Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good morning. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It's Friday, March 20 good heavens, not Tuesday 2026 at 09:00 in the morning. And we're taking up some more bills, rearranging the order based on everybody's schedules. We're going to address the miscellaneous tax bill, which is H-nine 33. This is the bill we heard last week. The fiscal note is the best way to take look at it. All the things in the little blue boxes are the way to figure it out just to refresh people's memories. Patrick and Chris, introduce yourselves and just remind us of the key points of this bill.

[Patrick (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So Patrick, your joint fiscal office, are several corporate tax changes in the bill, which we walked through with you all the other day yesterday, I guess, maybe. And really what they are is a response to updated analysis that showed that, you know, sort of normal conformity linking up with federal tax code would have resulted in roughly a $20,000,000 shortfall in fiscal year twenty six, raising to about $35,000,000 in fiscal year twenty seven, which is very pertinent to this committee, obviously. And really the update was, it was based on additional information and analysis that the tax department and GAFO was able to do because the forecast based on current law and at the time that the forecast was being put together was referencing the information available at the time, which showed a much more immediate impact. So really HR1 impacts assuming conformity of federal law, were not really taken into account. So that's where you see several decisions that the Ways and Means Committee made to either link up to certain provisions in HR1 and also to decouple from other provisions.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I think that the chart most relevant to us is that one on page nine. And maybe that's the one you've got.

[Patrick (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So you can see if we come down as Chris is scrolling, that the ultimate change from ways and means was about, if you look at fiscal year twenty six and twenty seven together, a $10,000,000 revenue increase compared to the consensus forecast. And then the pieces about meals and rooms and purchase and use, which Chris can expand on a little bit, how it sort of nets out.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That was when we changed the percentages. That's right. So that was how good it was to have a structural change and not just the band aid change, but that results in for this year, a loss of another 800,000. So, take the fourteen point two five minuteus the three point nine six minuteus the 800,000. We ended up with 9,000,000, $490,000 which is what we used in our budget. So that's, And this also accounted for the ten year tax study and the downtown tax credits and the first time homebuyer assistance. So all of those things are in there, we still get that money. So those were all the things we agreed on. We don't agree on this bill. We don't have that money and back to the drawing board on the budget.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And I would just remind Madam Chair, the committee that when my colleague Emily and James walked me through the big spreadsheets yesterday, as you mentioned, net impact of all the moving pieces in this bill were reflected at the very top in that 9 ish million dollar number This or bill is all accounted for in the budget.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Exactly. So does anybody have any questions on the miscellaneous tax bill at this point? If not, let's have a motion to approve H933. Is it as amended? So moved. Thank you.

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: No, it's as introduced.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: As introduced. Second? Second. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion on this bill? Hearing none, when the clerk is ready, Michelle?

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: Representative Bluemle?

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: Representative Dickinson?

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Yes.

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: Representative Feltus? Yes. Representative Kascenska? Yes. Representative Laroche? Yes. Representative Mrowicki? Yes. Representative Nigro? Yes. Representative Squirrell, yes. Representative Stevens? Yes. Representative Yacovone? Yes. Represents Shy? Yes. Seven zero zero. Excellent. Yes, sure is fine.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yep.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate it. And we're gonna send this out to the clerk this afternoon, to make sure time and some folks and time and issues were kind of smooth as low. So hold on to that if we Okay, do what it's thank you very much. Thank you. Two bills down, five to go. And now we have Cam here. Are you part of this? I am, madam. So why don't you just stay there and Cam, why don't you come up? We're now doing the treasurer's bill, unclaimed property, etcetera, five sixty seven. Amendments and

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: maybe a couple copies because

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: you may those of us that like what is the 60 there's a six fifty seven and a five sixty seven that we're doing today and so I'll be

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: glad to be back into the 900s also staffing a nine thirty three and a nine thirty five and I never remember when and

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: then there's a nine thirty

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: eight So yes,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: and then the yield bill will be nine forty nine. It did get a number, but we won't get that. We'll do that this afternoon. But the fives and sixes, we're going

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: to do this amendment,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: and then we'll be in the nines. So progress. All right, is the amendment on our committee page? Yeah.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I'm going go get the

