Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Good afternoon, one and all. Welcome to House Human Services. We are taking up the final version of our recommendations to the House Appropriations Committee. And we are just gonna start at the top of the document. If you want to go into the document, that's why the state fiscal year twenty seven budget table. And we're just going to go through everything to finalize our decisions. So the first thing that we have is Department for Children and Families, Child Development Division. And well, I don't need to speak. Yeah, committee members can

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: this

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: is a net decrease of a little over $2,000,000 and it consists of some programmatic changes as well as a net neutral transfer and the loss of federal spending authority. We gave some of the details there, but we talked last week why we concur with these changes. And more detail is on the budget document. But basically, the programmatic changes aren't really having a significant impact on families or children or programs. So we concur with that decrease. And this does also include an increase of slightly over $6,000,000 of general fund or which is special fund, because of the shortfall there. Agree with that. And then the next line item

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Before you go. So the decrease of $1,100,000 in strengthening families, what does it mean additional funds available via Act 76?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So additional funds are available to not replace this program, but to offset some of the impacts. Through CCFAP? Not through CCFAP, just through some of the quality funding in the Act seventy fifth. It's not a direct, because they're special individual for the strengthening families, and that framework is now being incorporated into SCARS and there is $10,000,000 allocated in Act 76 that just goes for quality programming. So that money is going to be, some of that money is going to be used to bolster the Strengthening Families protocol and framework across the state. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Everybody understand that? Okay. So we're not recommending, we're recommending concurring with the governor's budget. I think we should show the 6,500,000.0 increase. We should what? We should show the increase. It's right there.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: First bullet. Oh.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It's in black, and then all the deep pieces are in

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, I gotcha. Sorry. I was immediately drawn to the red.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Now. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. And I did ask Ray to check-in with ways and means because a chunk of this money is going to the tax department because they are operating the and needed to do the software changes and all of the outreach to employers and folks who are self employed. And that is and they had asked for $2,500,000 And I don't know if there's any further

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: don't have so we have question to the department to clarify because the tax department is indicating, and their budget person is out this week, so they'll be back on Monday. But what we received from them was that they're budgeting roughly $2,000,000 is what they put in the email. So we put a question out to DCF to understand the discrepancy between $2,500,000 and the $2,000,000 that the tax department says they are budgeting for that administration of

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: this program. So roughly $4,000,000 of this is for actual CCFAP payments to childcare providers on behalf of families. And the other 2,000,000 to $2,500,000 is to the tax department. And this is, as you might recall, the opposite direction from last year. And so we have increased utilization of the childcare financial assistance program, which is what it was intended to do. Anybody have any questions about that? This is within the governor's budget, notations being made. Everybody okay with this? This is gonna be the final round of yay nays. Yeah. So if there's any objections or questions, now would be Now's the time to say.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Okay, so the next line item is the parent child care centers. They had an overall request of, I forget the exact number, 180,000 of that was concrete supports directly to families, dollars 500,000 was essentially a COLA, and the rest of it was for the benefited sisters to be housed within the parent child centers. And our recommendation is to fund the 180,000 of the concrete supports and to offset that by reducing the school aged child care grants, where we have $2,000,000 And I don't know if folks have heard this, but I'll share now because it was shared during the BDF state advisory meeting yesterday. So Vermont recently received the federal grant for disaster recovery, dollars 19,000,000 for the child development division. And this is special funding because it allows for actual capital construction costs, which is very unusual for the child development division. So we felt that with that grant coming in and the recent the PDG grant being awarded in December, we felt like the school age line item was a place where there was other funds possibly that could supplement that offset that we're asking for.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can you tell me what the total amount is that was requested from the parent child centers? I would have

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: to look it up.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So sorry, I'm just going to can do you want to

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: put it in there?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A request of extra parent child centers.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: 700.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Alright. 1,200,000.0 1.7 $1,100,000.0880000.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: $1.01 0.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: But a part of that was the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. That's the total request.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Plus is $188,000,000. $1.88.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Including benefits. Yeah.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So is that in here?

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So out of the 100,080,000, we're recommending 180,000 and increase to, you can see the line item there. And we're taking a reduction of 180,000 in order to fund that in another area for school aged childcare.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: And what's the 7,000,000? What's that?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's just saying increase the line item. See the line item 603,650 to 7,029,750 and reduce line item six zero three six two five from 2,000,000 to 1,000,820. So the 180 was taken from one and put in the other. So it's cost neutral. It's neutral.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: 7,000,000 represents the governor's recommend for the parent child's network.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Okay. That's it for

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: us. Family Services Division. Oh, okay. So just confirming, unless I hear somebody speaking up and saying, no, I don't like that, we're going to move along because we have a lot to get through. Thank you.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But yeah,

[Esme Cole (Member)]: if I want clarification. So that new grant opportunity that you spoke to Ray that could not apply to some of the capacity supports that they requested within that $500,000 ask, like that

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Sorry, I was so jumbled. But I'm just learning about this grant opportunity that you spoke to today. And so I just want to make sure that with that revenue source available, I'm just concerned that capacity within PCCs is going to decrease, and that's why I don't think that $500,000 requests really constitute COLA in the traditional way we're thinking about. So I just wanted to see if that grant money could potentially be applied to that request for their staff there.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, so I have particular knowledge about the grant because I wrote it.

