Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Good morning, folks. So our schedule for today has changed. We are going to reschedule our joint hearing with Education and ways and means that was supposed to be for this afternoon because of the impending storm, and some people have a long distance to travel. So, and it is starting in the South. So, that's what's happening there. So we're going to try to finish up our budget recommendations this morning. And then any final language proposals that are sort of lingering out there for folks. Hi, come on in. Welcome. Thank you. And we will then have a little bit of an earlier day than normal so people can travel. Welcome. Where are y'all from? St. John's where you most of us are. All of us are Northeast Kingdom anyway. And are you here with the group or? We're with the ACLU and lobby day. Oh, okay, awesome. All right. I think I saw you coming in with Alex So welcome to House Human Services and thank you for being here. Thank you very much. Our committee has to make recommendations to the Appropriations Committee on the Human Services budget, on our parts of the Human Services budget. And so we are just going through the various departments and coming up with our recommendations. And so we left off with the the last and probably the more complicated version of DCF at the Office of Economic Opportunity and the economic services division. And first off, I recognize that there's a bunch of stuff that's tied up in the, quote, unquote, housing proposal. So not expecting any Just cast that stuff aside. Our members think that they own the place. Usually representative Noyes has a big old backpack sitting right where you're sitting. So recognizing that, not expecting any, unless you have comments that you want to make, but not expecting any particular hard and fast recommendations around that. So what can folks have that you would like to say?

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Most of ours is tied up in that. I think before we move on from that subject, I do want to highlight one related recommendation we have. I don't know whether it falls within what we do with our bill or if we put it through I think regardless, we have to put it into the budget recommendation M Homelessness Vermont. They've asked for about $600,000 We're going to remove the $100,000 in concrete supports from that request. Sorry, computer updated, and I had lost all of my tabs. Slow down. Yeah, it's trying to find the right ones. And that, I think, we'll consider as part of the larger package of the homelessness bill. But I think, I believe, and I know others, that the work that they're doing is incredibly important. I will point you all to the sign on letter or the group letter we received the other day with all of these organizations who work with our most vulnerable Vermonters. You saw Vermont Care Partners signed on. There's a number of them. Again, I don't have it up. And they're the ones who are doing the work with these people in other areas of their life. And they signed on in recognition of the great work and homelessness Vermont is doing to address their housing situation and ensuring they have shelter and a safe place to sleep and exist. And I am pretty sure I mean, I don't know how to talk about this online, but their work will not be funded through the state unless we specifically put that language in and name them specifically. And I know that can be unusual, but we've done it in the past. We funded the youth spectrum shelter. So this would be one time funds. And it's just something I believe that is incredibly important, probably one of the more important recommendations we have. People will die, people will suffer without them doing this work. It's not being done by anyone else. So I don't know if you want to go through all of the things and then go back or talk about that first. Why don't we go through

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: each item in terms of recommendations? I And something that's weird happened, like my FY twenty seven budget file doesn't have any of the things I put in it. So I was looking I was looking for the Yeah. Yeah. I remember receiving the memo that had a bunch of different things. Thursday. Okay. Thank you.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Can you run? What what was the amount? Yeah. I'm trying to

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Well, $611.06 25. But I think your recommendation was 100,000 less than that.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, we take out the concrete supports because I think we had a lot of requests from various agencies. On Wednesday. Yeah, I think we want to tackle the kind of the concrete supports parts of that request. When we're talking about the budget for our bill. I'm just getting that.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, I

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: got it. Yeah, so that would be 511,625 instead. The other things we are thinking about, well, were going to bring forward a recommendation for two eleven to fully bring back and level fund them over what they received last year. I'm very happy to report that over in house health care, they have a technology grant. It's one time funds, but they'll be able to make up that 3 and $22,000 I believe it was. And I would like to support that. I've also been talking with Alison, the director, and this grant and having this level funding. They're doing a lot of exciting work, and we'll be able to update their computer system. And doing that, technology has come a long way in the past few years, and they'll be able to tap into that. So being able to do that will also solve some of the staffing issues and capacity issues they've been also trying to handle while ensuring Vermonters know where to go to meet their needs. And so through automation of some things, they'll be able to provide a greater service to Vermont. Even with it'll allow them in those overnight hours if they're not staffed, at least some basic ways they'll be able to connect Vermonters to emergency services support, things like 988 through the use of this technology. So I'm hoping it won't come out of our budget, but I'm hoping we can do a recommendation to support House Health Care's recommendation. Yeah, especially since they found a way to So fund

