Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Alright. We are live. Alright, everyone. Good morning. First order of business, Friday, February 20, a little after 10:30AM is h five nineteen, an act relating to authorizing officers, the town of Randolph Police Department to enroll in group c of the Vermont State Employees Retirement System. And let's see. Councils, would you like to go first? Sure, I'll be very brief. Yes, knew that you had minimal words for us for brief notes.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning, Tucker Anderson, legislative council. The amendments to page five nineteen, I really only have, some general comments this morning, nothing about the substance on the page because what is being proposed, no longer relates to my subject areas, municipal law and municipal charters. It is broadened out into VCRs and the groups within VCRs that relate to a couple of different municipalities and their police departments. So with that note, something that I'll state upfront, this is proposed right now as an amendment to H five nineteen, which was introduced as a charter bill. It's specific. It's a piece of special law relating to one municipality, granting them authority relating to, v sirs and v sirs access for the Randolph Police Department. But the language that is being added to h five nineteen here no longer relates to that. So why am I flagging that? If you move forward with this particular proposal, you could have a germane issue if it were to be challenged on the floor, but this isn't the only vehicle you have. So I wanted to flag that this might be a more appropriate amendment for another bill dealing with vCERs or you could potentially introduce a committee bill just containing this language. You have a lot of different options. By H519, if you were to amend it as you've proposed right now by, I believe representative Sackowitz, gives you susceptible to some parliamentary challenges on the floor. That's all I have for you.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Very much, sir. Yes, mister Wood. Yeah. Yeah. Let's understand what we had for changes before we get to our guests.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. What I'm going to do is I'm going to walk through an amendment proposal to five nineteen, and is currently drafted as an amendment from Representative Sackowitz, as was mentioned. I just sent a request to share, and we'll be off. That enough? Zoom in a little more. Little

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: a little. Please.

[Speaker 0]: K. Pop the font. There we go. There we go. Our customers. Alright. Thank you.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. As mentioned, this is, an amendment to five nineteen drafted from representative Sackowitz. But if you choose to move forward, obviously, can draft that up as an amendment from this committee. My understanding is this is based on some discussion and negotiation of language between the towns themselves and treasurer's office retirement division. So questions about that, I will defer to the treasurer's office themselves, who I know they are here today and available to answer. I'm just going to walk through the language that we have on the page. So, what we are doing is we are amending Title III four fifty five, among other sections. Essentially, this is doing is it's allowing law enforcement officers, who are municipal law enforcement officers, for municipalities that are participating in the state's retirement system. As you all know, you have the state system, you have the teachers' retirement system, and then you have the municipal system. There are some municipalities and local governments that actually participate in the state system. So, those municipal law enforcement officers, allowing those members to be part of Group G, which is a retirement system that you all created a few years ago. Initially, you moved in certain Department of Corrections officers, and then subsequently, I believe it was in 2024, you all moved in sheriffs, deputy sheriffs into Group G. So that's the current construct of Group G membership. And so what these sections are going to do is it's going to move those individuals into Group G, and then it has the corresponding necessary amendments to do so. And then it puts into the future a one time irrevocable authorization or a decision for individuals who are currently municipal law enforcement officers that are in Group F. They would have to make a decision of whether they want to switch over to Group G or not. So, for individuals moving forward, they would be in Group G. For current individuals, they would get the option of choosing to stay within their current group or moving over to Group G. You don't want to force these individuals who have taken this job, potentially based on the fact that they're in this group, you want to give them the option of whether they want

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: to move over or not. So, moving forward,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page one of this amendment, we have the definition of member. We have the definition of group g. And all of this is where, again, initially, you moved over department of corrections employees, as I mentioned. Then subsequently, you moved over sheriff's deputy sheriffs. So I'm still moving forward to the new language. Here we go. Bottom of page two, top of page three. The following employees who are first employed in the positions listed on or after 01/01/2027, who make that irrevocable election to join group G on or before 12/31/2026. I'll get to that in just a second. These are the positions themselves. So, individuals who are employed, starting on line four, are employed by a municipal employer that participates in the state system. The individual has attained a level two or three law enforcement officer certification, and are required to perform law enforcement duties as the primary function of their employment. So, those are the positions that are moving over. I do not know, I personally do not know how many individuals we're talking about here. I do believe it is a pretty narrow set of individuals, but that's a question I would defer to potential JFO or the treasurer's office who may have the exact number. So, that's the amending the membership definition. So, now we're moving forward to the normal retirement date with respect to a group G member. We are going to be on page four, bottom of page four. So, here's where we're having to add these new members into the normal retirement date. What is their normal retirement date going to be? When you get to the definition, it lists out each of these members to give them a normal retirement date. And so, you have a lot of language here, because you're having to address different populations of people. So, this subdivision seven is dealing with individuals who were initially employed on or before 2008. This would be their normal retirement date, sixty two years completing five years, thirty years of service, or 55 years of age after completing twenty years of service. And my understanding is and that is one of the key pieces about Group G, is it allows individuals to retire at 55 with twenty years of service. And that is not available for members in Group F. So one of the key differences for moving these individuals over. So you have the people that were employed prior to 2008. Then you have the people that are employed after 2008, who were employed as of December 31, and who make the election to join Group G. It's on lines nine and ten. You have a different retirement date because you have this '87 points reflecting combination of age and membership. So that applied to individuals after 2008, not before 2008. And then subsequently, you have the last piece here, which is everyone who is employed after 01/01/2027. These individuals moving forward, it's either fifty five years of after twenty years of service and attaining 55 years of age, or 65 years of age after five years. So, you remove that combination of 87. Okay. So, we're just trying to account for each scenario of individual who would potentially move over. If you've been there since 2000 or before 2008, after 2008, moving forward in 2027 if this goes into effect. So, then you get to the section related to normal and early retirement, and this is where, again, we're just making the necessary corresponding amendments to include those new subdivisions into the normal retirement date section. We've added the definition, now we're adding the reference to the definition in the relevant section itself. And then here is three VSA four eighty nine. So this is just clarifying that these individuals so this is a section, I believe this is in the political subdivision subchapter for political subdivisions participating in the state system. And this section says that those employees shall be considered group f members except these things. And so we're adding in except a sub three, the municipal law enforcement officers who meet the requirements of the definition. So this is all just necessary corresponding statutory language to accomplish the goal of what the amendment is proposing to accomplish. Okay, now we get to the session law section here, where you are authorizing this one time irrevocable election. So, for individuals who are currently municipal law enforcement employees, they're in Group F, and if you're going to move them over to Group G, as I mentioned, you want to give the current employees the option of whether they want to move over or not. And so, this is putting into session law for these employees. So, it's just listing out the employees that we're referring to here. Municipal law enforcement officers. And then the relevant language is going to be on beginning line 17 and moving forward. They shall have a one time option to transfer to Group G on or before 12/01/2026. So if this passes, it would be effective in July. Those individuals would then have six months to learn from the retirement division. My understanding is they would go out, make sure the individual employees themselves know what are the consequences of moving from one group to another group, Then the employees themselves would have that six month window to make a determination. And then by this 12/01/2026, they would need to make that one time irrevocable decision whether or not to move over. So that's just what this section is doing. So

[Speaker 0]: it's enabling it. It's not Yes, sir. Sir. Gotcha.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's enabling them to make that decision. I mean, it's mandating in the sense that they have to make the decision.

