Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Theresa Wood]: That's okay. Okay. Welcome back, folks. This is House Human Services on Thursday afternoon. Can't believe the week is flying by. So this afternoon, we are switching gears a little bit from the budget adjustment testimony we were taking this morning. And we are going to begin review of report that was due to us and that will have budget implications in the FY twenty seven budget. And so this enables us to have some background. It's also one of the priorities that represent Donahue and Steady included in their committee report and our recommendations to the budget to the Appropriations Committee last year. Which is one of the reasons why we're getting this report. So we are going to hear from the folks at the Vermont Network today. We're also going to hear from the Department for Children and Families and the judiciary tomorrow. We are going to hear today from people with lived experience. And because of the sensitivity of the topic and the risk for harm for people, we will be having anonymous testimony from one of the witnesses. So please be understanding and respectful of that, okay, as we enter into this. I think we're going to welcome Charlie to the table And I do want to officially welcome back So for people who weren't here a couple of years ago, Catarina was with the Department for Children and Families. She was a frequent visitor to our committee. In between times, she was our recreation director in the town of Waterbury, which she did a fantastic job of. And now she's moved on to do policy work with the network. So welcome back, Katarina.

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network staff)]: Thank you.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: A celebrity in this building.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: We're very lucky to have her.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I'm Charlie Lisserman. I'm the policy director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. In addition to Katerina, I'm also joined by my colleague, Sarah Robinson, who's the co executive director of the Vermont Network, and has extensive experience in the funding and programmatic side of supervised visitation. We are so grateful for the opportunity to speak with the committee today about supervised visitation in Vermont last year. So for some background, supervised visitation provides a safe, structured setting where a parent can have monitored visits with their child. Situations issue. Trained staff ensure that visits occur in a safe, supportive and trauma informed environment. And many programs also offer supervised custodial access of one parent to another safely without exposing the child or a non abusive parent to risk. At their core, supervised visitation services are designed to serve children and foster safe relationships between them and their parents. And each visit is centered on the child's needs and sense of safety and capacity for connection. These services also play a critical role in supporting the safety of a non abusive parent. Research consistently shows that abuse frequently escalates after separation. Custody or visitation arrangements often necessitate ongoing contact with an abusive partner. And it creates safety risks and disrupts a survivor's healing. Supervised visitation provides a safe alternative, and it allows a non custodial parent to maintain and build a healthy relationship with their child in a structured and supportive environment. So right now, in Vermont, here's the status of supervised visitation. Programs have been chronically underfunded for more than fifteen years, which has led to program closures and significant gaps in services. Currently, each program receives a very small grant from DCF, and some also receive supplemental funding from the Center for Crime Victim Services. Together, these grants amount to approximately 16,000 to 40,000 per year per program, which is far below what's needed to sustain safe and reliable services. Today, we have six independent programs who are providing supervised visitation in Vermont, and this leaves five of Vermont's counties without a local program. So those counties are Lamoille, Orange, Washington, Windsor and Rutland. So when you think about this state, it creates this hole in the center of it where there is really a desert where families have limited access to these essential services. As a result, families often have to travel long distances for supervised visitation, they have to forego visits, and often they rely on untrained family members or friends to supervise their contact instead of a trained professional. And these arrangements pose many safety risks. Witnesses later in this hearing will share how these barriers, including being ordered by the court or DCF to rely on informal supervision arrangements, can harm Vermont families. Even in counties with programs, there are long wait lists, sometimes several months to even years, and it makes it very difficult for families to comply with port and DCF orders for supervised visits. The Vermont Network provides statewide support to supervised visitation programs that looks like technical assistance and training, as well as opportunities for collaboration and communication among providers. And it also has established practice standards to ensure consistent high quality services across the state. So last year, lawmakers, including this committee, asked the Commissioner of DCF and the Chief Superior Judge to develop a proposal for sustainably funding a statewide system of supervised visitation programs. And that report was produced in consultation with the Center for Crime Victim Services, supervised visitation programs, and us, the Vermont Network. And we are so grateful to the legislature, DCF and the judiciary for giving this issue the time and attention it deserves. The report outlines the significant challenges facing supervised visitation programs and the conditions that led to them. It clearly identifies insufficient funding as the primary barrier to consistent services statewide. So this report calls for sustainable funding for statewide coordination to ensure that programs operate with standards, high quality services. It also recommends sustainable funding for supervised visitation programs themselves to meet the statewide demand for these services. This includes resources to sustain coverage of services statewide, attract, retain and train qualified staff, as well as provide an appropriate space, physical space for visits and exchanges. The report also recognizes the need for a more detailed cost analysis. And the Vermont Network has conducted some preliminary assessments of programs funding needs and would welcome the opportunity to work with Chia and the judiciary. Bless you. And we would be happy to return to the committee with a detailed cost estimate in the coming weeks. With supervised visitation services truly at a breaking point, this work feels very timely. And it is critical that additional funding become available on July 1 to prevent further program closures and ensure that Vermont families can access these essential services. I greatly appreciate your time and early consideration of this report. It's a real privilege today to be followed by two survivors who can speak firsthand to the importance of accessible supervised visitation for families in Vermont. But before that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Thank you. I'm curious about what the network's experience has been with the judicial system. You made reference to the judiciary ordering visitations, honestly, kind of like really despite knowing that there's a risk to people involved in one way or another. Have you seen examples where those orders specifically rely on some sort of informal system? Is that in the order, or is that just sort of an expectation, like the order is made to have visitation. If there's no supervised visitation program in your region, then you just have to figure it out.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: I'm sure that Judge Zonay can speak in more detail to this tomorrow. It's my understanding that in court orders for supervised visitation, it does often define a person who is acting as a supervisor. I know Representative Donahue acted in that role. Was asked beforehand.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The order was, oh, she will be the person who will supervise the visits. And

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: that is part of why having statewide coverage that supervises the Tietian programs is so important, so that people who are acting as the supervisors are trained to provide those services, the physical space is appropriate for it, even something that you wouldn't necessarily think of. Like, lot of our programs have two entrances and two driveways, so that there doesn't need to be any direct exchange between, you know, non abusive parent and if their former partner. And so, you know, a private residence doesn't necessarily have those considerations in mind. You know, we really feel like supervised visitation is critical to provide safety, and also to allow noncustodial parents to build and maintain relationships with their children. So in counties where we have supervised visitation programs right now, albeit significantly underfunded ones,

[Chair Theresa Wood]: How does that occur? Is it something that is contained in the court order that it has to be a supervised visitation and they identify the entity that is providing the supervision, much as they did with representative Donahue. Although, you know, I'm trying to figure out, is it a

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: can it also be a voluntary process? So, you know, I can see that the court orders it, but in certain cases, but is there also room or space for the parties to agree voluntarily to utilize those services? Exactly. So I can follow-up with more detailed numbers. But the last ones that I saw were about 80 to 85% of people participate in supervised visitation services are directed to either by the court or DCF as part of a case plan. But there are some people who do voluntarily attend supervised visits because it is an arrangement that a family perhaps worked out privately or is part of a safety plan that a survivor perhaps worked out with a member program of ours.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: We have a couple of questions, Representative Donahue and Garofano.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You mentioned in the report that the programs that do exist often have backlogs. Yes. Do you know, I don't think it mentioned that, how long those can be. In other words, how long could a parent not be able to see their child because there was a backlog for access to the required supervised visit? Yeah, absolutely. It varies by county, and it also varies by the time. So, for instance, there was

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: a really significant backlog following pandemic. You will hear from a survivor later in this hearing who was on a waitlist for years. And so that's the reality of crisis that we're facing. Because there are so many counties that don't have a local program, people are forced to go outside of their county, which makes the programs that are currently operating far above their capacity.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Is that

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: with your phone? This might be a question for Judge Zonnay, but in case you know, does the court order specify an amount of time? And then is the goal to decrease the supervision because work is, is any work being done to meet the need for the supervised visit?

