Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We are live.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: By the April 3. And you guys

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: have Just a blurry Friday.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Appropriations. We're going through the halfway through some budget. Each of the past at the house. And the governor's proposal. We have fiscal office with a piece of talking. Our fiscal office is gonna introduce the document we didn't get through. I think we finished the one time.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We finished the base.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the base. We're gonna go through the one. Probably looking at this one.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Why don't we look at the tall,

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: the vertical one? General fund. This

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: is general.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Start with the general fund. Get through the whole dental side picture. So Yeah. The record, I think, her physical.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: On our website. Was it

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: on Yeah.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It kinda awkward. Lights and. Portrait. Mhmm.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: For now. You guys add it to it. We're gonna have to go landscape.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, really?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: There's no. Well, I think either way we're gonna come split it.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I like pork strip. Because you can add a It's a bit around

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: row or column. But then your bond's gonna start

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to shrink.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, we don't get redo.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay. We don't have the budget for that, but noted.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, we know some people that can put something in the budget. Okay. Okay.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So, we're gonna walk through the general fund one time appropriation first, and we can talk a little bit about the other one time appropriations if you want. And then Brady will be here this afternoon to talk about the language. I think that will be your sort of general overview of the big bill. We'll able think about it over the weekend.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and I actually love to hand out stuff. Here we go. Cool.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay. So starting at the top of this sheet,

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: when

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: we do the one time changes, we sort of start with the revenue available that's considered one time, and then walk you through the appropriations and transfers that are one times. So, in line one, there's a little over $10,000,000 of reversions from prior year appropriations. The House identified a couple places to reduce spending. Commissioner Gresham spoke about one of them, the emissions repair program. That's one that you'll have to look into. Believe we already got somebody on it yesterday. But what to do with that one and then a couple other places that

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: they're a sheet. Is that the reference sheet?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We do have a sheet. I don't have it with me. I'd go through reversions and transfers direct apps another day.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Sure.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: And then

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's the reference of the notes. Yes. There is such a sheet.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. There is such an attached sheet. It's just not Not attached. Correct. On line two, there was $30,000,000 to back up. At the end of FY '25, there was contingent transfers and appropriations associated with federal funding. There were two $30,000,000 reserves established, one for federal fund issues and then one for federal funds and other issues, the property tax relief. As part of the governor's budget construct, he's proposing to unreserve and the house agreed to unreserve one of the $30,000,000 appropriations to be utilized to reduce property tax rates. So that money shows up here as one time funds available to be transferred or created otherwise. And then on line three, you'll recall from our conversation on Wednesday that on the base sheet, there was oh, no. I don't maybe talk about this part after a second. That's line five. Sorry. Line three, there is in the budget adjustment process, there was anticipated about $75,000,000 available to be carried forward into this fiscal year. We treat that as one time funds. Those were the funds that the additional funds that the governor sort of flags to go to the education fund for property tax buyout. In the house version of the budget, because of the changes in the miscellaneous tax bill associated with the decoupling and the linking up of corporate income tax provisions at the federal level, there is actually total $4,000,000 reduction in anticipated current year corporate tax revenue. So we had to account for that change. However, we accounted for that as what we anticipate to carry forward from FY twenty six into FY twenty seven.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Just because we have consensus, January consensus, or this is other JFOs?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: This is the policy that are in the miscellaneous tax bill. This is JFOs estimates of what the impacts of the current consensus revenue forecast will be if the miscellaneous tax bill is adopted. So, if the Senate had any changes to the miscellaneous tax bill, that potentially it could impact the current fiscal year, in which case, would make adjustments to the current year revenue projections.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Is there another place where they're miscellaneous tax provisions would increase revenue by 15? Yes.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So, and part of that is, in the current year, it decreases a little bit, then it increases to Okay. The next Yep. So on line four, this is the transfer from the technology modernization fund out of Gretchen shared his comments about yep.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Mister chair, you don't mind. I know I'm jumping way ahead. Oh, sorry. You the carry forwards for property tax. Mhmm. I'm looking down at the at which the one time transfers. And it says to Education Fund for Property Tax Relief, has the house following the governor. I understood that the house had taken a two year approach.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So They reserved the monies, but at the fiscal year, they're

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: going to put it towards that to grow over two years. So it's moved to the Ed Fund, only half of it is

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: All of it goes to the Ed Fund in the fiscal year, and then it's half of it my understanding is in the house passed yield bill, believe. They reserve half of it. They say leave half of that money in the education fund at the end of FY '27 to be utilized in FY '28. But for the purposes of the general fund, the whole 105

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: is picked up and go over

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: to the education fund. And then the budget itself is silent on how the education fund employs those dollars towards property taxes or less.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm sorry. It's probably a distinction without a difference, but it says two education fund, four property tax. Yep. Underneath the work. So that's moved their budget's moved to the end fund. And then didn't you just say there was no

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: In the budget, in this bill, there is no mention of

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Which one?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Once the money gets to the education fund, what happens?

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Because they're gonna do that big deal.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That happens in the end.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So it will be for property tax relief. It's just in two weeks. This is 104, but if you total these numbers up top, it's only 100, they just found four or something.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We felt like other four just sort

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: of fell out. Right. Okay.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And then to your point, so the they had to deal with the offset. So they raised money at 27 for

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the base, but they never beat against it. Sorry, mister

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Paul. Yes. The number one.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Question on that. So is because this line three, right, was is supposed to be for the governor had intended it for to go to property tax relief. Is that baked into the 104 at the bottom here? Is Yeah. Okay. So that's where the bulk

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: of that is. I mean, you think of it that way? Yep. I mean, at the end of the day, right, like we put all the money in and take it back out. It would just, you know, initially when the money was put in, those two things were connected, but ultimately, at the end of the day, it's like, here's the money going in, and then we're gonna spend it on this stuff.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Put your loan on that. And then

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: in the house's position on the yield bills, we're not going to have the forwards over the last two years, so they want to stage it out for two years, so there isn't much of a solicitor. As I understand. Okay.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And then so line five, the governor had assumed that after making all the changes in base appropriations that there would be almost $31,000,000 left over. The house, after making all of their changes, including the changes to the revenue, And then as long as tax bill, there will be $27,000,000 left over sort of is what it once it's counted for to come and be available for onetime appropriation. So there are still like last year, I believe year four and probably the last bunch of years, there is base money covering one time appropriations in both the governor and the house obstruct. It's the other direction that people start getting nervous about, right? So that's

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: out

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So there. That leaves, so the total one time funds is 148,500,000.0 for the house, a little bit higher.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Are you done? Yeah.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: You want me to speak specifically, last one we did the base step, I skipped over all the ones that the governor had, do want me

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: to go through all of them? Do you happen to know if this is the last year of the trucing their facilities? Yeah. The report is due in January?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yep.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: That's good.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And HR one, that's the federal HR one, the last number. Yeah. The one big people bill act. Just be that. Just to be able to deal

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: with those changes, then I'll have to update.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yep. And I think that one had federal funds associated with it also. It'll be a total of $3,000,000 to do those tech upgrades. It's just a little bit of general kind of that first.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's it. Provider of stabilization, we had a whole bunch of those in the BAA.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Last year this was the one that was, I think, we had $14,000,000 of one time money for provider stabilization.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And then the BAA would have additional? They did a

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: little more than the BAA, yeah. Okay.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And then on lines 10 through 14, these are all the net effect of all of these changes is zero, As part of H-three 938, the housing bill, there were some sort of reallocations of the one time appropriations and a little bit more direction on what goes where. So, those changes all net to zero from the perspective of it's the same amount of investment as the governor had of one time funds, just allocates it to the point.

