Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: In Saudia at some point. Right?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: She's trying to turn now.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: She is. Okay. Good morning, everyone. Today is, in fact, Wednesday, January 21, an act which has been introduced by Patty McCoy, the minority leader and is in the Environment Committee, but it has significant housing pieces to it, and so we asked them to come in and present to us, even though it's in another committee, but it is the administration's bill. And then after lunch, we're going to have a discussion with four witnesses on questions of what has the impact of what's going on in Washington, D. C. Been on labor and labor issues. So that's our day to day, and then there's floor. Yes. I just want

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: to add. So Chair Mihaly and I went to a meeting with all chairs and vice chairs last Thursday, where what James is going to go over was presented to us. In efforts, the appropriations committee has worked really hard, understanding that it's a really difficult, it will be a very difficult budget year. And really, it's to help us frame the questions that we ask of witnesses and hopefully how to think of a more, you know, as fiscally responsible as we can as we make really hard decisions, which I thought that meeting was really helpful. I thought the handouts were really helpful. So we felt having James here to go through his process, their process, and how we can help them as we make suggestions was going to

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: be really helpful for the committee. Absolutely,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: and one of the things I want to stress, and then I'll turn it over to James, is I did have, it was a really interesting thing. My first two years here was spent on the Appropriations Committee, and it was really interesting and it taught me a lot. But one of the things that really struck me is how many committees had no idea what the budget process was at all, and did things that really revealed their ignorance, like putting huge amounts of money in a bill after the budget was done. You know, like, what, what are you thinking? And it was amazing to me that chairs of committees did that as if they didn't understand the budget, and I realized they don't. The other thing I realized was that was doubly problematic because these committees dove deep on issues which we didn't have time to do. I mean, there's, you know, like I was assigned all education and higher education. Can you imagine? I mean, one person, and that's sort of typical of what goes on in the committee. One person is assigned a huge area, like Tiff Bloomley is assigned housing and about three other things, and so they really should be relying on our committee for what priorities are, and that will show itself, come to an end, when we send them our letter, which is giving them our priorities. We're going to have to prioritize all budget matters and agree on that, because they're going to depend on us. They may not do what we say, they have to add it all up, but it's really important. Yes.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: When is our budget letter due?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think it's probably due right at the March.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: That's about right. I don't think there's been a date set for this session so far. I don't think we

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Is it after crossover?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Mm-mm.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: No. It's it's usually just before crossover. It's gonna show off.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: See, there whenever crossover is for us, I don't remember what it is, ended the first week in March. It's eros is the end of the second week.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah. Right. Money money committees March.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Committees have So week. And we wanna get our letter to them in time for them to have the budget put it in deal with it, the budget.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So we don't really have to worry about, like, as chair, I would imagine that you are wanting to try to prioritize any bills that have money in them so that we have a discussion about that versus policy. But we don't really have to worry about timing per se because our crossover will have already occurred. So it's not like we're going be taking up a last minute, just exactly what you're talking about. We're not going be doing that because

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the process will already be. Right, yeah. If we really want to have influence, maybe even March 1, it's a little late, but a few days before that, we really are going to want to have input. But I'll be talking to them, and we'll guess, we'll know.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: And to my knowledge, the joint rules committee hasn't officially set the crossover dates for this year, but the standard date is always the, let's see, the first Friday after town meeting week, which this year for policy committees will be Friday, March 13. So I don't think that date has been officially voted on yet, but that would be the standard date.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: But the goal is still the Friday's the quarter time meeting week. I mean, even though the deadline is after.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: Right. You all are here and Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, James, you wanna give us your name for the record? Yes.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: Don't be on. So yes. For the record, James Duffy, joint fiscal office. Take it away, James. Yeah. I'm a fiscal analyst with JFO. Last year, was with JFO's revenue team, and this year, I'm now on the budget side things over at JFO's side, staffing and house appropriations committee. So first year on the budget team and with house appropriations, but have seen both sides of the process by now and have been working closely with Chair Shai on some efforts to improve communication both with departments and agencies to get better and more responsive information from them during budget season to help inform the work that you all do in taking testimony from those agencies, as well as improving communication between the appropriations committees, the money committees, policy committees. So very excited to be here today to advance that endeavor. In front of all of you should be a hard copy of a memo that chair Shai had drafted on behalf of house appropriations. This is also posted online. And this memo was really meant to help inform all of your thinking as policy committee members heading into budget season. So we just had the governor's budget address yesterday. Clock is now ticking. We will be all policy committees and the appropriations committee will be hearing from Department of over the coming weeks about the governor's recommended budget. And as Chittenden Holley noted, the purview of the Appropriations Committee is just huge. The appropriations process touches every quarter of state government. They do their best to divide responsibility for individuals in the state budget among the members of the appropriations committee. So every member of the House Appropriations Committee has a particular kind of subject area portions of the budget that they're responsible for being subject matter expert on as it were. But even still those divisions of responsibilities are quite huge. I believe rep gloomily is the policy, is the liaison with your committee between House Appropriations and House General. And so for that reason, house appropriations really relies on policy committees to help set the table as they're considering appropriations requests towards the end of their kind of bite of the apple during the appropriations process. There's just more information out there to digest than it could ever possibly be in the legislative session. So you all play a really important role in preparing the appropriators for informed questioning, informed priority setting. The job of an appropriations committee is to take many, many, many worthwhile requests and investments and weigh them against the limited finite resources of the state budget in that year. We heard yesterday that this will be a more finite, more strained state budget than members have seen in recent years. And so it's a really important role that you all play. And you all also have limited time. Subject area is also quite huge. So this memo is meant to help guide you all in your thinking about how you make the most of your limited testimony time with the agencies and departments when they come to you to present their budget requests. And also, as you're talking to advocates, folks outside of state government who might be coming to you all with suggestions and proposals for how the state might invest. It's resources and housing related initiatives. Just some quick table setting. Any questions from the committee to start? I'll also make a quick plug that House Corporations Committee hosted a budget workshop two Fridays ago, which is posted online, which talked in more detail about the actual timeline and process behind the state budget. I won't get into all that today,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: but Are they doing it again? Yes.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: And we have another one coming up this Friday, which will not be a repeat of the same presentation. So I'll circulate a recording of the one we gave two weeks ago after I leave the room today. But the one coming up this Friday, which I definitely encourage you all to attend, will be going into the actual budget, the document of the state budget, how to read the big bill, how to navigate the big bill, how it's organized, and stick with you all with the information you need to better navigate the actual documents. What time on Friday? Believe it is noon. Yeah. Noon. Noon lunchtime on Friday. In Room 11? In Room 11. That's correct. And there should be an email from chair shy and all of your inboxes from yesterday recirculating that sign up link. So encourage you all to attend. So that being said, I thought we could dive into this memo. I know, Mihaly and I'm you've seen this already, but I've have the members of this particular committee statements get great, we can take a dive into this, and I encourage you to ask any questions as we go through.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hold on a minute. Hey, Saudia. Can you hear okay? I just wanna make sure she's online.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Good.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay. We also have a hard copy at your desk, and it will be posted online for you