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. Sorry. I just sent a request to share my screen. We did a we did a walk through of this bill, you know, a quite a ways ago. If you all remember kind of three things that are being addressed. First, making some changes to the unclaimed property, adjusting some of the thresholds that are within that chapter to try to expedite certain, you know, money is getting back out the door to to individuals who are claiming them, and then also some adjustment of where certain funds are going, not currently going to the I may get the name slightly wrong, but the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund and diverting some of those funds to the Vermont Saves Administration Fund for a certain period of time. And then the majority of the bill is about moving the administrative and fiduciary responsibilities of the other post employment benefit funds for state employees and teachers, which is currently under the state treasurer's office, moving the administrative and fiduciary responsibilities over to the Vermont Pension Investment Commission. And then there's some minor changes at the very end regarding Advisory Committee and the reporting that they provide on an annual basis. So this amendment

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So before you get to their amendment, there's a House Ways and Means amendment that just made some changes. So let's review that as well. I don't even remember.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: I guess we reviewed it, but it's I'm not

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: remembering that one. So let's sort of go in order here.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Totally understood. Their amendment is narrow. It's it's just amending two sections, and it's specifically rate related to what I mentioned a second ago about the money that's going to currently the I want to make sure I get that. We have Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. Just want to make sure I get the wording right. And the bill as proposed, wasn't the exact language that the state treasurer's office wanted in regards to capping how much money will be transferred and where the money can go specifically. And so the amendment from ways and means is, I would say, somewhat technical. And the language here is so currently, the the monies go into that trust fund, like I said. And what this will do is it will say the treasurer shall deposit money into here on lines five, the Vermont Retirement Security Fund, so the fund that's used to administer the Vermont saves program. So instead of going to the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund, treasurer shall deposit the money into this retirement securities fund up to a maximum total amount of $300,000 per year. And then this subsection B here gives the treasurer discretionary authority to if that Vermont Saves fund doesn't need $300,000 on a specific given year, the treasurer can reduce that amount and divert some of that to the Education Endowment Trust Fund, which is where the money is going now. So there's still that half of $300,000 per year shall go to Vermont SAES Administrative Fund, but it gives the treasurer the discretion to continue to divert some of that to the endowment trust fund. And then in I think it's '20 I don't have the year on top of me. Is it 2030? No, no, it's beyond that. 2040?

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Member)]: Year is it? It

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: goes to 2,033. Yeah

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just want to double check so this statute will exist for a period of time, and then it will revert

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: back to 2040. 01/01/2040.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was going say, thought it farther out than that. So this diversion will exist until 2040, at which point the language, according to the Ways and Means Amendment, will it'll sunset. And then it will divert back to how it apparently exists, where the money is all going to the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. So period of time where it gives the treasurer a little

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: bit of

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: discretion, but diverts the monies to the Vermont Saves program.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. They they capped it.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. And just and just to be clear, because you heard a lot of dates floating around, the statute makes the change effective until 2040, but the fiscal modeling that is in the fiscal note that the treasurer's office gave us was that they expect that by f y thirty three, Vermont saves will be able to stand on its own fee revenue. So in practice, diversion, for lack of a better word, of this money to Vermont saves will not last until 2040.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Did we put '20 Give

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: them a little bit more runway, but it's still like the money And they

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: can't do it if they if the money is if they're if they're operating if they're operating alright, if they they are don't need it. They can't keep doing it to '24.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: If they don't if they don't need it, then it would just go into the higher ed

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: trust if

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Vermont saves doesn't.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So if they finish this at in 2033 and get to where they think, they they would not be allowed to to keep that money?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: They would they would still be allowed to. It's just they don't think they need to based on the fiscal modeling that they've presented to us. So the authority like, if they didn't need it for Vermont saves by default, it would be available to the higher ed trust fund. And this construct makes more money available to the higher ed trust fund over that period of time than current law by raising that unclaimed property threshold from 100 to 150.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So the higher ed trust fund is not negatively impacted based on your I

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: would actually say it's positively impacted. Okay. Because by raising that cap, it'll actually get more money over time even with diverting a little bit of it.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Is that part of your fiscal note? It is.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Maybe we should look at your fiscal note.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Bring it up. Yeah. I'm picking up the ways and means. I'm just asking Cam about the ways and means amendment on Section 5A, which seems to be the, you say, the Vermont Retirement Security Fund. Is that the SAVE fund? Or

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that's the name of the fund that exists to administer that program. So that's the

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: one that's getting of course, there was a typo in there. Correct.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And we are fixing that on your amendment.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Yes. Okay. Well, we're just a typo. It was a

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: it a out a zero? Oh, that's right. You're missing a zero.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: It had 300 less than zero.