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: want to make sure that everybody's clear. So we are going to be stepping back from 20 fourseven coverage. But the way I understand their proposal, their overall proposal, addition to the technology issues, is that they will actually beef up staffing during the evening hours between six and ten or something five and four and ten, something like

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Four and ten.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That will enable them to have more robust response during that period of time. And to be clear, not doing this will mean they'll have

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: to cut further from what they're doing, not only hours, but it will reduce their ability to answer those people experiencing a housing crisis or in an emergency weather event. They will have to reduce staff. And so there would be even more disruption to services and connections.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I think unless there's any objection to it, this is just us supporting another sister committee's recommendation. I think that that's something we should go ahead and put in our chart and support that. The exact amount that they ended up funding, I think we could find that hopefully they have their letter posted by now. I know it's gone to

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: They do

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: have it posted. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, okay, that's an easy one. The easy ones. Rest are

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: not so easy. Our budget areas, it's all very either wrapped up in this homelessness proposal or money was cut and then put into other budget areas. So we can't really there's no wiggle room. We don't have any areas to find money. And then I think the Yeah, I'm

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: going ask you not to sit there. We've had people jumping into that seat, then folks have had to thank you.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: The

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: other is the food bank. We heard we had Terry Stoler in. They're asking I mean, overall, it's a $5,000,000 package, 2,000,000 of which would be in committee. The other $3,000,000 what? $2,000,000 is in over in ag, and $1,000,000 was in

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Emergency management. Emergency management.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, GovOps. So I would like to support all of that. And especially the 2,000,000 from our committee, which is really just used to purchase food for Vermonters. And I think we need to understand the context of why we're having these discussions. And that is because of HR1, where we're now putting more money in the pockets of the wealthiest Americans in Vermont. That includes $757,000,000 is going into the pockets of the wealthiest Vermonters. And so we're having to have these discussions on how much we can have to fund for the Vermonters who are struggling the most, and that is children.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Let me hear this. I'll hear this.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: So know we don't have anywhere to pull that money from, But these are our most vulnerable And this is the most essential basic need you can have as a human, is you need to eat to be able to survive. And so I really hope we can figure out and come together how we ensure our older Vermonters and families with children and people who are living with disabilities and struggling can still meet their basic needs.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the Ag Committee, I believe, is also recommending the farm to table piece there. Vermont is feeding Vermonters. That piece of it. I have not touched base with government operations with regard to that.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: My understanding is that they are pretty adamant about that 1,000,000 that is for emergency economic floods to happen. How do we massively distribute or be prepared at

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: least? I said at the outset at the beginning of this session that we'd be focusing on the basic sugar monitors, which is, in my estimation, food and shelter. So I'm just looping back in because that, I think, also will speak to the recommendation made by the Dale team around Meals on Wheels. That's also a basic food for older Vermonters and people with disabilities. So, represent Steady.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: I've heard about the wealthiest. Not all wealthy people are trust fund kids. I have friends at a million years. They've worked their butts off to get there. They've worked hard to get there. We can't

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Nobody said trust fund. Nobody said trust funds.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: No, all wealth in the middle of the conversation.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: No, I heard about

