Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome back everybody. This is the General and Housing Committee. It's still Wednesday, February 18. At some point soon, we're gonna walk through, not walk through, we're gonna have an introduction of eight fifty eight, which is an act relating to the creation of state law enforcement firefighters bargaining unit. The author will be here any minute, which he is, will return to that. For the moment, I want to get into our discussion of our letter to appropriations. This is a letter in which we make recommendations concerning the budget areas that are under our purview. I just wanna tell the members of the committee, here's what I did. I emailed all of the people, you know, who all of the agencies and all of the entities and said, remind me what you're asking for, what you got, etcetera. And, you know, I accumulated it, and I used kind of the basic Gina, come in. I used the basic approach from last year of having tears, and have a seat, I'm just gonna introduce one thing and then we'll get to you. So, I used the tears and I just took a first crack at it. I've alerted Robin Shai, that we know full well that this is a year with almost no money, that we're just putting out our wish list with appropriate statements. And, you know, it's very different than last year. I reviewed last year's letter, it was more elaborate, there were more elements in it, and there was actually a good bit of money available, and this year, it's not. So that's why you'll see me saying, for example, BHCV asked for 12,000,000 above base, but then I said we realized that in the current environment, that amount will not be possible. But, I just put it in there as a placeholder. Really, I think they're just going to have to sort of work backwards and ask themselves what's their total housing budget, you know, and kind of work backwards, and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't get a visit at some point on the QT and ask, if you only had to fund one thing, what would it be, or something like that. It's just going to be that kind of fear. I think it's a very low expectation here. So, stopping for a moment and coming back to H eight fifty eight, which is an act relating to the creation of the State Law Enforcement Firefighters Bargaining Unit, and our August colleague, representative Gina Delfetti, is the author, and Gina, what we do is, we have a lot of bills on the wall, as you can see.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: Indeed. Yeah, know. I came in pretty late.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But, well, but everybody who everybody who has introduced a bill, we just made a policy last year, you know, everybody in. It's just a good idea. This is your chance to tell us a little bit of, I mean, if we, bill that we take off the wall, we then have counsel give us a walk through and testimony, etcetera, but this is just your chance to quickly tell us what you're thinking, what's the bill about, what your thinking was, what your motivation was, anybody who was an impetus for it.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I had some folks

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: in Fish and Wildlife, Game Wardens and Lichter and Water and stuff reach out to me about their ability to negotiate where they fall in their retirement, where they fall in other aspects within the statewide structure. For example, Vermont state police officers, I believe it's fourteen years, can reach retirement eligibility. And if you're coming in from a different department, Gayle Pezzoille and stuff, they just don't have the same access to get to the same level of retirement as quickly as Vermont State Police do. So what this would do is it would allow all these other folks that have kind of been left out of the conversation to form a collective bargaining unit and advocate for inclusion in the retirement system, basically.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So this would be for just firefighters?

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: No, it's liquor and lottery, it's firefighters. It's Let me see who else we've got in there.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Basically,

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: anyone who's in law enforcement, game wardens, DMV has some people that are enforcement officers, all of those kind of, it's basically fish and wildlife, liquor lottery, motor vehicles would be able to collectively bargain for within the state police

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: kind of structure. Do they need, this is, probably I should know this but don't, do they need legislative authorization to petition the labor board to make them a bargaining unit?

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: I just don't know. I'm not 100% sure about that. The guy that came to me with this reached out to all of these people and they were very overwhelmingly supportive of the idea of being able to do this. So, I'm looking through my notes here. Is this a short form bill?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, it's not. A full thing. A thing. Full thing. It

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: would separate something that's kind of persisted through a bunch of different administrations and recognizes that the firefighters, the game wardens and DMV people that are doing like law enforcement activities are on par with the Vermont State Police.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: On par with who?

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: Vermont State Police. Yeah. You know?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can I say something?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, please go ahead. Would just say a question.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: For the committee, though, it doesn't mean these folks aren't in a bargaining unit.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It means they have a right to ask for one?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No. They already no. Some of them already are this is to be in a different unit.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I see. You mean, some

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: them want people thinking when that they're not in one. Okay?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They're in other words, they may be in a bargaining unit, but then the question is whether they should it should be they should be moved into one. Distinct one.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: Yeah. Correct.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So I just wanted to make it clear for the committee that people will not be like, what? They're not in a bargain.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: Thanks, Rick Krasnow.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Any questions of the author? You know, if we take this up, of course, walk through, etcetera. No. Go ahead. I was just wondering when you say the law enforcers, like,

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: city things. Are we going to include any prison guards at all? No, this doesn't include DOC employees. It would just be game wardens. There's certain liquor lottery officers that have full like law enforcement, you know, purview

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: what's the

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: other one, DMV.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you for that clarification. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, And does anybody else wanna ask the author a question? Come on, guys, here's your shot.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah, why the firefighters, Why are they in the list of law enforcement?