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

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It's a federal grant with a lot of red strings, and it is very specifically around disaster relief and capacity building. So it's like adding slots, childcare slots. So the way the grant was written was really identifying areas of state that were impacted by federal disasters and then giving some ideas for construction development of childcare centers. And make it more resilient and things? To build new child care centers in areas that would be more resilient and impact any negative consequences from the floods that we have.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: So my question then may be, instead of 500,000 to spread throughout all eight or not eight, I'm sorry, how many PCCs there are, but could it be those that were just most drastically impacted by

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: the floods that could? No, because the money is for capacity building, building capacity, and the $500,000 is really for staffing. And they're not requesting to add childcare slots at the parent child centers. And I don't believe, and I should know this, but not all parent child centers have childcare. Correct. And that $500,000 from our review did not seek to add childcare slots. So it wasn't like hiring staff to open a new classroom. It was to increase wages for staff and their benefits for existing staff to maintain their current, which that's why we saw it as a COLA.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, or capacity, I guess the way the capacity I think they're talking about here, it's more like a social service provider in a way, not capacity for childcare slots, rather to provide access to families that have access to social services in a way. A different kind of capacity, but capacity But I understand, so it sounds like that particular grant cannot be used for

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: this type of need. Yeah. And one of the reasons why we can use it for do the swap for the school child care and I don't even know if they're going to backfill that. But that school child care line item is specifically adding capacity for school age. So it's adding slots in areas of states that are needed.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be very quick because I just know how all of us know

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: how much they do for our

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: No, but I hear you. They're both capacity, right? Totally.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Just a technical change in the document, the 7,029,750, that's actually the governor's recommends, so we just need to amend that to 7,209,000 to reflect the $180,000

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: purchase. $209,000.750029.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Correct. And

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think the priorities we used last year were highest high. So any ones that we are finding funding for, I think we Highest. Is the governance proposed by Okay. Anne.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: All right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So Department for Children and Families. The first two were cuts to prevention programs, 50% to the Prevent Child Abuse Parent Education Program, and 25% for post permanency to three agencies for support to new adoptions and guardianships that are highly preventative for children who have been or may be at risk of DCF custody. This is the area where we heard from the deputy commissioner. These are the programs which helped save more than $600,000 in kids being taken into custody last year. But that was invested elsewhere rather than reinvested in prevention and is proposed to be cut. Most of the major new investments in the budget have to do with the high end system of care, including the new three bed program that will be costing almost $4,000 per day per bed, whether there's a child in the bed or not. And the more work that we've done, and I've been getting more information over the weekend and even this morning, the clearer it is that there is a lot of leeway in those budgets, even some possible carryover funds, which they just mentioned this morning when I was asking about one of the line items for where did we spend the $2,000,000 on the new program that hasn't opened yet in the last year. So the proposal is to take that backfill, those two amounts, with a much smaller amount from the high end system of care money because that's all general fund, there's no federal fund, and the programs being cut have global commitment in them. So that's the first two items there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's what I have a question about, Anne. Yep. So +1 94373 and 293866. Is that global commitment or is that straight general fund? The amount The cut. The cut first. Let's deal with that Okay, the cut.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Prevent child abuse cut is not 100% global commitment. I got the breakout of the percentage of it, this global commitment, and Nolan translated that into how much general fund was included in that

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: 01/1994. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So there's a $164,005.88 of general fund in the 01/4373. Is that what Exactly. Being stated? Okay. Exactly. So I I think we need to modify that recommendation because it it doesn't show that we're restoring full funding. So I I think we should just say that 01/4373 and then and then put GS slash GC.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm doing that now.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. But it's not reducing line six zero three three

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: eight by 01/1994.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, you're right. Well, that's that was is my question. So is it's reducing What is 603338?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: That's the high

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: end system of care.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So we should say that's what it is in here.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, right. Okay. So that. For the high end system of care. Yeah. Right. And then it's by the +1. It does start off saying restore funding in full and then Right, I can

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: tell you that the question I will get downstairs is how are we restoring it once in full if we're only reducing high end system of care by 164. So we need to say 164,588 plus the difference between that and 194,300 and '73 is GC, must be is what you're saying.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. Or restore GC funding in full and reduce it by GF to offset the change. Would that say it?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just wanna make sure that there's no questions about what our intent is. And, you know, Nolan will be assisting them, but

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So 29,785 would be the difference.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Would be the GC. So just yeah. I'll put that in parenthesis. Yeah.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I just think it needs to it needs to add

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: up to the $1.94 $3.73. They need to be able to sort of see Right?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: See that change.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Anybody have any issues with that? Again, we're not increasing?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So it but it makes it sound that way. We could maybe wordsmith afterwards if you don't, but that makes it the way it's written right now. It says by general fund and then the parentheses, GC weight makes it down that that that line item that's being reduced has one sixty four general fund and 29 global commitment. We we

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: can figure out where to put the 2975. It needs to be in there so that they can see if those two things add up to the 194. Okay. I'm not hearing any disagreement. Okay. And the same thing, we need to do the And same if you could add the high end system of care there too and the difference.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's less than the GF obligation for the one above, but the total is more. So the GC and the GF blend, the blend of those funds?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The blend is different.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The blend is different for the post permanency versus the nurturing parent program.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Post permanency is 100% global commitment. So that makes it 40 something percent that's general fund. Whereas We're the now, but

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: we'll figure out

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: what it What needs to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm trying to figure out is in the high end system of care, was that proposed to BGC or was that all general fund?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It has to be, yeah, it's all general fund. All general fund. Because only general fund can fund the justice system involved programs. Okay,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: next. Okay. Supervised visitation.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yep, the third one is the supervisor visitation was a presentation we had last week. This is a follow-up to our request last year to do a deeper dive into how we can make equal access around the state because six counties have visitation centers to enable children to supervise visitation to enable children to see their parents, but the others don't. So this proposal increases the funds for supervised visitation so that we can begin putting in place a plan to increase the other counties beginning with two next year with half year development. They won't be able to start right away and half year fully funded. And also to add base funds to the six others, which they've been closing down in some counties because there's so little funds. Even the base funding proposed will not at all meet their costs, but it will help sustain them. And the proposal is for that resource to come from a Qian special fund in judiciary, which has a significant amount of unused money in it right now, about $2,000,000 So this would only be one time funding in the sense that we haven't identified a base, although it looks like it can be sustained at least for several years. Part of the coordinator's position is to work with DCF on sustainable path forward. But at least we get it started.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Does the language do we need to say anything in here about the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services transfer? If we want the details, yes. Because they're

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Let's see. What does it say? I haven't looked at the language. Does it

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It say it in the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: does not. And it doesn't say that the part time position is with the crime victim services. So those are

