Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Hey. Good morning, everyone. This morning, we are taking up, a number of bills that are in process in the Senate, but are certainly making their way over here. H-six 60, H-six 57, we're gonna have a discussion, brief discussion on two zero six and then H-nine thirty eight and two seventy eight, which is actually in house ways and means. So that's what the morning looks like. If you want to refresh your agenda, there was new items added yesterday. So Katie, welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: Katie McClellan, Office of Commercial City Council. So I have a document put together. Maybe I should tell you where we are. We're looking at H six sixty, the Opioid Abatement Special Fund Appropriations. This was on the Senate floor yesterday for third reading. So there is no as passed Senate version that is ready yet, which makes it a little more complicated. What I have done is while I was working with the Senate, I was highlighting changes that they made, and I tried to retain a document at the end of that process of their committee report with all of their changes highlighted. So that is a document with highlights you have. This is not a perfect document. It doesn't reflect what happened on the floor. So I can talk to you a little bit about that. Also, it doesn't reflect when language was struck. It only shows when language was added. So not a perfect tool, but I think it gives you a sense of some of

[Speaker 0]: the changes. Oh, yes, do. Never mind. I was just going ask if we hadn't updated this spreadsheet from Nolan, and I see we do. I would take a hard copy, thank you. Thank you,

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: So this version has Reader Assistance headings. That's what you're seeing. Then, you can press your memory. Section one was the Appropriations from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund. In Subdivision 6, this is divided into two parts, A and B. And the split of the money has changed. So in Subdivision A, you have 600,000 to b d h for the creation of new recovery residence beds at NAR Level 3 or above. And then new language and B, 600,000 to the Department of Health for opioid use disorder residential treatment beds at American Society of Addiction Medicine level three point one. And I believe the house version, Nolan, was 900,000 to 300,000. Is that the split?

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Oh, 300, yeah. Forgot why it's a little bit different. So

[Speaker 0]: just for people who are looking at below the dark blue line on the sheet Nolan just gave us. That's what's being represented in this I'm a little confused now because 6 is up above.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. 300 for the Vermont Alliance recovery and the 900 for the recovery beds. And then they did 600 fluid recovery beds. Had a new category in July, and she did quite different.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: So the numbers in the bill

[Speaker 0]: don't match Nolan's Oh, okay. Sorry, sorry. Okay. They sort of look like they do up until this point. Yeah. Okay. I didn't

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: make up to attach those.

[Speaker 0]: No, no, that's okay. I guess that's what I was Yeah,

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: I had that's what was happening. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So then if I scroll down to page three, there

[Speaker 0]: I'm sorry. Just before you do that. And it's my understanding that, and correct me if I'm wrong, people from BDH, but that you prefer that to be $1 amount with some flexibility. The $606,100 or 9 and 3, they prefer it to be 1.2 with some flexibility. And they had provided language previously, but I don't have to write the tip of

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: my So not necessarily falling under seven or seven a, but even a broader

[Speaker 0]: Well, it would be no. It would be for that purpose, but not with the specific a language as we put in.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, Katie. Next, there are a few appropriations added on the senate side. From Subdivision 10, 800,000 to VDH for distribution to recovery centers. Subdivision 11287000 to DPS to provide funding for expanding the Public Safety Enhancement Team's harm reduction and strategic community intervention efforts. And then at the top of page four, dollars 1,100,000 to VDH for the purpose of awarding grants to Burlington to establish an OPC, provided, however, that the Department shall not distribute funding until a location for the Overdose Prevention Center has been procured by lease or purchase, the OPC is being fit up for its intended use, and the OPC is currently or will imminently become operational. And then you have this subsection B that is the intent of the General Assembly to continue to appropriate funds annually from the Special Fund for at least fiscal year '28 for the purpose of awarding grants to Burlington for the operation of the OPC unless the special fund does not have sufficient monies. So this language did run with the OPC language in previous years, the subsection B, although it said through at least fiscal year '27, not '28. And it was added specifically here because if you remember, there is a pause in your bill that there is not new funding considered next year unless there's this statutory reference that this is an annual consideration. So this automatically makes the OPC an annual consideration.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: To clarify, there is somewhere that there are four annual requests that will be considered going forward.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: So it's every discussion. Discussion section b.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So one,

