Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Good morning, folks. Thank you for being here this morning. This is House Human Services. What we are going to be looking at right now is a draft of the House Human Services budget adjustment memo to House Appropriations. And just as a reminder, I'm speaking with House Appropriations this afternoon to give them our feedback. This draft has been provided to Katie and Nolan. They have a couple of minor editorial comments, just things that they're doing. And it's going through drafting right now. So even things that I do legislative go drafting. Laurie, can we get rid of that livestreamed okay thing?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: What's that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay, so you should have it in your email. For people around the room, no, it is not posted. And it won't be posted until it is finalized because I don't like to have several graphs of something out there floating around. Then people start to look at things and think, oh, that was the final one. And no, it wasn't. So if people could take just a look at your emails and to pull that up, that would be wonderful. Okay. Open his work. Everybody have it? Okay. Essentially, I just laid out what process that we used in the first couple of paragraphs. And I also let them know that while we heard from a number of community partners, we focused only on those things that we truly considered to be FY '26 adjustments and that we are not making any recommendations related to community partners that either the general assembly had already considered in its FY twenty six original budget and did not fund, nor any requests that were more aligned for consideration in the FY twenty seven budget process. So you'll recall, heard from End Homelessness Vermont, we heard from two eleven, we heard from Vermont Legal Aid. Those were all things that we did not put in this memo as recommendation. So my aim for saying that upfront to the Appropriations Committee is because I want them to know that we heard from more people than we are actually recommending. And it's important, I think, to have folks understand that we did go through a prioritization process and understand where things are at. So we focused on two departments out of our three. Dale, Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living. It's an email from last night, Todd. Okay.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I do just want to make people aware. We were just notified that the Green Mountain Nursing Facility is closing March, I think, fifteenth. I don't remember if it was fifteenth or thirty first, but that's in Colchester. They're licensed for '73 beds, but I don't know how many were occupied. We're trying to get that number. And they do have to develop transition plans for the residents So if you look it up, you can see that it's a pretty old building. And I think that probably had a lot to do with it along with staffing issues and the reliance on high cost travel. So anyways, that's of front and center in the issues that we talked about when we were talking with Dale about this. So I just wanted to make people aware of that because that will probably be hitting the news today. So you can see the format that I used. I looked at the governor's recommendation, and then I did community partners request and then just did it by line item that's in the budget. So I don't need to read it to you. I guess what I'm interested in is if you have this is the time to say whether you have if you feel like I represented what the committee discussion was, I did my best to try to do that. If that doesn't feel that way to you, then now's the time to say something. Yeah, go ahead. Number five, reach up, the deduction. Let's just kind of go from the top down. Oh, okay, mine's on number five. Okay, all right.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We'll get to that. Okay, I didn't know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. So we're gonna start with Dale. Jump right in. So we spent a lot of time in the Dale meeting talking about nursing facilities and the cost. So I tried to capture that. And then in the end, however, we said, given the circumstances at this point, we acknowledge the need to make these payments. I was trying to come up with language that didn't actually say we recommended it, because that didn't feel totally representative of the way we were feeling. That strikes the right balance. So, take a moment. I realize this didn't come out until late last night, so you might not have had a chance to read through So take that moment right now to do so.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Yes. See numbers here. Are all

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: these numbers

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: increases? Is there a notation where they increase?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Unless they have a parentheses around them, these are adjustments that the administration is requesting. So they are increases in the Dale budget, for instance, in these areas. In the overall state budget, there are other decreases offsetting these. So when the governor presents his budget adjustment, you have to look at all the other departments and agencies to see where the bottom line is. And off the top of my head, I don't know where the bottom line is, but to Dale, in this program, for nursing facilities, that is an increase. You will see some things that have parentheses around them, and that is a recommended decrease by the governor's office.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Could you repeat that? Yeah. That's all. Just that last part.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. If it if it does not have parentheses around the number, that is a recommended increase if it's listed under the governor's recommendation that the governor is recommending. If it has parentheses around the number, it's a recommended decrease by the administration.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And when you see 14,500,000 and you see behind that in parentheses GC, that's global commitment, that's Medicaid in Vermont. I mentioned that because all of these recommendations are not all Medicaid, particularly when we get to DCF.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And for those global commitment Medicaid obligations, that is a split of federal and state dollars with state dollars being approximately

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: 45%, 48%, something like that, yeah.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And the rest, if you will, the balance, the 55% is as much an authorization as anything else? Or is just kind of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, we have to live within the cap we have in global commitment. So yes, it's federal funds, but it's not unlimited.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: I think the point you're making that I understand is that we're authorizing to this, for them to spend those federal dollars in this way. Yes. Or we're recommending, we're not authorizing anything.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're not authorizing anything.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Should we put something in there when we agree? When it's, we agree.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So let's just take choices for care. For instance, this one, do people have any comments about number one under Dale?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: No, I was just talking about the wording.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I understand. Do you have a comment here in number one?

