Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We are still here at Leith Means, and it is Wednesday, March 11, 10:35. We are going to take a look at H549. And Hillary, I don't think you've been here before. Nice to meet you. You want to join us, thank you.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Welcome to Ways and Means. Thank you. Lovely sunlit room. It's nice

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to be

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: up there. So

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: H549, we would love a high level what is it and then just, like, the pieces around the fees, if that works for you. And you're welcome to share your screen. Thanks.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So for the record, Hillary Chittenden aims for the Office of Legislative Counsel. This is draft 4.1, passed by House Corrections. Big picture, the bill proposes to provide individuals leaving correctional facilities with non driver identification cards, replacement operators' licenses, or replacement learner's permits at no cost. So under current law, individuals who have been sentenced for six months or more can get a non driver identification card upon release at no cost. But if they want a replacement license, it is at cost. And folks who are detained in correctional facilities don't have a mechanism to obtain any of these forms of identification. So the bill would change that in two main ways. First, for sentenced folks, they would be able to obtain replacement operator's licenses or a replacement learner's permit at no cost. And individuals detained for six months or more would be able to get a non driver identification card, a replacement license, or a replacement permit. The process works a little bit differently for detained individuals because DOC can't predict when they will actually be leaving the facility. So for individuals who are sentenced to six months or more, they get the card itself when they leave. But for individuals who are detained, DOC collects all of the necessary documentation. They give the documentation to the person upon release, And then they can

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: go to DMV and get whatever part they are. In this current political moment, the word detained has, I think, brings up a specific category of detained individuals. But I think you're talking about folks who are incarcerated pending trial. Exactly.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So sorry, step back. In justice system, the traditional world, anyone who is being held in custody awaiting trial is referred to as a detained individual, or someone who has been detained. So they have not been convicted of anything, but they have not been able to postpone, or they are otherwise being held at pending trial. That's not the norm in Vermont, but there are a number of individuals who are detained for various reasons pending trial. Thanks. And I imagine the goal is that it's really hard to get a place to live or a job if you are Exactly. I think the goal is to facilitate reentry in whatever way is possible. And having a valid form of identification enables a lot of daily tasks for people who

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: are leaving depression. It's great. Thank you. Ask for a little more clarification on definitions, I'll give you

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a real example. Somebody who was detained and was bounced from state to state in detention and maybe ended up in Vermont and then was released but has no ID, but their original ID might have been in another state. Did that person be eligible? So generally, this applies not to, for example, the very few people that DOC has custody subject to federal detainers or federal immigration detainers, it's generally folks who are in custody on state things. The DMV can only issue identification cards if there is proof of Vermont residence after release. So I think from the example you described, if the person were going to a White House in Vermont, if the person had some address they were going to afterwards in Vermont, Part of what DOC does is provide documentation of the planned address upon release. And that's what they would give DMV. So as long as they could satisfy the requirements that DMV generally has for issuing these kinds of identification, then they could get an identification card. Or likely not a I think replacement license might be harder. It's because it's relying on having either a non expired license or one that's been expired less than three years, it doesn't cover as many people. And if you don't have a recently expired or active license, then you'd have to retake a road test. And then you are outside of the replacement license category, and this would not apply. Does that help answer?

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: So if you were a federal detainee and you were

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: released in Vermont and moved to a halfway house, you would be eligible for one of these executions. As long as you can provide the requisite documentation that anyone else would have to. Yep. The bulk of this bill is about folks who are held under Vermont courts for mental law. Exactly. I can say there was not much discussion or testimony focused on that particular scenario. So the bulk of it was thinking folks were detained on Vermont charges, state law charges.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Do you have a cost estimate of what this will Logan will talk us through that.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: These individuals that are incarcerated, we're talking about US citizens, I'm sorry.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So it could be someone who is incarcerated or was a US citizen or who is not. The kind of ID that you can get depends on whether you have proof of citizenship. So there are federal requirements to get what's called a real ID, which lets you cross the border or board a plane. And you have to show some proof of citizenship to get a real ID. If you do not have that or do not want to share it, you can get a non real ID form of each of the kinds of identification, which won't let you cross the border or board a plane, but you can use them as proof of identity in applying for housing or other reasons you might want a card within the state. Does that answer your question or not quite?

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Could you go over that again regarding the non citizens?

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Could you get

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: a non real ID card? Is that issued by the corrections department?

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's all issued by DMV. So yes.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That's true. Current law. Yes. Yes.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Correct. So the role that DOC is playing here is a facilitation role. DMV remains the one issuing, reviewing, doing everything it currently does when anyone comes in to apply. DOC is playing a role to communicate to DMV which individuals in custody are interested in these forms of identification. And DOC does work to collect Vermont birth certificates or other forms of documentation that are required for someone to apply for either a non driver ID card or a replacement license.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: We're not changing the law that we currently have on the books, and you're just, the corrections department is a facilitator, I guess, for the incarcerated person in helping that individual get it.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, so it's not changing anything about how DMV issues licenses, it's just providing for the certain group of folks that DOC will help facilitate getting them either documents or the card itself. And then the difference would be that it is at no cost. So if you and I think Logan might be speaking to this shortly, but if you are, if I go to get a replacement Vermont license, I would pay, I think, 24. And so the difference would just be this expansion does it at no cost.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Can you tell me the vote of the Corrections and Institutions Committee?

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It was eleven zero zero. Does the Department of Corrections facilitate access to those documents of people who are, so they would help the person retrieve the documents needed to get the documentation? Yes. So they have a documentation specialist, I believe is the title, who testified before corrections and talked about what that person currently does to facilitate getting documents for the folks who under current law can get non driver identification card. So current law, if you are sentenced to six months or more, you can get the non driver ID card. So that testimony indicated that they have tried but been unable to obtain birth certificates from other states. But they can get Vermont birth certificates if someone doesn't have them. And they help with providing the proof of address, which can be a little tricky when you are thinking about timing, leaving a correction facility in counseling.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: But maybe this will be answered later on. Personnel, will we require additional personnel in corrections to do this type of work?

