Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified committee member]: Classic. We are not.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That appropriations, April 9. We're gonna look at the technical letter. It doesn't have this nice name as the dear Jane letter that the administration sends us a house to house. That's budget age from nineteen five one. We have mister Ginny from JFO. That's. She'll be on your desk. Here's another.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I need all the help I've been getting. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So Thank

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: you, Greg Nixon, for fiscal. So the technical letter is a letter that the administration sends to the Senate Appropriations Committee each year pointing out not issues of policy, but just technical corrections to what was in the house bill. There I would say about 95% of this, JFO concurs with pending any decisions that the senate appropriations committee makes. So obviously corrections to numbers changes would only be implemented if the senate, makes no further changes to those numbers sections. On page one, section a one zero one, this is the first of a series of technical corrections that would just add in capital appropriations. So the house, in an amendment on the floor added in cash fund appropriations from the capital bill to the budget, but these corresponding references to capital appropriations weren't included in the house budget. So, sections a one zero one, one zero two, and one zero three on page two would all be addressing the fact that the cash fund appropriations are in this bill. They also so they're they're in both terms, the cash appropriation? The authorization language is in the capital bill, and then the appropriations themselves are in

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the budget. Yeah. So how do those line up later?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Which is not an early discussion with that

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: could go later. The Senate institutions could change

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: what they want for cash to be used. Correct. And we could change the button. Correct. Traditionally, Senate appropriations would make amendments to those cash flow appropriations to align with whatever is in the Senate version of the, capital bill. There could be

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: a capital bill committee and the Senate committee that comes a different review. We just have to make sure we make sure that they align. Okay.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: On the bottom of page two, this is a correction to B133. There was an addition to some of these number sections related to the pension systems where numbers weren't, added correctly. So that would just address that. On page three, the total for general government would need to be updated just to reflect that additional use of pension trust fund funds. Section b two zero six point one, the house meant to eliminate 123,000 of vacancy savings, but, it was misentered in the web report, so it provided an increase, of 147,000 general fund, which was about $14,000 more than the house intended. Section b 233.1, this is a correction to show, that there was an accidental doubling of tarpa appropriations in this section. Section b two forty one, again, would just update the totals pending those other technical corrections. Section b three zero nine, the house provided 500,000 general fund for the Bridges to Health Program and it should be included in section b three twelve not b three zero nine. And then the following you'll see in section b three twelve on page five of this document where they're adding it from b three zero nine to b three twelve. And then they're also recommending moving $45,000 that was included, by the house for harm reduction services to section b three thirteen, which is where those harm reduction services grants actually are being made out of. Section B 514.1, again this reflects the changes to OPEB administrative costs, so just correcting that and then updating the total of general education because of that week. On page seven, the house in their construct for reflecting the appropriations that relate to H nine thirty eight had one large appropriation and then separated out the allocations for that. The administration flagged that, in theory having it as one singular appropriation, that allocations could be moved around with more flexibility than if each had its own, debt ID. So the technical letter recommends separating those out. I would just flag two things from the committee on this. One is that, we've heard from the agency of human services regarding the actual setup of these appropriations, so I think we'll have some more information for you later on that. And then also of course, Senate Health and Welfare is working on g h nine thirty eight currently, so for now I would just table this and move on pending what happens with that. H nine thirty eight? Yes.

[Unidentified committee member]: The homelessness continue my care.

[Unidentified committee member]: Center line

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: On H E, this is just a correction that the funds that the house put in for Vermont Legal Aid's Vermont Legal Aid Helpline are not global commitment eligible. So it's still the general fund federal fund split, but it's just clarifying that that's not global commitment. And then a minor tweak to the dollar amount for the AOT one time appropriation. This, this one time appropriation was included in the gov rack and the number was just slightly off from what it should have been. Section c one zero three, the administration is flagging that this is the section that is updating the appropriations made in the act 73. And, in the new language it references the section, the administration was flagging that it should refer to a subdivision which is Subdivision A 3. So it shouldn't say section, but it also shouldn't say subdivision. JFO would just tweak this to make sure that internal reference is correct. This is a this is a three this paragraph that they're making the section of subdivisions. So this language here is adding further parameters around the allocation of allocation of an appropriation. So it should reference that Subdivision A3. This C3. Exactly. So the administration's recommendation, that internal reference would make sense. It should reference subdivision A3. Section c one zero six, this is an amendment to bless you. This is a house amendment that proposes a $650,000 general fund reversion from the Department of Corrections base. This reverts spending authority from the current year based appropriation to amend the current year budget, And the administration is flagging here that there's not necessarily a guarantee that those funds would remain. So the administration later on in the technical letter flags the different mechanism for addressing this and I believe the committee is discussing, changes to this, as part of the broader discussion. So you'll see that pop up again later in the technical letter. Section C107, this is reflecting the recommended change to C106, so you have to also change the total here. Section C108, this is the reduction of the Department of Environmental Conservation, emissions repair program. So the house had a reversion of about $598,000 The technical letter flags that, there are outstanding contracts that may mean that that $598,000 is not fully available and recommends reducing this appropriation that is still continuing current fiscal year to $300,000 which would reflect that appropriation net of those contracts which are expected to be about $300,000 Does Ginny Lyons think this is a technical correction? Because when I talk to

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the house, they do not think this is

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So exactly. This would be a policy consideration on what the general assembly wishes to do with those contracts. So changing the money would impact that that contract. So I wouldn't make any recommendation that the senate necessarily accept this.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. But I guess I was asking whether you think it's technical or not. You're seems to be saying that it's a policy decision.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: This would be aligning the administration's current understanding of those contracts of the obligation of that appropriation. We could, but that's an outstanding decision that the general assembly could make. They could cancel the contract. Correct. So, the conversations that I've had

[Unidentified committee member]: the members of the probations, they seem to think that there was another source of money for this, that some came from transportation, from AOT. And so they thought they had accounted for this, And the so that's the question that I would just raise is, there other, is there more money going into this pot that would be intended to pay for those contracts? Because that was their, at least that's how I understood the conversation as it came.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I remember the Transportation Committee worked on this, but I don't think there's anybody in the transportation fund that addresses this program. It's a DEC program. Unless the original 600 that was put over there was

[Unidentified committee member]: there's something about that there was there's money in some pot already that was supposed to cover this.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, think this is the pot. And how much did they

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: there was $5.98 or so. The house reverted 598,000. And so, yes, this you'll see later on the administration also recommends striking the $598,000 per reversion.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Would it have been part of that Volkswagen settlement by any chance? I don't know.