[Speaker 0]: They have to make a decision, but it's not maintaining the movement itself. Gives us an option of door one door two.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sir. Yes, sir. And then obviously, as we mentioned back to the definition for a new employee after 2027, 01/01/2027, you're required to be in Burgundy. But just for the current ones, this session law is setting up that irrevocable election. Thank you. Okay. And then there's a lot of statutory language there, just mandating that it be irrevocable, mandating that the information be shared with the retirement division, etcetera. And then lastly, sorry, one key piece, sub key here is, nothing in the section shall be read to extend post retirement health or other insurance benefits to group G municipal enforcement officers. So they're not getting the similar post employment assistance that state does. Matt Hooper of Burlington.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Do we have employees in do we have municipalities who participate in either the state or in this plan or municipal plan? Yes, sir. It's fully applies to towns that are already in the municipal plan.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It only applies to the municipalities that are participating in the state system, not the municipal system. Yes. Yes. Yes. That's what I meant. Yes,

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: sir. How's the benefit calculated? The benefit calculated under group g? Or You're gonna have blended years in different plans, f and g. Right. Is it based on years of service exclusively or blended benefit based upon years that you've contributed this amount

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in F and years that you've contributed this amount in G? My understanding is yes, but I would probably defer to retirement division or potentially my JFO counterpart who can probably articulate it better than I can if you're looking for specifics on how that blending would occur.

[Speaker 0]: Yes sir. Certifiable. Yes sir. If

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: you're level one then.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you were if you became in if you were a municipal law enforcement employee and then you became a level two or a level three after 01/01/2027, my understanding is you would then move over into group g.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Justin shaking his head. And smiling.

[Speaker 0]: Think that is a little bit of did you have a question? No.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I was saying the question is likely for Justin. So

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: So, just don't think Justin is the City Attorney's Office.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, gotcha. Roll the decks. Anything else for Mr. Wood? Yes, sir. Yeah. Yes. No. This is there's no short of no short of the complexities that we get into these. This will go to the representatives from Randolph, and then we'll close out with the treasurer's office. Does that work for everyone? Just one more question, please. Go ahead. What's the significance of

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: the 2,008 date?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well before I was even in the state of Vermont, I'm assuming there were changes made in 2008 for the retirement system, such that the benefits, I'm assuming likely changed. There's something that you all did in 2008 to amend the retirement system and the packages that people were eligible for. And so you have to ensure that the individuals that were employed prior to 2008 are treated separately in that event.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Seems like a long time ago. Well,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just keep in mind, mean, you become employed, you know, right, part of that contractual agreement you have with the employers in regards to the benefits that you're eligible for at that time, or the retirement benefits that you're eligible for at that time, if you amend those things retroactively, you potentially have constitutional issues with the contracts clause, etcetera. So typically, what you'll see is the easiest way around that is you just allow individuals who are employed during that time to continue to access the retirement benefits that they were eligible for when they became employed, and you make any changes prospectively. And so I would have to go in and go back and do all the statutory research to figure out exactly what you all did in 2008. But I'm assuming you did something, and subsequently, yeah, you would treat them differently. And Chris is nodding his head, and he may know exactly what you all did in 2000. So One second before go

[Speaker 0]: to Chris. Bob, I was getting some feedback from the folks on Zoom. If you

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: could just speed up a little bit,

[Speaker 0]: and you are asking questions or responding. Yeah. Yeah. No. Just, like, elevate your voice a little bit. It's not getting picked up on the microphone.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Mister Woods. Mister Chris

[Speaker 0]: from joint fiscal. That's exactly right. If you look at page five of the bill, you'll see that there are changes between folks who are hired pre-two thousand and eight and post, and the most significant changes are what happened then was that's when the rule of 87 was put in place to be eligible for retirement. The earlier cohort needed to have thirty years of service or reach age 62. And in 2008, the benefit was changed, so future hires after that date also could be eligible under the rule of 87. And normal, that's when age and years of service have to total 87. And if that's not the case, the normal retirement age was increased from 62 to 65. So you see those changes right there. You can

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: see the changes here on the top of the one, it's either 62. And then for those after 2008, it's 65. Mhmm. Yep. And then also just completion of thirty years of service for those prior to 2008, after 2008, as Chris was mentioning, the rule of '87. So their retirement date is different. It's a pretty frustrating discussion.

[Speaker 0]: And if I could just mention, mister chair, you know, I think the construct that's contemplated here very closely mirrors what the legislature did recently with, deputy sheriffs who were similarly situated in group f as well to allow them to transition to group g. It's also similar to the original construct when group g was first put in for corrections officers to give existing employees the option to transfer in to Group G, or stay where they were at, and then make new hires automatically enrolled moving forward. That's my way of saying there's precedence with how this is constructed. And continuity. Love Yeah. All right. Cool. That makes this complicated subject matter clearer. Thank you. Was that a handwritten?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: No, was it was it cleared some things up.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I think this is one of our deeper dives into this like nuance. So it's a good education tool as well. Anything else for mister Wood before we move on to our other guests? No? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Alright. Up next, Trini Broussard. How you doing, Trini? Chair, Randolph Selector.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Good morning.

[Trini Broussard (Randolph Selectboard Chair)]: Thanks for having us. I thought Trevor was gonna kick this off, but, more than willing to.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Oh, we

[Speaker 0]: can we can happily do that if you'd prefer. Yeah. Trevor, jump on in. I'll juggle the lineup.

[Trini Broussard (Randolph Selectboard Chair)]: We can, we can do it together if you want, Trevor.

[Speaker 0]: I've tried. You can do it. Yeah. Try it.

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: Thanks for having us. This is a quirky story to be sure. There are three towns that at some point forty plus years ago decided to join visitors rather than beamers with everybody else. Randolph, Bethel, and Danville. Randolph's the only one with a municipal law enforcement agency at this point. We had one. We went to a contract model with the sheriff's department. Election changed all that. We restarted a police department. So now we have municipal police again. It's a district wide model, so it has a service area. So we have chief who's on as well, level three certified officer. Currently have two other level three certified ops officers. We have a level two officer who's currently deployed with the National Guard, and then a budget slot for another level three. The reason we look at level three is because with a small department, we need officers who can handle the full spectrum of law enforcement tasks. We have to double up at times. We may or may not have the capacity to do so. Just as a little bit of context for how many members, two of them aren't even vested in the systems yet, they're new to law enforcement. We hire somebody who's a qualified candidate, they go right to the level two academy, so we don't contemplate a level one status. It just doesn't work practically speaking. So it's level twos, the entry point and then level three eventually after some field training and a few other things. For us, what we found is that this participation in VCRs has been a recruitment impediment as we've restarted.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There are sort

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: of two things that come up over and over again, wages, which we can fix through budgeting, collective bargaining, all that. But this retirement thing, we we can't. So the feedback we get, especially when we talk to level three certified officers, even some level twos, is I've gotta work longer for, this retirement benefit than I would at every other law enforcement in the state, whether it be municipal states, such as state police or corrections officers or sheriff's deputies. So that puts us at a significant disadvantage in a marketplace where there aren't enough cops for everybody to begin with. This helps us solve part of that puzzle, hopefully helps us find some level three certified officers that lets us deploy officers more quickly. The the training continuum, if we do hire somebody new, go level two. Field train level three, chief can correct me if I'm wrong, but figure at a best case scenario, you're twelve to fourteen months, you're probably really closer to eighteen months before somebody's capable of being out there solely on their own in a

[Speaker 0]: way that everybody feels comfortable.