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: It's my understanding that the order does often include a frequency and also like a like a period of time. So say like four hours every other Friday. But Judge Zonnay can speak more to those details and any diversity across the state and how those orders are done. The goals of supervised visitation can be really different depending on the family. That's part of why the standards that we have developed with programs at the Vermont Network are really critical, because it does, for example, have a standardized intake process where some of those goals are discussed. There are various reasons why a family might be referred to a supervised visitation program. In some cases, it might be because there was abuse in the home. In some cases, it might be because there was an abuse towards the child. Or there might be some situations where there are concerns about child safety risks, but there was an abuse present. So, for example, if a parent is experiencing active substance use disorder. And so the goals for supervised visitation are just really dependent on the family and the child and what they need.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Go ahead, Representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: This is not an area that I have familiarity with. So I'm a little unclear, and I'm hoping you could help me. When it talks about the network of programs, who's providing those programs? Who is part of that network? Are they named organizations that we may recognize who fulfill other functions in the community? And then specifically looking at the report, and maybe this is tied into the answer to that question. When I look at Chittenden County, for example, they have one twenty hour a week employee and almost no backlog. That just seems odd or unexpected that the largest county in the state operates with a thinner staff than others. It makes me think that there's somehow others maybe outside of the formal network that are providing services.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Absolutely. So there are a variety of structures for these programs. All of the ones that are noted in this report have supervised visitation programs, adjoined with a nonprofit. So many of them are adjoined with a member program of the network, Voices Against Violence, Umbrella in the Northeast Kingdom. So those are kind of two examples. So these programs are often acting in other ways in their community. And the reality is that their nonprofit budgets outside of their supervised visitation program are often what's propping up their ability to provide supervised visitation services, because it's a real value for the organization and they wanna make sure that they can continue providing services. And as far as the kind of wait lists and the differences between programs, it really depends. I've heard from survivors who have been on very extended wait lists in Chittenden County. I've also heard from survivors who have traveled to Franklin County to get access to supervised visitation services.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: We have questions for this witness. You spoke to the standards that the network has developed. Can you just, I guess, give us examples of what those contain maybe? And then maybe send us a link to them. That would be great.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Absolutely. So some examples of what is included in the standards, that there needs to be training on how to respond to safety risks. There should be a client intake process that programs are providing services that their employees are adequately trained to provide.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: I guess my question is, do you provide sort of elements of what so that training, for instance, or elements of how to stay safe or what happens when an incident occurs and what's the first things that you do? I'm just wondering to what extent the network is involved in overseeing the provision of these services at the statewide level?

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Yes, exactly. So we have a staff member of the Vermont Network, and a portion of their role is providing support to supervised visitation programs across the state. And so that looks like a lot of different things. That looks like bringing providers together for recurring meetings, providing training and technical assistance. So, you know, managing safety risks appropriately was something that we heard very consistently from programs. And that's something where we try to meet their needs and support them as best as they can in preparing for those situations that staff certainly encounter in their programs. And I would be happy to follow-up with more detail about what those standards really look like in action and some examples of those technical assistance opportunities.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Great, thank you. Representative Noyes. Thank you.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I've been hearing about this for ten years since I've been here, and I'm disappointed that we haven't figured it out, but I also

[Chair Theresa Wood]: want to this year. Good, I hope

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: so. Yeah, I know that there's money from the feds in this family first money around youth who are involved with courts to provide for their legal representation that I don't think Vermont has the ability to draw down through a series of reasons. But it would be good to hear from the department if this could possibly use to help offset some of the funding for supervised visitation. I'm not sure, but perhaps Office of Child Advocate has brought this to my attention a couple of times, these resources, and maybe it's something we can explore as a way to, it's more around the representation of youth in the court system. And I don't know if this could possibly be a funding source. I'm just throwing that out there. I do

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: hope we figure this out.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Thank you.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Yeah,

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: appreciate It is important. And thank you for your work.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Of course, thank you. I appreciate the collective solution making. Mean, I think where we're coming from is that if there is a sustainable, reliable funding source that can support these programs and providing the services Vermont families deserve, we are all for it.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So I guess I'm a little and I'll speak to the department about this, but since the network was a partner, I'm a little disappointed in the report, honestly, because it didn't really do what we asked it to do, which was to develop a funding proposal with numbers.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And the general sense should

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: cover it. Right.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: And we should do a detailed analysis. Okay, well, that's why we gave you a year to do that or nine months. So maybe you could describe the process that was used to develop this report a little bit from your perspective.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Absolutely. I'm sure that the department has much more to add from our perspective. We stayed in very close communication with the Department of Children and Families in the creation of this report. We organized multiple focus groups of our member programs at the Vermont Network who provide services to survivors, both programs that provide supervised visitation services, and also programs that don't have supervised visitation services in their county and what that looks like. We also collected some financial information from the programs in our network that provided supervised visitation and an assessment of what kind of staffing levels they would need for sustainable funding. And so we would be more than happy to work with DCF and the judiciary and come back to the committee in the coming weeks with a more detailed cost estimate. And we absolutely agree that that is a timely need and something that we are happy to do.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay, so if you've already done all that, why wasn't it included? I'll ask a different question. Was that information provided to DCF?

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: We did not provide an identified level of a funding need to DCF. We did some cost analysis, and we feel like we're quite close and are happy to provide that to the committee.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Other questions? Okay. All right. Thank you, Charlie. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, next we are going to be hearing from two individuals with lived experience. And as I mentioned earlier, but not everybody was in the room at the time, we are going to be paying particular attention to the safety of individuals. And so we will be hearing anonymous testimony from one individual and the other person has agreed to be on with us. So welcome to both of you. And Katie, I think we'll call on you first since we can see your name. And we will welcome to the committee and to sharing your story. And we, one, want both of you to know that information that you share is really important to our understanding of the issue. And we understand also that it's a you're being vulnerable in doing that, and we appreciate that very much.

[Katie McKenzie (Survivor)]: Good afternoon. As you know, my name is Katie McKenzie. I live in Washington County and I am a survivor of domestic violence. I am also a mother of three. I have three daughters. One of the most important things that I try to teach my children is that safety matters, not just for us but also for others. That's why I'm here today, to support the statewide well funded system of supervised visitation programs that I'm hoping you guys are gonna come up with. For families like mine, this is about safety, not theory. Washington County has little to no access to supervised visitation services and I've seen personally what that lack looks like, not just in my own family but in others around me as well. After I left the father of my children, I worried about my children's safety during visits. He had been abusive in our relationship and had a history of substance use. During an earlier period when he was in active substance use, I myself had to step in and supervise visits because there were no programs available in our area. This was very stressful and isolating and it should not be the only option that families have. I've also been asked to supervise visits for another family member when no program was available. I was not trained for that role. I had no guidance, no clear safety framework. There were moments when I didn't know how to intervene safely and no one should have to be in that situation. I've seen how quickly visits can become unsafe without professional supervision. Terrifying and children deserve better than that. Vermont just desperately needs more supervised visitation programs, both in Washington County and across the state, honestly. Thank you for listening and hearing my story.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Thank you, Katie. So I want to make sure that I understood what you just said. So you were asked, as the person who was the person directly impacted by the violence in the relationship that you had with your children's father, you were asked to step in and supervise their visit. So you were exposing yourself to protect your children. I understand that. But you needed to expose yourself to further trauma in order to protect your children.

[Katie McKenzie (Survivor)]: So this was an incident between court orders. I felt it was important for my children to continue to have a relationship with their father and there was no access that I had as an uncourt ordered person or individual or family or whatever you want to call it to obtain supervised visitations. So I had to be the one to do that.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: And even if it were ordered, there isn't a program in Washington County, correct?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Correct.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: It sounds like you have been a support to other families who have experienced domestic violence. From your personal experience, do you see others, yourself and others around you, having interruptions in parental relationships because of the lack of supervised visitation in your area?

[Katie McKenzie (Survivor)]: Absolutely, absolutely. Unfortunately, more often than is even remotely acceptable.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Thank you. Are there other questions here for Katie? Katie, thanks so much for being here and sharing your story, and thanks for the help that you're providing to other people too. Thank

[Katie McKenzie (Survivor)]: you. Have a great day.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Alrighty. Okay. Next, we're going to hear from our anonymous witness, and we welcome you and want this to be a safe space for you and respect your ability to contribute in any way that feels comfortable to you.