[Unidentified committee member]: I can follow-up with it was from.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. It could have been VW money that they were gonna use. Back away. But they still did when they testified here or in terms of condition, they do still have some money in that. Yeah. Okay. Well, we need to look more into that.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section c one zero nine on page 11. This again, is reflecting that the house proposed to revert, 80,000, roughly 80,000 of a current year appropriation and, the administration flagged that the remaining balance in the appropriation is only $7.01 71,000 and that it is also a current year appropriation. So rather than reverting it, this would just reduce the appropriation to the amount, that corresponds to what is left of that appropriation currently. So reduce it to 28,000 reflecting that there's that 71,000 of that appropriation being pulled.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then is this is this the same issue as before? Is there a difference of opinion?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I Or is it a

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: should it have real technical correction?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I it's my understanding that this is

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: a technical issue. There's

[Rep. Robert Norris]: just

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: a misunderstanding about how much money we got in the business. Slightly less money left in the appropriation than the house thought, and then because it is a current year appropriation, it would just reduce the appropriation rather than revert it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So does it change if

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: we make the correction, does

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: it change the house's bottom line?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: About $9,000.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: This reflects a $9,000 central reduction of that reversion. Section D101, so the administration has recommendations for changing how that interest from the technology modernization fund is being referred to because the actual amount of interest is known. The administration recommended just actually formally doing it as a fund transfer rather than including language saying that an amount estimated to be 9 and a half million will be transferred from the tech funds fund to the general fund, so that would just be a technical correction, reflecting that that amount of that transfer is known. And then, you'll see in sub two on page 12, this is an amendment to, the amount of money coming from the liquor control funds and, the administration flag that that transfer would be less than most of the government. I believe that that issue has been resolved, and so the committee can disregard that technical tweak there. There's you'll see in the notation there, that they identify that the balance is lower than they thought and that could create a hole in the house budget but you can disregard that. That's no longer the case.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So we can disregard the All of that on the top of page 12.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Just in line two there in subdivision two related to the liquor control fund, the other technical changes reflect the change to the technology modernization fund, which JFL would recommend if the Senate Appropriations Committee retains any transfer of money from the technology modernization fund, then this contract construct would be appropriate. Okay. Section d one zero two. So here you'll see the recommended, striking of that AOE appropriation. So striking the 80,000 reversion. And then, again, these, other two here on page 13 relate to that Department of Corrections $650,000 reversion and the DEC emissions repair program reversion, and both of those I think would remain outstanding for the time being. Why the correction? I don't remember that one. Earlier

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You talked about it? We talked about the admissions.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The administration, you'll see on page nine, flags that because this is a current year appropriation, the Department of Corrections could, in theory, spend out of that appropriation and there wouldn't be 650,000 left at year end to revert. So it's just a matter of if the general assembly would prefer to have the reversion or reduce the appropriation. So the dollar back is the same.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's just whether you revert in that. Right. And they're recommending which ones?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They're recommending to reduce the appropriations.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It doesn't really matter what you're gonna do.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. Mean, to my knowledge, it just is I it would remove the department's spending authority as opposed to just, say no into the department that at year end, the general assembly released its budget assuming that 650,000 will

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: be reversed. I got a

[Rep. Robert Norris]: quick question. Yeah. So do we know what line item I think? I'm at 650. DOC budget?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: B338. I'm gonna give it to Amy on this.

[Unidentified committee member]: Amy, you physical office? Do you need, like, personal services in terms of line item?

[Rep. Robert Norris]: Well, I was just questioning because of my conversation with the appropriations as far as the carry forward use of the $6.50 from the free trial supervision services that are this funding here? That's what that's what this is.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's what they said? Yes. Okay. So

[Unidentified committee member]: Alright. So it says so it's the so I think yesterday when I was talking about positions, there was the seven positions that the governor recommended, and then the house did not agree. Mhmm. And that's all part of this structure.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: Okay. So they carry they they took care for from this, and then they put it back into the general fund.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's right.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: And then they Yeah. I thought they used it for other purposes, but then the general has to follow-up with my contact in the house. I

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I believe so. It's reverting the money Right. For other purposes. Okay. And so the administration here is flagging just that if you don't actually formally reduce the appropriation, the Department of Corrections could, in theory, still spend out of that appropriation. But it's could decide which construct they would like to use. Any questions? Here we

[Unidentified committee member]: On page 12, number two on the top there. Said, the fiscal committee at its July meetings, and I don't think that fiscal is meeting in July. It's a minor.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's a greeting. You didn't have a meeting on?

[Unidentified committee member]: I think they said in our memo that we weren't meeting in July.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Oh, I see.