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: the wealthiest, and I want to get it on record that all people that are wealthy, I have a relative that's a millionaire, he quits school in tenth grade. Worked his butt off to get that money. Why should they be asked to pay for more money? It's not right. They're already paying taxes that are outrageous, but they're already contributing. Before I go meet with Anne, I needed that on record because a lot of people are talking about it in Vermont, especially people that have worked hard for their money.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, Esme? So one piece with this food element is everything's interconnected. We've been trying to do a lot of digging into how HR1 will affect SNAP administration and try to get a little bit more answers there. It is relevant too with our food bank requests that when folks are kicked off of SNAP or when, I don't know, I'll use a better word to get kicked off, but when new eligibility requirements present new barriers, or even if you are eligible and you can't keep up with the paperwork, people are going to rely more heavily on the paperwork. They'll be falling through the cracks. Exactly. And so if we don't have this as the backup, it's more relevant than ever, really, with these new changes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So we have that on the table. And I do want to, as I just said, loop in when we're talking about hunger and we're talking about food security for people. I'm just sort of Whatever you want to say. Preparing for people that it's a one, all or none from my perspective. So we can't say yes to the food bank and no to senior meals. So if we're going to say yes, that means that we're saying yes to both. I'm just putting that out there. Okay.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Sorry. If I could just sort of summarize so I have a clear understanding. The total ask was about $5,000,000. There's 2,000,000 bags, a million from government ops, and 2,000,000 here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. And like we just talked about doing for supporting the health care committees budget ask, the chair asked if we were going to be supporting that, food bank. And I said, well, we haven't talked about it yet. And they said, well, if you do, then I want to put that in his letter. And so again, vice versa. I think it's one of those things. Our sister committees seem to be in line with making sure that the basics of food and shelter are things that we, in this really time of uncertainty in the country, really, and impacts of changes that happened in HR one are being felt on the ground level, frankly, as early as March 1 for SNAP recipients that's coming on the line. These are the backstops. These are the backstop programs and services when people will We saw a huge influx in November when people didn't know whether their SNAP benefit was going to come in or not. Our local food shelves and food pantries had a huge rush, and it is the food bank that supports them in being able to keep their shelves stocked with nutritious foods. So it all weaves together. And we have that same uncertainty coming on March 1 for many folks. And I will say the department has been keeping me updated. They know that they have not been able to reach all of the individuals who are going to be impacted on March 1 with an explanation about the changing requirements. And despite their best efforts in getting information out, and of course, we heard from our community partners that they too are talking with folks, but there is a significant group of people who this will be a surprise, and they will most likely, with the data that the department has shared, become ineligible for SNAP until they reapply again. And so there'll be a period of food insecurity for them. And I do just wanna remind people that SNAP is an auxiliary benefit. It is not something that provides a full amount of funding for any single person or family to sustain themselves on. Yeah, go ahead, Sam.

[Sam (unidentified staff/attendee)]: Quick question on that. Older Vermonters that receive a direct deposit, Will they get this notification and be subject to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They will be getting notifications like everybody else. I think that there are different rules for people at different ages and household composition. So they don't have the same I don't believe they have the same documentation requirements as people at other certain ages. But they should just be watching their mail because the things that come are coming via snail mail, and the mail is not dependable. Just want some clarification. Again, Meals on Wheels is that backstop for people who are older, living at home, often by themselves. Grow activity there about letting people know it's coming. Yeah, again, hopefully the Area Agencies on Aging are out there doing their job.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I will say Hunger Free Vermont is on it and did send out emails to everyone with some ways you can help direct constituents to resources and keep folks aware of what's going on.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So, okay. Well, that requires new money, so we're going to keep that on the list, but not making a decision quite yet. Do you

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: want to talk about the outreach ramp part? I don't think we have answers yet, but yeah.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, well, as part of ACER one Reaching out to people. Yes, so any outreach element associated with three squares, the match that we used to receive from the feds for those services was 50%, and now it's 25%. So it's going to be a very significant fundraising difference for Free Vermont to do

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that same. Is it 75 and move to 50?

[Esme Cole (Member)]: In terms of what they have to raise. Yeah. I was thinking about the opposite.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: What we

[Esme Cole (Member)]: have seen. Yeah. Now they will have to or we, however we split it up, will have to come up with 75% of the total outreach dollars to do anything related to staff assistance.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's not the best yet.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: So that's, I think, an important discussion for us to wrap our heads around about what do we want to support in coming up with that huge new gap that was presented, or will that all just be sheer funds fundraising on their part? So I think our expectations need to be at least very candid or open about what the gap that we are asking them to fill if we don't step in just for our awareness.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I think I'm not sure everybody understands exactly what you're saying.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah. Let me talk about the number of

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: For folks, part of reach up, of SNAP, there's community outreach dollars that have gone out to several different community partners. And so those community partners have been, in addition to receiving some funds from the department, they've also had to raise or account for a state match, essentially, at the local level to I don't know if you would call it maintenance of effort officially or not, but at the federal level, again, the outreach dollars are being cut back. And so essentially to stay level, the local community partners have to raise even more funds in order to do the same thing. So I will say that there is a part of me that says that if we are going to act on a proposal for benefit assisters, I would not be doing anything with what it is that you're talking about right now. And the reason that I say that is because it's for the same things. It's not the exact same service, but it's close enough for government work, in my perspective. And I have a proposed source of funding for benefit assisters of And I'm not sure about the full proposal, but that's just where my head is going So with if we're able to get resources out to that wide group across all disabilities, healthcare, community organizations, honestly, did think it was pretty impressive, the variety of different providers that came together as a coalition and said, this is what we need in order to try to help protect Vermonters. So I would like to be able to figure out a way to at least get some portion of that concept on the books. And my thought is that as a legislative body, we set aside $50,000,000 for impacts from the federal government. And we've used 6 and a half million of that for the SNAP benefit last November. And this is a direct impact of HR1, which is what that $50,000,000 was set aside for. My proposal will be to recommend the benefit of sisters, but that the funding source of that would be the set aside money that we appropriated as a body last fiscal year. I'm sure other people are going to have eyes on that money as well.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: A lot