[Anonymous Witness (Survivor)]: Good afternoon Chair Wood and members of the House Human Services Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to share my story as a survivor of domestic violence who relied on supervised visitation services and watched them change my daughter's life. I'm testifying anonymously today to protect my safety. When I filed for divorce, my daughter was three. My ex husband took our house, car, all the money in our bank accounts and threatened to and tried to take my daughter away from me. I was able to maintain custody of our daughter and the court ordered visits with my ex husband every other Saturday that were to be supervised by my mother at her home with myself as a backup supervisor if she wasn't available. This informal arrangement was unsafe for my mother, myself, and my daughter. The breaking point came when my ex husband arrived angry for a visit, subsequently cornering and shouting at my mother. My daughter, very young at the time, asked to know asking if she needed to call the police. And after that, the visits had to stop. We're placed on a waiting list for a slot at a supervised visitation program. And we stayed on that waiting list for years. When we finally got a slot at All About Kids in Franklin County, the difference was like night and day. The staff at All About Kids were in our incredible, they expertly facilitated exchanges and supervised visits between my daughter and her father. They had protocols in place, which allowed me to drop off my daughter safely. After years of dreading visits with her father, my daughter slowly built a relationship with him. The facilitator empowered her, allowing her to gradually extend her visits at her own pace. My daughter has had visits with her father at All About Kids for four years, and those were the best years of their relationship. Having trained staff coordinate visits instead of me kept me safe. It prevented my ex husband from using our daughter to regain control over me. For the first time in years, I was able to move forward with my life instead of living in limbo. Supervised visitation was transformative for my family. Access to this essential service should not depend on your zip code or how long you've been on a wait list. Extended family members like my mother should not be in the position of having supervised contact. High quality sustainably funded supervised visitation programs must be available to all Vermonters like me who need them. Thank you for your attention to this important issue and taking the time to listen to my story.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Thank you. Thank you very much for sharing that and for being here today, especially understanding for both you and Katie how difficult it is to share personal information with a group of strangers, especially things that are so sensitive and emotional. So it's just with a very heartfelt thanks that we appreciate you being here today.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Thank you.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Are there any questions for this witness?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thank you so much.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Thank you.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Can I ask you one question about Oh, did you have a question, Representative Steady?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I was just gonna say what county?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: I might've missed it. Oh, no, not this one. The first one was Washington County. The second one received services in Franklin County, I'm

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: The reason I asked is because we know Eric, this was our Yes. And there wasn't anything. I I was just curious, this organization she talked about, if they are located, maybe they could pop up somewhere.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Right, Franklin County, yes. Well that would be a question we should ask the network. So, you know, if if there are in in the 27 know, this is sort of background information for '27. So if there were an appropriation in FY '27 to establish these services in all 14 you know, for all 14 counties and to, you know, do a bit of bolstering to the existing. Do you know who you would be reaching out to to do that? Are there providers willing or able, as Representative Steady was just referencing? Great question.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: All about

[Sarah Robinson, Co-Executive Director, Vermont Network]: care. For the record, Sarah Robinson from the Vermont Network. So yes, absolutely. And there are organizations that have in the past expressed interest in actually serving in this capacity. As But you can imagine for a nonprofit to say yes for $16,000 a year, they're just not able to make, the math doesn't matter.

[Unidentified Committee Staff (possible Joint Fiscal/Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Sarah Robinson, Co-Executive Director, Vermont Network]: so we've already had conversations with many organizations in those regions that are not currently served. And we do believe that there are organizations that will step into this role, be they parent child centers, member organizations at the Vermont network. For example, Winston Rowdy down in Windham County serves in this role. So we do believe that organizations will step forward, but they do need the resources to be able to say yes.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. And I mean, I think because it's important for efficiency and being able to do this at an affordable cost, the connection with an existing nonprofit organization that already serves families would seem to be logical and key in order for us to look at any kind of I hesitate to really call it expansion because it's a base, really. It's a basic establishment. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And I would encourage you to be sharpening your pencils as we look to FY 2020. Will need more detailed information, and I'm sure Representative Steady and Representative Donahue will be in touch about that. Are there any other questions for these witnesses with regard to this report and the current system. Again, we're going to be hearing from the department tomorrow and Judge Zonay, who has recently had surgery, is going to join us via Zoom. So we will be hearing from him as well.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, go ahead. Not a question, but just a little bit of extra time I'd like to testify from here, but just to give a little bit more fill in on the circumstance I was involved in, which Washington County, of course, there is no service. And this involved a father who was under investigation for abuse, and there was also a divorce that was underway. And the court ordered supervised visitation, And I wasn't present, but it was to be by me because I had taken this family, the mother bridge over into my home. And so they said, well, the person who's at that home can do the supervision then. I was not given any information. I mean, I was actually wondering, does that mean I need to be in the house or does it mean I need to be in the same room? I don't even know. But at any rate, he was very offended at being under this order and within a few weeks was able to convince the court to end the supervised visitation. The court wasn't aware of the criminal investigation on the abuse that was going on because we were told, Don't let him find out because that could impair the ability to conduct the criminal investigation. And so he was allowed visitation. The second or third week when the children who were seven and eight returned, the seven year old had a bruise on his arm, which I think is described as a thumbprint bruise. You can tell that it's from somebody grabbing a child tightly. But the child who was seven would not acknowledge that that came from his father doing anything, which is not surprising. But I sort of I went from this guy's, you know, in his forties and muscular enough and all, but I went and really went in his face and said, If he comes back with a bruise again from the visit, I am calling DCF. I didn't write off the bat because I knew they wouldn't necessarily be able to even make a case because the child was denied. The outcome of that is that he went back to court and he got an order of protection against me because he was scared of me, as described in the order of protection. I was a frightening person who intimidated And as a result, there was an order of protection that I was not permitted to be present in my own home when he came to pick up his children for this visit. So that's how these things can evolve. It was sort of a really interesting experience to learn about aspects of the system.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: It sounds like a challenging situation, for sure. And I will have to say, I don't think I've ever physically felt threatened by you, Anne, but can tell you that your intellect does threaten me.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: He said he was having to back away,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: and the stairs were behind him, and he might have fallen down the stairs, and all this high drama. It does

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: That one's not actually It was actually

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: never served with the order, it actually never was enforceable. It didn't actually happen. But the document

[Chair Theresa Wood]: was shared with me by the mom. There was a description of his fear and the order and all that. You can see how things can go sideways very quickly in situations like this. And particularly when there's been violence involved in the imposition of threats and there's children involved, it gets very complicated very quickly. All right, folks. Think that will wrap us up on that topic for today. We'll be back at that again tomorrow. And if you haven't read the report again, I urge you to read the report. It's not very long. Because we'll be having DCF here and they are the actual authors of the report. So it will enable you to be informed about asking questions. Thank you all for being here. And we appreciate the network's work and working with families and the department and the courts to deliver the report, such as it is. It's helpful information on the background and on what the current staffing situation is at existing programs. So thank you. Okay, folks. The next little bit of time we're going to take to talk about budget adjustment and our recommendations around budget adjustment. So we heard from a number of people this morning. It's kind of a marathon session. I'm gonna I'm just gonna kinda, like, start at the top and work our way down because the top ones are the easier ones, I I think, will be the easier ones for us. So we heard the information about the residential care, the tier one facilities, and essentially not following legislative intent. And as I described this morning, I think this could be considered a technical amendment. It still does cost money, but the intent was not to decrease rates for existing providers. And as Dan so eloquently pointed out, what we're paying right now to those providers to care for human beings is less than people pay for their dogs to be boarded when they go away for a vacation. That was a good visual in my head, Dan.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's why I asked the question a couple of times. Much is it per day? Yeah.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So what are folks' thoughts? That essentially is $1,071,550 for the residential care to actually just be restored to what it was that they were supposed to have. That does not provide them an increase. I just want to be clear about that. That doesn't provide them an increase. That just restores them to what they were supposed to have at the beginning of the fiscal year. Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: For some clarification, so this is Medicaid reimbursable expenditures.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: So the obligation of state dollars would be about 45 Probably 45%,