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: So anything that shortens that curve helps us as well. Okay. Those were the the key things. It's a complicated topic, but a fairly simple ask in a lot of ways. We just like to be able to compete and be able to retain.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: This is a broader question just for you. In a time when we are having active conversations in other venues about extending a life of service of police officers beyond 55. City of Burlington just negotiated a longer time for officers. This is mandatory 55 and out.

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: Don't believe so. I think it provides that option. So, if someone wants to do the twenty and fifty five, yeah.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Yes, sure. Seems like maybe those ideas are counter to each other. That's happens when.

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: Anecdotally, we've it's going to be fairly off officer specifics. You've taken life considerations, health, physical health, career aspects. The mileage is can be heavy, it can be different for each individual.

[Speaker 0]: Any other questions for Trevor? Trini, would you like to weigh in?

[Trini Broussard (Randolph Selectboard Chair)]: I would. I think right now, the idea of keeping somebody past 55 is great, but we need to begin with. And we're just losing at the recruitment level. And I, you know, when we look at the services able to be provided by the Vermont State Police, they're they're not a level that these communities are looking for. And so right now, we have three officers, and they're getting extremely fried with the hours of coverage that are needed. And we get people to the door, and the first thing they start talking about is the benefit package, and we lose them right there. So, you know, we're talking, you know, a very small population right now. There's no cost to the state on this because the municipality and the employee pick it up. And so it's a it's just an ask to be on a fair playing field to try to find some folks that would rather be in community policing versus what profession they're in now. You know, there was a day twenty years ago when kids dressed up as police officers for Halloween, and they wanted to be. And I joke with Scott, the only one crazy enough to do that's my granddaughter at this point. But, you know, it's a it's a profession that's hard enough to find people to get a disadvantage like this is just killing us. So we're hopeful that's come out somewhere.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Yeah, no, I completely understand where you're coming from, from the recruitment perspective. That, I mean, it's a universal problem. So, I'm very we hear it a lot in here. So, I'm very empathetic to that. Just wanna say that part out loud. Any questions for the guests from the city Excuse me, the town of Randolph? Nope.

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: Alright. Thanks, folks. We've got an officer opening if anybody's interested. Okay. Career jail.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Public service announcement.

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: They can be flexible if you're willing.

[Speaker 0]: Scott, would you like to weigh in at all since you're with us?

[Chief Scott Kuo (Randolph Police Department)]: Good morning. Chief Scott Kuo, Randolph Police Department. Both Trini and Trevor did a phenomenal job with what we've kind of got going on here. And it is a recruitment issue. I mean, yes, I am selfishly looking at it, might as well. I've got twenty years in and law enforcement has definitely changed in those twenty years. It's like what Trevor put on, it's the mileage, both health wise, mental health wise, and you see that on a daily basis with some of the older gen officers. It's that recruitment thing that we are definitely looking for. So I greatly appreciate everyone's time in this room. Whatever other questions you may have, please don't hesitate to reach out.

[Speaker 0]: Excellent. No. Thank you for that. Okay. We'll shift over to Justin. Justin, general counsel, office of the treasurer. How are you doing, sir?

[Justin (General Counsel, Office of the State Treasurer)]: Good. Good. Thanks for, letting me join today. If I could, a few things, to might be helpful. I think this has been great information so far, but would it be helpful just to zoom out a little bit for the committee's edification? Absolutely. So one, it is important. This is the third iteration of Group G changes, the initial correction in Act 114 in 2022. And then the H five eighty five, which members of this committee passed two years ago in 2024, followed by the General Assembly writ large. Really, this should have been in in the sheriff's bill. Think this is, as folks have said, I mean, this is at this point, we're looking at three potential additions to Group G in terms of FTEs. We have checked Bethel did request that to clarify that this would allow we wouldn't need future legislative changes if they were able to or made a decision to hire officers. This is going forward at least preserves the ability for those folks to hire in officers at Group G. In addition, just to we've been dancing around a little bit, just to put a finer point, what makes Group G potentially a recruiting tool that could be helpful is that your benefit multiplier goes from 1.67% of your average final salary, your AFC we call it, for Group F, we call it F prime members, it goes up to 2.5. So you get to 50% in twenty years. So that is the added benefit here and it mimics more of a VCRS Group C and VMRS Group D benefit of a twenty year benefit. The one point I will point out, and it's been talked about a little bit, that it is revenue neutral in the sense that group G members bear the cost of this enhanced benefit. They pay 4.68% more. So just wanted to point that out. And so what you see, and I think Legislative Council Wood did a wonderful job walking through, I think in building this, after we've heard the request from Randolph and understood what they were trying to accomplish along the other two municipalities, really we just took the entire framework that the legislature has used twice now, made clear that carved out the role for these three folks so that this section of VCERS, which is as pointed out, a statutory anomaly of having these three municipalities here. But so I think this is a very simple solution that hopefully is revenue neutral certainly to the state and provides municipalities what they need in terms of enhanced recruitment potential. Okay,

[Speaker 0]: I guess so that revenue neutral component, I might be shifting my eyes over here. Is this something we need a note on or Chris who joined fiscal, when presuming the committee votes the bill out, there will be a fiscal note attached to it when it goes there. I can tell you what that note will say right now. It'll basically say what Justin just mentioned and what we said thus far that, you know, we're talking about three members, three individuals in a group of around five eighty people at the end of the last fiscal year. This is going to be a de minimis impact to the retirement system. And these individuals are it's small in number, and they're relatively similar to the existing group of people who are in group G. I would just caution that if the legislature were to add new groups to group g that were larger and looked much different than who's currently in group g, we'll probably need to rerun the actuarial, estimates that informed that 4.68% number. But given the reality of this conversation and this universe of individuals, we really do not expect this to have any meaningful impact to the pension system. Thank you for that, sir. Okay. So anything else to add Justin?

[Justin (General Counsel, Office of the State Treasurer)]: No, I just think that we are treading a road that we probably should have added these folks in two years ago. But I think from our perspective, this is a very well trodden path here, know, the same statutory construction for a very similarly situated set of folks that we did in the sheriff's bill. So happy to

[Speaker 0]: answer anything else. Okay. Anything else for Justin on this one?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes. I don't know if it's for Justin or someone else. Are there any other groups we can identify who might end up being If we've done this three times, this is the third time. And if adding more people kind of bit by bit is going to change, like Chris just said, like the outcome at some point, if it were a larger group, can we Who would tell us what other groups there might be who could potentially be added to this

[Speaker 0]: at some point? I I would just say, just offhand that as far as I'm aware, this is probably the last group of outliers that come to mind that have job duties that might feel more similar to what is in group C or in group G already. My point was more about there are some proposals in the building to expand group G to cover, for example, all classified employees of the Department of Children and Families. Know, adding a thousand members that look very demographically different into Group G is going to alter the actuarial analysis. These three members who have law enforcement background, they're already likely to behave similarly to the folks that we already built Group G around.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And there there are, like, around the state, a bunch of other

