Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Good morning.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, my voice is a little odd and peculiar, but so goes it, and I can at least talk today. So we are picking up on age six sixty. We, as you probably can figure out, are not going to vote on that this morning. But we are going to G for markup and I don't know, but have to rely on my vice chair and ranking member. Did you guys make any decisions about?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We agreed on one and seven. Not much, sorry. Those were the only two that both spoke to Barbara Shelton. Sorry. Gonna have a productive discussion to thank George. Should be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: closer today. Okay, Nolan, does this represent, could you modify this to represent the health department's latest memo that they combine to and?

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Other languages are simple. What I did was I added some versions in dinner, and then I created a column for you guys to write in. And then I added them out on, otherwise it's just for the same, and I fixed the paper and some other things.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So, right, so we have to fill No, that's the column here that you said we can fill in, but that's not Okay, We

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so I sent everybody a memo from Sheila Livingston, because one of the things that is covered in the Rural Health Transformation grant is recovery residences. And so we asked for additional information about how that impacted, whether that impacted this. And we got a memo from Sheila that I sent to you saying essentially they need both, what they have in the Rural Health Transformation Grant and this. And they asked the funds in items two, well, in her thing it was 2A and six that complement the funding. New recovery beds for 1.2 or 900,000, depending upon which recommendation, and recovery residents ongoing operational funding 1.4 or 1.7, depending on which recommendation. So those are two that are tied. And they eliminate item 14.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'd say that's the other one that theoretically connects the Fame Agency role holder to help. That's the other new bits.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So we're taking Fort Fumey right out?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that's the recommendation from the health department. Those are what she only says in her memo that you all

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: have. They

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: want to manage the funding through a single process for new, which I get. And then they they may ask for item number five to be eliminated altogether.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Madam Chair, part of our discussion yesterday is I had thrown out for conversation that my view that the BDH holistic view on this, whether it's Rural Health Transformation, BF, or through these funds, I think put them in a position to better consider in these categories how they wanted to fund it. And not necessarily I don't know that all that information, particularly rural health transformation, was available to the committee in making their recommendations. So I had been proposed, trying to move along, that we accept, what was outlined in that email by Sheila. We also discussed one thing that I'm not sure I personally would agree with was number five, taking that all out and possibly cutting that because the department says that they intend to do that. I'm a little personally worried about the timeline and whether we cut that and make it 100,000 and to give the first half of the fiscal year ensuring that there are funds available should the department be a little slower on the uptake with that part through the Rural Health Transformation.

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Guest)]: Well, so

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: as we heard, well, you might not have heard, unless you're enjoying fiscal, that they're under a very tight timeframe in which to draw down and spend these funds. So they want to put as much in the Rural Health Transformation Grant as possible.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: while I understand that line of thinking, what you're thinking about, I'm also thinking like, well, we don't wanna send money back to the feds. And so I think I might go along with that recommendation As long as we keep all the documentation together, you know, documentation of this memo, this sheet, you know, because I don't want that to not

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: be service. Yes, go ahead, Amy. So, yeah, I'm looking at the spreadsheet with, I've read Joey's memo, but don't have it with Number two, that's ongoing. My understanding is the rural hub is all about new, not ongoing.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it covers the other things. Number two, we need to keep was Chell saying these are all going into a bucket? No. Okay, okay. No. Alright. We need, yeah, two needs to stay in this. Yes. And maybe at the higher level even, but.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Two needs to stay because that is existing services and Rural Health Transformation Grant can't cover existing services. Right. So, you've agreed on one. That was an easy one.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: We did also agree with all the reversions. Yes.

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright. So let's let's look down the recovery residents ongoing operations funding. And then, I'm just going to check, Laurie, did did we receive any emails from people around their, sort of explanation or advocacy for certain physicians because they said several times that we weren't going to be taking verbal testimony from community partners on this. Okay, thank you. Okay. I did have a lot

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: of verbal testimony yesterday in the joint hearing. Oh, okay. Some of which was specific to, a lot of it's specific to recovery residences. So I think this is gonna be a difficult year to give

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what essentially is a COLA increase. And I don't think that we should identify one particular group over another particular group. I don't anticipate us making recommendations for COLA when we do our budget work. And so my recommendation is that we accept the department's recommendation on this, which is

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Brian's, Gina. It's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just Brian's. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead and post this on the website, Laurie. Thank you. And I think we were gonna get something from Elevate, but I don't know if we did.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Do they have a specific ask if the- Yes, I know.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I asked for the breakdown of the 200,000 from last year and they said they only spent 23,000.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, that was for, remember I pointed out that it wasn't for the full year, it was. I know, 23,000 and we're going up 88,000. I don't

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: know, it's a different project.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I specifically asked on that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Maybe they move on.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: On number two?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: The 288,000.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sorry, I confused people. Didn't So wanna do we're looking at recovery residents ongoing. Number two. Number two. Are people okay?

