Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Good morning. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It's Tuesday, 02/26/2026. It's just after 10:30 in the morning, and we are going to hear a bill. This is H660 related to the Opioid Abatement Special Fund. And we have with us Chair Wood and Representative Steady from the Human Services Committee to talk about this. And as I've just mentioned offline, but we'll mention here, we're going to hear the bill today, and we'll vote on it tomorrow morning. General Fund is not involved, so that makes it easier for us. So welcome to both of you. If you want to introduce yourselves and tell

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: us about the bill, please.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Thank you very much. Theresa Wood, Chair of Past Human Services.

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: Thank you for having me. The rep's steady, and I represent East Milton and West.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Thank

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: you. So age six sixty, just to refresh people's memory about the Opioid Abatement Special Fund. Last year, we took a little bit of a different step than we had done the previous couple of years. And we had a standalone bill so that it was easy to find all of the appropriations and what they were for in one place as opposed to trying to find them in a bunch of different sections in the big bill. So we felt like that went pretty well last year and was easy to track. And so we've done that again this year, and that's what age six sixty represents. One of the things that is a little bit different that the bill that passed last year enabled the committee to make its own recommendations that were separate from the department. And in fact, this year, they had different recommendations. And so our committee had the task of taking testimony and deciding which of these proposals to accept. And what we ended up with was a blend. So we have some from the committee, and we have some from the department. And so that's what is represented in H660. Representative Steady is going to sort of go through the bill. The committee, as I understand, has already had a walk through of the bill. Is that right? Oh, you haven't had a walk through yet? Okay. Sorry. Misunderstood. Okay. He's here too. Okay. Thank you. And there is a fiscal note on the bill. And one of the things that And the JFO was very thorough, and there were some reversions back into the fund because some of the things that were outlined in last year's bill are not going to be used. And so there are reversions back into the fund, which is know you all like to hear that. So we did, too. It was good. So Nolan lays out sort of the history a little bit, a very comprehensive note. One of the things that there may be some difference of opinion about is there were four prevention items in the bill that were recommended to come out of the special fund. And as you know, the health department has a growing prevention fund as a result of the excise tax from the cannabis

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: sales. And That's a separate fund. And this is the opioid fund we're talking about here. And you're talking about the substance misuse prevention fund.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Exactly. Because you will see in the bill, we recommend funding four things out of the substance misuse prevention because they are clearly prevention related. And the fiscal note gives a notation about that special, the substance misuse prevention special fund. And, I do want to note that in the governor's budget, they make plans to utilize that fund. What my committee is recommending is that four of those elements be funded out of that, and that essentially we reduce what the Department of Health is planning to spend the money on. You may reach a different decision, but that was the recommendation of our committee. And we have met with the health department about this. And they agree that these are prevention services. And however, they want to keep the budget the way the budget is, and they don't want to fund these out of the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund. And our committee has taken testimony in the past, and we have some questions about the use of those funds, and particularly as they are continuing to grow with the cannabis excise tax. We want to assure that they're being used in the best way possible to impact Vermonters. And we have some questions and concerns about that. And so, we felt, if you look at Page three of the fiscal note, that those four areas, which are clearly prevention, would more appropriately be spent out of that fund. We'll have Nolan come up

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: and talk about that. I'm

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: not lost, you're American. That's okay. So the ones on page seven, section seven, those are all the substance misuse prevention special funds. Yes. And you wanna keep them there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Yeah. We are recommending that they come from there.

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: They okay. So regardless of where else it might be in the budget, that's where you feel that this money should come from.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: There's nothing in age six sixty that is in the budget because this is traveling Yes.

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: But this is where you want

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: to This is where we yes, that

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: is the special fund that our committee is recommending it'd be used for.

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: To clarify, that comes from the cannabis

[Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Excise tax. Excise tax. Okay. Got it. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: You weren't confused. You followed right along.

[Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I kind of lost the thing. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: So I just wanted to point out those two areas. And I do also want to make sure that the committee understands that the legislature has previously laid out intent to fund specific services that you will see at the beginning of this. You'll see the language, that it talks about that they will continue to be funded through the Opioid Abatement Special Fund, as long as there remains funds in that fund. The one area that you will not see there where we have also made that commitment as a body is the Overdose Prevention Center. There's no recommendation for funding for the Overdose Prevention Center. But I just want to be upfront and let committee members know that there's ongoing discussions happening about the Overdose Prevention Center with the Department of Health, City of Burlington. But we are making no recommendations. Was a couple of years ago by the President. Yes, policy Policy has has already been approved. Policy has been approved.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: It was just in sort of logistical and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: so Yes, yes. I just didn't want it to be a surprise if there's language that comes back from the Senate. So I'm going to now turn it over to my colleague, and she is going to walk through it.

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: Okay, Chair and members of the Appropriations Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present a summary of age six sixty and its funding structure for the fiscal year 2027, the bill allocates targeted investments for two sources. The opioid abatement special fund 18 BSA subsection 4,774 supported by the settlement dollars. The Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund 18 BSA subsection 4,812 focused on youth prevention and early prevention. The bill balances direct treatment, recovery and harm reduction activity with strategic prevention investments statewide. Below is a detailed program by program explanation of each appropriation and the policy rationale behind it. FY '27 appropriations from the abatement special fund outreach and case management positions 455,000. The Department of Health to fund 26 outreach or case management staff positions within the preferred provider network. These teams engage in individual and substance use disorder in police barracks, shelters, social service agencies and committee settings. The intent is that the General Assembly intends this to be an annual expenditure if fund capacity allows, creates a frontline engagement in high risk environments, increases treatment and motivation, early connection to services, supports pre arrest intervention and responses. The recovery residence is $1,600,000 funding for certified recovery residences recognized by the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences. Annual funding continues while the fund remains sufficient. Stable housing is one of the strongest predictors of successful recovery. Provides structured, sober environment, accountability and peer support. Surringe services, dollars 850,000, supports statewide syringe service programs. Intent is the annual funding as long as the fund supports it. Reduces the infectious disease transmission, connects individuals to treatment, wound care and recovery supports, and proven cost saving of public health intervention. Peer recovery coaches in corrections, dollars 1,100,000. Funding to DOC for peer recovery coaches in correctional facilities and probation and parole offices. Administrative expenses are explicitly prohibited. Peer support reduces recidivism and we overdose post release, helps incarcerated individuals plan for reentry and connect care upon discharge. The shelter based harm reduction and support program for 250,000 to the DCF Office of Economic Opportunity for Long Term Shelter program includes harm reduction support, transportation to recovery appointments, clinical nursing program. The jurisdiction is homeless individuals face the highest overdose risk, integrates recovery pathways into emergency and transitional housing, Creates creation of a new recovery residence beds for 1,200,000 broken into two allocations, 900,000 for

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: the

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: new NARR Level three plus beds, 300,000 for new beds in specific communities, Brattleboro, Middlebury, Addison, Randolph, Chester, St. Albans or other identified regions. The justification behind this is it expands statewide access to structured residential recovery, addresses regional gaps in recovery housing capacity. The pre vet program, EMS

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: You bring her paper. Oscar,

[Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: on this item, it's $900,000 and you recommend 300 in eight particular plays. What about the balance of the 600?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: There's $903,100.

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: Two separate approaches. Two separate. That equals to 1,200,000.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Six and The department asked for those two things to be combined so that they have more flexibility. And since we have already passed this bill, they've asked for the removal of the actual locations. But they didn't ask for that until after the bill was out of committee.

[Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So So the first 900 is not defined where it might be, whereas 300 is? Correct.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: But the total of 1.2 is all for recovery residences.