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: I do not.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So when we get to the one where you think

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: No. Just Agree. I thought for the the people on appropriations to say, this is what the this was this is not a change from what was in the governor's recommend.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, think that's clarify. Yeah.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Clarify that so when our colleagues are reading this, they're like, okay. That's governor recommend. They stayed with that Maybe

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we should put that up in the top part to say any items not specifically identified the committee agrees with. Is that kinda what you're thinking about?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I just thought it might be easier for someone on appropriate have that part of the budget to read in the state. Oh, they're just agreeing the governor's recommendation, particularly With

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: things that are not pulled out in this memo for everything else in the VA. Yes. That's a good point. That is good. So I just added any item not specifically detailed below, committee recommends agreement with the doctor's recommendations. Okay. Choices for care. The second choices for care item is $2,500,000 You'll recall the department's CFO indicated that when they first put this in, they thought it was gonna be for home and community based services. And now because they thought that the utilization increase was needed there, and now they said it would be for a mixture of home and community based and additional nursing facility. So given that we just approved 14,500,000.0 global commitment and 9,600,000.0, which we'll see in number three, I don't know if this recommendation that I wrote is actually what the whole committee said, but I was trying to pull out from what people were saying. So the 2,500,000.0, we are recommending I am proposing that we recommend that that be approved for home and community based services only.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Which is a change. That's what

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: they have it in there for. But they said in testimony, we might have to use some of that for nursing homes. I don't know how this Green Mountain Care nursing home is going to impact all of that. I don't know if they had been a recent recipient of EFR, for instance. I don't know if we've gotten that report yet. Have you gotten that report yet from Dale?

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Would it strengthen it, sorry? Would it strengthen it if we just said the committee recommends that this be approved as originally budgeted? How

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: about only as originally? That's not good. Okay. Okay, thank you. And then choices for care number three, the 9,600,000. So this is represented as an increase, but it is not really an increase. So you recall there were three or four nursing homes that had delays in payments for FY '25 in the choices for care closeout. The CFO said we've identified the carryforward funds. These are carryforward funds already been appropriated. So this is essentially an accounting thing, and we call it spending authority. They need the authority to go ahead and spend something. That's all that that is. Okay. And then under community partners request. Yeah.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I just I just wanna go back to number two.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Uh-huh. Of course. So when we

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: put in there that it's community based services only, which I support, I'm just wondering how that's gonna impact with this disclosure. What are we Sorry. I'm just reading this. So I'm just

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's okay.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: You take my take. Yeah. It's alright. We're gonna have to find new places for these individuals who are involved, do we need to really think about making sure that the department has the ability to provide wherever they're going with the resources they need to be able to house basically people who are needing skilled nursing home care?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that's a great question. I don't know. We don't know because this is just essentially, this is news that's coming right now. I don't know how many of the folks at the Green Mountain Care nursing home are Medicaid, How many are private pay? How many might be long term care insurance? How many are rehab? I don't know the breakout. We also Or know much

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: you can rest care there?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think so.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But we also know that there are two fifty plus vacancies in nursing facilities across the state. It'll be one of the things that's required when a facility closes is that they have to have transition plans for every single person.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Correct.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I believe that the department already has the flexibility to work with other nursing homes, with maybe some people be able to go home If they have a family member or other person who can step up to provide care, other people will probably be transferred to other nursing homes.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: If a bed is vacant because of staffing or there-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's only 23 beds that are vacant because of staffing.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Correct. But what I'm saying is if the person needs a higher level of care than the facility was able to offer, what does that We know there's open beds, but if they're only able to offer a lower level of care. I just wanna talk Yeah, this go And we're saying, I mean, I guess we're saying, okay, we've got to find beds for these individuals. What are the needs of the skilled nursing facility that's gonna be receiving them? Do they have the, not the open bed, that would be a capacity, but the level of care needed. The scope of practice. The scope to be able to provide the care to that individual. I don't know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If they're licensed as a skilled nursing facility,

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: they

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: can They can take everybody. Yes. I mean, that is the highest level of care, So they should And for me, like I It would

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: be dialysis. Who knows? I don't know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. You need specialized equipment and services. That's not this place. Take a look at the place. Okay. I just I know. I appreciate you about that and

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: wanted to have a little more discussion about it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. I appreciate that. And the truth of the matter is that this is late breaking news, literally, first thing I'm this not in the news yet.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Depends. This is not in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the news yet, no. And like I said, we don't know how many people are actually there. I don't know. I haven't had an opportunity to go on the Division of Licensing and Protection website to see what's their status. I don't know what their quality status is. People could be moving to a better situation. But again, the fact that they're gonna have to move is gonna be upsetting for people.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: And none of them are able to tell us, right? That's our job here, is to make sure that if possible, we are able to provide their care, because they are not able to come in and So it's talk about their Dale's job, I mean, Dale is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: ultimately responsible. Right, responsible. So for us, I think right now there's a lot of unknowns. Yeah. And I think Dale probably has a lot more information.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: That's why I'm worried

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: about this.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Just be clear.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So, yeah, I have a sort of background question to this as as it stated and as we heard the testimony, this is a line item for the home and community based care already. And they said they it might be utilized for additional nursing facility payments. How would they be able now to use it for additional nursing facility payments if it's budgeted for home and community based?