[Speaker 0]: Nothing comes to mind right now. This is, the last sort of It seems like fire. Yeah. This is the the end of the untwangled coin.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: The fire is great. Got it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Very quickly, Cameron Wood, Legislative Counsel. Was just going to comment something that Chris commented as well. There is another bill that's on your wall to move a substantial number of individuals into Group G. Ultimately, I think it's up to you all, the policymakers, what employees belong in a specific group. I would echo the comments that were made from Justin and Chris. I think this small subset very much aligns with the other individuals that are already in Group G. But there is a bill on your wall to move a substantial number of current state employees into Group G. And just wanted you to be aware of that in

[Speaker 0]: case you're interested. Understood. I think I personally right now would like to focus on this bucket without being more of, like, a expansive change to the system. No. Especially with looking at the crossover clock right now. Would be a very large conversation. And this is as mentioned, I mean, this is, you

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know, three individuals. The other bill on your wall, you know, like, a thousand plus individuals, which would be a which would be a totally different conversation.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Correct, sir. But I I really appreciate you guys have to speak to that. It's, you know, something that connects to this discussion. So thank you. So talking about, our final priorities for crossover, if we can keep this thing clean and tight, I'm hoping trying to move it if the rest of the committee sits worthy. Yes. Absolutely. Okay.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thanks, representative. We may have some other witnesses who are interested in weighing in. Sure. So we will need to make time for that next week.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. So Yeah. I think I think trying to get that to happen actually would be prudent. Mister Morgan?

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Just a comment. Yes. A chief, you probably don't hear it enough from politicians, but thank you for what you do. Keep up the good work. You guys have tough work to do. Your recruitment numbers are tough. I'm a selectman in my time. We have 17 sworn officers in Milton. Just wanna know want you guys to know that you do good work, we appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Anything else from the table before we can shift over to our budget conversation before hitting the noon hour? Seeing no hands. Alright. Thank you, everyone. We're, we'll we'll keep poking at this thing. So just keep an eye on it. We're gonna wind up probably finding agenda time next week at some point. Thank you. And do we wanna call a five in for a record conversation with this library? Let's do it. Census

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: is like What

[Speaker 0]: was that called with that?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: No. Okay. Wanted to

[Speaker 0]: hear that.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Reacting to the Pinsonault. Very emphatic, let's get out of here,

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Well, you can't fight a

[Speaker 0]: yes, people in the southern part of the state are seeing a quicker impact with the storm than those of us who live North of Route 4.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I can start asking a question. When I present this bill, like, we're on live. What is the last sentence I'm supposed to say? Like, you end the bill presentation.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'll help you with the Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: That's a that's a great conversation. Yeah. Great question. Yes.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Are we are did are we cancel our 01:00?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Did not. What?

[Speaker 0]: No. We're No. We're the 01:00. We're trying to keep that going.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: 01:00 is

[Speaker 0]: That's the conversation with the military stuff. The

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: omnibus. Right.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Yeah. FLOs.

[Speaker 0]: And that can be a quick conversation too, but they're not extensive. So Okay. Over to budget land.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: BudgetLand, does everybody have a budget worksheet that is up to date? Nick, have you emailed everybody the latest copy? That would be great. So next we'll email everybody the latest copy, but you can continue to work off their paper copy if that is more helpful to you. And we were on I personally, Mr. Chair, would like to go through the list before we go back to any that we marked as. Yes, to finish the

[Speaker 0]: last plug of the first project.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Yes, please. Let's do that.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Great. And we've got Rutstone here, so that's good.

[Speaker 0]: Mayor of representatives. Right.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: But we're actually in the room, and you can

[Speaker 0]: I

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: have this on page five, but I also have a printed copy of the view? It's on top of page five.

[Speaker 0]: Yes, we completed the column ending with the Vermont Council Bureau development and starting now with Governor's

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Office. Right. So I can really raise my concerns in my areas. Governor's Office, lieutenant governor's office are both in the budget, and they are both current level funded, from my understanding. Same thing, they ask for all the time. The office is running, except for the Lieutenant Governor's office has a decrease from last year because of a change in health and retirement benefit choices. Yay, thank you, lieutenant governor. And both of those are in the governor's recommend. And how would we like to proceed with those?

[Speaker 0]: Any questions on those two items? Did we have a dollar amount?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. Dollar bill. Governor's office is in budget. So, yeah, this is updated. It's $2,600,000. So 2659305. And lieutenant governor is $321,009.11.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Wait, how much was the governor's budget again?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: 2,659,305.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Pardon me for not, this may be a dumb question, but does that include the governor's salary? I'm sure it does. Okay.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And it's all the equipment and miscellaneous travel staff.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm just gonna say this again, because I wanna say it every time. It's confusing to me how we are just saying yes to 2 point whatever million dollars out looking at specifics. And I'm not saying this in regard to the but the governor's budget. I'm not saying, yes or no to it. It's just the concept of this whole thing is it's confusing to me in the sense that we are blithely saying, Okay, to $2,800,000 and then we are going to the mat over $150,000 or something else. Is. It's I guess I don't understand why. What our role is in as far as the input is concerned.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Our role is just because we are the committee of jurisdiction over the administration of government, be it states. Yes, I understand. Municipal, whatever, and those offices have to keep running. And this is what it costs to keep them running, and they've asked for no increase.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm not saying this in relation to this particular item. It's just in general, and I know what our committee is responsible for. What I'm saying is it's conceptually for me, I struggle to understand how we've got $15,000,000 for UVM, that we can be like, okay, sure. And then we have $200,000 for something else that we're debating. So we're going to go

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: back to the UVM thing. Yes, we have information on that to share with you. How would you like to proceed with the Lieutenant Governor and the Governor's office? Let's reference Do you have a question? I'll say this. Agree with what Representative Waters Evans is saying. It's been so fun. It's why I asked so many questions when it came to the planning and development agencies, the regional planning commissions. They're asking us to improve these budgets, but we don't ever see their budgets. So we know what we're really improving. It would be helpful if you go down this chart and you get to the sheriffs, you can at least see what they're asking So

[Speaker 0]: if you want to bring in, so these two

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: would Going forward, maybe it's too late for this year, but going forward, we could ask for more information.

[Speaker 0]: But we could ask for information right now. This is AOA. We could ask, like, secretary Clark for a breakdown. Sure. Like, we could absolutely do that. Yeah.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: I agree. That's what I brought up. Yes. Whenever we did this, the veterans home did a really good job. They weren't even asking for that much, but they put even now to asking money for the Veterans Day parade, they had it down to the dollar. And that's really helpful, especially with big tasks, but even the little ones, it's just helpful to have an itemized list to understand.