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The testimony from both the Department of Corrections and from the Department of Motor Vehicles was that they did not anticipate needing additional personnel. I think the DMV has some limitations in being able to predict how many of these new cards they might be issuing. But on their understanding of the numbers, their testimony was that they would not need personnel. Thank

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you so much. Yeah.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Welcome. Thank you for joining us.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Was great to

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: have you in waves and you're welcome to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: the election adventure and all the.

[Logan Miller, Joint Fiscal Office]: Good morning. For the record Logan Miller of the Joint Fiscal Office. I have a very brief fiscal note on the bill. It would be helpful to follow it up on the screen.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That would be lovely, thank you.

[Logan Miller, Joint Fiscal Office]: Perfect. So this is also on your committee page, also on the bill page. The first two paragraphs are essentially just explaining what we've just explained to you, so I won't go through those again. The third paragraph there gets into some of the details related to this bill. So in 2025, or as you know, there's the current law where a certain subset of people can get the non driver identification. Currently In 2025, that was about four sixty five individuals received that for free. And then DOC estimates well, they had numbers that between 2022 and 2025, there were an average of 46 individuals who would, based on this expansion proposed in this bill, now be able to get one of these identifications for free. So you're looking at 465 currently getting it, plus potentially 46 additional people getting this. Then under current law, have the the fees there. The non driver IDs have an application fee of $29. The replacement operator license and the replacement learner's permits have an application fee of $24 As was mentioned, the sort of fiscal impact of this bill is that those people will no longer be paying the associated fee when they get this. Again, it's an average about 46 new individuals. So the fiscal impact is really de minimis on this. It'll be a few thousand dollars at most. And then that's what the last sentence basically just explains that and said that we'll have a de minimis and fiscal impact given the relatively small amount of people that this is applicable to do.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: When it's time for them to renew again, they're their own. I

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: just wanna say I think this is a great deal. It's unbelievable. Like, I've worked with folks when they were leaving correctional facilities and trying to get their lives It's in really hard. Once you're sort of out on the street, it's really hard to get your documents in order. It's really hard to build a life without documents. Thank you very much. Of course. Anyone have any outstanding anything on this bill?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Madam Chair, I would move that we find h five forty nine favorable with a de minimis fiscal impact.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Kimbell? How do I say your name? We find h 549 favorable. Representative Branagan seconds. Any discussion? Seeing none, if the clerk could please file the roll.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Certainly. Representative Branagan? Yes. I'll vote yes as representative Burkhardt. Representative Higley is absent. Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland? Yep. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page?

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Waszazak? Yep. Representative Canfield? Yes. And Representative Kornheiser?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yes. We have voted a bill favorable, Ten-zero-one.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Who would like to report this? Great. Oh,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: sorry, that was representative Waszazak. Thank That's the last question. You very much.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think it's a de minimis.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Always a pleasure.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: It's my favorite word.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Like a small

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: pleasure out of it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: They did find the thing that you've lost. It's Okay. We are going to shift gears and pick up H558. If folks remember, that is the bill related to Medicaid School Based Services Program and essentially moving the administration of it from the Agency of Education, where it has been, to the Agency of Human Services, who handles all other Medicaid billing in state government. And we are hearing from two business managers. And then if we have any questions afterwards, we have Ashley Berliner here from the Agency of Human Services who can answer any of those questions. So with that, Heather, hello. Nice to see you.

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: Hello, everyone. It's nice to see all of you as well. And I have Nicole here with me as well. So thank you for having us. For the record, Heather Bushey, I am the past president of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, and I am the director of finance for the Essex Westward School District, and I'm gonna let Nicole introduce herself for the record.

[Nicole Lee, Finance Director, Champlain Valley School District]: For the record, my name is Nicole Lee. I'm the finance director for Champlain Valley School District.

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: Hi, Nicole.

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: So nice to see Nicole in this seat. So, I'm very excited to have her with me today in a different capacity. So, you should have our testimony. I submitted it this morning. I want to just thank you all for the opportunity to have us speak on H558. We appreciate the legislature's intent to maximize federal Medicaid reimbursement and ensure compliance with federal requirements, and VASPO shares that goal. Medicaid school based services are a critical funding source that support medically necessary services for students, including those with disabilities. However, while well intentioned, it is essential to fully understand the potential impacts of this proposal on service delivery, operational capacity, and fiscal sustainability for school districts across Vermont before moving forward. At a time when federal actions are creating significant uncertainty in funding, and previously enacted legislation is already affecting schools and communities, we urge you to exercise due diligence in understanding the full scope and implications of this proposal. We must be careful not to unintentionally restrict Oh, sorry. Did somebody say something?

