Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Are Okay. We are meeting now. It's live meeting. April 8 is talking about the '20 the FY twenty seventh budget. I passed out a document that Amy wrote up, which is the House bills that the House appropriated money. On this ninethirty five, that they only did the 500,000 of all the appropriations in there? Is that what you're

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Right, so House bill so on this spreadsheet, it's just money that's sort of appropriated in H nine fifty one. But anything, so for example, the chair mentioned September, they do move some money in that bill for previous a year sort of C section type changes, so it reappropriates some money that's been appropriated in 2023. So this there may be bills

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So, like, the dispatch money, that C section money has already been, that it's given authorization to

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's right. Yep. Yep. So, there could be bills that the house appropriation did similar to what you do, where you say contingent upon appropriation, and I don't if that's not on here

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Like, 40 that that loan starts to pass.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Is the Vermont it on this slide, discontinued the $82,000,000 So, it reappropriate, it doesn't reappropriate,

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: but it sort of reallocates the money that's already in the governor's budget. It was no new money.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's all the different programs.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And it's all built into the housing bill

[Robert Norris (Member)]: that we're going through. Is that

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: in addition to that's all the things provided the governor's first vendor in the house?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes. The governors recommend and the house bill together.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Total of 82. Total of everything. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And I understand it's the same dollar amount, but maybe just divided up. Yeah.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: We heard the So far. So good. So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: here is the web report. Ready. Which I keep thinking we will come up with another name in the web report. You want a web report?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure. Money. That's kind of not sweet.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Have one?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Amy, do you want to join us at the table? Yeah. So my goal, but no. That's why I report this. It's a way we can go through the budget and close out section. So as we try to finalize the budget for next week, we can close out any sections that we wanna close out and keep sections open. Was on keep open. The way of going through it all. And then we will do the same with the language. Tomorrow we're gonna go to the technical letter, and we can also go with the with languages that they'll put up in language sections.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: So this is the schedule of March through all sections of the environmental community.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So, you can take it away. Introduce yourself.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Amy, the joint fiscal office, would you like me to do the position sheet first?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Alright.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So what we'll go over are the positions that we've opened and recommended the and house recommended. I don't have page numbers, but your first page should say, government house on the right hand column. Okay. So, we can go line by line if you'd like. So, for V-one hundred eleven and tax department, that house added a position related to Act 73 for tax changes. And yesterday, the treasurer and EPIC came in and talked about their two conditions, which were new above the governor's recommend, but there's no general fund associated with these.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So, limited service box, not to get ahead, but if it's checked, says it's limited service, and if it's not checked, it's not.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's correct. So, these are all classified positions right now.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: So, is this the list of what the House added, what is added from last year, or request of House, Governor, and

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: has been requested. Me go over the, let me start from the top. So, you'll have the B sections on the left hand side, the department title, and a little bit of a note if we need do that. Then the next column is what the governor recommended. The first many lines here, the governor did not recommend these positions in the '27 budget. Then the House, so on the right hand side, these are all the positions of the house.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Sorry, I'm seeing the tension now.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No, didn't go over it, so we're good. We're good. Okay, so let's go to B135. You've heard about the, I think we might've talked a little bit about this one, or it is in the technical letter for the Labor Relations Board. There's a mediator position that the House added will probably wanna move this if you do want to keep this position as an exempt attorney, or an exempt position.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But it's created as a classified, oh.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It's created as a classified position.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And even if it stays as mediator, it should be exempt?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think that is the idea because the position is, it might be a conflict of interest to be a classified position to be a labor relations for. The right thing to be an exempt position.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And there's no thing on your chart for advanced first page.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It's on the next page. Okay. Yeah, so this position will move to the next page. So, think that, actually, I think the mediator needs to be Okay, so B232 and two of the state's attorneys, oh no, the secretary of state, they requested four positions in there.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What's the RIN?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Records and information management specialist. And then business service administrator. Those two positions, classified. B329 is a new position for Dale, disabilities and housing coordinator. There's also, in the house section, see where they're suggesting that position comes from the pool or the new position. So, first one, talked about the tax department as a pool position, and then the House recommended this Dale position also be a pool position. The next one is seven eleven in ANR for two environmental engineers associated with Act 121, the Flood Safety Act. Also, two positions, the house is recommending that they come from the pool and faucified. Next three

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The 121 is like blood after Was it two

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: years ago? I think it was two years ago.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: About 24. I

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: believe that bill had several positions in it. Yeah. It was in response to the flood of twenty three. The next three sections are the military department, and the governor did recommend these six positions, all limited service positions, house agreed. They're sort of like 75, 25 split.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Hours agreed as well. Yeah.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We're saying E222, but it's also associated with the B section for agriculture. They had talked about their position that they requested the governor added a full position, and it is classified permanent.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: The

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: next five sections at DIVA, there's several different classes. They're full positions, they're classified, permanent, and these were associated with HR1 as it related to benefits. There's gonna be a lot of work for Diva. Then, three thirty eight and DFC, there are seven probation and pro officers that you may wanna spend a little bit of time talking about. The governor recommended seven, the house removed, yeah, like $800,000.08 75, I can't remember the, when we go through the web report, we'll see that. And so, that money would be funding those positions. And so, the House took the money and obviously the positions, but did not add the positions to the bill. And this is associated with free trial supervision. That's what these positions are

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: All of them?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's what these positions are for, for. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Was there a bill on the increase? Increase? Part there a of the governor's budget request.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: it's building on the pilot that we have.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's right. Yeah. So, I think it keeps, the whole construct kind of keeps those, the existing pilot running, but this would make it statewide, and I think this decides not to make the money.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And the money was in DOC's budget?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Correct. The

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: government added it to the budget budget.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: We'll have, yeah,

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I can't remember if they added it or if it was, if it's part of the base. I'm assuming it was added to administration.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. That was the one I was talking to Trevor about today. Okay. Very complicated. The original one was $606,000 by the project started in Essex. Essex. Believe now. Don't know if you knew. It wasn't working. Had one or two individuals participating $660,000 in the base the first year. The second year, they added another $6.60. Now they're figuring on moving it to Chittenden County. So the third year, '27, they're coming up with another project. So what they did was they kept the six sixty in the base, put existing program or three people that are in it presently, and they've moved other monies in it throughout the judiciary realm, I would say. Okay. So there's really Mhmm. That means having a position for the insurance situation, which is there for coverage. Because not that money purchased. Yes.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: If we flip it over, this is where we'll see the exempt, two exempt physicians, and there may potentially be a third.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: These are all exempt on this side?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No, just these first two. The ethics commission and human rights commission. You'll see they added one position, new. The note says to fulfill the Act 171 mandate. The committee received some information from the ethics commission.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What's Act 171?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The, at the, the municipal work for Right.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They felt like it just added to the Act 171. Is can I ask ask about it? Is that the piece where you is that a piece where they collaborate with the towns make sure they're doing anything they need another position for that?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think they've asked. That's what they've asked for. They've asked for have they asked for two positions?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: We're talking about ethics. Ethics commission.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They did the last they asked for two positions. They did this year. They're both point five positions at the person on They need everything. So this is necessitated by the act one seventy one. I don't know. Band aids. Okay. They necessitated. They they came in and testified that. They were gonna go down all two years if they didn't get x number of positions. This is. This is below what they said would cause them to go out of business. So clearly, House didn't believe necessarily to have fun. They went out of business. And I assume they sent the email to the committee. Did we post it? I I I got it. So they sent us an email, a letter, saying that they did not appreciate the added work that was added. And so the House gave them a position, but also required them to create a new ethics handbook to do some other work. So they felt like and they don't think the handbook is what's needed, and so they felt like they got a hunch of extra work that their added person will do, they don't they feel like there's they didn't get ahead at all from their request.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It is postponed.