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: three. So one, two, two, and three on your list, and then this new one.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Okay. Yeah. Alright. Alright. Just making sure that it's all And I'm sorry. Why does it have an extension by one year and not because the others don't seem to reference in

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: year. The previous versions had fiscal year '27, but in order to consider it by next year's advisory committee, it would need that extra year if they want. Does that make sense? Okay. Section two of the bill, there were no changes. Just to refresh your memory, this was a previous appropriation from the special fund, and there were some language changes to what that appropriation, how that could be used. So no changes since you sent it over. Section three, there were some changes, and they're not integrated here because it was a floor amendment. So what you're seeing for subdivision c is made it into the senate's version of the bill, but there were also amendments in subsection e. Am I looking at the right amendment? No. I'm not. Okay. This was the appropriations committee amendment. So to this 18 BSA forty seventy forty seven seventy two, there were changes to subsection e. It's currently called the heading for that section is currently called presentation, and that was changed to recommendations just to reflect what this section is about. And this talks about the recommendations from the advisory committee. And so this is adding in that the recommendations are developed in consultation with the Attorney General's office. So it reads, Annually, the advisory committee shall vote on its recommendations. Recommendations shall be informed by outcomes and measurements reported by previous grantees and developed in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. And then it goes on to have language that's not appropriated. Then there's a subdivision two that's added that says, If the department does not agree with the recommendations of the advisory committee, it may separately submit its own recommendations. That's been its practice anyway. It say that already? I mean, we don't have

[Speaker 0]: that section in front of us. So the underlying bill, I think it already says that. Yes. Yeah. So I'm not sure why it was add that. That was add. Okay.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll take another look. Okay. And then it goes on to say, develop in consultation with the office of the attorney general to the general assembly.

[Speaker 0]: Do we have any idea if there was any testimony taken from the office of the attorney general around the addition of their participation? I I don't know. I'm not always in the room.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Okay. Just hearing that, it's not clear to me what the intention is with respect to the consultation with the attorney general's office. Is that simply to ensure it matches up with the agreements? Or are we looking for them to be putting input in on health matters?

[Speaker 0]: I think it's because maybe there's been some wondering about what was appropriate uses of the funding according to the settlement. We heard from the AG's office directly, don't know if that was last week or week before now, I think it was last week. Relatively recently, that it actually is fairly broad. And so I don't know honestly if the addition of this is based upon previous information where we thought it was more narrow, and so the AG, the insertion of the AG is to make sure that we're not putting any of the sentiment dollars at risk. It's a little bit of an odd construct, to be honest with you. Go ahead, Chittenden.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: So for the record, Chittenden, want to be very clear that you got me to speak for them, but we did talk to them about this language and and they agreed we want to modify it a little bit. We're totally happy to consult with them about the legality, but they agree that they don't want to be weighing in on the specifics and we want to just have clarity between updating our recommendations and then just saying, yep, it's not legal, not legal. So we do have some language I can show folks. I do encourage you guys to hear from them again.

[Speaker 0]: I've just been in contact with Todd DeLos just to get their take on it. We had been preparing, obviously, committee for when we actually have possession of this bill, that we were going to go to conference committee on this bill, given the timing and the need to move things along. So we'll

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: have

[Speaker 0]: an opportunity to hear directly from them about that language.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That was just

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: my point that I was trying to make is it seems overly broad as far as what we really, I think, intend the attorney general to chime