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

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: On line 15 is the nurturing parenting programs,

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: which I can't remember what that was.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, I believe that's throughout Prevent Childs is Vermont. For specific program there, it has to work with that match.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So, think this is the grantee to prevent child abuse? Yeah, so that's just

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Some additional funding for the parent child center for the concrete sports programs. A grant to end homelessness Vermont, dollars 1,500,000. Some money for DCF for the supervised visitation programs. Temporary security facility was recommended by the governor and agreed to by the house. Additional funding for the legal aid helpline, and funding for Legal Aid to hire an immigration, either hire or contract for an immigration attorney. The AHS Central Office has the contracts with Legal Aid, which is why those

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: grants, those appropriations are running through the

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: through the AHS Central office. Additional funding for Meals on Wheels, dollars 500,000.0, which grosses up to 1 point, almost $2,000,000 of global commitment funds that is in Dale, or is it the global commitment's appropriated to Dale? And then the on line 23, that's the goal that's the general fund match for the nurturing parenting programs

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: at DCF. Well, it's $160,000

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: match is a little funny. There's a lot of general fund, and then there's a little bit of that program that can be matched for a global commitment. So there's directly to DCF, is the general there's a direct trial fund appropriation and a global commitment funds appropriated to DCF. So if you have to it shows up a little funny. It shows us the general fund directly to DCF and then the map for global commitment your general fund map for global commitment shows up on the Human Services and Post Office.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But it's the same credential of these programs.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It's for the same program,

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

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So, on line 24, the borrower grants the governor recommended the House concurred with. Line 25, the House added funding for serve, learn, and earn.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Not all of these, but things like serve, earn is in addition to their base. Correct, yes. Not all of these have a base. This is one that has a base. It's same with the Deals on the main. Correct.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The MMPER Manufacturing Home Improvement Repair Program, House concurred with the governor on the one time appropriations for that. They added a million dollars for the rental arrears fund, which ends up being a grant to VHSA. VHSA. Vermont Housing State Housing. Also says V SH, right?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I always have, like, a mixture of VHFA and VHFA.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. There's all, you know it's an Easter egg.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. It was 178.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That million dollar I think the the rental arrears program is outlined or there's changes to it in age 72, which the House bill was House. Concurred with the Governor's additional funding for the Canadian International Development Partnership, that was funded last year. Line 29, additional funding for the Vermont Professional of Color Network. Line 30, funding for ADDs in schools. Line 31, funding Vermont Youth Council.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Just didn't know if that's required in school. We had something about the agency school.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: There's a program that schools have emergency response programs and so this is a continuation in the work that happens.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Which just goes slides through the money, like we wanted anything. Yeah.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I think it goes through AOE. This money will go through AOE for, it says VDH here.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Working with the AOE.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I think that it gets sent, then the defibrillators get sent out to different schools, right?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I believe the house went back to work on AOE versus the health department.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: On line 31, funding for the youth council. We're looking at this, but there may be federal funds there, so that may not be,

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: that might be something to look at, too.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: 32, the Community Outreach Program, I believe was a proposed reduction in the governor's budget. This is one of the, there were a couple that Commissioner Gresham referred to that were base reductions that the House funded as one times. And just to I think you've got an open question about whether or not gonna backfill the program, you should do it at the base.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Like community outreach, outreach people? I

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: believe so. Amy too. Remember that? Think

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: was this the one that

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'm sorry. It's what the house.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's just the house. They're not like it's big.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I don't think it's a big. Yeah. I think it does just because of. That one and that's for our mental health, funding for shelter CBOE out operates. And line 34, some additional funding for HomeShare Vermont. Line 35, half $1,000,000 for NOPA Vermont crop cash, crop cash plus some farm share program.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Ask you on that one. Yeah. There's where's the rest of that company? Lives in the?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It would be in the.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You know? You don't have to know if. Yeah. That's Just I can ask you.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Community outreach program.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Does that help? It's just how it's in the Yeah. I know there's some other communities that are trying to find outreach workers.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay. How much you going from?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: What was your question, Brandon? Just on the he answered it or we will. The online 35 where the bulk of that money lies, and I think it's in the committee.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay. Then, so around line 36, the Conservation District's additional $300,000 there. Some additional funding to the Vermont Food Bank, specifically for the Vermonters, Feeding Vermonters program. Line 38, additional money for the Vermont Access Network and Community Radio. So, this would be in addition to the money in the base plus the additional base fund. There's money in the base that more would add to the base, and then this is a one time top of that. 450,000 for election support. So, this is something that happened. There's a one time appropriation every other year in election years. Well, secretary of state sports counts. Elections. Line 40, additional $50,000 for the civic journalism awards. Line

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 41 Where does the Civic Journalism use? Mean, the

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's like the very. But

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: then is it There was a panel the they

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: decided in the awards, and then

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: they granted it off to the independent local that either got nominated or applied. Yeah, was just wondering who was in the show. Sounds like it's done. It went to SOS Secretary of State, but it had to have the state entity write the check, but it was all the decision were applied. The whole journalists. They put together, like, a board of retired journalists, and I think People there. There were 16 grants, and the money was matched by the community foundation, so we just doubled the amount. Okay. That'll be quick. Cool.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Well, where were we? Line 41, additional funding for Advance Vermont, the Department of Labor.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Do they have a base funding? Do they have base does the stands for a base funding? Or is it only I don't think so. Yeah.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Always been good to tell you that. It's a long serving long time. Got it.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So then for at the department for agency of education, excuse me, for the child and adult care food program, additional $180,000.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Is that like the summer feeding

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: program? Believe so. It's for the, yeah, programs to get outside of the schools. I think it's to do grants for sites that will help to distribution. Line 43, so AGSP CCP, a grant for ECRD for municipal technical assistance. Line 44, also an ACCD funding for the Vermont anniversary. Not Vermont's, but the national anniversaries. Line 45, $2,320,000 to VSAC for the Freedom and Unity grant. Line 47, funding of the treasurer's office for the income tax assistance program. Additional funding of treasurer's office in line 46 for an amortization study, believe that's $75,000 It's outlined in the treasurer's omnibus bill, five sixty seven.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's about pension.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: About pensions, yeah. As we approach the the thirty year mark, there's a little bit more volatility of what the ADAC will be, so this would come up with a plan to mitigate volatility potentially in the future. And then the last one on line 48, appropriation to the general assembly or to the legislative branch to finish the work of the county and regional governance study. This is per diem as outlined in page seven sixty two. And that is all of the one time appropriations in

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That doesn't page seven sixty two.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Does that have anything to do with

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the Wyndham County Sheriff? No.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: There was a bill a couple years ago to do a county regional governance

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: study. Does parity score

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: They

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: stopped They on on basis

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: for a little while.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We met in the first year that the bill passed, and then there was one who was legislators who did get reelected, so they pulled away from it. Somebody postponed her to the remainder of that fall. Chairmanship changed because in the bill, it said that the house and senate gov operation chair would be leading it, had no chairs in either one of those committees. We've met once since then briefly for about an hour for reorganizations, and now senator Collin was in charge of heading back, which is. We have we have that once. Bought anything.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Don't know. Need that bill till they need money.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I know. I don't know where it was requesting. So

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. Where did they need?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think the if the

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They do need it.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Start meeting, there'll be a per diem expense, and so this would cover those per diems. If the bill moves forward and change the dates, then

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Those are times you have on the floor about concern for us. Yes. How much goes with that?

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 20,000. 20,000. 20,000. It's

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: only 15,000.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. It

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: rounds. It's rounds. Yeah. Okay. So the total one time appropes, 30 eight, almost $39,000,000 compared

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to the governor's $30,000,000 So, that $9,000,000 sort of reflects the tech model change.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And so, there are a couple other bills where the one time appropriations stayed with those bills specifically. H67, which is related to legislative operations and government accountability, this $300,000 is a two year appropriation to the Joint Fiscal Office to hire a limited service physician to do the work outlined in age six, seven. It would cover FY27, FY28 position costs.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Is that just that this year, it, introduced last year?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: There was a different kind of yes. It was introduced last year. It got reorganized,

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Pretty snap feeling. It just passed the house

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: a couple of weeks ago.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: H two eleven, an relating to date of birth and personal information. Can't remember what's that for, from the study. H five fifty nine, an act relating to the girl board, similar. There's a pilot You know

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: what the data brokers, who's doing it? That's where what agency?