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: Because there are certain people in the fire department that are law enforcement. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Code enforcement, yeah. Other questions? Yes,

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: go for Why

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: wouldn't you want to include the DOC?

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: It's just a separate entity, they have their own bargaining unit already. So this is a catch all for other people in law enforcement. DOC's already got its own way to state you.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Thanks.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yep. Yes, you can help yourself.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I can't help myself. Does this mean, and IUD, does this mean those who, as Rev. Krasnow said, they're already in a bargaining unit, would, if this legislation were to pass, would it just be like, check, okay, that they can start a new bargaining unit, or would they have to then vote to Ask the LRD? Well, they'd still have to do that, but they're already part of a bargaining unit, and I'm forgetting the words that I'm looking for.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So separate, yeah, whatever Yeah, they're

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: would they have to?

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: No. It would be more like an opt in thing.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But would they have to leave their current bargaining unit?

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: It's not my understanding. The council might be able to call me wrong, but they've worked in concert with me in drafting the legislation, so.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: Not Leg Council.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Was it Sophie, did Sophie Sophie say

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: drafted it from Leg Council, but I'm saying that the layers that affect the list legislation would affect work with the exact language.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Elizabeth, you got a question? She's behind you in line, but you don't have to look at it.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I just wondered whether you have thought at all about how prop the past the potential passage of prop two would impact this? Thanks.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: I would think that the potential passage of Prop two could make it irrelevant, but it's something that concerned me and folks reached out to me and I think it's important enough to consider until that happens. Great. I think you asked me the same question last year, Elizabeth, about another labor

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: bill. Thank

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you though. Any other questions? Gina, a thousand thank yous. You. I'm glad you came by.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: Thank you. Okay,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: take care. Yep. So, I want to now, but just to, I wanna take a thirty second recess, okay, but we'll not go offline. Ted, which are you, I don't wanna waste your time, are you here, or which?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I was planning to get drawn to

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the budget letter. Oh, great. Yes. Perfect. Okay. Just wanna make sure you weren't, like, waiting for some bill when we're I hate it when JFO wastes time by sitting in on the wrong thing.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I appreciate your consideration, Gayle. Cool. Okay. Now

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: do you have our budget letter? Do you have special amount of budget? Yeah. Okay. So I was explaining, this is a very rough first draft, and it's for your consideration. Thanks to Joe's input, I have realized that probably if I was more awake than I was when I did this first draft, I might just say, you notice there's a big heading, housing, right? Tier one, first priority, tier two, second. You know, we're down halfway at page two, it says proposed legislation. I probably would make that its own thing. It's not a tier. Just it's just letting them know that that's out there. I might even put it at the end or something like that. It's not I didn't mean to tear it, you know, it's and as I explained a few minutes ago, our assignment really was to focus on the budget, you know, the governor's budget. And of course, all the stuff that's proposed legislation is just that, it's just proposed, and it isn't even out of here yet. So I just put it there because I did, So I could stick it at the end, I can leave it out or whatever. And then the other elements than housing. So tier two second priority right now really consists of home ownership tax credits, the mobile home investment, the housing accelerator at DHC no, no, that's excuse me, no, not that. That's it, and Home Share Vermont. Everything else is elements other than housing. Okay, I'm sorry that it's a little chaotic, like I said, I was doing this as best I could. So, discussion, thoughts. And like I said, it's a little different than last year, like, for example, didn't bother debating with myself over how much I should put down for above base one time for PHCB, because for all I know it might be zero. I just took the number they asked for and just put it in there and said, well, I know they're not going to get that, but I tried to explain why these things were important, why VHIP is important. And you'll notice that I emphasized a multiplier, because it's just the conversations that I've had with representative Chey have emphasized that when we don't have any money, it's nice to use other people's money. And the other people are either the federal government or private sector. And so I ask myself, what are the most valuable valuable state investment in that sense? And it is, in fact, VHCb and BHip. They're they're they multiply their money as does the treasurer, but that's not that's not that's just proposed. Okay. I'm done. Alright. Yeah. Okay. Emily Emily first and then you. Okay. Go on, Emily. You're on.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I don't have it up on the screen, so I have some few questions. Or maybe I'll just say what I think. So VHIP is we're doing it to be in in the base. Is that right? K.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. The tier one, since you don't have it up. Yeah. Tier one is VACB funding is 12,000,000 one time above base. The administration is just base. Right. VHIP VHIP is 4,000,000 in base, same as the administration. And then I have a paragraph that explains why VHCb is important. I have a paragraph that explains why VHIP is important.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And then is HomeShare Vermont in their base?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Home Share is a part of tier two.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's a tier two?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. What it is is homeownership tax credits, mobile home and mobile home investment. What's the r? Improvements, what's the R? Improvements, repairs, repairs. Then MERV Yeah. And then home shares. Those that's what's in here