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Sorry. No,

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: no worries. We must be careful not to unintentionally restrict schools' ability to provide critical services to students, particularly in regions that are already facing shortages of skilled professionals. H. Five fifty eight transfers sole authority over the Medicaid School Based Services program to the Agency of Human Services, and establishes a new reimbursement structure, in which 55% of federal reimbursement is paid to school districts. That is an increase from the current 50% under current statute, and while it appears favorable on its face, the broader fiscal picture and the individual district impact is unclear to us. So key questions that remain for VASPO are: How will cost based reimbursement be calculated under the new model? What assumptions were used in modeling district level impacts? What does the modeling show for impacts by school district on Medicaid funding? Will funding be reduced based on the percentage of Medicaid eligible students in a district, and will all providers be eligible for cost based reimbursement under the plan? For some districts, Medicaid revenue is a substantial and recurring source of support for clinicians, special education and intervention services. A reduction in funding, even a modest one, will be difficult to absorb and will inevitably increase pressure on the education fund and local taxpayers, which is certainly something that we don't want to be doing at this point. Additionally, there was an FAQ document that was put out by AHS that references a cost settlement formula that may require local education agencies to return funds on a regular basis due to overpayment relative to federal financial participation rates. If overpayment is anticipated, why wouldn't we adjust interim payments and calibrate them more precisely to projected costs? Regular clawbacks are just going to create budget instability and complicate local financial planning. The bill authorizes AHS to adopt rules identifying eligible services and participation requirements. However, we don't have details on who will be considered an eligible provider under the new plan, whether staff who are currently eligible to bill under the existing program may lose eligibility, what services will remain eligible, what documentation will be required for services to be eligible. Currently, educators providing developmental and assistive therapy account for a significant portion of Medicaid revenue in many districts. We don't know if these will continue to qualify, and if not, the fiscal implications could be substantial. In addition, we must consider contracted providers, because many districts rely on contracted providers for speech language pathologists, occupational therapists, psychologists, and other professionals. In certain regions of the state, providers choose to both serve students in schools and maintain their private practice outside of the school setting. Under current rules, once a provider reassigns billing rates to a school district, they cannot independently bill Medicaid. In cases where providers maintain external practices, districts often do not reassign billing rights. Instead, the district pays the provider at a reduced rate and the provider bills Medicaid directly to be made whole. So how will the proposed carve out ensure that health care provider shortages for school based services decrease rather than grow? And if billing structures or reassignment requirements become more restrictive, providers may simply choose not to work in schools, further limiting student access to care. We also have some practical concerns like how will contracted providers participate in random moment time studies if they're not employees? And where claim submission is still required, how will these claims be paid? On a typical health care timeline with explanations of benefits, or will they be held for quarterly interim payments? Currently, the AOE staff also provide critical training, technical assistance, and audit oversight related to school based Medicaid. The FAQ document that was put out by AHS seems to indicate that school districts will now be responsible for adhering to and training staff on Program Integrity policies, including FERPA and IDEA data sharing requirements, and may need to conduct self audits or desk audits. So while AHS and DIVA will provide instructional guides, this represents a shift in responsibility to districts, if I'm understanding the FAQ correctly. It seems to suggest that support is diminishing while compliance obligations remain complex. It would be our hope that the level of support currently available to districts under the school based Medicaid program would remain intact as the program shifts to AHS. Medicaid school based services are not a peripheral funding stream. They are integral to how many districts deliver medically necessary services to students, particularly those with disabilities. Any structural change of this magnitude must be accompanied by transparent fiscal modeling by district, clear definitions of eligible providers and services, a stable and predictable reimbursement framework, preservation of support and expertise in training and oversight, clear communication to LEAs on changes that will be expected throughout the transition of the program, and safeguards against unintended service reductions in rural and underserved regions. We truly hope that the committee will gain a full understanding of the downstream impacts of this bill before advancing it. Our shared goal is to maximize federal reimbursement while ensuring that Vermont students continue to receive the services they need without shifting additional financial burdens onto local districts and taxpayers. I hope that your takeaway from this is that really how we are feeling both from business managers in the field and special educators in the field is that we really don't have enough detail on this bill to either support or come out against it because we just have not been provided with accurate details and information. So thank you for your time and consideration and Nicole and I are also happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: When I hear this list, I think, okay, would it be the roles of the agency of education to sit down with this list and to figure this out? Is that at their role or

[Nicole Lee, Finance Director, Champlain Valley School District]: whose role

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: is that?

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: I think it's a good question. I think because of the transition, I believe it would be AHS. And I did have a meeting yesterday afternoon with Ashley that was super helpful. And we did offer to Ashley, both from a special educator standpoint as well as from a business manager standpoint, that we would be happy to partner with them to try and figure out the details of how this might roll out and the impact that it might have. And we did offer to provide any information that would be necessary in order to determine the district by district impact that this may have, because right now we don't know that. We know, AHS has determined that they believe at sort of a macro level that this will be an increase, but have not been able to do the analysis district by district to determine what that will look like.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And we're gonna hear from Ashley after.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Okay. How long do you think it would take for this to be? It sounds like a lot of stuff to work with all the districts. Mean, I am voting to pass something that will further increase some cost to districts And you can see the same thing that can be very difficult for schools. At the same time that we say, well, this is so much we're giving you to run your schools. This is, you you're making the choice to spend more than you're supposed to be spending. I have a problem. I think, Representative Ode,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I just want to recenter us on the goals here. It's to significantly reduce the work at the district level and sort of the friction around this fairly complex, historically, federally complex billing, and to increase the amount of money we are drawing down from the feds, and increase the amount of money that goes to districts, because right now a lot of it goes directly to the agency and is not going to the districts.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And so that's the goal.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And so I hope we can work together with the business managers, NHS, to work towards that goal of reducing work for districts and increasing money going to districts. Yes. Okay. I don't disagree. Between now and

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: the time we have to act on this, my concern is what doesn't get done doesn't get done. Then, it's just hanging out there for whatever period of time.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And so let's make sure that we're building in the assurances that are needed to make it work. Yeah, Representative Holcombe.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Hi, thank you for coming in and testifying today. Can you talk a little bit? You had a long section on eligible providers and services and raised some concerns around access to providers. Can you talk about that a little bit more and also about what the consequences are if a district can't access the provider? What does that look like?

[Rep. Rebecca Holcombe (Member)]: And what are you seeing districts do in response to that challenge currently?