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Can't remember.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: SOS.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: SOS? SOS. Who's getting the money? I don't know. It's not the next one. Amy just left the SOS.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Well, I gotta put it the notes because I'll forget next

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: time They're talk about gonna put in a question. Yeah.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: H five seven seven, the Vermont prescription drug discount card, dollars 50,000 to the treasurer's office to do marketing of the new program. Page seven seventy eight, enact relating to dam safety. These are funds for physicians, I believe, be part of that program. Miscellaneous tax bill, H933, includes the $100,000 appropriation to Joint Fiscal Office to complete the ten year tax study. That's up this fall. And in each nine thirty five, an Accolated Emergency Management, half $1,000,000 for the Ready Response Grant program at the Food Bank.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So it's 164,

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: one time difference.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. Yeah. I was in the emergency management. Now they're five. They were half 1,000,000, which they didn't get funded last year. I'm sorry.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. And I believe you're

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that's a good point.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: The money would go to emergency management or

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to grant the food bank.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So those are the one time appropriations, both in other bills and in the big bill. In addition to that, there's some transfers that are occurring.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: These are all from the general fund?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: From the general fund to these other special funds. So the first one was recommended by the governor, half $1,000,000 to the Vermont State Police for their radio equipment replacement fund. We learned so and I think what would happen annually is it would it's a one time transfer for this purpose, but if

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: it starts to reoccur and become

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So they're setting up a capital fund for everything as much as it's Right. We're here yesterday because the you're you're part of the Washington District. Washington District talking about board and skiing. I asked them if they had a placement fund, and they did not.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: The house

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: proposed transferring funds to the domestic and sexual violence special fund, which is $350,000, moving a million dollars to the communications Information Pathology Fund. This is the internal service fund that funds the agency of digital services that's got a pretty sizable deficit right now. Commissioner Gresh is

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: going exist a They're just trying to make it denture, but with the million dollars

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think in the, like, technology modernization fund swap sort of just, like, help take some of that money to back towards technology and dealing with that

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: hole. This

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: may make a dent in it, but the hole is pretty big.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Did we deal with that in the BAA too, or is that my SGH?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: At last year's budget, you put some money into it. I think in the BAA, there was also some money put into it. There's a lot of changes in the base budget in terms of ADS receiving general fund appropriation, change configs around, but I imagine we'll be looking at

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: that fund for a couple years to, like, figure it out.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And then, on line 64, we have $1,300,000 going to the Community Resilience Disaster Mitigation Fund. This is for towns that were denied FEMA reimbursement.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Just the Northeast Kingdom.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's just the one that somebody's suggesting removal transportation?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes. I believe Douglas Farnham

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: He's coming in.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: He's coming in. Okay. Good. And he'll Tuesday. Excellent. He'll print that. They I think in the technical letter, there was a request to do it differently.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You could steal from the general fund to the transportation fund, and then the transportation fund would help these immunity.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. And I think it would actually just be a one time general fund appropriation through the agency of transportation rather than putting money in the T fund or doing anything funny. It would just give them an appropriation directly. I think the administration has some suggested language that would be more specific about what to actually do with the money. The House budget just said put it in that fund and then there's no specific language about how to allocate it. So, maybe administration will look for some more guidance on what to do.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So on line 65, hopefully you recall from Wednesday when we talked about the changes in the miscellaneous tax bill, The governor's budget had the change in the purchase and use tax the, and funded the transportation fund, and to make the education fund whole, transferred $10,000,000 to the education fund from the general fund. The House version of the budget changed the purchase and use tax allocations, and then it also changes the neils and grooms tax allocations to keep the general fund whole. What that does was reduce the money available to the general fund

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: by $10,000,000 But

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: it's almost a it's a net neutral transaction because the $10,000,000 that was going to pay back the education fund for the purchase and use tax change doesn't need to happen if the meals and fruits tax change happens. So this additional $10,000,000 doesn't need to be transferred to the education fund, which means it drops to the

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: bottom line of the general fund.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Just so the committee does, transportation is looking at the self construct, it might include something else. Alright.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. So depending on that conversation, we would just need to react to make the general fund or maybe add the fund full, either through the yield bill or this, but

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's fine. Is made all by a transfer from the general fund

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to the education fund Right. To the the T fund. We're simplify.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you wanna go to this sheet?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Well, there's one. Do you wanna talk about line 66? We already talked about that.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Line 66.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Then you transfer a $105,000,000 to the education fund. You've spent all the money. The house budget had about $130,000 left unallocated and unspent when all is said and done. So that's unallocated money. Potentially, something.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's Probably 50.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Or you can leave

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it there. Future generations. Yeah. So, yeah, we're gonna get public future generations. Okay. Special fund. What time?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Special fund. So this sheet has all of those appropriations that I just walked through in the general fund column. That references the same things, but this is just also includes all of the special fund one time appropriations. If I can run through those really quick. Special funds, federal fund, local commitment funds, just other non general fund approach that are in the website. That's the this one? That's the one. Yeah. That's it. So on line three is where we see the actual so we transfer money to the community disaster resilience mitigate disaster community resilience against disaster mitigation funds. That's why I was reading it back. There's transfer of general fund to it, and then you have to appropriate the special fund to out of it, but that will change. And then, doctor Baruth's testimony on Tuesday, that's the $1,300,000 for those towns. On line five, this is what I referenced before. This is the remaining $2,700,000 federal funds that EVA needs to make the technology upgrades for HR one. This is also recommended by the governor. In line 13, this is the global commitment appropriation for the nurturing parenting program we spoke about. Line 19. Nineteen and twenty, this is oh, yeah. So, this is the Legal Aid Healthwide. The total investment is a $100,000. So, this reflects both the 56,000 that's going of general funds, agency human services, plus 44,000 of federal funds. I will say, in the technical letter, JFO incorrectly assumed that this would become a global commitment investment, so we're gonna strike that $100,000 global commitment appropriation. All AHS needs is the federal funds and the general funds appropriated for this purpose, so that will

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: go away, but that's a technical issue.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: On line 23 is what the federal funds will be for the Meals on Wheels program based on the matching rate for global commitment and the half million dollar general fund investment. And then there's another general, the federal fund match related to the nurturing and guarantee programs, for that small gold equipment appropriation. On line 33, there's an appropriation, one time appropriation from the transfer station fund related to the relocation of the central garage in Portland.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Why is he even being here?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Believe, and luckily Chris is here, he can help with this, but I believe it's related to matching funds for the insurance reserve.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Chris, from fiscal, the there there is elsewhere in the budget, it's exact same amount of money coming from, like, the insurance reserve fund, into the t fund, and then this establishes the spending ability out of the t fund using those dollars. So the fund is sort of a pass through, and this is related to Central Neurology. Okay.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Right. It's a state match for it.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's like some of the insurance proceeds for it. Yeah.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. Okay. And then the last one is on line 39 where you have the full global commitment appropriation for renal cell engages. Oh, and I did skip over, should call out, probably, line 26. This is where you have the removal of the funding for the multi purpose center project at UVM that was not funded by the house from the Higher Ed Trust Fund.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Is it called the permanent trust fund?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It's all permanent trust fund. I see. When we categorize it in the big bill, I guess the higher ed trust fund

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: is called out specifically embedded sort of summary and found interest on that. Is the meals on the wheels match from the

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: state of the federal ones, or is that

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. So there's half $1,000,000 of state funds that matches to get almost $1,200,000 of the total funds. That's That's all I'm asking.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's all done. Well, three days. It works. Three Emily's. Is an. But another question, mostly even from. It's kinda curable. I'm kinda like, will be he knows how long it'll be.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Cool.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Good.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Now would you have any other partying?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Today. Happy Friday.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's gonna be that's all we need. So that's why have our chemistry grading or mister Dixon monographer. By the works.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: think that's the full bill

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: that I

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: was passing out now. It just has the language on how Okay. House changes aren't red. So Okay. But this doesn't matter. I know. I'm good. She's Well,