[Speaker 0]: And that's one of the difficult things with this committee too, because we touch a lot of things, but don't have a ton of direct possession oftentimes. So that's in my time in this committee, one of the, the bare things to try and wrap your head around because it is a lot to take in when we don't have a lot of direct engagement with some of these line items. So I'm happy to like, you know, send out that invite to

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I'm already sending it. Repartitions?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, thank you. That is exactly what I was trying to say. It's hard to wrap your head around it. And then it makes some of it seem like it's largely performative. For us to be spending like hours talking about it in committee when we don't. Necessarily have any authority to say, no, we don't want this part of your budget or no, we don't want this. And just like, sure, we like the idea of of level funding the governor's office. It's great that they're not asking for more money or we don't like the idea of not knowing what exactly is part of that, a different you know, the RPCs or whatever asking for millions of dollars like, you know what I mean? It just seems not like a waste of time, but it just seems like that. I'm grappling with what the focus is and what we're trying to be doing is like on a philosophical philosophical level, level, not not on on a a number level. I just talking through it because I feel like this is the time.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And it's like oftentimes, too, it's like, yeah, it is hard with this stuff. And they've seen. In my mind in practice with this over here is not just in this committee. One of the things I've often looked at was regardless of agency or whatever the line item is, it is like an ongoing thing that has like either level funded or just like a like a polo attached to it or CPI, like whatever that usually just falls into the like less kind of like conversational bucket because it's already something that exists and is just ongoing. And then you've got the stuff that's, like, the newer ads or a conversion from one time to, like, standing line. Yeah. Those those oftentimes create, like, a lot more conversations because you're making, like, a bigger substantial budget decision within the military. And that's just how I've kind of like unpacked it. But the numbers are like, you know, like we'll go back to that 15 mil that we were discussing too before we wrap up today, because that is something that is a really large conversation that didn't happen in here. That's just me teeing up that we're going to

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: go back to that.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay, I'm marking that as a Navy, Lieutenant Governor and Governor. I issued the invitation to the folks to Zoom in to tell us what the line items represent. My job is Lieutenant Governor and Governor.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I wasn't asking for that. That's

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: great if they want to, but I wasn't specifically requested. Chair Birong asked

[Speaker 0]: Just for the understanding, because we've never actually looked at that.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It's a good question. So it's valid to ask. So next on the list is the Department of Human Resources. So what do we have for that? Which one is it? Next one after Lieutenant.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I have not heard back from my budget buddy on that one yet. Okay, hold on. There's one oh, I heard from the Department of Labor one that's later. I have not heard back from my budget buddy and Department of Human Resources

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So we'll come back to that if you want to reach out to DHR themselves, I think, at this point. Because if your budget buddy isn't being responsive,

[Speaker 0]: I think we need to start. And labor relations?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yep. So we have a number of 391028, 391028. And Robert Hooper found out the information on that. It is in the governor's recommend. There is a $19,270 increase in operating costs for this year.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: That's $3.09 $1.00

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: $2.08 and you should have it on the spreadsheet that Nick just emailed you. Yeah, that one's sold. All right, so the increase in operating costs is $19,270 And there's also an increase in salary and benefits of $10,165 And that brings us to a total of $29,735 increase for FY '27. You said $10,455

[Speaker 0]: The grand total was $29,735

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yep, and $465 was right. So, any recommendations from the study on this one?

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: You said that was in the governor's recommend?

[Speaker 0]: Correct. I take a position on this one as favorable. Any questions from the table? Favorable thumbs for the it's your favorable thumbs. I wasn't sure what you had there. I was obscured by your pen.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Sorry. Stopped.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We all got it.

[Speaker 0]: No. No. No. That's not bad. Dude, those ballots yesterday, I was lucky I did made it out with, like, seven. Yeah. I was, like, thinking I was gonna go to need, like, the industry. Okay. So that one. Alright. Vermont occupational safety, health and administration, our friends at VOCA.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Would be rep coffee about Yeah.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: And just like it says here, the 5% total increase from the f y twenty twenty six budget is caused by the 7.5% raise in benefits, salary increases, and 5.94 in operating cost, The $142,002.79 is in the governor's recommended

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: budget. And

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: VOCA doesn't ask for a lot, but they do need this to keep

[Speaker 0]: functioning. Also doing business, reference all of that, Anne?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: This one gets me confusing, it gave me I'm reading it wrong, but is this 142 above what they already get? And this is an increase of their normal budget?

[Speaker 0]: No, that is their total budget.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay, that's what I wanted to do. That was my question, because if this is what they're asked, then my next question is like, what's their total budget? But if this is their total budget, then I'll

[Speaker 0]: find it.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Yeah. That's their total ad. That's what

[Speaker 0]: the governor governor said they could have. Okay. Favorable thumbs? Favorable thumbs. Alright. Alright. We got our, state's attorneys, investigators, and sheriffs. Sylvia. Mister Coffin? Also me. Yep. So the breakdown is there.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: We're asking for $1,117,706. It is not in the governor's recommend. I do not know if that's the above recommend or it was left out from the governor's recommend. I don't have that information for you.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Did you reach out to your budget buddy about that?

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: I did, and this is the information I received. Could

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: you further ask questions about that if unless everybody wants to sign off on this?

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: I will get more information.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. And now on the updated spreadsheet, looks like we had technical rescue program. And that got put in some card sheets.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So that's $25,000 general fund money.

[Speaker 0]: And

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: this is the micro grant program that the gentleman who came in to testify, I believe, from Virgins spoke to. And this is for $5,000 grants for individual local technical rescue groups that go out and rescue somebody off the ice in Charlotte or out of the river

[Speaker 0]: Where the ice givers up

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: in lake. Wherever. Yeah. So this is what that is. And it's new language. So the governor's administration would not have known about it to recommend it or not. So there is no comment on the governor's recommend. So we've heard it, and we're hospital the emergency management bill?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, that is something that we were going to discuss in the all hazards emergency management bill. And actually, it's the same line below or kind of the same conversation.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yes, correct.

[Speaker 0]: Where I guess we could just speak to both of those things. These are line items this committee has worked on for years now. You may recall that in 2025, we've got the phase funding for them because it was not, it was one time leading up to that. And then they're asking for, an additional $2.70, which is something that we've supported in the past in that range. So we got 25 plus that other line item below.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: And they testified on it too.

[Speaker 0]: And they testified on it. So the the combo pack there is, like, $7.45. So that is the folks that have been in here multiple times over. So any questions or comments on those two? I guess I would just say like, for the first one for the micro grants, Board of? Yes. And then the $7.20. Any questions or comment? So, yes, the same consistent with that, I guess I'll call for supportive. Yep. Yep. Right. CJC.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Right. So, Rep Morgan, you had something to tell us about that.

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: Yeah, I just talked with,

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Marty Feltas, the vice and that, but again, she said that this is a standard and recurring line item for CJC. So, did not ask the question, but presumably would tell me that was in the gov's record, but is standard recurring and supportable, she said. Did not get a dollar figure for you.

[Speaker 0]: We need a dollar figure. Yes, yeah, mean, it helps. Alright, I'll make a note again.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We talked about that last night.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, so we'll hold that one. Okay. Alright,

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I missed that piece when I talked to you this morning. All right, I'll get it for her.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So all the blank spots on that, if she can fill them in for you, just would be helpful. So we have all the information. Dollar amount, reason, governor's wrap or not. Alright.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Human rights commission. We got vacancy saving turnover, new policy director position, staff attorney investigator position, paralegal position. VL? Yes. Okay. So the human rights commission, they're asking for

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: the governor's recommend was 1,300,000.0, one point $1,358,575, and that the ECRC would absorb the $95,000 loss in federal funds with another vacancy. And the turnover savings of 65,000. They're asking to have the, to remove the vacancy turnover savings. Mhmm. Fill that position, policy director position, new staff attorney investigator position, and a new paralegal position. And I am right now leaning toward only keeping what the governor's recommend of the 1.3 level fund across, not fill these new positions. They have staff. It's not that they don't have staff. They have.

[Speaker 0]: Thoughts from the committee on that one? Yes, Rev. Waters Evans.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm not sure if the Human Rights Commission is where we want to make some savings.

