. Thank you, Seth. These

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: last three changes, so sections 86, 87, 88. The first two were added per the administration's technical letter to clarify the purpose of funding, that was in the house version of the bill. So section 86 is where you'll see language, speaking to Meals on Wheels funding. So you'll see 80,000 there.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: In the description.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Exactly. So 80,000, still appropriated in section b three thirty, just language being added here to clarify the news for providing home delivered meals. Section 87, similar construct. This is clarifying that of the global commitment appropriation and section b three thirty four point one, 35,226 shall be used to increase payments to the area agencies on aging. 267,888 shall be used to increase payments to tier one enhanced residential care facilities, and the remainder shall be used for nursing home emergency financial relief.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Numbers didn't change, we added language to clarify. Correct. Okay.

[Grady Nixon (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And then the last is, this was not, that description is erroneous. This was not in the administration's technical letter, but, the senate added similar language just because, the administration flagged it in the other two instances. So this is clarifying that of the global commitment appropriation in section B three thirty three, 9,500,000.0 shall be for a one time transition funding for the first year of developmental disability services, home and community based services payment reform implementation. So that is, language relating to global commitment for that DAA SSA payment reform language. And then for the earlier language that the committee saw, the global commitment federal fund, there's no new addition of funds for that. It would be from existing appropriations in the HS budget or, the Human Services Caseload Reserve. Those funds are insufficient.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So I keep calling in my head payment reform and thinking about Dale, but this is the actual full title of it with the developmental disability services, Home and Community Based Services? Correct. One of those long things. Just want to be sure we aren't leaving somebody out that's supposed to be part of the pay and perform after all that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Any questions from anybody in the committee at this point? No?

[Jean Hamilton (Co‑Director, Land Access and Opportunity Board)]: All makes sense? You can see we have a few things

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: to converse with the Senate about. But overall, I think we did a pretty darn good job with our bill. Think that we did the best. I think so. So I'm going ask us to vote on this tomorrow morning when Dave should be in and Trevor should be in, and we'll figure out when we make

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a calendar, but this shouldn't,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: this is a straw poll, we should do it pretty quickly, as long as I get it done before the floor tomorrow. So we'll find a time tomorrow to do that. Great, thank you, Grady, thank you, Emily, thank you, James. Why don't we take a

[Unidentified Committee Member]: break at 02:45?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So the one at the end, like, humanities is coming first. So we're going end a little bit earlier today.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Recently what? ESO is coming first? But the humanities has moved back. I

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: don't want one at 03:45.

[Emily Burns (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We have