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: in on.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I mean, the attorney general making substance use treatment decisions doesn't make a lot of sense. And to them either would be my guess. Okay. Thank you, Katie. You're welcome.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: Second instance of amendment on the appropriations amendment is an amendment to 18 BSA 4,774, which is the language for the allowable uses for the Opioid Abatement Special Fund. Right now, the lead in language is that the fund shall consist of all Abatement Account Fund monies disbursed to the Department by the National Abatement Account Fund, National Opioid Abatement Trust, Supplemental Opioid Abatement Fund, or any other settlement that must be utilized exclusively for opioid prevention, intervention, treatment, recovery and harm reduction services. And the addition in care, Senator Probes, was co occurring mental health conditions and co occurring substance use disorders. So that was tracking language that was in Appendix E. So that's that appropriate amendment. And then we come back to the highlighted draft in front of you. Section four, Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee shall not accept proposals for the special fund for fiscal year '28 unless the proposal was previously identified in statute as intended for annual funding. So this is highlighted because Senate Health and Welfare had a different proposal for a while, then they came back to the House proposal. So this isn't a change for you, but it was a change for them.

[Speaker 0]: Then I don't really understand that. So it's saying that the advisory committee cannot accept any proposals for FY '28. Oh, FY '28. Sorry. Never mind. Oh, no. That's '27 that we are taking a pause. So then what this is saying to me, and I'm wanting to ask if this is what it's meaning, is that it's only those four items at the top of the list that are for annual funding is what they will accept proposals for in 28? Yes. Okay. Well, that's a big change. We'll have

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: to talk about that. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: I wanna make sure I was reading it right. Just never reset. No. It says any shall not accept funding proposals from the special fund for FY '28 unless it was previously identified in statute as intended for annual funding. That means all one timers that we've been doing would no longer be able to submit an application. Is that right? Yes. So only those four things we have at the top of the list would be funded out. That's what the intent of that language is.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And our intent went fast out of this committee was that anyone who has received money, not just those four, but no new folks could request it. Is that

[Speaker 0]: No. That wasn't our intent. We didn't pass that language, but that's the intent that's coming back from the senate.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: That's what we passed.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Thought that's

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: Okay. That's not something that's what we passed.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: It seems to I

[Speaker 0]: have my 28.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: '28. We're funding '27. Yeah. So this is for the next

[Speaker 0]: Oh, I'm sorry. This is the '28. I'm sorry. I

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: This is a bad thing.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: I have

[Speaker 0]: to go back to, I understand what it's saying now. Thank you all for correcting me. I appreciate that.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: I think I would read this language in blue not to just be limited to the items that have that annual funding language in this. I think it is broader that if there was annual language in past bills, that that would potentially pick those up too. But I don't know if there are any that are different from what's in this bill. I'd have to confirm that.

[Speaker 0]: I can't recall any of that. I don't have lot of blind memory today. Go ahead.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: Sheila, just not aware, so I'm not going defer to Katie on what the language means here. The intent that the health department and that I think the council would prefer is that if it has been funded previously with this money, that we would let the council look at the results and the evaluation and make recommendation on whether to continue funds with that. So not just those four, but the ones that have been funded to date, so that we're not starting and stopping some of the other things that you all have funded and that the council has recommended in the past, but to not take new things that have not been previously funded.

[Speaker 0]: But it says identified in statute as intended for annual funding. And I think we've been specific about those items that we've intended for annual funding.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: You absolutely have. So if that is the interpretation of the committee and the intent, I would ask that we modify it so that it has been previously funded so that they can look at things like contingency management treatment or DOC recovery services, outreach and engagement. No, no, that was in there. Sorry. I think that's perfectly bad at the pulpit. There's just a bunch of other pieces that you guys have funded year over year that weren't built for that you have identified in the past. But I think it would be great to have the council look at the evaluation results and at how it's going and provide recommendations on whether you can continue to fund that fund part.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, I appreciate that clarification. It's not exactly what it says here. I don't think it read with plain meaning.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: Can I? Yeah. I thought during our deliberations, we passed it out, we worked, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought we were intentional about focusing on things that have been identified to be an annual thing, because they're more established than the program. So if we have perhaps funded a program previously, but it hasn't been an annual commitment in the last three, four years, then do we want to, because the funds are dwindling, I thought we wanted to focus the efforts on things that we've identified as being established and ever since annual funding were identified

[Speaker 0]: to continue? Well, as the language left here, it was only those things that we had identified, the language here said for annual funding. It wasn't other things that had been funded more than once. It was just those things that had already been identified. But those are just those four items. I'm just clarifying that that was our intent. I thought that was our intent. So the fourth, I'm

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: not sure.