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because we're trying to communicate. We don't want you to do what you testified you might do. That's the recommendation. You know, we only want you to use it what it's budgeted for. But they they weren't asking for a language change, saying we can use it more flexibly. But they sort of testified to that. So I'm trying to understand, can can they switch money between light items like that? Or is it actually already restricted to what it's budgeted for and disregarding the testimony of what they'd like to do?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Really good question, Anne. And for historical purposes, this is one of the things that I asked Dan to look into in terms of whether we need to change it. But right now, skilled nursing facility, ERC, adult day, personal care services, under one line item called Global Commitment Choices for Care. So, I I have last year, I had some discussions with the department about is it time for us to be thinking I understand because I was around. I, you know, I I launched the program understand the rationale for budgeting this all as one, but the program is now coming up on thirty years old. And I think that most people would say that we have achieved all of the savings from the taking offline of nursing facility services that we're going to do. We have fewer nursing facility beds than we did thirty years ago. That was on purpose. It was to write the balance and to promote home and community based care. So it was all done as one line item budget, and that's the way it appears in the budget. And I believe that we should have some serious discussions about whether we should be budgeting separately for nursing facility services and separately for home and community services. That's going to be a topic for another time. But right now, it's all in one line item, so they don't really need language to move it around.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So so is how how would we be able to if we're not proposing a change in language when we say we recommend it be approved for home and community based services only? If it's in the same budget, do we have the ability to say, well, that sub pool of money can only be used for for x y z that's not as not distinguished in budget lines?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We can ask Katie when she comes, but she she might say that maybe language would be necessary in order in order to effectuate a recommendation like that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, so not not to be a pest, but that makes me think that if it's language to change policy that I mean, we're we're trying to do something that I think probably there's a there may be a general sense of community of the committee that we do want to move in that direction. But it may be part of a bigger policy discussion to actually change the budget line rather than trying to do it in BAA. If it, you know, requires a change in language, statutory language that really does get into a policy change at a stage that maybe it's not the right stage.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so I think with the added language that Zon suggested, that I think that what we do is we put it back on what the department originally presented. They presented it as home and community based services. And so I think that sort of threads the needle from my perspective as making our opinions known about it. And enforcement's a whole different ball of wax. I agree with you that making that big of a shift would require additional discussion, and we would have to amend the statute. So that's something I've asked Dan to work with Dave Yacoboni on and think about, should we be having discussions with the department and with the industry to think about how we're budgeting for this in state government now. Now that we've probably reached as far as we're gonna go in terms of shifting the balance in terms of nursing facility beds.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I keep referring, of course, to the language in front and recalling what Zon said verbally. Yeah, I think you've made the point well that that language really does it in the way that that's the right way to approach it at this point.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, and I'm not I'm not good like Katie, I can't put it up on the screen and edit it as well. So,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: yeah, and that's what I didn't do either. I didn't didn't write it down, but but I agree. That was that was good language to address what I'm raising for discussion. Okay.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I'm I'm good. Thank you for taking the time to

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Of course.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Of course. Anytime to anyone.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Understand it and have that because it's like

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: yeah. And be asking the department next week when they're here, budget test, what's happening, right? Well, before then, actually, we have a request now to Rebecca. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. And so we're on to community partners requests now. So this is still in Dale. And in Choices for Care, the Area Agencies on Aging provide their required case management services for Choices for Care recipients. And due to a technical oversight, those services were not included in the calculation of the 2% COLA calculation. Oh, I used calculation twice. I'll edit that. The 2% COLA that the general assembly approved for FY '26. All the other Medicaid providers in long term care services received that. And so the committee recommended approval for FY '26 retroactive to July 1, which is when it should have been made. However, we have heard from Nolan that the department finds it difficult to make retroactive payments. They actually said it's not possible, but we know from other things that actually is possible, but it is difficult. So if it cannot be made retroactive, we recommend that the general fund share be paid to providers or some combination of global commitment and general fund. They said that the earliest they could make a change like this would be April 1. So the last quarter of this fiscal year could be a full Medicaid and then the general plan chair for the first nine months of the year. I know it sounds a little complicated, but the appropriations people will understand it, hopefully. Same thing in the choices for care under ERC, Enhanced Residential Care. That we are recommending or the request was for $1,071,550 in global commitment. Again, we, the General Assembly, funded the Medicaid rate study that was completed in FY twenty three. This occurred over two fiscal years and was finalized in FY twenty six. And then this past summer, JFO and House Human Services were notified that that result in a 35% decreased rate for certain residential care providers. It was not the intent of the general assembly to reduce rates for these services. So we are recommending that they be restored to the FY '25 levels.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: There's a typo on the retroactive date for that person says 2925.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, that's good.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: That's a tough retroactive. But a question about that. So when

