Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright, so you're live. Alright, committee, welcome. It is Friday, March 20, and we are going to review a new draft of two six dash zero seven nine nine draft 2.1, which is the pay act. This hit your inboxes a little while ago. Hope you had some time to review, and we are gonna kick things off with legislative council. Council, how are you?

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: Good afternoon, committee. For the record, Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel of Legislative Counsel, here to speak to you about draft 2.1 of the Pay Act. This is a committee bill, so it doesn't have a bill number. John Graydon, unless we've got anything you want me to start with.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, just the update is we have numbers to review now.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: We sure do. Okay, cool. So I'll start with section one. If you recall, this is the section that sets out the results of the collective bargaining. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreements for fiscal years '27 and '28, Subsection A describes what happens in fiscal year '27, which is a little bit different than the last biennium pay act. So I'll try to explain what's happening here. So the agreement provides that for most classified employees in fiscal year twenty seven, there will be the average 1.9% step increase. That's typical. And then there will be two additional increases in fiscal year twenty seven. The first one is a 2% across the board increase on July 12. And the second one is another 2% across the board increase on January 10, for a total for fiscal year twenty seven of a 5.9% increase. So rather than having just the step increase plus one additional increase that usually falls in July, it's split, it's essentially 4% split, one in July and one in January. Moving on to subsection B on page two, we're looking at fiscal year twenty twenty eight. This act funds the second year of its collective bargaining agreements. For most classified employees, it provides that in fiscal year twenty eight, an average of a 1.9 step increase and a 3% across the board increase for a total of a 4.9% increase for these employees covered by the collective bargaining agreements in fiscal year twenty eight. Moving on to section two. This is the section that governs exempt employees. And we talked about this the last time I was here. This section essentially allows the three branches of government to extend the provisions of the collective bargaining agreements, those percentages we just talked about, to their employees that are exempt or, in other words, not covered by the collective bargaining agreements. As they deem appropriate and within their budgets. Moving on to section three. This is the section that governs the exempt agency heads, agency and department heads, deputies, executive assistants. So again, these folks not covered by the CBA. And it extends those same percentages for fiscal year twenty seven and fiscal year twenty eight. So 5.9% in fiscal year twenty seven, 4.9% in fiscal year twenty eight. And then the language there, in case you're reading the language, we've got these specific statutory provisions that set forth how to determine salaries for these folks. So it just provides that the average rate of adjustment available to most classified employees under the CBA is extended to these folks as well. So moving on to section four, this is when we get into the statutory salaries. And this looks a little bit different from the way you saw it when I was here last, just because we couldn't fit all the numbers across the way. So we start with the statutory salaries that were set forth in the prior two fiscal years. And we've struck all those through because we have replaced them with the numbers that follow just below. So if you look on page four, the new statutory salaries for the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor, and attorney general can be found there. So, again, we've got three columns for the increase that happens on 01/12/2026. Not January. 07/12/2026. And then the salary as of January 10, when they get that second 2% bump. And then the salary starting on 07/11/2027, which will apply to the next fiscal year. Moving on to page six. This is where we see the heads of the departments and agencies. So again, we've got all of those former statutory salaries struck through and the new ones start on page nine. So if you flip or scroll down to page nine, that's where you'll see the new base salaries. Same thing. First one starts on 07/12/2026. Then we get another 2% on January 10. And then we've got our FY '28 bump on 07/11/2027. I'm not going go through all of these. You can read them and weave. I'm going move on to page 12, section five. This moves into the judicial branch statutory salaries. So once again, same concept here, everyone. We striked through the existing salaries. Page 14 is where we've got the new salaries for the chief justice, associate justices, chief superior judge, each superior judge, and magistrates and judicial bureau of hearing officers. Moving on to section six, I'm on page 15 now. So there's new language here that sets out the compensation for assistant judges. So we've got the new daily rate for the assistant judges as $245.82 of 07/12/2026, 250 and 74¢ as of 01/10/2027, and then the final increase of two hundred and sixty three dollars and three cents as of 07/11/2027.