[Unidentified committee member]: But I don't know whether that makes a difference or

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I think JFO staff is trying to

[Unidentified committee member]: Swipe that up.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Firm off the dates. So, yeah, we would we would reflect whenever the first JFC meeting is of the summer.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: But it's typically Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: Typically, the typical thing is fill up.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: The emergency board meets and to set the and do the revenue estimates, and that's usually the And we are

[Unidentified committee member]: meeting the one. And then after that, so Well, we're gonna worry about it.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Because the emergency board usually meets and the chairs are there, so we usually do. That would be weird.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Don't be weird.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: The bottom of page 13, section e 100, this is an issue that was flagged for us quite late in the property of South Bendel had already been introduced. So we are aware of this. The mediator position is intended to be created as an exempt position rather than classified as the position will be dealing with employee relations issues and for that reason, you know, is logical for them to have the, you know, members not have a bias or

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e one zero five. So this is recommended language from the administration. Just clarifying that because the CIT funds and internal service funds, You would want to actually reference that it's a negative fund balance rather than a negative balance because, it could have a negative cash balance, in which case the technology modernization special fund would be transferred when that is not necessarily necessary. And then it also clarifies that that transfer would be made by the commissioner of finance and management. The original language didn't clarify who was executing that transfer, so the administration recommended including that and then put a date on that, that reflects the actual full accrual fund when when finance management would actually know whether or not a deficit for the fund itself exists. And so and pending any decision on whether or not to include this change, the these technicalities would make sense.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: When would that accept? If the

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: committee decides to make a step for a change to technology modernization fund. Section E105.1, you'll see the recommended change from the administration on the top of page 15. Again, this clarifies fund deficit since it's an internal service fund. Just clarifying that it should not be based on the cash deficit, but actually the Let me

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: pull on balance deficit. So what's the change? Oh, that's just the workshop.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e one zero six, this is language the house added in requiring that part of the bucket presentation from the administration in statute includes a document detailing reversions and approved carryforward by appropriation. The language in red here says for those funds subject to the secretary of administration's carryforward authority as designated by the general assembly, which you see at the end, that's the language that appears at the end of the budget bill. There are frequently appropriations that have carry forward language attached to them directly. So the general assembly will make an appropriation in one budget bill or another and say that those funds shall carry forward until fully extended or reverted, and presumably having information on those appropriations that don't follow-up under this administration, Secretary of Administration Authority would be useful. So, I think the JFO would recommend not including this change and keeping it broadly applicable to all carry forward. So what does the sentence read now? Document outlining reversions and proved carry forward by appropriation. Just period.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You would leave it at that.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And not inadvertently exclude some of those appropriations that have specific carry forward authority that falls outside of that secretary of administration carry forward. Because if

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you made this change, the secretary of administration would have more carry carry forward authority than we want possibly.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They wouldn't have any more carry forward authority. It would it would just be that the only appropriations only carry forward that they would report to you on are the ones that they made at their discretion under the carry forward authority they currently have. But presumably, the general assembly might want information on the appropriations with carry forward where that carry forward continues automatically because of legislative liability. Yeah. I agree. Agree. Wanna keep that. Section e one thirty three, this relates again to the OPEB administrative costs. So those numbers show up both in the b sections and the language sections. And so this is just a technical correction to the number that appears in that section. Section e one thirty six point two. This relates to the establishment of rules for the state ethics commission, and Jay and Hope touched base with legislative council, and legislative council is redrafting this language, but understood the administration's concern because the language as it was in the house bill would allow for the, adoption of rules that wouldn't exist until, the effective date essentially wouldn't establish those the permission to adopt rules in statute until all of that language is added to statute. So this is just a tweet that would have that three GSA twelve thirty b that says they may establish rules. It would add that language to statute before the, the rest of this is added to statute so as to not direct the ethics commission to adopt rules when there's been statutory statutory authority to do so, please.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That was extended as a rule. Correct.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. So this would just allow them to adopt the rules under 32 or three b s a twelve thirty b, even though the other rulemaking provisions are extended. Right. Section E three zero one, this relates to the change from the Medicaid reimbursement special fund to the school based Medicaid reimbursement fund. And because the school based Medicaid reimbursement fund will be in existence by the time this year end construct or global commitment has to be addressed, They the administration correctly identified that it should refer to the new fund rather than the old fund. Section e three zero seven point three. This language was included clarifying

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: apologies, one moment. This

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: relates to, again the school based Medicaid fund. So this clarifies that the Commissioner of Finance and Management cannot apply excess receipt authority to that fund. Section E three zero seven point seven, the school based Medicaid reimbursement fund will be established at the time, this is clarified rather than transferring and added to the fund balances assets and liabilities of the fund, just clarifying that anything in that fund is transferred. So it's just duplicative and clean up language on that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Perfect transfer and add it's been public. Exactly. For your own.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e three twenty nine point one. So, the administration has had no technical understanding of what line items referred to, in regard to this language that directs Dale to present a separate line items from choices for care program, home community based services, and skilled nursing facility services. In discussions that legislative council had with the House Human Services Committee, House Human Services confirmed that the intent was for Dale to present these as separate appropriations. So this language would align with that intent. So if the committee decides to agree to this language, then this technical change would align with the House's intent. Okay. Section E 514.1, again, this is another OPEB related change so just tweaking that number there. Section E515 required teachers health care and medical benefits. There was an unintended duplicative deduction, for new teacher health care. So that just is correcting the numbers to actually reflect accurately. And then, I would just ask the committee to, skip over this section e five zero one point three. The language included here is not technical.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So what do you mean? Not technical meaning?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: House removed language relating to moving where excess estate tax revenue went. So moving it from going to the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund to the School Construction Aid Special Fund, and the administration included the original government language here which would again move that state tax revenue. I I believe it was included because there's some statutory cleanup language in here still. But you're saying it's more of a false chance. I think I mentioned to the chiefs

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: that are very good, but I was thinking they were picking it out of the

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: higher interest fund. They're just preventing it going from higher interest fund instead of going to school construction plus. Right. The higher education endowment trust fund under this construct would lose longer receive excess estate tax revenue, and has made a policy decision to not accept that recommendation. And the language here reflects the governor's recommendation. And there is one technical tweak and just that it says, you'll see it strikes out or appropriated because funds can't be appropriated to a fund, they have to be transferred. So that statutory cleanup, I I believe that's why it was included here, but just if if that policy change is not being made by the the Senate Appropriations Committee, then I don't believe that cleanup is necessary. Section e 700.3, this just is correcting the stat the section reference. So the funds for these positional positions for ANR, those funds are actually added in section b seven one one and the internal reference here is section b 700 so that would just correct that, and this section would likely, if the committee accepts the creation of those positions, this section would probably be changed to also be section EE 7.1. Section F 100, the administration had recommended technical