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: Yeah. Nicole, do you want to take that one?

[Nicole Lee, Finance Director, Champlain Valley School District]: So I think that it has historically been difficult in some of our more rural areas where providers are hard to come by and districts have been they've been working as hard as they can to entice that's the wrong word but to partner with providers to ensure that the students who have a need have that need served. However, it is a little outside of the box, I would say, to have a provider running a practice and providing services to a different Medicaid provider because the schools all have to be Medicaid providers to be eligible to receive payments. But I think that our main goal is really to say like we don't want to lose that out of the box thinking we have worked towards and at the same time acknowledge that that out of the box thinking has to fit within the Center for Medicare and Medicaid requirements placed upon AHS and then every provider who provides Medicaid services. So we don't want there to be a loss of services and while we think we've been creatively solving the problem, if it isn't solving the problem within what Medicaid allows, then we're open to partnering with AHS and would actually enjoy the opportunity to figure out how we retain those services being provided as Medicaid eligible. I'm not sure if that fully answers your question, Representative Holcombe.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: What happens if a school can't find a provider through one of the approved contractors?

[Nicole Lee, Finance Director, Champlain Valley School District]: Heather, I'm a little new to this role to be able

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: to answer that. Yeah, I mean, it's hard for me to answer that because, you know, being in Chittenden County, we tend to be able to fill those roles. You know, outside of going out to a contracted provider, I'm not sure how districts are creatively addressing those issues. To me, seems like you're either hiring or you're going outside to an independent contractor.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We can ask Morgan to come in and answer that, if that would be I think

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: she just answered it. They're hiring.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Districts have to hire, not staff. Well, think she also said that we might wanna get some expertise from a more rural district and I haven't seen Morgan in a while, it'd be nice to see him.

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: You'll appreciate that. And I will say, just one other piece to that, and this is something that I was able to speak with Ashley about yesterday is we also have paraprofessionals that are providing services right now to students. And so Ashley is aware of that and something that she is working really hard to make sure that we are able to retain the ability to bill for those services that are provided by our paraprofessionals. But again, I just want to bring us back to, you know, we have a lot of unanswered questions. It's hard for me to come in here and testify to you whether the current bill is going to accomplish all that we need it to. And we are committed to working and partnering with Ashley and her team at AHS to try and start to figure out these details.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Do you think by this change that your workforce will be reduced or will it stay the same? Will it even increase? Do you have any estimate on that?

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: Yeah, again, like based on our very limited information that we have, our understanding is although payment will be delivered based on a random moment in time study, it won't be based on claims submission as it is today, we still have to do all of the same documentation that we do today to make sure that we have compliance with the Medicaid program. So I don't see how the work is reducing. It may be more efficient where with electronic health record, instead of having paper forms, we may be able to have forms that are electronic. But again, based on my limited information, it seems like we will have to do the same level of documentation that we are doing today.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think there's gonna be a step

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: difference at the state level. And

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: will you eventually go to electronic forms?

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: Is our understanding that part of this is the rollout of an electronic health record system that the state will be procuring. We don't know what that system is yet because my understanding is that contract has not been finalized. That work will have to happen to configure the system. But yes, the vision, as I understand it, is moving to an electronic health record system.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Would that occur whether or not this bill is financed?

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: That would be a question that Ashley would have to answer, I believe.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Any other questions for the business commissioners? Thank

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: you both very much. You're welcome to stay for a bit while we hear from Ashley. And we're picking this back up again on Friday. I'm working on an amendment to make the way sort of current law is structured, you're tightly controlled in what you can bill for, and then you're tightly controlled in how you can spend your reimbursement. There only needs to be control on one end of that, not both ends. And so that's part of the amendment. But happy to add other pieces as you all work with AHS to find out, like, to make sure you're getting the assurances that you need on this. Great.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah. When you were talking about electronic records, that's expensive. And I wonder if we could request of our congressional delegation that they give us a per student amount to pay for something like that. For congressional delegation? Yeah, yeah. The people who tell us all things that we have to do, not them, but Congress. They tell us what we have to do with all the rules and then suggest all the software to cost tens of millions of dollars, We need them to pay more. I'm going

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to ask Ashley to come join us. Oh yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Mean formally.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Let's talk about that later.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Thanks. I'm so sorry, one last question. I understand this transition has already started anyway, and so it's in process. What's your assessment of the readiness of school systems to manage this transition in conjunction with other transitions that they face? And what might be necessary in terms of just operational support to make it possible to do all these transitions, but in a high fidelity way?

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: I think we don't know whether we're prepared or not at the moment because we very unclear of what is going to be required of us. The timing is set to be, my understanding is October 1, that this will go live for at least one cohort of districts and having been in health care for eighteen years and implementing an electronic health records, I think there is a good amount of configuration that will likely need to go into a system. You know, again, we're certainly ready to come to the table and try and figure this out, but I'm not sure that we really know what's enough detail to be able to answer that question on our preparedness at this moment.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: And just in that, I know there's been challenges around other big data reporting systems. How will this one be different? I know we struggle in the finance system. Are there other lessons that we should have learned that we should be putting front and center in this transition?

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: That is a great question. I think what I would say is having representation from the field participate in this process will ultimately make it a smoother process for everyone. And so my hope is that that type of partnership will start from this point forward. Nicole, would you add anything?

[Nicole Lee, Finance Director, Champlain Valley School District]: I think I would just note that as we're adding a cohort of students, which is of course exciting and has the potential to provide us more revenue, that is a new bit of work for our clinicians. Not that they're not already providing the services, but if they're having to amend their workflows a bit to fit into Medicaid, Just something to be aware of that a larger cohort of their students they serve may require a larger amount of paperwork. And when I say paperwork, mean electronic or physical paper.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: One big difference I see is that AHS is managing this, not AOE, and so I think it'll be interesting to hear how they foresee it. At the district level, it's work to be done. I think it's interesting.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: That's a good question to ask, too. I mean, how has the AOE support for you been for this?