[Speaker 0]: I guess what I'm seeing here is a change. And then it goes on to say that if the Katie, don't you just go on with the rest of that? Because it's saying, okay, if after the committee looks at all those things, then they're able to take up other things. And I just want to understand because the original request from the health department was to pause funding and now they're reversing that. You didn't ask for that yellow language then.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: So we would like to not accept new proposals.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe this did come from the health department. Yeah, that

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: we like that language. I'm just asking that it not the blue language, the blue language, the annual funding. I think it would be good to look at the things that we have funded because there are not just those four things that have gotten multiple years of reoccurring funding, that you all have support and need to have. Now, like you said, Chair, if you leave it as annual funding and the council funds those pieces and then decides to look at the rest of the things that have been funded in the past, would pledge counsel that hopefully the language would allow for that. And so maybe that's Okay and we could be Okay with that. I think it is important to think about those programs that have been started with this money that are not those four, that we funded year over year to see how they're doing and what's happening with them and how to move them forward. And we want to pause those new applications so that we have time to do that because it has been many, many, many projects that you all have funded for this study.

[Speaker 0]: And I think that the language in yellow would need to be a little bit more specific because it just says based on needs assessments. Doesn't say based upon previous funding. Go ahead, Jessica. Jessica Chittenden, I'll just let him know.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: I think what we were trying to achieve with that language is instead of folks act soliciting individual proposals for projects, we wanted them to be able to look more holistically at the broader categories of potential funding, so like recovery or whatever that they thought were priorities for additional funding in addition to the fuller annually funded projects, so I think this was an attempt to try to gauge how OSEP is thinking about if they are to make recommendations, that it would be them soliciting individual project proposals, they would be looking at these broader needs assessments and statewide data to identify categories of funding, but then they would recommend for buckets of money, and then the Department of Health or whoever else you would call to do this would solicit the actual project proposals and RFPs, and that wouldn't be the burden of the committee to evaluate those individual plans. So if that is not something that is of interest to this committee. We're happy to discuss that, but that was the intent of that language.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, I appreciate the clarification. So we'll have to have some discussion about that. But I think given, I encourage people to look at the balances that are on other side of this and recognize the things that might fall into a category of as things that we have funded, we've already committed annual funding for, or at least considered annual funding for. And then those things that Sheila had been talking about, like the corrections program, the Peer Recovery Services and Corrections, and some of the other things that we have funded year over year, along with the things that we had said before that we would consider, it's not going to leave a lot of money at the bottom line. I don't know what's going to come in this year. We don't know what's coming in this year, but I guess I'm a little leery, Jessica, of just bringing that broad open, to be honest. Okay, so we'll consider that language and maybe propose something different back to the Senate.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: I know we're moving past this, but I'm looking for the language that already says that the department can submit submit its own recommendations, and I'm not seeing them. What I'm seeing so I'm curious what language you're just so we can cross t's and dot i's. The language I'm seeing is that if there an affirmative vote of a majority of the committee goes concurrently to the Department of Health and to the general assembly because there was a year where the advisory it used to be the advisory committee's recommendations funneled through the Department of Health, and there was a year where what came from

[Speaker 0]: the Department of Health didn't reflect what the advisory committee decided on, which was why this language was changed. Is there separate language specifically about where is that? Pretty sure because we invented the language to say that both the advisory committee and the health department could submit separate recommendations. Where is that?

[Jessica Schwan (Vermont Department of Health)]: Jessica Schwan with Department of Health. So in eighteen ks-four seventy seven, four eighty two, that allows the department to submit a spending plan to the general assembly informed by the recommendations of OSAC. So the committee's recommendations are in 4772, and then authority the for the department to submit recommendations is 4774 or A2. A2, that's right.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's submit it.