[Unidentified committee member]: adjustments to pay act language, legislative council preparer reviewed that and said that the changes seemed appropriate. 100,

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: On page 20, this is further recommended changes to the pay acts that lunch council confirmed were met with all in nature. And then, beginning on the bottom of page 20 and continuing on, this relates to, what the chief recovery officer was discussing with the committee yesterday. So just the new proposed construct for that, disaster relief funding rather than having it be from the community disaster mitigation Community Resilience and Disaster Mitigation Fund, having it, come from the general funds, and go to the agency transportation. So this construct, if the set of appropriations committee determines that they would also like to add this one time appropriation, this construct seems more technically appropriate.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Alright. John, senator Ralph, good evening, Christie. Okay. Before that, that was the intermission. So where are we?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: B1100? I believe that that does it for the letter.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What was the page? What was the the? The B1100. What was that? I didn't hear us.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes. So that is reflective of what the chief recovery officer discussed with the committee yesterday. Rather than appropriating from transferring from the general fund to the community resilience and disaster mitigation fund, this would be a direct general fund appropriation to the agency of transportation for those community disaster.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then the other thing that the recovery officer talked to us about, that's not in here because they they realized about that other change after this matter was raised.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Right. I'm not sure on the timing of whether that was flagged. I know that that was flagged for inclusion in the House Bill and it was not included by it. It fell off everyone's radar but that's not included in this letter.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it was flagged by the administration in the in the house and then they they forgot to

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: put it in their own deck of plan? I

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Somebody forgot, but it's a it's

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: a bit of a forgotten trauma, I would say. But I I think that that language is from the logistical perspective, makes sense. Yeah. It's the emergency rental something. Okay,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: so let's quickly review what I consider unapproved changements. Unapproved. Unapproved. Unapproved changes would be on page 10. Let's see one of these. We're not quite sure. We're gonna get more information about the methadone, their mission rebate program. And then also we keep open C109 page 11. I think. Is there still a question about that? I guess we just, it's a 9,000, I guess my note is that there's a $9,000 loss to the bottom line. I assume that's accounted for. I guess it might be.

[Unidentified committee member]: Sorry. Say that again?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is this technical correctness? Corrections, the $9,000 difference. If we were to make this technical correction, it means $9,000 on the bottom.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Page 11 is schooled at the district in the House of Horse Appropriation.

[Unidentified committee member]: Mhmm. Yes. That would be we'd have no account for that. That's okay. $9,000.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it's not accounted yet. Correct. Let's see.

[Unidentified committee member]: We'll

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: just make sure. So we'll consider this. And then page 13, e 100. I think it's okay, but sent another email for the Labor Relations Board. Then we also have 102, one of those changes is the emission repair program. That's telehealth benefit. But I guess E102 is open because it included emission repair program. And then it also has a subsystem position. So if we kept that open, that also keeps open those DOC positions. And then d 100, I just wanted to get more information from the labor and production board on that. So I'm fixing that up and and then did we wanna keep e one zero six open? Or the network or we agree?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's what I'm sorry. E one zero six, so that would be limiting limiting the reporting requirement to only those only those appropriations carry forward that fell under the administration's carry forward authority. We're not. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: So not as, we're keeping it open.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We're Not not agreeing. Yes. Okay. So enough around. Andre and I are shucking the shelves. Okay. Thank you. And I don't know if if we make any changes to the ethics commission charges, is that f one o's three six six two? Could that change or doesn't really matter? This is they had a new rule making, or were you just pushed back rule making that they were asked to do through your

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes. So this technical change that is being recommended here would just allow for the section of the statute that authorizes the adoption of rules to be added to statutes. So the ethics commissioner can actually begin working on those rules before before the rest of this is actually added to statute. So it's just clarifying that for the point of process there that they need that little bit added to statute even though the rest of that statutory those statutory requirements would be getting pushed out. Okay. So that's fine.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. And then on page 18, e five fifteen, or no, e five zero one point three. This is just another one worded not accepted. At least that's been position to send somebody. It's a nontechnical change that should be considered as more of the update. And it's in a Dear Jane letter, so

[Unidentified committee member]: we

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: wanna talk about the well, I

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: guess this isn't in the Dear Jane letter, but the only issue is that this specific thing about moving money to the construction isn't in the New York General Office of

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the Future. But it's here is technical change, but we're proposing we don't consider technical take it. Well, how might how might change it?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But we don't know because it's it's the excess amount of the estate tax over here over the. So so You know? Could be nothing if if we last year, it was $23,000,000. We're gonna say no. We're gonna say no, so the rest of them are okay. And then we're just having a note that we're gonna add, which is sort of a technical change that you're asking. But maybe that's not a technical change. That's just a change.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It wouldn't be a technical it was never a house built, so it wouldn't be a technical change. But

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It doesn't really matter if we call it a technical change or not at this point.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah, I think that it is, in effect, a technical change.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Any questions, comments about the technical letter? Ben? So I thought we could also spend some time going through the language. You took us through the language. Right, Randy?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes. Through this document? Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is there a way to get through to where we would just accept or close out? There

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure thing. Think starting with the C sections on page 15 of that document would make sense. That would be skipping over the one time appropriations. Nothing.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yes. Yeah.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Shared red. For now, if you flip through, you'll see red. We sit online and Like, it's Tuesday.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They have to be posted on the

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: committee page for today and reminding us something with changes.