[Chair Theresa Wood]: 47% of that, yeah. Yeah, so the 1,000,000 and change.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: What million?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: 700.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: $1,071,550 Yep.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Just technically speaking

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I get my calculator.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Are we making a recommendation to appropriations that's going to be $1,071,000 or is it going to be at 40?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: No, we make the recommendation for the full amount.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: For the full amount.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah, so they

[Chair Theresa Wood]: know. Yeah,

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: yeah. With language, talking about where this number came from. Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Okay, thank you.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So can I, well, just discussion? Anne, you started to say something.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I mean, strongly support asking for money to be added in budget adjustment where it was intended to be in the budget. And I don't know if it's helpful, I kind of just like, as we listen, divided in my mind three categories of what the asks were.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I don't know, you do want to blow on both?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So my categories were, the first one was where people were short shifted from our intended budget allocation. And there were three of those in my mind in terms of what was expected, and that those should clearly be followed through. The second category where they have a shortfall because of a change in circumstances, new money but needed to meet the unprojected things because of change of things that happened. And that was the recovery centers, legal aid in terms of the health care needs because of changes in federal, significant changes in health access. Oh, no, that's the two recovery and legal aid. And then the others were where I heard the ask is really assisting with needs that are very important and persuasive, but they were known when we did the budget. And in some cases we've been fought for more money and didn't get it. And that investment isn't really the place for doing that. And we need to hear that again and listen to it for the new budget. But it doesn't qualify in my mind as what budget adjustment is meant to be. And knowing that anything we spend, we add in budget adjustment is money that in a sense gets lost for next year's budget that I wouldn't feel supportive. And those ones were the two eleven, which is like a new position, the end homelessness. I think that I got them all in one of those three. Might have forgotten getting one. But so that was kind

[Chair Theresa Wood]: of how I thought it through. I think recovery centers fall into there myself.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Think what? Oh, into the last one? Yeah. Yeah. I actually have it kind of like, you know.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: The reason I say that is because we did consider their full ass and they were allocated 800,000.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They did say, and the reason it was like new circumstances in part, lost federal funding was part of why they're short now. So that was the reason it was sort of between the two in my mind. But, yeah, I also felt that way apart here.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: What was the third one you had on the shortchanged? In other words, legislative intent.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thought the hop where we did not think money was going to be taken from in

[Chair Theresa Wood]: what we appropriate for the others. And the AAAs, I'm assuming falls into that category, the 2% for choices. Those are the three things.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The 2%, the community care homes, and the HOT flexibles.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: The HOT one seems like there was just a real omission in the presentation by the department on how they intended to spend time.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, that was right. It was not consistent with what our intent would have been. I mean, we never discussed, and should this be balanced by taking money away from this?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: It almost seems like it falls into that category of you said that Dale the let us know the ERC tier one change because they kind of figured that was not what we intended that hot. Feels like the same sort of situation.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Except that the primary didn't let us know about that.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Right. Yes. Exactly.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Yeah. They

[Chair Theresa Wood]: figured they at least did let us know that you you're this isn't probably exactly what you were expecting, but this is what's going to happen. I mean, that was That was the essence of the conversation I had with Commissioner Bowen.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: If you're interested, see you how all of

[Chair Theresa Wood]: the HOP funds were spent. If you look at the report submitted to our department, our division, what is this? Our committee. The report submitted to our committee, the December report has a more accurate, all the previous links had linked back to last year's, when I say last year's FY25s allocations. And I said, could you please update this link? You keep linking the wrong report. So you can get a sense of where the money went and all those places. So, well, I think that's sort of a helpful way to think about things, Anne. Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So I just want to put this on the record. I informally talked to you about it. I don't have any problem with the funding and that program. I feel like it's very worthwhile and does a lot of good and prevents a lot of down the line. But my biggest problem is that there's been no effort in consolidating, managing those, like 14 organizations across the state are receiving this money. And given what we went through last year and all the discussions we had on H-ninety one, I was hoping that the administration or the community partners would think about consolidating and looking for efficiencies, because there are efficient and that's more money that could go in the pocket of the people that need the funds and need direct support and concrete support. So that, I just feel like it's a real missed opportunity. And we shouldn't be the ones in this room constantly thinking about that. I would want the administration and the community partners to be really thinking about how can they achieve efficiencies and thinking about how do they consolidate services in order to get more money in the pockets of actual individuals and cut down the administrative costs, because the costs that are going to the organizations and state government to administer all these grants, there is the dollar value next to that.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah, I just want to remind people, because we're in committee discussion, so you don't need to raise your hand or be recognized, unless things get out of hand and five people try to talk at the same time, then I'll intervene. This is just discussion. Just feel free to follow-up.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Just explained some of how this money is distributed and some of the history of how that money has been distributed. It used to be with OEO, I believe, CVOEO, it was distributing it out and it took a long time to process. So how this money flows currently is each of those, you heard it, went to these different organizations. Strategically, those are the organizations like our local housing continuum. So those are the groups who get together, they meet, they review these cases, they check to make sure, oh, if we spend these funds, is this a sustainable situation? Are we spending these funds wisely? And then that person, that organization has been local to quickly cut these checks because these are time sensitive issues. If you don't get the money to the landlord, the security deposit, those moving costs, you can lose the apartment. Or if you don't get that back rent to the landlord, they may proceed with the eviction. So it used to be central, and now they've moved the distribution to each community because it allows them to have that centralized decision making, ensure that it's kind of all local. So that's kind of

[Chair Theresa Wood]: how it's developed. But I have question about that Okay, so we have five community action agencies. They cover all 14 counties of the state. Those other nine providers are what I would consider, what I would wonder about, I guess I should say, is overlap. So I guess what I'm referring to, I'm coming at what you said, right, is that so we have five that cover the whole state and then we have nine more where we're dividing up the pot of money into further smaller pots because those organizations have requested it and maybe historically have gotten it. I don't know.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: It's assigned to us. Those those, it's a COC, each one represents a local COC. And so it's not the organization, it's like people coming together, they're making how it's the housing review team. So they do an application And then all the people, when they talk about, oh, I have my local COC. We heard from Danielle Wallace who talked about, she's part of that. So they're all coming together and making this decision whether to fund.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: In those COCs? Yes, but

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: it's done around the lead agencies and that. And so this, it was built out on the current system, which is that. So as we look at the system, but it's not just like this agency and that agency. No, I understand It's done and it's based on like a formula of what their master lease looks like, maybe the shelter capacity, maybe their master lease is shorter, but they're housing a lot of people. So is a lot of careful thought put into this. It covers the whole state, I'm Yeah. It's not like the actual administration of it. I'm not sure how much they actually get or how much of it is actually being used for administration. It's just that the funds are put down at the local level because those are the experts in their community. So those are the ones making decisions about their community. That's kind of the history of how it's evolved. Feel free to correct me if I haven't been as involved in the local level of my COC. Yeah, we're not taking testimony. In my run, more of a statewide world. I'm not in the local COCs as much, but yeah. So that's kind of how it's evolved and it evolved that way to be more efficient, to be part of these groups that are already meeting regularly so that folks, I mean, people were waiting like three months, two months, you know, it was just, it was too much for one organization to handle at

[Chair Theresa Wood]: I this can see that based on the data that people are saying that the volume would be significant for one organization. I just was thinking, like, if we if we have a group of organizations that cover the whole state, and I'm not really sure why we need additional. I understand you're saying it's the local housing coalition, local housing coalitions or? Yeah, mean, they sometimes

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: they It's have their own all built within the COC structure, we are required, at least at this point in time, to have. And a lot of money has been, federal money has been invested into this system. And so this is a system that exists that they have to have. And that's why they have been using that network.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah, I'm sure we're

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: going to

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: have much discussion around this. Didn't need to kind of open this discussion.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: With the sort of an H91 and Yeah, it's advertising. What's the number?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: It's the

[Katie McKenzie (Survivor)]: bill again?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Don't know. 594.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: 94. Yeah,