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: Pre rev program, EMS buprenorphine. Say it again. Buprenorphine. Buprenorphine training, 248,000 to support the pre hospital Vermont EMS Buprenorphine treatment prevention program by expanding training. The justification behind this is it enables EMS providers to administer Buprenorphine after

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: naloxone

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: reduces risk of repeat overdose and increases connection to treatment. The transitional housing support, Brooklyn Mental Health Services for 35,000 is for room and board subsidies within the organization's transitional housing program. The justification is it fills a short term housing gap critical to early stabilization, supports individuals after treatment or a crisis event. The Springfield project action resent regional support teams 230,007 thousand $646. It's funding for public safety enhancement enhancement team coordinators in Bennington, Springfield, Brattleboro, Saint John's Baird, Central Vermont. The duties include administrative supports, meeting facilitation, data tracking, event coordination and sustainability planning. The justification behind it is it strengthens community based public safety partnerships, improves coordination between between the police, recovery networks, EMS and social services. The technical adjustments to prior year appropriations is these sections update and amend appropriations previously authorized in 2023 and 2024. The FY23 adjustments of opioid treatment programs has been revised to $1,056,000. It reallocates earlier appropriations to support satellite medication dosing locations, Addison County, Eastern Or Southern Vermont, a DOC operated facility. And the justification behind this is it expands geographic access to medication to opioid use disorder. I going pause you for a second.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Back to the section one, you talked about the 455,000 for 26 positions. Those are not full time positions with benefits and things like

[Michael Mrowicki (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: that for 455,000.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: That comes out to $17,500 So, I'm assuming that these are people that are working part time or on call or something. It's a portion of their Okay, great. Thank you.

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: The justification behind the adjustments to opioid treatment program is it expands geographic access to medication for opioid, transportation barriers on underserved regions. The FY23 Chittenden Clinic satellite for 500,000 supports the establishment of a second Chittenden Clinic Addiction Treatment Center satellite. And the justification is addresses high treatment demand in Northwestern Vermont. The FY23 Wound Care Telehealth pilot has been revised to $91,712.66 The telehealth pilot uses wound care specialists to support individuals who inject drugs. The justification is it will reduce ER utilization and infection rates, prevents serious complications from injecting related wounds. The FY25 one time appropriation repeal of $1,000,000 is the prior allocation for community based stabilization beds is repealed. The justification is it restructures priorities within the opioid abatement fund, moves to evidence based sustainable initiatives instead of one time bed expansion.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So, was that put in by the committee and by somebody else and you all chose to repeal it or was it the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: The health department, the health, that's one of the reversions. That you chose to do? Yeah, okay. No, that the health department brought Health department brought it forward.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Great, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: And it's not that these beds are not being done, they're just being done in a different way. Okay, thank.

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: Is just Oh, am I allowed to go? Okay. Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund for FY '27, Section seven of this bill, these funds focus on youth prevention, early intervention supports and community based protective factors. The Elevate Youth Services Barrie Teen Center for 288,935 is a low barrier drop in teen center. It provides food security, positive adult mentors, peer counselors, prevention and recovery program, on-site connections to treatment. And the justification behind this is addresses early stage substance use risk, supports youth engagement and protective factors in the high need in their community. The Greater Falls Connections for $124,999 enhances youth engagement and expands prevention staffing and programming space. The justification behind this is it responds to the increasing youth needs in the region. It strengthens youth prevention, coalition and capacity. The interaction for Friends for Change in the Windham County for 200,000, it spans access to community based supports, including therapy, housing, crisis and medical support, recovery and employment services. And the justification behind this is it is this integrated wraparound model for vulnerable youth strengthens alternatives to crisis involvement and juvenile justice contact. The Winooski Partnership for Prevention for $26,697 will fund staff time, stipends for partners, delivering medical safety education to elementary school students, including including family engagement. And the justification behind this is early prevention literally reduces the risk of misuse, ensures culturally responsive education in a diverse district.

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Do we know what we have for education for this purpose in schools now? How does this intersect with us?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Part of the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund provides funding to school districts. Generally, it's within the high schools that they are providing a some schools call them a resource officer or a resource person. This is in the Winooski School District. They're talking about actually doing this with younger kids. So that's why the proposal received a recommendation from the Opioid Abatement Settlement Committee.