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: to see when it's Thank

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: you. It is posted. Thank you, Mary.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: So I think the top line takeaway I want to leave with you all is that it can be really easy to get sidetracked when hearing testimony from agencies, departments about the nitty gritty of departmental operations. Maybe they mention some internal service fund that they use to fund their operations or some program detail that catches your interest. And lo and behold, twenty minutes later, the committee has spent twenty minutes going into an operational detail of a program that doesn't necessarily get to the bigger picture of how the appropriations committee will set its priorities for that year, how it will invest its finding resources. And so I would just encourage you all to think about the art of navigating both the useful exercise of getting to know an agency really well and getting to know their operations in detail, but also focusing on the bigger picture of what are the priorities in our policy area and of state government and what does the appropriations committee need to know when it's looking at the 30,000 foot view of state government in a couple of weeks from the date of this testimony as it weighs, competing requests for finite state dollars. That's a balance. Sometimes you do want to dig into the nitty gritty of how an internal service fund operates because that's crucial to understanding how an agency works and maybe there's a problem there. But oftentimes, it's more helpful to the appropriations committee's process to look at the bigger picture and ask questions like, what is it that you do? How long has this program been in effect? What would happen to the voters of Vermont, the people of Vermont, if this program didn't exist or if this funding request wasn't fulfilled? And to kind of zoom out, and and it it's definitely an art, not a science. I think there's a time and place for both kinds of lines of questioning. But that's the big picture concept that I want you all to take away

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: from Let's pause just one moment. First of all, Debbie, can you hear okay? She just came online. Yes. I can hear.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Okay. And we've and and he's working off a document that was prepared by Robin Shai, chair of the Appropriations Committee, which is posted online, Debbie. Yes, yes. Thank Okay. We, unlike, let's say, Health human services, which is overseeing agencies with budgets approaching $3,000,000,000 we have a kind of much broader, many of the entities we deal with are really not state entities even, but we do deal with Department of Housing and Community Development, and we deal with the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, for example.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do you think it's important for us to have them in to talk about their budgets? Because we, sometime, like last year, I don't think we did, we were dealing with what would particular requests in bills, you know, that came, that we either authored or were in our bill, or we had a committee bill, but we didn't actually ask DHC to come in and talk to us about their budget. Is that something we ought to be doing?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: That's an interesting question. I think it depends on the session and what all is on your plate. Right? You all have a finite session just like everybody else, and so if you have a lot of one time requests or one time investments outside of standard department operations that you need to spend time weighing, maybe those take precedence over getting the one on ones from the departments and agencies like DHCD on what they do. That being said, if you're in a situation where maybe Vermont Housing Conservation Board has they adjusted to their base in the Gulf wreck that you're weighing in a tight budget year.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We'll find that out.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: Yeah. But then maybe that's something you spend more time hearing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is the budget now on the full budget is available online?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: It is. As of yesterday afternoon, the FY twenty seven budget documents were on the Department of Finance and Management website. I haven't checked this morning on the JFO page. They should be up by now on the Joint Fiscal Office's webpage. Well,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: just as a comment for the committee, what I intend to do is to talk to our representative, if you will, our liaison on the Appropriations Committee, Tip Bloomling, and I'll ask her what's going on, what's in the budget, what it looks like. I mean, I think the committee's interest is going to be, is BHCB getting adequate funding? I know that the issue that's come up again and again, just to mention it for the committee, is last year there was a conflict over the question of whether VHIP should be funded in one time funds or should be funded permanent, you know, as funds that are, and the difference, it's all money, but I'm going to ask James to comment on the difference between one time funds and permanent It's not as hard a line as it appears, but at any rate, the conflict was the Governor's budget wanted it to be permanent funding, and it ended up being one time funding. It's much easier to find one time funding than it is permanent, and this He year