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Part time position is not with crime victim services. What the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: network is. Yes. About with the network. I'm sorry, the network. Well, it's money from the network that it's coming from.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, the Center for Crime Victim Services is transferring part of the funding that they have.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And I had a typo in my original draft. I believe it's the same group. It's the same justice. I get the initials wrong. It's the same group that's going to have the part time position. The ones who have been running it all along, And they're saying, take back the money that gets delivered to the programs, but we will continue to coordinate the development of new sites and the consistency among the sites with this part time position.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I understand. So I don't really care in the end who coordinates it. But think we need to indicate, because we need to transfer money from so this 02/1993, part of it is coming from chins. Then we need to make a note, I mean, whole of that is coming from chins, but we need to indicate. It also involves two trans Right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's right. It also includes a transfer to the crime victim services of the amount just for the coordinator and the transfer, or if you just do it more in smaller transfer, the transfer back to the full prior amount that they were. The amount that Yeah, I can get those

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: numbers right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm just going to ask a clarifying question of the network representative who's here. Oh, good. So I'm just trying to figure out why would the network give out the money, but the coordinator be at the Center for Crime Victim Services? I understood all being consolidated at the network.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yeah, so Charlie Glisserman, Policy Director at the Vermont Network

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and Sexual Violence. I'm sorry, so I keep mixing up.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It's okay. I'm sorry. No, I'm so glad you're there. If you have the accurate information, even from what I just said.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So the Vermont Network Against Against Domestic and Sexual Violence has provided statewide coordination and support through a part time position, and we will continue to do that with the funding sold out in this bill. So that's over here. And then over here is that the Center for Crime Victim Services has historically received a small amount of general funds, which has then been granted out to supervised visitation programs. So the proposal is for the money that has gone previously to the Center for Crime Victim Services to go to DCF instead. And so all of the funds that are provided to supervise with the teaching programs from state agencies will flow through DCF, and that is how the funds will be administered.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, and what is that dollar amount that says the amount that crime victim services is? That's 137,005

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So that fund transfer goes from BCCBS to DCF. To DCF.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then the $2.40 nine-three comes from CHINS, and it all gets granted to the Vermont network. Correct.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: To what was the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: amount? $2.40 nine-three.

[Charlie Glisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So it is all granted to DCF. So the Vermont Network Against Responsible Violence is not going to administer the That device is DCF. We are going

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to provide statewide coordination. And that's 50,000. For statewide coordination, yes. For the coordination that goes to the Vermont network. Okay.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But that is that already within in the $1.37 5? The 50,000? It's in the February. It's in the 249.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's in the two

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And we'll take a look at the language just to make sure it's absolutely clear. Does the language specify, will the center, will the network rather be involved in making recommendations as to how much money each entity receives?

[Unidentified Member]: We there is language currently drafted noting that the Vermont network will collaborate with DCF on a few different items within supervised visitation programs, including developing a funding formula.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Formula for the supervisor Yes. Yes. And the language is

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: all correct here. No, you got it. Yes, you got to see language. That's fine. You. Thank you. Appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And I assume other languages we're going to deal with later. We're going to look at language afterwards.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And we need a B number where this would

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: go. Oh, okay. I'll have to find that. I don't know where that is because it wasn't in the documents we got because it was no change. It wasn't up or down from DCF.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We'll just make a note of that if we can. Okay. All right. And then, so for members, realized that conversation was all happening here at this end of the table. So just to summarize, 137,500 will be transferred from the Center for Crime Victim Services to DCF. And that is money that's already in the base budget. There's no increase. It just requires language to make that happen. And then we are saying an increase of $249,300 to stabilize the existing system and to expand into two new areas. And that money is coming from a special fund, the CHIN's special fund in the judiciary, as there's a direct correlation between what this money is being used for and the purpose of that fund. So we, again, are finding a

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: source of funding for an increase that we are proposing. Just to add to the link to judiciary, DCF has its separate funding for supervised visitation that's needed because a child is in DCF custody and parents are visiting and they're issued about it. This group is specifically the ones who are ordered for supervised visitation by the court system, by the judiciary. So that's the only thing rather than by DCF. And we have a separate memo that Anne is working on that outlines our concerns regarding the high cost of the high end system of care. I sent it. People have gotten it. And they've

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: gotten it now. Okay. So that will be attached to our budget memo because it raises some concerns about the future, honestly.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And Anne, I just found a B number or a line item. It's not a B number. It's a line item. Just actually never got me.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, great. Okay, DCF Economic Services Division. Yes. So first up, we

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: have general assistance. We've listed what the governor's recommendation was. And then under the advice Theresa Wood, we put their pending separate bill under consideration, as that will all come into play under our DE bill.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: For the housing part of it. So these things here are not all housing. So what are we saying about Social Security Specialist Agreement cut or the personal needs incidentals, that kind of stuff.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. Those are yeah. Those part I mean, we, I guess, concur with those parts. There wasn't we just have nowhere to pull from without taking from housing and homelessness resources. So our Okay.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So where is that?

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: On the answer side. So that would be the 139, 171, which I think we both have concerns about cutting that. But that's also that same kind of navigation type assistance specifically for around folks who are eligible or receiving social security. So I don't know if we could peg that in with our Assistance. Assisters. Yeah. The 32809, that is kind of, again, those types of things where we really encourage the department to do more outreach rather than cutting, but just don't have anywhere else to find that money. And then, yeah, the other one's from the global commitment. And then there is an increase in support services. I know some of that is the line items where we pay for cremations and funerals for folks who have died. Wow.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They say it's a lack of say it's a I'm she was Yeah. Able to

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. I wonder.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But you did find that money somewhere? That's from the governor's recommendation. Oh, so this is okay, the 40?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's funded. They're not disputing the reduction.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I wouldn't use the words okay. Right. Not disputing. We have a lot

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: of dollars.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So the $1.39 and the 32, there's no money that's really not funded in the governor's budget. Right? Just making myself notes. And the 7,000,000 was that?