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

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Never mind. Right. But it's okay. So that is so when you said earlier that the language was what the treasurer wanted, where is that language? You'd have to look

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at the bill as introduced and I can pull that up if that would be helpful. Sure, I'll let Chris walk through your fiscal note as I pull the bill up and we can kind of review what's there versus what the amendment does.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So I just pulled up on the screen the piece of the fiscal note that shows the graphics related to this. So you'll see that on both figure one and figure two, based on modeling from the treasurer's office, they expect that Vermont saves would be sort of fiscally self sustaining beginning in f y thirty three. And you'll see in figure two that this is where that $300,000 combined cap transfers comes into play. Like, all of those bars are at that $300,000 level, you just see that over time, the amount that is expected to be needed by Vermont saves starts tapering off, and there would be more available for the higher ed trust fund. And when you look at the numbers here, you know, you're by f y twenty nine, you're at, you know, 161,000 and way up into the 200 plus thousands. If you compare that to recent transfer activity, I mean that's a lot more money than they have been receiving under the current $100 threshold. So Vermont, the higher ed trust fund will be likely ahead from this largely as a result of lifting that threshold on the equity market.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And then my other question on this is if less money is going or more money is getting taken out of unclaimed property, does that affect how much of unclaimed property gets transferred to the general fund? That's the other part that happens.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I would say to really a de minimis level, because the amount that we base the budget construct around is an estimate. And in prior years, the actual amounts that have been transferred from unclaimed property because there's been so much more unclaimed property coming in have significantly exceeded those budgetary estimates by several million a year. So this, I don't think would change any of your budgetary decisions. Okay. It's a pretty more It's

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: not hurting the general side.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's a very, very marginal impact. And it doesn't alter your box for this. Yes.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so the change from the bill as introduced is really about giving the federal's office flexibility. What you have

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I'll you what we're on now.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What you have here is the bill that's as it was introduced and as it came out of the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, and then we'll look at the ways and means.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is what the language in that section stated, which is really it's more of a full diversion of all of the funds over to the Vermont Saves program. So as you can see here, it's online fourteen, fifteen, and 16. The property valued at $150 shall be paid into the Vermont Retirement Security Fund up to a maximum of $300,000 and anything remaining would go to the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. But because they're anticipating for the first years of this to be receiving above 300,000, it basically means everything is going to the Vermont Saves Administrative Fund. So the amendment that you have so I'm gonna pull up the ways and means amendment. The amendment that you have here is structured different to give the treasurer's office some discretion about being able to continue to provide some of the money into the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. So the amendment that Ways and Means is proposing here is saying that the money shall go to Vermont saves up to the 300,000. So consistent with the bill is introduced, but there's the sub B here, which says notwithstanding that the administrator in the administrator sole discretion, funds can be directed to the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. So it's giving that discretionary authority to the treasurer in a given year to reduce the amount going to Vermont saves and divert it over to the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Anything over 300 has to go over there.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Anything over 300 would remain with

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the state treasurer to distribute in future years. Yeah. And and one of the issues on section b that I think is really important fiscally is that freezing a dot more than a combined total of $300,000, that was important clarification because without that, when you raise the threshold from a 100 to a $150, that sweeps in, like, a huge windfall of unclaimed property that would have been dumped into the Higher Ed Trust Fund immediately. So this clarifies that no more than $300,000 combined can go to these two funds. So you're not sweeping a big

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, I see. Right. So there might be 500,000 up to the 150,000, and we want to keep the other 200,000. So 300,000 can go to these places, and 200,000 has to stay in on plain Right.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Just by raising that threshold, I think it would have swept in over like 2,000,000 would have come in. So it would have

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We are beginning to hurt unclaimed property.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. So this was an important clarification.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It is an important clarification. Thank you, Housewives and Lehi. For what? For general. Yes. Yes. And that's what I mean. If it gets out, then it affects our general. This little amount, the 300 isn't going to affect the general fund.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Have a technical question here. These in the amendment from ways and means, we are just correcting the money as a technical thing of the $300,000 We're leaving the intact.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, So I'll jump over to the amendment that I drafted for this committee here.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Before you do that, are there other parts of the bill that we should know about before we get to that so people understand what we're amending?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The bill is 36 pages. It's quite extensive.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, I know.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But let's look at the fiscal note part of that. That's the way to do it faster for us. What are the other pieces of the fiscal note? Yes.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Refresh. Refresh.

