Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: We are live.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We're live now. And this is senate appropriations, Tuesday, March 17. And we have the public service folks here today. Just you two, Brittany Wilson, deputy commissioner, Patricia LaRose, director of finance. So welcome.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: Take it away. Take us.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay. We're we'll take it away here. So I think you all should have the budget presentation that was sent along. Again, just for the record, Brittany Wilson, deputy commissioner at the Department of Public Service. And I have Patty LaRose, Financial Manager for the department with me. If you're following along in the presentation that we've sent along, we can just start walking through the slides here. As you know, Public Service Department represents the public interest in energy, telecommunications, water, and wastewater utility matters. We do that through a variety of services. Those are carried out through eight divisions. If you're on slide four, you'll see the department structured by divisions. And I'm going to breeze through this stuff pretty quickly so we can get to the good stuff. But if you have any questions, please slide. Slides five, six, seven, eight, and nine are a brief overview of the department divisions and kind of a high level summary of what each of those divisions do within the department. If there's anything in there particular that you would like me to review, I'm happy to, but otherwise, that's something that you could go back and take a look at and follow-up with any questions should you have any. If you go to slide 10, we've just listed some fiscal twenty six achievements and accomplishments that the department has had over the past year. Again, these are broken down by each of the divisions and can give you a good sense of what we've been working on. Slide 12, that'll show you for the Consumer Affairs and Public Information Division, how many consumers or customers have reached out, how many complaints, how many cases were closed. So it gives you a good idea for how many touch points we have with the public. I will just point out on slide 13, there was a audit done. The state auditor's office did an audit of the CAPI division. And that report recognized that the division does a very good job at resolving complaints and doing their job. I would say that the recommendations for improving were based on written policies and procedures. So just documenting the good work that the vision already does, but putting it into a written policy. So I think overall, that's great news to hear and areas for improvement are easily done and justifiable. Moving along, again, some more division highlights. We've got the energy efficiency resources division, the planning division, I'm sure most of you are familiar with some of the work that those divisions do. You've probably heard TJ testify several times about several bills in the legislature. So moving down the engineering division, again, a good idea as to the number of touch points we have in certain cases, which range from electrical, natural gas, pipeline safety, and the nuclear decommissioning advisory panel. Public Advocacy Division, as you can see that division, which is made up of our lawyers, they participated in over 2,000 matters or cases before the Public Utility Commission. I will say over the last several years, there's been an increase of cases in front of the PUC, whether it be rate increases or other cases brought. The state energy office, that office serves as the state's energy office as designated by the US Department of Energy. That division is responsible for deploying the federal dollars the department receives. Slide 19. Speaking of federal funding, I would just point out this slide kind of highlights the federal funding and uncertainty that department is expecting and or has already seen. As you know, the Solar for All program, which was 6,250,000.00 was terminated under the Trump administration. That case is still pending and there are, I don't have any updates in terms of timing for that funding. The other awards that are listed on the left side of that slide, those are conditional awards. We don't have a lot of expectations that we'll see that funding. And I believe there's a bill moving in Congress to actually terminate those underlying programs, which was similar to the process that happened with Solar for All. Underlying programs were terminated and therefore the funding was terminated with it. On slide 20, this slide shows the fiscal twenty seven budget as we've built it. So as you know, the department is made up of special funds. We don't rely on any general funds, and the gross receipts tax is the primary contributor of those special funds. So our special fund of budget as built for '27 is 12.6.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Yes, ma'am.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I have a question.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: So I'm yeah. I'm looking

[Unidentified committee member]: at that, and then I'm look going back and looking at the conditional awards and the other awards that have been terminated. So of the federal 18,000,000 that you have here, that is in addition to the grant funds on the previous slide?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Correct. Yep, because there's

[Unidentified committee member]: Go ahead.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: There's several other grant funds that we have received and are deploying. And so that 18.5 shows what we expect to deploy out of funds we already have received.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. So the and what do those funds support? Good question. You suddenly got another slide.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Think I think we do.

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, good. Anything

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: else? I think we do get to that. Anything else on slide 20 that just kind of shows the breakdown between budgeted special and budgeted federal?

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you. I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but just to be clear, the special funds that are on slide 20, that special fund is the gross receipts tax?