[Unidentified committee member]: 163. Yeah. Says one system should have saved.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: That's an error. It should say two. I know we'll get that corrected.

[Unidentified committee member]: Say why? They've gone down.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: I've heard him says too, so I'll get that fixed. So moving on to section seven. Now we're looking at the probate judges. So again, we've got their current annual salary structure on page 16. Page 17 sets out their new annual salaries as of the three relevant dates. So these are for the probate judges in the various counties. And I think I mentioned this the last time we did this walkthrough. There's quite a bit of variation here among the different counties. And that reflects some of these probate judges are part time and some are full It reflects their workload for those counties. Moving on to section eight. Now we're getting into the sheriff's statutory salaries. So we've got the increases laid out here for the sheriffs of all counties except Chittenden County, 113,902 as of July 12, bumping up to 116,000 as of January 10. And then the third bump for the fiscal year 2028 is $122,873 And then the Chittenden County Sheriff is entitled to a little bit more. I'm just going to keep cruising. Section nine, I'm on page 19 now. These are the state's attorneys' statutory salaries. Once again, you'll see the struck through language and the new language, the new salaries are found on page 20. Once again, you'll see a little bit of variation here, I believe. Actually, no, not so much for the state's terms. Okay, so I'm going move on to the final section, which is the appropriations section. I'm on page 21 now. So this language sets forth all of the appropriations that are necessary to fund these increases. So subsection A deals with the executive branch. If you turn to page 22, we've got the appropriations for fiscal year '27. The general fund appropriation for fiscal year '27 is $23,918,820 from the general fund. Transportation fund appropriation is $3,000,000 and that's for the distribution to the agency of transportation and department of public safety. Fund the increases set forth in those CBAs. And then other funds. This provision just says that the administration shall provide additional spending authority to departments through the existing process of excess receipts to fund these CBAs. And the estimated amount is $27,184,607 from special fund, federal funds, other sources. And then the next language is transfers. That's standard language that authorizes the Secretary of Administration to do some transferring to carry out the purposes of this act. That's standard in all the pay acts. Page 23. Now we're looking at fiscal year twenty eight. General fund appropriation for fiscal year twenty eight for the executive branch salary increases is $24,974,632 D fund appropriation is 3,000,000 again, and that's for the 2028 collective bargaining agreements. Other funds, that's $28,362,343 And again, we've got that same transfer language there. So looking at page 24, we are onto the judicial branch appropriations. And we've got for fiscal year 2027, the appropriation for the salary increases for employees of the judicial branch not covered by the CBAs is $3,800,867 appropriated from the general fund. Dollars 277,316 is provided from other sources to the judiciary to fund the 2027 collective bargaining agreement. Fiscal year '28. So the second year of the two year agreement, we've got $2,466,396 appropriated from the general fund, and $179,952 provided from other sources to the judiciary. Lastly, your favorite, the legislative branch. So for the first fiscal year, fiscal year '27 General Assembly, all of you, including all of your staff, funded with a $914,634 appropriation from the General Fund. And for the next fiscal year, General Fund appropriation is $778,939 There you have it.

[Unidentified committee member]: Questions

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: for counsel?

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: We're waiting on our draft for the I can give that to you right

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Please feel free to Would you like that? That correction in motion. Will do. So, the goal is to move both this out. So, we did a good run through of this the other day. Nothing has really changed other than putting in the numbers that were vacant before.

[Unidentified committee member]: Is there

[Unidentified committee member]: still a vacant number for the bargaining unit that hasn't

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: completed their negotiations? I can answer that, and Amy will correct me if I'm wrong. But those negotiations are ongoing and yet DHR feels comfortable to provide us with a number based on the likely outcome of the negotiation. So it's in here. Correct.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The field is

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: And could be amended pending the outcome of the collective bargaining. Indeed. Correct.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So it is the best guesstimation available in this moment.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So I have just changed it. So you're going to be voting on draft 2.2. And Nick will have that momentarily.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. I a clean copy. I will be the recruiter. You

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: let me know how I can

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes.