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: too.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. And that's all there is that Yeah.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. But home just making sure. And then for the labor related things, we have VLRB.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. What's what's in there's just a section at the moment that is called elements other than housing.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah. And

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it's human rights commission

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Can go over

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: that in a minute,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of land access opportunity board and VLRB.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Alright. It seems and is is there any what about sash or any of the Cathedral Square type of stuff?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Not in here.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Not in here. Okay. Alright. So got it. So VHIP base, we have home share, things other. Alright. That seems good to me.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Thoughts, comments? Yes? Can you explain to me what the base only means? Yeah, okay, so, help me out here, I think Ted can do it, I have a feeling, right? Why don't you do that? You're sitting here, you've got to identify yourself.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure. Deborah and I joined fiscal office, so the portions in the base refer to certain B sections, and this is the routine year over year funding, a specific agency department program, and they're generally called out

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: in certain

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: sections of the And

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the base for BHCb is?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The property transfer tax. And so under statute, BHCB receives 50% of property transfer tax revenues after there's a 2,500,000 annual housing bond payment and Department of Taxes administration costs. That statutory amount is not withstood, but I will say that in the current FY27 gov rec, the 50% is pretty reflective of the statutory Which is like 27 or

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: is it 39?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's what

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I wanted to know, is this an issue. You

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: know how much you like. Don't wanna We know. Say your name for the rat. Chris Donnelly, chairman of the country, it's 37.6. 37.6, that is their statutory base. So that's what base means. And I'm gonna put that 37.6. Okay, Elizabeth. Elizabeth, is it clear to you, because I know you care about it, when I was doing the Human Rights Commission?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Well that was what I was going to ask about. Would appreciate you adding language at the very beginning explains there are

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Of the letter, yeah.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That explains that although the non housing elements are further down on the page, they're lower in priority. That's number one.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, My

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: other question, I have a question and that is, I wasn't present for, obviously for the PHIP presentation. And I wanted to ask whether there are out of state property owners who have been able to access VHIP funding. And I'm really strongly opposed to that. And I wondered whether, oh shoot, sorry, whether an element like that could be, I don't even know whether it's possible to add things like that. I know they're not supposed to be statutory changes added to the budget or requirements added to budget frameworks, but they sometimes are. And so, I just wanted to bring it up as a point of conversation and a question. Thanks.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The only thing I can tell you is we did have it was really a good, rather extensive testimony about VHIP. And at that time, there was a discussion of the size of the projects, and they're almost entirely very small projects. I mean, really small. Like, five units or less, mostly. My suspicion, without knowing, is that a project that size would be in state, you know, local developers. So that's all I know at this point. We'd have to ask I guess we'd ask who testified? Sean Gilpin. Sean Gilpin. Whether there are any out of state developers or owners.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But I mean, hypothetically, out of state, someone who's out of state could have the unit in Vermont, and also EHIP or DHCD, their program, they get an application. I have a hard time, I'm just not sure this is where we want to get into it personally. I have a hard time believing that they would put money to a unit that's in New Hampshire versus Vermont. Just don't see that happening. Maybe that's

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: maybe That's not what I'm asking.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Guess I just don't understand what you're asking.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I'm not asking whether the money is going out of the state. I'm asking whether the money is being accessed by out of state owners.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I guess I don't have a problem with it if a unit is in Vermont, is my personal take.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I get what Elizabeth is saying, and it is something I hadn't thought about, but I would like to know the answer. If out of state people are coming here and having the then they get the priority over Vermonters who could I see both sides, but I would like to find that out. Not necessarily like it would hinder what we're doing in here, but it is something I'm curious about, and I do I do see Elizabeth's point.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is it I guess I'd