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: now you're That's what you're

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: gonna have to do this weekend. It's holiday.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I got notes from my from committee. Haven't send send this over. Okay.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: What are you gonna do, miss Ginny Lyons? I assume we can just walk through the bill and all flag the house changes and what those changes were. In the documents that passed out, as I mentioned, those house changes would be in red font, so you'll be able to clearly delete them from what was originally in the governor's bill. And I think we can start on page 12 if that's okay with the committee. What about section a 100? Could we change the name of the name for the face of beautiful Oh, contact legislative counsel. Okay. On page 12, so I'll skip over the one times that Emily just reviewed. Language is there for the one times if you have any questions, but for now, I think Emily did a better job of doing that by chance. Beginning on the bottom of page 12 and continuing on page 13, the house added cash fund appropriations. So in the house, capital bill, you'll see the authorizing language for these cash on appropriations, and then this appropriation language in section b 11 o three actually appropriates that money. So this is all that's in house person that Yes. All of the appropriations from the cash fund, and so you have the money you're transferring and then there was already some money in the cash fund, you're transferring in the transfer section about 17,000,000 and then you have 6,000,000 that was already there, so a total of 23,400,000 is being appropriated. On page 15, section c 100, so the governor's recommend had no c sections, which are sections that, further amend the current fiscal year. This first section c 100 is just a technical correction to something that appeared in the b a just a few weeks ago, which was allowing for, the human services caseload reserve to be used if necessary for the state match for the payments wires. And in that language, it cited Adams or sorry, commission the commissioner finance amendment's authority to transfer funds. Finance amendment flagged for us that this would be more appropriate as an appropriation, so that language just fixes that. Section c one zero one on the same page. This just strikes a duplicative reference to the general fund that you'll see on line 17. And then it was flagged by the administration that the language saying for the purpose of restoring these community partners to their fiscal 2025 appropriation level, this is the, homelessness provider partners. That, doesn't align with the dollar amount that was in the BAA, so that line is just being struck. Section c one zero two on page 16, the budget adjustment as enacted was designated the first 74,900,000.0 of any fiscal year end balance because of changes in the house miscellaneous tax bill. That number had to be lowered to 70,900,000.0. Section c one zero three makes amendments to the appropriation act 73, for the agency of education. It doesn't change the total dollar amount of the appropriation, but it changes the uses of that. So you'll see in sub one on page 17, the 200,000 allocation is being amended to now view $1,400,000 allocation for awarding transition grants to school districts. And then in sub three, the $2,100,000 allocation for contracted services is being amended to 850,000. And then it adds some further guardrails to the appropriate or the allocation in a one specifying that agency shall use the funds in a one to award transition facility grants to school districts and cooperative educational service areas to support the work of transitioning to new governance models. And then in sub c on page 18.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Ratings were 48. So I'll pass that. Are these, I'm just curious. Are these tied to things now in house ed, or this is act 73?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is acts of this was in preparation in act 73. Okay. And so we're just fiddling with that with those With that. Yes. Exactly. With the allocation of that appropriation. Okay. And so you'll see then in sub c on page 18, again, changing some of the allowable uses of that allocation, stating that it may be used to contract for data analysis and provide direct support to school boards for business processes that are required to be completed before new school districts become operational. On page 19, section c one zero four, this is language relating to the, you'll recall in act 27, the, functions that were set up for addressing any downgrades or reductions in federal revenues. The original language just applied to fiscal year 2026, the house added language that would also apply that mechanism to fiscal years 2027, 2028, and 2029. On page one, section c one zero five, this, is an amendment to statute to allow a fund that is operated by the secretary of state. It allows for the unobligated balance in the fund to remain in the funds rather than be transferred to the federal funds. Which fund? The the the collection? The secretary of state services fund. Do you know what that is? What does that mean? I'm not sure where the revenue comes from. I would have to get back to you on that. Services, I guess. Presumably provided by the Secretary of State. That was all very helpful. We can ask SOS. In section d 100, beginning on page 22, the house made no changes to the property transfer tax allocation section, and this is annual language. Section d one zero one beginning on page 24, would also ask for the committee's permission to skip over. This is just reflective of what Emily reviewed in the transfers portion of her spreadsheet.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Permission granted.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Section d one zero two on page 28, the house added three reversions. I would flag for the committee that the technical letter that the administration sent over yesterday has some technical corrections to just the way three of these reversions were done. So JFO is reviewing that. I believe at some point early next week, we'll come in and review the technical letter with the committee. Section d one zero three on page 29. This is the annual reserves estimate, estimate section. I was just flagged for committee in sub b. This was in the gov rec. This relates to the fund reserving of the 30,000,000 that was in, act 27, section b 11 o one. So that 30,000,000 is being added to the 70,000,000 of the year end balance for the transfer to the education fund. And then in sub c, there's language in the government has been amend. This relates to reserving any general fund balance at year end in f y twenty seven for property tax relief, permanent housing initiatives, or other uses that turn into the best interest of the public. Was there it's like 70,000,000 in that. So the 70,000,000 was in the BAA. It was originally 74, and then because of the miscellaneous tax bill, was reduced to 70,000,000 or about 71,000,000. And then that this 30,000,000 here that was reserved in act 27 is part of that $100,000,000 Yeah. I guess I was asking I was asking about the general fund balance that's referenced in c. Oh, I can't speak to how much money that would be. I don't know if there's any estimate as of now. That would be end of year construct. I don't know what we call that fund, how we set aside for federal impacts. Right, so there was was some on the staff. '27, there were three pots of money established. There's the 50,000,000, which was used, last November, and then a further 30,000,000 for federal reductions. And then this 30,000,000, it's being on reserve to use broader Right. Best interest uses for the best interest of public. Right. So there should be, like, 70 something that's still reserved for the

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the impact on those problem.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. I think it's about 42 remaining for three plus in the 50,000,000 and then the 30,000,000. Yeah. Am I? Yeah.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I was gonna say you've got what's left after the snap allocations. Plus, there was flag of the Budget Adjustment Act around the state housing authority. Actually, utilizing some sort of the HUD. Oh. Changes and that. There's 30,000,000 that we touched.

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

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Section e 100 on page 30. So the governor's recommended budget included a number of pool positions and then one position conversion. The house established a number of positions. So you'll see, the position conversion, which was on page 31, the Department of Public Service, one financial director for that position conversion was in regard to that. And then the house added the rest of these position creations and conversions. And I would flag her for the committee. The mediator position at the Vermont Labor Relations Board after the bill was enacted, it was flagged for us that that position should be exempt, not classified. So if that position were to remain in your bill, it would have to move to be classified rather than exempt. Which one? Exact rather than classified. In c one? Which is c one judiciary? Judiciary or over here? Vermont. Alright. So there's some there's some interest in that that meeting being a lawyer or an attorney instead of a. I believe the original original request was for an attorney a satanary position and a mediator position, and the house established one mediator position. On page 31, continuing on to page 32, this is a house added section e 100.1 amending act 27, which this relates to, reporting on ARPA appropriations. So there was the, quote, unquote, ARPA wash in act one thirteen, and then reporting requirements from the AOA to the general assembly on the status of appropriations that were reestablished from originally being ARPA appropriations to general fund appropriations, and the dates needed to be amended to make sure that that reporting continued as long as it was relevant. And then in sub c on page 32, there's a strike to the reference of Anne sub c in an accident one thirteen section e one zero six, which, related to ARPA dollars that remained ARPA dollars, and so as of that date, the 12/31/2027, there are not ARPA funds in existence any longer from this date. So that reference was just scrapped because that information is irrelevant. On page 33, section e 100.2, this is language requiring the secretary of administration to report to JSC as 2026 meetings and other meetings as requested on any reductions to federal revenues to the state and the status of any appropriations impacted by those reductions. This is the exact same language as of here in Ginny Lyons. Section E105, this amends the Technology Modernization Special Fund statute, to specify that in the event of a deficit in information technology internal service fund, that the portion of the balance of the technology modernization special fund that is enclosed in interest be transferred to that information technology internal service fund. Section e one zero five point one relates to the same issue. This is a required report from ADS, in constant consultation with the Department of Finance and Management on a written plan relating to deficit mitigation of the Information Technology for Internal Service Funds. I would flag for the the governor recommends, out of the section e one zero six originally that related to amendments to the allocation of the estate tax revenue. So proceeds in excess of 125% of the forecast currently go to the higher education inbound trust fund. Where is it now? You won't see it in this document. I'm just flagging that the cut, language was cut from the house bill. So there's a couple of sections relating to moving those excess proceeds from the Higher Education Development Trust Fund to the school construction aid, trust fund or school construction aid fund. And so that section e one was stripped by the house. Oh, it's but it's here, but the changes to it were taken out. That's what you're doing? The current e one zero six is an entirely different subject matter from what was in the government record, section e one