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: Correct.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Okay,

[Unidentified committee member]: thank you.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Of course. So slide 21, that shows a breakdown of how the 18.5 would be spent generally, 16.3 being actual grants that go out and support programs. And the other just shows a breakdown of what of those are supporting salary and operating costs. But then further breaking that down, if you go to slide 22, this shows how the 18.5 is proposed to be spent across several different programs. Most of that 10,000,000 being through the Home Energy Efficiency Rebate Program, which is the homes funding, which we expect to deploy out directly to OEO for weatherization. Any further any more specific questions on that Senator in terms of the breakdown? Nope. Okay, great. Slide 23. This shows the special funds, as I mentioned, receipts tax is the primary contributor of those special funds. We do in turn receive some special funds back. We have some build back functions where the department pays for certain services, but we can do build back. So, in some instances, the utilities might get charged back for certain expert testimony that's done by somebody that does aesthetics, for example. So, that just acknowledges that there's that function there where we can bill out, receive funds back. And then the department also receives some funding from the energy efficiency utility surcharge. Slide 24, this just shows the percentage of gross receipts tax that's charged into what utility. We've also put the twenty four and twenty five revenue collected. So

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: at a

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: high level, can see how much we receive from electric utilities versus non electric. There's also a line there for net metering. Those are net metering fees. And then I would just point out that the department receives 60% of those gross receipt tax and net metering fees, and the PUC receives 40. Anything on those?

[Unidentified committee member]: So Go ahead.

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: Thank you.

[Unidentified committee member]: So the the way that the gross receipts tax flows is it first goes to you all, and then you transfer some of it to the PUC for their operation.

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes. We transfer that on a yearly basis. So at the end of the fiscal year, a list is given to finance and that transfer is done.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Okay.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Thank you, Patrick.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Slide 25, remaining ARPA funds. Patty, can you Is this still

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: This is correct. The

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Okay, great. I know this was as of the December. I just wanted to confirm. So as of now, have 130,000 remaining in ARPA funds, but those are allocated and are with GMP, but there's waiting for the last invoice to come in for those funds.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's gonna wipe them all out, that takes care of it?

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yep.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: The

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: next slide, slide 26, this shows how those remaining ARPA funds, ARPA, sorry, ARPA general funds, so the ones that were referred to to general funds, we have remaining funds there and it's broken down into each of the programs here. As you can see, there's several million left, but all funds are fully obligated, contracts or grant agreements are in place and those dollars are being deployed. Some of these programs had had there's it took quite a bit of time to set some of them up. As you can imagine, some of these projects are complicated and time consuming. And so we expect these funds though to be fully obligated and spent, I think, some of them before the end of the year and some of them probably into the middle of twenty seven.

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: So I got a yep. So just in looking at this, are these all grants or is there some direct pass through on these? Are these all grants?

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Some of them are grants and some of them are contracts.

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: Okay. So no direct pass through then?

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I believe that some of so yeah. I'm unclear on that.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: I don't think any were a direct pass through on this. I think most of these are.

[Unidentified committee member]: Every these, like, or awards.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Yeah. But I was looking

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: at the affordable scale community.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: Oh. And then

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: given to the PSD by the e board. That's why it was

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah, those are all grant agreements.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Okay.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Slide 27, new language requests that are included in the fiscal twenty seven budget recommend. One is a conversion of a limited service position to permanent classified status. As I had pointed out earlier, we have eight divisions. We had seven directors for eight of those divisions. And so, we reclassified a limited service position to create a director. This was for the administrative services division. So that does all of our business functions, and there is a real need to have a distinct and separate director for that division. And that is what we're hoping to accomplish here with that budget language. The other language request that we have is changing the cadence of the ten year telecom plan. That ten year telecom plan is actually a three year update that has to be done by the department. Every time that update is done, it's roughly half $1,000,000. We would like to push that out to five years before an update is needed. The team has said this makes a lot of sense for a variety of reasons, but also because technology is not moving at a pace that suggests a three year update would be of any help at all. Five years would make more sense. And again, this would save the department a half $1,000,000 every time an update is required. I'd also note that the house asked questions about whether or not this plan as is actually needed moving forward. So I think there might even be a worthy conversation about whether or not this plan or maybe a smaller, narrower version of it is is needed moving forward. But for this year, getting that request, that change in would help ensure that we can meet our budget, balance our budget this year. We did bake this change into our fiscal twenty seven budget. I was feeling optimistic and hopeful that we could do this. So if not, then we will need to figure out a way to to make that update and plan happen.

[Unidentified committee member]: Can you talk a little bit about the conversion of the limited service position to the financial director for what what is the need there?

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yeah. That division had didn't have a a director for just that division. The director of the CAPI division, the one that takes care of all the consumer complaints and touch points and education for consumers, that individual was managing and co leading two of the divisions. And so that was a bit of an untenable task for one individual. And so over the last year, we've been working to try to convert a position and make sure that there's leadership for that division. They have a lot of responsibilities right now with several 100,000,000 flowing through the department. And as you saw federal funding, But also as a reminder, the Vermont Community Broadband Board, which is separate and distinct to some degree, but they receive all that administrative support from the department. So, I didn't even touch on that, but that one division plays very heavily into the VCBB.