[Unidentified committee member]: You need to make some

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you make additional change in our distance to Bill with the red changes? With the red changes.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: Yeah.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It's always a good thing when the entire committee's seen red. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: How far does we get?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, we got through the whole thing.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. We're getting We're back again.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We're gonna talk about closing out some sections. We're gonna start in page 15.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Correct, so that would just be skipping over sort of the A sections that deal with here's how to read the bill and here's where things are and then the one time appropriation sections which typically they've been able review until after it's approved everything into the spreadsheet that penalty any trial. Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: And so you can That's people in reaction. Okay. But

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you got it. So do wanna read the selection?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure thing. Yeah. So second one. Section e 100. This is an amendment to So we're going to e or c? Or sorry. C 100. This is an amendment to, act 74, the budget adjustment that was just passed. This was stating that, the Commissioner of Finance and Management would transfer funds from the Human Services Caseload Reserve. The Commissioner of Finance and Management does not have the authority to do so. So this would just make the adjustment to state that the commissioner of finance and management, unreserved funds, but then the funds themselves are actually appropriated from the human services caseload reserve.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Close that out and say, the text.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section c one zero one. So this, again, this was language that was in act 27, the current year budget, and this stated that for the purposes, it would be, for the community partners, that the dollar amount would be $1,322,000 for the purpose of restoring the community partners to the FY '25 appropriation level. That dollar amount does not match the FY '25 appropriation level. So this would just be behind that language. That's that. Okay. C 102 would be amending the budget adjustment. This is where that 74,900,000.0 of the fiscal year end balance is being held for addressing federal funding shortfall, property tax relief, etcetera. Because of changes in the house version of the miscellaneous tax bill that are is anticipated to be less on the bottom line, than what originally thought. So this section would update that number to make it at 70.9 rather than 74.5.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is it just the changes from the miscellaneous tax bill or is it other That's my understanding. I thought they were making change that brought in more of

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: a In FY '27. August 26? Yes.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it doesn't how is that? It doesn't really matter because that money was

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: set aside. Right. So there will be less it's expected there will be less to pull from '26 to '27 because of the changes in the miscellaneous tax bill.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And is this about federal changes as well? More than tax credits or things that would be? Yeah.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I believe it's the the differences in terms of making up. Right. So because of that, there will be slightly less revenue at 01/26, but then more in f one twenty seven.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But this just You know, if the administration doesn't check into the provision in in the excise tax to do this or?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I can't see that. This would just be a technical adjustment to reflect if the tax bill enacted, this is a necessary technical adjustment. Right.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But if it doesn't pass, then it wouldn't happen. So we could close this technical change out because it just says if a miscellaneous bill passes, this

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: is the actual reduction. Yeah. It's it's likely that regardless of anything that happens, the number that was in the budget adjustment will not be the final number here. So this section I would just say is it all likely that will be included and just update to whatever the most accurate number is. Okay. We'll close that. Sergeant You're not closing it until we finalize.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I mean, we're we're good at talking about it. You'll you'll put

[Unidentified committee member]: the We'll bill tell you what the new thing is.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The real number will show up.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. Right? But it's it's necessary to include the section

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you know,

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: regardless of What

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: section was that?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: C one zero

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: seven. Even though it's about 16. The BAT. So you got to

[Unidentified committee member]: show them all. Alright. So Section

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: c one zero three. So this is making amendments to, the appropriation in act assembly three. So, we discussed this. Four, it's just changing the allocation of that appropriation, increasing the amount that's available for transition grants, and then decreasing the amount available for contracted services and then setting guardrails around the allocations of that appropriation. It doesn't change the dollar amount itself.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But it changes wording about how they're so I think we have to keep this up as soon as the policy decision. Something else mentioned in the administration secretary's letter. So I'm gonna be section c one zero three. Section

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: c one zero four on page 19. This is related to, the authority for responding to reductions in federal funds that was put into act 27. And so this detailed the parameters for if there's a reduction in the unduplicated function total, of what the secretary of administration must notify the Joint Fiscal Committee of and what actions can be taken. And the change here would be to just extend these guidelines beyond the current fiscal year so that, if there are federal reductions in, f y twenty seven, f y twenty eight, or f y twenty nine, this same mechanism would still be in place.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Anybody object to that? And close out. Steve Navarro.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: C one zero five on page 21. This is, the retention. I would amend statute to provide the Secretary of State with the authority to retain the unalternated balance in

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the Secretary of State Services Fund. And Yeah. We might wanna keep this up until

[Sen. Richard Westman]: this So they've gotten rid of that. I know how much it is. That's They

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: This we don't know. Straight language that currently what remains in the funds and pulled out of

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the fund to the general fund. This would allow for the secretary of state to retain. And what about states? What is the state service? I mean, the service fund of the secretary of state's like, you know, that is

[Sen. Richard Westman]: that much.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Would have to get back to you. I know in recent years, nothing has been available to pull from the fund into the general fund, but it

[Rep. Robert Norris]: seems like you wouldn't be changing the language unless there's something.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Well, unless they're my boss, so I need to hang on

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

[Unidentified committee member]: same thing. So it would be good to talk to state about why they

[Sen. Richard Westman]: want to keep why they are asking. But keep it. And it's never been done. Is is this language that they've done before?

[Unidentified committee member]: This would change existing statutes. So it's statute. Doesn't

[Sen. Richard Westman]: mean Finance. Session while we have to put Oh,

[Unidentified committee member]: not to my knowledge. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. My understanding is that if I need to manage the sweep's money at the end of the year, Secretary of would rather keep it as a technology fund so they could build on money for other technology projects. But we can keep it open and we'll get we'll get some other SOS testimonies about that. That's

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: With that, I think the committee can skip ahead to page 31, the bottom of page 31, section E 100.1. Why not these fund transfers? The transfers, reserves, reversions, and position sections are all sort remain outstanding until the committee makes decisions that are based more on the the family's spreadsheets really than the language. So the language ultimately will just reflect committee decisions that are discussed vis a vis those spreadsheets. What page? Page 31.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: That's the issue.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e 100.1 at the very bottom of that page. You won't see the actual language until page 32. So this is language, relating to reporting requirements for the Secretary of Administration on the status of the ARPA funds and ARPA funds that were originally appropriations that you were originally made from the ARPA fund that were then reverted and either repurposed or you use using general for those purposes. The original language required for the secretary of state to report on the status of those funds in f y twenty six because of the nature of this, their vast federal authority will continue on into f y twenty seven and then in some cases f y twenty eight. So this would just require the secretary of administration to maintain those report reports until all appropriations that relate to this are, the study authorities expire.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: If we can accept that. On

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: page 33, section e 100.2, this is language that also appeared in act 27 directing the secretary of administration to report to JSC at its 2026 meetings and other meetings as requested on any reductions to federal revenues to the state. So, again, just adding that reporting requirement to this summer and fall.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. We are meeting in July. If we don't meet

[Sen. Richard Westman]: in July, then I guess we don't. Because we have to do it. It's there, but That's when the emergency board Yeah. Around the patient. Right. Yeah. Because the chairs are here. We all just

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So we can put pin to make sure that the months stated here are reflective of the actual scheduled dates or if you can see meetings.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. We will close that out. I don't think that meeting is on the fifteenth.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: No. It's still on the. They have the Sometime

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: in July. July.