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

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And B-two thirty six has the Human Rights Commission, but they ask for a attorney, a staff attorney investigator. So that position currently from the house is a pool position and exempt.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So why did we decide, how is it decided that once I come from the pool and once I'm here?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's a good question. The short answer would be typically, pool positions are assigned out of to departments, from the pool, two departments that are, sort of have a direct line to the governor in terms of commissioner, like, agencies and departments. Typically, you wouldn't see one coming from the human rights, to the Human Rights Commission, but that's usually, it's usually not constitutional officers, like the auditor office, typically wouldn't have a full position going to, so that's why you do see, or I think the attorney general. I guess that's not a priority. All the treasurer's office, that's the one. I think that one is a new position, rather than coming from the pool.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is there anything left in the pool after all these?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's a great question.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Pool changes.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The administration, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because there's a position suite, I think there's, It's an iterative process that happens to get positions in the pool.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's considered created if you switch it from limited service to permanent.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Is it so

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I Was that considered we created a new position?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sort of, yes. For example, if you had a position that was created from a grant, like a Joint Fiscal Committee grant, If you were to convert those, those are typically new positions. For this one here, for this first one, this attorney general position, you created this position as a limited service, and now you're, I'll say you're UR, but now the house is suggesting it is authorized as permanent, so I would, I don't know if that's really considered new, it's just changing from limited service to permanent.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right, and that's the same with the assistant director, Carter version.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So, for bringing limited service to permanent, in the Attorney General's office, have here the director of court diversion of pretrial services.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That was limited service.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That was limited service. And then, a home improvement specialist position. The first one doesn't have any money associated with the budget, but the second one does have a little bit of a general fund for building it.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Why doesn't the first one?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think they had money in their budget last year to fund the position, so it sounds like they have some funds in their budget to do this.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And are all the day a week positions Act 73, right?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They are. These were authorized as limited service in Act, I think it was in Act 73. I'm not sure if it was Act 73, but they were created as one year limited service positions, because the funding was just for one year, so the idea is, if you are making a change to system, do you need to create them as permanent positions?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then the governor said that's what we need to do.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The governor asked for that in the house. So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the headings of these calls are the same as on the other page, governor's house.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's correct. Yeah. Yep.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We'll transfer over. Let's see where you asked for it on the back page. The same same that you got.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Thank you for joining us. Alright.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we have total at the bottom. It's different page, not that's a total between the two pages.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Uh-huh. Yeah. It didn't it didn't go all the way down. I think So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: there's two more. It's one page as 29, and then the other page. So 31 more positions in the house, but it's not structured. That's that's the FDA.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. Well, there's 28,

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: 29, 30. 30 positions for the house, and 26 for gov rec. And then for limited service positions, the house proposed 35 conversions, and the governor proposed six.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's like one of the new. With the new positions. But we just convert, like, under judiciary, converting from 24, 26 limited positions to permanent where they have the monies, are those considered new positions?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think I'd get really into the weeds to talk a little bit about it, but it's not new money, then it's not new positions, I guess. You could look at it that way. Probably thinking a bit more from a labor relations perspective and an actual, like, fiscal perspective. So if all these positions are being funded by the same funding but they were created for this limited service, it's not new money, I suppose. So

[Robert Norris (Member)]: the exam positions are the biggest in '26. That's

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, for judicial?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. Mhmm. So they're they're permanent positions that have been there.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Think these positions were created a couple of years ago. Institutional positions.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But as limited service positions. Now they're being Converted to permanent. So describe for me your take on the limited service. I think we all know what it is, but how long does it last?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: My favorite response with position, you know, with things like this, is it depends. So, a lot of traditionally limited service physician is tied to a certain grant. So, there's lots of grants that are approved by the Joint Fiscal Committee. It's a grant by the federal government for say three to five years, and the work is only for three to five years, and then the work is done, and the money's gone. So, the position would be eliminated because there's a lack of work and lack of funding. But typically what happens is you create a new program and it's really great and it's working well, and then the department or the governor comes to you and says, we love this program, here's all of our data of why it's so great. We would like a general fund or a federal fund or global commitment investment to continue this work, and then those positions are made permanent. That's one way that it would happen.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Or they just re up the limited service every two years for twenty years.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That happens, I think, in state government.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But the but any of those positions that might be funded by federal grants disappear. Now it's funded with general fund money?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And that would be a whole process of them coming in and talk you know, having testimony and deciding if that's the direction you would want to go.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Isn't that what we're doing right here?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: For the judiciary, it probably would be best to have judiciary come in and talk about the origin of the positions. How were they created, and what were they doing, and what will they be doing in the future?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So did, and I hate to be brain dumped of that two year era that we were in, which created a lot of folks' backlog. Think a lot of these positions were created out of that particular as you can see now, the court's backlog in test 20% of the day, the judiciary is moving backwards. But I think a lot of these positions have the error in the quarterback while they were created as limited service positions. I'm not really sure at this point in time well, I'm pretty sure it's passive. I don't wanna convert them because they want full time positions, obviously, but the justification to have them remain there, I guess, would be something that we'd probably have Judith here to talk about. I'm interested in, am I reading it right that the governor agreed to none of the 26? She didn't have it in the

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: She did not have that in special.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Yep. So I know if that was mentioned or not. Not mentioned in the letter that I don't remember. Because it doesn't affect the budget.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: But they're funding within the governor's budget.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is there existing positions?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We would have to check to make sure there is funding attached to the positions.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Well, it's hard to tell if they're funded in the governor's budget, it's really kind of, I don't know. Yeah. Distinction without a difference. Yeah. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, I mean, it's hard to say that they're in the budget going forward because they're they're limited, and you would be getting the savings unless you make a decision. So you're you're actively hiring them every two years or whatever. And if we convert them, we're we're adding them to all budgets going forward. I was just wondering if we could get an answer from Adam or whoever. What what's their thinking about those physicians? Is it no concern to them? Yeah, but it

[Robert Norris (Member)]: would be nice to see a sheet and say they're funded or they're not funded and, you know, and yes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Have if a certain task and it takes another, they have to be re upped as limited service for another three years and then the task goes away. We have 26 permanent positions now.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I've seen some limited services, positions that have been limited service Forever. Forever. I know.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So what what does it mean to permanent when?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Think well, we're talking about judiciary, but I think it goes the same with everyone. It's just that you have a one, two year type thing, and they're they're finding it hard to hire people and maintain people. And they say, I gotta do your job, but I'm not moving along. That still wasn't the best interest of the state again. Yeah. That's I think that was an investment because I think they had people. And and I think one way to think about it is that it doesn't affect the money. The other way to think about it is it absolutely does because you'd harvest all of these savings if they ended. I agree with you. It's got my what's the value to the space? Know. Said if you're gonna have more backlog or something. What was that, Scenario Lines?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Well, I'm just looking at the AOE and how many of those are related to the work that's going on now. Act 73. What is that? Are they? For private positions?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Think they were Sure, we had it. Some