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: One thing I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong,

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: but isn't there 100,000 you mentioned yesterday that

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: This wasn't for COLA. It was because there's increasing the support and increase in the number of operators. That's the same level. So it's nothing to do with a COLA. There's another I read

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: maintain the same level of support.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: For increasing number of operations rather than for same operations increase It's like, you know, like we do with HOP. We kind of adjust as more shelters come online, then they're needing those funds. This is what we're seeing here. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm going to ask Meg since she's here. How much is this for recovery residents? Thank you, 1.4 was increased from 1.2 to 1.4 last year and now asking for another 350,000 increase. Yeah, go ahead Nolan, you could, if you want to join us at the table, you're welcome to, or you can stay there either way, whenever you're comfortable with it. So

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: in this report from the health department, have what money has been spent and what money has not been spent. So it says that as of 01/2015, there's still $140,000 that has been unobligated for recovery residents. So the point was that there's no money that they have in stock, that's just sitting there. So you might hold that when you think about it too.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I I think that yes. I'm thinking about splitting the difference, but also would like to know between FY25 to FY26, how many new providers came on? And so how providers is this supporting? Meg, I'm sorry, you sent this already. It's probably buried in my email.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Meg's first action is supposed to. I want to go back to double check, but at least two new medicines have come online.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So when you say new residents,

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: it says starting up, they need new staff,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They are already online for substance use services, trying to have the kind of support for people with substance use disorder to be sober in recovery residences and to have that across the state in essentially all of our counties so that people don't have to travel to be able to access that kind of support. So this would be representative of there being additional additional at least two additional homes. I would like to know what the total is, Meg. Okay? This is where I, after being in a capital, would like to actually see the spreadsheet. This one, this one, this one, this one, where the money's going before I give out willy nilly money. Because I like checks and balances. And that's the department's role. That's the Department of Health's role. But I said the Department of never replied. So just to

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: let you know, I try to do my homework and that's why I end

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: up voting no. I appreciate that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah, I try, no answer. Only Elevate got back

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to two places then. Okay, go ahead, Eric.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah, just to help on Meg, I just went back to the opioid settlement. Why don't we stop to it if we get a second? You can find some of the information's been asked in regards to the 1.75 retire certified new residents each year over the past few years. The operators are working to scale these resources apart. Hit it. Yeah, the appropriation of 1.75 is needed to maintain the same level of support per home for our increasing number of operators. So what they're asking for is that 1,700,000 is to support those three new residencies that have come online in the last year.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Thank

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: you. So post action so close. Pre FY25 enrolled 12 certified residences. They bought four new residences online in FY25, and they list those ones in New York, and then in FY26, bought on three new residences in Essex, Springfield, and New England, and they're in process of standing up and certifying two new residences in St. Albans and Mildred, but those are not operational yet, but will be in FY '26.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So when the opiate settlement is run out, do all these new residences close down because the state can't maintain Well, is the thing that we see So just to remind people, the top four things are things that we said that we would fund on an ongoing basis until the opioid settlement funds run out. And you might recall that I asked Sheila Livingston when she was here, what is your plan for ongoing funding? Because we're not just gonna shut down the recovery residences. And she gave me example that this year, hireability, they were asking for 850,000, and she said, we put that into the governor's budget request. So my advice, you know, around these funds to the administration is to start to transition these into the base budget somehow because you're not gonna be able to do this all in one fell swoop. And property, we're gonna drive people to homelessness. We're gonna

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: have people leaving Vermont because they can't keep having these put in the base budget. They can't keep maintaining these. I've I've lived this with slug board, with school board. We can't when you get these monies, you can't keep funding them after they run out. We're driving people out of their lot. We're driving people into homelessness.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it's 500 people homeless in 2014, and now it's over 4,000 because of these base budgets. I just like to give my 2¢. Thank you.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Thanks. Madam Chair?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, so I'm going propose 1,600,000 here to take into account the 150,000,000 that hasn't been obligated. And that's representing 19 facilities. And I think that we'll need to talk about the support for new ones when we get down to that.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Do we want to put language

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: in

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: the memo to kind of document that direction, you know, that we should start thinking as a state about Yeah. Ongoing

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, my preference would have been the 1.75, but I can go along with the compromise.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They have 100 they have a 150

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: that's not been up. It's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: okay. Hundreds 40. Well, one forty nine. Oh. There's no one forty nine? But there's we're

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we're not finished for this fiscal year. We're also not finished with the arts and the arts That's that's fine. Debate.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The point. Sorry, I just read an email. Okay, Peer Recovery Services.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So, just as Eric, you can dispute me on that, but I think it's important to recognize this category that when they say peer, this is incorrection.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: This is placed in recovery coaches inside the facility.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, but recovery coaches, defined by correction, it means a peer is a person who has experienced a rational system, not necessarily somebody who is here in terms of substance use or mental health because they're doing all of

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: these things. I see where you're going. What this should have really expressed is, like, from what the their proposal, they should have used the word recovery coaching services because that's that's what it what it is. The DOC will go into MOUs with the Turning Point centers, whom are closest to correctional facilities, and provide them the funding.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay, okay. So they're coming in because Corrections has an internal peer recovery program, not Turning Point, but folks who are

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Oh, the Open Ears program? Is that what you're speaking of?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: This is not Open Ears

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: enough. No, no, no.