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: We don't have any comprehensive plan for educating against substance abuse throughout our school system.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I can't really answer that question. The advisory committee felt that this warranted funding. We'd have to have the agency of education here to answer whether there's something comprehensive across. I don't know.

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Did have another I can wait. But back when we talked about those positions, 26 money for those 26 positions, those are already positions within the department. And so they're in the governor's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: They're not in the department. They're in community partners. Those are positions that are in they're not state employees. And that's one of the four areas that we have funded on an ongoing basis.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I'm gonna get Nolan up here, but do we have other questions at the moment for either Chair Wood or Representative Steady?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I think one of the things that I wanted to mention is that we are proposing a pause on appropriations for next year. We've had several years now, after this bill is approved, of appropriations under this special settlement fund. And we did task the committee with looking at outcomes for the things that we have funded for the last couple of years. And they have not had They received over 60 proposals to review, and they narrowed it down to this group. We are tasking them with looking at outcomes next year and focusing on outcomes for the grants that have already been funded through this special fund. So we are saying other than those four areas where we have said there will be annual funding, we are asking them to focus their efforts on reviewing the outcomes and taking a break from making additional Oversight and accountability. Exactly. And the other thing I want to say is that we I just lost it. I just lost what I was going to say. It's from section five. Oh, a sustainability plan. So some of these services are sort of start up and one time, and others of them really are things that are could be considered ongoing in nature. And the witnesses reported that some of the people who had received funding in a prior year were surprised that they weren't going to get it again. And so we felt it important to make it clear that one of the things that that committee should be looking at is, one, informing people that this is not ongoing funding by and large, and two, that they needed to present a sustainability plan if they're asking for seed money essentially to start something up.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Right, Dave, Wayne and Lynn.

[David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: I didn't know if I should wait until the report's done. Is there still more in your report?

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: Not much. No one

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: will talk by the fiscal twenty You go ahead.

[David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Thank you. Did you folks take testimony from the state prevention director?

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: it was not the prevention director. Monica? Oh, you mean in the governor's office? Yes. No, we did not. She is a member of the advisory council.

[David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Okay. And just to be clear, the peer recovery staff throughout the recovery network, they receive funding, but separate from this. Is that correct?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: There is additional funding in the

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: department's budget. The department's budget.

[David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Thank you. And we heard testimony yesterday, I think it was yesterday, excuse me, from the agency of education that there was a total of $17,000,000 in what they referred to as Medicaid prevention and intervention investments throughout our school systems in the state. Do you know if there's been any linkage, coordination, or integration of efforts with those funds in this effort?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: This is part of our committee's concern, is that, no, we don't feel that there is sufficient linkage. And I think I don't know if Nolan will share. I didn't bring it down with me, Nolan, but the sheet that you gave me that showed what the department was spending out of the substance misuse prevention. But it identifies money going to schools. Several million dollars, but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head. And yes, we agree that these things should be linked

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: That's where

[David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: I mentioned the state, the governor's office, the prevention director. Yes. I'll stop, madam chair, but my concern is with cannabis prevention funding sources, with this funding source, with the Medicaid funding source, I'm just wondering if we're capturing all the opportunities. Thank you.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Thanks. Okay, Wayne and then Lynn.

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: I'm following up on that. Dave, I have similar thinking. Your intent or is it what your thinking is to move away from the opioid fund because it's put an amount into a sustainable fund and putting one time things maybe in the opioid and sustaining things on the earth?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: When we had the department in to testify on the bill, we raised that issue. And we, in fact, said so the four things at the top of the list, if you will, we said, if these are priorities for the administration and I believe that they are, with the exception of the Overdose Prevention Center, that is not a priority for the administration that they need to develop a sustainability plan for those. And I will point out that in last year's bill, there was $800,000 going to the Division of Voc Rehab Hirability, they call themselves now, that was specifically for opioid specialty VR counselors. And there was a recommendation not to fund that through the Opioid Settlement Fund. And that is a proposal that is in the governor's budget to continue funding. So it started as a pilot with the Opioid Settlement Fund, and they found success with the pilot. And so they made the decision to include it in the governor's based budget request that you will see from us later today.