[Unidentified committee member]: Twenty eighth of thirty first.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Uh-huh. That's for those clients. Yep. Okay. E 105.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e one zero five. So this is language that would be added to statutes stated in the event of a deficit in the CIT fund, a portion of the balance of the technology organization funds that only would be comprised of interest would be transferred to the CIT fund. As the committee might recall from a little bit ago, the technical letter had a recommended technical treat to that so if the committee accepted this language, then that technical change would be made, but this language would create an automatic mechanism for transferring interest from the technology modernization special fund to the CIT fund to address the fund balance in the latter. But only if there's money saying that. Did the administration weigh in on this?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I know they didn't like taking of the interest out of the technology modernization fund because they care about an ongoing sweep of interests, deal with the deficit in the information technology internal service fund.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I can't recall if this was also touched upon in the Virginia letter. This the transfer of interest is from prior fiscal years. This would be for future fiscal years.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Let's leave it open. I can't remember if they shared or not. Wanna hear what they have to say about that before we prove it.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section EU 105.1 relates to this issue. This would require a report from ADS to the House Committee's on Appropriations on Energy and Digital Infrastructure and the Senate Committee's on Appropriations and on Institutions on how to reduce the deficit in the CIT fund.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I would get. It could be a 1¢ or add money.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Oh, that's. Do you remember?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you guys remember what this we we helped it a little bit last year.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's going to $25,000,000.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We got Did we do something like $9? 50. 50.

[Unidentified committee member]: Deputy Commissioner Merrill testified about it in house appropriations.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: There's still another $15,000,000. There's still

[Unidentified committee member]: pretty significant deficit and I think the Yeah. Finance and management has made some changes in this budget to try to address it. I think the it's yet to be seen, you know, what progress will be made based on those changes because you have to go through the fiscal year. Right. Or two to see if it makes a difference. So, you could move this money there to try to help mitigate it or maybe to let the chain, the other changes in the budget play out. I tried to address it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, this is this part is kept the other one open. This is just that they have to report Just to report. Probably the written plans. I think they're playing out just that because they made changes to the EDS funds, the the deficit would slowly get eaten away every year. So I guess we'll have them write that down. I'm I'm okay with closing that report out. There's no one

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: zero six. Section e one zero six. So, this, I believe, technically was closed out by the committee closing up the technical letter. This is just in the budget presentation stating that, that should include a document outlining reversions and a brief carry forward.

[Unidentified committee member]: This is the language that

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: You're Where the recommendation had been to Correct. Adjust to extend that sentence. And we were like, no. We're just gonna have period. Correct.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section E-one

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 111, I think

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the committee can skip over on some deals with physicians more generally.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Can I just ask about the JFO special fund report? E127.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. We're not there yet. Oh, no. We are. We just got that. We just got Yes, sir. I heard about it. I'm not wondering. Now you have message.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: We seem to be the perfect time.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I'm just wondering, did JFO agree to this before before

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I JFO, I believe, thinks that this report process would be valuable for the work of the generals, I believe.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: So it wasn't voiced or not?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: There was no voicing.

[Unidentified committee member]: Somebody suggested it, and we agreed that it would be valuable to use our summer. Okay. Great. Do you agree with For the

[Sen. Richard Westman]: next four years. Summer. Because they're

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: all I appreciate the concern about the voice idea. Yeah. And this is by December 15, sixteen March? Yes. The first general, report would be due by December 15, and then on there is a years long process of taking a chunk of special funds that relate to function areas of government, similar to how we do the fee report. Right. And so over the course of several years, JFO would complete reports that give a full overview of all special funds in existence. Over the next four years.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Correct? Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: We

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: would hate to take that work away from you, so I'll let you do it.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section E-one 131 on page 38. Each year, the treasurer is required per statute to deliver a report on, the financial picture for the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. This would just add language that's saying in this coming calendar year's report, that the report shall also include any recommended changes to revenue sources or expenditures from the funds. Let's keep that open because there's gonna be other first language on the higher education down the trust fund so we might want to tweak that record. Sections E133 and E134 keep open on those numbers are updated just as the committee makes decisions relating to the pension systems so that as the committee saw earlier, the technical letter included some recommended changes to reflect the accurate numbers in those sections and I believe there's further discussion, that would also necessitate the update of those numbers. So, until the committee makes decisions relating to that, I would just

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: keep those sections open. And we'll keep 01:35 open till we confirm the mediator turn it to questions.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section E Oops, sorry. Go ahead. The E136.1. Actually, it's a

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: fully leave 135.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: On page 39, line 16 c one, the board may employ a mediator to provide free mediation services to public and private sector employee collective bargaining units. I'm just wondering, is that does anybody know? Is that something the board has done before? Because I my own understanding is that people have always supplied their own

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: mediators. But Yeah. My understanding is that there is a federal mediation program that you see could ask for a federal mediator. That program has been eliminated by the Trump administration. But there was a attempt to find put a mediator somewhere. I've heard from some that there are mediators, like Vermont mediators that you can pay. So you don't need to have a mediator here, but so that's one of the issues trying to figure out.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And this should not give some statutory authority to actually employ that position that you're creating. When the house that that was created.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: And to lend their services. Right. Give their services. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It says, yeah, the mediator has capacity to provide free mediation services. The House Prohibition Chair said something about mediators being charging $450 an hour. Mhmm. Right. But when I talked to the union, they said that there were mediators available that aren't charging for that don't charge for it. So I was just trying to