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. I see it.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: When it says notified that this would be result so following the rate study resulted in the decrease Yes. 35%?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That they did not were not transparent with us about. They just presented consolidated numbers, if you will.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And to be fair, JFO, you know, when talking with the administration about it, we learned lessons that we need to dig a little deeper, and they learned lessons that they need to be more transparent. So again, we're recommending that these funds be retroactive to 07/01/2025, not 2925. And if it cannot be all GC, then a split between GC and general fund. Okay, any questions about that? And then developmental disabilities, developmental services payment reform does not require any money, but we heard significant concerns regarding the impacts of payment and other reforms on people receiving services, families, and designated and specialized service agencies. And then I didn't copy the language because you all already received it, but the language that Katie put together for us would be attached here.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Is there a spot we can go back and look at it? Because I'm sure when I see it, I'll remember having seen it. But right now

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I will ask Laurie to send it out to people.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, thanks.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's from Katie and it says FY '26 BAA language, and it was last week. Right. Thank you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I probably looked at it and said, oh, this is what was recommended in the BAA for language by the administration.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It was not.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It was not right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I get it now. Yeah. The information, just to refresh people's memories, we requested this kind of language last year in the FY twenty six budget. It was negotiated out. And unfortunately, the things that we in this committee knew would happen are happening. And so we've enabled this to take place over the last seven months, and we need to do something about it. Yeah, just go send it to everyone. Thank you. Okay, now we'll move on to DCF. Family services. Because it was a large amount, I put it in here because I felt we should comment on. We didn't comment on everything we agreed Yeah, was wondering what that I know. Well, if you think I should take it out, I can take it out.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Yeah, want to take it on.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just highlighting things that are bigger dollar amounts, So I this was, they still really haven't nailed down what a transportation system is gonna be for children and youth who need to be transported for visitations, for court appearances, for all of this kind of stuff. And it includes payments to sheriffs and other providers. And it's on I have say it is on top of an increase, a substantial increase last year that Anne pointed out.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, we put in a lot and they're saying it's still not enough. I just briefly an update because I didn't send it to the whole committee. But in the report in I think it was in seven days about the the glitches with the computer system. There was a reference to because of the computer systems overall weaknesses, they were not able to provide the report that we requested last year on restraint in transportation. And just thought it was interesting because they have never presented to us that they can't do it or they can't do it because of that. So I'm not sure how that turned up in seven days, but they are still working on it. They've reported to us.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And just as an FYI, we're going to be having a joint hearing with House Energy and Technology next Friday on this very issue. Great. Yeah, Todd.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: How many children are they transporting? How many times are they transporting in general?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I I mean, I don't know if Brenda or Anne knows if he's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: gonna Yes, I can forward I can forward that. Last week, when we had asked for that added information, we were I was sent a a whole breakout of the number of kids and so forth. And that was not what we had been asking for at that moment. We were asking about the secure transports. So I, I let the department know that's not what we were looking for. But that is the question you're asking now. And the report they sent, I think, does answer that. So I can forward that right now to the committee for anybody who wants to look at that because it breaks out the overall transportation numbers.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: I'd like to see that first for a vote on it.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yep, I will. I'm going to pull it. Find it in my inbox here and send it forward it right now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, send it to the whole committee and then. Yep. Yep. Yep.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We'll do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're just in committee discussion, you don't need to raise your hand. Oh, okay. All right. So

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I'm a little confused on this one, because who, okay, because I used to be involved with the school. I was under the understanding the school paid for the many children that have to take taxis to school, and then they get special taxis to they have to be shoes, and they have to go to meetings and with their person. Throughout the day, let's just say throughout, I thought that was in the school's budget. So do they get the money from this? This is not

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: for education related transportation.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So this is This is Oh, okay. I thought it was

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the whole So a child, if there is a chin's case, know, and for some reason the child is, you know, older youth sometimes are part of those court proceedings, they need to be transported from their, you know, the current placement to a courthouse. Or if there is, we have youth who are involved with law enforcement, they've made a few wrong decisions and they have particular supervision requirements that those folks might be transported by a sheriff's department, or it could be for visitation with a non custodial parent. Or there's lots of reasons, but it's not educated. So this

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: isn't the children in foster care?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, these are in the Family Services Division, which is child welfare. So

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: the school pays out of their school

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: pays for school transportation and other transportation. Thought it was all the same. No, not all the same.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So like I knew a grandparent that got a grandson, raised a grandson. So the transportation the grandson got to go to daycare, that would be out of this. I'm just trying to separate it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I can't tell you all the individual things occurs because there are individual agreements made for each child about what's covered, what's not covered, who pays and all of that kind of stuff. It's different for family care providers sometimes than it is for foster care providers. And so, know all the details of that, I would encourage you to reach out to the Family Services Division. And

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think a lot of

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: the questions you're asking is in the one page piece that I just sent you, which break breaks out the type of providers who are being reimbursed and what the amount spent for that type of and the explanation of what that transportation it is. It's all for children who are in custody, and and it explains the breakout of the types of transportation and and who's paid for it.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And so where do I I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: just emailed it. You should have it in your inbox right Email?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Email, I've got it right here. I'm Anne. Okay, thank you. I've got it. Okay. All

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: right. There is one thing just if you don't mind, Cher. Yes. One thing in this email at the very bottom of the last sentence of maybe the paragraph for sure. Yeah, it says, the only time that federal dollars will not be used for transportation is when it involves a share. So I think that kind of mirrors I'm not saying that this should change any of our decisions here, but just to be clear, it seems like the things we might be assuming dollars are being used for more generally, like transportation to therapy or transportation to some sort of appointment of sorts, those are being paid for by Fed dollars, not this dollar amount. So this is very specifically