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: I'm with Dave, really integrated thoughtful approach to how we deal with education prevention. And remember when, maybe you will remember, when we had the anti smoking campaign, it was everywhere, published everywhere. We don't have that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: We share those concerns, representative. We share those concerns, which is why we made a different choice in what to use some of those prevention funds for than is in the budget as presented by the governor. We said these things are worthy of testing and promoting, and they're community based. And we feel that there's room for improvement in how prevention, funding outcomes, how these things are blended or not right now. And so we agree with the two representatives about that.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Lynn, did you have Lynn, we haven't done the fiscal note yet, so

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: No, I'm not getting it. I just want to ask, you talked about the 26 outreach people are not state employees, they're community partners people. And you said something about, we fund these. Is that like the Describe to me who pays for the community partners.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Part of them are funded here and in the opioid settlement fund. And I have to double check, but I believe part of them are also funded in the health department's budget.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: But they're not state employees. They're not state employees. Not would be through grants.

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Like DAs?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Some of the DAs are preferred providers, and then there's Yeah. Other

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: But a portion of their salary is paid so they can do this specific Yes.

[Michael Mrowicki (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Got it.

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Thank you.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Okay. So I think I'd like to get Nolan to come to the table. You guys are welcome to sit there, move over, whatever you'd like to do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: But Nolan, let's get on. We just talked a little bit.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Katie is here too.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: May have more questions. Rep. S. Teddy has a conclusion she wants to make.

[Rep. Steady (House Human Services Committee member)]: Go ahead. Is it all right? Yeah. Okay. So, H. T. 60 reflects a dual strategy. It's stabilization recovery investments aimed at reducing overdose deaths, expanding treatment services, supporting individuals, exiting corrections and strengthening our community safety. It's targeted youth prevention investments that build upstream protection and reduce long term substance use. The allocations are consistent with evidence based approaches and the settlement fund's statutory purpose: prevention, intervention, treatment, recovery, and harm reduction. And thank you for having us.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Thank you very much.

[Michael Mrowicki (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Thank you.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Yeah, so please stick around if we may have more things to

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: talk about here. Okay.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: It's crazy. Thank you. Sharing his strength.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Morning. Morning. For the record, Noel Langwell, joint fiscal office. I just have a couple, I think, representative Wood and representative Stey did a nice job of laying everything out. I'm not going to repeat each item. I'm just going to highlight four pieces that I just want to highlight. One is you're on the fiscal note. In the fiscal note, I lay out the section of the bill and the appropriation, what department it is. I break it out by existing ongoing projects, and this is as identified by both the opioid abatement Special Committee and the Health Department. And then I have the proposed new funding. And then we have the reversion, so everything's laid out. If you want to understand, if you want to get into deep weeds of how the reversions work, you'll bring gradient. Otherwise, know that

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: We've had some reversion lessons. I hope the committee is Yes, I

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: there's money being reverted. So there's $1,400,000 in reversions, there's 5,900,000.0 in appropriations, so the impact on the opioid settlement fund would be 4,500,000.0.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So not as much as originally.