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

[Speaker 0]: Which is why the last two years we've gotten separate recommendations from the health department. Last year they matched up, this year not so much.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Let me pull the document back up. Okay. There is a new section five from the Senate about quarterly reporting. This requires the Department of Health to submit quarterly reports regarding expenditures from the special fund. Specifically, the report shall identify funds appropriated from the special fund that remain unobligated or unspent or both, shall include an explanation as to why the funds have not been fully distributed. Reports are due on October 1 and 07/01/2027. Those are submitted to JFC. Reports due during the session, January 1 and 04/01/2027, are submitted to the Appropriations Committees and Policy Committees. And the Department is required to post reports on its website. Section six is the reversions. That hasn't changed since it left here. Section seven is appropriations from the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund. I believe this reflects what left your committee, but not what left the House. There are four appropriations that in the House version had come from the Opioid Abatement Special Fund. And here they are coming from the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund.

[Speaker 0]: Recall, that's where we wanted to come. That's where our committee wanted them to come from. So you're back to the committee version. Yes, the appropriations committee had changed it and now it's being changed back.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: In section eight, this is the statutory language about the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Funds, and this specifies that as part of a budget presentation, VDH is to report to the Appropriations and Policy Committees on its specific funding proposal from the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund for the coming year. The report shall include an estimate of the monies in the Special Fund anticipated to remain unallocated at the end of the fiscal year. And then you have an updated title. This is the updated title that it left your committee with to reflect the fact that they're appropriations from two special funds, not one. Okay. I should sorry. There's another section. There is another floor amendment that passed. And that is a plan, a syringe recovery plan. And that reads, on or before 12/15/2026, the health department shall submit a plan to the policy committees containing recommendations for the implementation of one or more syringe recovery models throughout the state to enhance public health and safety. The plan shall require syringe service providers to report to the department on the percentage of distributed syringes that are returned to the provider or otherwise collected. We already have that.

[Speaker 0]: And that's already been in statute.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: How will we know if a distributed syringe is the one that's returned?

[Speaker 0]: You're not going to know that. Syringe is the same. Yeah, okay.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: I think you have syringe collection, but you don't have I don't think you

[Speaker 0]: have a report on the percent out and the percent coming back. Think that's The problem is that it's the percent coming back. That's not the only method of collection of syringes. They're collected in multiple places and locations. You can drop them in drop boxes. It's okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Can I ask a general question? Part of our decision making is as you focus this on what is maybe left in the bottom line, what do we know, what time of year do we get the funding?

[Speaker 0]: Let's see if nobody Is knows

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: it we're definitely getting money in and well, could at least be 2,000,000, but it could be 8,000,000. What do we know about this?

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm gonna defer to the health department, but my understanding is that Sackler agreement, we don't know how much we're going to get, when we're going to get it, and how we can see this will be. Other ones I think are probably pretty consistent with the Shayna to see if that's what they're adding.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: Sure, I'll share a little bit of The money does not come in at one given time, and we do get different amounts, different years. If they pay, companies have these options to pay early, and if they pay early, then they pay less overall. So it's really hard to predict. And we kind of like check-in of like, what's in the bag. It also goes through a couple of processes. So it comes through the state and it goes to municipalities directly, some of it, and then some of it is transferred to the department. Yeah, it's not a- There's not a clean, like, this is when I know exactly how much money I have, which is why I think you all want that quarterly report, which we're really happy to provide as that's kind of what we're working with. So it's what you guys should be working with too. It's not perfect. And like no one said, this next committee could come all at once. And I think the committee I'd like the committee to think about what you said over time. But it might not come that way.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Recognizing it can be advanced, if you will, paid internally, is there a floor? If there are five companies that settled over Trump years, is there a floor that we know we're going get them in from this amount annually, but they may advance it? That's even Right. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So we're going to wrap this discussion up for right now. We can ask the AG's office if they have a better idea about that. We have to get through a number of other bills. And this bill did pass third reading yesterday in the Senate. So I am interested in a motion to not concur with the Senate and to request a committee of conference. So thank you. I see by straw poll those folks who are in favor of requesting a committee of conference for this? Okay. Thank you, representative Steady. I see you. Okay. So 12345678. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we will be requesting a committee conference on this today. I think today. It's not on the calendar, but I think it will be announced. Let's move on to the next bill, 57. Okay.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: Just to let you know where we are, the six fifty seven was for third reading yesterday. So again, we don't have a clean draft of all of the amendments. As you remember, we had two different attorneys working on that. There were not a lot of changes on the Senate side, but there were changes to the Social Security section that John worked on. So John is there to walk you through those changes, then I'll review the others with you.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, window seats in case anybody wants them. You're welcome to use them.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: could I grab a Zoom link, please?