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of federal impacts. There are a lot of federal impacts. So one of the things that we're seeing, and as we look at more and more detail, and this is particularly in DCF, but it's not exclusively in DCF. We see it in Diva as well. There's a number of different cuts being made to community outreach. And the reality is we're going to actually need more community outreach now than even prior to this past July 1. And when I look up at our guiding principles and we're talking about ensuring that Vermonters have equitable access to the services, you don't have equitable access to services if you are a person who doesn't know what's happening to you. And that's what is critical about this investment in benefit assisters. And so I think if we can make a strong enough argument that it comes from the $50,000 that we've set aside already, 50 have a chance of getting million, sorry. Yeah, 50,000,000. That we've set aside. So I'm not asking you to make a stand on that at this point in time, but I'm just asking you to think about that as a potential source. And the reason I bring it up now is because it, in my mind, relates to what, Esme, you were talking about a minute ago, even though I know it's not exactly the same thing. Okay, what else do you have for us?

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And then the other thing is we learned at the final hour about this reach up funds that goes to some of our DAs. That's actually over in their budget. If you remember, Amy Johnson testified about it when she was here talking about Vermont Care Partners Ask. It's 1,500,000.0. Allows our DAs to work with Reach Up participants right away and help respond to acute mental health crises and ensure they're getting the care and treatment they need right away while they work on the rest of the processes. Without this, it means folks will need to go through this long process of assessment and diagnosis. And the DEA has no funds to be able to allow them to work with people in that intermediate period while all of that happens. And it also tends to be a really crucial point in their life where they need those supports. We have been wondering, because we didn't see it in our budget, which is why we weren't aware of it. And it looks like I just heard back from the department, so thank you if you're listening that this pot of funding was transferred to DMH years ago. So that's why we didn't see anything So in our there is no word of needing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not part of that 3,400,000 in debt. Yeah, so

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: wondering what those are. In grants, so yeah, this one has been a really hard one. There are multiple spreadsheets, and it's been hard to figure out how things come in together. There's multiple grants that we have no clue what they really are that are being cut or moved or we don't know. So it's hard to have a recommendation. But I think second to snap, this is one of those safety measures, those final options. It is not aware near enough money to thrive, but it allows people to survive, our families with children to survive. And so know it's not likely for this year's budget, but I hope we continue talking about it and continue to figure out how we can do things like reduce the rateable reduction or modernize the data we use when we create these formulas or calculate household, what their benefits are, like moving to at least a more recent year of the basic needs budget or housing allowance. So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we don't really know. When looking at the Reach Up in their grants line, they post reductions that says Reach Up case management, other, Up case management, parent child, all with reductions, the pregnant parenting residential services, and then the big one that says regular grants. And that's moving from 25.5 to 24.3. It looks like it's decreased from the FY 'twenty six original budget. Those Again, are the regular grants. Those are the regular payments to families. Okay. Sorry, I just connected. That's what they call caseload adjustment. All right. Sorry, I answered my own question. Okay. So let's look back. Is that the end at this point in time? Okay.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: I don't know if the committee's interested, but I did find some more numbers on our previous discussion area, has to do with, like, if we do proceed forward with instead of more outreach grant dollars with proceeding with the benefit assistance, just to put it in context for us. So the outreach grant, was looking at this back

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: to me

[Esme Cole (Member)]: earlier when we were talking about it. Outreach from DCF for three squares declined by over $100,000 in this governor's recommended budget. And just so we know, for 01/2003 specifically, would have to raise $303,100,000, and $12,306 in funded funds in order to have the same kind of level of outreach there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I don't normally do this. To be honest with you, Nora, I don't really understand how this works. So do you mind being put on the spot for a moment? Don't mind at all. Would you take a seat in the women's I'd be happy to. So let me say what I think exists, and I have no idea if this is accurate or not. In terms of outreach for SNAP, Reach Squares, the department sends out grant awards to community partners, hunger free being one. And then you have to provide additional funding at the local level in order to match that. Is that what happens?

