Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Morning. This is the House Appropriations Committee, Friday, 03/20/2026. It's just before 10AM. We have reorganized our schedule, and we are now going to do age six fifty seven, an accolating to enabling unaccompanied homeless youth. But the name is changing. That's only part of the bill. I know it's only been a couple of days, but Nolan, thank you for being here. Maybe you can reorient us to what the bill's about so we can.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay, for the record, Noel Langwell, the Joint Fiscal Office, the internal way we've been coining the bill is the miscellaneous DCF bill. And I'm only going to focus on the pieces that I put the fist to learn on, but I'll run through it again really quick. And I can pull up the fist to learn if you want. Sure. So Sector one would eliminate asset limits for each of eligibility. Currently, the asset limit is $9,000 According to DCF, they felt the impact was difficult to determine because it would potentially expand the program eligibility, but they didn't know how many people. So they provided me with a proxy and that was in fiscal year twenty five, there were a total of 18 cases where people were denied because their incomes were over the resource limits. The average cost per case per month is $6.46. So if you use that 18 people as a proxy, it's about $140,000 impact for fiscal year 'twenty seven. Now, if this were to be done, I believe you're carrying this in the budget. If it were to be done, no matter what, they're going come in for budget adjustments because it's either going be higher or lower. We don't know what the exact number is, but they'll start getting some experience. But I think that 140 is a good placeholder.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Can you explain how eliminating the assets costs us $140,000 or whatever number it is, costs us money. I'm not in trouble connecting them.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sure, what happens is that when you get rid of the asset test, I'm not an expert on this, but when you get rid of the asset test, it increases the eligibility because you no longer have an asset limit of your eligibility.

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: Oh, I see. There'd be more

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: people that would be eligible. That's what

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I was missing. Go ahead, Marty.

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: But why wouldn't there be many more people applying, not just 84 people or whatever? There's no asset there at all.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There are other eligibility issues. I'm not an expert on this, but I think there's other eligibility criteria. Like income and Yeah, again, I'm not the expert on this. I can't speak to

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Filter out applicants and this particular removal would only affect a few.

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: We don't

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: think, we don't know.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, so officially you're 25. 18 cases where people were denied because their incomes were over the rescue, sorry. It's only 03:00 in the morning.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: With anything, when you change eligibility, any kind of eligibility criteria, it's going to have an impact on enrollments. So that's estimated from BCF. It's like a proxy of what we see as the eligibility change.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It seems like a logical proxy for that. And then the other one, which is not impacting the budget now, potentially could, but is also federal law anyway, it doesn't matter what we think. Well,

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I won't get into legalities of it or the rationale. I will just talk about what I have in

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: the past.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But basically, what this would do is right now DCF uses a portion of kids who are the foster system, their social security benefits that offset the state's cost of providing them services. And what this would do is this would no longer allow the state to take those SSI benefits from those kids. And I think it puts them in account, don't know what to tell you. But basically, money would no longer be revenue for the state to be able to provide those services. The state books that money. It's $700,000 right now. So by taking that away, making sure that the money goes to the kids instead of the state, it leaves a hole in the DCF budget. Now, this is a fiscal year twenty eight effective date. So if you vote on us, it won't have an impact on the budget now. But it's like I always say, when you commit to something without, you're committed to a future process. The difference is that DCF can build their fiscal year twenty eight budget knowing that this is a new one. That's the only difference.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That That makes a big difference.

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Well, was, and I think I remember in the bill it says that this money would be booked with Trevor, is that right? I don't remember. So that it denies that the money would go directly to the young person, but it would actually approve. I'm sorry that I'm not remembering.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It was in, like, the Abel account, or something

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: Yeah. Like

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: So you have Thank you. My understanding, too, is that the federal government sent a letter to all of the states saying that basically garnishing this money was not a good practice. This was just in January. Is that right?

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm not familiar There with the was testimony on it, I wasn't Yeah. In the

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: I'm sorry, is that the Office of Child and Youth Advocate report? Yes. Presented this and it had documentation that backed up what you just said.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay. I wasn't in the room for much of so I don't remember. I wasn't in there to hear all of it for Jesus.

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: There maybe are 11 or 12 states that have changed their policies. As a result

[Unidentified committee member]: of this.