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: zero six. Does that have to do with money being banned?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. So the government also had $50,000,000 from the trust fund as well as the ninth move over to the school construction. Yes. So there was a statutory change moving those excess proceeds rather than them going to the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund as they would go to the school construction aid at the bottom. The house removed those changes from their bill. Section E106 in the House Bill adds to the statute relating to, what information needs to be in the governor's budget presentation, adding that a document outlining reversions and approved carry forward by appropriation be included in that information. Section e one one one, this is a full position. So this is specifying that of funds in section b one one, 135,000 is for a permanent classified business analyst position to be taken from this position pool.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And we're at taxes. Are there ever positions that add approval from the pool position?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Do we have any position to add approval? Like a lifeguard? No. Not this year. Okay. Maybe some of that boarak money can be just for Yeah. Know. Need a pool Cool. On on page 36, section e one twenty seven, this is language requiring JFO to, provide a series of reports on special funds. So an initial report would be due on 12/15/2026 providing a general overview of all special funds currently in existence. And then over the course of four years, we would be required to, review and report on special funds that fall within particular function areas of government. And then a final report would provide a review of special funds that were created since that report process began. So over the course of four years, JFO would review all special funds in existence. It's part of the effort to maybe get rid of some of them, but I could sunset, commissioner. I can't speak to what the what the general assembly may wish to do with the information provided in the report, but it doesn't ask for recommendations or special funds that we might wanna give it. It does not.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You sure you can count that one?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I will be doing the count. On page 38, this is a section E131. This relates to a report on the uses of a higher education endowment trust fund. Each year, the treasurer is required for the statute to issue a financial report on that trust fund. This would just specify that even calendar year 2026, the treasurer shall consult with the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund Council and include recommendations on any changes to revenue sources to the fund or expenditures from it.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: following two sections, I did not change to be read, but relating to changes that the house made vis a vis meet day, the numbers here changed. I'm not sure mister Christopher can speak to that if the committee doesn't have questions. Just the meeting of numbers in the non red section. Correct. There's updated.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. These numbers are slightly different from what was in the cutback.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: So because it's not red.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know why it's not red.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Why?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I failed to highlight in red the number changes. Just finding some pretty different. These numbers changed even though they are black.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay. Just making sure I understood.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. All the all the is direct. All the numbers are changed.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: You might think it was changed by the In both of

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the house? Yes. Just in January, not one thirty four or also on 134? 134. And the 514. 133.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: What about 133? They also did Yes.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The the house made changes to these sections and numbers, and so these numbers are black, but they are changed from the gov bracket.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Actually red.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Download now.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Assuming there are any agreements with administration to provide those So these numbers change per house decisions on BPEC? On page 39, section e one thirty five, this was language added by the task relating to that mediator position. So this just asked to with statutory authorities that the labor relations board may employ a mediator to provide mediation services to public and private sector collective bargaining units. The board, what you the state had a report. Yes. Gives them a mediator and said they may hire a mediator. This adds to statute that the board may hire a mediator, and then earlier on in section e 100, that position is created. This allows them to use a mediator to provide the discreet mediation services.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: On

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: page 40, this is the first of the number of sections, that relate to the state ethics commission. So this first, section here specifies that of the general fund appropriation section b one thirty six twenty one, up to 140,000 may be used by the commission to fund a permanent exempt staff attorney position. And then it specifies, that that staff attorney position will prioritize obligations in providing education, training, guidance, and advice to persons subject to the state code of ethics. Section e one thirty six point two amends some effective dates relating to the ethics commission and rulemaking establishment and authority. Just pushing those effective dates out by about a little less than a year. And I would flag for the committee here the technical letter also addresses a potential issue with this language. So JFO is working with wedge counsel on an update on that.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: So not with none of this language was taken out of a bill. This is all original language within the budget itself?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. This was added to much directly. Section e one thirty six point three. This is an amendment that would, again, push out effective dates relating to the ethics commission. And then in e one thirty six point four on page 42, this adds language relating to the establishment of the state ethics handbook to statute. On page 45, this is the final section relating to the ethics commission. This just states that the executive director of the commission shall publish the ethics handbook being added to statutes in the prior section on or before January and submit a draft copy of that handbook to this relevant standing commitments before 12/15/2026. Section e one thirty nine, this specifies that 70,000 of the appropriation section b one thirty nine, two PVR be used for the defense of brainless appeals regarding reappraisals of higher drone electric plants. This, is annual language, and the committee may recall that in the budget adjustment, the appropriation in section b one thirty nine was changed to be out of the pilot fund rather than general fund. And and the governor recommend the same thing was occurring that that would be out of the pilot fund. Section e one thirty nine point one was added by the house, as belts and suspenders to ensure that that appropriation would be, you the helpful use of the pilot fund. The governor's recommended budget included statutory changes, but those statutory changes were removed from the bill by the house, and were put in another bill, but the bill that they were put in as passed by the House does not include the statutory changes.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: K. That's good. Yeah. Going backwards slightly to e one thirty nine. It's not red. It's specifically about hydroelectric plants. Is there a specific situation we're anticipating because by calling this out?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't believe Sirius has, not changed his annual language. I would have to get back to you on that, though.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. I'm just curious what that is.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: not sure that I have the objection, but maybe it

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: just has to do with

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: the Green River Reservoir, like, what it's gonna be.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I can jump in. So those are the dams that they're referred to and that has been long standing are mostly on the Connecticut River. Okay. So as they're reappraised, sometimes there's litigation between the town and the owners of the dams. That's topics about town so that sort of realistic. The reappraisal litigation that may be associated with trying to establish what their value is

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to collect property taxes. It's specific, I think, to reappraisal's happening.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Okay. And this is ongoing? Mhmm.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's been. They're receiving a job. Yeah. So Oh. The town's like, we need help in the state.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Okay. Alright. So, it's another question about that. I know that institutions has been interested in this whole discussion. This is only for reassessment for tax purposes. There's nothing in this currently going on with lease agreement analysis or land use around the grounds?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Not to my knowledge. Okay. Was this 70 k from the general fund that says a transfer? No. This is specified the allocation of this appropriation in b one thirty nine that is all from the pilot fund. The next few sections are annual language that was unchanged from the house. On page 48, you'll see the governor recommend language relating to the establishment of that state police radio equipment replacement special bonds that Emily spoke to earlier. The policy is Send your Norris. State police radio.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Work on the work outside.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Session on the phone. On page 49.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Bring a full letter.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. On page 49, you'll see there are two sections related to, positions taken from the position pool that were in the governor's recommended budget. So it specifies that, 442,000 federal funds in section b two one seven are the federal share for six classified limited service positions from the pool. And then the following section relates to the general fund 25% state share for those positions. On page 15, section e two two two, this is another position full section that was in the governor's recommended budget, unchanged by the house. This specifies that 95,000 general fund, 27,000 special funds, and 13,000 federal funds are for a permanent classified administrative services manager three position from the group at the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets. Is this above and beyond the one position? They came in and said our our budget was 2.8%, and it's the new bound going within the budget to support this other position that we need. Is this the position error regarding? I'm not sure. Would assume so. Yes. 6% of those budget. I think it'd be. Section e two thirty two, the secretary of state access network budget. I would just flag for the committee that this number was increased from what was in the governor's recommended. I believe it was around 1.4, and now it is 1.8, for the Vermont access network. On page 51, section e two thirty six, this is a house added position pool creation section. This is 130,000 general fund for a permanent exempt staff attorney investigator position at the Human Rights Commission. In section e 300, I would flag for the committee that, you will see the number was increased slightly, I believe, by about $200,000 specifying that of the appropriation section d 300, now 2,450,000.00 is for a contract with the office of the healthcare advocate. Very specific. The four four zero six stayed exactly the same, so I figured, you know, why why waste why waste, Tucker? Section e 300.1, this is a house added section relating to a report to JFC from AHS in consultation with DCF and BGS on its plans to develop the Green Mountain Youth Campus and its progress on a complete unambiguous written analysis of the estimated costs of operating full utilization of the proposed 41 bed high end system of care. And then it specifies in sub b that notwithstanding any laws in the contrary, DCF and VGS shall not expend funds on further development of the Green Mountain Youth Campus until the Joint Fiscal Committee in consultation with the chairs of relevant standing committees approves the resumption of expenditures for the campus. This is the justice involved in this facility? What is this?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: This is a replacement for the one that we used to have at the 6000. Oh,