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Just a couple of budget pressures and highlights to mention. We have the comprehensive energy plan. That's a plan that is developed by the department every six years. That plan, the next update will need to be done in fiscal twenty seven. And again, that's roughly a half $1,000,000 plan. We do have that baked and budgeted into the fiscal twenty seven budget. And so I'm just pointing that out is that's a one time increase, but we have been able to cover it in our recommended budget. We also have the EPSD database. This is EPSD and EPUC. It's a new case management system. The department and the Public Utility Commission is updating. And so that again is a fairly significant one time increase. And then just to point out, we did remove four unneeded unfilled positions, two clean heat standard positions and two positions that were left over from the Emergency Rental Assistance Program, which was a program that was set up during COVID. So slide 30 this shows the ups and downs for the department and I will just say they're at a very high level before Patty runs through this quickly. The department budget is just under 4% higher than the fiscal twenty six budget. So very close to the governor's recommended targets. And again, I would just point out there's some of those one time increases that kind of put us above the 3.5% that we would be looking to be at. But Patty, do you want to just quickly kind of run through the ups and downs here?

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The past little Patty, if you could just give us the highlights of any substantial differences.

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Yep, so I'm not you've seen the stuff in the brown before. It's the the salary and wages increases and the yearly fee increases. On top of that, there's a line for the four positions we removed and a line for the comprehensive energy plan that, Britney had just mentioned. Going to page 31, again, the operational yearly, internal service fees, and then we have a decrease in our, other ADSIT related. And then the largest increase you'll see is the grants. The grants out. We are increasing by 16,300,000.0, and that is grants out into, the communities, out into

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: not us.

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: So those are the highlights.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Any questions?

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: Great. Thanks.

[Brittany Wilson (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: Alright. Thank you. Thanks for having us.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We're good. Good.

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: Too easy. Yeah.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Thanks

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: all. Thank you. Alright. Bye bye.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: doesn't matter. He's not here.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. For record, I'm David Leonard from the Office of Legislative Council. So I'm here to talk about S three twenty six, which is the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill for this year. This bill does not have a

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: lot of

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: direct appropriations impacts for the state. The big one is found in section 15 of the bill, which relates to towing from public property. So currently, DMV can reimburse a towing company up to $125 after it tows an abandoned vehicle from public property. This would increase the reimbursement to $250 And it would also allow DMV to provide reimbursement to the agency of transportation for money that was spent by the agency to have a vehicle removed from public property. And so this is to address essentially a difficulty in getting getting folks to remove the vehicles from public property because of the cost of the removal. So we we did up that reimbursement rate a few years back, but it's been requested that it get increased again.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Quick quick question. I'm a

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: little lost on that, Damon. Section 15, it says assuming consistent rate in future years, the section is gonna increase DME expenses by roughly 32,000 per year. So bringing us from $1.25 to two fifty this year won't increase their fees. Or

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I think it would increase the expenses, but I'm gonna defer to Logan on that because he's the expert on the actual expenditures. Are there questions about other parts of the bill that the committee wanted to focus in on? Logan, did I miss anything? I

[Unidentified committee member]: think it's Yeah.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There there are no other than that, there are no specific appropriations in the bill or new programs being stood up or anything like that.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is that is that all that they talked about over there in finance?

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In finance, they talked about the various revenues. So there are the in sections one, two, three, four, and five of the bill. This relates to providing no cost non driver ID, driver's license, and learner's permits to individuals who are either sentenced for a period of six months or more or detained in our correctional facilities for a period of six months or more. Importantly, detainees include individuals who are awaiting trial. So they could go to trial and be exonerated and released, or they could go to trial and be sentenced to time served and released. In both cases, Department of Corrections and DMV have either already worked out a process or are working on a process to handle the documentation and provide the licenses, but this would provide the license at no cost to the individual. Let's see, Section seven relates to collection or suspension of license or registration when fees are not paid to the state. So if you do a credit or check, check bounces or the credit card charge is declined, This allows them to suspend your license or registration until such time as that's paid. Importantly, the department currently has a thirty day grace period in there to allow folks to put sufficient funds into their account to address the shortfall. Section eight includes additional penalties for stockages and smugglers notch. So when fortunately, we've only had one of those in the last year, but in the event that there is one, this would increase the penalty from 1,000 to 10,000 for going in illegally. And from 2,000 to 20,000, if you get stuck, it needs to be removed. And that's in addition to the costs of removal.