[Robert Norris (Member)]: of it was seventy three? One.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: For Agency of Education? Yeah. I'm sorry. Yeah, they all They're all actually great. I think so. So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the real new positions where you need new modeling, There's only one on the or two no. Yeah. Two on the second page.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: All the ones on the first page. These are all new.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They are all new on the first page.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it's accurate, the question is, is it I could've said that the house did 11 newly funded positions with the governor. Over

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the governor?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is that

[Robert Norris (Member)]: what you?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Emily says not to do math with me,

[Robert Norris (Member)]: yeah. Go ahead.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm just counting. That's not math. You're just counting.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Nah, it looks like nine.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's two on this page. The ethics

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, yes. Got it.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. And all the other ones are just changing from or fifteen third people that are in an appointment now, switching to a limited service. Yes.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Any other questions about this? I don't think you'd consider And now we will go through the. Let me call it the jack web. Yeah.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Should Gathered by the house.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We put a Sure. Line item. Charlie Webb. By a jackwagon. It's okay. Found people. Vocations. Web report.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: You want me to meet with you, or do you want to eat? Or I can talk a little bit about the web report first and then you can jump in.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm gonna do that.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So the web report has all

[Robert Norris (Member)]: of the

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: appropriations by department. It shows what was appropriated in twenty sixth, including the budget adjustment, whatever the governor recommended, and then you'll see the house change. And then as we go through the process, you'll see the senate change and the conference, and then the final bill. The first, oh gosh, know, just retain areas, 70 pages. I know you don't page numbers, but quite, quite a ways through. It's all the way to transportation in the September, and then we'll go through the one times. You know, don't know if you'll, we'll go through all of it. And then there's a lot of other information for fiscal year twenty six that you can ignore. And then the last page is sort of the final total of the entire budget by funds.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So, you could use this document as you're marking up and closing out. You could use this document or you could use another approach. And also, the other thing I wanted to mention is, you know, when Emily comes and talks to you with a spreadsheet, she's only talking about the general fund. And by using the web report, you're seeing all the funds, you're seeing the global commitment, which sometimes gets missed towards the end. So this is a good way to go through it.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, I think so. So then if there is a change, there's the description box below what the change is.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah, so it's sort of a larger document than what you see using all the funds that would have Emma associated with you. So, we could, you could just look at each different one, or you could just scroll until you see a change. We'll

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: give a chance for anybody to say anything if they have anything to send in of the other offices. So anything on the first page? People? Okay. It goes out. I'm okay. Okay. Second page. So E102 to E104. Workers' compensation, liability insurance, insurance, pension plus funding. I This is the last year. The last year, the one more year? Or no? Oh, no. That continued to '38. First, for joint fiscal, that continues till each respective system. It's 90% funded, so I think that'll be 33 for the state system and 35 for the teachers. I was thinking of

[Robert Norris (Member)]: the same colleges.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That will stay at 15,000,000. There's no further restrictions. They put that out. So next page, p one zero five to p one zero seven. Digital services. Management services, finance and management, financial operations and financial management. The next page, human resources, HR, human resources, body benefit, wellness. But then the body benefit and wellness doesn't include the retirement benefit, like that's done by the treasurer, or it doesn't?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It does not include retirement.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: On B-one hundred 10? Yes. Remembering right that we had a bill with an appropriation? We had a bill. I can't remember. We mainly talked about the bill as it related to trying to access the after school funds. Yes, 5%. 5%, so we changed that. I don't know if they've had it.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: On your green sheet.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's a green sheet.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I didn't I didn't.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We haven't looked at it, so let's look at it again. It's that.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Okay. And it should be. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: No. 232.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I don't think that's true.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 232. Yeah. Did I have any money in?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I I didn't bring my sheet. Didn't know her.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: For each from the structure. Change under discussion.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We put language in the language that could be used by the library but we didn't carve out any specific

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I see the cabinet two fifty.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Well, they're asking 500. They're They're Appropriation. It's currently. But

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: there's no on the carve

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: out of So note start by saying library needs 364,000. Is that just Probably library. About that? We'll go look at the bill. Two thirty two? Yeah. They migrate the tax administration. So this is the first change we've had. The house added a $135,000. Additional positions if they implement changes to the home fund. So that's first one. Yes.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The first one.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's business panels. So you know it's about act 73, they're just doing it this year? The table says for Act 73, but I have to

[Robert Norris (Member)]: find that form.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Think this is the homestead declaration that we're on the second house. So they needed this position if they're going to do second house. Are we okay with that, or do you wanna leave it leave it to find out more? I need

[Robert Norris (Member)]: to check or find out more before I can Maybe you can

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: keep that open. Building and general services. What's that? Engineering, BTS. Both the capital project, and seeing if there are any capital projects we see in the capital. Hello. Information features. I have a question, so I don't think that Which one?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: The information.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'll

[Robert Norris (Member)]: be able to find out. So are in Palm Springs?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, that's part of my question, is the tourism centers and the information, because there's information centers on the Highlands, New York State.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And there's information centers.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, there's some in town, like there used to be an information center here, but I don't know if that's a different budget. It's got like a visitor center, they call it.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: That was my question, it's about that. Well, my question is that, I know they're doing a new place

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: There's the

[Robert Norris (Member)]: one up in County, that's supposed to be north of Of Swan. Swan. And they're doing some private part private public partnership. Right. And I'm looking at that going we got an information in Albert. We've got Georgia Fairfax's welcome centers. And if it's public private and private entities are running it, I don't have a problem with it, but I'm, I think that's kind of a lot in that corner. Yeah. We'll find out.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: A lot of information going on.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I I I just has to build it, and then BGS has to

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Well, and then and then she gets stuck with the operating costs.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Right. Well, I think they're looking at let's say I 89 corridor out. They're looking at our friends from the North coming down. Local communities don't want them to miss that opportunity to go east and west, and, also, they're not informed. I know Secretary Clinton has been discussing this. I'm not sure about the arrangement as far as private versions, but this is something they would have to do. They're looking at, well, COVID, in the median, in the center between north southbound. I don't how they're gonna do that, but anyway, it's just that

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, they said

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: they're reminding me that there's enough room there that they could do the median. This Yeah. That's just That doesn't sound

[Robert Norris (Member)]: like a. Like, looks There'll

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: be a road through the meeting. Okay.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Williston is private, so the Lake Champlain Chamber contributes to the function operation.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I just think with one in Alberg, Georgia Fairfax is not very far south of St. Lawrence. It's open eight hours a day.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. It's still ten to six. Yeah.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Would it be better to have it open? It's already been here. I'm not. I'm not.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm it? Was it? Clearly, were up there. Yeah. Building general service. Perchicist. Postal service for PGS. Somebody has to deliver them now. Coffee center and. Oh. Post office.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Only Express started on April 3 in 1883, and then it went for, like, a few months.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: April 3? Only Express then? What's that? I know. We should go back. I I got a question. Yes? I don't know. What page you want? Did you want b One one eighteen, building general services fleet manager. That's the next page. That that was your question? No. Next page of that question. Oh, you're not. You're. So fleet management. Okay. Rate federal surplus property, $4,000. Date surplus, on the go to the auction, building general service, property management, close that now. E $1.22, fee for space. That's my question. Okay. I guess I need some explanation here as to I'm not being familiar with it. Fee for space. State buildings, contract with other state entities worth paying. State of Vermont for mean, these these are all taxpayer dollars, whatever. I see utilities and and heating or whatever else. But what is