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Guest)]: All right.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Don't get me going with that program.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: How are you? Come on.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: We we

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: right now.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Oh, yeah.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: If you

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: right to you,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: my Thank you for the clarification that then not get shot. Later.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, Nolan, we didn't provide any last year. My recollection was because they had it had taken them time to get up and running and recruitment issues. So they had carry forward funds.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It was operating

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Recovery. Yeah. It's number three, peer recovery services at DOC. Do do you have a thing on the little spreadsheet from or the report from DOC that says how much has been spent on that? Eric, while we wait,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: do you know why the committee recommended less than, was there a specific reason, less than BBH or?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: That was a request made to us by the proposal was the 1,100,000.0.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I did have many questions in regards to that because to go to a couple of concerns and points that were made, what sustainability plan is in place by the Department of Corrections to maintain recovery coaches inside the facility once this money has expired. That's a very dangerous philosophy to have that level of service inside the facility. And then next thing you know, it's over. And I also did express regards to the levels of what they are providing. I wanted to make sure that the recovery coaching is just that. They're in there doing recovery coaching, not responsible to do any levels of like reentry planning and things like that. That's not their scope. It's to provide supportive services and maybe some groups. So how they got it lined up on the Everybody was very much in favor. But again, the main concern was what's the sustainability? What's that? So

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I have here that we had appropriated 1,060,000 in Act 113. Yeah. It spent $121,398 and about 940,000

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: If his time were going

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: just spent. Hasn't So it's obligated but not spent. I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: don't know that they need to go up. Think therapy the medication maybe makes sense.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: No, that's by the '25 or in '26.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It says presented onefifteentwenty six.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah. I hear you. Go ahead. We clarify something. Request of them was 1.25. We dropped it down to the 1.1 because the department wanted a 10% indirect cost administrative fee.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Good job.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I guess we'll go with the 1.1.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Then maybe Yeah, I

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: want to look to the Yeah.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: So it may require

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: language to clarify that the 1.1 is for the service to not incur, because otherwise it could end up being reduced in effect by 10 Right. I think that would need language to clarify that.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: The memo is silent on why there's an increase. It just said the estimated cost for the upcoming fiscal year is 1.25.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But they

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: because they did provide a budget.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Did you have any recollection, Eric, about whether they added administrative fee to any of the others?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Oh. I did not see any proposals that had that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: This was the only one.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: This was the only only one I saw.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That one, I don't understand.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because this is DOC.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yeah. This was specifically

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's the only one that's DOC.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Because it's outside the agency claim. Well, no. It is not.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's not. It's outside B. B. A.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay, was just 1.1.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Sarah, would it be helpful to have elaboration on the federal grants piece associated with this?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: With peer recovery coaches? It

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: sounded like there was

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is federal mostly?

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Yeah, so the 900 for me is still on a because the state dollars haven't been sent down because this

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's one of the reasons why we didn't fund it last year.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Yeah, they got a federal grant to fund the program through that by '26.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh yeah, I'm remembering now the confusion between corrections and institutions and us last year.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: But that federal rent was canceled. Okay. So, I think the 1.1 in our

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That'd be fine.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: It's fine, but those two, so federal plan that has been primarily, like $9.40 will definitely be spent before July because this is an ebony collection facility for us to take now, and it's been largely funded by

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a federal DMO that goes away from June 30, and is not being funded. Okay. I clarified that.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: And last year, they submitted their proposal well past the deadline at which the OSAC committee has accepted proposals.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So number four, emergency shelters.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So we discussed that yesterday concern about whether or not that was part of the housing budget agency and we

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: I made inquiry on that. And it is not a separate I checked in with Lily Sojourner. So there's no overlap.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And I think it sort of says that in the notes in the sense that this is only for services and supplies not covered by Medicaid or So I think this is to fill the Medicaid. And

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: that's the $2.50 is available in all shelters, as opposed to the money in the housing initiative in the budget book is just to try to get the recovery oriented shelter that CBOEO is going to operate in Burlington.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's the distinction between the two.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: What's people's thoughts about this?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, seems like something that really ought to be part of the Delta program budget, at least shifting, but I don't know about this year, if this year Well, I think Lily's testimony, I recall because it was 800,000 last

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and they have shifted. And so we would expect this might be the last year of this. We may even say that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'm okay with language,

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: maybe encouraging or

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: requiring. Okay. Okay. Good. So those were the easy ones. So number six, Oh, or one, the ish one, that's the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: one that the department is recommending eliminating, thinking they have RHT funds

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Guest)]: They're for committed

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: for those funds or is it Is that why they're recommending removing it? Because they say