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: should change that this year.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, this year, the governor has asked again that the HIP be funded permanently, he mentioned it even in his budget address. James, you want to talk about the difference there?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: Thank you for bringing that up, Chittenden. Yeah, think that's a really important point. So over the course of the budget cycle, you'll hear one time appropriations and base appropriations discussed. One times are exactly as they sound. These are one time investments or appropriations that are only good for that current fiscal year. Maybe they're given carryover authority in the future fiscal years. These are one time appropriations that aren't expected or intended to recur again. Whereas a base appropriation is an appropriation made to a department or agency that is intended to carry forward as part of that department or agency base budget in future years. So let's say you give $4,000,000 to BHEP as base funding in FY '27. What that means is in FY twenty eight, twenty nine, two thousand thirty, that 4,000,000 will be included in DHCD's recommended budget to you all as part of their standard base budget. Here's what we had last year. We're proposing a 3% increase or what have you. That includes the $4,000,000 if you gave them an additional base three years prior. Base represents an ongoing recurring investment in the foundational budget of an agency or department, whereas one time, it could be good for more than one fiscal year depending on the carryover authority it's given, but it's a single discrete appropriation. It's not expected.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The reason it's not a hard line, it sounds like a hard line, but it isn't, is because, of course, first of all, there are all kinds of programs that limp along year after year after year with one time funding. They're kind of sort of orphaned slightly. It's if you're we can't find the money or we're not willing to commit or whatever, or it's a legislative priority, but it wasn't the administration's priority. There could be a lot of reasons that entities just limp along. I mean, the adult learning, for example, gee, was sort of limped along for a long time on one time, but, and it's just harder to find money that's going to be permanent. On the other hand, just because it's permanent doesn't mean it's going to stay permanent, that is, the legislature has full authority to say, well, you had it this year, but we're not going to give it to you again.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: And I think one important note for one times is, especially from an appropriator's point of view, even though they are formally one time investments or appropriations, they can often create the expectation that something continue into the future. And so something in the probationist committee might consider with a one time investment is, well, what is this really one time or is this creating an expectation? Are there people who will be hired or services that will be difficult to terminate when this money is spent. So is this really a one time investment or is this kind of a slope towards future based requests? And yeah, I think base The other note I'd add on base that you brought up, Chittenden, is it doesn't have to be permanent, but there is a certain inertia, I think, that often makes its way into base appropriations. It's inertia. Because just by their very nature of being nested within the bigger foundation of the department's budget, they tend to receive less scrutiny than a one time appropriation, which is singled out, has its own line item on a spreadsheet, whereas you have to dig a little bit more to uncover the layers of the onion of the department's base budget. So it's something to think about when making a base addition to the department or agency.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: One big difference between base and one time is that one time, you can't hire permanent employees. You have to hire employees who are, what's the term? Limited service. Limited service. What's the maximum limited service time?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: I don't know the maximum amount.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think, but whatever it is, it's not that much. So, it means, be what Alex, I think Alex Farrell even, didn't he testify for us briefly? He mentioned that he'd sure like to hire permanent staff, you know, that they're all people who are just constantly being renewed on limited service budgets. So, that's a big difference. Could you comment a little on the difference between what we used to get in appropriations in terms of ups and downs, and that's all, versus what the letter demanded this year? Yes. I mean, there was a big Robin, as Robin Shai, after years of frustration, really put together with JFO's help, right, a letter to the agencies telling them what she wanted, whether she'll get it or not, remains to be seen. But I hope she does. She should. Could you comment or describe what it was and what an up and down was and its limitations?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: So my understanding is that there was a sense among many members, certainly among chair Chai, that too many budget testimonies from departments and agencies consisted of nothing more or more than, but focused too much on here's what we did last year. We want to have a 3% increase or 2% decrease of the ups and downs. They just looked at what they did last year and were reviewing for the sake of committees how much they wanted to increase or decrease their overall budgets or line items. And I think the sense among many members was that that did not give committees enough information or opportunity to ask questions about, like I said earlier, what are the underlying priorities here? How much inertia are we carrying forward from one year to the next? When all we're doing to scrutinize these budgets is looking at how much the agency is proposing they increase or decrease. In the name of getting better, more responsive information from departments and agencies this year, the House Appropriations Committee and Joint Fiscal Office updated the memo, the guidance that is sent from House Appropriations to departments and agencies, clarifying what information is most useful, asking for additional information beyond ups and downs, and I think just hoping to better expectations set the information that committees need for departments and agencies to fully evaluate budget requests. Think the core of that is don't just focus on the ups and downs. Give us a little bit more. Tell a story. Tell us what you do. Break down the individual components of your proposed budget for this year. As the Envoy for House Appropriations to you on behalf of Chair Chittenden, I will share with you that her instructions to policy committees are that to the extent you're hearing from a agency or budget agency or department specifically this year, said if they start to go over their ups and downs and nothing else, to please ask them to come back with a more extensive presentation that has more detail than just that. I don't know if that will happen in this committee. I think the departments and agencies have received that memo and have been working hard to wrap their arms around it. I I don't think they'll have that issue, but those are the instructions from chair shy, just to send folks back and ask for more testimony if they come in and just go over the ups and downs. This this is a big change.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let me tell you what I was like. You would get from a given agency, I mean, agencies with smaller budgets would have like, you know, you'd get 10 pages, and from some agencies you'd get 50 page spreadsheets, okay? The spreadsheet would be some line item, you know, they have a gazillion lines. A very brief, maybe a brief description of what it was, by that I mean a few words. It could fit in a box of a spreadsheet, okay? Then it would be last year's budget, expenditures, and proposed budget this year, and the difference, plus ups and downs. It would just, by line item, tell you the difference. What was missing is, what the hell is this program? What is it for? What does it do? What does its total budget look like? I mean, you know, sometimes if we just get the percent up and down, or the amount, we wouldn't even know how much the whole program was, and what is, it made it very difficult to actually penetrate, much less ask a question, is this a program we want to support anymore? Do we really want to do this? And it was, I think it's understandable in that the ups and downs, frankly, I'm sure that presentation took a long time for agencies to prepare. So, Chair Shai has sent out, I think, like a four page memo to the agencies, basically saying, tell us the whole story. You know, will they put it together and do it? I'm sure it will vary by agency, we'll see. But it's designed to allow not zero based budgeting, but real, I think, realistic scrutiny. And now I guess I'm just giving my opinion. My opinion is the budget is where the rubber hits the road. You would listen to the budget address by the governor or certainly the state of the state, it said one thing, but very often the budget would say another. The budget address would talk about the importance of public safety, but the budget would cut public safety, or the budget would have a line item that increased the number of public safety personnel, but cut the IT budget to the point where they couldn't function without internal transfers from, you know, they couldn't function. So it was very hard sometimes to get at the truth, and I think this committee probably doesn't have to do a lot of that, but I do think we're probably gonna wanna look into at least a few issues.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: I think a couple of useful questions are to help frame that process since it's all exactly right, is what problems does this request solve? What happens if we don't honor this request? What are the consequences of action and inaction? Then that's all laid out in the memo. I think that gets to asking broader questions, not just focusing on what we did last year, what we want to do slightly differently this year, but uncovering those broader questions of priorities. What is this accomplishing? What do we need to revisit in light of the current budget cycle? And I think those are the questions that are most useful. The appropriations committee and that culminate in the committee letter that you all will share with the appropriations committee come that March. And in preparing to talk to you all today, looked at the committee letter that House General sent to House Appropriations last year. And I think sometimes the challenge with policy committees and the Appropriations Committee is that as the policy committee, you all are deeply invested in your subject area. It can be difficult prioritize requests. Sometimes appropriators will hear from policy committees and the advice will be, our priorities are high, higher and highest and we recommend funding everything because all of these things are worthwhile and important. While that may be true, it doesn't help the exercise of allocating funds in the limited state budget. But I think last year, the letter that came out of this committee was really responsive and met the appropriations committee's needs and that you needed a tiered structure. There was a tier one, tier two, tier three. I think that meets the spirit of the feedback that the appropriations committee relies on the policy committees.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I wonder why that happened.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We all did it.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Well, think it's helpful too now we have a chair who's experienced both sides of it and remember it being a different process than previously, because you really know the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'll tell you one thing, one piece of the experience. Of course, what happens is you hear all of these agencies come in and talk about their needs, right? And in a way, most of the time, that's consistent with the governor's budget. It's hard for an agency to break away from the governor's budget and say, well, we're not happy with this, or we're not happy with that, because there are results that occur after they break with the administration, so you don't see that that much. But quasi, for example, agencies that are quasi state agencies, like BHCV, or agencies that get most of their money somewhere else, but some money like Department of Housing, yeah, D H S A D H S, D S H A, I can never get it straight. You know, sometimes you'll hear more, or an individual like Tiff Bloomley will have private conversations off the record where there'll be descriptions, but the hardest thing of all is the public hearing. In the public hearing, we used to get somewhere between one hundred and two hundred witnesses, and although there was a certain amount of repetition, basically figure fifty, sixty, 70 organizations each playing a function that you end up feeling is essential to a civilized country, Like, so people don't go hungry with no food, you know, things that were pretty basic, and they're each asking for money and there's no money, or very little. And it's just, I found those hearings to be the most depressing part of my entire time in the legislature. You just ended up feeling there were times when I was almost in tears just because listening to people bring in stories which are very real, and you just kind of Anyway, it's a very difficult place to be, and that's why I think our priorities matter. Know, prioritizing matters. Also, I can talk to members of the committee, we can talk to Rob, or talk to, particularly, Tiff Bloomly, and talk about our priorities as well. I mean, this place isn't that big. We can always reach out. Alright. Any questions of James? Thank