[David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: You're going

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: show us the balance.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'll be quiet until you're done. Yeah, I'll get to that. Two things I want to other flag. Representative Wood mentioned the sustainability plan. So it does require the OSAC to have a sustainability plan. There's also language in there that would direct the committee to not accept any new proposals for funding from the opioid fund for '28, unless the proposal was previously identified in statute as intended by the annual funding, that was an attempt by the committee to sort of focus, rather than keep spending on new things, focus on what you've already made investments on. In terms of the fund balance, this is the estimated fund balance as of February 11, there was approximately 11,800,000.0. This chart shows the estimated allocations to the fund based on currently known settlements. What I mean by that is there's a settlement around Sackler and Purdue that has not been finalized. The numbers I've heard thrown around are it could be around 20,000,000. It could come in one time. It could come over time. I think people are estimated to be somewhere in the 20,000,000. It'll probably be a lump sum. That said, I would not recommend we spend it until we know how much it is and when it comes in. So I think human services

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: be a nice way when we get it, but otherwise, be on pay.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They're well aware of this.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So this is reality right here.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: This is the reality. This is the allocations, and this does not so the '27 appropriation doesn't take, I'm sorry, is just how much money is coming into the fund. And so when I talked, when I said there was 11,800,000.0 in the fund, that doesn't take into consideration this. So this would come out of the, this 4.5 would come off the 11.8, but it also doesn't include the 4.1 that's going to go in in 2017. So this is the point, 11.8 is a point in time. It doesn't include, like I said, it doesn't include what we're being proposed to appropriate and doesn't include money that has not already been deposited into the fund at the point in time. Finally, these are the prevention stuff, prevention appropriations that were being proposed to come out of the substance misuse prevention special fund. You guys had a conversation on that already. My fiscal note sort of identifies that the governor's proposal has already allocated all the money that was in the fund. There was 228,000, I think, on the bottom line, and we spent that in budget adjustment.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: That went to go to the turning point centers, yep.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah, so as a result, there's estimated there'll not be any money, assuming you go along with the governor's rec. So that's what I've tried to sort of highlight, that there's not sufficient funds based on the governor's recommendation. So to Representative Wood's point, you could rethink or reappropriate, rethink how the governor proposed that money, and it could come out of that fund.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Have we seen what the governor's proposed from this special fund?

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I have a sheet that, yes, I don't have a hard copy. So there was 9,500,000.0 and they're proposing 9,500,000.0, well it's 9,517,000.000 in appropriations. So they're budgeting for 5,000,000 for Vermont prevention leads organizations, 3,000,000 for school based prevention services, which is what representative Wood was indicating, and another 1,500,000.0 for field based prevention staff. That's For what? Based prevention staff.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So I mostly don't know what any of that means. I understand what's going on with the opioid, but I don't put 4,000,000, I'm seeing Tiffany's handing me pieces of paper, Vermont prevention lead organizations, 4,000,000. Who are they? What's it for? I mean, don't know. As I stand-

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I would recommend we call in the health department to explain that. Okay. Don't have that. A job more complicated.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Those are local prevention coalitions that exist in the state under a variety of organizations at the local level all across the state that are charged with essentially providing prevention services or grants to other local organizations. If they've been in existence for quite some time with the health department, they've been able to increase the funding to those organizations as a result of the anticipated excise tax and they are working with those organizations and this is where my committee and the health department have a little bit of a different viewpoint on some these funds are spent. So have they come to you

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: and presented what they would like to do with this substance The health department's. You've been through all the details of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: this in your committee? The health department.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Okay. So despite the fact that they've spent it all, you want use money for the four things that you've identified, which if we did that, we put this fund in deficit? No.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So propose reducing the appropriations for the other things. So for instance, in fiscal year twenty six, Vermont prevention led organizations at 4,000,000, they're proposing to bump it up to 5,000,000.

[Michael Mrowicki (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: For the school based,

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the health department. In '26, school based prevention services, 1,750,000, health department's proposing to bump it up to 3,000,000. And for field based prevention staff, it was 1,000,026. They're proposing to bump it up to 1.5. So the Health Department is proposing to increase the appropriations for those three things. And I think what Representative Wood is trying to indicate that they would rather some of those increases go to So the state that keeps the fund balanced.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Just so that Big increases. Thank you, Madam

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Chair. Nobody's getting

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: big increases in this The

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: other thing I do, because were asking, committee members were asking about whether the previous staff positions were state employees. These are state employees. The ones that are, oh, I'm sorry, pointing is not up there. What Melanie just said at the bottom line, that field based staff are their state employees that are being paid for out of this special fund.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So the more they pay out of the special fund, left out less they have to pay out of general fund.