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: Right now, we have these regional Medicaid reps. I'm not sure that I'm getting their exact title correct. But so each district has a Medicaid representative from the Agency of Education appointed to them. And we interact with that staff member frequently. They come on-site, they do training for our staff, they do audits and look at files to ensure that we are documenting everything appropriately. And from that perspective, our Medicaid reps, you know, I think get a good amount of support from the agency of education. And that's just one of the pieces that was in my testimony is I really hope that we're gonna continue to have some support like that from AHS. But again, I don't know that that has been determined yet what that will look like.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Thank

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: you both.

[Heather Bushey, Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO)]: Thank you.

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: Hi. For the record, I'm Ashley Berliner. I'm the director of Medicaid policy for the Agency of Human Services. And I want to start by just thanking them. They have obviously given us a lot of thought and have raised really good questions. As Heather said, I did have a chance to speak to her and her special ed director yesterday, and we talked through a lot of this. We know that this is a big change, and we have a lot

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: of work to do. And we

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: are really committed to making sure that we are answering all their questions, that we are using them as thought partners. Our goal is to reduce the administrative burden, not add to it. And Heather's absolutely right that there are fundamental requirements of the Medicaid program that need to exist around clinical documentation. Those will exist in the new system as well. But we believe strongly that the tools and systems that we're setting up will support those processes and make it a lot more efficient than it is today. I also just want to bring back to the scope of this bill in and of itself. This bill transfers spending authority for Medicaid school based services from AOE to AHS. That is the piece that is really at question here in this bill. There are a lot of other smaller things. The chair mentioned some of the provisions around how schools are able to pay or able to spend the money that they receive. But the fundamental need for AHS right now is to get that spending authority in place so that we can take over this program. To speak specifically to the resource issue, we are extremely concerned about making sure that schools have resources that they need to implement these changes and then can carry them out in a sustainable way. And we're staffing accordingly. We certainly have a lot to do. And we have a lot of stakeholder engagement to do. And I'm so grateful that we have partners like this who are engaged and experienced and can help us really think through the issues that we don't have the appropriate perspective on. And we're going to be doing a lot of that in the next couple of months. That is really where we're ramping up. But as Heather said, we're very committed to working closely with school districts and making sure that we're answering all their questions. We have answers to a lot of these questions and have not been able to fully disseminate them because of where we are in our contracting. We are not at liberty to fully engage the public in some of the work that we're doing to come under contract for our random moment time study system and our electronic health record system. But we're hoping to hit the ground running in April and really going to be ramping up all of that.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Representative Holcombe,

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: when did you first start working with FASB? We began communicating with FASB last fall. Maybe, actually, that's not true. I'm sorry. We submitted a survey to them in 2024 prior to 2024 is the first time we formally engaged with them. But we started in the current iteration of this phase more recently. Did you get this particular feedback that they provided before you began the contracting process? From BASBO? Or from districts, just generally? We had multiple financial directors involved. And Heather was involved in some of the demonstrations that we had related to the electronic health record. We had a financial director involved in the scoring of our random moment time study. So I wouldn't say BASBO specifically, but we've been engaging school administrators on this. Around things like the availability of staff and contractors. Yes. And to speak to that specific question, representative, we are very committed, and it is very much part of our core goal to make sure that we are not just maintaining the revenue that's going to schools, but increasing it, expanding access. And so that piece of making sure that providers that are being paid today can be paid in the future is a really big part of the work that we're doing.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Do you anticipate any So I think there's one question about

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: making sure that districts are better off on the other side of this, or at least whole, in terms of the amount of revenue they're receiving. Do you anticipate any loss of contractor availability from this? We're still working through the short answer is no. We're still working through the mechanics of exactly how contracted providers will work. But we don't have any reason to believe that it will impact the availability of providers.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: When do you expect that this work will be done? Will it be done before the next school session begins?

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: So again, this bill really focuses on providing spending authority to the Agency of Human Services. So a lot of what we're talking about is outside the scope of this bill, the implementation of the random moment time study and the implementation of the electronic health record. The random moment time study will be implemented statewide on 10/01/2026. And we're doing that because we engage closely with the agency of administration and some early school stakeholders on the timing. And we heard from them that it would be very hard train in the summer when they're all gone. And it would be much more favorable to schools to have them come back in the fall, spend the first couple of months doing the intensive training, which we'll be providing and our vendors will be providing, and then implementing on tenone. So that's one piece of the puzzle. Second piece is the electronic health record. And that will be rolled out in a phased approach, starting on tenone with what we're going to call our early adopter cohort. This is a cohort that we have yet to identify, but we'll be doing in the next couple of weeks. We will be implementing the electronic health record first. And then we're going to be rolling out different cohorts over the course of the 'twenty six, 'twenty seven school year to have full statewide adoption by the end of the 'twenty six, 'twenty seven school year, by about June.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: If we don't implement this bill, will you lose federal funding?

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: If we don't implement this bill, AHS will not be able to take over the school based services Medicaid program.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Things will stay the same with the schools. Which means

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: that we're leaving the table.