[Representative David Yacovone (Member)]: Refresh. Thank you. Okay. So

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: there's a few things that I think are pertinent to this committee and your discussion today. Section seven creates a pension and benefits funding task force to take a look at our amortization policies and come up with recommendations for you all. This section contained a $75,000 general fund appropriation for actuarial work. It's my understanding that the committee likes to reflect appropriations in the big bill. So

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We actually moved that whole section.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. So

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: they fill.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So a piece of the amendment that you're gonna look at, just strikes that appropriation out of this bill. So it doesn't ride in both places. Yeah. There's another thing that I wanted to draw your attention to, and it's all of these sections relating to transitioning OPEB fiduciary over fiduciary oversight from the treasurer's office to BPIC will involve and I'm not talking about general fund now. I'm talking about retirement special funds. This is gonna involve some budgetary switching that will be transacted in the big bill. So what we'll need to do to make this actionable is, there are some, professional services contracts at the treasurer's office related to investment consulting for, the OPEB, about a $105,000 a year. I would suggest to the committee that as part of this, should you agree to it, that when we take a look at the big bill later today, we'll shift that $105,000 from the treasurer's budget over the BPIC's budget so they have spending authority to take on these new responsibilities. There is also a identified need by VPIC of an additional FTE to manage the additional work associated with OPEB with minor related administrative expenses to like buy this person a desk and a computer and things like that. Again, these costs are not paid by the general fund. They are spread across the retirement systems proportionally. So we have a spreadsheet with that all worked out. But, should you agree to doing this in the bill, representative Dickinson and I will compare notes, and you would see some changes made in seven different sections of the big bill to sort of line up all those VPIC appropriations. So I just wanted to put a pin in that that there will be a follow on in the budget to make sure this can happen. And the last thing I wanted to mention is that section 24 created three positions at the office of the state treasurer. Again, none of these are general fund. Two were unclaimed property. One is at the retirement office and is funded proportionately from the retirement systems. My understanding of this committee's practice tends to be not authorizing a lot of positions and other bills. So I think another provision of the amendment you'll see just remove section 24.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right. And we haven't decided on any of that. We have a proposed amendment, and that's what we're going to discuss. But I wanted everybody to get a sense of what's happening. I feel fairly strongly that the whole OPEB thing needs to transfer to BPIC. That's the right place for it, and the associated money in the position, because we're talking billions of dollars, they need a person to watch it. I'm just following that that part makes total sense, and then we can go over the rest of the amendment. So we sort of clear on where we ended on all this bill, and then we hear the Ways and Means Amendment, made some more clarifications and tightened some things up, which is great, and now we're at our place.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: On our bill, our amendment, you have the First Amendment for the change. And for the one hand, Cameron present this. Cameron, can you present first and second?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes, ma'am. So

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this, what you see on your screen now is the proposed amendment from this committee. So this committee is recommending that the bill, as it's amended by the Committee on Ways and Means, be further amended, and you have four instances of amendment. The first two instances of amendment are in section two and section three, which is what we were just discussing with the ways and means amendment, where Ways and Means is giving the treasurer's office that discretion of where those funds are going in a given year. There was a scrivener's error on my part that was not was not caught by our team, where in two instances, as you can see there, in two instances, the 300,000 reference is just missing a zero. And so we're correcting that in those two instances.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Should something be underlined in the second instance of amendment?

[Patrick (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, ma'am.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Why is it underlined in the first instance?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's underlined in the first because it's gonna be new language, and it's it's not underlined in the second because it would then be existing language at that point in time. Oh, great.

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's why you're the lawyer, and I'm

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then we have just a third and fourth instance of amendment, which, as was mentioned by Chris as he was walking through the fiscal note there, in the task force that is doing the pensions themselves, they're striking out the appropriation for that section. And then in section 24 is the section that outlines those positions. And so you're just striking that section entirely as well. Right.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And that was the proposal that what was the appeal. So Lynn, do you want to talk a little bit about why you're recommending we strike out section 24?

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Yes. OPEB, when it transfers from the Treasury to BPHC, OPEB is the health insurance

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I think that was not the one I'm talking about, section of the Fourth Amendment. I'm talking about the Treasurer positions.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Treasurer positions. We've added a lot of treasurer's positions in recent years since probably 'twenty three or 'twenty two when they moved BPIC out of the treasurer's office and created this separate group. They do the actual advisory on the retirement funds. But we've had several people, positions created in there over the years. And the thing is, what we have now is a more tight financial year. We think that they're moving OPEB out, and we're going to have to go, and that requires a very specific kind of investment strategy different than a regular retirement. And so that's going to be fixed. So we're going to just not add any more to Treasury.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That's a moment.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So that's not general fund, but there's concerns

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: about It comes out of unclaimed property. There's two unclaimed property, and that does have a small amount of impact on general fund to possibly in the future. We're obviously changing the unclaimed property and trying to expand its use anyway, which is apparently, I think, going to be handled by the treasurer's office. They put all this together. They seem to be able to do that. And the other is the retirement fund, and that is there was concern about fraud, and we've had an increase in the amount of usage of unclaimed property and applications for unclaimed property. And there has been a lot of advertising about, don't forget to check and see if you have unclaimed property. So obviously, we're getting a lot more interest and a lot more people, but they have people that have been added over there to do this all along.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, so you're recommending we don't do Dave?