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: That is the governor's proposed overall decrease to the general assistance program. We're deferring any recommendation on that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Depending on

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: the result or work on the job.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So just one question.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Being that this is a very, for example, the first item, the Social Security Specialist Agreement, sometimes people who are in shelter, that is their only source of income, of course. And so I think it would be worth our time to make sure that in the benefits of a sister's proposal that we are very specific about SSI, SSDI support and applications, especially given that the governor is very specifically saying that this is going to be cut as his arrest.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And can you remind me what the four eighty eight is for support services caseload adjustment? Because if there's a there's a $40,000 decrease

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's moving money around in terms of the type of supported services.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is it actual increase or is it I I think I

[Esme Cole (Member)]: typed everything out and then I realized we didn't wanna have things that we would agree with, so I deleted a lot of my work from that. But I could pull it from our budget up there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, if you could just double check. If it was one of those things that was just moving. What I'm trying to do is to view this with the eye So people in they would say, Oh, there's a $40,000 decrease, and then there's a $488,000 increase. So

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: the 488 increase, there's no money for that? It's not in the proposed budget?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is in the anything that we are identifying things that are in the proposed budget. Okay. K. That is right now in the proposed budget. But I I am asking for clarification if that's actually an increase given that there was a decrease in the same area.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, that's not putting in things we concurred with, though.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it's important for them to see actual service cuts. Programmatic things. Not the net neutral transfer. No, no,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: right, right. But okay, so we have one that's a cut that we're not objecting to.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so thank you. You can clarify that, Thank that would be you. Okay, then Vermont, so there's, so people understand this, a major part of this is reducing the general assistance housing. And that essentially is going into OEO in the governor's proposal. So we are just going to indicate that that will be under separate cover in a bill that's still under consideration. So we're not making any recommendation with regard to that at this time.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. Food Bank. Yep. And that, we discussed this on Friday. That is $2,000,000 that we had in our Straubilee Friday supported for the Vermont Food Bank to be able to purchase food that then gets distributed around Vermont to the various food banks, and that we would also support the recommendations of the Ag and GovOps committees. Ag has a recommendation for $2,000,000 for the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program, which allows folks to purchase from farms and agriculture businesses in their area, which feeds Vermonters, but also really helps support our local economies. And then the $1,000,000 for emergency food distribution that was in the GovOps recommendation. And that was considered, I don't know, what you want to mention, like tied with the Meals on Wheels.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. I was concentrating on reading the next thing. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. So we did a straw poll that was agreed to, but this is your opportunity to issue any objection or any support for this item. So the committee on Friday supported the $2,000,000. And to be clear, this is an item that we were not able to find an offset in other areas for. But given the priority for food, shelter, and safety, we felt as a committee on Friday that this was important. So I just want to see, make sure that people are understanding and still feeling the same way about that.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: I wasn't here on Friday, but I would add my support.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: What isn't in the governor's budget?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The whole The whole are requesting in our budget recommendation is not in the governor's budget at this time.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: What's in the governor's budget? Nothing. Nothing. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: What would you I shouldn't say nothing. I think that this is additional funding. There's nothing? Zero? Nothing? Zero. Okay. This year's money is one time. Have been doing one time funding for the last couple of years. And that

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: is gone.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That money all goes out to communities that purchases food, that all goes out to all over the state. But

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: appropriations will make the final decision. Yes. No matter what we do.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Correct. But they want our recommendation. So I guess letting people know where we're standing on that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: What is the proposed priority ranking for that?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Food, I have written down highest.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Would it be high? Because I thought we referenced highest would be for those where we found a source to offset.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Oh, we found a source. It's just better of whether or not Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, I have a hard time saying only high for food. Yeah.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: I'll just add too, in this context, like this is the federal rules are changing substantially around Re Squares. And so we are expecting a lot of shifting in terms of people losing benefits no matter how hard we try with operational.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think you all received I forwarded a copy of the letter that we received from DCF noting that there's starting March 1, two thousand one hundred households or individuals who are receiving termination notices of their SNAP benefits, their three squares. So it, again, points to the need for the benefit of sisters out in the community and the outreach because it's not because they're not eligible. It's because of the additional paperwork requirements at the federal level. So DCF is doing what it's required to do. They're not doing anything that they're not supposed to be doing. But it shows that there is a lack of resources within the system right now to do the outreach that is necessary for people to understand what all these new federal changes mean to them in their household on a day to

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: day basis. And I'll just add just to put a final point on it, is that the loss of those benefits will just mean increased need for this food in communities, right? Because this is where families and individuals are going go and get if they lose their mouths, they're going go to the health

[Unidentified Member]: of children. That mean

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: they didn't get their eighty hours for volunteer and work?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's a variety of different things. There's different paperwork requirements that they have to fulfill. But if

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: they do do their eighty hours, they will get their refill.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not necessarily, because they have to provide documentation. A lot of I And just will say there are some people who are overwhelmed when they receive a government letter.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Everybody gets scared when you get

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: government And sometimes you just kind of like foot off even looking at it until it's too late. So Yeah, everybody does.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Especially if you're self employed. Requirements to be able to demonstrate

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: those things.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I know

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: my son is very scared. I

[Unidentified Member]: might not even have a license. Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yes. Oh, just going back to the previous line item that we were looking for an answer on. The movement was an increase in the general fund for most of it and a decrease in global commitment for $40,000 So the governor's recommended an increase in $488,000 and a decrease from global commitment funds by 40,000 for a total increase asked of 447,956. Okay, so the net is the $4.47? Yes. Okay. Yeah.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And then it also cuts the 139. That doesn't include the like 139.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The other two things. Yeah. Yeah. Get it. So, Ray, somehow we need to connect this 4048 and the $4.88 because it's

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: there. Oh, it's okay. So we can get together at some point. Yeah, share this with you too.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: you. And then I think Anne, sorry, Anne was kind of motioning to me about the comments under the food bank. There is a $2,000,000 ad that we're recommending. And then the $2,000,000 and the $1,000,000 below that, those are recommendations by other committees. So the total ask from the food bank is 5,000,000. Okay. So that's how We're only recommending two.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Two,