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: you for your work.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: Feel free to work. Thanks for having me. Yeah, and then J. Is always available to answer questions of the budget process, so please feel free.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do you want to talk for just a moment about the organization of JFO? Because we don't we see JFO when they issue a report on a bill, but it tends to be very discreet, unlike the appropriations committee, which has between one and three JFO personnel there all the time.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: JFO is we're a shop of I think we're up to 18 people now, and we are a team of full time staff. We are nonpartisan dedicated to providing the legislature with fiscal budgetary, yeah, fiscal advice that they need to make informed decisions around the state budget. We are divided roughly. I mean, we all work together very closely, but we're roughly divided into a revenue team and the budget team. So the revenue team primarily supports house ways and means and questions of taxation and revenue raising mechanisms of the state. And then there's the appropriations team, or the budget team rather, which supports the actual compilation of the budget document, the appropriations committees, and that side of the process. We are, by statute, charged with supporting form and then some committees. That there's the money committees, the appropriations committees, senate finance, and house ways and means. I believe also by statute, we are designated to support transportation. And there's one or two more I always can't quite remember, but it's essentially the money committees are our statutory charge to support. That being said, we are happy to provide support and information to every member of the legislature, every committee, and we do as we're able to. That's JFO. We're just over in the pink lady. Our website is a wealth of information, but I will also caution you that it's a wealth of information that can be hard to navigate to because there is so much of it there. So please do feel free to reach out to us at any time if you need a primer or help locating resources. And definitely attend our Wolf Shop on Friday because there will be a tutorial on not just Navigating the Budget but also our wonderful library of resources on the JFL website. Thank you. Questions?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I really emphasize that, I mean, they're very available. You can go over, I have gone over there and said, for example, I need a tutorial on education finance. And gone over there and sat and had two people, this was, thank God, I could send a video. Two people sit with me two hours, just sort of answer questions, walk me, one person walked me through the whole thing. They are, I think, really available to Yes? Do Is

