Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome back, folks. We are not gonna pick up discussion. I wanna give folks an update on where the BAA memo happens to be because I'm sure there are people in the room who wanna know that as well. I'm still working on it. It turned out to be longer than I anticipated because trying to capture the conversation that we had and the concerns that we had in the areas and the things that we're recommending and why. So it always ends up being longer than anticipated. And Nolan was getting additional information from me about the nine plus million at Dale. So to confirm, it's not really an additional request for nursing facilities. It is carry forward from FY twenty five. And so it's just about spending authority. So the way they've presented it, it looks like it's an additional request, And but it's then so you will see that I'm going to ask Laurie to adjust the agenda for tomorrow morning because I am doing testimony after the floor on Thursday, I believe is when I'm doing it Thursday afternoon. Tomorrow afternoon, I'm doing testimony in house appropriation. So obviously, I want you all to see the memo before I testify in house appropriation. So that is what we're gonna be doing first thing at 9AM. Okay? And then we'll move to 05:45. Laurie and I will talk about agenda a little bit, because I think that we are probably gonna have additional. I'm not sure if we can get Katie back to review the changes that we just went through. Hopefully, we can. And, Laurie, if we need to, like, have if she's available at nine but not later, we can switch around the BAA memo thing. Okay? Okay. All right. So now, so I alluded to on FY '27 that not like there's any kind of real sort of normal business. There really is no business as usual when it comes to the budget. And this is not going to be any different than that. And so I think we're all accustomed to, particularly in this committee, seeing the needs of Vermonters that exceed the money that we have available. And so we oftentimes have to make decisions about the recommendations that we'll make. So what's different this year is for the last several years, there's been honestly a lot of federal money. We've had stable and healthy Vermont revenues as well. So we are anticipating on Friday, the e board is meeting, and we're anticipating a downgrade in the Vermont revenues. We've seen from the joint fiscal office, I get a revenue report every month and we've seen, it's noticeable. I don't expect it to be huge, but it is noticeable about the declines that we are seeing. And I guess I would call it a softening. One thing to understand is that the billions of dollars that have come into Vermont in the COVID era, they have not only some of them came through here, but not all of them. That's part of what people need to understand. And that has also had an impact on the revenues that the state then gets back through sales tax, through other things like that. So that money is pretty much gone. So that's having an impact on our revenue. We're seeing nationally that things are in flux. You're seeing the Federal Reserve and the president having disagreements about interest rates. And we're seeing all sorts of things out there that are causing some unrest for people and all of the markets out there that control our economy. And so when I referenced earlier that we'll need to do things a little bit differently than we have the last few years, What we have been doing is looking to our committee to make sure that the Appropriations Committee understands what the needs of Vermonters are. So we have put essentially what we felt the most pressing needs of Vermonters were in our budget memo. If you look back, our budget memo is rather lengthy. We go into quite a bit of detail in a number of areas in all three of our departments. And I'm not saying that we aren't going to do that this year, but in addition to that, we really are going to have to prioritize. Okay, so we're going to have to say, I'll just use for example, I am sure that we will hear from providers that they're going to need a cost of living adjustment. That is something that the administration in my both history here in the building and history in state government has never been proposed by an administration. It doesn't matter if it's Republican, Democratic or whatever. They rely on the legislature to make that adjustment if that happens. So I'm sure that we'll hear from providers about that. We have a couple of outstanding. They're relatively small, but they're important. So we'll be seeing I've already started to receive requests for things like at Dale, the support services program for people who are deaf blind. Okay? Relatively small number of people, relatively small amount of money has a huge impact, And that has pretty much gone away. And we had a bill that we took testimony on last year about that. So I have asked Dan and Todd to make sure that they look into that. I'm not anticipating that being in the governor's recommend. It'd be great if it were, but we'll see. So that the other thing that is hopefully a clear priority for the committee is something that we've already started to take testimony on a report that we received, and that is on the supervised visitation services for individuals who have been ordered by the courts to have supervised visitation. And we know that in several counties, the central part of the state, that that's nonexistent. And that is a significant issue. Anne has pointed that out when she and Brenda. And the reason we got that report is frankly because of the language that they put in to the Budget Act that our committee recommended last year. So what we don't have yet, and I think as we pointed out to the deputy commissioner last week from DCF is that they in fact didn't answer the question, which was how much would it cost? And so we will be looking for how much that costs. I hope that that rises to a level of priority. Those are, I guess, what I would call relatively small things that can have big impacts on the lives of the people that are impacted by those. We will receive requests. I'm already starting and I'm sure you receive will requests to meet with different groups, whether it's in substance use, whether it's in long term care, whether it's in child welfare or child care, homelessness, all across the spectrum of what we do. You'll receive requests to meet and people are going give you their best shot at trying to get you to recommend something here. And we're going to hear a lot of testimony as a full committee, which in the past, we've really only heard from the department. But I am going to structure this a little bit differently this year. So I'm going to be asking the teams to recommend which community partners we hear from directly. So those that are rising to your estimation as the team covering that part of the budget that we need to hear from directly. It doesn't guarantee them any leg up in our ultimate recommendations, but they sort of pass the first muster with the teams. And you're recommending that they appear before the full committee. So, yeah.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Vice Chair Golrang "Rey" Garofano)]: Do you wanna put a number on that? Like, are you just gonna give them, like, how many should we recommend to you? Like, we're the gatekeepers, obviously. And and what would you like to see? How much time for each part of the budget? Or maybe you wanna just get back to us