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: two, and one, but they're all in different committees. Okay. Don't, if that's not clear, we can add to No, that's clear across committees.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Any other questions about food bank? Okay, thank you. Let's move on to reach up.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: So we have our general concerns with cutting case loads and decreasing that rather than working to reduce the ratable reduction and put more money in families' pockets. We learned we talked about this a bit on Friday, but we also learned in the final days that there is $1,500,000 that sits in House Health Care's committee that was cut. I connected with Rep Rebecca and Goldman today during lunch. And they said when they it does appear in their budget, but when they asked about it, they were told it is over here in the House of Human Services. And we're told it's in there. And so it fell through the cracks. And they've already voted and submitted their recommendations. So they have no way to update those. But those are what we had Amy Johnson when she was in last week, just talked about what their affiliations are. And my understanding is those are for the DAs and SSAs. Some of them have grant funding, and this allows them to work with Reach Up participants right away. It funds those services and their ability to work with them so that they don't have to wait for a diagnosis and Medicaid to kick in. It allows them to gain connection to services and treatment right away and while they're obviously navigating stress and crisis at home. So it's a weird situation, and I'm not sure how we rectify it. I know normally we wouldn't be like, this other committee should put this in their budget. And we just agree with the recommendation. But they're also like, hey, this isn't something we necessarily agree with. It wasn't on

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: our radar. Just to clarify, we heard, our budget team heard that DCF actually had transferred those funds to mental health some years ago. So it wasn't a decrease in the DCF budget. It was a decrease in the DMH budget. And it would be helpful. I don't know if we can find out how many households or how many people have been served in a typical year for this money. But this isn't the only area that the health care committee failed to take up. They also failed to take up the community resource center that was also funded by the Department of Mental Health in Chittenden County. And so then people came here asking for money.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: They also thought that was, think I we're led a bit that that was in our community as well.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm not really sure because, yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure why they didn't do their own deep dive and realize it was in their own budget. But I'll just say that I prefer our process.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So that was actually a special program that was initiated, I think, roughly five years ago. And what it was trying to do was target people who they were It connected very much with making reach up work in terms of people getting off disability and into work and those things that by having those reach up recipients get the mental health support they needed to be able to work. So I do fear the unintended consequences of cutting that money if it leaves people

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I've made a note to put this actually in the cover memo, highlight it, as well as the community resource center with CVOEO in the cover letter, because both of those things were in the DMH budget. And we don't have jurisdiction over the DMH budget, but we can raise our concerns about that. So

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: we raised our concerns on both counts that despite we're seeing cuts to the reach up portion of the budget, despite we all know costs are going up rapidly each year for all Vermonters. And also just noted the situation around these pets.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And can I just double check that the actually, in two places where I saw where it says recommended the TANF revenue realignment? If that's net neutral, we don't need to include that. Is that so think that's the same thing as the two of We saw it in

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: the BAA. It's that moving. Yeah. So to Yeah.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I get rid of that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Both of them, but that one and the one above it.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: One thing I know, you and I have talked about this, Cher, is having an opportunity to really dig into reach up to TANF where all of the funds are going. You think of it as this program for folks to increase their economic security. And a lot of the funds are going into child care and transportation and not actually the traditional original purposes. So I don't know, perhaps in the cover memo, but expressing a commitment or desire for our two committees to work together to really look into how this money is being spent, whether that is the best use for those funds or the best way to use those dollars, if there aren't other areas in the budget that we could be backfilling instead. So, yeah, I'd just like to raise that as well. Okay. Yes,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I've made note of that. We need to really take a deeper dive into that whole area. And we may have some time to do that in the second half of the Okay.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And then we have OEO. And that is, again, one of those pending separate bill under consideration. And the governor's recommend we see a $23,000,000 increase for housing and shelter related activities. So we'll get into that. And in there, there were some decreases would net neutral BAA type items, we could remove those.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We should make note of the 21 positions, however.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Then we should just put a bullet in there for the 21 business. Maybe they have it up here.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Is that in place. Let me take a look

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: at it based on that. Cold weather. They don't. But Is it It was in their book. It's 20. We can find it. If you could just make a note of 21 positions. Where is this? This on the we're on

[Unidentified Member]: I mean, I'm here. I'm at

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: which It's gonna be under Department for Children and Families Office of Economic Opportunity. No, I'm here, but what?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Is it one of these?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. No, it's not there. That's what I'm saying. We're gonna add it. Oh, you're adding it. Because it's in

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Is it?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's in the budget interest.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Fees. Yeah. Three one two positions.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's under three one six. Right? Yeah. It's in, yeah, DCF admin. It's not new It's

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: 132.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: I got it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not in 100

[Esme Cole (Member)]: It's a new appropriation of 2,200,000.0, basically. There are new positions? That is what the governor's proposed.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, we're not agreeing. We're not agreeing or at this point in time. It's just part of the overall housing proposal. Okay.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But it is in the governor's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They found it in their book. And so we are adding it in. It's $2,200,000 in change. 2,200,000.0 Okay.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And then we have two eleven. This would just be for us to support House Health Care's recommendation. I mentioned on Friday that they had some one time funds that they were going to be able to use to fill in that gap to level fund two eleven this year and will allow them to make some technological updates that will help streamline their processes going forward. And so this is just a recommendation that we support that. It won't come out of our budgetary business. And then we have just talked about End Homelessness for March. We received a letter with endorsements from 15 other partner organizations. A lot of these are not just a single organization. They're coalitions. They're partner organizations with multiple members, which means their governance structure, those multiple members all voted in support of their organization

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: supporting this request. And that happened 15 times. And I am also going to indicate here to indicate funding from FY '25 carry forward that, okay. For a source of funds.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, that was source of funds.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Source of funds, right. I don't know how you put those in there. I'll let you do it, Ray. For the end homelessness Vermont, the $511,000,000 They're under the umbrella of Vermont kin. Yes. But should it be Vermont kin? No, they're the fiscal agent.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: And where would the money come from?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: From carry forward from FY '25.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I've got a letter into them for a breakdown of 2425 spreadsheet on its credit insurance loan, but I haven't got it yet. So I can't approve it yet because I need it. I'm a researcher. When I was an accountant, so

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I have to have checks and balances for everything I do. Okay, that's why we've identified a funding source for it.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Carry forward from And I would like