[Unidentified committee member]: Is that increase to I'm imagining it's to better reflect the cost that it actually takes to get the truck and stuff.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It Or is it

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: meant to be

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: So it

[Unidentified committee member]: more punitive and and

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is meant to be a deterrent as a it is a punitive measure. It doesn't pay for the actual removal costs. That said, it is reasonably related to the cost to both the traveling public and to the various emergency services, phone services that need to get involved to do a removal. The current measures, which include signage, chicanes, and the current penalty have brought us down from about five to seven year down to one. Nine. Nine in one year?

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: Okay. No. It was it the the average was eight eight to nine. Okay.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I defer to the senator from that district. Yeah.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: Yeah. My fire department, rescue squad in the stove rescue squad in Bird Park, and the Stowe police would be happy to have you respond.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So it's intended to hopefully address that last one Mhmm. Individual.

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: Thank you.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Any other questions on

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: that? Nope.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. The additional changes in here, there's an added penalty for folks who use a snowmobile and say without a proper decal or registration. Under the anecdotally, under the current system, folks are taking the risk because the penalty is low enough that it's a fair risk to take. So this would increase the penalty. There's a new $40 fee for a one year non domiciled commercial driver's license. This is a driver's license for an individual who is not a US citizen generally. So they're a resident of another country in The US temporarily for work. It does also include in the event that the federal government prohibits the state from issuing CDLs, this could include US citizens or residents of a state that cannot issue a CDL so they come to Vermont to get their CDL. The, let's see, I think, oh, the last couple here. So K trucks and K vehicles, K cars is something you may have heard. These are the mini trucks that you've seen out there. The Japanese mini trucks or mini buses, mini cars. This bill adds clarity that those can be registered provided they meet federal importation requirements, which means they have to be at least 25 years old. But they can be registered in The States, so there may be additional revenues from registrations. And they can either be registered as a regular pleasure car or a farm vehicle. And then finally, there's a new category of limited use specialty vehicle, which are either homemade cars, kit cars, or restoration projects at home or something that's commonly called a restomod. These are custom vehicles that look like an older vehicle, but have very modern componentry underneath. And this will allow the state to register up 12 new vehicles in that category a year at a cost

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: of $26 each.

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And they're registered for limited street use similar to our antique vehicles. So there's there's your additional revenues for revenue changes, not all additional. So any other questions? Alright. I'll give way to Logan, if that's okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: There's the inner physical map that you didn't

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: just come? Just the piece for telling

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: that Damien mentioned. Oh.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Do you want to talk about that again? That's the only

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. You should just mention it because that's why the bill is here.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: For the record, looking over at the Joint Fiscal Office, as mentioned in the beginning, the Section 15, pick up a fiscal note, it would be useful. But section 15, that fee for towing where we're increasing it from $125 to $250 was actually double the amount that the sort of state pays for lease towing. In fiscal year '25, there were, I believe it's $2.56 vehicles that were towed right around there. So if we assume that a consistent rate of vehicles are going be towed in the future, it increased expenses incurred by the department by about $32,000 per year.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Pretty straightforward. That's why the bill is here, but I don't think we need to pull that appropriation in that. It's pretty de minimis. And it's within D and B budget. Pay it any within the budget. So we have to make a new appropriations. So there's no appropriation part. It's just D and B is set and put in their budget.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's an estimate. It will just increase the amount that the department has to pay. So that's why it's here. But it is relatively minor within the grand scale of it. I

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: thought that when I reread the wording for this committee, I thought it

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: was all weird that the Commissioner

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: of DMV has to approve a request from the Secretary and the Secretary of Transportation. So the DMV Commissioner could tell the Secretary that they would

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: I'm saying, and I'm giving them $250 probably won't happen.

[Unidentified committee member]: No. I'll lose the bill too.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Good. I was just gonna. The bill moved favorably. Clerk has some clirting to do.

[Unidentified committee member]: Come to hurry up.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Alright. I will then. Senator Baruth. Senator Brennan. Yes. Senator Lyons.

[Virginia "Ginny" Lyons — time-bounded override]: Yes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Senator Norris. Yes. Senator Watson. Yes. Senator Westman.

[Richard Westman — time-bounded override]: Yes. Senator Westman. Senator Perchlik. Yeah. Reporter.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Was surprised you called his name.

[Unidentified committee member]: You want me to report it?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I think that makes sense. Makes sense to me. Sorry, it took us for a couple of days to get through the committee process.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: So it'll be on lower tomorrow.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Probably the whole event. It'll be on Thursday.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: She said it's Okay.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: You have to go off mute.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: She said we are taking

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: up needed anything. Yes. But you have me carrying a message. Exactly.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We have the bill. She likes it.