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: We're leaving money money on the table. And we have serious concerns about the current administration. The last time I was here, I talked a little bit about the problems with the existing system. But we and AOE agree that the current system is broken, and it really does need to be reformed. We have a lot of work to do to optimize that process. And none of that can happen if this bill doesn't move forward.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I'll have somebody talk about that, because it sounds like they've already moved spending authority. That's already in process right now. No. I going ask Ashley the question. I think a memo has already gone out signaling you're moving forward with this, so

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: I'm not understanding. We need this bill to move the spending authority. Can I ask

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: two other questions? The first is one of the concerns that has come up in other conversations is about liability. And one of the challenges is that the district cannot find a contractor who's an approved contractor. They either have to put it on in house where they are liable if that service is not provided. Has there been any discussion of moving that punitive liability over to AHS if AHS is assuming responsibility for deciding which contractors are for the risk of all.

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: I think that's something I'm not aware of that issue.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So let me take that back and look into it. And the follow-up question is, has there been any I think we heard that there are some

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: regional differences in terms of access and effectiveness of different strategies for working with available contractors. One of the reasons that the regional shared services has been interesting in some areas is it gives a regional capacity to hold some of that talent and allocate that? Have you had any conversations around the potential of regional shared services to meet some of these needs? Not today.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Again, if implemented, will you be reporting back to, you know, the AOE or HHS or even this agent or even this clinician on the progress?

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: We'd be happy to come back and report on our progress at any time. We're working really closely with AOE. So even as AOE no longer is the direct administrator of this program, they will stay engaged. They have a Medicaid school based services director position there that will continue to be involved in the future state, so that we're making sure we have those close connections with the agency of education.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: So I felt for a long time that this needed to happen. It's unlikely it's in process. What was the impetus to get you this far without legislative authorization?

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: It was those concerns we have for the existing administration of the program. So we knew we were leaving money on the table. We know that we're one of the few states left in the country that hasn't fully implemented school based services. We limit it to IEP services only right now. And so we want to expand that. In 2023, CMS came out with a lot of new policy guidance around how schools can expand their flexibility for Medicaid billing. And so taking that in, we really looked at our program, saw some things that weren't working, and thought that it was a good opportunity to engage. At the same time a federal grant became available, we applied for it and got it. And so we now have a lot of wind at our back, where we have buy in from both agencies. We have this new flexibility from CMS. And we have a few million dollars to drive it forward. And it's all been in support of where we are today.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: So did you give the list of concerns? I did. Are also concerned about those things? And are they workable?

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: I'm not concerned about them because I know we have answers to them. I'm concerned that we have so much work to do and need to really make sure that we're answering questions for those people in particular. These are very important stakeholders. So we know that this is an aggressive timeline and are really focused on making sure that we can answer those questions as soon as possible. But that's a priority, is making sure we have that communication and thought partnership. But they're answerable, we're going to get there. I

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: agree with you that actually this is overdue. And one of the things we talked about is that Vermont schools seem to spend about 2,000 more dollars per kid on social services in districts and others. And I think this is probably a piece of that. I am extremely concerned about the timeline and the aggressiveness of the timeline. It makes me very uncomfortable when you say you're not concerned, because I think you should be concerned, because this is rolling out right as we're about to other districts across the state. It's not that this is a good policy, I just don't know that people have the bandwidth to do it well. And my concern is that when we ramp too much through a few people in a very short period of time without a lot of consultation, what we get is failed policy, but it looks like that policy was just good policy, you didn't plan for appropriate implementation. And we've seen that over and over and over again. It would

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: be much more reassuring to concerned about implementation. I am concerned about implementation.

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: I'm not concerned about those questions that she raised. I am very concerned and extremely focused on implementation. It is an aggressive timeline, and we are concerned about it. And we know that we have a plan to get there. I believe your question was about those

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: think questions and that was a killer. Don't lift up, please.

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: I'm sorry. So those questions in particular that Heather and I talked about yesterday that she presented here today, we have answers to those questions.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So those questions, I'm not concerned about. I am concerned about the timeline, absolutely. Can you add school districts? It's not just the AOE that needs to be consulted. When I think of some

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: of

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: the huge projects that were good projects, and they were really done by wonderful people with the best of intentions. If there isn't handholding at districts through big change, particularly given what else is on their plates right now, my fear is that you will lose something that's really good. That's all.

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: No, I think it's a really valid fear. And we are playing a little bit of catch up because this is not our bread and butter and have been getting up to speed. I think we're there. We're starting to hit our stride. We're aware of all the organizations. We're going to start getting on those monthly agendas. We have a really broad list of stakeholders that we're engaging on a monthly basis. We have an inbox that we're fielding questions from schools on a daily basis. So totally on the same page with you that the schools are our priority and our focus right now. I also want to speak specifically to the support that we're going to provide them. We are working with two different vendors right now. One is a change management and communication vendor that, again, is just starting to get up and running, who's helping us figure out the right communication cohorts to make sure that we're engaging with the different professional organizations, that we're engaging with the boots on the ground. And that's a huge area of support that we have at the Agency of Human Services to make sure we're getting that communication out. We also are working with a vendor who is going to be hands on holding and supporting the schools as they implement this, being able to answer technical questions, helping with workflows. Schools are going to be involved intimately in actually configuring the system. So we're going to be identifying at least 20 users to provide user testing and configuration. So all of this is really in service of the schools and the staff, and we have not lost sight of that. And it's a huge priority. And it is a massive lift. We fully acknowledge that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you very much, Ashley. Thank you. We'll kick this back up again on Friday. If you have any ways you would like to see the language change based on the testimony we've had today, please let me know, and stay with the rest of the committee. Okay.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We're going to shift gears again. We're going to Eric, I know I saw you, and I don't Oh, that corner. If you could join the Zoom. Do you have a computer with you? Oh, great. Then go join the Zoom. If you could just come join us.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: There you go.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Same number of committees Yeah. Running, and got my iPad sent to history. And then, Eric, it's Patrick with the Office of Weatherhead Council. Even funnier story. I just was sitting down in house gob ops for a minute thinking, when are they taking the sun? I'm like, oh, I don't know. May. That's where this goes.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Love that for you,

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Eric. Yes. It's been one of those mornings,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: for sure. So we have 08:41 as introduced posted. I feel like you also drafted an amendment, which we don't seem to have posted. And I don't know if that's on me or where. I'm going figure that out on our email. But why don't you explain the bill?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Or the amendment? Sort of focus on the amendment. We've done the bill a couple of times on the walkthrough.