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Morning, John.

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. How are you?

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: Nice to see you.

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: You? John Gray, ops letter of senate council. I'll try to be relatively quick this morning once I jump into the Zoom. Just to keep this up, posture for the language that I'm gonna show you arrived in the form of a floor amendment offered by the committee, health and welfare. If you just compare sections two and three, which relate to the Social Security benefits for use in foster care between the as passed by the house and the committee report, those sections will be the same. So the sole changes are pretty limited, and they're just set out in a floor amendment. If we had the full clean amendment, I would show you that text, but it's gonna be easiest just to see it in the floor amendment. Just a second, and that will hop in.

[Speaker 0]: I will note to committee members that there has been some discussion around psychiatric residential treatment facilities for youth. You'll see on our committee's website, I'm not sure if was today, yesterday or the day before, a letter from the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate, as well as a response from the Department for Children and Families. So I wanted to make sure that you're aware of that. There were some questions raised by the Department of Mental Health around the applicability of the bill to PRTS. And there's disagreement among the parties, shall we say.

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: So just to orient you guys to remind you of what we're talking about, these were the pieces that related to the diversion of Social Security benefits for youth and foster care. DCF receives those benefits on their behalf as representative payee. Pieces I wanted to flag to tee up the language change relate to the effective date, which I'm not gonna show you here, but I'll just talk about and mainly C. I never get to highlight properly, but you'll recall that one of the big things that's asked for is if you're no longer applying the social security benefits to the direct care of the child, but you're otherwise conserving those benefits for the future or providing for unmet needs above that basic level, you need to store it in a particular account. So that's what you see in C1. DCF needs to, with the assistance of the treasurer, establish a trust account for the child, which shall be a qualified ABLE account for any child receiving SSI benefits. That qualified ABLE account, as you know, is a tax advantaged savings account for children with disabilities. So they're eligible to receive SSI. Here is the amendment that you'll see in the full clean text once it's available. But the first instance is to change that trust account to just be an account. So the first thing I wanna clarify, jumping back to the old language is that this would not disrupt the final clause here, which shall be a qualified ABLE account for any child receiving SSI benefits. That would still be the case, still a trust account on their behalf. This is saying for children outside of that, the treasury department could just stand up an account and it needed to be a trust account. This is a request that came through the treasurer's office. The concern I think that was articulated was that having it in the form of a trust account might actually could lead to effects where maybe it disrupts the withdrawal of the funds at the end. So for administrative purposes, the request was to convert this to just be an account. In any event, I would remind you that the representative payee obligations that DCF has still stand. So that obligation they have to act, to manage in the best interest of the child would persist whatever you call this account. So I just wanted to call it out as something that might mitigate fears you might have around switching from trust account to account. The other changes to the effective dates, sections two and three are what we're talking about under the sPass file house version. These would take effect on 07/01/2027. This pushes it back by a year to be 07/01/2028. And, again, just to frame where this came from, I think there are some concerns as you guys heard around DCF's capacity just to handle implementing this. The testimony I recall was that one person was available essentially to manage the benefits. So if you started having all these requirements, standing up separate accounts for each, checking on the federal resource limitations that it might be hard to roll that out. In any event you have time between now and 07/01/2028, if you wanted to take a different approach such as a phased implementation plan, where it's one of the suggestions that was heard, which is that you could apply this exclusively to children in particular age levels and then extend it over time to expand. But anyway, that's the two changes, switching from trust account to account and pushing back the effective date by year.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, John. I think representative Steady has a question.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I do. My concern would be if a parent gets if you do just an account and not a trust account for the child, the parent gets custody back of the child. I think with just an account, they can take that child's money. I work at a bank and a little girl came in and her mother took all of her money. So I would be care at least the trust account, you're protecting the child's money for that child. But if you do just an account, then the parents could get custody of that child, let's say, at 10 years old and get all that child's money. Am I correct?