[Unidentified committee member]: Tell you that.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: She likes that. We're online. She scares me. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: With that, we'll allow. The district bill s 89.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: Yes. Absolutely. For the record, senator from Chittenden, Central District, and we are government operations committee. S 89 is an act that expands survivor benefits for people who, in large part, work for the state, but not generally, who might die in the line of duty or due to an illness caused by their job. It would expand that benefit that is currently given to firefighters, to our law enforcement, our Department of Corrections workers, our frontline child protection workers in the family division, and the nurses, no, the mental health workers at our psychiatric care hospital. So these are all positions that are in dangerous jobs for one reason or another, and this would expand the currently existing benefit that we give to firefighters to those populations. For reference, the law enforcement officers universe is eleven ninety four sworn law enforcement officers that this would apply to. Corrections workers would be about seven sixty one. Family service workers, 193, and mental health workers, 135.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do Do you know how many firefighters are covered now?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: I have no idea. That is for a total of 2,283 new people. Law enforcement and firefighters do currently also have the benefit of a federal death benefit that is, I believe, last I knew about $470,000. But that federal benefit is not available to the other workers that this bill would cover.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The firefighters post volunteer and

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: It does cover both volunteer and professional firefighters who either die in the line of duty or due to an illness acquired due to their job.

[Unidentified committee member]: Is this retroactive in any way

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: or going forward? It's going forward. And

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the death has to happen on work and be work related or what, like,

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: if you just does it hurt his mouth? You have a heart attack, you're aware?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: I think legislative council will be able to speak a little bit better to the definition of in the line of duty, and there's actually a spot in the bill where we need to add that that we forgot. We've corrected it in one spot and not in another, but it would have to be a death. My understanding is that it is a death related to the job. You know, if

[Unidentified committee member]: you're trying to think of I'm trying to

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: think of some sort of example, but, you know, the instances we have of this happening where this might have applied, for example, would be the death of Laura Sobel, who was killed at I think we all probably remember the death of Laura Sobel. It would also have applied to you know the police officer recently that died in a car accident. These are deaths that are happening because of the job that you're doing. In the world of firefighters, firefighters are exposed to all kinds of toxins and so they tend in all likelihood to have a higher rate of illnesses related to the job in cancers, but I could imagine a scenario where a mental health. You know, or nurse at the care facility maybe gets a needle stick and ends up with hepatitis and ends up dying of hepatitis. But it's it's not something that's gonna happen as often. But I do think there is a a world in which someone in in this these roles could end up with an illness related to their job, but I don't think it's gonna be as common as we see in the firefighting world due to the fact that many of these people are not exposed to the same burning toxins that our firefighters are.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Any questions for Senator Baruth about the bill?

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: Senator Narcos. Well, both I and Senator Baruth put something very similar. I guess my question would be, it's in the bill that I propose. Yours is much more expensive, obviously, But in the bill that I proposed also included incapacitating injuries and so on and so forth. Was that something did you decide to look at or not look at in your bill?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: We didn't look at it. And certainly, there's sort of workers' comp aspect of dealing with incapacity and injury. Right now, next door, I'm having a hard time keeping in death related that isn't immediate in the bill, so I I think we were sort of at the max of what the committee was able to contemplate.

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: I don't oppose bill obviously. Yeah.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: I figured you would not. And I would certainly support addressing incapacity and disability related to the job. I think you might have a harder time getting that through the some of the other members of the government operations committee.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Okay. Thanks. Yes.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: Okay. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is that here?

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes. Of course.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And counselors, do you have anything you wanna add about?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: I think legislative council has a tiny amendment we might be asking you to drop into this. Oh, you know what? I actually do have more information for you. Sorry. The fund is no money in this bill. Yeah. I'm sure you looked through it and why is this even here? And that is because there could down the road be money. Currently, the fund that funds the existing death benefits we have incurred from the treasurer's office has enough to do two payouts. And the way that that statute works is if the fund runs empty or low, they come to the legislature and ask for the appropriation that they need. It is in large part because there aren't many payouts out of the fund. This does not happen often. Keep in mind, you get this benefit from people die. And so there's a one year delay. So if if someone dies today, the treasurer's office has up to a year to make a determination to make that payout so that there's time to come

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: and say, hey, we need

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: to make a benefit payout and the

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: bond's empty. So there is in fact no money in this bill, but if someone dies, there could at a later point be the ask for that payout. As a one

[Unidentified committee member]: time payment. As a one

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: time payment. It is it is it is a one time payment, and the fund currently does have enough for two payouts. So it is fingers crossed there it would not be in in a budget year that we're looking at

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: that they'd be coming to

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: us for

[Unidentified committee member]: a payout.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: Let's hope nobody dies. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Just one quick one quick one. How does that fund the crew? Is it just appropriated when the treasurer requests that appropriation. Yeah.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: There's no

[David Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. Yeah.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: The treasurer has to come to us and say we we have to make a payout.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Gotcha.