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: ties into that definitely. Yeah.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: It's like if we were building the system now, knowing what we need now, we wouldn't build it that way. But I do understand that there are federal ties because some of the resources that go to these organizations come from the HUD money. And the HUD money doesn't even flow through the state. It goes directly. And as we heard from Lily the other day, the state is actually a competitor to two continuums of care for HUD money. So they also get some HUD money that then goes out to some of these same people as well. And I'll be honest, we don't know. I mean, that's getting a big shakeup. I mean, we don't know what that HUD Continuum of Care stuff is going to look like as whatever version of an interpretive memo we get or a NOFA and the courts are gonna decide something at some point in time.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And I think that conversation across all of human services, maybe we should, as we see changes coming in from the feds in terms of our funding resources moving forward, I mean, is there a way to such a large amount of agencies and everyone that's involved with providing these human service supports to our Those funds are gonna be strained coming up and maybe we should be looking at how there's consolidation across not just wherever.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Not just

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: not anyone in particular.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. CF administers 12 to 1,500 Think about the administrative.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: What is that?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: 12 to 1,500 DCM.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We'll look at the two positions being moved in BAAs, two positions being moved to be able to administer grants. Mean, part of it is hands on, A but it's lot of

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: it is required, but again, obviously we don't have all the details here, but I do think that there are opportunities to maximize efficiencies and consolidate and reduce that number, and maybe it's not in our committee, maybe it's in GOBOX with AOA and what they need to do to make it easier to get the money out the door. Maybe it's an ADS, they reduce the number of requirements, but it is a systemic problem that is costing all of us.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Money's not getting directly down to the people that it's intended to get to.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: And I would say that I think it's important for people to understand that there are choices that departments make. So we heard from the recovery centers. We heard three different activities. There is no reason that they have to have three separate grants for that. It can be one grant. But the vision here within state government is, well, this is the way we have done it. So we're gonna continue to do it. And yes, there might be different requirements with each sort of sub program. And you can list a separate funding source of those within the grants. You can list multiple funding sources on grants. So it's frustrating to me that they automatically go to, we got to do a separate grant, because you don't have to do a separate grant. And you heard the recovery center say they were expecting to have an amendment to their base grant for at least one of those. I don't remember which one it was. Let's sort of come back around. Sorry. That's okay. Those are all things that we will We'll be talking about it in the future.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No doubt about it.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Well, I'm going to give us a sideline just for one brief moment. Again, the AAAs talked about it in their testimony that they came together for more efficiencies and they formed a different kind of organization. They previously just had basically an advocacy organization. This new organization is operational and advocacy. And honestly, there are only five of them. One organization should be providing what I would call the administrative services, the payroll, the billing, the reports to Dale and that kind of stuff. And maybe we'll see a bill,

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I don't know.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So I think there are opportunities and we might want to start with something that's smaller and a little bit easier. But we'll see. So let's come back and let's kind of look at Anne's organization and take the sort of the, what I would call, sort of combination of technical and not meeting legislative intent of what ended up in the community process. So the first one being the residential care tier one providers. So can I ask if people have any questions about that? Or if I can provide any clarification about what that's all about? That's the one that is for $1,071,550 Anybody have any questions about that? I do.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. So what's the 45% you guys are talking about?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So Medicaid, these are all Medicaid services. Medicaid is a combination state and federal program. The state provides what they call state match and the feds provide federal match. And roughly, I don't have the exact numbers, but roughly it's 45 state funds for every dollar that's spent, it's $0.45 182,000.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Right, yes. So that's what we'd

[Chair Theresa Wood]: be spending in state dollars, not the 1,000,000 So the feds would match that because it's an allowable Medicaid expense. That's what it is.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: so the difference is the federal money?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: The difference is that well, we need the state money and the federal money. But if you're looking at what it would cost the state in additional money, it's that 482.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So why are we putting it in the other?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Because it's called expenditure authority. So in all of our budget documents, we have a $9,000,000,000 state budget. Dollars 2,000,000,000 of that is state funds. All the rest of it is federal. But we pass a budget for the full $9,000,000,000 That's why we're doing it. You have to pass a budget for the full amount.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Even though it's not all out of our pocket.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. The amount we're going

[Chair Theresa Wood]: to So then

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: if the federal doesn't pay for it, the taxpayers have to make it up?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: No, is a it's a required thing. It's already an approved service. So it's already been approved by the feds.

[Charlie Lisserman, Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence]: Okay. Okay? So are they going to reimburse us? It'll come out

[Chair Theresa Wood]: of their pocket. What happens? A long story. Yes. Pants. Yeah. I got it. That's, Brenda, that's for almost everything in Dale. Almost everything in Dale is like that, with the exception of VR or higher ability. All of this stuff in traumatic brain injury, all of this stuff in choices for care, all of this stuff in developmental and intellectual disability. So all of that is Medicaid. So all falls under that same explanation we were talking about. Okay. All right. So can I see a show of hands of folks who are supportive of the tier one fix that should have been in the budget as we passed it? Okay? And people who do not support that. Okay. So the committee supports that. Okay. And the next one is with regard to the area agencies on aging. This was the 2% cost of living increase that we gave to all the Medicaid providers. And again, it was a missed calculation. It was an error. Just like the last one we just voted on, it was an error. It I'll pull it up here a second. It's $720,000 I think. Oh, no, it was a lesser amount than that. A minute. It was much less than that. 100,000 and dollars 140,001

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: thousand

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So that those people got the same raise as everybody else. As everybody else. Yeah.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So, yeah. You Yeah, you don't need to raise your hand.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So, you're telling me maybe some nurses, aids and stuff didn't get their raise?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The people who work for the AAAs.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: The case managers.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Case managers and so forth. That group of all the other case managers and every other agent's community agencies, or whatever positions.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Whose mistake would that have been? The people giving us the information?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: What we heard from Joint Fiscal this morning was that it was a joint error, that joint fiscal didn't notice that it wasn't there and the state didn't provide it. It's a lesson for us that even as detail oriented as joint fiscal is, it's probably things. And both of those, the first two, the one for the tier one, the residential care, and this one were both errors that happened essentially with joint fiscal and the administration. Okay. Anybody have any other questions about how that again, this is Medicaid. So it's only roughly 45% that will be state funds. Okay. Okay. See by a show of hands, people who support that. Okay. And people who do not support that. Okay, thank you. So the committee supports that. I just want people to understand that what will be presented in our report, because this is a majority rule, that it will say the committee supports that. Okay, and now let's look at the HOOP flexible funding

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: pool.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That was sort of, if you will, an error of understanding what we would have intended versus how the department chose to implement. Is that the way to say

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah, I think that's I'm gonna hold my tongue.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Mean, we didn't put into We our didn't put a reduction in our did not put a reduction in We did not. If we thought it should be reduced, that would have been in the budget. We did not reduce in the budget. But what happened is there was another area of the budget where we did an increase, and what the department did is get the money for the increase by doing a reduction that we had not approved. So how does that happen? How did it happen? Yeah, I don't know. Didn't, I guess we didn't get clear enough, don't, It's hard to say. Like, who would have made that decision? It would have been Dale saying, well, this is how we're gonna use the money that's

[Chair Theresa Wood]: been No.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'm sorry. Yeah. Uh-huh. Yeah. I know you mean. I know where we are. Yeah.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So I'm just trying

[Chair Theresa Wood]: to find the

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: exact number. Take it from this their mistake. Mhmm. If it's their mistake, why would we come to the taxpayer to pay it again? That's why I'm confused.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah, I think that I guess get why Anne is thinking about this in this category. When DCF was here and testifying on the budget, and they testified that the increase in the HOP was for shelter services. And you have to remember that in addition to this, they're asking for $2,000,000 The department is asking for $2,000,000 Well, the governor's DAA recommend. Right. That's the department. That's the department.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The department. Yeah. I understand.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah. Well, want I just I'm trying not to introduce