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: they are going to fund it? Rural Health will fund it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We plan to use Rural Health Transfer and Inclination Funds for this purpose instead. Number five be eliminated.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So we can put that in the language? To document that it is going to be covered. Because I think this is a really important, this is a real obstacle for some people.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think we have to be careful about how we mention rural health information grant.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, I don't know that we need to specify where the money is Other coming funds. It will be, this money will be appropriated for this from other sources. Other sources. Yeah.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Madam Chair, from the conversation from joint fiscal about the Rural Health Transformation Funds, is it they're hoping to get everything obligated by August? Is that the timeline or am not remembering that correct?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. That August is they have to submit further. So now they're in the negotiation process about what the exact dollar amounts are gonna be spent in each area. That has to be done by August. And then the money, it has to be all out by December or some such ridiculous thing.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: So I guess I'm still concerned about the timeline then, whether funds will actually be available to provide these scholarships in the first half of the fiscal year.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, the department can, like DCF did, they can issue funding in anticipation of grant. Right, Okay. Jessica? There won't be any delay in issuing funds, in other words.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Well, we'll do it as quickly as possible.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Alright, that doesn't really work, but health department as quickly as possible has not been very good.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's hard to understand the process of outside of the committee ensuring that that follow through happens with the Because this is kind of a new and big thing, Just wanting to make sure that we have a game plan and there's a specific place for us to be sure that our voice is being heard, especially with this line item, which I think is incredibly important and intersects with housing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that whoever is sitting in these chairs next year, oversight and accountability should definitely be looking at that to ensure that these funds do get out the door to the people that they were intended to be. We can ask during the We off can ask during the off session. We can assign a duty to the Joint Fiscal Committee. They don't really like that, but we did it last year with payment reform and development disability services. So I'm sure that we'll be getting ongoing updates about the rural health transformation grant. But, I mean, I'll be there to be able to ask specific questions about the things that they said were gonna be funded and have they been funded and is the money out there.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's a good point. It's a really good point. Because we, I mean, the feds required them to get prior approval of the PowerPoint presentation before they presented to joint fiscal committee. That's the level of oversight that's happening at the federal level.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I also think it'll be really important to kind of keep communication with our community organizations because if they're not receiving the funding, then they can probably alert us a lot maybe quicker than the They'll wait till January. Right, waiting for the meeting. So it's really encouraging the partners to have that open line of communication and keep us abreast of what's happening with their brands, but getting them. I know that's an added layer, but unfortunately, if things are delayed at the department or it's the feds, we may not hear about it unless the community partner says, hey, we're not getting promised. We were counting on and planning on this money, and we have not received it yet.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I appreciate you bringing that up too, because I feel like the narrative is mostly going to be in the hands of healthcare, which is great and important, that's in the title itself. But I do think on the preventative end of things, if human services doesn't get a say and there's money, then a lot of wasted opportunity. Definitely meeting those community partners in the mix.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Quickly in regards to that, you bring up a great, speaking with the dark cares. It seems like there is a significant amount of money from OSAC that they have been granted that hasn't even been applied to them in the last two years. And they have gotten a few responses back from DSU, and I plan to reach on out to WDSU today to kind of get a little bit more backstory with this because it is very concerning $1,100,000 that is supposed to be allocated to them from OSAC and other levels of funding that they have not received to the point to where they had to take out lines of credit to continue their operations.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, which leads to interest

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: payments. Yeah,

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: to your point, but then to Gerard's point of, yeah, I think going forward, some other levels of oversight and other things put into effect, we can assist these programs and getting that money because that is concerning. And I know there is several other agencies under the charge of DSU that grants have not been executed as we have spoken about. So if I mean, other agencies have received OSAC money over the last couple of years, but they received all their money that they have been allocated.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: If it was the state's money, mean, that could be our own internal split jurisdiction in terms of missing a because that's the health care committee that deals with that part of budget as a whole.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: To informationally, if folks are, like, you're hearing about that, I think it'd be worth talking to GovOps. They had testimony there last week about a task force at AOA that kind of addressed, tried to address some of these grants issuance delays, and the testimony indicated that they are taking some steps, they're revising Bulletin five, they're trying to streamline

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: some

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: of the processes. So if you have specific examples, bring them to chair Byron's attention. I had done that and got some responses around some of the other grants in DCF. So at least when they're hearing about the updates from AOA, they can express this is really not translating from AOA to the individual department or division.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Terrific, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, let's move down to new funding. So Specialist was

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: recovery that's that's recommended to be part of that combined that rural health money. The DH was saying. Well, they

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: say they need this in addition to. Oh, okay. They're not saying eliminate that. Okay. They're saying use the higher number, but I don't know what the higher number is based upon, Eric.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Right. You?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Which one? Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is this the one that the department tried to get funding for last year?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Last year, and where recovery gets to go Anyhow, yes, this is to expand the continuum of care and funding going towards the higher level of certifications, three or like 3.7, no, excuse me, it's the lower number is higher acute care. It says level three or higher.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, right. So if you look at 14, that's the 300,000 difference. I think what the committee is recommending is some of that going to regular level of care and not the full 1.2 going to the higher level. The nine plus three makes 1.2.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: They're my dividing mind's recommending eliminating number 14. That was in Shayla's number. Okay. But then

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So they're saying 1.7. Right. They want to put it all into the higher level. Yeah. It did say

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I was

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just looking at combined. Yeah. The combined too.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They wanted one system for allocating this,