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's definitely something the budget team is gonna ask more questions about and we'll see if we need additional clarification during the FY twenty seven budget process since this seems to be a, you know, continuing to ramp up. Even as the number of children in custody actually is going down. So that's an interesting crossover. Yes. So ramping up means specifically share related transportation issues are ramping up, like you said, even though

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: the decrease in custody is happening.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is awesome. This chart, the information. Wonderful. Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I apologize for not having shared that because it wasn't answering the question we had raised that day. I, you know, I just put it aside, but it it does have information that for broader budget reasons is is obviously a value for everyone. Apologize again, not forwarding it at that time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's okay. That's good, Anne.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So the million they're asking for now is on top of the 8,000,000 that they received last year, if I'm reading this right? I have not

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: had time to review that one. Me neither. So I don't know if that's saying what they estimate their annual cost to be or if that's a report of what what they spent last year.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That that says on it, it's it's it's what they've already spent, and they need a million more. Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is it.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay. So they need a million. Thank you, Anne. Thank you, Anne. Yep, she had for you guys.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And it's not really optional, you know, as they point out federally that they have to they have to get the kids to where they need to be going if they're in the custody of DCF. So we might want to dig deeper with them later about less expensive means or something like that. But but it's not an optional service for them to to pay for. Okay,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So let's move to the next one, which is also in family services. And this was, people were asking if they're all increases. So Todd, do you see the parentheses around 1,073,421?

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Let me get back there. Okay.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'll be using that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's okay. Well, when you get there, just let me know. So that's a decrease in substitute care, which is foster care. And 719,561 is an increase in subsidized adoption. So they essentially are having more costs in subsidized adoption, meaning hopefully more kids are being adopted and fewer caseload in substitute care. Although I do recall from their spreadsheet that the out of state residential is higher, all the rest of the components were less, but out of state residential is higher. But the overall in that area is down by a little over $1,000,000. Do you see what I'm talking about, Todd?

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Yeah, I sure do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, great. Thank you. And so we could actually make this a little bit shorter. I'm not sure that we actually need that one in there. What's the committee's preference? Do you want to keep it in or you want to take it out? It's not really saying anything. I think it's not necessary. I would also argue that first one is not really necessary, but I think it is just because we've had continued discussions with them about transportation. I wanna keep it sort of at the forefront. Okay, so I just deleted number two. You can't see that. I just deleted number two.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: All right. So number one, we didn't agree on number one yet.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Committee had already accepted that as necessary because they have to provide transportation.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so the next one is being the A to, I'm just gonna say AAPD. I hate the way they've phrased that. Not they, it's just the way it is. It's got a lot of history. Anyways, this was various changes. We're not saying anything in particular about the dollar amounts, but this again was brought up as we have at least the last two years, that we are looking for the department to be more transparent that these funds are available to assist individuals in terms of making that known to case workers, to people serving the homeless, to family support workers across the department. So they indicated they'll work on that again. Again, I'm not sure if that's something that is really more for us or if that really needs to be in there for appropriations. What's the committee's pleasure on that?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: My guess is they have enough lines and things on their plate that they probably won't look all that carefully at that. That it's probably more something for us. Yeah. Think

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: yeah. So recommend deleting out of the memo. Is that what I'm hearing? Yes. Yeah, it's more a statement about us than it is about them.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So then right to communicate to them, it's it's probably not helpful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is that okay with people? Am I hearing okay? I'm not seeing anybody say no. Okay. So we just eliminated I'm getting So general assistance. The administration did not present any adjustments for the emergency housing assistance portion of the GA appropriation. However, looking at the DCF monthly reporting that they send to our committee every month, we requested an update on spending in this area. We were notified that the department expected at least a $5,500,000 underspend in this area. I will tell you that based upon my calculations, think it'll be closer to $8,000,000 I'm just putting that out there. And the department also indicated, and this comes into your question before Right. That it is it's the department's intent to utilize the funds for shelter services. And I'm just gonna remind you that they are already requesting another $2,000,000 in shelter services above what we gave them in the budget. Okay? So this is where Anne's comment about you can't just willy nilly decide where you're gonna spend it. The general assistance is a separate line item, separate appropriation in the budget. Shelter services fall under the Office of Economic Opportunity and the HOT program, separate line item in the budget. You can't just switch without legislative authority to do so.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And isn't this the second year? And I think last year it was $8,000,000 as well that this has kind of happened with GEA. Almost happened, think it was. Yes. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: as we know that there are a number of people who are unhoused And we hear from the emergency weather shelters that they can't open up until minus ten because there's insufficient funds. Not true.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah. I would just join in and express my own frustration with the department's belief that we're just giving them fungible dollars to use as they like. Seem to be setting policy where we spent months last year trying to set policy on how to address homelessness in Vermont. And that's the proper place, not shifting budget lines.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yes. And people are dying. People are dying in these not emergency weather conditions when it's minus eight or 12 degrees. So people are dying while we have money to get them into shelter. I have seen the obituaries. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: this is extremely troubling. They could have released some of this money to the Vermont Interfaith Action for additional support. There's many things. It's not because that there's not a need for emergency shelter. And again, I will be bringing this up with the committee in appropriations because, and we're being specific in our recommendation that it is not, administration cannot just decide where it wants to spend money. It's appropriated by the legislature. So they need to seek authorization. And I'm frankly dismayed that they were not transparent about it. Were not transparent that they were not spending the money. I agree. Had we not asked about it, would have flown under the radar. Okay, any, I feel like I was hearing general consensus on that around the table.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It's be strong enough, is my question.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You could believe that it would be strong enough this afternoon.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Are you prepared? Is this about you? That's what I guess I'm saying. Say. Yeah. I certainly do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Reach up. One you had. I remember