[Anore Horton (Executive Director, Hunger Free Vermont)]: That's a piece of what happens. For the record, Anora Horton, I'm the executive director of Hunger Free Vermont. So I think for a minute, it would be useful to think about the outreach piece of work on ThreeSquores Vermont as part of the overall administrative funding for the SNAP program in Vermont. Because that's how the Department for Children and Families understands it. It's like a piece of the administrative funding. And all of that funding, no matter who does the work, historically has been 50% federal government funds, 50% non federal government funds. So either the state agency provides funding or there has to be or some other funding is provided, but it just can't be federal dollars. So most of the administrative work is done by the state agency, right, in Vermont by the Department for Children and Families. And the state agency for the funding to administer SNAP, so everybody who works in the call center, everybody who processes applications, determines how to enact the requirements issued by Congress and USDA in Vermont, all of that work. The state has paid historically 50% of that, and the feds have paid 50%. And part of the requirements in the federal laws around SNAP are that states conduct outreach on the program so that people know that the program is available, and if they're eligible, how they can apply. And many states outsource that money. So they sub grant that outreach work to nonprofit partners. And that's what Vermont does. And there's 10 of us, 10 different organizations that do that work. So in Vermont, that portion, the state agency has paid a piece of that and that how much they pay, how much they help the nonprofit partner meet their match to the federal government varies by organization. For many, many As long as I've been at Hungry People's Rock for fourteen years, and for all that time, it's been standard that the nonprofit organization comes up with the bulk, in most cases, of the match for the federal funding ourselves to carry out outreach, training, direct application assistance on SNAP. So that's the case. So at Hunger Free Vermont, just to take us as one example, we raise most of the dollars from private foundations, individual Vermonters who donate to Hunger Free Vermont. Some of that funding goes to match the federal money that we receive through the state, and the state agency contributes small portion of So now the federal funding for all administrative work, so all that the state agency does, plus outreach work, which in Vermont is mostly outsourced to nonprofits, All of that, the federal portion of that is going from 50% of the whole cost to 25% of the whole cost. And so the state agency has to fund their work to run the SNAP program at 70 They five have to cover 75%. But also, we nonprofit partners, to continue to do our outreach work, we're now faced with a SEP matching, covering 75% of the cost to carry out the work, to make sure that people in Vermont know that Three Squares Vermont exists, know how to apply, know how to figure out if they're eligible. And at Hunger Free Vermont, we do all the training for all of the nonprofit and community partners, not just those 10, but hundreds and hundreds of people around the state every year. We do free training for them to help them know how to help people apply, how to talk about ThreeScores Vermont accurately, etcetera. Is that helpful? That was Sorry I talked so long,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: but it's really complicated. It is. And it's bizarro. Yes. It's just a very technical term. So the logical part of my brain says, okay, then if we're not going to backfill what it requires in order to keep things level, then how do we expect community partners to fill in what is essentially a statefederal program, but we're asking nonprofits to fund it. That's really what's happening. And so we're putting this on the back of nonprofits to raise the funds to do the state's work.

[Anore Horton (Executive Director, Hunger Free Vermont)]: And ultimately the federal government's work, really, for the program. Right.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yes. I

[Anore Horton (Executive Director, Hunger Free Vermont)]: want to say a couple things about that, if I may. So first of all, all of us who do outreach work to help people connect with Three Squares Vermont, Yes, we certainly need help to cover this extra funding and match. And yes, overall, it would be great if that work on this federal program was supported in a different way than us raising a of private funding to cover it. At the same time, it is equally, if not even more important to us that the state agency, that DCF, has the full funding that they need to properly, robustly administer the ThreeSquares Vermont program here. Because they run the call center, they send out notices to people. I mean, there is so much work that has to be done carefully, respectfully, thoughtfully. And we're in a situation now where the paperwork burdens are greater for people. They're more confusing than ever before. There's even more negative conversation out there about participants in ThreeSquares Vermont that needs to be countered. And we depend upon the Department for Children and Families as our partner. In communicating all that needs to be communicated about this complicated program to people so that people can continue to access the program. And we believe that very few people in our state actually need to have to lose their food benefits because of the changes at the federal level. That really, if we can even step up further the state agencies work and our work as outreach partners, that we can help people retain their benefits who are already enrolled in ThreeSquares Vermont. And we can help There's thousands and thousands of people who are eligible for ThreeSquares Vermont who are not enrolled now. And that is money that families need as food costs are rising and inflation and health insurance costs are rising. It's money that our grocers and our community markets need and our our farm markets. Now is not the moment to be cutting back on outreach help for people. Right. Okay,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's been very helpful, Nora. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. So do you have a dollar amount across all of the did you say 10 partners? Is there 10 partners? Anor, did you say 10 partners? Oh, yes. Do you have a dollar amount? That is the increase this year, not not what would replace the whole thing, but the increase. And cost per division, which would? It's 400 and something thousand dollars. It's in

[Anore Horton (Executive Director, Hunger Free Vermont)]: the benefit assistance. It's a piece of the benefit assistance.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's already part of that.