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: to put that in forward, Kim. Since we do have a funding source and we said that food and shelter were our highest priorities. Food, shelter, and I've added safety.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: What can do when I get the spreadsheet, I can send it down to appropriations. That's what I'll do. Hopefully I'll get it while we're there. Okay. Got it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright. So we're moving next to Dale. Send it to us.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: They want you to acknowledge me. Okay.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Okay. First thing we have on our list is in section b three thirty meals on wheels. There is no increased funding in FY '27 budget. Sorry. Got extra dollar sign in there. I'll just fix. There were nearly a million meals delivered. I can run through all this. We're requesting Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. You don't need to.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Mean We're requesting a million dollars or $1 a meal increase in the FY '27 budget to offset the inflationary costs that have been affecting all of us as well as these programs.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And Oh, right there. Where's the number of meals delivered? Right there. It's the first time.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's at a dollar sign. Actually, it's really close to the same. It's about a dollar.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So and if there is language, so Yes. Add c language.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: We do have language that we're working on that we're good. Provide us with some data on how many meals are delivered and where they're delivered, waiting lists, and the reimbursement rates.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And that this would be spit it out, Theresa. This would be in general fund. Correct. And not

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: GF, not GC. Not global commitment.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Correct. Or investment.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In that, global commitment investments. Yeah. Anybody have any issues with Meals on Wheels? Okay.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Next is looking at our residential care ACCS. So these are the providers that are a much less cost than providing nursing home level of care. And I just put in here a 1% increase. They serve 6,090 people, many our communities, and this is a way to keep them out of skilled nursing facilities at much less cost. I'll just leave it at the fact that 1% is 84,000 in general fund for ACCS and then the ERCs, which is enhanced residential care. So this pays for greater care as people need more access to nursing home level or up to and including nursing home level of care as an additional 85,000 general fund for each 1%, which both are eligible for will be committed.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm just going deliver the bad news that while we won't be including this in our budget memo, this is the chair's prerogative, and I'm sorry for people out there who

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: also couldn't, are I mean, don't think, I think this is a COLA, we kind of across the board have talked a lot about, we had a COLA request that would really go, have an impact, And we made the tough decision to leave that out. So I just feel like

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But we do need to put in here annualization. I don't see it in here, Dan. The annualization of the BAA. Correct. So we need the numbers

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: in here You for want me to put that

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: in Oh, that definitely has to be

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: in here. So that's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: not in the governor's budget.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. So what she's talking about is when we did the budget adjustment Need to start. We shoot, I don't have it on this page. We put more money into the budget, under the budget adjustment for ERC-one and ACCS, so we just need to include that moving forward at Just ERC one.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: ERC one, at level funding. And AAA's case management rate. Yep.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yep. Okay. Sorry. I have those numbers. And, Ray, I'll put those in after.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And will you just double check with Nolan? Because what's in BAA is one quarter because they started April 1. But I don't know if they increased the base, if they ended up increasing the base. So I don't know if we need three quarters or a full year.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Right. Okay. Just just delete it. Don't cross it out. That looks bad.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Sorry.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I don't have a place for that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No. It's fine. I'll fix it. We

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: could have just left that. Anyways, it doesn't matter.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Sorry. I just I believe in these services and whatever. I get it. I know. I get it. Okay. So next is HomeShare. So I I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just I need to be sort of very directive about this. This needs to go by end of business today. Oh, appropriate. I don't know that question unless you know the answer to that. Whether the one quarter they included, if they put it in the face or if they just did it one time. So whether we

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: need three quarters or whether we need the full year? We need Okay, I will double check.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You know

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: what I mean?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yes, I do. Okay. Yes, I do. Okay, and I'll have that shortly.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that is just to follow along. And if you recall in our BAA, the department had reduced ERC level one rates to, as Dan put it, less than what we pay to board our pets on a daily rate. And so we put it back at the FY '25 rates of $72 and change per day. And the AAAs, for some reason, were left out of the 2% cost of living increase in FY '26. Oh, Nolan. And so we added that 2%. But we only added it starting April 1 because they said they can't do retroactive, although by the time they get it, it'll probably be retroactive. So Nolan, let's just ask you the question since you're here. The money we put in for elevating the ERC rate back up to FY '25 levels, the $72 a day, and the 2% COLA for the AAA case management, Was that in the base? Did that go into the base? It just went in? No,

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: in the base.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, but only for one quarter. So we need three quarters here in our budget now.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah, I think it's good to put in your memo as a reminder because the administration, since they didn't do the BAA, it's not going to be in their, for the record, all of that all of the drugs as well. Since it wasn't in their BAA or their budget, it's not going to be in their base. Because we did it with BAA, we had to carry it in her base. I think it's a good reminder in your letter.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so I think So it's

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: one quarter, 267,888. No, it's three quarters. Three quarters. We need three quarters. That's for one. One quarter for this one year '26. That's right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can you get us the three quarter?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: But that's the one quarter amount.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. But the max rates are different for FY '27.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: You

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you know what I'm asking for, Nolan?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: You're asking to miss twenty seventh, right? Yes. So it's it's annualized.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. Well, I know. That was my question. If if in if in the BAA, you put it in as base funding.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: if you put it in as base, we only need three quarters.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Correct. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. I'll get you done. And then it's 35 I to 26

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: for need them, like, today.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: 35 to 26 for the case management.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Just put it Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No one will give us another. Okay. But that you can just put a note that says this would be a number.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yep.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: BAA annualization. Okay. Okay. Home share.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Home share. This was one time funding that was not included in the FY '27 budget, allows them to provide these matching services in the Northeast Kingdom.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it's not ex they already expanded to the Northeast Kingdom. Right? Correct. In f y twenty six. They did. Okay.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. So And that was one time funding that was not included in FY twenty seven.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Is there a revenue source for this?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: There is not. Alright.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, we'll have a discussion about that in a second. Okay. Funded.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And do you recall whether they testified there was a couple of counties, I think, in which they currently don't serve. Were they looking in this upcoming fiscal year to expand into those remaining counties? I think that's their overall goal, is to expand, but they'll need to figure out how to fund it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is for level funding.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: This is for level funding in FY '27 as it was in '26.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So without this funding, will they lose the capacity to support existing matches?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: In the Northeast Kingdom, I would think that would be a true statement if they don't have the funding to run the program there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So is this February, was that only for the expansion in the Northeast Kingdom? Yes. Okay, folks. So this is a new one. Is a new one. We didn't talk about this one on Friday. I don't

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: think we did, did we? Think we ran through all of them, I thought.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hope Okay. You're having a brain freeze. What do folks want to do with this? This is about shelter as one of our priorities, and it's existing services. Yep. Are people okay with this? It doesn't have a source of funding. So it would be something that we would be recommending without a source of funding identified. Unless we could propose to reduce choices for care by 235,000 converted to GC. What be, would Nala? 235,000 converted to global commitment. I wrote down the percentage, but of course, I've lost it again from last week. I think let's put that down as a source of funding, Dan. Okay. And appropriations can make a decision about whether or not they want that.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Do want the GC match for $335,000

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Dollars 98,500.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, the other way. How much would $235 equal in GC?