[Sen. Richard Westman]: It'll be really good for a $150 in that much.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, I guess.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's more than we're making here. It won't take too

[Sen. Richard Westman]: long to change your salary.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. E136.1. Think we keep this open.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So yeah, there are a number of sections that relate to changes to the state ethics commission and the creation of a state ethics handbook. I believe there's outstanding policy discussions of. So I recommend that e thirty one thirty six point one through e one thirty six point five that we keep open with just the understanding that if these sections are retained in the committee's version of the building, that technical correction and the technical letter regarding the effective dates Right. Would would likely be pre appropriated. Section b one thirty nine on page 45. This specifies that $70,000 in section b 139, is for the Department of Taxes division of property valuation and review to be used for, grant and solicitation assistance for hydroelectric plants. So, the committee, we discussed this last week that there's ongoing disputes relating to that, so this is specifically for that. And then e one thirty nine point one And it's clear that it's coming from the pilot fund? Yes. So where you see that it's coming from the pilot fund is actually in the numbers section that it it just shows that it's special funds. And then e one thirty nine point one is that second law notwithstanding language that makes that appropriation in v one thirty nine and file the use of the pilot function. Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: This was that

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. We proposed this house.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. We had a large. This And he's Waterford, and they had

[Sen. Richard Westman]: real troubles with that. So

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: With that, section b one forty two and section b one forty four, bullet related to standard annual language for, payments in lieu of taxes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: K.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Both of those out? Section e 200 is standard language, just directing that not astounding any other provision of the law. The office of the attorney general, Medicaid fraud and residential abuse unit may retain one half of the state share of any recoveries from Medicaid fraud settlements excluding interest.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, I'll send that.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section E208 relates to the annual language authorizing the Commissioner of Public Safety to enter into a contract with the Essex County Sheriff's Department.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I what is they only do over with the Essex County?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. I would I would have to get back to you on specifics here. This onprising language appears Every year. Every year.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Every year since he's a.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But he doesn't work for the

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No. But when he was on this committee, there's something about the Essex County Sheriff's Office. So, like, Essex so, like, state police don't have to police Essex County, basically, because the sheriff's there. I don't know enough about the the policing situation that's exempt either, say for sure. Coverage. But it is a rural area that seems like a logical. Maybe that's and I know

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: that Essex County Sheriff does some things that are different to the state place, so maybe that's one of the reasons why as well. Okay. Well, we'll close it out for now. It's not our no money in

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e two zero nine, this is annual language specifying, allocations of the appropriation. It's e $2.00 9, 35,000 for the Southern Vermont Wilderness Search and Rescue Team, and 405,000 for grants to support the drug task force, and 2,100,000.0 for the purchase, outfitting, assignment, and disposal of state police vehicles.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you know why I'm sure my guess is that we should I guess we could ask if we could buy it's only the Southern Vermont where there is search and rescue team. Like, there's search and rescue teams throughout the state. Is there a reason one gets very fucked up and then the other do not?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I can't speak to the details of the appropriations themselves and why some of these things are pulled out and why they aren't. There's language paired here, you know, obviously, for most of the appropriations that are made in the budget, there isn't this level of specificity. So for presumably for some of these annual sections, at some point in the past, it was, significant that it be called out. But

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I guess it's state police, commissioner, county sheriff. We'll prefer only for snowmobile enforcement.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: She's gonna be.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: There's other snowmobile enforcement done by the.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Right? Well, that's that's a contract. And we had the DMV bill. We increased that fee that is Correct. This year to finance staff with their contract for enforcement.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But I think they contract with the sheriffs and warrants to do that.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: They they do themselves. They they do it the rest of the state. I can't remember exactly what this is, but I think it this is all in the National Forest too.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.

[Unidentified committee member]: Is it?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Yeah. It mostly is in the National Forest down Glassdenberry, that whole thing. Because some local violent forces and personnel.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They out there and waned their cavities. Yep.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: And the national forest runs up there up through there.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Actually, I'll take it closing it out unless somebody wants to actually figure out why this trip. No. We'll be on course that's happening. I'm sure it's State,

[Rep. Robert Norris]: I wanted to tell you a little bit I know about it. Could hear it. Fine. Not

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: a lot of years.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: The thirty five thousand dollars, the majority of the money goes to state place, so they remain primary. And during the course of that, I'm sure, such as, as Richard just said, sheriffs, additional wildlife, and there's some municipalities in the southern part of the state, quite possibly in the other part of state, that also receive some of these moneys for vast patrols. So it's a it's a variety of agencies that that deal with it. But we wanna make sure that the state is 61% of the money, so that they're the primary portion when it comes to accidents and and getting a lot of. But there are are are the default agents show and say that they're not a 24 by seven service, so they're with default agents. So

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the second paragraph, it says the common mind appropriated in this section going b two zero nine, not e two of them.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I'm not sure where that money comes from.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But it talks about three town task force officers. Are they statewide? Are they They used to

[Rep. Robert Norris]: have both the Northern and Southern task force, and what they do is that it's headed up by the block state police. You know how the sheriff's officer will miss the ballots that will apply and be part of this process that pays their salaries and stuff.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. And then the for state police. I'm okay.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e two zero nine point one. This is the creation of the Vermont State Police Radio Equipment for Houston Special Fund. That there is a transfer in the transfer section of $500,000 to From where? The general fund.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The general fund. See this fund?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Correct. And I believe in future fiscal years, the fund would require further transfers. The idea being that, because of those sort of off year nature of the purchases needed, this would secure funds for the for this purpose rather than, an appropriation in one year that would be very significant appropriation over small appropriations each year that then may be used for other purposes. Ultimately, this would just slowly set the necessary amount of money in a fund until it's needed for purchase of radio equipment. I think

[Sen. Richard Westman]: this was created because they got way behind and got in this place where we owed a big chunk of money to do that. I think it's a kind of a revolving fund, buys equipment over time instead of having us get way behind them in that, you know? And I think that's what happened.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you remember or, you remember how much they need? Like, if they did an annual rotation? Originally, put it for both Firearms.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: Firearms and radios to be portables and mobiles, and I think it $5,000,000 for each lung. And I don't see the radios. That's that's my question. I know I put language on the firearms, and I would put language in for a capital planning or whatever that may be as far as establishing response so it's we don't get hit as hard. But

[Unidentified committee member]: the air goes

[Rep. Robert Norris]: back to standing on what they were gonna do with the older firearms. Said that they're gonna purchase those. Does that go back into that fund or the general fund?