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: on

[Unidentified Member (possibly Vice Chair Golrang "Rey" Garofano)]: that?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I anticipate that there's going to be quite a number that you might recommend. So we will tell witnesses that they have fifteen minutes, a maximum of fifteen minutes to present their case. I'm not gonna give you a limit on the number of organizations because that would be sort of an arbitrary limit. So I think that I'm relying on your expertise in that area to bring forth that. And of course, you'll be lobbied hard by those organizations. So, yeah.

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah, so the Appropriations Committee also has a different process for the administration to come in and present in a different way than they have in the past. So I'm just wondering how we're going to shift our practices if that doesn't happen, right? Because we've had some experience, not all, but there's been times where there's been a request the presentations are still not as detailed or kind of follow the instructions and the direction given by appropriation. So I'm just wondering, if we get a department come in and just present ups and downs, do we have a process in place to say that's not enough? You've been instructed to provide more information and more detail on So I think

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is everybody familiar with what the appropriations committee sent out? They sent a copy of that to all members. So everybody should have received it back a little while ago, what they asked of each department. If you did not, let me know and I'll dig up the memo and send it out to you. So we don't know if the departments are gonna comply or not. I mean, that's the long and the short of it until after January's appointment, after next week. So I think that kind of regardless of whether they do or not, we have to do our due diligence. And does that mean, are there things that we may recommend that money be transferred to? Is there something that you are aware of through your investigation that perhaps we should consider for a different priority? That's a hard decision. That's a hard recommendation to make. But it would be better made by a committee who's gonna delve a little bit deeper than the Appropriations Committee has time to do. So, I can tell you that if we don't get what we hope to get from the administration, then we are relying on the expertise that sits around this table. And that expertise and of course, what we hear from our community partners and their advocates and what you hear from families and all of that will help guide us in the questions that we need to ask and dig deeper on. And will we be perfect? No, we won't be perfect. But if you are aware of things that you have some concerns about whether it's achieving the most effective outcomes or the best use of a limited dollar, particularly as it relates to state funds. So this really is a question about state funds, how we utilize those state funds. I want you to feel free to bring those here to the table to have that discussion. And the full committee may agree, we may not agree, but bring them here. And of course, I'm available to assist in any way that I can through that process. Yeah, go ahead, Anne.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thanks. Yeah. As part of that, I guess I'm thinking there are things that we even have started working on or have looked at that you know, when there's when there's a change of session and people change, you lose the even brief institutional history about testimony and why they were being raised. I'm wondering about. Well, I know one example because because Jubilee and I have worked on the transition foster care or kids kids who actually were not eligible for DCF custody, but who have needs. And we were very conscious last fall as we're working on that, that funding to add to critical components might not at all be available, but that there were statutory changes that I just one small example. It's a legal change around the judiciary having a role in validating these kids for supervision. That would be a change in our statute that would enable access to additional federal funding probably requires matching funds and therefore might not be able to go forward with seeking funding this year. But if that's that legal changes in statute, it would enable when funds became available to move ahead without wasting another, you know, year or two making the legal changes. And there's some other examples of that beyond that particular project. I'm wondering advocating for that. There might be some things that we ought to do as in statute, not as language in the appropriations bill. Not to connect as, you know, this is this is for money purposes, but that would be. Statutory changes that that would enable the ability in future years to look at whether funding could be available.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A 100% agree. And I anticipate that we will have, I guess, what I'm calling a miscellaneous DCF bill because I think that there are going to be a few things like that. And I think we have a vehicle on the board now that's a short form bill that we can use for a few of those, I guess, I would call miscellaneous changes. And just as an FYI, some of these things, and you may have seen the press report on DCF yesterday, the issues were not uncommon, not unexpected, unfortunately. But we are going to have a joint hearing with House Energy and Technology about updates on the CCWIS system and new technology. And the reason I'm mentioning that is because at least as the federal programs stand right now, we actually could have access to more resources for children in this situation and youth. But absent the ability to provide the reporting that's required, because our systems are so outdated, we can't do that. And so there's a prime example of, I think we should be a bit probably more directive when it comes to the technology aspects and updates than we have been. That would be another example of something that would be included in this kind of miscellaneous DCF bill. So, yeah, I think that's a good point, Anne. And will look, and if other people have things that sort of fall into that miscellaneous DCF realm, feel free to bring those up either as part of these budget or in other conversations. Because we have a couple of things there up on the wall that I think that we want to take some action on, but don't necessarily warrant the whole bill off themselves. So thanks for bringing that up. Zon, I'm just looking to you because this is, we're having this talk sort of partly in response to your request. I was wondering if you have any particular questions that No,