[Speaker 0]: I'm not

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: trying to make savings, I'm saying this is the funding, and we have to make tough decisions based on the fact that this is not our money. This is the people of Vermont's money to spend. It's not ours coming out of our it's coming out of everybody's pocket.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I understand how taxes work, Red Coffin.

[Speaker 0]: I know you do.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I was talking and he interrupted me.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: I my apologies.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I do have hands, please. I I did raise my hand, rep Hanko. I am saying that in my opinion, as one of the 11 people in this room who are charged with making a decision, I am saying, I would like to my opinion in this situation is that I would like to honor the human rights relations request.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, we also have, we don't, it's not either a yes or no. We can also state diagnostic on things to so to decide. So, do we want to hear from people on this?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Well, at the moment, we haven't heard from anybody about why they would like these positions or what

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: they're up to at all. So it may make sense at the moment to take no position rather than saying no or yes. We also have another day that we can call people in. So, does anybody think we should have them in to talk to us?

[Speaker 0]: I got Rep Stone, Pinsonault, Coffin, Hooper.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Yeah, I do. I agree. It's easy to look at this on paper, but without hearing what the positions are for or where they're at or why they're asking, there's a reason why they put it down on paper. People are just willy nilly writing down numbers and crossing their fingers and praying they get it. So I'd like to hear their reason why before we make decisions. So I would recommend having them come in just before we sign off, because if it's for something really critical that we don't know about, I would feel terrible learning retroactively.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, and we're doing that with the agency administration and some other folks, so that's I to list. Rep

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Coffin, do you have a contact that we can reach out to on Human Rights Commission, or should we just go to big department?

[Speaker 0]: I would just go to

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: the director. I would go to the director. I don't have a direct because all I have is the budget buddy that sent me this. But I am more than willing, I would like to hear testimony from them, see how critical these parts are before we

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Got it.

[Speaker 0]: That's all, Hooper. Yeah.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I would

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: just like to add that I would like to know

[Speaker 0]: what the workload is before we decide if they're going be three new physicians. That's all.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Exactly, that's the new money and the physicians.

[Speaker 0]: Under the next page of the final, this one has the language, I'm working off the spreadsheet on

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: The language justice problem, came to us yesterday. We had the testimony and then we heard that there are two pieces to that. It's not broken out on my spreadsheet, but the first piece without ASL was $65,000 and with ASL is $70,000

[Speaker 0]: That's on that one from the table.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And do we want to break it out, or do we want to be inclusive and include ASL in AS? That's

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I know where you're going with that acronym. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Yes, Rutland.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I don't know if this is the appropriate time to discuss it, but when they were talking, I was wondering how this might fit in with some of our emergency

[Speaker 0]: No, I thought that would be a vehicle for consideration. So, in my mind. If we were supporting this, I mean, we were considering it for inclusion, so I see that as being kind of like. Continuity, Yeah. I'm supportive of it. I think it could save lives. We're happy to be very well.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: That's kind of the reason I asked the two questions just to because the ASL thing where they could do a production of one video and run that thing across the bottom it's hard to not do two videos when you're doing ASL because it's kind of cash in the corner. So, justifiably more expensive for them.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: They gave us a dollar figure of approximately $5,000 to add ASL services And

[Speaker 0]: then I saw a hand from the gallery.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And I can just answer that question. Outreach videos, so they do a separate, they do one ASL video. They don't do ASL, match name, performer on every CT. That's why it's just one video, and that's why it's just a $5,000 gift card. You very much. Do you have additional questions,

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Could

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: you please

[Speaker 0]: Could you elevate your question so we could just, like, speak up so we could hear what your question was? No. We were just curious what the question the follow-up question was. We couldn't hear you.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: No. I was looking at 16 or whatever videos without ASML. Like, why the question is if you added, is it more production cost? Okay,

[Speaker 0]: didn't you answer?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Well, yes, it's one more video, so they have to pay the person, it's my understanding, it's also as people with disabilities, autos, who are most in danger in cases COVID.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Yes, someone who's dedicated. My career is working with people with different abilities. This is a very important and critical thing, and it's a drop in the bucket. And I think it's a wise use of taxpayer dollars because it really could save lives. These are skilled people who are offering skills that are highly valuable. I'll just say that. So, I'm a big supporter of this.

[Speaker 0]: Was that a hand over Hooper? It was surprisingly large.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Population a big mistake.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Is that something that we would look into adding to the common field in Vermont, into that area? No,

[Speaker 0]: we were talking about the inclusion was actually in the emergency response office. That we're working. We're working on that. So this is, like, being considered for inclusion there. So, like, in my mind, logically supporting it, our budget level would have continuity with our intent with a piece of legislation.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And then one other question, once you maybe work the five extra to the 5,000 extra, that we approve it with the ASL and not without. Say that again, Because it's only a $5,000 difference, wouldn't it make sense to us to approve the $70,000 with the ASL and not even worry about the $65,000 without? They've revised their ask to 70,000

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Supportive thumbs? Alright. Supportive thumbs.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Great. So the next

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Was that a question, miss Morgan? I do. Do you want me to go back, Lisa, to that? I've got it because I've just got to run a meeting with some guys on a field that you want me

[Speaker 0]: to go back on that radio one or do you wanna do that later when you come back? We've got so much circling back to do. Don't worry about it. We're gonna do all the circling back later. I'll do that. Because we're pushing up against time and I've I've gotta leave for a family issue. The

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: next slug is for avoidance. I have this information.

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: So the amount is the total operating budget, which is $5,560,000

[Speaker 0]: 5.56

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: This million is a 3% increase, so about $160,000 change from FY26 to FY27. And the increase is due to personnel and operating expenses, so salary, wages, benefits. And it is in my governor's record.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I

[Speaker 0]: mean, that's something we have a very direct jurisdiction

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Yeah, these are the books that are answering the call.

[Trevor Lashua (Randolph Town Manager)]: Thoughts on this one?

[Speaker 0]: Gonna do that with a laugh.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Really? Does someone dare not raise their hand on this?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Sorry.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. All right.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Department of Liquor and Lottery, their total operating budget is $17,210,000 This is a 5.9% decrease. $1,070,000 FY26 to FY27, and that's due to completing their IT project.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, the online portal for licenses and all that stuff. Gotcha. Gotcha.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: And the government's recommended. And the Department of Liferin Water, their budget is a little interesting. Do you want to explain See the if you got this. No, I don't.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So this is a transfer from the enterprise fund. This is a general fund, if I remember correctly. So the Department of Liquor and Lottery is very self contained with their operating costs, but we see this it's it's just kind of like a column shift to execute the dollars. Yep. So the money they make off of the $8.00 $2, licenses fees, all that other stuff, goes into the enterprise fund. So they they are a self funding entity because they're basically Generating itself. Well, it's a business. It's like the one aspect of government that operates as a product selling fee for service business. So that number is that 17.21 is generated internally. So they essentially pay themselves.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And did you say 5,900,000,000.0? No, it's pretty much.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Yeah, which is about 1,070,000,000.00.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, not bad.

[Speaker 0]: A measure at night runs a tight ship. Everybody cool with that? Yeah. Have we I mean, we live in this, like, jurisdiction, so we have a good understanding of what they does.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: CCB. So this is also their total operating budget, which is $7,140,000 This is also an interesting area where about $4,500,000 of that is general funds and 2.5 or so million is the cannabis regulation fund.