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: there a particular person at JFO who specializes in our areas of jurisdiction?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: We do. Every JFO analyst has a portfolio that they specialize in, divide and conquer. On the revenue team side of things, Pat Chittenden has historically handled housing. We are in the process of bringing on a new fiscal analyst who I think will take housing as part of their portfolio, so that may change. But like I said, we're a small shop. So email any one of us with a question or a request, be it housing related or otherwise, and we'll see to it that somebody in the building can assist you. And on the budget team side, I think so much of that at the housing conversation is often appropriations in a budget conversation. So any member of the budget team. So there's me on the house side, Amy Pope on the senate side, Emilie Byrne leads the budget team at JFO. They're all is true. Points of contact.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: And if we had a question about breaking down expenditures for from last year, Could we ask JFO? Do we I mean, can

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: That's a a very typical request that we'll feel. You know, can you please summarize or, you know, appropriations made to this particular area last fiscal year or the last couple of years?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I'm thinking about, actually, because I'm not positive, I don't know that everybody in this committee wants a breakdown of the granular picture. But I'd like to say a breakdown of a granular picture. And so is that something that you could also provide?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: Yeah, absolutely. That's the sort of request that we field from members all the time. Yes,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: they'll get as granular as you want to get. That's my experience.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: Are some weeks of the legislative session where crossover can be tricky for a really granular dive. I have to say, we'll get back to you after crossover if that's okay. But yes, always reach out and we will be happy to

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Is it better for you or for the information if you are asked after the BAA, or does the BAA not come into play?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: I would reach out as you have questions and as you have requests. And we will respond with our capacity. We will always endeavor to get back to you as quickly as possible. Like I said, if it's one of the two or three really busy crunch weeks of the session, maybe we won't be as quick as we usually otherwise be, but we'll communicate with you and your expectations as needed. Yes.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to add another thing that you guys do. I personally haven't utilized your office as much as others probably, but maybe I should. But they could also provide, let's say you have a bill that might have some They could do a fiscal note, like an estimation of, like, what the bill you're working on could, you know, cost or or gain or things like that, or then that I've heard you guys do, which

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: is can be helpful, too.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They do fiscal notes on any bill that has a significant financial effect, either on revenue or expense. For example, with respect to the housing finance bill, which we've been working on, or last year, with respect to the committee bill, you know, Ted Barnett, I think, you know, he did a JFO report, and that's absolutely necessary if it's going to go to ways and means, but it's also something like I'm about to ask for, actually request. No problem with that, right, requesting a report on the fiscal impact of the bill.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: Typically, a fiscal note will be prepared for any bill that has a fiscal impact on the state, it'd be revenue or appropriations. Not every bill that has potential fiscal impact will get a fiscal note. Generally, JFO will prepare a fiscal note once a bill leaves committee. We just don't have the capacity to write a fiscal note for every fiscally relevant bill that's introduced. But, yeah, so if a fiscally impactful bill leaves committee, it will get a fiscal note. And we also work with members to prepare preliminary fiscal information. Maybe you're working on a bill and you have a question about how much money it might raise, how much it might cost. We'll work with you, maybe not on a full fiscal note, but on a preliminary estimate as think through.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That's exactly what Because for me, what happened was I have a bill and Senator Clarkson was like, oh, do you have a fiscal note