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: I assume the interest in

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the account stays in the account or is

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: just Interest in the account stays in the account. We did ask that question to the treasurer. They said that, you know, it's, I mean, there's a $160,000 sitting in there. It's not gaining huge amounts of interest. I think certainly, the treasurer probably wouldn't say no if we wanted to put a larger summon here and let it gain interest, but they're not asking for that.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. K. And then, like I said, I

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central District)]: think legislative council has a tiny little tweak to the language that we're hoping you can do in here so we don't have

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: to do it

[Patricia (Patty) LaRose (Financial Manager, Vermont Department of Public Service)]: on the floor. Okay.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: Yes. Councillor.

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: Good afternoon. Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Council. It sounds as if you're pretty familiar with the bill based on senator Butchlik's summary there. I do have proposed amendment. Can I just go ahead and circulate?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: Yes, ma'am. I should go to 21. I just want to see it too. And just by way of explanation, when the senate gov ops took this out last week, there was interest in actually streamlining the the additional categories of of coverage. So under the strike all amendment as currently drafted, it includes that language, but there are two different definitions. So it includes it under the definition of line of duty, which is section four on page two of the strike call, but it doesn't include it in the definition of emergency personnel. So what this is proposing to do is just align the two definitions. So the change was to add in, and again, looking at the amendment that I passed out, that subdivision E in the middle there, classified family services employees. So rather than it just being all employees in the family services division, it's really those frontline employees. And so this was the requested language was family services employees. And then the second one was to add the word medical. So it's classified medical employees of the state operated therapeutic community residences or inpatient psychiatric hospital units. So it's just it's just trimming the number of of potential individuals who could be covered by the bill somewhat. But, again, this is really just for consistency, and it just slipped through when the senate clerk was making their changes on Thursday. We just thought it might be helpful to have that change when it goes to the floor.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: So medical employees, that was the intent to be inclusive of clinical mental health counselors or exclusive?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: I was not in there when they were discussing it. My understanding was originally it was was going to be licensed or certified medical, and then the request was to have it just be medical to cover folks that also were not a licensed or certified. But the rationale behind it, I can't share with you.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I have a quick question. Yes,

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: when you say state operated therapeutic community residents, can you give me

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: an example of how many we may have left state or got this?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: Don't know that, no. I mean,

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Tom Sorry, Senator, did not

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: hear your question. I apologize.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: The question was the number of state operated therapeutic community residences or inpatient psychiatric hospital units. I don't know if you would know that.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: For the record, Mr. Chairman, Tom Applemore, legislative coordinator for BSEA. My understanding, senator, is that that would apply at the moment to only two existing facilities. That would be the Vermont Psychiatric Care Hospital in Berlin and the River Valley Therapeutic Center in Essex.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, I think the VA, the Veterans Home and Human could be involved in this

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: bill at all? I don't believe that will be captured.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: Okay. I did want to just add, I know in the fiscal note and that there was a a difference here in terms of what's currently in the funds. I just wanted to flag that that this says that the funds currently has a balance of $95,406 which would be enough to pay out one claim, not two. But my understanding is there are no current pending claims.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The fiscal note is accurate? I was gonna ask the treasurer.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: That probably the treasurer is the best. That's supposed to answer that.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: And I think there was the current federal benefit is at $461,000 and something, and it's a lump sum payment, and it it's reevaluated every October. And that does currently cover corrections workers, law enforcement, firefighters, etcetera. It would not obviously be our department of the children and families and our state hospitals, but it covers the others. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So, Norm? Yeah. I should have

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: asked Sandra Volsky when she was in here. It just seems to me that in case of a death or whatever about any survivors that a year seems to be a long period of time for them to get some emergency relief financially. Why the year versus like six months or whatever?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: So that was to make sure that there was time for the treasurer's office to be able to come back to the legislature if there wasn't any money in the fund or if they for example, right now, they have enough for one, but if they had three claims that they they had time to come back and request the money. There have been other versions, similar bills that have proposed having the emergency board be able to provide funding when the general assembly isn't meeting, but that's not in this version of the bill.

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: Just seems like a long time to me, that's all.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And that's existing language, that year?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel) — time-bounded override]: That's new language, to add the year. And that was specifically requested last year when this bill was introduced because of, at that time, there were a number of pending claims and there wasn't that much money in the fund. And then the legislature provided additional funding last year to bring it back up. But there was a concern if that were to happen again in the future.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'll ask the treasurer and office upon it. Thank you. Any other questions for those council? Okay.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: Can you just come up?