[Speaker 0]: So they're a little bit of felt

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: funding their own operating costs. The budget is a 9.4% increase, so about $611,000 from FY26 to FY27, and that's due to personnel services, so salary wages, third party services, and their lab operating and maintenance costs. I don't have a lot

[Speaker 0]: of concerns about the lab. Yeah, that's been a longer en route for that project than we anticipated, but that was something this committee approved dollars for, us having our own testing lab is a great idea. God, when did we approve that? Four years ago, we started that project? Yes.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Is it in the government's recommendation? It is, I believe. I didn't find that information. It forwarded me from you, Representative I

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: just realized I had missed it. Mean, their presentation says governors recommend budget FY27, and that's

[Speaker 0]: all it does.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I think I just forgot to include it in the email. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. Again, another department that we do a lot of work with, so we understand their mechanisms. Comes for CCVH? I think you need give notes. Oh, I didn't see that. Yeah, yeah, it was a lower profile.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I'm just going to clarify that it's already in statute that we have these folks and they do the business that they do, but it's not something I vote for. But I have to support their work in government. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Alright, next, Department of Labor.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I that is my area and the only place where the Department of Labor intersects with Padilla is the labor relations board and we just talked about.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, so this is kind of a duplicative column because of the labor relations one.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Okay.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So this is the we don't need this one. So we can remove that from the

[Speaker 0]: spreadsheet. Superfluous. Then the pay act, we are waiting on a bill. We don't really know much on that. Rep. Hango. Did you get a. You know, on what we were discussing?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: No, because you said you would talk to rep shy.

[Speaker 0]: Yep.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Chair Shy. Yep.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Can we explain what can we also pay access for those of us running on the committee?

[Speaker 0]: So broadly speaking, and help me out here at Rep. Hooper, is it's basically like the payroll and all, like, the, like, bargaining groups for those salaries to be included as the expense of government. And for a conversation I had earlier this week with one of the representatives from the SEA that they almost had it, the negotiations closed. They were waiting on one more group. That's why we don't have a bill. We actually have to move a bill for this. And we don't have the language yet because they had one open negotiations still going. Yeah. It's like every paycheck in government.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And inclusive of ours. Yes.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: As well. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So there's a one bargaining group that's still at the table. So we're waiting on that conversation to wrap up. So, I mean, we could hold on this since it's an unknown. We don't have a bill in front of us.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We're going to probably be a no on that because it's coming down in the wire. We were technically supposed to have our letter done by today, but we're going to

[Speaker 0]: take a

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: little more testimony next week.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, we're still waiting on a letter from the Secretary of State.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Oh, right. So that's another line item that needs to be.

[Speaker 0]: Then I communicated with their office on Wednesday and they were working the letter to send to us. So we do have couple of things here. So they did talk to representative Chea. She understood that we had a lot of moving parts and that a due date

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: today was not feasible. So we got an extension on our deliverable. Could you discuss with folks the UVM money situation? I have a few extra minutes. So if you want to go back to the UVM request, it's the email then.

[Speaker 0]: So also on conversation team, Representative Greg, yes.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It's my thing. Absolutely,

[Speaker 0]: go for it. The

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: $15,000,000 proposed by Governor Scott is a one time appropriation to support the construction of the multi purpose center on their This project was started some time ago and ended up being delayed by the previous UVM administration. The $15,000,000 would be drawn down from the Higher Ed Trust Fund and I have information about that too, if everybody gets on that allowed for the Vermont State Colleges or UVM, which is weird that it just says UVM if it's allowed. The language is contained under Title 16, Chapter 90,285, Section B2. I will forward the statute to you in our next email. If you want that, I can send it. Our committee had a meeting earlier this week. This is appropriations. All about the details of the Higher Ed Trust Fund. So instead of spitting out that information to y'all, y'all can go back and look. That was on Wednesday 02/18 at 10:15, and it was streamed on Q2. So that is what I heard about the $15,000,000 from my budget buddy.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Lawrence Evans, then Hooper and Bradlaugh.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Did we just take a few million dollars from the Higher Education Trust Fund for something else? The treasurer's office for that for my sake?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, that was like within an unclaimed property, something in and around that.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: How much was it?

[Speaker 0]: It was under 300. It's a no more

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: than I thought it was 3,000,000 for some reason. That's very different. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. And, yeah, and so they're they're having a really big conversation about this downstairs that like, we don't, in my opinion, have time or capacity on this. So my suggestion is just like a no comment on that one and let it continue in appropriations because they're really focusing on that.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: And there's, sorry, there's even

[Speaker 0]: a whole

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: PowerPoint that you can access on the appropriations website. It's from the Office of the State Treasurer, and it's about the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. And it is like, how many slides? 13 slides, and it has charts and graphs and all kinds of information. So if you'll have questions, I would refer to that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, but, rep Hooper, you had to end up? I guess I

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: was Can you just send me that?

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Well, it's already accessed the online appropriations page.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I was going

[Speaker 0]: ask, how much money is in the higher

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: interest fund? 800,000,000.

[Speaker 0]: So that's the endowment.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That's what the, in the endowment.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Of At '25, the fund balance was $65,728,768

[Speaker 0]: Say that one more time, sir.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: At the end of FY '25, the fund balance was $65,728,768 Slide three of the presentation I referred to.

[Speaker 0]: And that's reminiscent of the conversation I had with the deputy treasurer about this a couple

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: of weeks ago. Brett Hango?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, can I just ask if this is a typo next to the $15,000,000 next column over? It says Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. That is not a typo. Is not a typo. That is not a typo. And then the other fund is called Higher Education Endowment Fund with no trust in the title? Because I think Brett Pinsonault and I are conflating funds here. If you look

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: at the slideshow, it looks like they've interchanged the language. The first slide says Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. Three slides down, it's referred to as Higher Ed Trust Fund authorizations by year end type.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Is there a separate fund that's just called the Higher Education Endowment Fund? Because I think we were talking about there are two funds that are coming into play here, and I'm trying to figure out what So

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: I can send you the statute right now. It's in chapter 16, if you want to look into that. It's saying endowment trust, everything that Kaczynski sent me.

[Speaker 0]: I think this conversation is just highlighting the fact that this is a really complicated and a new line item. So I think I'm going to re anchor the thought that we just don't take a position Yeah, on we just don't comment on this one.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I'm Okay with that based on a conversation I had with some folks on appropriations as well, because my understanding is they are taking more tests.

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: Is this still my area? It's like everybody's having a lot of conversations.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Well, it was It's

[Trini Broussard (Randolph Selectboard Chair)]: not confusing.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Well, I think Matt's talked to

[Speaker 0]: I was talking to Robert about five different things. Just one of the things that came up.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Rev Hooper. Look. To me, this is

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: a little weird when money's going if they acknowledge that construction is supposed to

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: start

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: on. They stopped it. This amount of money to it. Somebody else decides they're in. What happens and probably appropriate for this project, which is a weird way, I think, to fund the project for the state as opposed to Yep. That's the weird Especially this one when they got 0% locked in on what's it's going to be.

[Speaker 0]: I don't know that we should be ambivalent on this.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I think we should get more information about it and make recommendations.