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: but unless you combine these two items. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Six and fourteen.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Which amounts to the same amount of money, but it it doesn't determine which bucket. It doesn't predetermine which bucket they go into.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, we would have to be specific about what we're intending it for. Yes. So I get the not wanting to have two separate processes. I guess I'm a little concerned that for both the OSAC recommendation and the BDH recommendation, Oh, I see what you're saying now, Anne. It's actually the same recommendation, they just, VDH and VDH VDH

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: VDH. VDH is saying we want one process and VDH is saying we wanna make sure that there's some of different Why

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: would we I guess I need to hear a little bit more, Eric. I'm going to ask you because thank goodness we have a representative.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, I'll do my best, but I do got it brought it up here. The funding request, to your point, that 1,200,000.0 that was put on in there for recovery Campus by the governor last year. And then it really wasn't interpreted or clarified to anybody in regards to what exactly it was. And they were expressed and told to put in a proposal with OSAC. They put in that proposal what they were asking for was to establish roughly 16 beds at a higher level to put into that gap that's been recognized in the continuum of care of residential. Have Valley Vista and Serenity that are historically fourteen day residencies.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We don't have as much of the step down, although Valley Vista has stepped down now,

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: There's like the perfect example of what this money would be going towards is to establish another step such as like what Valley Vista has now, term care before that transition is made to a recovery house. Fills that gap within-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Does that explain why it's so much higher? Because it's 900,000.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, we looked at, and many agree with it, we shouldn't be utilizing opioid settlement funds as to inject for a capital expense. So to use the money for the services and things, but not for it to be used to build a structure or backfill on those.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Shail, it specifically says for capital investments. I

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: wasn't in faith. I'm just speaking on for my-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just I agree. I don't think that I mean, the money was intended for services, not capital investments. Right.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It says startup costs, which does not normally mean capital. That's like operational startup.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah. Startup costs could be anything for

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It could be major renovations. Renovations.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: This line on here, it says startup costs, and then justifies it because it's the level three or higher, which requires more on-site services. So I did think it was more about services and doing that. But yeah, the email clearly says plans to use these funds specifically for capital investments and building improvements that they can't do

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: under the grant. Go ahead.

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Guest)]: Yeah, that memo from Sheila was specifically from health corporations. I think that the memo from Sheila was interesting to me because it's the first time I've heard about capital, you know, the OSF being used for capital expenses. And so I think because the Rural Health Transformation money cannot be used for capital expenses, that is why they're using this more flexible money.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Sort of a flip, I mean, they're intending to put the money for the operating costs into the rural health and therefore use this for capital? Is that the idea? I don't know what they're

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Guest)]: That wasn't really explained. I think it's a little of both because there's money in base for operating expenses as well. It's just that this would, I don't think we know enough and I'm not sure that the Department of Health knows yet. Well, they said- said- it's going to use that $8,000,000 Yeah,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The memo said we're preparing a whole proposal that'll explain all this, but it won't be ready this week.

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Guest)]: Right. That leaves us sort of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: guessing it. Well, expect this to change when it goes down to the Senate.

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Maybe even when it goes Right, down to when

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: they have more.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we need to get it out of here so that other places can have their shot at it. I think none of us, including AHS, really is precisely clear about what's gonna be allowed by the feds under rural health transformation, because say it changes. Every time they have a correspondence, something changes. So should

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we maybe say 1.2 for new recovered beds and not break down what things and let that happen further in the process when more is no?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The only thing that I would want to ensure is that that money didn't all go to one place.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. Yeah, no, you're right.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Like to keep the language for that bucket in terms of geography.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In terms of geography. Yes. So I think we can put it in one process, but Yeah,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: that's good point, Chittenden. The

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: flexibility is about geography, not about Yeah, it's

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: ensuring that we're creating access across Vermont, because right now there isn't a separate story.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, the next one is about Sharon,

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: did you choose both ways you

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: can choose I'm both both ways

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: just trying to keep it for two. Thank you. Are you not doing 14, but you're keeping one?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We are right, have the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: language from fourteen, yeah, exactly, without specifying the breakout. Thank you, Norm.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The next is pre hospital. First one

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we agreed to. You said

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that already? We could stick. Excellent. We're moving right along. Again, however, that's one that's an ongoing program, I would think.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Can we have some lead in language for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: all of these?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We expect the department to be working on transitioning these for base funding?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We can. Know what, sorry, just Yes. I mean, wrote that down.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Oh, Tiff has something.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Go ahead, Tiff.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I just have

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Guest)]: a question. I spoke with Senator Hardy yesterday, who is also on the SAC, and just tried to understand her perspective on the recommendations. And one point that she made, and you know, wasn't sure how to discern where OSAC and Family Partner Health seeded different hosts in providing funding for nonprofit organizations, providers, the community versus state agencies. Maybe state agencies that are listed here would then grant out to community based organizations, but it's not clear that they were. I just offered that as that was her perspective on