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: they were gonna build it.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: They were gonna build this is this. Not gonna.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Was. Was that that's where

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yes. Yeah. Woodside. And then it was gonna be in Newbury, and then it was gonna be in Virginia. So I mean,

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it's gonna be. Most of the thing, the original, let's say, is $3,000,000. And now we've seen that problem.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Nolan, you wanna say something about that? Sure.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: For the record, Nolan, I want this class. It's I think this also stems from the idea that a lot of times the administration, they start signing contracts, bring RFPs, and

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: they come to you guys, ask for an appropriation. After that,

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: and I think this in the sense to say, don't move forward until we've given the

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You're saying?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. You

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: wanna know who gets to just figure this to determine whether it's an ignorance? Well, I did have

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: a question about that. I think

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the house asked for it. Somebody else could be aware of this in the as well. I don't remember what you had on. That's just your question.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. Well, I I I don't really objected before. It was just

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: did the same thing. They thought it's earlier point were

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Were ambiguous. Ambiguous. That was kind of what

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I I that was sort of the implication that perhaps there could have another one

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: that was ambiguous.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The language is ambiguous regarding who determines the ambiguity. Right. We're getting this real clear. We could create a study community. Okay. Moving on. Section e three zero six on page 56. So the governor recommends, substantively similar language, directing EVA, to submit a state innovation waiver, to establish a program for reinsurance and seek federal paths through funding. The house amended this, to make it authorizing rather than directive.

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

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Section I would flag, before moving on, to section e three zero six point two, there was language around this section in the governor's recommends that was extending the sunset of the health IT fund. That was moved to h nine thirty three, the miscellaneous tax bill. So it was removed from the budget year, but it is moving in h nine thirty three. Section e three zero six point two, this is another position full section that was in the governor's recommend specifying that roughly half 1,000,000 general fund and half 1,000,000 federal funds before establishing, multiple positions at DIVA through the position below. Section e three zero seven was in the gov rec. This relates to allowing payments ordinarily made by the secretary of education, for Education Medicaid receipts to instead be made by the Commissioner of DEVA. And then following that, there are a number of sections relating to, further clarification and amendment of the Medicaid School Based Services Program. And I applied for the committee these sections, sections e three zero seven, continuing on to all the way on to, page 65. Multiple of these sections are effective on 10/01/2026, and, the language establishes a new special fund and then directs transfer of monies from the current special fund, the Medicaid reimbursement special fund, to the newly established school based Medicaid reimbursement fund. Section E307.8 on page 65, is language directing DVA to review implementation of family planning codes in the Medicaid program to ensure that expenditures for family planning services that are eligible for the 90% federal match are receiving the enhanced rate, and then to report to HR on or before 10/01/2026, as well as JFC on its findings, and an estimate of any reductions to general fund expenditures that can be realized as a result of that review. Section e three one one. This is a repeal of the AHEC sunset. I would flag for the committee in section e three twelve. So there's annual language relating to money as for, Vermont AIDS service and peer support organizations, and then also money for HIV and harm reduction services. Typically, that language has appeared in the budget as one section. The governors recommend because those two buckets of money are operated by different parts of the department, recommended having it as two separate language sections. That house consolidated it back into one language section. And then per the budget adjustment, the 340,000 is an increase over the gov rec that you'll see on line 10 of page 67. The budget adjustment increased the amount of money to those three providers or organizations, Vermont Cares, AIDS Project, Southern Vermont, and the HIV HCV Resource Center. And because the language in this section says that those grants can't be lowered from the prior fiscal year, that increase is carried forward into this FY '27 bill. So that's a $45,000 increase over the gov records. On page 69, section E313, this directs the Department of Health to review previous appropriations from the Opioid Abuse and Special Funds and make recommendations to the Advisory Committee and relevant standing committees on which appropriations could be funded by the Substance Misuse Prevention Special Fund instead. Section E316 is language requiring a report, from DCF to the Appropriations Committees and the committees, the House Committee on Human Services and the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare on an actionable phased plan that estimates the amount needed to remove the revival induction in the re reach up program. I cannot recall the act number offhand right now, but this is the same language that was used several years ago to require a substantively similar report. Did they actually do the report? Yes. I believe Yes. By the time that this report would be, provided, it has to be about five years since that prior report.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Section

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: e three seventeen on page 70. This is language relating to supervised visitation program appropriations. So the house specified some money and then also added some one time money. This clarifies that 137,000 of the general fund appropriation in b three seventeen, the 130,000 appropriated in the one time section, and then 100,000 of the federal funds appropriation in section B three nineteen be distributed by DCF to supervised visitation programs. 199,000 would go to six community based with supervised visitation sites. 118,000 would be for startup funding for additional sites and counties where programs do not currently exist. And then 50,000 would go to Vermont Network, or statewide supervised visitation coordinator. And then in sub two, this would direct DCF to work with the Vermont Network to develop a funding formula for supervised visitation sites and to identify community partners to develop two new supervised visitation programs.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: So is the $50,000 going to base funding?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I would have to get back to you on that as it currently is. Some of this money is base and some is one time, I'd have to just get back to you on the specific allocation. Section E3.2 on page 71, this was in the governor's recommended budget. This relates to changes at the federal level and specifies that a household receiving three squares Vermont benefits that is not otherwise eligible for a fuel benefit, shall receive a nominal annual home heating fuel assistance benefit of $21 if a member of that household is elderly or disabled. Yes. Are you the first, please? Section E three twenty two on page 71. I'm not I'm not gonna do that.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And that's a set amount for a long time.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I would have to get back to you on that. I would presume so. Let's

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: let's look into raising the

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: title.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This can't be it's how to

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: make them eligible, think. Yeah. Or something related to.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's eligibility. This is just changing eligibility for changes at the federal level. Yes. So it makes them eligible. Once you're eligible for a benefit of 2021. I believe this is more limited eligibility than previously existed. Just makes them eligible. It's not that we're actually sending out a set of set of settings. I would have to get back to you on that. This is just restricting the eligibility for changes at the federal level. Do we ask dual assistance programs, or do we ask Oh, yeah. Dual assistance, or do we ask?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Economic Services Division.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So we can ask OIE to or send us a note or send it to grading and we get a grade.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Great.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: On page 72, section E329, this is a report from Dale, in collaboration with the Departments of Health and Mental Health and the Office of Healthcare Reform to submit a plan to this relevant standing committees on developing and conducting a data informed patient focused community inclusive engagement process for the DAs and SSAs. So this is substantively similar to language that, established what was referred to as the Albert Weinen report, for the hospital transformation Green Mountain Care Board. This would be Chad Dale, but, this would not actually be directing them to begin this community engagement process. This would just be directing them to as part of their fiscal year twenty twenty seven budget adjustment presentation, include any request for an appropriation that may be necessary, for a consultant to conduct that work. So just be looking into doing that work in the future. Since it doesn't