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: it the same way. I I remember a couple representatives bringing up to keep the money in there, but I thought we voted as a majority that it wasn't the committee's preference. If I remember right, we'd have to look at the limestream. But if I remember right, there were two or three that voted to keep it in there and the rest of us said no.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So here's how I recall the conversation. So I recall the conversation about, yes, that there was we had members bring up that we're at roughly a 50%, what's called ratable reduction. Year over year, they keep decreasing this based upon actual caseload. So that we did, we had all that discussion. That's why at the end of that sentence, I say the committee recommends accepting this adjustment. So at the end, we said, yes, but we can't deal with this in the FY '26 budget. So correct. We said we're not gonna deal with that rate of a reduction in the '26 budget adjustment because it's not an adjustment. It's a change in policy. So we recommend accepting the adjustment.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Correct. But the top where it says the committee's preference is to retain these funds. It wasn't the whole committee's preference. We voted as a committee not to.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. We can take another vote because I think that it was the opposite of that actually.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I thought it was the committee decided to keep the money out of there for affordability to the taxpayer, and the professionals that make these decisions came back with this reduction.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And and we are agreeing with the reduction.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Right. But it doesn't say that. It's this committee's preference is to retain Well,

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: it goes

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: on to

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: say that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: No. I saw that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It could

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: be makes

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: it sound like

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We recognize we recognize that

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: many committee many committee members would prefer to retain these funds Perfect. In reach up. However, you know, the committee recommends accepting it because it's it's not a it's not an FY twenty six policy decision.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So just to clear things up to make sure that everybody is understanding and not having, you know, any issues with this. So could I just see by a show of hands those committee members who have a preference to retain these funds? I want you to understand, we're not doing that in the FY twenty six budget adjustment. Okay? The committee is recommending accepting the adjustment down. Everybody understand that? That's what the vote was. And that's what we're saying right here.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I don't read it

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: that way.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, well, that's why I'm gonna have a show of hands. There's two separate issues being discussed here. The first is our ongoing issue around affordability for families. And we by state policy right now say, this is how much it takes to provide some semblance of assistance to a very I'm talking about very low income families. This is how much it takes. Then we say, but we're only gonna give you half of that. That's what the state's current policy is. And so, in this committee, we've had several discussions over the years about being able to adjust what is called the rateable reduction. That's that 50% that the state cuts off. Even though they say, This is the amount we should be giving you, but we're going to cut it in half. Can I just add one little add to I'm sorry? But they say that they cut it in half because of budgetary constraints. Exactly. So just want to make that point.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. And so that's why Wait.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I want to finish my I wanna finish so that people understand that everybody understands. And maybe we can do maybe it needs to be two separate sentences. I don't know. That might be helpful. That There's two issues we're dealing with. We're dealing with that we continually hear that there's insufficient funds to make any change in the rateable reduction. Year after year, the department is budgeting and gives back this, it's 2,000,000 this year. I don't remember what it was last year. Two or three years. We're getting some history on that. Okay? So the reality is that there are sufficient funds budgeted to make some adjustment in that ratable reduction. The administration is choosing not to do that. And so we say that we are not going to address this in FY '26 budget adjustment, but that the committee would prefer that that issue be addressed by the administration. However, at this point in time, we are recommending going with their adjustment. So now, before anybody else talks, I am going to ask people to raise their hand if you agree with the statement that the committee's preference is to retain these funds in reach up to minimize the rateable reduction. However, wait a minute, I'm just getting to the point. However, recognizing that this is unlikely to occur in FY twenty six. Okay. How many people agree with the preference to retain funds in Reach Up? Alright, so we have one, two, three, four, How five, six, seven, many people do not prefer to retain funds in reach up? One, two, and I don't this isn't a vote, it's a straw poll. And so

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: as a as a straw poll, I think you're allowed to abstain because I, you know, I think the wording is too strong for me about, you know, retain these funds as opposed to, you know, relook at the policy because there is a scope of the budget. You know, some of this money is is being put into other things that we've voted and said we we think are important. So there's all these traits. So it's just too strong language, although philosophically, I agree with the preference to address the rateable reduction.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, Okay,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm abstaining.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. So I just wanted to clear up that the majority of the committee supports that language. And then again, pointing out the committee recommends accepting this adjustment in FY twenty six. So there will be a reduction in this area of 2,200,000 Is everybody clear about that?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah. Are we allowed to privately send notes to appropriations too with our opinion?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can't tell I you what to will be representing the committee's consensus office. But we