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: So I think I don't know the answer to this. It is certainly the case that a trust account is more protective. There's a fiduciary obligation in that instance. I will say that when this was suggested, some of the thinking there was that we're talking about departures upon age 18, at exiting care essentially, in which case I would assume that that concern wouldn't persist in the same way because at that point the child would be an adult. But I think it is a relevant question if you're passing in and out of foster care, say you're 16 and you're passing out, how would that account be dealt with? I think I would still offer the I think that's I think that's a fair that's something to think about. Yeah.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I just know it happened to a little girl, and it broke my heart, but she had to put her mother on her account. And she didn't know her mother took all of her money. And a trust account would protect the child, a regular account. If the parent got custody back, they could take that child's money. Mine, if they're 18. Thanks for listening.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I mean, I think if the parent becomes guardian, they actually have a legal right to do that, which is not anything we can really change in this bill. Go ahead, Representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'm just wondering if there are some built in protections for the fact that it is an ABLE account. I'm not familiar with ABLE accounts, but I didn't know if that created some boundaries.

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: For the ABLE account, I think you're still in the same position as you were under the version as passed the house. Those would still be in the form that they are. This doesn't disrupt how the qualified ABLE accounts work. It just works for this affects the children who do not receive SSI benefits, the kind of account that they would have, which is not gonna be a trust account under this particular language. I think the other way to respond to which I think what the chair was getting at is that if the child exits and then the parent is representative payee at that point effectively, which is the switch from DCF to the parent being the representative payee on behalf of the child, at that point, they have the obligation to serve the best interests of the child, but it is ultimately their call what to do. But this wouldn't disrupt anything about the qualified natal accounts. It doesn't change the mechanism for this.

[Unidentified participant (possible committee/staff)]: I think you raise a good point that should the child come back into custody of the parent, then any payments received from social security would go to the parent anyways, because then they would be the payee for the remainder of the time that the child lives with the person. For the remainder, actually, think for the-

[Speaker 0]: As long as they

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: have custody.

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: As long

[Unidentified participant (possible committee/staff)]: as they have custody and then it turns over, if it's survivor benefits, believe it turns over to the child when they are 18. I I don't know at the top of mind. I don't know.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So I guess the point is here that I appreciate the treasurer's attention to that and understanding of the I think we originally sort of got language from the treasurer. I think that they have been thinking about that. And so we can appreciate that. And we are not gonna be able to limit parental rights in this bill. That's not our role for this bill. So our role in this bill is to make sure that when DCF has custody, that those funds are saved for the children. That's what the purpose of this bill is. I appreciate that thought representative Steady. Unfortunately, we're not able to do anything about that in this bill. Okay, John, do you have anything else for your

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's it for me.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, thank you.

[John Gray (Senate Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you guys. Good to see you all. Thanks for your attention.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: So for this H. Two sixty seven, I do not have a PDF of the marked up copy, but there are very few changes. I will show you the committee report.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: I'm checking. Sorry, I'm just moving on.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, yeah, no. Well, we're moving on because we're still on 657, just the other parts of 650 Okay, thank you, I missed. Yeah, yeah, that's okay.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Thought I heard

[Speaker 0]: something else.