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: it's very helpful what you're describing about the overview, the framing. I was thinking mostly about priorities how do we, are, how will we, other than just our own personal votes, are there ways that we as a committee will be looking to hear addressing that here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'll give you a real time example. The state was just notified that it's gonna lose 3 and a half million dollars in SAMHSA grants at the Department of Health that affect among other things, substance use prevention work. So we don't know the details of that yet. I don't know if that is all states and it's for FY federal fiscal year '26. We're working on a continuing resolution essentially for fiscal '26. We have an impending potential government shutdown if if resolution on the twenty sixth appropriation can't be reached. So those are all things that are impacting what we talk about. In DCF, again, about childcare. There's threats to withhold payments on childcare until we provide proof of our oversight. We'll be asking DCF what proof is being requested. My guess is they'll say we don't know yet because that's kind of the way things have happened. On Snap at least, we have a full year appropriation. So I don't think that we will, fingers crossed, need to be dealing with that at least.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Well, do have a question. When Anne was talking, I wondered about the notion of we have the e board that can act if necessary when things are in or out of emergency might

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be But the way to think of

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: the kinds of issues that she's talking about where we need changes in policy in order to move quickly and it strikes me that there could, I don't know if there's a mechanism by which we could propose a quick motion, but statute won't allow it unless we change statute which would really slow a process down. Wonder if there's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not sure I'm getting what you're saying.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Well, I'm just imagining when we think about spending money, it's about appropriate spending money but if there are programs, if we suddenly determine that because of the nature of what we're looking at from the federal government right now, are there protections that we want to put in place for Vermonters that we don't currently have or that in order to do them we have to introduce bills and go through this long complicated process. Are there ways of shortening that?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I see. So yes and no, I will say, because I'll use SNAP as an example. Okay, so last year, the general assembly set aside money in case there were impacts from federal changes that we couldn't predict at the time because we didn't know what was going to happen, right? The SNAP changes happened. We had all of that disarray during November. And the Joint Fiscal Committee and the e board, the e board includes the governor's office, just to remind people, recommended that Vermont utilize out of those funds that we had set aside in case of federal changes, that we utilize some one time money to put out to individuals in need of food assistance. So we did that. The difference And so could we, for instance, say, I guess I'm understanding you, so sort of preempt that saying like, if a similar thing occurs in November 2026, can we legislatively put language in and say, the state of Vermont shall do something similar.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I mean, me, excuse me,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: but her B-five 45 is an example of actions that- We're taking, it's reactionary and proactive at the same time.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yes, exactly. So I'm just thinking if it needed to be proactive rather than reactionary.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. The problem is that there are so many things in flux. It's very, very difficult to predict what may or may not happen. And I didn't finish my story. That's okay. The rest of the story is we are much more likely to have less funds to be able to make that set aside. There is right now continuing dialogue about there is some one time money leftover from, not leftover, but surplus from FY '25 that the governor wants to use to buy down property taxes. The legislature and the governor are still in negotiations, and that'll happen right up until the end. If that money is utilized to do that, pretty much eliminates any one time money available to do anything else to react to some of those federal responses. Personally, I'm not sure that's the absolute best decision, but we'll see. I mean, that's all still in flux.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: So the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: answer is yes, but probably not as much as we were able to do last year, is the real truth