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: to know what department. Right. Yes.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Because I don't know what department. Right. The Department for Children and Families. So we increased the budget for HOP this year based upon the department's recommendation, the administration, the governor. All that's one thing. So we said, okay, we agree. And they're coming back and saying, okay, but we need 2,000,000 more because it costs more to do what we thought we were going to do, and we've added a few more beds. That money is the same pot of money that we're talking about here. So think people should be clear that there's more than one decision. We're just talking about what community providers have come to us, and then we're going to switch. Okay? Well, we will switch, tomorrow we're going to talk about what the departments came and asked for. Okay? So there's two different sources of requests. One from the departments, one from community providers. Okay? And then we'll put them together and then we'll decide. Okay. Maybe no, maybe we can do this, maybe we can't do that. Okay? And we're not making the ultimate decisions. We're just making recommendations. Okay? So that's what you should be clear on. We're not making the decision to approve something. We're making a recommendation to the Appropriations Committee. Okay? So in hop, I'm just trying to find the exact dollar amount because on my notes, I've

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: got 20,061 thousand 654. Did that include the $4.53? 1,000,300 and 22,100

[Chair Theresa Wood]: and Yeah, that's what I had.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Is that all added together? That's all

[Chair Theresa Wood]: of them added together, I believe.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: But that is added together. Just from

[Chair Theresa Wood]: the community side, the community providers.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I just wrote down one that first one was.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So what confused me a little bit, and I will ask for clarification potentially from Anne Schollenberger here. What confused me a little bit is I wrote down another number that Michael shared that was a difference of 453,000.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So if say we pulled the shelter providers and I hold the caps and the total number includes both. So the

[Chair Theresa Wood]: 1,322,000? That's everybody. That's everybody. Okay. All right. Thank you. And that's a total of 14 providers, right? Permitting in threetwenty two, 01/1941. Okay. So this is for the direct financial assistance to individuals who are either homeless or at risk of homelessness. And it is the provision of things like rental assistance, assistance with landlords, first and last month. Damage deposits help moving if they need assistance to move. We heard a variety of different things. And the money does not go to the individual. It goes to the vendor. If I'm the landlord, the money goes to the landlord. It doesn't go to the person who is renting. So they wanted to be clear that the person themselves are not getting the money. And as Anne has stated, this is not increasing what they had prior to FY '25 last year. This is restoring the money that we believed was going to them. We did not authorize any cuts to existing service providers. Granted, because we don't have a law yet about emergency housing and shelter services, they can essentially do whatever they want to do. I mean, that's the face of it. So they got the money but spent it another way? The department got the money, but they spent it in a different way. Yes, that's exactly it, Brenda.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: And they want to spend more in a different way.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: No, department is not asking for the HOT providers. No,

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: not for the HOT providers.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Don't confuse us. Don't confuse the way back. You summarized it exactly right, We gave the money to the department, they decided to spend it on something else. What department? DCF. DCF.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: DCF. Yes. So they should be responsible. See, I'm getting all Okay.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: But they don't have the money to just allocate out another million dollars. They get their money from us.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They spent it somewhere else, so it's not available.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah. So, the decision that we're making is whether or not we believe that they should have spent it someplace else. And I think we heard testimony, and we certainly, they did not provide testimony to us that they were going to spend it someplace else.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: How can we stop this in the future? Because the taxpayer is getting double whammyed.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: They're being asked to spend another $1,300,000 the department decided that they had different priorities.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We could stop it. We have to give more explicit directions if there's a concern that that could happen with money that's being allocated, which is exactly what

[Chair Theresa Wood]: we tried to do last year. And it works.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: We need to write policy around accountability when the Yes, There you go. But we need a policy on accountability for funding to I'll the sign that one. Because we can't afford to keep doing this before we're going to be more homeless.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah, I mean, I do feel like it's a valuable service. I do agree with Ray about is it the most efficient way? I'm not convinced of that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I see that as a decision for

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: That's a decision for

[Chair Theresa Wood]: our later discussion on whatever that number is, 494.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: 494. 594. 594.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: You really should have made

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: it 591. 591 would have been easier. That would

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: have been good.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: What are people's thoughts about this?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I have a procedural thought, and I know we're looking to separate this out in our discussion from discussion tomorrow with the department, they're all HOP funds. So I'm of in viewing the totality of the HOP related requests.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: I'm going to tell you my personal opinion. I would say no to 1,322,000.000 of their requests and say yes to this. So explain to me. Okay, so the department has asked for $2,000,000 in the same program. Program.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But the other part, the other part where they used this money, they want even more. Oh, so you'll subtract this out?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: That is my

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: thought. When we get

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: When we get there, that's the thing. Borrows work. Unless you're right.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: But we have vote now, right? We have vote for this. It's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a squab vote when

[Chair Theresa Wood]: I'm we do for that. Yeah. So you'll have an

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: opportunity- They're for it. Right.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So they're really paying for it because, yeah, not gonna be happy about it. I'm for that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Because, well, it, yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We didn't say you're for it contingent on tomorrow's decision because this is a straw book.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: It's just a straw book.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I can't say that, but it's on camera. Yeah. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's fine. Everything we've said so far is on.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: The same thing on this particular thing is you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: You can't change the priorities mid term without telling us when we were expecting it to be sent in a different way.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Correct, and when they couldn't do

[Chair Theresa Wood]: it at home. And they did that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So I have a question that I just don't understand yet. In all of this, it sounds to me as if that no one's taken it from a department, no one has acknowledged that this request coming from these folks is even at play from their point of view, it's not even on the table. So we'll be kind of, whereas if we're learning information that they know, but we don't know that they know.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They know what they know.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They know. It seems amazing to me that they're kind of

[Chair Theresa Wood]: they probably believed that they were doing their best to live within the budget and to do the priorities that they felt were of higher priority. And at this point in time, they felt that the establishment of new shelter beds was a higher priority. And we agreed with the establishment of new shelter beds, but at the amount that they gave us in their budget request, not at an additional $1,300,000 amount and an additional two on top of that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That they're asking for.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Exactly. Tomorrow. Yeah. Okay. So the idea on the table that we'll mix a little bit of tomorrow with today is that we would take this 1,300,000.0 from the 2,000,000 that the department requested. Yeah, well, I'm not sure I'm

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: ready to go there, but that's

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I will not

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: be here. Yeah. Well, that's where you do wanna go, tomorrow.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I wanna go tomorrow.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And I'm not sure I am, although it seems the majority maybe, but that's I'm with. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So what if we don't even include, we know that now. I'll take that out and just vote on what we have today.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. The double money. You go.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. Thank you. Maybe. Maybe.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: It's like

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I haven't made that decision and a lot

[Chair Theresa Wood]: of people have.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: No, but thank you. You always put things in perspective for me. I did. Yeah.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. Okay. So could I see by a show of hands? First off, does anybody else have any other questions about this recommendation?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I'm not ready to go until tomorrow.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. No, I wish we could. So this is just a show of hands to see where we're going. So the recommendation would be to restore the 1,322,000 to the providers. And there's 14 different providers who received these funds in the past and to restore them to their previous level. Tomorrow, we will entertain the question of whether this recommendation is actually deducted from the $2,000,000 that the department has requested. So you'll get a chance to modify your vote on this as well. Okay? Okay?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Alright.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So can I see a show of hands about that? Okay. And then Todd wants to wait till tomorrow. Okay. Okay. We made it through that sort of tier of

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: group. Okay.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: The next tier of folks just a minute. Let me just check off. Yeah. It's triple a's.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: You need a red one?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Have. I've got one. Yeah. That was fine.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. The next two were had been my equivocal ones versus the last two where I thought, no. That's really new. Okay. So alright.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. Alright, I'm going to say let's talk about the recovery centers. So the recovery centers, was the Susie Walker and Daniel and Lila.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Okay. Am I missing it? No, I don't have that.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Oh, you've got an old

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I have an old number? No, have an old Oh, I have an old all of that. On our website.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Our website It's

[Chair Theresa Wood]: under Susie Walker. Six recovery organizations are requesting $420,000 in one time funding. I mean,

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I heard it. I just don't have the right one here.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. And that would go to the Turning Point in Springfield, Journey to Recovery. Where is Journey to Recovery?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Northeast Kingdom.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Oh, that's, yeah, that's where it's up there. Yeah, sorry. Chittenden County, Addison County, Bennington and Windham County. So I'm not sure if it's relevant or not. So,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: one of