[Robert Norris (Member)]: this what is this you wanna use? Repair sales rent to run buildings.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. That's actually rent for the for the cost of operation of the building. It'd be like BGS with the landlord and then charge other state offices rent to hire the staff to manage the buildings. I guess I'd be interested in the the cost of the rent. Is it comparable to Yeah. I don't know if, like, I this well, how they if they decided based on the costs or they I assume they're not making a market analysis and doing a square foot analysis like that.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I'm not

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm not sure. They negotiate, though. Negotiate, like, the state agencies negotiate with BGS? The BGS? They can negotiate. They can That seems weird. I can see them setting a fee, but meaning some agencies have more skillful negotiators than others and be I know sometimes they negotiate for new space or, like, different space. I know if they because What's your leverage? You can't say, well, I'll go to New Hampshire at a better No. Better deal. They'll need a better Better land, better building. Yeah. I think they can negotiate. Like, I know that so, like, well, we're in this building, but we wanna be in that building. Or we want more space. So they'll say, we have more space. We gotta move to this building and here's the fee for service.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I know the tax negotiators are. Each guest gets to negotiate with themselves. Well, know, these

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: are expensive. This is how much they spend on the whole

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes, but they pay for their

[Robert Norris (Member)]: own offices. Yes, they do.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: If that's somewhere else, it's not here. It's like the landlord's living on the second store. Who has who has VGS on our? Love who is. Very good.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: You got sick questions.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: No. Right? This is true.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I was worried whoever had there would have a Oh, no. I haven't.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's not bad.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: What's the answer? I have

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: to call them anyway about the information centers.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They did come in a couple of years ago and describe the process, but it's not like

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I wasn't here quite yet. Crystal clear, yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Perfect. Well, part of it is they they don't always negotiate with with state entities, private entities too that we we Yeah. We release something. And I think that's like the when the Green Mountain Care Board was in, or DFR, I think it's in the city center, that's not a state of the building. So instead of You pay rent. I think BGS pays the rent instead of the agency. I'm not sure if it is.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think they charge out a they get billed, and then

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They get billed by BGS. They don't get billed by the landlord. Right. But if pay BGS, BGS pays throughout the city. So each agency doesn't have to have a. Okay. Governor's office. Are we

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: leaving the building the fee for

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: space Yeah. Let me open.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I'll get some more info.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Legislative council. Legislature. Is the legislature just the legislators? Mhmm. There's no staff.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Maybe your some maybe a couple of staff members.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Who would be the The chief of staff. The two chiefs. And, actually, the house has. Okay. Those personnel in operation with both of the per diem?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I have to look into the

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, there's a fine one? Yeah. Yeah. It does seem like you got 6,000,000 of personal expense, unless they're saying that's per diem. But then what is operation?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The per diem's would be in salaries.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We don't have salaries. Nobody gets paid.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sorry. You're low paycheck.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: But the

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: paycheck would be personal service. The per

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's right. Right.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yes. Yeah. For, like, our per diems. Is building within the legislature?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I I I to look I have to look

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: at I think the building I assume we pay fee for space due to the BGS as well. We should get running out of the negotiating desk. Here you go. Okay. IT for legislature. What's that? Our Facebook committee. Who knows? Sergeant of arms, plus the lieutenant governor, that I had that. I actually I actually talked to them about it, but Yeah. And it it went down as to why. It went down because of insurance changes that the staff and the old lieutenant governor that took the insurance and the new staff doesn't take the Oh, okay. Has had it through spouse or something. I think that was the big decisions.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Can we add a line of Americans and a few $100 to get coffee and tea and then?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Did ever have tea coffee and tea?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Not the way they On free coffee. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You could. Yes. You could keep it open if you try to negotiate. We'll get on there anyway.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: And then we can But they have all pains, do you? Sister. Okay. They do have that, but but it isn't the coughing and stuff. Was it not? It's it's They're not doing drums. They don't seem to be.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They wanna. Yes. They wanna get in here. Yeah. Because they weren't done.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Well And you know what? Shot hot water in all the.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Then we can increase the budget. I'll tell them there is discussion. Auditor accounts.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: With the legislature.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Just want to cut the gap here. See how long it is. Can we get the next message?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Somebody's limited service on a permanent like, make a permanent limited service till November, and then we can watch the clock and see how many seconds.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I'm I'm I'm waiting for the I'm waiting for the text now.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Closing the state treasurer. So if we have this change of shifting so this is actually a savings by by shifting this work over to defect instead having the treasurer manage the open account. So assuming

[Robert Norris (Member)]: that savings That means it goes in. This now comes out of fees from the retirement. Right. It lowers the retirement. That's my. Mhmm.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But they're gonna do a better job in managing it, so it'll be a

[Robert Norris (Member)]: net debt. So they all say.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Unclaimed property. So this is the house paid from my position in this area. The money comes out as an unclaimed property funds and not general fund. Treasurer wanted two positions. Mhmm. Do you wanna close this out?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Are we gonna add a position? It's not coming out of the.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Could leave it up. Here's the problem with this one versus the other, the other one comes right out, the retirement. Right. This one comes out of, yes, it comes out of the fund where you do the unclaimed property, but at the end of the year, we sweep the unclaimed property money and it goes to the general fund.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So it is indirectly done? Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The more you spend, the less you get to.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Unless we continue to get more and more on playing property.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: So Yeah. Yeah. Prospects are so bad. Should get this together at them one at a time.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. I'll keep it open for some kind of discussion. Retirement, which in this is the other side of that shift. Chair? Yes. I just wanted to point out to the committee that that section and the other retirement sections that relate to admin will have a technical change come in. It it has no impact on the general fund, but it's part of reflecting that additional position at the effect from the shift of the OPEB over. That is these numb and this was my error on the house side. We reflected the additional cost from the position, but not the additional cost of shifting the OPEB over to the system. So that number will change over the back. So the number of this this which number will change? B 133. Which which are the numbers of the house number? Instead of that 51449 Okay. Shall be 111074. But we'll keep it open just so I can see that in here when we do protection from here.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And if we're okay, was a I assume we're doing a bigger shift about that over to the. Yeah. So we're okay with the change. It's gonna need to get the right.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: And then there's some fact that