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. For the record, David Chair, deputy treasurer. Starting with the big picture, the treasurer certainly supports the purpose of this bill and appreciates the good work that BSCA and several of the others have done to move it forward. One, two notes. One to answer the question about the amount in the fund. What's in the fiscal note is correct. Senator Vahofsky, I take responsibility. That is my mistake, not hers. When I was testifying last week, there had been a misunderstanding in my office about which fund I was referring to. And so came with a different number in my head, but 94,000 is the correct number that's what's in the front now. So it would be enough to pay out one claim. One thing that I did want to give to the committee, our office, there's a couple of assumptions here, but if we assume that the bill stays as is, which is it's currently or at least minutes ago is being discussed again right next door. So I'm not exactly sure what form this may be. But if the bill stays as it is, our office would ask for a one time $25,000 appropriation to contract for potentially contract for a medical expert to help with certain claims. And the reason for that is that as the law is currently stated, there's two ways you might be eligible for a payout. One is if you were to die in the line of duty on the job. And those are relatively straightforward. That wouldn't really need much analysis. Think that's pretty easy. The second way that you could get a payout in the way that all four of the recent claims that have been paid out have come is through an occupation related illness. And so that could be something like a cancer contracted through the course of your service. In particular, this is certainly relevant for firefighters and may be relevant for others too, of course, but certainly, you know, something that firefighters experience and that's actually been two of the claims that have been paid out. Or it could also be heart disease or symptomatic or heart injury or disease symptomatic within seventy two hours from the date of last service. So that could be like a heart attack induced by something that was related to the job. And that I think would actually be a more strict, but it could be a more straightforward claim. And so the concern for our office is just administrative one when you expand it to this significantly larger category of individuals making a medical assessment about whether a disease was related to the course of work, whether it was in the course that could become very difficult. With respect to firefighters, there's current law in particular in the workers' compensation statutes that provide some guidance and direction for us that we rely on when making these assessments. And that's what we've done in the most recent cases that we've dealt with. When with the larger expansion, again, are favorable, we are in favor of the concept, but in order to make sure we're doing it correctly and protecting the fund for those who is intended to serve, we may require contracting plan expert to help us make some accurate assessments.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You're depositing money in the fund, what would you do with it?

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: I think, yes. I think we would I'll check with the operations division. I think we are permitted to deposit it in the trust investment account, which is just a broad that we keep that a bunch of different funds go into that is invested. But I'll check the operations if we're permitted to do that. If we weren't, then it would just be a follow-up line item in the budget that we carry forward.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So for the two firefighters that got the claim for the medically induced, how did you determine what is relates to work?

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: We use, we were, my understanding is that we relied on workers' compensation law to provide the sort of rules and guidance around that. As I understand it, the current workers' compensation laws, especially with respect to firefighters in particular, is fairly well flushed out in terms of what would qualify. And so we've utilized that set of guidance. And I don't have that site in front of me, but I can certainly get that to the committee. And now specific to the cancer diagnosis, no, sorry, I shouldn't say there's two cancer diagnosis as I understand it to heart injury, heart disease cases that in the last couple of years.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you guys have any, you guys mean, does the treasurer office have any projections on if we have these 2,000 employees around 2,000 what the anticipated

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: We don't because of a death related to Or just like actuaries. Yeah. We don't have that information. And, you know, the bill came up relatively quickly. So you haven't been able to do that research. And the the other reality is that we are talking about a relatively small number overall through the actuarial. Any sort of study, maybe a little bit.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Contains some of the Easily off by 50%. Yeah. Yeah. Because I thought Senator told me something about somebody did a retroactive look at these employees who were in there. I don't know how they did. I don't know if the council or the union was there, but they said that there would only be three additional claims.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Is They went back twenty years. They My understanding is that that was looking at individuals who died in the line of duty. It did not include this occupation related illness. Yeah. We know that. Yeah. Perfect. And and I also just wanna say we do wanna see the bill move if, you know, it it shouldn't fail on the basis of the $25,000 ask If

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we put the $25,000 in, we would just have to

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: take it out. I understand. I understand. So But just wanna be clear

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: about Okay. Yes. I don't know. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member (male)]: I'm not quite sure what what you're you're running for over 25 but once the autopsy and toxicology report aid in your decision making process without the assistance of a medical expert or whatever else? As I understand it, that certainly would tell us, presumably would tell us the cause of death, but the assessment about whether it directly arises out of or in

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: the course of service maybe a more complicated question as to, you know, let's say somebody passes from cancer or something like that. Was it because they work in a department of corrections facility that had some issue that had cancerous substances present because it's an old building? Possibly, but that is a much more challenging assessment that we feel like we probably can't make accurately without some assistance on that, some expert assistance. Thank you.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Alright. Any other questions, mister Herriot? Just a procedural question. Are we being asked to pass this amendment or is that just for our information? That would it seemed to be a request from senator senator. It seems to me a little strange that we would do it. Yeah. I don't I'm not comfortable because I honestly, I don't have a deep enough understanding of where this plugs in or the reasons for it or Right. It seems like it's just a definitional thing, but it's just as easy for them to do a floor amendment as a committee of jurisdiction than it is to do it. Absolutely. Okay. I'll tell them the protemps that we can do.