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Wayne.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: If I can just add something. Please, and One then of the things that I have been trying to get my head around, I haven't gotten there yet, is that these don't show up in the ups and downs as cleanly. These increases are kind of lumped together with some other things in the BDH ups and downs section. Special funds. It's not broken out. Yeah, just shows up in special funds. So I know that we need to get into the weeds if you were to do it, or just decrease it in that line item of B3, whatever it is for, we don't have to get into the weeds of

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: that now, but I feel like there's some transparency that's lacking in this. That's how I'm feeling about this right now. So I've got Wayne, then Martin. My

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: question is more for chair work. Have we seen one spec of evidence that all this expenditure is actually decreasing the problem in the field? Is there any accountability? Are there metrics being required of people to actually determine whether or not we're reducing the problem?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I think that's a good question, those we really want to dig deeper into the whole substance abuse prevention fund and how that plays out in the community, frankly. Overall, we certainly

[Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: are going in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: the right direction in terms of overdose deaths in the state of Vermont. So right now we're on a decline, So it's good. It means that the investments that we're making are starting to pay off. But I don't have, like I've asked the health department and I'm sure that they will get it to me and I just haven't seen it yet. So for like copies of the branch agreements that they have with the prevention coalitions so that we can see what are the metrics that you're looking for, what are the sub brands that are being made and so how we tell exactly what you're asking represents the world?

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: As you see, we've come up with ways to keep people alive, so that's a good business model for the drug trade. My question is, we need to know whether or not things that we're putting in play are effective in terms of trying to deal with the drug problem. And a lot of it's going to be education, I would assume. The kids are trying to not get them involved in the first place. But if we aren't spending our money in the right place, we're not going fix the problem. We could make it worse.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I agree with you.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Okay, we've got Marty and then Mike.

[Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Mine is just a clarification again. We're talking about two different special funds. And is there a difference in the recommendations, I thought, between the Department of Health and the committee on one fund, but also a difference of opinion on the second fund as well?

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So I think on this is, these recommendations were not on the health department's recommendations. They were in the OSAC recommendations

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: for the- So, like,

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The opioid special advisory- The opioid fund. The opioid funds committee, the committee that over, so there was two recommendations. There was one from committee and there was one from the health department. And they didn't be different. And I have a sheet about how Not

[Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: the policy committee.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No, no, no.

[Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I'm talking about this.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The special fund committee. The advisory make the advisory committee that makes it, and then you had the health department recommendations. There were some things that were the same and there were some things that were different. I created a sheet for the committee that showed the overlap and the differences, and the committee made decisions based on those things, and this is what you're seeing. The committee said, Hey, we don't think that these should be in the opioid fund, they should be in the substance use special fund. I think, not to speak for the administration, but I would say that, a, they didn't identify these in their letter for the opioid special fund, nor did they identify them in the budget. So I would say that these are not recommendations at all from the Health Department. These are recommendations that started with the advisory committee, and then Human Services said, yes, we want to do them, and we think we need to provide this

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: other fund.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: In a different fund. But do we have

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: a chart that indicates all those moving things?

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I have a chart that shows the different recommendations.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Maybe we should

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: get that pulled. I think

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: we would like to send that to all of them. We can take a look at that. And then, Tom will let you list. So have you made decisions other than what you're doing in this bill on what should happen with the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. Is there another bill that's going to be dealing with that? Where does that show up?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: We're coming in at 01:00 to talk about our budget letter. Yes, you will see

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: other recommendations. So, there's stuff in there about this, which is another good reason why we're not going to vote on this this morning. We to get it. We have a lot to do. Plus, we have a possible amendment. So anyway, we have a lot going on. Can you Yes. Send us