[Hillary Chittenden, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah? Great.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: You remember that?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Or maybe I'm thinking of the animal cruelty bill.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I don't think we've talked to them.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We did the cruelty one. Right, right, right.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay, great. I didn't forget that. Okay, so if you could talk us through the bill fairly high level while sort you on that look for the amendment.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, absolutely. So the big picture here, you may remember that when you looked at the animal cruelty provisions bill, that was dealing with provisions related to animals in Vermont from the criminal perspective. Those were criminal provisions, because animal cruelty is a crime, sometimes a felony, sometimes a misdemeanor. And we talked about how there were provisions related to forfeiture of animals when a person is convicted of a crime, that sort of thing. But statutes related to animals in Vermont are spread across a wide variety of places in the green books, and this bill, although also dealing with animal welfare, doesn't deal with crimes. This deals with the regulation of other things related to such as the number of wolf hybrids, for example, the number of pets, the number of dogs that a person can keep, and in particular, a arm of state government that the legislature created last year known as the DAW, the Division of Animal Welfare, which is in the Department of Public Safety. And the Division of Animal Welfare has a director, director of animal welfare, and they also have an associated fund, the Animal Welfare Fund. And one of the things that you may even remember that the bill that you looked at last time also did some amending to the Animal Welfare Fund. And that's one of the things that's going on in this bill, is that it decides kind of giving the director of animal welfare some expanded authority and some additional obligations, which are on page five of the bill. So, for example, this is the Division of Animal Welfare adopting rules for purposes of implementing a certified rabies vaccinator program. So this is a program that allows other professionals who work with veterinarians to also administer rabies vaccinations. Now, this has to be adopted by rule before it goes into effect. Also, it's at the bottom of page five, Director of animal welfare is gonna be required for anyone importing domestic pets into the state of Vermont for adoption, sale, or other to register with the Division of Animal Welfare. That's bottom of page five. Over on to top of page six, there are some associated consequences for someone failing to do this registration. And then you see, the animal welfare fund, and this is on page six over on to page seven. So this is an existing fund, existing special fund. And currently, the fund consists of so this is existing law, bottom of page 660% of the revenue collected from certain surcharges, and those are surcharges in connection with animal welfare violations, registration of pets, that kind of thing, as well as, number two, any appropriations made by the general assembly. And then over onto the top of page seven, you see the proposal to add two new pieces, any donations, grants, gifts, and any revenue from the Animal Welfare Fund checkoff entitled 2032, the tax code. And you may ask yourself, is there an Animal Welfare Fund checkoff? The answer to that is no, but the bill creates one, and that's why it's a cross reference to the one that's created the last couple of pages of the bill, pages seventeen, eighteen, 19, creates this Vermont Animal Welfare Fund checkoff. The reason I'm being so specific about that is because the amendment strikes that provision of the bill, the animal welfare checkoff, and obviously, if you're gonna strike that, then you don't need this cross strike because it will point to the other piece that goes on in the amendment. If you look at page six of the bill, line 19, remember I mentioned that currently, the welfare fund includes any appropriations made by the general assembly, that's the existing law there. My understanding from Chris, and could tell you about this in more detail, is that from an accounting perspective, appropriations is the wrong word. When moving money from one fund to another, the word should be transfers. So that technical correction is also part of the proposed amendment. And I understand, I think that JFO has been making that change whenever there's an opportunity to make it an existing law. So you have an opportunity to make it here because you're amending that section anyway. So that's why that technical piece is in there.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That was so fast, thank you. Have folks' brains caught up, and does anyone have any questions?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: And some are removing the checkoff box.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And making a technical correction as well. But, yes, those are the those are the two things in sum sums it up exactly.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: And I can't, unfortunately I can't find it now, but there was some reference to animal cats outside. You know where I'm going. And it looked as though the individual looking after those cats would have to have them rabies shots and also maybe having them neutered. Is that a requirement? What happens if you are unable to do that?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Just asking for a friend.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: I see. Yes, sorry asking. Well, and I'll just tell you, I have straight facts around my home that I feed, Actually my wife and I feed them and I have managed to catch them and let them know, but they are not inside.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: They're very detached.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Absolutely.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Is that a change in requirements in there?

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That piece, there was a large piece related to outdoor cats that was in the bill as introduced, that's gone. But you may be looking at, if you're talking about the sterilization of stray cats bees, is that what you're looking at? Page seven, line six to 11, basically?

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: It probably is. It did have to do That's with partly remains with respect to stray cats. But it also talked about making sure that they had received rabies shots. That,

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure that's still in there. There is the sexual sterilization piece, but that's an existing law, it's just a change in terminology.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Most of the bill is introduced on our

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, right.

[Chris Rupe, Joint Fiscal Office]: It was in the bill that was introduced.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: The amendment's up there too. I think there's a bill in between the two, which was the bill as left gov ops,

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: is that

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: what you're saying? Yeah. You don't have.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And that one doesn't have that anymore. They got rid of that outdoor cat stuff.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Does anyone have any other questions? Do oh, we should hear about

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: the fiscal. Is there a fiscal in there?

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: There is a question. Great.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you, Eric.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You bet.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Can you help switch and make sure she has I'll I'll get it. Cool. Okay. Great. Thanks. Okay. Cool.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You want a doc number? Would that be helpful? No. Thanks. Thank you.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: You bet.