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: key differences. I think

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: on the prevent program, that's specifically to training for EMS person. That's something that doesn't seem as locked into ongoing. You do training and you might want to continue that, but it's not as It's like a shelter.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Not going need that. Right. You should do a train the trainer program. Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Meet the trainers. So remember, had, on the public safety one, we had a, like, deputy commissioner or deputy director or something in for a witness, and I remember asking him about this. He wasn't aware. Then they followed up, And I think I forwarded it to folks.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Are you going to 8?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm on number eight, yeah. Because you guys already funded number seven.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, right. Were discussing your comment about the continuing Yeah, that's eight. Yeah. What did you send forward about number eight? Number eight.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let's see if I put it in there. Sometimes you're so efficient at filing things from the phone or where it goes, then you can't find it afterwards. You haven't

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: missed yet?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. It was Right. I remember vaguely that. I received a response back. Laurie, can you find that guy's name? It was like the first week, maybe the second week. As a Public safety. Yeah, he was a witness from the Department of Public Safety because I know that his name was mentioned in the email and I can search by that.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: They did submit a proposal to OSAC. He did not move forward and taken up. And I think further after their proposal, so I have no

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, and I I think honestly, I think the what I'm remembering from the response was they said they were going to continue to do it regardless of whether they got this funding.

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

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And my feeling generally is that it seems to change the orientation of what this is all intended to when we put it under Department of Public Safety, all of a sudden, that's a kind of conceptual shift.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is, but I don't wanna negate the work that they do.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No. I don't wanna negate it totally, but that's, like, a little piece of the balance. Yeah.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yeah. I hear you. Was did we receive testimony on

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. We did. Understanding. That's what I'm just I

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: didn't hear.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Alright. Is it credit? It's right there. Christopher Herrick? Oh.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. No. Oh. He's in public safety now. Don't

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Oh, that was the emergency man is my guy.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's public safety. Oh, he's in transportation panel? Yeah. What's been all

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Substance use or homelessness.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, the topic was not substance use. I asked the question because they happened to be here. So I think maybe, hold on,

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: was it around five ninety four? Because what else would we have for?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They sometimes call the something tables.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah. Situation is.

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

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Situation. I can't remember him being here and it was

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Jessica Shibano, Department of Health. Dan Batesy, I believe,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: was And here from Department

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: when Sheila presented her initial testimony from the department's recommendation.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: He's not listed here as a witness.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's not listed here as a witness.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Oh, I see. So he's

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: not yeah.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I see.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Oh, that's all

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: she needed to find. Yep. Was the name. Right?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Didn't find anything. Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I mean

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do you know how to is it B A T S Y? B A T S I E I E,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: okay. I mean, everything I've heard about the situation at the is just really, really positive. What I'm not sure about

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: is

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: is money for it coming out of these funds. It's situation table is far broader than substance use. Sheila

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Shaila spoke to it on the the January 29.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's when he was here

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: as well. Today, they've utilized funding found within DOC. This work will not be dependent upon settlement funds. They currently are using it against seven locations. They wanna

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: expand that.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yes. It the the PSAT team, they do bring people to the situation table, but the situation and and are completely they're not they're not the same.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's helping bring them to the table.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. No.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: The the situation table is made up of a multitude of agencies Mhmm. And p set communities that have a a p set team are part they may be participating in the situation table, but they're not the main operators of the situation. Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Think it's a great program, but I also agree with Anne that it's not specific to this So I would hope funding could be found, but it's always the best use.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And it's gonna continue without. Right. It's continued regardless of this funding.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Well, I think certainly the program will continue with it. I think they were hoping for expansion.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: program itself will continue. So,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: yes, no.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Are there ways to I don't even know where Are there ways for me to investigate where there might be other buckets? I don't know about that, where it might sit.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would have been up to them to request in the governor's budget. They want to expand that, honestly.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's the Department of Public

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Service. I'm inclined to say no.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, I am too.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: You support our recommendation in regards to the committee, we did not move forward and taken up this proposal. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright, that's how we're gonna go for right now anyway. Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: How about a day?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: No. Thank you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Remind me to ask you about what you just said, who misses a muscle. Yeah. I I

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: hate my.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Can follow-up on the agenda, I just can't.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just thinking about what we heard from Jeff, Gotcha. I Subsidized room and board for individuals in Rutland mental health transitional Yeah. Said zero to public safety. So

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: this whole next set, other than the one we already addressed, which is 14, I think that there's a broader question here, which is part of the Department of Health's input, about parsing out some of this directly to individual community programs. And I can be convinced otherwise, but I'm a little leery myself about on two levels about these independent little buckets. First of all, there's an equity thing around who's aware they can apply, who's able to go through the grant application process, which for small agencies, it's not the easiest thing to out the time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They had 60 something applications. Oh, they did? Yeah. Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Well, that's a lot to pick and choose from where only some get it. And that's sort of, I think, what it probably had in some ways is my concern. But I don't recall or know in terms of longer term, if this is sort of a long term established process and they're more on the spot requests that are not expected to be ongoing, maybe it's the most appropriate. Maybe it's a very but I'm just raising that as a broader issue in terms of all of them. Because if going along with doing little independent projects, then I wouldn't want to pick and choose among the ones that the committee picked and chose among already. We're not looking at 60, we're just looking at these. So I would want it's sort of an all or none, which is why I'm bringing it up at the beginning.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: In in regards to like, maybe a little bit of the concern that you dreaded out of those 60 something applicants, some that were submitted their proposal didn't meet what the money should be allocated and utilized for. And that brings into consideration, okay, when we look at the proposal, is this proposal gonna reduce losing individuals to substance use? Is it gonna provide a prevention mechanism? Is it gonna provide a retention mechanism? Does it go to recovery? Things like that. So when you look at those, you take all those things and you factor it on in, and there were just some proposals, a good amount that just