[Anore Horton (Executive Director, Hunger Free Vermont)]: It's part of that. I believe that number is named in there, but I don't have

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it in my mind. We have that proposal. Okay.

[Anore Horton (Executive Director, Hunger Free Vermont)]: All right. Thank you. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So means more credence to what I was saying earlier. Right. Okay. So let's let's take on let's take on food first. And part of food is outreach with three squares, the Meals on Wheels. And do you have any information? I know that the AAAs were supposed to be coming back via Gale Zaps with information about how much in, quote, unquote, admin was I do not have any information. You try to track her down and see if she has any information? Oh, she's here. Oh, I didn't even know you

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: were right here. Sorry. Keep tracking down.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Good job.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know. Good job, dear. I just received a bunch of information, so we're putting it together. Okay. Okay. All right. So just for people around the table, around the outside of the table, we have to I'm trying to get to a place where we're pretty much done today, but can finalize things on Tuesday. So just and Tuesday at the very latest. That's it. So it'd be helpful for any information that's out there circulating that needs to come to the center of the table if it can come sooner rather than later. Okay. So let let's presume that we're okay with what happened with the with that. So we're looking for another million gross, and whether it's GC or Yeah, think we're

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: gonna have to make that decision based on how secure that funding would be. In the future. In the future. Because we already have money there at the 1.3. I think that increasing it made just more exposure to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I hear you. Hear you. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So can I see by a show of hands the level of support for the 2,000,000 to the Vermont Food Bank or food that goes out to all of the food pantries and food shelves in Vermont?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: We have a little more discussion

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: on that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Well, I guess I'm just still trying to see where we might identify some funds offset. We talked about the 50,000,000 set aside related to the assisters. I'm just wondering, I know you say you wanna do in for one, in for all, but other committees have already Seems like they're willing to commit $3,000,000 towards the needs of the food bank.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And It's only 5,000,000 that's being requested total. 2, two, and one.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Like, 2,000,000 is for Vermonters feeding Vermonters, which is This is the, I mean honestly, 2,000,000 is a lot of this shelf stable foods that really supplement anything, any, you know, they're kind of backbone of the food resources. And then the other million is for emergency. So it's not like we can just subside on those. It's,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: yeah. What's the 3,000,000 you're speaking of, Doug? Is it different than what Jubilee just described? No. Okay. All

[Esme Cole (Member)]: right. Just I wanted to double don't

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: need the source of funding you're recommending. We don't have a

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: source of funding for food. Okay. So then I'll ask the question again if people are ready to. Are people can I see by a show of hands those folks who are people supporting the $2,000,000 for food that go from the food bank to out the local food shelves, Okay? Alrighty. And then we supportive of supporting our sister committees, like they will be supporting us on the recommendations that the other committees are making?

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Okay, great. Sure, the committee's request and admitted

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: or health care sorry, the box. The box, yeah, for emergency. Okay, now let's turn to food for Old Liver Monters through Meals on Wheels. They had a million dollar request. We are falling painfully behind on what is being paid. It doesn't mean that we don't want the information coming from you. But this is a preliminary and I would actually like language on this band that says that this money is going to complete the food programs. For that million dollars to Meals on Meals for older Vermonters and people with disabilities. People supportive of food. Okay. Thank you.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's that 98,122,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: almost a million?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, 1,000,000. I'm looking at your I'm still working on that. That's I know.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That is not No, that's not I'm

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: just putting some notes in there. I will finish that up this afternoon. I've