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: can do individual.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You can do whatever you would like to do. Okay, thanks. Okay. I just want to be clear that that was a committee straw poll, and the majority of the committee supported that. And that's how, if people are talking to other people, they should be clear about that. Okay, OEO. So this is the part where they were doing, it's a net neutral adjustment. So they're adding 269,000 to personal services. They're reducing 269,000 from grants. It's a net neutral change. It represents funding to limited service positions that are being transferred from grants to personal services to manage expanded shelter services. We had concerns here because they took that directly out of the money that is supposed to go to providers, supposed to go out into the community, and they directed it to increase staff. So, well, you can read the language. Committee recognize these positions may be necessary. However, it would be appropriate to request that they be funded on their own merits. And if they are intended to be permanent positions, authorization from the legislature is required. Any comments about that? Questions?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess whether the appropriations committee, we have the language, but not sure there's enough clarity on whether we are agreeing with ultimately what the if we're ultimately agreeing with the request in the governor's BIA.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, and maybe I need to make that statement here. Again, this money was budgeted and appropriated in the grants line item in I have to double check if it was in OEO or if it was in GA, to be honest with you. I can't remember. But it was transferred from grants to personal services. Again, that's a change in line item budget. So again but they are requesting it here. I guess that's the I don't know. I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: think it's similar to what we said way in the beginning with the with the nursing homes. We did say we we accepted the change. And I think maybe Doug is sort of saying we it doesn't make clear in the bolded piece if we are actually saying. But, you know, they may be necessary. So we're not objecting or, you know, are we agreeing or not agreeing? Yeah. And I think that's probably caveats or not.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. I I think that is a good catch. And I think it's probably because I wasn't I wasn't clear about what people agreed to or not agreed to. I know I had my own personal opinions about it, but I write down, at least in my notes, whether we agreed to it or not. I remember us raising questions about it.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I I guess I wonder, is this one that we can agree or disagree with? It's a horse out of the barn. Is this kind of like the transportation one where the money in that case, the money had to be spent. In this case, the money has been shifted. Is it too late to actually do anything about it then?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it doesn't actually get shifted until the BAA is signed. Whether in fact those two staff are on board and working, I don't have the answer to that question.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, go ahead. I think I didn't get a great enough understanding of why this was necessary from the testimony that we received. It felt very, like a lot of language, I really didn't see the concrete impact of why it should be transferred away from grants or wherever else it was, and how those two limited service positions would affect in real life the people at those shelters. I know it was for compliance purposes, but I don't know if the grants could have been used for that as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think to be fair, I think Lily spoke to this, it wasn't just about grants management. That's how the CFO sort of presented it. But it was about technical assistance. It was about site visits. It's about adhering to the shelter standards and sort of the work with new and expanding shelters. So I just want to be clear with the committee that it wasn't just about like it's not just sitting, passing papers back and forth.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I think when we raise that, they actually talked about, yes, some of this is it. It is going out. It's on the street. It's doing that that direct work. I I think this kind of ties in because it's all about expanded shelter services. It ties into some of the other requests to expand funding, to expand, to be able to do more shelter services. And so to me, it really ties into some of the other discussions about, well, they probably should not have made changes without asking, but they're also asking for the next one, the the $2,000,000 for shelter capacity being requested. And, you know, to me, the urgency of having a shelter, a warm place, even if it's not with the kind of supports we'd like to see. You know, when when we get to those freezing temperatures, that's like the most critical thing government should be doing. So so I'm in support of the changes. But when it came to number seven, I know that was a that was a majority vote already to modify that request. And I was I was a minority vote on that. But but I do I do think it's part of that whole picture of where they want to shift money to get core shelter open.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just a second. Jubilee was going to speak.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, no, I like how it's written here.

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: And I

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: actually support these roles, but it feels like there's a little bit of lack of the common theme, lack of transparency about what the plan is. Yeah, I'm just but I also the really important roles that with this shelter expansion are needed. So,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I kind of So let me just throw out an option for language. So we could say that, like we say, if they may be necessary, we may say an option for us to say is that we'd recommend that this be covered in the FY twenty seven budget.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: To me, my view is if we reject this request, we are not defunding the positions for having it stay within the grants line and not moved. And as you say, we view it as an appropriate discussion for ongoing funding for these positions.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I like that. Yeah, I definitely second that perspective, especially because yes, this is the same amount of net money. So when we're talking about expanded shelter capacity and bandwidth, it's important and that's why I think it belongs in the Yay, but it's not exactly the question here. And then in addition to having that these are limited service positions that we are going to need to deal with down the line, I don't think that that makes sense for us to move this. I also feel a little bit more comfortable keeping it in grants because it does feel a little bit more direct in terms of the oversight and compliance. We don't need someone to transfer from the state office to where the work is happening. We know that the people on the ground and those, not to say that OER doesn't do a great job, but we know that that oversight and compliance is going to be happening on-site because it's coming from the grants piece.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So is how I've kept in the first part of it. So the committee recognizes that these positions may be necessary. However, it would be appropriate to request that they be funded on their own merits. Additionally, if they are intended to be permanent positions, authorization from the legislature is required. This is the part that I'm adding. The committee recommends that this issue be addressed in the FY '27 budget and that for FY '26, the funds be retained in the grants line item. Is that what I was hearing from the majority of people? Yeah, I'm seeing head nods. Okay, I'm gonna move us along because you're supposed to be doing something else right now. We only have 84 X amount of time. So OEL, this And is