[Speaker 0]: I think that would be a very time extensive conversation if we don't have a whole lot of crossover clocks and if we're try to get those out, if we're gonna take tests on other things that are a little bit more focused. Yeah, I'm going to respectfully disagree with that just for like clock management. Rep this all.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: My question is, I guess, what is the big plan on building that

[Speaker 0]: it's an arena. $65,000,000 is enough. That's a conversation to be had out of your This conversation right now is whether or not to be in position yes, position no, or position neutral. The box can have box seats.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: 50 yard line.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So, we're just not touching this one for right now? Does that sound like an agreeable decision? We're good. Respect taken.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So, no position. Maybe she at this time. Unless I'm dreaming at someone, a conversation with you,

[Speaker 0]: I talked to Robin and she said she was focusing on evolution. That agreeable?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I was going to ask a question on another item.

[Speaker 0]: I believe a representative from the attorney general's office came in the other day and chatted in this direction while I was having a conversation with someone else. I know that they had said that they had already testified to two other committees on this. So, I don't think we need to take a position on that one. And

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: rep Nugent is not here to ask about that?

[Speaker 0]: Correct. My understanding was that was something that we didn't need to take a position on as it's being discussed in judiciary and appropriations. And then, were we at a hold with the equipment conversation for the last shape?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Morgan has an answer on that, which he was going to give earlier, but I don't recall the exact specifics of it, so we will not be waiting for him.

[Speaker 0]: So we still have a couple of loose ends here.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, so can we go back to the emergency management response for which was is the money on Teddy's bill, which maybe will move on with our bill in some way, shape,

[Speaker 0]: Correct. Maybe with that as, like, a moving third or not, the right shot decision with appropriation, I think I'll that one. So, I know. Yeah. If that's okay with folks.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It's okay with me. Emergency management and disaster response. Because it's very vague. We know how much money has been denied by FEMA, but we don't know what kind of policy direction this legislation will go back, because this is an entirely not like Yes. That FEMA has just denied the whole slogan of funding. And I don't feel like it's our committee's it's just personal, our committees jurisdiction to make those kinds of sweeping statements like we're going to backfill what FEMA didn't

[Speaker 0]: provide. And that's segueing into lights that we're lining up with district partners for testimony next week to get understanding what their eyes are funding for stuff like this.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: It's an outlier here that I want to start with. So,

[Speaker 0]: we okay with a no position on this one, folks? Knowing that we're going have a bigger conversation about funding that will intersect with this type of conversation?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I'm fine with having no position on it as long as we recognize that if Is it going to be our decision whether or not we fill in where Cheawell?

[Speaker 0]: So there'll be a component of that, like, yes. And that is something that we're gonna have that conversation with next week. That's part of that to get an understanding because there's you know, because this is focused to the town of Sutton Right. Request. And what we're trying to do now that this FEMA denial occurred, because this request came in before the FEMA denial, is to make a bigger conversation where they would have dollars heading in their direction, yet to be determined, but we're looking at a bigger conversation due to that feedback on dial.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, okay. As long as we're going to be helping these people somehow, or talking about helping them.

[Speaker 0]: That is the goal.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We should

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: also bring in CSG

[Speaker 0]: because there

[Sandra “Sandy” Pinsonault (Member) [tentative]]: are other states that are dealing with the same issue right now with stuff.

[Speaker 0]: No, no. Yeah, we're lining up testimony for next week, so we can definitely try and keep them there if they could be useful. Yeah, sure. I have

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: a couple of things. First, educational transformation, which was rep Pinsonault. Since we're taking no position on some things, we do not know how Act 73 is going to get implemented or play out. So and we have no we have an unknown dollar amount. My suggestion for that would be to chase educational transformation. It's several positions. We don't know the dollar amount. My understanding is that these positions will be within AOE. So I really feel like this is really stepping outside of our wheelhouse.

[Speaker 0]: I

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: just wondered about taking a no position

[Speaker 0]: on that. Bounce from the table?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I agree. It's way over. It's outside our box.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, and also there's no amount of money.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, got it unknown on a thing we barely touched jurisdiction.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes, and to not even know what the dollar amount is. I don't even know how we could rate.

[Speaker 0]: I move we stay agnostic of this one. Agnostic, yes.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay, did anybody know anything about why we're holding on common good Vermont? We did not make a decision. I don't remember why. And I remember asking about Eugene, and she said she was too close to the situation to make a recommendation. So she abstains from offering an opinion on that. But it seems to me that that was one we heard from. They have a letter from them. And we should be able to make a decision. I just don't know why we just

[Speaker 0]: I think what we were trying to do is, because of that comment from Nugent, and we were trying to just move through some line items, give people a little bit of time to marinate on it. But I think we do that now.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So it's all been good for months with $95,665 in one time funding to help the nonprofits navigate federal cuts, executive orders, etcetera. And 75% of the funds allocated to nonprofit technical assistance. So if you work for a nonprofit and you need help accessing information, that's technical assistance. The other 267,777 is funding to improve nonprofit capacity, financial management, and compliance, which has a lot to do with our bill. I'm

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: going to say that I think because we, the state relies so much on nonprofits to do some of the work that we could be doing our site. I mean, there's a partnership there with all these nonprofits and because they lost the federal funding and also because we have been asking them for a few years now to strengthen their grant making and contracting systems that do. Work off on that so much and then say no to giving them money to do so. That seems counterintuitive, and I'm supportive of the full amount they asked for.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I totally agree with that. They've been wonderful partners with the agency administration on refining the elect protocols within that bulletin. So we didn't have to move legislation. So I just want to say that out loud too. They've been a good partner committee.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Representative

[Speaker 0]: Hooper, did you have a question? No, okay. Must have been just seeing hands everywhere now. Okay, so thumbs to support. Sound good?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And I will say, I don't typically support requests like this for a number of different reasons. But I really appreciate also the work that they've done. And I'm happy to help out on a one time basis to get them back on the feet.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Do we have any other holds?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We had some, yes. So we have the Vermont State Police with the equipment for $500,000 which Michael Morgan can easily tell us about. And we have the ethics commission, and have human rights commission, which we're going to hear from them. We have criminal justice counsel. Mike Morgan is finding out more information. States attorneys, sheriffs, SIUs, they need a little bit more from them. Department of Human Resources, We're going to hear from the administration on governors and lieutenant governors' budgets, what the line items really encompass. And that, I think, is it other than the Pay Act. So when are we going to discuss all these things? Have a Tuesday.

[Speaker 0]: We have a we a lineup people to come in. So I think like holding on that stuff, because I'm looking at clock right now and I know I think Sandy was trying to get out of here to beat the snow. I have that family thing I need to attend to and need to get pavement under my tires. Okay. So I figured we would call it here to get the last pieces, refine some people in. But I think we've got probably I mean, I'm just standing right now, we probably have 85%, 90% of this So,

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: if anybody's been asked to get more information, it's Tuesday, January that we're scheduling a final discussion on budget.

[Speaker 0]: And that's a scheduling thing. I think we might wind up pushing into the next day, but we'll figure that out later. Alright. Anybody else have anything else before we go off lunch? Nope. Okay. Thank you. That was get into that pension stuff and then go right into this Friday. I mean, it's real this week. So thank you, everyone. I'm leaving for the day. So, thank you all for the work, and you guys will be back here at 1PM to discuss. That was the I guess the technical technical parking role with some of the military components with kind of the language, the actions general general position in statute. That was a wonky way to end my week. Alright. Thank you, everyone. Nick, you can take us off.