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: So the other changes are in section four. So section four was the unaccompanied youth certificate, refresh your memory. A few changes in this section. One change was in subsection d, this language. So in the house version, you specifically refer that the department shall contract contract with Elevate Youth. I initiated this change because we generally wouldn't recognize a specific nonprofit organization in statute, and I didn't pick it up as it left the House. But it definitely jumped out to me once it got to the Senate. So I added a descriptor of what this entity would be that the department would contract with to develop the form. The next change is in the list of how you could use the form. So that's this long alphabetical list, and this k is new. Participate in a part diversion program for the youth substance awareness safety program.

[Speaker 0]: So this is just reminding members there's a list of things for which those funds could be used on the part when DCF could access them. Is that what you're saying? Yes. That form could be used to access these or to participate in these programs. Participate in these programs. And this is just adding another one for substance use treatment. Anybody have any questions about They're both court operated programs. And

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: then the final change was a floor amendment, so it's not going to be reflected here. But there was, if you remember in section 16 of the bill, there was the prenatal working group with DCF to look at the practice of the pregnancy calendar that DCF uses. So there was a list of entities who are on that working group. And yesterday, the Senate voted to add a new member of the working group who is a member from the Women's Center in Middlebury.

[Speaker 0]: And so I'm understanding that there's going to be a potential reconsideration of that today. I don't know. But that's a possibility. So we'll have to wait and see what happens today. Any other changes, Katie? Okay. So this is not on the calendar yet. So if it does come up on the calendar, on our calendar, sometimes the speaker will say from the floor, such and such as based upon action of the Senate, I would stand up and ask for a postponement, if that's the case. Because I, one, I want us to have a little bit of discussion about the PRTF issue. I also want to see if there's any change that happens on the Senate floor today. Okay, any other questions on this? After a lot of testimony, it didn't really change much, except for that last minute change. Okay, thank you, Katie.

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: So now we have a little bit of time, and then we're going to be I don't know, since we have Nolan and Katie here both now, do you want to just continue on to enable you to get on to whatever you're going to do after this?

[Jessica Chittenden (Vermont Department of Health)]: What happened was healthcare at ten.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, is that still on? Okay. Yeah. All right. So we took our last bit of testimony on S206 from the Office of Professional Regulation. And while we've taken a lot of testimony on S206, I'll be honest, I believe that there is some merit to the issues that they bring. But I also believe that there's additional information that we need to dig deeper into. The main one being, do we actually need to do this via the Office of Professional Regulation? Can it not be accommodated within the regulatory framework of DCF, like some other states are doing? So what I'm proposing is that we recognize the value of the work that has been done to date and that we essentially not vote on this bill, even though I know we put a lot of time and energy and effort into it. But I really want to signal to the people who have been working on this and the

[Katie McClellan (Legislative Counsel)]: people who are not in favor of

[Speaker 0]: this, that it needs further work from us, from, I guess I would say, whomever's sitting in these seats next year. But I think one of the main things is whether or not this can be accommodated in a regulatory process, as we heard that some other states are doing. And also to hear more from the Department for Children and Families about whether the CVDIS system, as it's being developed, accommodate a search function around individual employees, similar to what the department was, not department, the Office of the Secretary of State was speaking to. So there's an incredible value to recognizing the professionals in the field. And we have made a lot of strides in Act 76, but we are also relatively new in Act 76. It hasn't been on the books that long, and we just have not that long into the full implementation phase of it and understanding that there are additional costs associated with this bill. I'm suggesting to committee members, absent any objection, that we leave it on the wall for this year and tackle it again next biennial. I support that. Are people okay with that? Okay, I do want to extend my thanks to everybody who has testified on this bill and all the work that has gone into this bill, because I know it's been two years now and now going to move into a third year. But sometimes the legislative process is quick and sometimes the deliberative process is slow for a reason. And I think this is one of those cases where we need to be absolutely sure that this is the right way to go. And I think we need to do additional work in this area. So thank you to the people in the room who have worked on this and for those who are listening, who are interested in this. I appreciate that very much. Okay, so why don't we take a brief break until 10:15 or it might be whenever Katie gets back. And if he's not back by then, we can switch it up and we can review the proposed amendment on S-two 78, the Bill, which is now posted, right, Laurie? Yes. It's under Sophie