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: specify, could it be an ambiguous?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I'm looking at this language.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I know. We should put that in the.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That's what I'm saying.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Now I think it's a big analysis.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: You don't answer it to me on my.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Do have, 393? Maybe. What's it? 7. Sorry. On page 73, this section e three twenty nine point one, this is language requiring Dale as part of its fiscal year twenty twenty eight budget to present as separate line items, the choices for care program, the home and community based services, and the skilled nursing facility services. This language was flagged in the technical letter, and the joint fiscal office is looking at that to see what changes may be necessary. Section e three twenty nine point two, this is another full physician section. So this just specifies that 130,000 general fund in section b three twenty nine is for a disabilities housing coordinator position to be taken from the pool. On page 74, this is language requiring the agency of education to submit, specific information as part of its FY twenty seven budget adjustment and FY twenty eight budget presentations. So this outlines that a o e must include a comprehensive account of f y twenty seven appropriations, information on amounts expended, comprehensive account of anticipated FY 2027 carry forward, and then I believe the commissioner of finance and management filed for the committee yesterday. In sub three, information on all third party contract agreements the agency entered into. Sub four, organizational charts reflecting the current structure of the agency and each division within it. In sub five, written explanation of any changes to the agency's organizational structure. Sub six, a comprehensive account of any vacancies within the agency. And then in sub seven, information on any changes to federal funding or views. It needs to say unambiguous or change. Section E 500.2 on page 75 and continuing on to page 76. This was in the governor's recommend as it relates to full positions Full positions established in at AOE, changing those positions from limited service to permanent.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: How many many positions do we have in?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I think we have to get back to you on that. Does it fluctuate?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: It doesn't fluctuate. Yeah. You need to up the Grand Isle office. And right now, there is just a handful of positions in the pool, but I think through some of the movement in the budget, some positions that are coming be coming into the pool so that there'll be enough to carry over what's in the budget.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Because I thought full position will cap at a certain amount. And when any in vacant, agencies could pull

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: from the pool, which was this create more position for the pool.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: So there's a number there's a cap on the number of positions, and then they're selected to roll if they're vacant for a certain period of time. You're all you were almost right.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I feel like

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it. Sorry. But

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: as far as the governor's recommended everything that pool positions for all the positions that he created, and we'll have a handout for all the sessions in the I would flag for the committee, there were other sections again relating to that change of where an estate tax revenue went, that were in e five hundred secondtions and then we were pulled by the house. So you won't see those in this document. The same things we talked about earlier. They've they've moved it into other Yeah. The changes relating to that. So it was year, the language relating to the allocation of excess estate tax revenue was proposed to be struck from the higher education trust fund, and so the that section was removed from the bill. Perfect. In section e 500.3 on page 76 and continuing on to page 77, this was language in the gov rec, just specifying that, rather than set dollar amount that the agency of administration could use for administrative costs relating to the universal after school and special fund program. Amended to say rather than up to $500,000 annually of five annually for administrative costs to say up to 5% of annually forecasted revenues. And in this case, the agency is AOE? Yes.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So, Grady, do you have any sense of what that has been for the last few years?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. I would have to get back to you on that.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay. I'm just wondering if this is

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: a big bump and what

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: they can spend or if it's roughly what the estimate's been made for.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think when they testified in the VA and were under the 500,000, they were Pumping up. Pumping up near there. So I don't know If the idea was to make sure they could go over that or not.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: On

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: page 79, you'll see a house added section e five zero four point two. There are multiple sections relating to, changes to the OWL education, formula. Now and then these sections continue on to page 82. I would just flag for the committee that one of these sections is contingently effective on the contingencies being implemented in an act 73. So section e five zero four point five amends statute to say categorical base amount rather than base education amount, that would align this part of statute with those contingencies in act 73. That section would only be effective if those contingencies in act 73 were implemented. So is that why the language is a little bit different than five zero four point two and five zero four point five? Yes. So there would be as far as that category one in one place it says the base education of Ashland, but it says that the categorical base. Yes. Exactly. And that's not correct? Yes. So, it would be e five zero four point five would be an amended statute to align with those x 73 changes if they are implemented. And then the other sections relate to, amending the formula for, adult education. There would be in f y '27 and '28, one formula, and then beginning FY '29, there would be a separate formula. That's why you have two different ways because over time it changes. Correct. We'd love to talk about adult education. Section e five fourteen point one on page 82. This is another black section that should have red numbers relating to the deck.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: four Five fourteen. Point one. E five fourteen point one. And including the number on page 83. Yes. I would flag for the committee, the gov rec in these e 500, had proposed changes to the purchase and use tax. And so there were two sections relating to that that the house stripped from the bill. They were is that part of their their extensification by anything? The the proposed changes are not reflected in the budget or in the house. But that's what you know, what they took out. When you said the governor's recommend that language about the purchase use. It wasn't what's It was related to moving it from the education fund to the transportation fund. Yeah. Okay. Just making sure it wasn't something. Section E606 beginning on the bottom of page 86 and continuing on to page 87. The governor recommend had one final piece related to the proposed change to the state tax that was reflected in e six zero six. The house removed that change, but did keep a small technical correction just clarifying that money is gonna be transferred to the fund and appropriated to it. Section e 700 is gov link gov rec language that the house did not change. This makes some technical updates to statute, reflecting that the fund, is relating to the agency rather than just specifically to the Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation, and then also amends the allowable uses so that these this fund can be used for administrative administrative costs. On page 90, section e 700.1, There are two sections here that amend accident resolves number 11 of twenty eighteen. This relates to, settlement funds from the Volkswagen litigation, and this expands allowable uses so it removes that funds are specifically related to electrification of the transportation system. And then in the second section here also specifies that the secretary of natural natural resources, can use the trust monies, specifically for 15% of the purchase of light duty ESV or electric supply equipment, and then dedicating the remainder to the replacement of mobile sources that consume fossil fuels with all electric and mobile sources. So I believe I I'm not sure if there's a time limit on the use of these funds, but the request was to expand the uses of these funds to make sure that they can be fully utilized. Section e 700.3, this is on the pool position at a and r. This is 300,000 for two positions of two environmental engineers.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: From the pool. Well,

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Section e 923, in sub nine on page 93, I would flag for the committee this probably also should have been read. The gov rec had, language specifying that the transportation fund, shall retain all interest earned on the fund. And after discussions between numerous parties in the administration and JFO, that language was determined to be technically unworkable just due to the nature of the transportation fund and the funds. So this just specifies that, the transportation fund shall retain all interest earned on the non dedicated component of the funds. And as you'll see in the effective date section later on, this change was not factored into the AOT budget for FY twenty seven, so the effective date of this would be pushed out until FY twenty eight. And what is 32PS a 308 a e? Alright. How do we get back to you? I believe that that's the retention of interest on special funds. Oh, okay. So what was the special fund that they were referencing? What is the math?

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It's all special.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. I believe this is the transportation and the balance reserve or stabilization reserve.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Three zero eight day.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: What's the status?