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: on that? I'm like, mhmm.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: So she was like, I'll reach out.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, we can, like, I'm reaching out to Ted right now asking him for exactly that preliminary information. How much is this going to cost the education fund? Right, So we're not just blind with the money when we put something together. The one area which is a little tricky is many states, particularly those states that have full time legislators, committees have legislative staff, and those staff become policy experts in their area. So, a housing committee would have one, two, maybe more policy people who do nothing but housing. And sometimes, like in California, there would be a Republican policy group and a Democratic policy group of staff that would staff the committees. I know this sounds bizarre, right, but it's what life is in states. We don't have a policy, we don't have committee policy staff generally, although there are a few exceptions, but we don't. And so, what that means is we're constantly asking Ledge Council inappropriate questions on policy, and we ask JFO inappropriate questions on policy, and there's only so far they can go. In other words, JFO specializes in financial impacts, and it sort of, of course, beers into policy, but they have to be neutral, nonpartisan, and so there's only so far they can go. And it's just a fact of a citizen legislature like ours that we do our own policy work. I don't know, do you have anything you want to comment on? Have I misrepresented the situation in any way?

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: It is true, different states have wildly different structures and capacities. I'm from New Jersey originally, and each party caucus has its own staff. Committees might have their own staff. And then they also have some kind of a GFO like body. Here is our 18 member GFO staff. We have ledge counsel and you all and obviously our committee assistance. But it's not California full time legislature by any means. And GPO does work really hard to maintain its neutrality. We provide information and considerations. We do not endorse or recommend the particular policy actions. Our goal is to provide you all with the information you need to make an informed decision. And we work really hard to maintain that neutrality and bipartisanship. So it's really important to the work we do in supporting you all.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other questions? James, thank you so much for taking the time. I know you've got a lot on your plate, and I really appreciate your having come in.

[James Duffy (Joint Fiscal Office, Fiscal Analyst)]: This is an important conversation to us.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And well, it's been very easy. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank I think if it's okay with everybody, are we good to have a brief, let's say, fifteen or twenty minute conversation about our thoughts about the next three weeks, and then take a break? Is that okay? Are people okay? Waiting another fifteen or twenty minutes? Is that okay? So yesterday, we, the three of us, that is chair, the vice chair, the ranking member, Miriam, our staff person, two of our most frequent wedged counsels, Cameron Wood and Sophie Stabbing, met for about an hour yesterday afternoon. We have, I didn't count them, but something like 80, I don't know, how many do you know how many builds we have on our wall?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: About eight.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: 80, something like that? Anyway, and of those, a lot are a whole bunch of labor bills. We forwarded you the list that's most current, of course it's going to change because we're going have more bills referred to us. We did not go over every one of those bills, because our goal was simply to figure out what are we going to do next week, and what are we going to do the following week, and seeing two weeks into the future is about as far as we can go. So I'm going to ask Ashley to sort of talk a little bit about what we've decided, and just preliminarily, and ask for your thoughts.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, and I think we really wanted this to be a conversation with everybody, but understanding that we do have

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: a lot

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: of bills and we know that a lot more are coming. We just wanted to kind of give an avenue forward as we start to prepare. So just some of the things that we talked about. One of the bills that is currently on our wall, H661, The chair is going to ask that to be recommitted to commerce as it deals with workers' comp and firefighters who develop cancer.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: The Chris Taylor one.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yep. I think we were interested in it, but at the end of the day, it's not within our jurisdiction. So we wanted to give it a hopeful chance that it gets talked about. So that is one that if you really want to talk about it, it probably will be going to commerce. We are, the chair is built, which is just a technical change, I believe we are going to be voting on later this week, H532, so that's an act relating to mandatory retirement of college professors. It's truly, we had the introduction, we will do a walk through with Sophie, but we're, I mean, if anyone could think of testimony that would be needed for that, we're all ears. But what we're doing is just making sure that state statute matches federal. So that will be coming later. One, if you'll remember last year, age four fifty nine, Representative

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Woz,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: came and introduced his bill on FMLA and workers' comp. There had been some internal discussions where we thought it was already taken care of, and it sounds like there was more to the problem and more to the story than what he understood and what we understood. So we would like to have that conversation again with those who might have more lived experience and might have a better understanding of what the problem is. Just a brief reminder of what that would be is that currently right now an employer can ask an employee to concurrently use their FMLA while on workers' comp. So that will be a conversation that we have.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: The

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: H-five 48, which is the mediator for the labor board, we thought that would be a great conversation to have. One of the things that we had talked about often last year is how to help provide support to the Labor Board and thought that this was a good way of doing it. So we're gonna have individuals come in and testify on that. Am I missing a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: few These of are, what we did as we went through, these are bills that we don't think will take a lot of time. Right. But as you've seen already, you know, when Miriam puts our calendar together, we have some big things that we'll get to in a minute that we have to do, but it's always going to be when we try to get the witnesses to come, there's always periods of time that are like an hour here, an hour there, or two hours here and two hours there, and these are bills that we can use to do that. Do you want to talk a little bit about our big priorities?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, so we are For the next two weeks? For the next two weeks. So we have a lot of, we have what we deemed as four different themes in housing bills, and we just try to prioritize those. So the first one we have is manufactured homes. We have that as kind of the top of our list. We know that that's one of the quickest and cheapest ways to create inventory and housing in Vermont, and so we want to continue to strengthen that process. We know it's tricky. Rutland has a great bill. Is it going to be out later this week? We're waiting for it to come out. We're not sure.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: It's in the queue.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's in