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Didn't Right.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Didn't fall into how that money is supposed to be utilized.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So how does this intersect or not with the money that I wasn't really even aware of? The the Digger article that talked about this money that went to communities. That's separate. I realize it's separate, if communities all had access to that They only did if they joined.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: If they joined, okay.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Communities or these have

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: the option of having their money turned over into the ultimate settlement dollar.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, but they could fund. Windham could fund the Windham's partner for prevention. Right, but that's what

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I'm saying

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: is, could whichever down the Rutland, could Rutland have, could that 35,000 for the Community Care Network have come out of Rutland's own money that went, came through that other avenue? Is coming out of this fund?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah. How a municipality we did do a meeting at the beginning. I'd have to double check with senator Harvey when that was done in which we did have this forum in which municipalities did tap on and it was explained how they could use their money and so forth. To your point, and yes, they could request, Rutland Mental Health could request to the municipality and submit to the municipality proposal, and then the municipality chooses how they wanna go about it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Was that a question that you asked from a committee member?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I will say, I think the success and access to doing that varies widely. Even within my own community, I think sometimes the decisions were made very behind closed doors, and others were much more

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, to also to your point, though, there were some municipalities that received $35 other municipalities that received tens and thousands of dollars based upon. And

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: you didn't do a cross look at, like, just randomly the Barry Elevate Youth Services. You didn't look at what Barry got out of that money and what this could

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: have put we do not know what-

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: What they got.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: You do, it is public, it is accessible on what each municipality It's not required to be public. But yeah, it's not

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: public. There's a lot of

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: municipalities, I've done a lot of work on this. There's a lot of lack of transparency on, because it wasn't great guidance on what it could be used for and some municipalities are using it for things that maybe are not appropriate and supplanting other expenses and funds. So Well, doesn't sound like that's something we

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: can look at as part of this issue. Pull that discussion out. I'm sorry for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You took us down to rabbit hole.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, right. But it clarified that it's a rabbit hole.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I wasn't with the ring,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: so that was kind of No, But it's a rabbit hole we shouldn't go into in looking at this. That's Okay.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I do want to talk about prevention, though. And that's what I think we a theme we see in a lot of the new funding requests. And in the enacting legislation, prevention is listed a couple of times. We don't have any prevention These in are the ongoing And I think this is a really good way of not

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: all

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: of these are prevention, but that's just one piece. And I happen to think I look a lot into these types of models and having these drop in centers. We see it. It's the model that works really great with Turning Point, is having that door, that door that people can walk through. So that serves as that connection. It's really important with prevention. So I kind of get what you're saying. We fund them all, we don't. But if we're going to not fund them all, I think we really need to be looking at prevention as kind of a guidepost for at least one of them for how we choose. Well,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: knowing that the committee went through 60 applications and kind of prioritized, feel much better about What's there? Supporting them.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. So I have a I don't this is gonna throw a further monkey wrench into it,

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: but I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think the number's an additional 3,000,000 or something like that in prevention funds that are actually going to the health department from the cannabis excise tax. And I know our committee has had some questions, I guess I'll say, about prevention funds in general have been used by the health department, not necessarily thinking that they've been most effectively used. I happen to agree that this kind of things that are down here are more effective than funding a student assistance officer or whatever they call them in high schools.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: There's a chance to innovate, to try new things. And it gives us, even if it doesn't go beyond a year, it lets us know what kind of new things might work or might guide our vision and journey So on

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what I am asking about is whether I I actually agree with the concept that we should that the OSAC committee has already gone through the prioritization process. Okay? We don't need to do that here. Right. So I agree it's kind of an all or none kind of thing. And so I'm just putting out there, we could be directing the department to utilize its prevention funds to fund this as opposed to having them come from this.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I also like that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Gives them honestly, diversifying how those prevention funds are being used.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it would need to be for the I don't think the Springfield project action one fits into that, but I think that the rest of it could do.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. That actually ties back to the one that right. The DPS, but it's the coordinator positions under B. D. H. Rather than specific DPS participation, which broadens it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But why it is called Springfield Project Action and it's embedded

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: in background of St. John's

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

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That might be

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They started out in Springfield, and now they've gone wider. They should rename

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: themselves. Was

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: the original endeavor during Governor Scott's public safety enhancement.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I mean, it's good to see it more broadly spread around that state. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: if we're not doing number eight, then would we not do number 13?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, they're actually very different. They're very different. Is putting the public safety team onto the table, and this is about the table as a whole.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah. It's gonna continue