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the same change to the municipal. We close that out. The defect budgets, we already talked about the shift from. So is it will this change to, Chris? No. This number's okay. Okay. It's just the the teacher in the state retirement admin budgets when he's changing all that.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: And is this where the next review employee with their classmates?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Correct. Most of that is the additional employee. That's a $125,000 salary and, like, $10,000 in one time class to, you know, five person at desk and things like that. And then an increase in of a 105,000 in cost related to the investment consultant. So this anytime you change VPCs, you need to change seven sections of the budget. This section's good.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Okay. I I would add the position here.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. I I Yeah. Right. Yeah. When there were to be clear, there were two different position requests related to retirement that you all heard yesterday. One was from VPIC, and that's in the budget. The other one is for the retirement office at the treasurer's office. That is not in the house budget. All of those positions are funded by the retirement system. So there's two different retirement related positions.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: But the house ad is one of them. They even add the second one. Correct. And I'm saying I would add the second.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, that will show up in the treasurer's retirement office budget, but it'll be in a slightly different section. You're saying you support this new position, Yeah. And when we get to the treasurer, look up the you skipped over the or that was m d and p 131. Yeah. 131, which just showed that yeah. There is a dead end position. Yeah.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: So I would add the position you referred to this where the EPIC, I would hold off on the other group. On the unclaimed property? Yeah. Understood. Because they already added one. But

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: did you say they asked some questions about pensions? Yeah. I think what Senator Westman is saying is he's in favor of both of the retirement positions. The house did the one at BPEC. The house did not do the one that the treasurer requested in the retirement office. No. So Right.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: That was just the Right. And they asked for the two week positions to found to the and neither one of them affects the general.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. And they do very different things. Right. Once p one thirty one, we approve this downgrade with the new position, we still need to contact. Okay. At least one hundred and minutes.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: May I ask you? We're gonna talk more about it. I don't have to ask my question at all. I was wondering about the he's thinking about why not the other position. But we can talk about that another time.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The other position on the county property?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. The answer. Yeah. The house added a new position there between, I'm like, and ultimately that money, even though the money is all in the unclaimed property area, comes out of that unclaimed property, the end of the year, if there's money left over there, that money gets swept into the general fund. So it does ultimately would have an effect on I see. And I'm just of the mind, I'd add them one at a time, and then next year if they need another, come back and ask us. That's, I'm just, but the retirement fund is all self funded, and the board does a pretty good job and they do a good job and I would on the side of retirement and ensure the work gets.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's just me. Yeah. So I'm gonna keep one thirty one, Joe. It just takes it to one thirty five. The labor relations board pushed the house out of this position. Amount? Did we ask them to testify or spend it to manual labor relations part? Or they Maybe they send it to the

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We don't have it yet. The person who the chair is out until the twentieth. I'm trying to get them

[Robert Norris (Member)]: to become them outside of the. So we're

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: gonna be Yeah. Open, like, thirty five. You wanna talk to them? Because I heard the other sources that the Labor Relations Board would rather have a lawyer than the mediator. They asked for two lawyers and they got a mediator. And the House said that one of the reasons they wanted a mediator is that mediators cost $450 an hour, and the federal program fired their mediators. It's not a federal program, but I heard from others that there are Vermont mediators that don't charge $450 an hour. So I don't see h five forty eight on this sheet. H five forty eight? It It says additional incorporating h five forty eight into the budget, so that should be on the sheet.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'll take a look then.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Alright. Excuse me. You're talking about or on the On this sheet that had the house built and run. Five forty eight. Think that was. So did we get a little bit more on the Senate bills that we got from economic development? You may have that in there too.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They use I I I have that.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. Into that.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: OSHA review board, then we can close that out. I wanna keep the ethics commission open because there's some debate about whether they want the new position to do extra work. They'd rather have a position without extra work. P one thirty seven, homeowner rebates. What's that after? Renter rebates. Free appraisal and listing payments. This won't change with that. It's what we're doing. This where the

[Robert Norris (Member)]: This is because it was all in special fund that's comes out of. It won't affect this question.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You know what, like Well, it won't I guess the numbers change is where they hit the money. Correct. Yeah. This is proposed to come out of

[Robert Norris (Member)]: the pilot's language and the budget. And next year, because there's any statute that they'd be back much.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The governor recommended it. Yeah. Current use. So the money consent of the municipalities because of current use. Pilot payments, E142. That's that's the totals for general government. So it succeeded in one section. Now I can move on to the b 200. Attorney general. I do wanna do this conversion of the specialist to permanent. Is anybody not wanna do this, or do have questions on? I can you don't wanna do if I have the question? Sniffing. Yeah. Do you wanna talk about it now? Just leave it on just leave it on point now. Which

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: one is that? AG?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: AG, the the home improvement specialist position. Changing information. It's kinda hard to talk about this because of my bill that we put in. Pulling through the slash lane. Where's that bill? Is the bill in judiciary? No. Like, you passed it. You already moved it to? No. No. Okay. So we're in a house. But that just tells me, like, how it didn't deal with this position since he was Right? We'll we'll. Okay. Defender general? Does not get his 80,000. He got some of it. I've got can we move that off for now? Yeah. And I don't know if we have the breakdown of this $3.50. How much if I remember correctly, 50 was. Know what? $303,100, the the way the house repose. He's use it where we wanted it for him. He he came to us in two sections. The top section was 580,000, I believe, and then the bottom section. It's not really the next. Okay. So I'd like to leave his. Okay. We'll resend you that. Side counsel. Okay. We're okay with that with that. Are we okay with you just sharing this additional security cost? Sergeant, just wanna leave that open because we have all these positions. Yeah. Do they does this $2.15 reflect which hourly cost that we can set?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's a good question. Let's see.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It doesn't come from the General Fund. It it well, it doesn't. It doesn't. It It was part of the one that's for the pretrial that they the 850,000 had left over. That was just converted. They kept $6.60 in the face. And with the additional two years, he put $2.50 into judiciary for another $3.50 into the defendant general's office. Need to know what the hourly wage was at. So we'll leave $2.00 4 open. If We need to put it in there. We're gonna have see how close they got to 7,000 now. Yes. Great. So state's attorneys, subordinates Yes. Of, like, a

[Robert Norris (Member)]: vacancy savings or some of the And is this state's attorneys and sheriffs There's been talk about dividing the state's attorneys and and sheriffs in the office.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. I'm familiar with that. But it has it has to do with go ahead

[Robert Norris (Member)]: and look. No. I'm just asking what what? There's

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: been early discussion about having an executive director that preference deals directly with sheriffs versus the executive director of state's attorneys and sheriffs. I don't know why, but perhaps follow-up on a met with the sheriff. They'll ask my opinion. I said, well, you know, in theory, it sounded good, but we're constantly gonna show me what what this consists of. Finance or whatever. It's not that's gonna happen. It's not immediate. Not this year. There's some more discussion. So how how do we feel about this space change? This space is. Is everybody good to this? Okay. So we'll close out. And, like I said, the house has changed. Special. What was with crime victim advocates?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: This oh, sorry.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: With just pregnancy sentence?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So this specifically for this one, I think there's a technical correction that may be needed, so recommend that you leave it open so we can talk about that with grading tomorrow. Think I'll let them try that. The number the number 147470 doesn't align with what's actually in their vacancy savings. But if you would wanna

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. You mean it's

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: lower? Higher. Higher. Okay. Mean It's up to you.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: But you