[Unidentified Member (possibly Vice Chair Golrang "Rey" Garofano)]: of the matter.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so things like this 3 and a half million that we just learned of about SAMHSA. One, We have seen the administration make reductions in appropriations for FY25. Try to. States push back. Because remember, it's Congress that gets to appropriate. They have the power of the first in Congress. The president cannot unilaterally decide what is going to be funded and what is not going to be funded after a budget has been passed. Okay? So when states have pushed back, the courts have agreed with states. We're in a different ball of wax. All we have is FY '25 is gone. Okay? We're in FY '26, and we have continuing resolution. We don't have a Congress approved budget. So the sands are shifting underneath us right now. Yeah, states have to be flexible. Guess it is the word. For people who I know are around the room listening and those who are listening online, we we will take more testimony as a full committee than we have in the past few years around community partner input. It'll be similar to what we did for BAA, but it'll be reliant upon the recommendations from our teams. Okay? So you'll bring the recommendations based upon the work that you're doing to fully understand each department's budget or each portion of the department's budget, and you'll bring that forward in terms of recommendations. And then for people listening around, you'll have about fifteen minutes to make your case to the full committee about what it is that you're asking for. But I think it's important for the whole committee to hear that emergence of things coming from our community partners.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Esme Cole)]: Yeah, go ahead. This is more big picture, but I know it affects a lot of the organizations in the community that ultimately come through our committee. Are there discussions happening to help I know we could have another shutdown on February 1. And I know, like in my work, we're thinking about that and preparing for that. I'm just wondering, are we doing any is there any planning being done to help? Just things are divisive, and this may be something we see more often. And I know reserves are dwindling. Grants are getting cut, it's harder to fill reserves. And I'm just wondering if there's conversations about how we can help these organizations that we depend on as the state to do a lot of our business for us, help them kind of weather those challenges each There

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: actually are some discussions happening right now around the state housing authority, for instance, and the local housing authorities. And they've been utilizing local funds, local administrative funds reserves. And I think you'll see some sort of recommendation out of the appropriations committee that seeks to address part of that in the BAA, I think. I doubt that it's going to be the full amount that they're asking I'm

[Unidentified Member (possibly Esme Cole)]: thinking more. I know some states have basically a loan fund for organizations. If there's a shutdown, we won't be able to pay maybe you can't pay your rental assistance, or you'll eventually be able to when the government reopens. So it's just kind of like short term cash for these organizations that tend to be small that may not be able to survive, especially as we start seeing it once a year or twice a year that we have these shutdowns and these huge gaps that they have to try and find funds to keep their organizations afloat until the government reopens. So that's what I was wondering That you were thinking about.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I have not approved that as a potential option. I know that it's related, but only sort of. The financial relief fund that we appropriated last year, 10,000,000 for community organizations to have access to. And we got a report earlier this year about how that fund is doing. The things that are pending, I think it's pretty much been utilized. Think of, I guess, apropos to what you're saying, we will probably see more of that kind of thing as being necessary. And I don't know if there wasn't anything additional asked for in the BAA, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there exists potential for that to be there for FY 'twenty seven as well. Because I think that that is It's an equity issue for me. Again, nursing homes have been the only ones that have access to that. And then it was a squeaky wheel, Brattleboro Hospital or Springfield Hospital. Some of the And Valley Vista has been one of that things that sort of make their way up to the administration as critical. Some of our smaller providers are just as critical. The way