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Christopher, what's the it speaks to the T fund budget stabilization reserve. The interest that is accrued on the stabilization reserve already goes into the T fund. Right. What this language would do is put the interest on the rest of the nondedicated part of the

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: T fund to get

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the T fund beginning at FY '28. That's about a million bucks. Yeah. And it's all just in the T fund anyway? No. It's in the general fund right now. I see. Interest is not the interest. The interest goes to the general fund right now. What this change does is move that to the T funds. You're getting an F by '28.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: But I think more generally, unless otherwise specified as interest earned by a special fund. Goes to the general fund. By default. Some special funds, there's specificity in language that says any interest earned by the fund is retained.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Like the check mark.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's a great example of where that is stipulated in statute.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So this says that's silly. Let's just keep. Thank

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: you. Maybe

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the special bug report that you'll get next year will have more information about which bonds get interested.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that would be

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Maybe.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm looking for it. If that's something that would interest you. Yeah. Section e nine twenty three point one, this is called correct language just specifying that transportation funds can be used for the purchase of electric vehicle supply equipment in our reports by the Department of Housing and Community Development. So this just ensures, that funds for that purpose can go directly to the EHCD rather than the preferred utility. Beginning on the bottom of page 93, the house added the entirety of the pay act to the bill, so these are reflected as the f sections of the bill and continue on to page one seventeen.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This is called language changes or there are well, there are.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Are dollar changes in the language. This is all the. Yep. And then The pay act right now, separate bill in The pay act was a separate bill, and then it was pulled into the budget. So the entirety of the pay act was pulled into the budget. So will senate gov ops be reviewing the pay act? I would defer to the senate secretary on if the budget would be directed to senate gov ops, but the pay act bill, I do not believe was moving front of the house. It's just the same as similar, but into the bucket.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We did, a few years ago, have a complaint from the former chair of gov ops that it did not go to.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I thought that was because it usually did, but that's that's not. But Jamie was of the opinion that it didn't.

[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That's why it didn't.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And then finally, you have the effective date section beginning on the bottom of page one seventeen and continuing on to page one eighteen. So all the c sections that were added are effective on passage, and then three of the sections relating to those changes to the medal education formula changes are also effective on passage. And then four of those sections that relate to special Medicaid education payments, are effective on October 1, as mentioned earlier, except for the fifth and final of those sections is effective on 07/01/2027, which relates to the change, from 20 up to 25% of federal reimbursement, generated and delivered pursuant to the Medicaid school based services program by reducing that to 20% because that change would not be effective until f y twenty eight. And then, as mentioned before, the change to the retention of interest in the transportation fund would also not be effective until f y twenty eight. And then finally, the final piece of the adult education language aligning statute with act 73 is only effective if those contingencies in act 73 occur. You succeeded? Oh, we got the end. K. Well, as long as you feel like you did it in your past. Awesome. Thank you. Any other questions or any questions? Mister Nixon? Okay. So we've succeeded because we've all wanted it, all at one time, both special one time, both the general fund one time, all the base changes of the governor and of the house. So we now, as a committee, have two weeks is the goal. Be the seventeenth. It's at least the third. So two weeks from today, we could know what we're going to do. That would put us on track to get out of here. In doing so, we need to decide what we want to appropriate funds for if different from governor in the house. So I have worked with Amy or Amy. I asked Amy to do this. I didn't do any of the work. Amy did all the work of all the different bills that we've seen that we took money out of and other documents that help. So you have the documents that we've gone over. This will give you a list of asks that we receive, requests over the government directs that we've received, bill that had money in it that we took out. Anything else you wanna say about that?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I did also put together the house bills.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That are these.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. So as Emily was going over the one with the red as Emily was going over, I realized I had missed a few. So I could just give that to you on Tuesday, and he's committed it. This year? Yeah. Yeah.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So first is this document, which is the above government directs that we received. About the governor? About the governor. So these are, like, when the human rights commission came in and says, the governor gave us this much money, but we really need that much money. Yeah. So these are all the ones that as requested. Is there one extra? Can I see it? There's I guess I just Sometimes they're, you know, really also in a related bill like the treasurer's request also in the in the bill. Like, ethics commission says that the request for funds that they ask for. So those are all requests to consent.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So that's what do you wanna say about this?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Bill three twenty?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: About oh, that so that one goes with the senate bills.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So here, first, I'll pass out the senate.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I've submission.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The senate bills, we'll be building the which we removed the appropriations and put on any special list for consideration in the budget. So since the most of these bills, if not all of them, got to the house after the house has done their budgets, the house could sit around here. You know? I don't think any of these are in the house.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: There's some sort of partial. I did make a note sort of in the middle of the document. It's h nine fifty one, and it mostly says no, but there's a couple partial

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Like the economic development that will have some money for

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: So if you so then the other sheet So this sheet

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: s three twenty eight, which s three twenty eight was the development of?

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. I

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: remember the The housing. The housing. This is the no. I think I need to come to this.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I think that's what. Yeah,

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: three twenty eight was the housing, three twenty seven was the economic development bill. If you remember, 28 came from us, and our parking bill had a lot of appropriations. We took the map. Gets confusing on the sheet, Anne created this. You could just see all those appropriations on one sheet. It also had

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: a three twenty seven. What's three twenty seven?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Up here, you have three twenty eight. But here, have three twenty seven.

[Emily (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So how's

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: the Oh, it's the 3 it's 327. Yeah. Sorry about that. Yep.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: 328327.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Okay. That sounds Yes.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: So this is really 227.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. That's. Yeah.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Cross that way.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You have a question? Yeah. I'll let you finish your So that's that's basically You did send out a notice that says, we should let you know if your committee is going to have anything about Yeah. So I sent

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. It was next Friday. Oh, it's next Friday. Yeah. So I sent an email to chairs saying we're going through this process. We're gonna be developing our budget. The committees had anything different than what they already said to us in a bill or if they wanted to prioritize, then they should send those to us. She wanted to remind us that we wanted to You could she could tell me. I I told you this morning that the medical transit Right. Worth very long. Right. Especially if we got a dollar amount. Yeah. Prior to prior To follow-up on last year's work. So as you know, if if there's anything in these bills or requests we got we did do the handout for the public hearing because I know you all took, you know, detailed notes and remember my other requests we got in public hearing, but that's another we've had or other requests that we've received from the communities or that gets some. So if it's anything that's not in here, that has a balanced budget, we're not gonna need any revenue. We'd have to take something out of the the house's regulations. So And if we don't agree with the process taking the 9 from the tech mod fund, we'd have to remove 9,000 from the. So some those are some of the decisions. And so as we've as we've had some questions in this for, for the ag about the ag fees, we're gonna that's the kind of testimony we're gonna take over the next few weeks, getting more information from an agency if there's a question or from JFO or if you guys if there's something you wanna speak up with here or something we can do that center line.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. So we had our own little public hearings fund and we're going through all of the things related to our area of jurisdiction and we will send a list but we're not sending it the way we usually do. We're setting our priorities. Yeah. You know? In order. Yeah. But there will be some of those that are more general than specific. But we're looking at it. We're finishing it off next week. Hopefully you'll have it by Friday. It's a lot of work understanding what AHS looks like. The other piece of that is as and we'll also be hearing about the Rural Health Transformation Grant process. So because the budget was developed prior to the RHT and this has been ongoing as the ANSYS developed the budget, There may be some things that we can recommend and I can't promise this because it's like a big juggling act that we can recommend that would be accomplished through that grant rather than through the budget or complementary to the budget. We're trying to do something. Can't promise anything, but that would be an ongoing discussion.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: One other thing, some question. If we individually have stuff that's not on these lists in our sections of the budget, should we just give those to Amy? Yeah. Give them me. Okay.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But do have do have

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: a specific do I have?

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I just wanna make sure it gets on the master list, but it's good for me to know.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: For example, in Dale, in the adult days, I we do have they're trying to open that adult day here in Washington County. There is some talk in some other areas, and I if it may end up on your other list, but

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: That one as well, it could be based on conversation this morning, there's a reason all of that.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But if it's not on your list, I am going to ask that when we get there, we consider that there will a couple of us on this committee did may have some other ideas.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. Yeah. And as H nine thirty eight, the housing bill, We'll be looking at next week and looking at the policy provisions that are linked in with the budgetary provision.

[Nolan Langweil (Joint Fiscal Office)]: What that

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And it can also be using recommendations from your budget areas if you talk to your agencies or departments and thought there was any money to move around or additional money that they needed from you on a Friday. Can tell you this year, we're taking testimony next week on the budget. We'll have the letter of all the tariffs on Friday. Okay. Prioritizing things on or not prioritizing. That's helpful. Okay. Any questions about that?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Got a lot of time too.

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

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

[Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, if there's no other comments or questions, we can have your