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: might wanna have to look at that. Thank you. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Email 61. Sheriffs, I'll throw some vacancy savings. This is in our office of state's attorneys and chairs. Yes. So do we wanna leave that open as we did the No. I'm good at that. I know we closed that. We closed out chairs. The sheriff's club. Public safety. I assume what happens with the Public Safety Communication Path Force would affect this funding. That's special money.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That is pre previous year's funding. So it wouldn't affect us. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. So we can close this. State police. Close that out. Criminal justice. Emergency management. Where would the where is the It's under B 212. Did they rent a house that has money to the house? No. What was the base on that? That had it one time. The house, somebody made a recommendation because I was looking for it today. And last year, we were able to type in. Put it in there as a line item. They split it up. So I can't find it. They they they did it one time or base to deal with their bill. Yeah. Not their friendship. They had a one time appropriation of all the two fifty and three fifty.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So last year, you appropriated in the base, like 400 or $4.50, whatever the number. And when public safety came in, you know, testimony, they showed you specifically how they were paid for that money. It wasn't just a line item, it was in multiple rows, but it totaled the base that you appropriated last year. So it's in the base.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I think PPS put in their proposal when the governor took it out.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I don't know.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'll find that out. You, sir? We wouldn't know. That's documents we don't see in the agency sent by the governor since then he's done it. So there's still level one of that rebates then. They're sick of that. For the sole reason. I'll call you to reach out on that. That's B212. B212. Yeah. But I did see somewhere something about the. You know where that is? It's in the one time. This is in I'm sorry? 500000. Is it 2 is that the building they're in now, state of tea, is the money, public safety for the television in the one time. Right? It's in the cash fund. What's in the cash? So we want 1,000 thousand for the emergency facility. That's that's that's the key. Is it on the street? Probably not. It's in you should be all right in that period of the budget bill.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So the the It's not

[Robert Norris (Member)]: It was

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: an amendment. So it was an amendment to the budget, and you don't know yet. So if you go to b, if you go all the way over to B 11, like, very free in the web report. We don't line item each section, but in the actual budget language, that's where you'll see where everything was updated. 11 Demo Street? Yep.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Which one? Oh, yeah. Attachment on the central city. Like, on the near the bank. It's not But they don't know what is you don't know all of this. This is cash on for capital. I saw it on one of the sheets. Sorry. I was not sure if that's I know it exists someplace. I remember seeing it so particular with the building.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: But

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Norris is gonna figure it out. Yes. Good. The forensic lab, the next one would be 213. Military admin, if we've had any issues there or air service, any of the military ones. Those those out. Get the crime victim advocates

[Robert Norris (Member)]: in the center of crime victim service.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: B220, Center for Crime Victims. Was the area that had the background check fee.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, I don't

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: remember that? Yeah. In the year. Additional funding for grants admin. This is director of the Center for Crime Victim Services. What the additional funding for grants have been used? It's not a position.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No. They had when they had testified, they had talked to us. They have a number of grants that they pay out and over and doing it for a number of years. They feel like they needed additional funding to process.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do they hire a contractor or not

[Robert Norris (Member)]: a physician? That's where the

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: what it's in personal services, so I'm assuming it's for either contracts or people.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We're gonna make a check on that.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. I'm a little sure.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Fully two twenty open. I'm I remember. There was also a discussion about the, they had a deficit in the background check fund.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So that would be in a different section in the bill. So we're just going through the few sections. This would be in, like, the transfers, where

[Robert Norris (Member)]: they're moving funds into a special fund. K.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's just. Didn't we get did we ever get didn't we ask them? I don't if we ever got an answer to this. What what they were doing of who is paying the background checks? Didn't we ask them the number they they never got back to us? Some question about the background checks. Are you as long as that?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: You know, like, who who is paying? Yeah. I asked what organizations were coming to get it, and we never got anything back. Is that that's your DPS? Yes. Because DPS does it, and and and really the whole issue of background checks for state agencies and for the DAs that we do, it's all over the map. And would that be under criminal justice? Or if somebody is

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'm sorry.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Check. Would that be under criminal justice? Medical transports or you're in the wheels wheels. You're gonna do a Yeah. That that we charged.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then I thought I thought it was came up not during public safety's testimony, but the safety of the service. But maybe it was public safety. It was this four hour shop. He was here with the commissioner. Mister chair? Yes. This came up in the budget adjustment act. I have language in the bill that directs DPS as through the Brian over at Information Center to, as part of next year's budget adjustment presentation, submit the sustainability plan for the criminal and security records check fund. And that's in position

[Robert Norris (Member)]: 53 of the VA. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The house of the bill. So is that question carried for me? Andrew Westman? You still have that question?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Think I wish that we had a clear answer to all of it. What's

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the question that you're looking for exactly? I think

[Robert Norris (Member)]: ask. I'd like to know what organizations we do background checks for. Just give me a list of who we're doing it. If they start charging for it, which departments are gonna come back here and

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: A lot of the state state programs get charged back then. It's like meals on wheels. I'm basically thinking it's the private sector, they do back at schools, things along with one third, but I'll call Brad. It doesn't have to be everybody. I think mainly Westman worries about people that are publicly funded, like, Meals on Wheels or paying for Meals on Wheels to pay them more money for a background check. We would want to know, like, if we raise the background check, how are we affecting these other parts of state government that pay it back?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Are they gonna start charging and then it's just gonna show up in somebody else's budget? And

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: what's fee that they're charging? What's an independent organization as compared with Well,

[Robert Norris (Member)]: if it's, as I just said, if it's somebody that's driving for free for Meals on the Meals, I think it's kinda cheesy for us to charge.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Criminal Justice Council. Virginia there. What's that mean? I need to go to. Anything that affects you, it's. Well, I'm curious with the ag, after a presentation from yesterday, where there's two things. Small farms, medium farms. Yeah. They were supposed to go back and find out if they had any labor movement in their budget from the 02/6000. So some of money wasn't going to the clean water farm. Yeah. Wonder if it's like this clean water section, 225.2, or is it,

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: you know, what? 225.2. Yep. Okay.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: So we Are we

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: You're not gonna try.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm gonna call them. So we can close out the other ones. The other ones too.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: That happened.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You're keeping up in 232.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: 225.2. Point. Large. It's the medium farm operation.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It's oh, I'm glad that they

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Assume that's where the fees go into this Yeah.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It'd be nice to know which line Okay. Goes into personal services.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Did she say it's only two people?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: It's a $4,000,000

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: fee. That's. Just that it affects two positions.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: It's $231,000

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So that's how much money was paid, because they have more positions. Yes. So we're leaving that one. Two twenty six, regulation, Banking, insurance, capital insurance, missing the clause, all those announced. Secretary of state?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Hello. Yeah. She was very

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: secretary of state find more things. So I just wanna leave this open for for considering that public service.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: How's that?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Utilities Commission, nine one one board. So the human rights commission. Enough enough for them to close it out. Can you wanna keep it open? Well, we can discuss now. The risk problem limiting vacancy. An additional position, I would wanna have some further discussion on that. Okay. I'll leave it up.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I think we need to get rid of vacancy savings. Yes. Yeah. So you're saying getting rid of whole one seventy two? Nope. Didn't say that. I don't.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The funding for the position. I'll lay that up and talk about. The. No changes there. I thought there was gonna be a change. I'm gonna be able to get this one this morning. Head of his control board. They didn't ask for any. No? They were dealing with other things. I think we get you know, they were didn't they get or was that last But they added a position that they had within their own. Yeah. And then they they might have more more money for the lab. Or does that all last year?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. That was in the budget adjustment. It's Budget adjustment. Funds that was returned. That was what we did last year. It was related to the