[Unidentified Member (possibly Esme Cole)]: I raise it is I know And the amount of support that could help be very to ping on in the fall. And I worry about what a potential just a few months later that could do to them. So I think we'll have more conversation

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: about that. Yeah. When Secretary Samuelson comes in, I think it's a good question to ask and exactly what are the parameters for access to those funds. And are they looking to extend them? Are they looking to make them potentially available? My understanding is that you kind of have to be on the verge of closing kind of thing. But what if it's a temporary thing? The problem is with the federal government, we don't know what's going be temporary and what's not going to be temporary. Yeah. Any other thoughts or any other sort of Yeah, go ahead, Doug.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'll just say that during this conversation, the thought coming through my mind is where can we identify funding requests that have, if you will, a multiplier effect. Mentioned sort of direct multiplier or not losing a multiplier. You mentioned the state housing authority and if I remember correctly from their testimony in October, what we do in one year impacts the following year. So we lose opportunities for vouchers. We don't take advantage and exercise the use or fund them this year. So that's an example, if you will, of funding something so that we prevent further harm following year. So that's just a thought I have as I'm looking through is where can we find opportunities with multipliers? Some of them more direct than others. I think we are facing through H. One changes to Medicaid and processes related to Medicaid and whether people are going to ultimately fall off of that. So how do we spend money wisely to prevent that so we ensure that Vermonters have health care, again, of a multiplier?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, and I think that everybody on this committee has received a copy of the request for the community agencies to They're not calling me explainers, but they came up with some Assisters. Thank you. I think everybody's received a copy of that request. And that's actually along those lines. So, I think that we need to be asking the questions of AHS. How do you intend to assist individuals in understanding the changing implications of the Medicaid program, because they're big and they affect a lot of people, a lot of people that this committee is responsible for. Frankly, I just don't see AHS as being able to do that on their own.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Vice Chair Golrang "Rey" Garofano)]: Right, and then how is that data reported back? Because the work requirements, volunteer requirements-

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: How are we gonna track that? How are we gonna track that?

[Unidentified Member (possibly Vice Chair Golrang "Rey" Garofano)]: How's that gonna get reported so that we don't find ourselves having clawbacks because it's not outside of percentage of variants that they allow.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. That just made me think of something. So when we had the SNAP and their refugee discussion back in October in our committee, So our committee as a whole felt that the department had acted precipitously in removing certain people from the roles. Well, it turns out that was true. And so I think that while on one hand they were trying to make some assurances that they didn't exceed an error rate and were implementing things as quickly as possible, on the other hand, if it turned out not to be accurate. And so in the meantime, lots of people were impacted by that. And we spent state money on something that we didn't actually have to spend state money on. So sometimes that quick action can have the negative impact. And we need to, I think in our questions and our inquiries, need to ask about things like that, because we will have continual this will be continual. And it's not just with this federal administration. That happens with any time there's a federal change. There are different priorities for different administrations. And so understanding how our in state folks interpret those things. And then while we act responsibly, we have to make sure that that responsiveness is not, I guess, what I would call overkill. So it's a lot. It's a lot, and I really appreciate people thinking about this from the perspective of your budget assignments and how that's going to impact your conversations with the departments that you will be talking with. And just know that you're not in that alone. So you've got the support of the whole committee and that we will do our best to make the best decisions around recommendations as we can. Vermonters are expecting us to do that. So think within your areas of expertise and within your areas that you have responsibility for. Are there things where you can save money? Are there things that you think are critical? And to use Doug's analogy, have a multiplier effect that can be seen as a positive impact, or if we don't do it, can be seen as a multiplier negative impact likewise. And then recognizing that the other things that we have up on that board that may require resources will be difficult this year. I think about something more positive to end up. I know. So thank you for all the work on H-five 45 this morning. Oh, And Anne's got something. Yes, go ahead.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: A little request when we finish up and go offline. Just a totally non legislative thing I'd like to say.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. I think we're good. Laurie, we can go offline.