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Gary? Oh, go ahead. Requirement that an out of

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: state owner identify a

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: local property manager to keep track a responsible party to manage, but I don't see I don't see a restriction on it being in state owner. Although, the back of my mind is back of my mind, I seem to be remembering something about the total number of all of units. So I can't I don't 1,100 some units. Yeah. No. The total number of units per applicant. But I may be confusing other something else. I I don't see a restriction while I'm glad No.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: And that was what that was what I'm asking about is whether there is any prioritization of of Vermont based property owners, whether there is a prioritization of because my understanding of the program is that it's supposed to help the mom and pop landlords.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Ted, did you have a comment?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I was just going to relay what was on the BHIP website, and I think it was expressed there, that out of state owners, it specifies that it seems like they are able to receive D and F funding, but they are required to identify a property manager located within 50 miles of units.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Elizabeth, does your I mean, I'm as your object, I think it's pretty clear that the renters are Vermonters because they're living here. The units are in Vermont, and the property managers, if it's a rental, are Vermonters. Are you saying you object to the idea that the owner might be living out of state even though they're investing in Vermont property?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yep. I'm saying that Vermont property owners should be prioritized if if the program is oversubscribed. As my understanding is that Vermont proper it's supposed to be a hand up for Vermont property owners or for property owners, I guess. And it seems to me that it should be a hand up for Vermont property owners and

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: that needs to be prioritized. I can

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I can understand what you're saying? I think the priority is to get as many units online as possible.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Well, again, if it's over prescribed, then that then that's not really a question because the same number of units would be brought online anyway.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I am certainly happy if someone would be willing to talk to Sean Gilpin and ask. Who might that be?

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Elizabeth asked the question. Elizabeth, would you I be willing to

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: would be glad to ask Sean. Yeah,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think Sean's the person and if you have trouble getting

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: ahold My of second question is, is it possible to put a a requirement like that on or not?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: To me, it's possible to do. I wouldn't wanna do it. But others are free to I don't think I I follow the will of the committee, simply because I don't wanna get into that level of I don't wanna try to change via policy through a letter to the Yeah. This to the this committee. But that's my view. Other members of the committee, I'll follow the committee's will on it. I mean, I could see going to Sean and saying, is this something that we should worry about? Is this an issue? Etcetera. But that's just me.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I don't feel this is the place for policy change or the program.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: That's what I'm just gonna add, there's been a policy and not something that we should even be focusing on, because it's a we could ask him to consider making that a policy. Right. And we could take that up. I mean, if

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we wanted to deal with legislation or else ask him to change the regulations, We can do that. I'm just not for me, it's more like the level of detail in this letter is like nothing. And I hate and I and I'm I'm not I I I would not favor using the letter as a device for that, but I am it's up to the committee.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: And it's a good question to ask, Elizabeth. It's just the policy doesn't go on the approach letter, but somewhere else it might.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other members of the committee?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yes, I see a lot of, what would I refer to them, A lot of good areas that we could affect with some money. One of them, I'll just point out, would be the rental arrears assistance fund that shows up much, much, much later and something that has $0. I see that getting easily overlooked after a first priority first one of our first priority being 12,000,000 more to the program that's getting multiple million. So I just see a lot of good things, I think, that have a lot of benefit to them too far down the list for me

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to support this fight. One thing I think I better do I'm not sure this will address what you're saying, but one thing I think I better do is I better take this, all this proposed legislation stuff, put it at the end and say, we're not prioritizing this at this point, and I could even say, some of them, if they passed, we would put it as tier one priority, but right now, they've just proposed legislation. I think I better do that for clarity purposes. Yeah.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: But still, mean, giving them the heads up. Well, that's what

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I want to They don't get

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: $7.72 three weeks from now.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. I agree with Joe, actually. I consider the rental arrears really important.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Actually, the $7.72,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think. Saudia and then okay. Saudia?