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I was just going to talk about speaking in support of it. We've started building out the process for us to work with youth. We had our first referral recently who have stabilized. I just this feels I've seen the success in the areas it already exists in. And being able to spread this throughout the state, I just think will be really important. It's a really relatively low cost Very low cost. Option that increases when you're thinking about familiar with some of these situations. And we've talked about how you can't afford an apartment on social security or if you have disability or are working part time while you're a young adult going to school. This creates those opportunities for those housing options where you can do that and allows folks to move into stability or just long term sustainable partnerships that benefit all

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: of

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: the people involved. So it's a no brainer to me. And I'm excited to see how this once we can blanket the state, I think there's a lot of room to try some really innovative things that benefit Vermonters. It's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: actually kind of cool to hear about starting to look at this for youth in transition.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Once they've stabilized, done with transitional housing, but still need that next step. It's something we're working on building out.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Nolan, I come up with 560,457, 58, yeah. Are we saying reduced choices for Reduced choices for care by 560,458.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: If you plot general ombudsman. Yeah.

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Next, Dan, long term care ombudsman.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Long term care ombudsman. So there was no increase in the budget. Just put in some statistics there. Five four hundred ninety three complaints opened in f y twenty five. And what I found also interesting was that in FY twenty five, forty percent of the complaints come from seven facilities. And then 11, I'm sorry, 110,000 is the cost of a new employee to oversee eye care and some of the other facilities that they need to keep an eye on, it's their job. The rest of the money is inflation, including health insurance. And if they don't receive it, they make the layoff of a couple employees. So $2.75.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So they added they already have I recollect they added a staff person for the Bennington area in order to make the reduced travel time and to be more available. So I have to say that to me, the only part of this I guess I'm trying to figure out because they added that staff person with their base level of funding that they had this year. Correct. So we we we haven't decreased anything.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: There was no in there was no increase in their base funding as far as I'm

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. But I'm I'm just saying if they funded that position this year and it wasn't decreased. Yeah.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: They have They should theoretically have

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: money to continue. What I recall the testimony being is that in order to keep up with the cost for the other staff that they have, that they would have to reduce the position in order to do that. Correct. I believe that's true. I'm seeking a sideline conversation, Titus. So we had one time Just identify yourself, please,

[Kelly Keifer (State Long-Term Care Ombudsman)]: I'm Kelly Keifer, the State

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Long Term Care Ombudsman. We had one time funds that allowed us to get by for the last several years and spend more than our base funding. And so to be able to keep the bedding to position going forward so that we don't have that position in our base funding. So the $2.75 includes to that position plus additional person. What was the source of the one time funding? It was COVID. Yeah, they were all federal funds. The

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: base funding

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: for the federal has been based.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the decision point here, folks, is whether we make a decision to continue a position that was added with COVID era funds, which to be fair with other places that have run out of those funds prior to this year, we did in some cases and we did not in some cases. So for instance, there were positions associated with other legal aid requests that we have not recommended for backfilling. And there have been other positions at DCF and other places. Sometimes we did recommend and sometimes we didn't. So what's on the table here really is the 110,000 about whether we would continue that position for nursing home oversight.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And are we saying that in light of our other conversation about COLAs, that's all we're considering is 110

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, that's all we're considering is 110,000. Yeah, thank you. Oh, that's good with us.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We're almost done.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Any source of funding?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, no. But we don't have a source of funding for this other than you could say choices for care as well, because it is monitoring choices for care. There's a connection to choices for care.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I mean, would really like to see it if we have the money. If we don't, just back to all of that proof of money and warning everybody and saying-

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not to add positions that

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: you have It's

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: so much harder to cut something after you've started it than not start it. We went ahead and started it, and now we're facing exactly that. So I think choices for care, I know the program pretty well, some people know it better, and if those resources would be able to come from that, I would really, this is a really important position. I do

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: feel that if we can find a source of funding, I think it's valid and needed. We can

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: put it in. I don't know how it's gonna go next downstairs. Mhmm. Sorry. I'm messing at the same time somebody else's. It would be 262,342 in a reduction in choices for care.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because for the 100 and that's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: general fund? That's general fund. Okay. Right. Are any of these positions Medicaid eligible? Do you get any global commitment funds? I think we qualify for matching. They qualify for matching. Okay, so good. Then it wouldn't have to be that. Okay. So No. I'm not typing anything.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No one and I talked

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: about this. Double check. We'll put it in there, and Nolan will correct it downstairs if we're wrong. So that would require $46,123 it would be in general fund, but it would be 110,000 from Choices for Care, not the Choices Oh, I'm sorry, you can? Yes. I squeezed out. So we're putting in anyways. Just making our work

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: notes right

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: for Yeah, this I'll fix it. I can't, it won't let them type them there for some reason.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, and we have to move along folks because we're supposed to be downstairs at, it's now gonna be at 02:40. Okay. Okay. So the deaf blind, we had lots of discussion about this. Again, these are also we have a bill on the wall, one forty three, that we took testimony on last year. And this was in the budget, but it was eliminated, these services. Right. So actually, we should say that it was there isn't there's no decrease. It should say a decrease there where it says no increase. Yep. It hit zero. No. It was A no A 150,000 decrease. Decrease.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Mhmm.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Out