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: Let's get Patrick.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: He is. This this clerk instead of not calling Westman's name, he called it twice.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: I know how he got both.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: I didn't know the last votes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Brennan. Yes. Senator Lyons.

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: Yes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Senator Norris. Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Westman?

[Richard Westman — time-bounded override]: Yes. Senator Perchlik? Yes. Reporter? All reported.

[Unidentified committee member]: I did send a note to Tanya about the medical with this other you know? So but she assured me that it's wonky language, but appropriate, and I agree with her. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, David, I I wanted to ask if

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: the officer said anything to

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: say about the year delay. We already passed the bill, I just thought clarification on why that was needed.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: The lunch counsel correctly noted that the reason for that was simply the amount of money in the fund. And if we were, if the if the board were to find that there was say two, you know, right now, there's enough for one, if the board was to find that there were two payouts required, that money just doesn't exist. And so we have to come back to get that appropriated and then get that out. And in the last round of payments, happened in '25, early twenty five, I believe there actually was a situation where, you know, with the permission of finance and management, shuffled some money to get a payment out and then got it reimbursed from the appropriations. So preventing some of the complications

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: is the motivation for that. You could move the money quicker if you wanted to, like you don't have to wait until the appropriation or PA deal to pass.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Sometimes you can. It does require work with clients and management.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: For sure. Clients and management, we have to move move

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: the money around. Yeah. If you wouldn't

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: have authority to move money around in the treasurer's office?

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Probably not. I mean, this gets into rules that I will admit I am not fully versed on in terms of when permission is needed and who can give that permission for those types of inter year budget reshuffling.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The last Right. In that case, it would be if the family needed the money would begin to get it to them much sooner than waiting for the next legislative session. That's right.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: And I've worked out last time, But this is sort of a release valve in case the money truly can't be Right. Down. Yes. Four of

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: them at one time.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: But it would certainly be our attention to be clear, our intention, if the money is present upon pay it out as quickly as we as the as the board made a finding that it was

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: they were not Who's on the board? What is the board?

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: Do you have What's the I think the call the board is just for this purpose? Yes. It is. Okay. It is the state treasurer designated attorney general or designated the chief fire service training officer and one member of the republic who represents the interest of emergency personnel appointed by the governor. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. This is a hypothetical because I'm thinking of what could go wrong. What if we had a slew, God forbid, of say 10 folks qualify for this in a year and you came back to the legislature and we said no. What happens then? Yeah. Requesting for lunch, Johnson. I mean, those offices thought about You might not have a nicer committee as we have here today. You never know. I think that would be a problem if

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: the state not That would be an issue. Its legal obligations, but it's it's made for itself. But I defer to the lawyers for the legislature. Yeah. Would the family have to sue the state for not following the statute?

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: I believe the statute provides up to 80,000, which isn't necessarily great, but it means that you could potentially Oh,

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: a one time payout of 80,000 to the first person qualified? Up to

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: I think it Up to 80,000. Right. Oh. So maybe it's Yeah.

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: It's divvied up between Mhmm.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I gotcha. I hope that doesn't happen. But You're right. Yeah. That'll be

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: No. It just Yes. It's.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It it's up to one year.

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: Yeah. Yeah. The very in section three one seven three, it says the survivors of emergency personnel who dies while in the line of duty or from an occupational related illness may apply for a payment of 80,000 from the state. So it is 80. I seem to recall last year there was testimony that it was up to, but it doesn't look like that's

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Maybe I was the trader's office saying if we didn't have 80,000 in there, we would give them the 70 We $2.40

[David (Deputy State Treasurer)]: would take it on ourselves to not follow To take state law Right. As we would interpret it. But that that gets into a dicey question. Right?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Right. Yeah. I guess, yeah, the people I could've helped. People feel obligated. But but, yeah, there could be some incidents where you have, unfortunately, six firefighters dying a big fire or

[Tom Applemore (Legislative Coordinator, BSEA) ]: something. I'm and

[Unidentified staff/host (brief interjections)]: gonna to I'm gonna go we'll

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: legislators. To the committee? No. To the beneficiaries. We will adjourn, not adjourn, we will go off. You heard Andrew.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Take a break.