[Esme Cole (Member)]: been sorry.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's fine. Okay. So we've dealt with food. Thank you for that background information, and thank you, the committee, for supporting food. It's a basic. Okay. Let's look back around to End Homelessness Vermont and the supportive peer run services for people with disabilities. And that's the focus of the work that Homelessness Vermont does, is around individuals with specific disabilities. +1, 234, 56. We can still go.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Would just add into the conversation and the remarks made earlier by our budget buddies. Yeah. I I think it speaks volumes that the letter of support that has 15 organizations, many of whom are the frequent flyers that we see doing this work and are supported by the state to do this work. Their recognition End Homelessness Vermont's work is vitally important to what they're trying to accomplish. I think the work, particularly, I mean, at many occasions, but over the summer with the work for the Human Services Board in fighting the executive order and the repeated and consistent victories End Homelessness Vermont has received on behalf of Vermonters has been significant. And it's far from clear to me why the department has not chosen to partner more closely with them on very effective work. So I'm supportive of it now.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is anybody able to I have the letter. Find the letter. Yeah. Thank you.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. I just wanted to take this opportunity. I mean, is Vermont Interfaith Action. These are the folks running the winter emergency shelter. Just redown the list. Humber Free Vermont, Vermont Harm Reduction Advocates, the National Harm Reduction Coalition, the Vermont Parent Child Center Network, Feeding the Valley Alliance, Vermont Community Action Partnership, the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, Disability Rights Vermont, Vermont Early Childhood Advocacy Alliance, Vermont Center for Independent Living, Vermont Care Partners, Another Way, Vermont Developmental Disabilities Council, and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the Housing and Homelessness Alliance of Vermont. So I think as the budget team pointed out, this would be an unusual move. I think that the one of the things that we are trying to do is to make decisions based upon facts and information that is valid. And I know there have been questions about the validity of the organization. I hope that those questions were answered by the documentation that's been provided to the committee. The other facts that are not in question, and I'm just speaking from my perspective, is the amount of work that people with very significant disabilities require in order to become more stable in their lives. And I have seen case after case after case where the work that End Homelessness Vermont has done has continued to enable those folks to receive life saving benefits at this point in time because it's been through the GA. So I personally am in favor of an appropriation there. But I think you all need to indicate in your own way whether or not that's something that you can support or not. I think that the disability coalition that you just heard Jubilee talk about recognizes the work on people with disabilities. So two, three, four, five, six. So this is an initial indication of support. This is not a final thing. We're gonna vote on this on Tuesday. We'll go through each one again on Tuesday when when everyone is able to be here. But and remind me of the dollar amount again. Took out you took out monthly Yes.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: 511,625.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. This goes to our basics, supporting the basics, which are shelter and food. So we'd be looking at $511,000 So can I see by a show of hands those individuals who support that? And those that do not support it at this time. All right. Okay. So I think that wraps up what we can do with ESD and OEO at this point in time. I am going to be continuing to work over the weekend on a new draft of homelessness bill with Katie, and that utilizes the resources that are in the governor's budget. Plus what we haven't passed BAA yet, but the House recommendation was also taken up by the Senate for the flexible supports. So added that back in. So when we I'll be making sure that people get information because we've I've received in the last twenty four hours more detailed information from both the department and from some other sources around inquiries that have been made around, how does all this money break out? It's a lot of money. And how is it being spent? Where is it being spent? How much is on shelters, development versus operation? How much is on prevention? What are we looking at in terms of what is already committed? What is already in the base, if you will, not talking about enhancements going forward. So can look forward to getting a new version of that early next week on Tuesday. So we'll be spending most of our week working on that bill. We'll do on Tuesday after floor, We or after conferences and stuff in the afternoon, we will wrap up our budget memo letter. I I would like to take a look at the language that people are proposing. If you can make sure that I'm sure that Katie will be sending it over, but she's it's usually what she does is send it to the person who has requested it. So if you don't see me copied on it, if you could send it my way, that would be good. And I think I'm gonna just send her in a little note asking her to put it all in one document, which I'm sure she's doing anyway.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I need to request Yeah. The table, if folks, we talked yesterday about taking out the personnel line items that are, or the net neutral stuff that you are, you're concurring with, if folks can go into the table and clean that up, then that would just be a start.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Take them out entirely, Doctor. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. We don't we don't we don't need We'll need services. Yeah. Stuff like that. Okay. And so do we have a rescheduled time yet, Laurie, for education, pre K? 02:45 on Tuesday. On Tuesday. Okay. So Tuesday afternoon, after we finish our budget work, we'll dive into pre K. And we'll hear from the Joint Fiscal Office on their report, which has already been forwarded to you a few days ago. So take a look at that before we delve into pre K next week. And between that and housing, and we're also going to do the APS bill next week. Fantastic. So the APS bill is going to be a one and done. It's a simple bill. I know I jinx myself when I say that, but it's right. It's