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So, yeah, they were they already got their changes in the. So that ends protection sections. So now go on human services, the b three hundreds, secretary's office.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Who has those? I mean, here.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, it's kind of a mixture

[Robert Norris (Member)]: between Ritchie and I have the childcare stuff, and that's really in. And I think that I would just say it's hard to go through union services without Right. Senator Lyons and particularly when her her committee is still holding up. Right. Well, that's just for you to skip human services.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We could do that. Voice for health and welfare. We'll weigh in on all the stuff.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: General education. Yeah. Work that

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: stuff. Yeah. Six one. What? So take a p p p all the way to

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: What 100 is labor?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Three twenty six. Yeah. Per quarter. So we'll go all the way. We'll skip all the three to the j of the labor department.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: K. Make

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: sure they bring for the program. The 500 is general education, educational services. I remember talking about this switch. So it's just a non neutral

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's correct.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's maybe that's how I didn't write that down.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Right. Yeah. Don't know if you want us to talk about some of her mom reads from her. That would be somewhere here, but I don't know where to plan. Mhmm.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Would be non adult education. I don't know where that would be.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think it's it would be a one time. Oh, okay. So not even in this. Right. Okay. But it doesn't show up in the one time, so it may be

[Robert Norris (Member)]: a good time if you wanna talk about it. Right. So we'll not.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. No. It's yes. It's on our left.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'm happy to hold off on that. I just wanna make sure I'm moving to bed.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. No. It's important. So it's some notes to make sure that that and I have a a note on my list. The BT reads. And I did talk to the house about it more, so I learned some more information about it. They didn't really get any testimony. So but I did ask our senate as speaking about that. We don't plan to do that in addition to transforming the election issues. Finance administration and education services, need to close out, special education, like a lot of these things a part of the transformation of the state by students and students. So education so did we figure out? Or we did we whatever language we have wouldn't affect the. Bill that budget.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Right? And I think that

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You figured it out from a hard time situation.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: House put it. We're also.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But then you heard that before.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: And I think everybody's in agreement except for a tiny bit of rumbling over an AOE. Okay. Their grumbling is not loud enough to it's not like the screams we've had before. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Flexible pathways. This is the education payments transfer. Not gonna deal with that. This is where this is where you apply the money, or do you apply it this where when you take the $105.09 and you apply it here, or I know it's in the yield. Mhmm. Where do you actually move the money? You just move it to the education?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's a great question for Julia. I

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: think it would just

[Robert Norris (Member)]: would change this. Is that

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: mean we're moving open five and five?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: No. Take that. Nothing would be right. Do about that. Yeah. Value. Respectations, burgers, pork grants. I mean, some of these things will get impacted by whatever. $73. Nutrition. There wasn't there a nutrition thing with education or maybe that was there in China. That was child After school program. Is this the state? Right? Like if they got federal, the 21 C program, that would be like a grant, that would show up somewhere else.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah, this is for the Like this is cannabis. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's nice. Yeah. Okay. Early high grants, maybe technical education, or education, requires teachers. It's another pension payment. So we like, 2035 until we get caught up with our unfunded mandates, retirement sense system. It was always pretty impressive that we put it for $212,000,000. And then here's another OPEC shift impact. What's this? What Chris was saying with this defect here too?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It could be, yes. Yep.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It could be a technical change. That's right. So we'll close it out except for. Higher teacher benefits. That was also general education. Now move on to higher education. 59,000,000 to the University of Vermont. But Baruth is not here, so I'll just zero that out. That's different. Okay. Closing out. Vermont State College is Allied Health Program, VSAC.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, there's.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Now that that's all. It's just that. That all goes to the New England Higher Education Compact. I got appointed to that one here. Are you still there? No. When I was on education,

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I served on the New England Higher Education Company. You didn't find anybody else.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I guess not. What? The farm is zeroed out. Why is it in here? Just because there was a dollar last yesterday last yesterday here. Yep. K. Passing up an error. So Or one out of the Oregon

[Robert Norris (Member)]: zeroing that out? Correct.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Big changes of

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. The disease here, don't. We've carried it. It's a, $1 per annum.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: All I can share with you is what Emily has shared with you. I believe she shared with you that there's No.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I think she shared it with us.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, okay. So it might be more to administer a dollar if it's a dollar. You know, like

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I always thought that the Morgan North Farm is fine with them not giving you my dollar. They were fine? They're fine with it. K. They're collecting and having us spending them their check for $1 I think they thought it was cute in the first ten years.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Think at one point They've been doing this for forty years, Well, so

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: here at one time they wanted to keep $1 so it kept in books in the hopes that sometime they'd get real money, but I

[Robert Norris (Member)]: think they've given up any hope of giving After forty years, they said No. There's no

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: such interest in their market harsh tradition. You wanna keep it in there? You could try it for that?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is that a yes or no? Yes. Was. Sooner than $2. I heard it was named. You know who

[Robert Norris (Member)]: used to fight for it? Malcolm.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. He's a big horse guy.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: No. Gladys was the horse person. Just. Okay. Mhmm.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: There was somebody in here who was even on this, but I guess they all just kind of did

[Robert Norris (Member)]: it for tradition. Well, it you know, the Colchester had the brother and sister had represented the town, the main corner was Severance Corner at Saint Louis, and he was is it the Severance School of Business?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yep. Are you again? Yep. Yep. That's quite a character.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: He died he died this fall. Yep. It was a 100.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Was a 100.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Wow. It's an awesome guy. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: K. Well, closing that up. Now we're going on to b 700 natural resources.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Zero. Yes. Zero. Zero. Right. So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, that's an admin access assessments. Now is the field services where we have this fee. Right?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Are you talking about b seven

[Robert Norris (Member)]: zero two? I am. Yeah.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So there's a couple things. There's a one was there was a rich position that they got some good news from federal funds, so they got to un RIFT the position.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They're eliminating a proposed RIFT. They're riffing the RIFT.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah, they're striking the RIFT.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, that's the, and it cost them money riff, right? And weed, Patrick, riff.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I just don't know where it was.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: He just talked about a position that went after I I suppose we have some portion of the costs, so the federal funds are paper, but we have to pay for part of it. So we thought that's 65,000 for, I'm assuming. But should we leave it open? Because I assume we do we wanna talk about the access fee? Or just leave that up to findings?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We could. I'm happy to talk about it. Because the that was the they wanted to create the access, this new kind of, I guess, license, for lack of a better term, was then they found that we know you have the authority to do this, but we don't like it, and we're gonna remove your authority to do this.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Raise the means. Yeah. Yep. Because they gave you $15,000 to judge