[Chris Rupe, Joint Fiscal Office]: Good morning, everyone. Kasrup from the Joint Fiscal Office. This will be pretty brief. There is a fiscal note posted under my name on today's date that reflects the bill as recommended by GovOps. It does not recommend the decisions you all are contemplating today. So, some of what's in here, you will render moot, but it's here nonetheless. Bottom line up front, the bill really is not expected to have a significant revenue impact. We do expect that some of the provisions related to removing the discounted license for large breeders would have a minimally positive impact to municipalities and to the newly renamed Animal Sexual Sterilization Special Fund because the folks who currently have the breeder license, which offers a discount on a per animal basis, would then be subject to the regular license system. So, they would be paying on an average a little bit higher of a licensing fee. Most of that goes to the municipalities. It's really difficult for us to We don't do fiscal estimates for municipalities as a rule. It'd be really hard for us to know this based on what town different animals are in and where these breeder licenses currently are. But I can tell you that for most The overwhelming majority of municipalities in Vermont, dog licenses of all categories are a low 4 figure fiscal impact to their budgets. So this is not I I think this squarely is in the realm of the de minimis. There's a few other things here I just wanted to point out that are of a fiscal nature. There's a requirement in section one that when animal shelters, rescue organizations, breeders bring pets into Vermont for then sale or adoption, They have to register with the Director of Animal Welfare. She has indicated that they can handle that responsibility with their existing resources. Don't expect prohibiting a person from owning more than 35 dogs. We'll have much of a fiscal impact on license revenue. And there's a lot of verbiage here that walks you through the ins and outs of who gets what in terms of the license fees and surcharges. But the bottom line here is most of the money flows to municipalities. There's a few surcharges that go to some special funds at the state level. But by removing that discounted license for the larger breeders, you would have more animals subject to the $4 surcharge. And then there's information here about the check off, which you all are proposing to remove. Just a little bit historical context, we would expect that would generate likely less than $100,000 annually if it's stated.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: And

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: we removed that, so you'll be able to.

[Chris Rupe, Joint Fiscal Office]: Oh yeah, a bunch of this will be stripped out in the next version of the facility.

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: Branagan, you. Chris, I gasp at owning more than 35 dogs, but my question is, do you actually know someone in Manchester's sled dog races and competitions of various kinds? Those people tend to have more than 35 dogs. But they're, I mean, from my, I don't even have any way to make this opinion, I'm gonna tell you, from what I've been seeing, they look like they're well fed and they're cleaned and groomed and cared for. But and so have you talked to those people and what are they involved in this 35

[Chris Rupe, Joint Fiscal Office]: court rule? I have not. And representative Branagan, you win the record for the quickest legislator to exhaust my knowledge on a subject matter I've been asked to testify on, that might be a great question for either ledge council or the director of animal welfare. I just I don't know.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Or even just checking with gov ops. Yeah. I I will say that people I know with sled dogs have less have fewer than 35 dogs. Actually, than 30 Oh, much fewer than 35. But maybe sled dogging is different up in Franklin County than it is. I'm sure

[Rep. Carolyn Branagan (Member)]: everything's different up in Franklin County. Our sack's

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: been paid for a while, by my way. Okay. Representative Masland.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Yeah. Last time you testified on this bill that

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: No one's testified on this bill yet.

[Chris Rupe, Joint Fiscal Office]: It's a different

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: animal bill. Okay. Well, it still applies, but thank you. The last time you testified on an animal bill, which was fairly recent, and you worked us through some fiscal implications, I learned a new term, which was indeterminate instead of de minimis. And so Wow. Yeah. I've learned something new in this discussion. Thank you, Franklin.

[Chris Rupe, Joint Fiscal Office]: We're we're making a whole list of fancy multi syllable synonyms for we don't know, but it's probably really small. That's

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: good. Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you very much, Chris, for those concluding remarks.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I'm sure I would suggest that based on the testimony we've received that we pass or find favorable age eight forty one.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I believe we have to amend it.

[Eric FitzPatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, amend it.

[Logan Miller, Joint Fiscal Office]: Amend it, yeah.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Over at 1.1, the amendment for ways and means, find that favorable.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Kimbell moves that we find the amendment favorable on H eight forty one, and Representative Holcombe seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, if the clerk please, by the roll.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Branagan? Yes. Yes. Is representative Burkhardt? Representative Higley is absent? Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland?

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page? Yes. Representative Waszazak?

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Canfield? Yes. Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have voted the amendment favorable ten zero one.

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Thanks. Need to move the bill?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Madam Chair, I would now find that, or suggest and move, that we find the bill H41 favorable as amended.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Kimbell moves that we find h eight forty one favorable as amended by the Committee on Ways and Means. Representative Holcombe seconds. Any discussion? Seeing none of their opinions, the roll.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Thank you. Representative Franklin? Yes. I'll vote yes as representative Burkhardt. Representative Higley is still absent. Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland? Yes. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page?

[Rep. Woodman Page (Member)]: Yes. Representative Blazak? Yes. Representative Canfield? Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Kornheiser? Yes. You have voted to fill the triple as amended.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Would like to report that including our amendments on I'm using the other one, I might as well do

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: this one too, right? Sure, great.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay, thank you. I hope you will defend our work removing checkboxes from scores. Thank you. I think then we are Speaking, yes. Thank you. We are done for the morning. We are back here at 01:15, and we are gonna talk about H 775. Thank you, Eric. Jim, please wait and send the email to the QuickSouth office before we leave so that it

[Ashley Berliner, Director of Medicaid Policy, Agency of Human Services]: can get

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: referred on the floor today. Thank you.