[Esme Cole (Member)]: it's a

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: bill that supposedly everybody has met and agreed to, and we should be able to just hear from Jen Harvey and hear from the department and the ombudsman office, and we should be set to go on that. So hopefully, we'll be voting that out before break next week. And, Dan, are you okay to present that? I am. Okay. And the other bill that we have to do is this pre k bill. So that is gonna be a committee bill. We're gonna be outlining it it goes along with education reform, but we've been asked to do a separate bill on pre k. And so our beginning testimony is going to be from the joint fiscal office, but then we'll be we'll be also hearing from Building Bright Futures. We'll be hearing from the department. We'll be hearing from AOE, all around sort of best practice in pre K and be making what we'll be doing is ultimately making a recommendation to Ways and Means and the Ed Committee about what we think should happen with pre K because it's a mixed delivery system that includes public schools as well as private providers. And that will not be an easy bill. I'm just putting that out there because there will be a lot of discussion about public private in that. It might not be as hard in this committee. It'll be harder in other committees. So that's what it looks like for next week. And then we'll be on break. And then you should prepare for crossover week to be a longer week. Crossover week, we will likely start at least by 08:30, and we may need to stay a little later depending upon how our bills are progressing. So and h five forty five is on the senate calendar. I don't know if they've acted on it yet, if they voted on it, but it was on the senate calendar for action today. So if Anne got ahold of you like she did me and Doug and got all our hackles up about something that we didn't need to, don't worry. It wasn't true. So it's all good. Anybody have any questions about where we're headed and what we're doing next week? Then when we get back, go ahead.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Should we be keeping Monday of crossover week open for potential committee?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Only appropriations gets to meet on Monday. And I can tell you that we are not going to get the same dispensation that we got last year for our housing bill to get an extra week. We won't be getting that this year. So we will be forging ahead on a housing bill.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Are we still going to be doing the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The DCF bill. Yes, we will see. Thank you for reminding me about that. We have an omnibus DCF bill that I am hopeful. I can't make any guarantees because we have a lot of different things in the bill, and it will require testimony from different places. So we will most likely be spending a good chunk of the time the week that we get back from town meeting break, but you will see a draft of that bill next week. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And I'm continuing I met with John Gray this morning and the CF on that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I love part of that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. We're gonna go and put some more work into it after we break here. So I have some information for you. Great. I have a rough draft, but we we need to make some changes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Sounds good. Any other questions? Okay. So early break, early release day, because everybody's all concerned about the weather. But don't go skipping through the hallways. Alright. It usually makes everyone else leaves early. It is nice. It's like 04:30, five on a know. It's Healthcare is Go scheduled till healthcare. Okay. Alrighty. Thank you. Oh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. We didn't actually vote on benefited sisters. Sorry. I'm just realizing that. I put out a whole thing. Put out a whole thing about where the money can come from. And we verified that the money for And snap stop outreach is in so again, I have no idea if appropriations will go for this. But and this is the committee that probably has the most it's they've made the rounds, as you heard from witnesses. But this is the committee that has the most impact in terms of the areas that are covered in that proposal. Do we know what healthcare said? Do we know what healthcare said? I'll see if a member knows first. Nolan. For the record, Nolan and

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: were the director the squad. They prioritized their issues that came before them, including the budget stuff and tasks, and benefit assistance did not make their list. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We can talk offline. Okay. I think that in our committee, have seen enough of the impact of what happens when we don't have on the ground in the community work happening with individuals themselves. That is problematic. So I personally am supportive of this. As long as we're able to fund it out of the $50,000,000 pot, I'm kind of giving that

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: about in society

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: given no zina

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: nine five now. Or yeah.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: 4.95.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Full snow.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It was higher. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Again, that's with the caveat that it comes out of, this is a direct result of the HR one. So making the link with the money that was set aside for the impacts from HR one, to me, this feels like a direct link to that. I don't know if anybody else disagrees with that or has any other opinions about that. I'm happy to have them out on the table. Okay, so can I see a show of hands for people who are supportive of the benefit assistance proposal coming from the money that's been set aside for impacts of HR1?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Raise your hands. Yeah, hold up till Monday or Tuesday. Okay,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: all right. Okay, thank you. I realized I missed that important step. Okay, Alright. Now get home safe. Have a good weekend. And thank you for all your work on the budget. I I know it's been kind of a slog. And and, I feel really good about the work that our committee does to try to ask important questions and to try to understand the impact on Vermonters. And even when we have been in a much tighter budget year this year than we have in the recent past, we have still tried to make decisions that reflect the values that we have up there on the wall. And so I appreciate each and every one of you doing that work and doing that in a way that shows Vermonters that their legislators here are and continue to be deeply concerned about them in the state of Vermont. So thank you all for your hard work. I know it's been a lot. Have a good weekend. Thank you. Okay.