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: To to make up for what they would have lost Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: For the projections. And that one time This is based. Obviously based. This is what the house gave them. They the money for the position, but they said you can't have the fee, but we'll give you the money that you would get from the fee. Right.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: The magazine that I was talking about.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. While we're at on that topic, I wouldn't mind discussing a little further the physician The commissioner mentioned the other day the Bald Mountain Patrick position where he has two people working in the. I don't know. Do think there would also be support in field services? Mhmm. Yeah. That's where if that's where the replacement of the the position. That's what it is once. Yeah. So that would yes. It would be the same section. This yeah. Okay. We'll leave open B 72. Admin for forest and parks. And then back to Forest, 704. 505. 606. Access roads. Close. DC. Are these dams on the 711? This for dam safety engineers?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I don't know if dam safety is in the rivers program. Okay. Which is a different part of the flood safety app. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Could we get another

[Robert Norris (Member)]: like, one? Precision chart says, damn. And I know that they've been way behind in doing.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So there's an are you looking at

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 711.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: You're looking at this. Oh, yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We looked at the

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Because there is a damn safety bill.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. 778 is a dam safety bill. That's 380.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yep. So this dam that's the on this one, it's seven seventy eight dam safety. That is those are not for positions. It's like a pilot project for this. Yeah. Yep. So seven oh, b seven eleven AR. So this is environmental engineers. So it doesn't specify that it's in the river river program, but that's where it happened.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's what those two two Yeah.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Those, environmental engineers were for.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. It is seven eleven, the sections. Right? Yes. And it seems like a study

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. It's a pilot. It's a Levantine.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Emergency operations plan is. Yeah.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'm happy to explain what that is further if that's useful.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Well, go many, there's appropriation online, county, it's a study. I do know they're way behind on it.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yep, the rules, and they're supposed to be coming out with those this fall.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Well, they're way behind an inspection of the house.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah, so they've also been hiring more physicians since the Flood Safety Act, and so they're, I think they're off work when they, we ask for more than they have been able to, I think they have permission to hire more than they've been able to fill, And yet, they've gone from like two people to seven. So, they're starting to catch up,

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: which is encouraging.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Well, that's good. Stay where we need Yeah.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And, yeah, we're anticipating that the rules that we've been waiting for this fall. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: How do people feel about this? Do they wanna keep it open, or are they okay with the two positions in the Rutgers program. I hate to be the badass as well, since you say not so fast. If you all wanna hire 50 people, make sure go ahead.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: It's pretty, you know.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Not sensitive.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Time to wash some gas. Wishing washy.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I just think we have to be careful with the amount of position. Well,

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: this would be a I'm just saying a rough place based on our

[Robert Norris (Member)]: living history. If I they're gonna walk with the.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's right. That's their job. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then the flood safety acts did did create the positions.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. I don't wanna say no to something that is inspecting the dam, but then it goes out. Yeah. Well, these two positions are not the same position. Right? Right. So they're they're Yeah. These are river engineers,

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: but they help with flooding, hydrology. Yeah. And issues around the rivers that go. Right.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Which, to be fair, most of the damage that we experience in Vermont from flooding is mostly river related, erosional. You know, it's not just the water got higher. It's not just inundation. It's

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: erosion. Septic tank. Yeah. Picking out culverts. Mhmm. Yeah. Should I close it out? Go ahead and close it. Let's close that on that. And use the view board. If we're piss me down with their issues and get back, they don't have any issues then. Whatever issues they have.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They I I actually would like to read that one open. I think

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: There's there's

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: a labor

[Robert Norris (Member)]: relation. Or

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: May not be it may be fine, but I just wanna just

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's fine.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I guess my question is about, like, positions moving from from limited circles to permit to

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Yeah. Let's see if we can get through in one of those. The 800 sections. I If we can put the 800, native one, native two houses, and marketing. What do you hear from them?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They were There was a larger ABCD. Yes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They had asked us for this funding to match the additional federal funds because they're like, they're they need a 50 for 50 match, one for one match. Mhmm. And so we give them 38,000, they get 38 more thousand dollars. Assuming you wanna do that?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sorry, have a comment about a previous section, sorry. So for this.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You're here at three, right? Vermont Council on hearings?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Previous section, I just wanna make a note that three twenty five had I think it would we'd call it a one time, but it would affect things that have to do with ACCD. I'll just make you note for one times.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Did need a chance to book through, I think, a bunch of the housing programs. There's a couple of them that I need to get my phone number to go back to. Okay. Do you wanna leave open? Yeah. I would leave in the house that you should have just.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 802? 802.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Auspicious member.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Maybe how much of that going back to h 08/2008 with the on that is $50.50? Or is it $50.50?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think so. I I can let me double check,

[Robert Norris (Member)]: and I'll

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: get back to

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Pretty sure it's a one for one. Yeah.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Particularly, what's the program with a re refurbished housing and apartments. Right. And it's a the cost is about 40,000 per unit. They did have requests about that. Yeah. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We did have And

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I wanted to make and I wanna make sure that we come back to that because that specifically was the one program that turns over stuff faster than anything. And we have a lot of old housing stock that seems

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Mhmm. Put that one in the back. It's miserable. There

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: is you'd have to confirm, like, 3 to 75. 3.75 in grants, and then there's a little bit in personal services.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So 4,000,000 is total in fees.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. That's it. That the house had and the governor.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: That the governor had and then the house policy. Yes. And but we did have Sorry. The letter that came from our economic development. Right. They asked for a million homes off of that. That.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. So I think I'd like to keep that. Okay. We'll keep that open. At the they wanted another position, or they wanted it limited to switch to permanent. Did we already do that?

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I think

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: in last year's bill for '26, I cannot remember the details, but they wanted to move some position from COVID. So we can Grand

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Isle Symphony Orchestra, eight zero nine. European. European. Historical Society. DHCV b eight eleven. Humanities council b eight twelve. And that takes us to transportation.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: I I will have a request that you and the language. I'm looking for help with medical transfer. Mhmm. Sorry.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Can I go back to 810, the historical study? Think you remember they had because they have a statutory obligation to sort of match whatever pays that's comfortable for the state, but they, if they don't have enough funding, they won't be

[Robert Norris (Member)]: able to do

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: that. So, I just wanna make sure, I'm not recalling if this was enough funding, but to me, they're all

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Vaguely, I remember somebody gets a match, and it's Yeah. So anyway Was it their or her vanities?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I also have that flag in your brain, and so I am not sure.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, you have an historical study? I have you both.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Want me to check on it for you?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That'd be great. Like, is is the my recollection was that the there was some level that was not sufficient, and I don't know if because the house didn't change it. So yeah. I just would love the status. Is this still a problem?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. We'll skip transportation. Is there anything else that we do, Rick, or everyone

[Robert Norris (Member)]: We should just spend money and we'll spend

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And transportation has all starts in money. Deficit. So after after transportation, it gets to the one time. So that's a good place to end. That's it for the day. Any last comments, questions?

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: At some point, you know, we've made great progress, and then I'm willing to come here to see if your decisions balance at the end. But you have a lot open.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: Just tell her to keep on fudging. And the one times.

[Amy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think the one times is good to the end or closer to the end.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right.

[Robert Norris (Member)]: What's a few of them being dear?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, it would be good to get get your priorities, me and Amy and Emily, so that Emily can create a sheet. Say like, okay. Here's if we had the priorities of everybody on that committee, where do we end up? There should be those three priorities to cut things if you want.