[Chair Theresa Wood]: the issues that was created is because the Department of Health just gave a flat rate to all the recovery centers, which I'm sure made it easier for them. But the recovery centers had given them a recommendation with that same 800,000 that we appropriated from the Opioid Settlement Fund, and they had all agreed about how to distribute it among themselves. The department said, no, we're just going to do $50,000 to every recovery center. So that created winners and losers people who were budgeting in a different way. So they are requesting that these six organizations receive a total of $420,000 to essentially get them to what they thought that they were going to get as their share of the $800,000 I guess is a way to put it.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Is that for the safe for the opioid fund?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Well, that's a very good question. That's a very good question because the 800,000 that we gave them was from the opioid special fund. Yeah, so that's an open question, Todd. Yeah, I'll find out. Yeah, mean, there's money in there, but that would mean we would reduce whatever it is that we have for else. So,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: question is, I'm not quite sure I understand. Dollars 800,000 didn't go just to these six organizations. It must have gone to many Otherwise they couldn't get 15.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Right, it went to all of them.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And these six feel or have determined that they were slighted a certain amount in expectations.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: In terms of what the whole group

[Unidentified Committee Member]: had recommended. Based on the recommendations. So this is sort of right sizing all of that in a way.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: It's like this is more of an opportunity to refine the process going forward, to be honest

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: with you. Right. But the the ones who if if you see it in terms of some got more than what their group recommendation was and some got less.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: That's why they were unanimous in their decision to make this request.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, because those who got more aren't saying, well, we'll give that to the ones who are short. Now that I'm understanding it better. Yeah.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Yeah. That's where my brains go.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah. Yeah. Right. Well, and they can't really because the department made the decision. Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's true, they can't give the money back.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Mean and they can't even write a check to a sister agency because they're all about how that money was spent.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's the circumstance that it puts us in, the decision making, it forces our hand in a certain way.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So I think, Doug, what you said is an important feature of this and what we're finding is through this appropriations process that we're needing to be more and more specific about, like, in collaboration with the recovery partners of Vermont to determine an allocation. You know what I'm saying? Mhmm. Because it it doesn't you know, part of this that's why I wasn't sure, you know, it's been in the first one or is it in the one or the third one. But it's excuse me, they did request 1,600,000.0. We made a decision to fund it at 800,000. So, because there wasn't an agreement reached with the department, it's not really on us. We've made that decision. Right.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Yeah.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: I know what I want to vote on this, but I'm not I'm I'm going to I other conversations.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, mean, is clarifying for me in some way because what I was hearing on it was that they felt they needed it because of some lost federal funds and increased demand. But that's really these I was thinking of it as a whole group having that pressure and it's Yeah. Makes it harder for me in terms of sort of on the fence, but I Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I'm comfortable with looking forward and thinking about how we tighten this process. And not tighten some of the opioid advisory committee when we look at that bill, and what our recommendations are specifics

[Chair Theresa Wood]: not adding

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: more in, not adding more.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Because the point has been made, it's not like the winners are going to end up giving up some of the So we're just having to make up than what we agreed on, exactly. For disagreement or miscommunication between the recovery centers and the administration.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: But in doing that, we're also leaving holes in these communities. I've met with my own Turning Point, Daniel Wallace, my local These were based on data about these were complex conversations among their groups about how many they're serving, how many people they're seeing, what it costs to do business in their area. And so now we have multiple centers around Vermont where they're feeling a hole in their budgets and their capacity to do this really important work. So they did all of this in good faith, and I guess it wasn't our fault, but we now have six communities in Vermont at this time when we are facing a crisis of people experiencing substance use, which is not just those people, it extends out. We all feel the effects of that. And so I get that this is on the department for changing and getting away from our intent a little bit. And yes, we can do better, But this is also the chance for us to react to new information. And there has been loss of federal funds. And those agencies who got more than they really needed can better weather those losses. And so not only did these agencies not get what they thought they were going to get, they're handling pressure. So I am in support of this just because I know how this is impacting my community. And I also know the effects it will have on our future budgets and the budget we're about to work on if there is a gap in funding and a gap in services for these people.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I hear that, Jubilee. I think what I'd like to say is that we're looking at two or three different circumstances where there's just been some sort of fud and duddy thing that happened. And we're sort of stepping in to recommend, to make the situation okay. And although we're kind of powerless, we can't do anything specifically right now.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Out that they're actually to go to plus six. I'm wondering

[Unidentified Committee Member]: how how do you even vote? You don't know where

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: the money's coming from.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Well

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That part, I really don't I really don't like.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I wanna know where the money's coming from.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's a good point.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I mean, we can't we can't get the money. Can we at this?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: So

[Chair Theresa Wood]: my recommendation would be because the 800,000 came from the opioid settlement fund that any money that we if we decide to recommend that we would recommend that it comes the Okay. It would be our recommendation. It

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: our would

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: string attached when we tell appropriations that we support doing this. We support doing it if it

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: comes from the opioid settlement fund. I hear

[Chair Theresa Wood]: what you're hearing from. Yeah, it helps keep.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: But that is going to take from some other program that we would like to fund through the opioid settlement fund.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Still, it's over this year.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: There's millions. Mean, I'm not exactly No. For next year. But it

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: would take it out from what we're gonna do. It's still for the next year.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I think I've sort of pre I think it's sort of previewed where I'm coming as this, but this is a preview of what we're going to have to address in the fiscal year twenty seven budget of tough decisions.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Right. And we're And I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: right now. Sorry.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: So while I wish things were different for these organizations, everyone who's spoken to us is doing good work in my view, but we can't fund it all. So I would be voting against this one.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: No. Anne. Sorry. Anne Anne was talking about

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Oh, sorry.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No. I was just yeah. I can't remember. It was not. Okay. It was it was in reference to

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Just what the government wants about that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, right. No, I was just talking about anything that we add to this budget is likely to be more we have to maybe not be able to do next year. And it was I thought it was the same way with the opiates fund. It's not doing less in this year's, but it would mean it's being taken away from next year's school. Where we have recommendations that we have to look, that have already spent what they're recommending should be spent in terms of their planning of what they're asking. So yeah, I guess the other thing is,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: wish Eric were here because didn't he say to us that they have, there are several amounts that haven't gone out of that settlement. They're just not even dealt with yet. So here we are potentially sending this off to this out of this fund and it might not even show up for another year.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Well, we're going have to deal with that separate. Yeah. I agree with It's still obligated out of the fund.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: That's what understand.

[Unidentified Committee Staff (possible Joint Fiscal/Legislative Counsel)]: Obligated. And just to back up one step too. So the Vermont Department of Health has the prevention fund as well. And I think that's actually where this $800,000 is coming from that versus the opioid. I

[Chair Theresa Wood]: think this was one of the ones that we recommended to come from the prevention fund, but they said no. One of the ones that we had recommended a couple of different things to come out of the prevention fund and they said no. Okay. So it's coming out of the opioid settlement?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just the beginning. It's at the beginning.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: It's not coming out the opioid settlement fund? No. Where is it coming from? Give her that big gold star.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Really? Which one

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: of those stars do you

[Katie McKenzie (Survivor)]: want? Are

[Chair Theresa Wood]: you sure about that?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: You can verify, but I'm I'm sure about that. Yeah, last year in fiscal year twenty six, the 800,000 for centers was from the prevention fund and the only funding from opioid funds was all for West Indies.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: The only reason I'm asking is because I remember us recommending that that happen and I didn't think that they followed our recommendation on that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: You remind me what the Okay, funding for

[Chair Theresa Wood]: so the prevention fund is funded by a, I don't know what the official term is, but it's a fee that manufacturers of opioids pay to the state. For every unit that's sold, there's a fee that's stacked onto it and the state gets that and the money is then distributed to community providers for prevention efforts. Yeah, it funds the distribution of Narcan and yeah. So Todd, we'll have to double check that. Just want to make sure, but if something ends up getting recommended, I would recommend that it come from the same place that we funded it out of. So thank you for bringing that up.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I'm looking through 02/18 as passed, and I'm not seeing it

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: in So I think I'm keeping her up. So out of prevention. Thank you.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Yeah, I don't know if it's at the French and that's where it's right. I'm seeing any It's not

[Chair Theresa Wood]: out of the opioids.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I'm not seeing any of the opioids, someone has passed, age two eighteen.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay, I don't feel a consensus. Can I hear some other opinions about this? I'm feeling some mixed viewpoints on this.