[Unidentified committee member]: Just sort of like I asked before, so this $24,000,000 of the general fund for fiscal year 2028 is in the current budget that the governor proposed, or is this in addition to

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: It is in No. Sorry. I can hear Yes, I'm going to turn that.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. Identify yourself for the record, please.

[Amy Pope (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Amy Pope for the Joint Office. So the way I understand it is the money for 2028 is not appropriated in the bill. We don't appropriate months in future years. But for our operating statement, when we are tracking our budget, that's the first thing that comes off the But yes, it's all So

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: essentially what this is doing is removing the legislation to have it cover a two year period. Yes. But the next fiscal cycle will address that fiscal year for the PAD.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: Okay, so I've shared it with Nick. Shared it with the So I can just speak very briefly to this draft 2.2 as of 02:21PM. The only change to this draft you'll find on page 15, which is a correction to the daily rate for assistant judges in fiscal year '28. So it's that last number, two and twenty three point three a day as of 07/11/2027.

[Unidentified committee member]: 263. Mine still says 160. Oh, does it? No. Why it says 26303? Alright. I just opened up the wrong Right. Hango.

[Unidentified committee member]: Sort of towards the end of this 2027 versus 2028. Starting on page 24, I guess it It looks like on lines thirteen and fourteen, there's an amount from the general fund and other sources. And then when you skip down a few lines and actually go on to the next page, you have two amounts for 2028. And they're quite a bit lower than 2027. Why is that? And that's in for legislative, not legislative, for judicial and something else that I noticed. Also legislative too. I'm sorry, what? Legislative too. Also? Yeah. So why would twenty twenty eight's figures be lower than twenty twenty seven's?

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: So 2027, the total increase is five 0.9 and 2028, the total increase is 4.9%. So, it's a percent lower. And I think that that accounts for the difference in the total appropriation.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay, I guess I was thinking that even though they're not getting as large of an increase, they'd still be getting more money. So why is more money not appropriated or does that fall back on what you just said about appropriating for a future year. Remember that the Pay Act only funds the increases, it doesn't fund the base Okay, thank you.

[Unidentified committee member]: Got it.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Weird.

[Unidentified committee member]: We're. That's funny. Yeah, it's

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: not as binary as we think. Okay, so we are still working from 2.2. Correct.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes, that's what I'm looking at.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Everybody another net for a scan.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: It needs to be edited again, right?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We're at 2.2 is the clean. What is the balance?

[Unidentified committee member]: Twenty minutes. It's No. Picked at 02:45. Did? Yep. It's gonna stick at the table.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The children. Yes.

[Unidentified committee member]: I like how is it that we accept the budget as the pay act as submitted in 2.2 version. I second.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So draft number 26Dash07992.2.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Correct? Yes. Draft number 26Dash zero seven nine nine, draft number 2.2. The motion has been made. Barring further discussion or comment, the clerk will call the roll.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: Representative Boyden, yes. Representative Coffin?

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: Representative Pingo? Yes. Representative Cooper? Yes. Senator Morgan? Representative Nugent? Yes. Representative Pinsonault? Yes. Representative Stone? Yes. Representative Waters Evans? Yes. Representative Byron?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. I will be the reporter of the bill.

[Brent Haire, Director and Chief Counsel, Legislative Counsel]: 901.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you, Ben.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you, Ben.

[Unidentified committee member]: Have a great weekend. You. Alright,

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: committee, that was a really big item to wrap this up with. So, that was an amazing run to the crossover deadlines. Really proud of you. It's snowing. Everybody get home safely. Nick, all the plug. Matt.