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: the queue.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: My understanding is that the queue has been pretty backed up. So because of that, we are going to have Gayle introduce it either probably tomorrow, today or tomorrow, quickly. And then on Friday afternoon, we'll have Cameron in here to do a walkthrough. And one of the things that we, or Cameron had suggested is that we are not only getting a walkthrough of the bill, but understanding what the statute says around manufactured homes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is, and also John Gray. Yeah, both, and this is the analog to what you were just hearing from James Duffy. You know, too often, I don't know, you notice when you get a bill, all you see is the section that's being changed.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: don't know what the hell the rest of the law looks like because you've never read it before. We've asked

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Maybe I have.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, we've asked Well, somebody has, but maybe, yeah, there's nobody else on the committee. So we've asked Cameron with this issue to really give us the big view, and partly because, frankly, I would like as chair, for the reason that you just said, this is like a really important part of the housing picture, I would like to come away from the hearings on this building where this committee has command over this issue. We know pretty much everything there is to know about this issue. I just think it will come back. It's not a one time thing. It's too important for us not to have commando. Go ahead, I'm sorry.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And that being said, other states have made efforts in this. I was just checking. Maine has a really good program that we could have somebody come in and testify as well. So that's our first one. We're going to old finance. My understanding, as Marc has let us know, that it will come to us, but much like our housing bill last year, we're gonna hold possession of it. Commerce is gonna take pieces that are going to be affected by them, so I think there's, what parts? It's tax stabilization?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The tax stabilization and assessment district work is typically in their committee, but we'll take possession, I hope, and they'll help us. And we think we'll kick it off with joint hearing. We

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: have already on our board, but we also know we have more coming, our landlord tenant bills, so we'll be discussing that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's five bills. Yeah, five. And we've asked Cameron, so I'm referring to Debbie's bill, Saudia's bill, a bill that I my name, no one else is on it, I'm the only one on it, which is an attempted compromise proceeding.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: There's Chloe. And

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Chloe has and Ian. There's just a bunch of bills.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: There'll be more.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And what we've asked What we've asked Cameron to do is a sort of a side by side to sort of walk through all of them, and then we'll have pretty much I don't think it's a problem. We're going to have pretty much the same witnesses. I mean, it's the housing witnesses. We'll have legal aid, we'll have people from the housing and homeless group, we'll have landlord people come in, we'll have the same witnesses would apply to any of these bills, and then we just have to mark decide what we're going to do.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And then last but not least, we have the private equity bill. And it sounds like, again, that also might be a joint hearing with commerce.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And there's a lot of other priorities. One of the ones I want to mention briefly is disability, but we'll get into that in a minute. But we're just went as far I mean, that's going to take us for example, that's a lot. Next week, for example, just by making the decision, let's move on manufactured homes, which is going to have to go to other committees, let's move on it means that on Friday afternoon we're going to have a walk through, on Tuesday and Wednesday we're going to be hearing testimony, we're just trying to set up a visit to a manufactured housing place right here, back to home.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I was hoping we were going to Maine together.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I mean, that's a long ride.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That would be fun. And so, just for example, that's going to take us well into at least the middle, if not the end of next week. So, the other priorities will take us at least two weeks out, maybe three. And that's as far as we could go. On disability, just to mention disability, there is a huge range of possibilities there, but we've heard a lot. What we need to do is decide what's our focus. So, for example, my understanding is that, Elizabeth, that there are bills coming that relevant but are not in the queue yet, is that right?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Well, we already have bills

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: on our wall, and we have a need, we know we have a report which has indicated the quantity of money necessary for 600 developmentally disabled houses, and also a much less number that would help continue the pilot program or expand it, that will have to be somewhere in the budget, and it will have to be in our letter. We just haven't put it together yet, but that's very high on our list.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: And how does that help with our homeless population? Which?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: All of it? Yeah. I think that it's all about housing supply. I mean, what we mentioned is about housing supply, and that helps indirectly, but manufactured homes, we wanted to get it because it's the only form of home that is affordable, can be affordable to a very large piece of our population, but and my landlord tenant bill has money in it that affects, helps with homeless.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Keeping folks housed.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Keeping folks housed, and as we've already dealt with Section eight, but beyond that, yes.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I was just gonna say, we really took to heart your comments yesterday about the changes in regulations with HUD, so we have I don't know if you've had a chance to uprefresh, sorry, the agenda, but we do have Big coming in on Friday to talk to us about those changes and how that affects their work as well.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I'm, to be blunt, not satisfied, and there's pieces of the other bills, other landlord tenant bills, that help, but it's all housing supply, and the direct help for the homeless at the moment, there's nothing before us that is most of it's in Theresa's committee.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: And how are we addressing that large population of disabled homeless Vermonters?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Somewhat, I would say that should be part of our discussion on disability, the disabled, but I'm not sure, we're not sure yet what that would look like, and look for your help in deciding it. I think that's going to be a major topic for us. And