[Katie McKenzie (Survivor)]: But they can come apply for

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Next year.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Next year. Right. Just to

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: fill in the rest of this year.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Okay. So, yeah.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Are there other folks or somebody want to put a proposal on the table because I heard a proposal to split the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: baby. Well, that was conversation.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay, so well, all right. So then I'm going to call for a show of hands of people who would want to recommend the full amount I wrote it down.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: $2.80.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: How much?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: 420,000.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: 4 and 120,000, yes. 420,000. Some people would want to recommend 420,000 and the recommendation would be that

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it would come out of

[Chair Theresa Wood]: the prevention fund because that's apparently where it was funded from. So, people who are in favor of recommending 420,000 out of the prevention fund.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Out of opiate settlement?

[Chair Theresa Wood]: No, no. It's prevention. It's out of another sale fund. You that. I'll get the OPM.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Vote whatever you want to vote.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Hard. +1, 234. Okay. It is hard. So is there a proposal to fund $210,000 half of that amount out of that same source of funding, which is a credit, it's not state funds.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: It's not general

[Chair Theresa Wood]: funding. It's not general No. So it would be for half of their request out of the money that the drug manufacturers send to us. So that would be 2 and $10,000

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: We can vote more than

[Chair Theresa Wood]: once, right? Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: See if your 400 went down, you can

[Chair Theresa Wood]: vote Four, for two five, six, seven. Okay, that's the majority.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So our recommendation will be for 210,000.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The drug, it's not general fund. Okay, not general fund. And we'll specifically in our,

[Chair Theresa Wood]: we'll point that out in It's our

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: the same money. Yeah. Okay. It's not out of here. It's from

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: like a drug company. Yes. Okay. I'm fine with that. I'm all for recovery. Okay.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay, then next one under that,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: that I couldn't make up my mind category. Sorry, there were supposed to. Yeah,

[Chair Theresa Wood]: don't think legal aid really does fall into that category, it might be honest

[Unidentified Committee Member]: with you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, think it really

[Chair Theresa Wood]: You're right. It's new money. It

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: is new money. It's not backfilling. It is a new request. It is based on new needs, and that's why I had that kind of centered category. But it's not It is for new, it's for two new positions.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. I

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: didn't think they did.

[Unidentified Committee Staff (possible Joint Fiscal/Legislative Counsel)]: You don't seem new to me.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's new attorneys.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Okay. So, now, we will take up the legal acorn.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: We'll start about

[Chair Theresa Wood]: five, six minutes. So just to be clear, I just want people to be clear that the bulk of that loss in staff was due to COVID era money that we all know and they did and that she acknowledged was one time money, was not going to last. They were hoping for that to be backfilled. Last year, we had several requests to backfill ERAP program, and we declined to backfill the ERAP program. We made that decision as a body. So I just want to be clear who It very was sad story that we heard, but it was I just want to be clear that it was also based primarily in terms of the loss of funds on what was something that we knew was going to happen. However, they have not received, I will acknowledge, they have not received any increases. And I guarantee you when we get the budget and the administration, it'll be decreased again.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, that's where the debate I think that's where the debate does need to happen. And I was somebody who was writing to my constituents all about that, it's about all the COVID money. It's gonna make us all think we need to continue it when it's special and separate, and this is gonna be really hard because it's harder to take away than to not give. And we are giving all this, and we're gonna have to really, you know, deal with the loss of it not by backfilling it. And I still feel that way, I guess. So to make an exception here, I would have a problem with that, I

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: can Yeah,

[Chair Theresa Wood]: I mean, extremely value the services of Vermont I Legal worked with them for a long time, the Disability Law Project in particular. And this is actually two legal assistance services. So it's Vermont Legal Assistance or whatever it's called. Used to be called something else. Ed Paquin used to run it. That's all I remember. And now it's the other guy. So it does limit the amount of assistance. So when we all refer people to Vermont Legal Aid, we need to understand that they most likely will not be able to take up an individual case. When they said high impact cases, what they're talking about is things that are going to impact multiple people in the whole population

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: in that category Is of

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: there someone who, sorry, I think you had your hand up.

[Unidentified Committee Staff (possible Joint Fiscal/Legislative Counsel)]: Well, just trying to wrap my head around this COVA era funding that was expectedly lost. So based on the testimony, I see that portion, but I also see this stream of funding that has existed for the past nineteen years for HUD specifically. So that's not That's

[Chair Theresa Wood]: a loss of federal funds, is the part that you were referencing about.

[Unidentified Committee Staff (possible Joint Fiscal/Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. So that's why I think this is extremely relevant. This just happened in the VA at the budget, then that happened. Thank you, that

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: was part of why I saw it

[Unidentified Committee Staff (possible Joint Fiscal/Legislative Counsel)]: as part It's of a COVID thing, which is absolutely, I totally agree, we're not here to fill that gap for COVID issues, but this is like a two decades long issue that just barely ended and we have to adjust accordingly, I think. Especially because of the ripple effect of impact, especially on our court system, our judiciary.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: That was 1,275,000.000, I think. Of

[Unidentified Committee Staff (possible Joint Fiscal/Legislative Counsel)]: ChromeHUD, yeah.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Three quarters of it was ERAP, but that's still a quarter of that funding was funding they weren't anticipating losing and lost very suddenly.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So Yeah. How much is the basket?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I'm going to go back.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I put mine away.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: It was $235,000 due to inflation, dollars 300,000 for two staff attorneys, and $100,000 for the helpline.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But it's not well, but the amount of the losses was

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: $01,275,000.000 for the HUD related loss.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The HUD related loss was Yeah. Flat for. It was significant. So the total of what they're asking is less than

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: What they lost from money. Yeah. I had not laid out the math.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill]: Yeah. I I mean, I expected them to request more. They really pared down to the essential need, I think, in their request.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Now well, that was funds they lost HUD funds they lost in January. They said they lost the HUD funds in January, and the ERAP funds came to an end as of July or June July.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So January?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: January 2025.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Oh. Oh.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: My notes indicate they that's when they lost the funding. Yeah. So whether that was I I don't know under which administration, which policy, that timing makes it difficult

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to to No. But it does mean that the discussion and the loss was, like

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Could have been part

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: last year's budget discussion where we Yeah. We did it was not included in the in the budget.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: So I guess I am understanding what they identified as their loss. I see their request as 635,000. That's what they're requesting.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: But they had broken it in three different the three buckets. They attributed $2.35 to the lack of the inflationary COLAs, if you will.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: Yeah. Right. We've made that decision. We didn't do it last year. Right.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: 300,000, they said it was related to the staff attorneys and 100,000 for the helpline. Yes. Might make a proposal.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: The lots of federal funds was confusing me. Yeah. Yeah. Because it is kind of irrelevant at this point in time. Happened. It happened prior to the last. It enables more. Think that's important to understand. So are you entertaining putting something on the table?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: For consideration whether we do one staff attorney, so presumably that's 150, and the helpline. I was distressed by the fact that Vermonters are not even getting a callback for weeks.

[Chair Theresa Wood]: It's a little

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: bit tough about beefing up the helpline when there isn't help to give them, but at least people will get some direction, they'll get a response, they won't be waiting weeks to see if that's where their salvation will come from. They'll learn sooner whether it is or it isn't. That would be a $250,000 proposal, I guess, is the way I see it, for a helpline of one attorney.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Susan, thanks. I

[Chair Theresa Wood]: don't wanna rush people in their thinking about this. So, yeah, we can why don't we we're gonna pick this up again. And actually, the floor is supposed to be pretty short, so we're gonna come back up to committee. Yeah. Yeah. So, Doug, will you tell Brenda that since she sits right in front of you? So, Laurie, we can