[Representative David Yacovone (Member)]: I just had to clarify. You indicated positions have been added in the recent past, but haven't more duties and responsibilities occurred during that period? Is that a reason for not helping out now when yet more responsibilities appear to be added?

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Well, with the creation of VPIC, the responsibilities were removed from the treasurer's office and moved to VPIC. And they picked up, they had people who transferred and some people who, well, they only have a small number of people at VPIC and one of them was transferred. Now they will have a new position to do the OPEB, which is the post employment for primarily healthcare, which is something that really needs a very specific kind of investment strategy of its own, a specific kind of need. They added new positions, but they didn't take on any more responsibilities because a lot of that went to PFIC. The answer is no, they didn't take on more responsibilities. They took on, there's an increased volume, and there's concerns. But I think that the decision was, we talked about it, that it's not going to probably be added in right now.

[Representative David Yacovone (Member)]: Okay, I was thinking about the health care program and the retirement program and other things.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: That has been picked up a lot by you,

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, actually this is for you Lynn. One of the things that I've been reading the memo that's on our website, know, it talks about the workload and how many claims are being processed and how many it's three and a half times the workload as it was, you know, twenty years ago. And I'm just

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: that seems like a big increase

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: and because this will be funded through unthamed

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: property, I'm

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: just wondering your thinking about that reality that there are folks who are doing three and a half times as much work as they were before. As we've had more, I think.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: We have more positions added. They have positions there. They've added, I think, 23, I think they asked, the governor gave them two, they asked for four, they got more, and then, well, for whatever.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: They were all unclaimed property. Think this is specific to unclaimed properties, what you're saying, that they're handling three and a half times the volume they were twenty years ago with the same number of employees in unclaimed property. Yes, well,

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: the general fund is one thing, and we've talked about that. If we're using the unclaimed property fund you know I guess I'm comfortable with that given what I've read about the pressures on that office to respond and at any rate What

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: if we didn't want? You know, go ahead ask the question.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: This is all debate. First

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of all,

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm at that moment where sometimes I just go, but why are we even asking the admin why do we have to ask the admin why does the treasurer's office, which is a separate office altogether, have to ask for more positions, especially when they're saying it's being funded by the proceeds of that department and I'm sure that there's a very simple answer to that question. Right, so we're I mean all this question about positions and how many positions we can do I can understand us negotiating or talking about or making a choice over two positions or one position and we can assume that they'll take any position that we can give them but they've lived with this issue. They're funding it. It does makes no never mind as to the rest of the state government. So I'm just curious, how are we embroiled in this and the fact that we are and having this conversation when that division is I personally feel like the increase in the amount of work needs the two people, period. And if we just cut it to one or zero by saying that they're they have other people that the that positions have been created for, that's not that's exactly what we're trying to work against is we're trying to get people who are focused on doing the most efficient job and to lower the fact, to lower the thought that there might be any kind of fraudulent behavior by collecting the kind of thing. I'm just, is there an answer to the first question, which is why do we have to ask, why do they have to ask us to create positions there to fund it?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So I don't have an answer to that. I would ask somebody in Legis Council, and I don't know that Cameron is the person I would ask in Legis Council. There might be Branner. I don't know the answer to that question, unless I'm making this up. But I'm wondering if it's because we get money from the unclaimed property funds into the budget. Anything we do I'm just picking that one, so that's what we're talking about. And anything that we do could potentially have an impact on the general fund because they transfer money from unclaimed property to the general fund. That's the only reason I can think of, but I don't have a good answer for you.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I mean, and this applies to TLL. They raise their money for this can apply to the AG's office where they

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: I

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: think the AG's office shouldn't be like pay to play or pay their people because they're getting settlements but just the idea. So if we can find an answer to that that's not coming from the administration, I'd appreciate it if there's a rule. I can ask