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: that's a zero budget increase overall, just for clarity for everyone.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. There's no increase there. OEL is $2,000,000 We had a lot of discussion about this. There's 14 impacted community based providers. Again, this is about transparency. Nobody was given any indication that there was gonna be a $1,300,000 cut in community services. And so we said, and this ties into under community partners request, we had a majority and as Anne said, she was in the minority on this. But the committee recommends modifying this adjustment to $677,859. And if you add that amount and then you look under community partners request, 1,322,141, that totals up to the $2,000,000. So we're taking the community partners request from the department's request.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's that's A budget neutral a budget neutral piece.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not budget neutral. They're it's a it's an increase of $2,000,000. We're just we are disagreeing with how it will be allocated.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, right. It's neutral to the governor's recommend.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, it's neutral to the governor's rec. It's not recommending more than the governor recommended. It's just spending it differently. Yes. Okay. And then secure residential treatment. The main point here at the current time, we're recommending accepting the adjustment, but we really need to dig deeper into what this total budget for secure residential and emergency services are. Because as they pointed out themselves at DCF, they're running short on money in one time carry forwards. So I think everybody agreed sort of reluctantly, given the high cost of these services for a relatively small number of youth.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It goes back to transparency because we when. Boy, I'm sorry, my my brain dead. When my team did this, when we went over those numbers, it was clear to us that the numbers were not transparent in terms of the actual costs that were going to be coming down the line. And there was actually a comment to us that, well, that's something we can do in budget adjustment. Well, no, when we know it's going to cost that much, we should not wait for budget adjustment to budget it. And it made it more difficult to see what the actual costs of the direction of of those needs. So, yeah, I think we're stuck with them right now, but it is frustrating.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: More to come. Okay. So the community partners request, we've actually already addressed that. We agreed with the community partners that that money should not have been cut, and we are recommending restoring it to the FY '25 levels. And then the one request that is under the Department of Health was community partners request in the substance use division requested was $420,000 and SF stands for special funds, not state funds. You might just be clear, it's special funds. In FY '26, they were appropriated 800,000 from special funds. We heard all the testimony. The recovery center said this would best be done in this way, and they had different amounts for different members of the 12 recovery centers. The primary decided, nope, we're just gonna give everybody $50,000. So that left six centers, and they gave us specific information about which centers those were. They've also given that information to appropriations, by the way. Six centers in serious financial risk. And so we recommended providing two ten, which is half of what they asked, to the six identified recovery centers in the amounts recommended well, it would be proportional, in proportional amounts. In amounts recommended by Recovery Partners of Vermont, and that it be specifically stated in the BAA. And I'm saying that because if we don't say it specifically, then we risk the Department doing again what it is that they did last time.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So, yeah, thanks for pointing out its special funds. But that raises a question I didn't have before. Is that one of the settlement funds where we we have a fixed amount? And so recommending this means that money gets taken away from something else in that special fund that that we don't know. We're not making an informed recommendation if we don't know that that might mean it's going to short.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, this is not from the opioid abatement special fund. This is from the fee fund fee, F E E, fund that pharmaceutical companies pay to the state certain percentage of every pharmaceutical paid for by Medicaid. And it's from that fund. So Nolan is looking at this. And so he said he had some minor changes. I don't know if it was to this, but I will double check with him to make sure that that I I don't it would not be taking away from something else that is funded by that. But, again, we're

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's that's all I was concerned about. If it was a fixed a fixed total for the year and therefore would be taking away, I was I would wanna know what that was. But if it is not fixed, then this would just be more from this year's fund. That's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. That's the way it is. Okay. Alrighty. So with all of those changes, Well, we've actually already voted on each individual change. So this will have to go through editing again, because we've made some changes. And you we what? For people sitting around the room and for members, it will be posted on our today's web page. And, Laurie, I'm gonna also ask that be posted over there on the left hand side where we put sort of key documents that people frequently look for. And feel free to tune in at 03:15 or something like that. I want you to be on the floor. I think that's when I'm going be down in appropriations. So thank you all for taking the time and being very participatory in the discussion and for making sure that we all understand what's here. Okay? All right, thank you. We're gonna move to H545. No? Yes, we are. Yes,

[Rep. Todd Nielsen (Member)]: thank you. You're Christina?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are going Katie, how long do you think it will take to go through that? I'm not sure what your schedule is.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Eight, fifteen minutes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So could I give people like a nine minute break? Do you have till 10:45?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. 10:45 works.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. So Lori, we'll go off. We're going to take a just