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: of of the total of one fifty or more? Out of a total. Yeah. It's eliminated. Right. So one fifty. It should say eliminating just to make it clear. It's not just, like, 10%.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. No. And everybody agreed to that one on Friday.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: What, putting it back in? Yes.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Okay, Sash. The last two that I have are no, they're more placeholders. So first is Sash, and this is the bridge funding that is gonna come out of the healthcare transformation grant. So we've been funding this, there's no funding in FY twenty seven budget for it. They're gonna use money from the healthcare transformation grant, the estimate treaty and other times. And this will allow SASH to be able to provide case management until-

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: It's like the rural health transformation.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Rural health, oh yeah, I got the wrong letter in there. Thank you. Rural. Think Sash might be in my grant. In the rural health transformation, I didn't see anything about Sash. I see Blueprint, I don't see any Sash might Double check. I will double check, but we did ask. Did anyone else hear me ask?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no. No, we did ask, and I've heard both that it's in and it's not in. So I think that our note here is there's a commitment in the building to have some bridge funding for this. I don't know where it's gonna come from, but

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: There was bridge funding in '26.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I will say this is probably gonna go in the cover memo, not here, because it is, again, something that the health care committee was supposed to address. It was not I I don't know why they didn't address it, but we will

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Satch is a weird thing. We have the admin budget in Dale, and the services budget is in Diva. And so this will go to I'm just going make a thing. I did. Oh, you did not?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Think I said said add to cover number.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, okay. Thank you. And then The

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: same as the last one. This also is in Diva, right? And so this is the program that supports workforce development of LNAs for skilled nursing facilities. We had five 100,001 time in last year, that money ended, but there is now 850,000 that they want to use from the Rural Health Transfer Rating.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, we don't need to put that in memo at

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: all.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, go through the- Just can read it, yeah. Yeah.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Anne? Yeah, go ahead.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: The numbers for Sash, it's 5,100,000 PC, 2,100,000 GM. So you have the right numbers.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: 5.1,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: 5.1.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's just, you know, they're 26, right, your calendar year '26.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we will, again, won't be on our chart, It's not our area of jurisdiction. Okay. It will be in our cover memo. Mhmm. Outlining it. Okay? Alright. Let's move to the Department of Health so we can get through this all. Okay.

[Unidentified Member]: Want me to just touch on the grand things? The last couple of days, it feels like it's been a choose your own adventure novel other than choose your own money bucket. It's gonna be very transparent. It's really gotten confusing. And to try to get some level of clarity where each thing has come to where I like to take everybody's on a great job of explaining, but it's gotten a little bit confusing. Just let me touch quickly on our decision. And there was questions asked in regards to the putting of the AHEC grants. We did follow-up to the best of our abilities and got limited responses back in regards to like one of the questions, can RHD grant be used for Ed Loan repayment? No, but what it can be used for is workforce development. It does not allow for loan repayment, but does allow for tuition reimbursement and forgiveness, and will focus on non physicians. The rural health transformation funding different from the AHAC funding, it will be much more impactful and they have upwards of $10,000,000 towards workforce development, as well as tuition reimbursement and forgiveness, as well as other initiatives. So we're going to continue with our recommendation to not fund the AIAC.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, anybody have any comments about that? We're all set. Do you know whether healthcare committee commented on this?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: They recommended it. It was one of their priorities. They recommended funding

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it. AHEC or the tuition can loan repayment?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Look. They have Maintain Area Health Education Centers, AHEC, Program Support, BDH, five fifty. So why don't

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we just support their recommendation?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Gross or no?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: For some reason, they think that they're supposed to do the health department as well. Don't ask me why.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: All right. But

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we can say that we support their recommendation.

[Unidentified Member]: Well, we still did our due diligence.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I got that.

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

[Unidentified Member]: I'll turn it on over to Zon to go through his rendition that he went through on Friday.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Well, nothing else changes after that. So as far as the Department of Health goes.

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah, we continue to support what we said the other day. I know we did have the conversation today. So it seems like the request made from prevention funds to fund these things, we still keep that in the letter. What should we do here?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I was Oh, what's in here?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: The grants, last, the third box down, the grants, three thirteen grants. This is a We talked about this with the Department of Health today.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I actually don't Since they are going in a separate bill,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I don't think we need to take them in here at all.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Okay. Yeah. That's where I

[Unidentified Member]: was coming from, kind of like this choose your own adventure in regards to buckets right now.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Where things appear and where they don't appear.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm deleting it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. We might just wanna make a note that substance use substance use treatment for special fund is traveling in June. So, you know, we don't need to see all the details, but we're just making a note. You can't have a net increase of one and then a total increase of I don't know what those numbers mean.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Okay. Well, let's take that out. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: just was to show when there were more when there were more boxes there. Were there were more

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I see. You're

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Okay. So I'll take out

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Take out what's not needed. Yeah. Okay. That brings us to the end. Hey, people.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Wait. You have two more on the bottom.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh. Oh. Oh, sorry. I went like that and I didn't see it.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Oh, here's the 21 positions.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, just threw that in there, but it doesn't have to be there. Just wanted to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, it just goes up. That was here. Okay, so the benefit assisters, we directed that we utilize funds set aside for the impacts of HR1 in the FY26 budget of $50,000,000 since this has a direct impact from HR1. And I think that it's important to put how many cross organization proposal. I can count that out. Okay, that'd be great. And then community outreach for Chittenden County. This is, again, comparing with House health care support. I'll put that in the cover memo. One thing that we did not talk about that was mentioned in this committee from the testimony of the community action agencies is the community resource center in Chittenden County that, again, was in the DMH budget. And what I'd like to be able to do is to indicate support of that, that it should have been in the DMH budget. But again, that would be on the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: front part of our cover memo. Cover memo.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. And indicating the importance of that to homelessness and providing services to people who are homeless.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And we did learn for the reach up that's in the Department of Mental Health budget with the DAs, they served over 400 clients in Okay. 2020

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: are there any final questions, comments? Ray and I will work on cleaning this up. If you have any recommendations for language that are not finalized yet, they have to be finalized today. And I'll be putting the memo and the language and the chart together and delivering it later this evening to House Appropriation. Thank you all for your hard work and appreciate the time and attention that you put into this. And a special shout out to Ray for being the facilitator of the chart. I appreciate that very much. Okay. So folks, we are going to move downstairs to Room 11 for a joint hearing on pre K, hearing the JFO report.