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: our executive director, my immediate response, and this is just my thought, would be and you all, as the legislative body, have the authority to create positions wherever they exist in the government, Whether you feel that a separate entity like the treasurer you need to defer to the governor or the administration, I don't know that there's anything in law or the constitution that would require that. But I will double check or ask.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's my guess, is that it's related to the amount that might come over. Go ahead, Chris.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This is not a legal answer, because I'm not

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a lawyer, but I would just

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: say that in my six sessions here, we've seen positions created in independent entities and as well as in divisions that are self funded through, you know, special funds or other things. So I think the process is sort of agnostic to whether or not the position is in an office that is independently elected or not. I think that's a separate question than whether or not the legislature should be spending the amount of time that it does on creating positions, but that's neither here nor there.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That's good to me.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Yes. I think the answer is that the legislature has power of the purse. And every time you add a position, that costs more money for the state government as a whole. I'm not a lawyer either, but I just think that that's a fundamental piece of what we do. So we put in all kinds of the attorney general, they all come to us, and we look at all of their budgets all the time. I'm perfectly happy to go and make this a compromise if it's one person instead of two. But I think we do have the reality as we've added a lot of provisions to that particular office over there.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And the treasurer's office is not property. This is very

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Ranking Member)]: private office as a whole. Yeah. Okay.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Saw Mike and Mike. Perhaps

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Member)]: this is analogous. I've covered the Office of Child Support, and they actually make money for us. They save money by keeping people from having to draw down benefits. And they bring money in by facilitating the payments that a parent should be giving to their children. Whenever they come to us and ask for positions, it's like, of course, you're bringing money in. I don't know if it's exactly analogous to what this is,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: but it seems to me that

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Member)]: they're doing the work, they're bringing money in.

[Representative Michael Nigro (Member)]: Yes. I guess I'd first say that it does feel appropriate to me that we make sure that all parts of government are right sized, regardless of how the funding operates. And I think just because funds are being generated someplace doesn't mean we shouldn't take an active role in making sure things are right sized. And I would personally be fine with saying we could add one position and also say that we can always see next year too how the workload has progressed with that addition and address that again.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah. So will people be okay if we added one we're gonna have a

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: couple yeah. We're gonna have to change that for Yes.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We can we'll have an amendment to amendment. But are people okay

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: if we add a position?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We could just let the bill ride with the amendment as is and reflect your decision with positions. Yeah. We haven't done positions yet, Apple.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: No. We have not done positions. So you're saying, have this bill take out the positions, and then the big bill will add the position to unclaimed property, and then we don't have to do another amendment. Thank you for helping us think this through. So any other questions on the amendment? Just so everybody knows the let's just hold out. Here we go. GovOps was eleven-zero-zero. Ways and Means was eleven-zero-zero. And now it's our choice. So let us vote on the amendment, and then the bill is amended as amended as amended. Okay, so is there a motion to support the House Appropriations Committee amendment to age five sixty seven? So moved. Thank you, Lynn, and second Wayne. Any further discussion on our amendment? Hearing none, are the crooks ready? President Bluemle?

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: Yes. Representative Dickinson?

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Yes.

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: Senator Feltus? Yes. Representative Kascenska? Yes. Senator Laroche? Yes. Senator Mrowicki? Yes. Senator Nigro? Yes. Mr. Swirrell, yes. Representative Stevens? Yes. Representative Yacovone? Yes. And member of the Chittenden? Yes. 11001.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. And so then the next is the bill as amended. As amended twice, as amended and further amended? Yes.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Is there

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: a motion?

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: You've got it. I'm trying to say

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: it so people know what they're voting on, too.

[Representative Eileen 'Lynn' Dickinson (Member)]: Moved. Moved. Is there a second?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Is there a second? Second. Okay, mic ends. Any further discussion? I think we're clear? Okay.

[Michelle (Committee Assistant/Clerk)]: Representative Bluemle? Yes. Representative Dickinson? Yes. Representative Feltus? Yes. Representative Kascenska? Yes. Senator Roche? Yes. Representative Mrowicki? Yes. Representative Michael? Yes. Representative Squirrell? Yes. Representative Steven? Representative Yacovone? Yes. Senator Chuck? Yes. Eleven zero zero.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. And then yes, mister Dill? Okay, thank you, everybody. Appreciate all the work that was done by everyone on this. And so we'll have a couple of things we'll see in the budget, but it should look familiar because we've talked about it. We have another bill we need to do, but I need to reorganize our schedule So I'm going to ask us to this is going to be happening a lot today. So let's break