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: do you think that at some point we, and do you think that at some point I don't see a data on here, but we could go through have

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: a

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: have a walkthrough of the new VHIP guide

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: and rules? I think we could, and I think there's a reason to get them back in here to talk about VHIP, and that's part of it. And the reason is, I would like to ask them to explain why they, to go more into their budget and the VHIP budget. Mean, VHIP is turning out to be

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: a very important program, and it's an opportunity, and I think that we should have the back end. I want to say that I have a concern that VHIP is not being used in the spirit in which we intended when we created the program, and I would like to hear specifics about who is using it and for what, and what exceptions there are, and how those exceptions are being used.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, and I think that we can do that. And I think we can do it, and the person who knows that is not Alex. It's It's his person in charge of the opinion.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Oh yeah, what's his name? Nate. Formalieri. Formalieri. Yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we'll do that. Okay.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I made a note. So,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that's where we are. I think that will take us, and I think we can get Nate in here in between. We'll get him in here sooner rather than later.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: One other thing I noted yesterday, I saw on Facebook, that the Human Rights Commission has a new report out, I believe.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yep. It's a report that has to do with the civil rights summit, which took place in November, and then the recommend policy recommendations that came out of that summit, and also, kind of announcing some of the bills that address some of those policy recommendations, but also, again, the frequent zero amount of our civil rights, which undergird everything we do.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That could be important to slip into Big.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I'm wondering whether that report should go on our Yeah,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: think so.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So can you put a range to have, when Big's testing well, whatever testimony Big wants to give, but on their financial situation and on the impact, if anything, federal?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah, I haven't read the report yet, but

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: support. I think

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: one thing that human services did last year, when they had downtime, they, if I'm remembering correctly, each member of the committee had a report that they had to read and they had felt that it was really helpful to kind of understand where we are.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's a really interesting idea.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah, GoBobs did that. You know, some committees assign homework by Marc. I don't encourage it, but I did hear from not to me, of course, but I did hear

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's right, all you people were staying in. Have nothing to do with

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Other committees have homework like that. Like, you read this report, you give us the summary or something like that. So it looked like Leonora was interested in Are you talking about

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: reports that fall into their committee?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Reports Yeah. Yeah. No. No. They fall

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: into I mean, shouldn't we be hearing the reports that I I don't understand. Like, could see hearing reports that fall into the jurisdiction of another committee being being read and reported out to our committee. But should we shouldn't we be isn't the intent of all of those reports for them to be read and kind of metabolized by every member of the committee?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think it's to some extent, but it's hard. I mean, I've read a lot of reports and I read them all before the session started. Since the session started, I haven't had time to read a single report. I think that it would be good. That's why I like the idea of asking a person to present a report, And in that regard, Big's gonna testify when? Friday Friday morning? Would you be willing to present when she does that report?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I would, except their press conference is a week from Friday. It's the thirtieth. So Should we wait? I would think that we would wanna wait until To kind of time it out.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. But think about whether you would be willing to do that.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I would, but if if we're having big in, it probably would be

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: better for Big to present the report. Well, let's ask Big as part of her testimony to summarize the key points of the report. Okay. I'm not saying, by the way, people shouldn't read reports. I'm just merely a confessional.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Have the same knowledge in our reality.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: For example, there are a number of reports where I read, even outside our area, I read the education what the the committee what's it called?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh, did? Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I read the appendix.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: You did too?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I read the appendix.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Well, yeah, of course you did.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. I know, but I did during the summer.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I attended every single I attended every single meeting of every task force and commission and committee from act 73 and and read all of their documentation along the way and the report. That's because that's a nerdy interest of mine. But I I allotted myself two to three hours every week to read through every report that has been submitted since I became a legislator. And then I cross referenced those with how many of the recommendations contained therein were followed through upon by our legislature. It was Oh, dear. Yeah. I mean, it's It is a big I mean, above anything else, it is a terrible waste of money, time, and goodwill to have people get paid almost nothing to come and participate in these things when they're not even presented in the committee of jurisdiction. The recommendations are not heard. And why would we spend money on that? Why would we burn through our volunteer?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think it has to do with study committees and making hard decisions. And people often don't want to make hard decisions in committees, so they send it to a study committee. And then there's a report. That's my concern. That's the say it.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: It's like the landlord tenant, Joe and I, you

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: know, now we're working on it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, he pulls his eyes. Okay, listen, I want to take a break, because at 10:30 Patty's going to be here, and I don't want to be too delayed, so I want to take a break, but I'm going to say right now, I have a list of reports that we get. I'm supposed to go through the list and decide which ones I recommend be terminated, because they're ongoing reports that happen every year. Do I have a volunteer to work with me on which ones I should

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: recommend? I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: just don't get that. I'd be happy. Alright. It's done. Will you help? Okay, great. That's gonna happen this week. Okay. Let's take a break. Let's come back here, please, as soon as possible. If possible, just to buy over