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: regardless of whether And we did this is an expansion. Okay. So I'm gonna put a proposal on the table that we fund the ones on the bottom that BDH did not recommend that are not prevention oriented. So I would say Community Care Network is not prevention oriented. That's number nine. And I would say the Springfield Project Action is not. And then I would say to direct the department to utilize prevention funds for the remaining. Yeah, go ahead, Noel.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: If you're gonna do that, I recommend you add that into your budget letter, because you would need some further budget, because you would need appropriations for that. Okay. Let's say you put a flag in that and make that part of your budget recommendation because that's coming out of a different bucket and that's what you're doing right now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yep. So we would need, although it hasn't been spent, global dollar amount is a bit better.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No, you need specific. I know,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know, I know what you're saying. So that's to the health department team, you need language about that from Katie.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: So I need language from Dave.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, So I'm gonna summarize what I just said, because some people are confused about what just happened. So I'm saying Community Care Network would be funded out of this. So we'd be saying yes to that. Number 10, number 11, number 12, and number 15, we would be directing the Department of Use Prevention Funds.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And then, number

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: 13, we would fund here. And number 14, we have already merged up with a different number, whatever it is.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I have just one point to that, So to if I understand number 13 correctly, the idea is to get a person onto these existing situation tables, use this money to do that. Is that at all related to any way to number eight? You want to reconsider Yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think that conversation.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, would we want to reconsider number eight is what I'm suggesting. I realize they are, but are they enough in the same bucket that we would want to consider?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Or are they going to continue to need this funding year after year to maintain their position?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I just don't know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's a number of these things that would require ongoing support. And our lead in language is going to be about planning for

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: For the next. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: For next. Don't assume that you'd be funded for more than one year.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. And

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: so, yeah, okay. And just with regards, they just mainly needed that one time injection to help enhance their data platforms to get a little bit more stabilization and more effective things into place.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Can I just make a

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: point just for the future, since we're talking about future funding? I think since last year's legislation, kind of set out the priorities. It would be great if in the next round of applications for OSAC, if a messaging is sent with like, these are the priorities, so then what's coming in relates to those priorities. And maybe there could be opportunities for innovation and maybe we either set aside or have some opportunities. But I think it would be great if we can make some sort of effort into these priorities so when we can look back and do some accountability and monitoring, we could say, we use this money for these things, and these were the outcomes. Whereas if we're funding various organizations that are doing different things that may not tie to the priorities, it's going to be harder to show outcomes. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, we specifically, in last year's legislation, said the committee needed to consider outcomes in its allocation process. And I think one of the things that if I'm remembering this correctly, and who knows, I'm a little fuzzy today, but that the health department was asking us to consider is to is putting a pause on any allocations for a year after this year, putting a pause to let us kind of, like, see what the outcomes are, gather the data, have the committee be looking at that data over the course. And I think that's actually a decent idea, a good idea. And we would only then consider funding for the poor things that require ongoing funding for us. So are people okay with that idea? You? Fine. Thank you. Okay, so we would need to add language and six sixty for that. Yeah.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay. Exactly when we should clarify. Absolutely. So funding number nine is funded, number 13 is funded, then ten, eleven, twelve, fifteen are the department should use the substance use tolerance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry, repeat that again, I was distracted.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: directions, yes. Direction to use, not recommendations for direction.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes. Okay,

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: so that leaves. Does that just, sorry, does that just kind of getting Katie to do the language? Do I need contact Katie?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Katie's right behind you, so you can ask her. Okay, So we need to have the last piece of conversation about the opioid prevention center, overdose, sorry, overdose prevention center. I'll be honest, I'm not even really sure what to do about it, to be perfectly honest. And yeah. Go ahead, Tiff.

[Jessica Shibano (Vermont Department of Health)]: Well, I I just I know that Tom Dalton is gonna be in the building

[Rep. Tiff Bluemle (Guest)]: at eleven and I'm just wondering if there can be a pause.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're not voting on anything. Yeah. Yeah. Would love to hear from Tom. As a full committee though, I'm not gonna do it for myself. Yeah.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Aidan? Aidan Carpenter is asking for food consulting. Just to clarify, is there a time today for him?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, because people are working on budget stuff and we might not have 100% of the people here because they might have scheduled meetings with people, but we could have him here at 11:15 or so.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Would you like Theresa Wood to also be present, will she be present and also testify?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would be fine. Theresa, I'll see that. Go ahead.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Just want to update people that with the decisions you've made, you've spent $5,125,000 and with the convergence, you're going spend $3,670,000 So, you had $7,900,000 on the bottom line, so I will have an updated sheet and green set if anybody at wind, you have a sense of where you are at. I'm going do fresh sheets, so you're out of three year each month, we include the referrals, we've said $3,673,359 I'll give you a spreadsheet for our pathology. That doesn't make any sense. I'll show you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, doesn't make any sense because it, Oh, no. Those are two separate pieces. Never mind. Okay. Okay. So we're going to hear from the city of Burlington and BCJR, who is the contractor for the Overdose Prevention Center at 11:15. Laurie, we can go off until then.