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you. I was gonna say not only the rental arrears, but also the landlord liaisons

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Is is, like, super important and helpful and had a pathway. So I feel like that's the easier pathway even if it's not included in our housing legislation that comes out. I think there were previous fundings and programming that existed historically. So I don't know if there's a way in in the event to acknowledge that, in the event that the proposed legislation that we are putting out doesn't come forward, that it can still be, you know, just additional supplemental to the pathway that previously existed to continue funding for the CAP agencies. And then I just wanted to say like, I also agree and appreciate the restructuring of the letter. And I would say I wouldn't even put priorities. I would just put housing and non housing and then the proposed legislation would be my suggestion. And just with we can essentially not say like, the tiers could be the different subgroups. Like, one tier could be housing and one tier could be non housing. Right? Things other than housing, like the Human Rights Commission, LEOB, and those things. But I I just also think that if we move it to the top so that's all on the first page and then put the proposed legislation on the back, which is still there, and highlighting that and and just really if there's a way to emphasize and acknowledge that the programs that are not I mean, 600,000 for a landlord liaison doesn't feel like a huge ask to me. And so I've y'all y'all know me and my equitable lens. And I'm always like, give them you know, if it's a slow ask, we should definitely do that because you give the most to the more to the most amount of people. You have the most impact. You're stretching your impact. So that's that's my 2¢.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You know, I just wanna throw out another idea for you, Saudia. Okay? Yep. You make a good I'm just thinking out loud here. Okay? So one option, Saudi is suggesting no tears. Okay. I could do that. I mean, they'll roll their eyes a little because they want us to have tiers, but hear me out for a minute. Another option is to keep the tiers, but I could take extension of the landlord rental arrears assistance fund, which is an existing program, as you point out, and put it in tier one, and just put this is also an extension that we have in a bill or something like that. I could do that.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah. I just if it was just that the reality is is that if we wanted to give let's change numbers. We wanted to give VHCb. It's a very lean time right now. It's been a we keep saying that as if it's though this as though it's this year is a lean time. There's people who live their lives in a lean time. So let's not act like, oh, we just don't have money this year. Like, we were flush with cash, and we could spend it on anything. We weren't flush with cash. We just had banknotes that borrowed money from your right pocket instead of your left pocket. Because that's you know, when we say it's it compounds funding or whatever we would say. It's a multiplier. You know, you get you know, it multiplies your state money with your federal both of those are my pockets. I mean, I don't really care which it comes with. I just they could get $6,000,000 more if they change their allocation of funding from conservation to housing. That could give them 2,000,000 more for housing. It could give them 8,000,000

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Bill sponsor)]: more for housing.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Wait a minute. Give them 15,000,000

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: for housing. Think this was just a request for housing, but we can put the Oh, I've suggested it for years. It should just be money.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I've suggested it for years. It's not gonna happen.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. No. But we could put in here that it'd be for housing.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: No. This is for housing.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm just saying their internal structure of

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Dividing the money.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. The dividing the 30

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah. Which I believe they've said 7,000,000. They're thinking about maybe Right.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You want it to all be conservation.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I it's quite possibly we should all use it for conservation so that we can meet our 30 by 30 goals.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Or No. We got 50 by 50.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Or we could have we could say we're in the housing crisis, and people can't find rentals, and maybe we should use a little more of that for housing.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Right?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'll tell you what. My backyard's Seriously, I actually, out of time, I hear you, but you put, give me this, and what I'm gonna do is I'm just gonna turn around and just create another version of this. Marc, that's me. So today at noon, I had

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: a vice chairs meeting. One of the topics that came up was our budget letters, Rep Pango had mentioned that their committee is doing a spreadsheet and a letter, and that both Rep Zeldis and Rep Shai really appreciated the spreadsheet. And then I asked if I could copy a pengo's homework, and she sent me last year's template of the spreadsheet. So I have started a spreadsheet,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: so would say

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: that's something that the committee would be okay with me.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If you have a spreadsheet, you realize that if we put a spreadsheet in, they're three times more likely to listen to it, because that's all the way they think. Okay, we're at one real quick and then we gotta run, we won't get a star if everybody's hanging around.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: The MA, the Murph program, where does the Figure 800,000 come from?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That came from It came from Alex Farrell.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So does that mean 800,000 for this year as well as work? It's for this year. So that's 1,200,000.0 less than last year.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, it might be, yeah.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Would But just

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Tomorrow we convene at what time? After the floor. Oh no, No, it's no, it's we convene at 01:00.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay, but everyone needs to be in their seats at 9AM tomorrow.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: On the floor.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: On the floor, so if you could get here for, at the latest, 08:30, because we got that thing going on. Okay.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Are now adjourned.