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: As a result, yeah. Already. Okay. I'm

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: not sure that no one's the person to answer this, but ABLE accounts are things that it's like a trust account, good size for a user for a variety of different other disabled or handicapped children or adult eating funds.

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: Funds do not impact eligibility For anything. Program. Yeah. Right.

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: Yeah. Is there any age at which these foster children or these children under DCF supervision when they will have access to this?

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: To ABLE? I'm not sure.

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: You know, mean, if they get this

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: I know people that have the I

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: know all the answers. Questions are when

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: they can access the money.

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: Because we had a case in commerce some years ago about settlements, insurance settlements, and an 18 year old or 19 year old wanted to get access, and a judge declined giving him access to this because they didn't feel that he would handle it correctly, if this would be the right I I don't know if there's any kind of Age?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, yeah, there no. Any account anywhere at any bank or any other thing,

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: and there's always going to

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: be something. Yeah, yeah. It's a difficult issue.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The inbox outs are just not the IRS thing, so there are probably rules around the agent and how

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: they Yeah, I can't remember what

[Unidentified committee member]: they are.

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: Yeah, no, there is a Right. This

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Is there a concern you're having about the ABLE accounts?

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: No, I think ABLE accounts are good. And I think there's a lot of they are set up for IRAS. I'm just curious if anybody knew any more detail.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Essentially, there's one impact on the general fund, and that's the 140,000 because of the change in eligibility, and we're just doing the best we can. It seems like a reasonable proxy that you have. For social security, I think you make a good point. We may have to do it anyway because of the federal government requirements. And knowing that it's two years out, DCF can factor that into their own budget so that it wouldn't be coming back to us about that.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The other thing DCF has said, it's in the fiscal note, is that they would need an FTE to do this. If that's the case, that's another thing they would have to come back and Yeah, be able they to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: have to come back and be

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: ask for that position to Right, be able to need

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: right. And then we could make a decision. This committee decided that time whether that was warranted or not. So we're not committing to any of that at this time. Katie, you look like you have

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: a thought. Well, was trying to think of other programs that people are able to receive assistance from, and we don't say, there's somebody on behalf, I want your social security check, or food stamps, or you're getting a loan through VSAC. By the way, we wanna access some of your income to pay it back, unless it's a loan. So I was just trying to think, doesn't seem inherently, it doesn't seem fair that we would do it for some and not others.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified 'Katie' (likely committee member or staff)]: We made for some. That's all.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. So we don't have an amendment on this bill. The bill,

[Unidentified committee member]: it

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: came straight from

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: What's the ways and means? What's the ways and means? Because there was a couple of fee waivers.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay. Let's Oh. Go back and check. Do we have the vote numbers for Oh, yes, I do. House Ways and Means was ten-one, and House Human Services was ten-one-one.

[Unidentified committee member]: Wayne? We were told this was gonna go to judiciary.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Did Martin talk about No, it's not going to go to judiciary. Let me just check

[Unidentified committee member]: on that. Remember how I was irate about this bill?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: You were irate about the bill? Yes. I don't like it. I'm sorry, that was a couple days ago.

[Unidentified committee member]: Remember when I said if my child got caught up in this, would be irate? This is the one where a child could show up at shelter and the person in charge of the shelter could certify that this was an unaccompanied youth, homeless youth, without ever checking with the police to see if they could even find a food with their parents. I'm hard to know if that's true. That's Yes. Untrue. Was that in the language itself? Wayne, I'm just trying

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to remember if you've got something No,

[Unidentified committee member]: right in the language. We figured that there's various people that can certify that sort of thing. You look on page six, That was Scarlet Road in New England. That's in the main bill itself. Yep, in the main bill. Do

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: you want to ask David a question?

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Can I ask you a question, David, based on your experience? Who are these kids?

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member)]: I don't think they're children in foster care. And the child advocates said there's approximately 700 now. Number's coming down, but she's not

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I'm a thousand told the judiciary took testimony on this yesterday, and that Chair Wood is coming down to help the jobbering, which I think is this is not for Nolan to be trying to

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: answer these questions. Think it would be So Chair

[Rep. Eileen Dickinson (Member)]: why don't we go off

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair)]: live until Theresa shares that?