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And if I can also Go

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: ahead, and then I'll get Mike in.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I was just going add, the Opioid Abatement Special Fund is unique in that it has an advisory committee that makes a recommendation and that the committee has a special separate bill. The other substance misuse stuff, it shows up in the budget. So the thing for you, the decision to say is if you decide that you want to spend these out of the substance use, you either A, leave it in the bill, or B, you could strip it out of the bill and put it in the budget, which case you're committing it as part of your budget construct, which could go along with the committee's other recommendations.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So, I can sort of conceptually see that we wouldn't want the funds showing up in multiple places.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah, you'd have to decide whether it shows up in this bill, in which case you'd still have to capture it in the big bill, or you can commit to doing them.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: But if we've got other substance misuse stuff in the big bill, we could also put it in this bill. It seems weird to have that particular fund showing up in two different bills. Yeah, right, go ahead. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: I understand that level of consternation. My committee felt, they felt like it was important to highlight those four programs and so we started off just including them in our budget now. And then, and I'm realizing now we didn't, I think the attack was really put in both places but I don't think they adhere to my best now. So we included them here so that you would know our specific intent with regard to that fund.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Okay, and remind me the vote in your committee? Ten-one. Okay, so Mike and then Tom. You're set. Okay, Mike.

[Michael Mrowicki (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Thank you. And something for us later on to do perhaps if we could get this budget out is to get somebody in, medical personnel to talk about what outcomes they consider in this regard. And I'm just going to share from a neighborhood psychiatrist in the specialty. He said their first criteria is to keep people alive. And the second is to get them off of illegal drugs and usually away from the crime that usually is committed and require the money for the illegal drugs. And to remind them this is a chronic condition. This is not like a broken arm wearing six weeks, you have to gas off. It's something that has to

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: be dealt with often for a lifetime.

[Michael Mrowicki (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: So I don't know what the outcomes indicators are, but it might be helpful for us to hear from them.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Yeah, okay, I've written that on our April list and hopefully Autumn and James are catching that too.

[Wayne Laroche (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Right,

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: You're gonna send us the sheet. Is

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: there anything else we need

[Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: to talk about with this right now? No, I

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: think that the choice that this committee has to make is, given the fiscal note, whether we feel comfortable advancing the bill in its current form with appropriations made from a fund that may be overcommit.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: That's Special Prevention

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: System. The Substance Misuse Prevention Fund. In terms of making choice, I mean, this committee won't make choices among the things that are funded through that with the additional $3,000,000 I think that we just, that's something that we'll need to discuss. And I mean, it will go from us to the Senate, and

[Michael Mrowicki (Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: the

[Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee)]: Senate could then take testimony and make some of those choices. We just don't have all the information that we would need about the grant obligations that have been made. We've been told that there are some of these are multi year grants, blah, blah, blah. But Sherwood hasn't received that list yet to know kind of what the status of those grants are.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Madam Chair, I just wanna make sure that it's clear that my committee is not recommending overextending the subsidy special fund. We are making a recommendation to make

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: a different choice. Right. And then we'll hear about that this afternoon when you come in with your commitment. I just want to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: be clear that our company is not recommending overspending that fund.

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: We appreciate your fiscal prudence.

[Nolan Langfeld (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And I was trying to make that point. Yes. If I didn't make that point, I was

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: trying to think

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: you did, but

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I think it's what I'm saying, because this is complicated. This is between two different funds. Clearly, the Department of Health has made different choices. Nobody's suggesting that we overextend and we end up with a deficit fund. 've all dealt with that this year. We don't need to do that. So this is really actually part one now that I'm understanding it better. We'll have part two when come in this afternoon. So you're going to get us something that magic chart and I think is that all we need for now? Think that's so definitely not voting on this year because we have more to understand. So maybe we'll be able to do that tomorrow morning. So thank you both for coming in. Really appreciate it. Okay, appreciate it. Nolan, thank you, Katie. Thanks for hanging out. Maybe we'll have more questions for you later.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair, House Human Services Committee)]: Mindy, let me just check our

[Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I think we're done until