[Unidentified committee member]: I I'll double check.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: The ways

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: that they receive from the bail of

[Unidentified committee member]: stays within public safety for purchasing firearms.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But they could dispute it in their general fund. They could use it for whatever.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Are you suggesting maybe if they do sell them that that stays into the special firearm reserve fund? I mean, be

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: sure what to do, but I mean, I did

[Rep. Robert Norris]: a few for selling firearms and put them back into that pond in the same pond so that it would enhance that project and not use it for, like, in a general pond for other things that might not Either that or the t ponds or the other. Well, that is that.

[Unidentified committee member]: But I think there was also, like, the snail was also going towards the purchase of the new firearm. Oh, there's I don't know if there was really person. Additional I can check with Rick.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: I spoke to him this morning, actually. He's on a couple of days off. So he did text me back and forth here while can check on that. See what we spoke with each one.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And would you like Brady to create language that mirrors this radio equipment replacement fund for fire?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Let me check. I would see what they're doing. Yeah. If that's what they're doing, yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: If you're supportive of that, I'd support doing that. Does that make sense?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Do you agree? Amending this language to make firearm purchases and allow the use of the fund? No. That will same rotating.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Have a replacement fund.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: A new replacement special funds for firearms. Creating a setting special fund. Maybe because we wanna have

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: more special funds for the JFO study.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's right. Well, that'd for leaving this open.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, this is open. We might create another 209.2, I guess. That would create a replacement special fund for firearm.

[Unidentified committee member]: What about the capital plan?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We could do two things. We could ask them to do a report on how they would create a special fund or create a firearm replacement or we could just say they shall do it through a replacement special fund. And we could either, I don't know where they are with radius versus firearms but we could put the 500 half and half. Could, gonna do some more.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Is you know, I don't understand about traditional. If I may ask the committee a question, I don't have to review budget documents that the committee received, but the there was or the requirement of the capital plan for firearm purchases added to act 27. Was that included in the GPS budget presentation?

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Did they did they do what?

[Unidentified committee member]: No.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We talked about it. Right?

[Unidentified committee member]: Did did do they didn't do what?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, yeah, why didn't you support them? Well, so we asked them to do it, but they didn't do it. So we could create a language that basically have to create a special fund. They would need a capital plan. Capital plan would be they have a special fund. I mean they're not required to put money into this radio. We're putting money into it. Right? Yeah. But I think for the firearms one thing, and I don't if we can do this to the radios. I don't know if they ever sell their old radio. Nobody buys that. But people buy the

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: old fire. There is argument throughout the sale of radios in the special fund creation language though.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But it's what Henry's why. Does the money that they gain from selling the radio stay in the radio? Yes. Okay. So we do that with the for the fire. Mayor both of them should have been Yeah. And we could reiterate request for a capital plan maybe the second time they would do it.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's just Or if I may. I mean, as long as we're dabbling in this section Fish and wildlife. I mean, I'm thinking about fish and wildlife, and I realized it would live right here, but a similar construct for the

[Sen. Richard Westman]: radios that they need. For the wardens. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Because didn't they have money this year in for work for radios? And I think

[Unidentified committee member]: that That was a question. I'm gonna ask the same question. It's the same.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: What do they do with guns? What are the wardens? And do they do it in a rotations?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Now you're refreshing.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: We've commissioned history of You wouldn't wanna have one trouble

[Unidentified committee member]: in that. Like, would be better to Do it too quickly. Ahead and and, yeah, save up how to be steady.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: And they replace them all at once. I just can't do it in a you know, we'll get the fifteenth issue, the fifteenth issue over last

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But stick with the wartons. How many wartons are bearing, like, 50 wartons?

[Rep. Robert Norris]: There's a denial 37, 38. They replace those. Could. Right.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The police would probably give it an average.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: I mean, the deputy commissioner morning, I'll talk to her for the governor commissioner.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thanks to the commissioner. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So, also, it might do it for.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: And just asked if if you if you're gonna ask some questions around, do they, if they, I'm sure they probably do, but do they do that with their, with their trucks and cars? Yeah,

[Unidentified committee member]: was looking at that with the previous page on page 47.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Not like thinking about cars We have notoriously waited with all of these things until we get into trouble.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: I think they have that same point of recognition that the state has unfortunately. Mhmm.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's me.

[Unidentified committee member]: Mhmm. Alastasia's mommies.

[Unidentified committee member]: But not all of our. Yeah.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: What does this score line which where it says that the commissioner of

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: management issued warrants based on anticipated receipts? Would that be like they could anticipate this $500,000 going in there and allow them to buy the guns before July 1, and this is an effective date on that kind of money does need. But warrants is like a purchase. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: A warrant is just like the mechanism by which the department says, we wanna buy this finances. Okay. It goes to treasurer. And the treasurer makes the payment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So this is kinda normal between It's normal. Yeah. Okay. Actually, on line 12, they do have

[Rep. Robert Norris]: that question of proceeds from the sale of any existing bank or a bunch of excessive proceeds. I assume that go back into that. The same

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: thing for the firearms? Yeah. Okay. And so we're gonna do a nine one open two twelve. Is it only for the designing of traffic entries? Like, not for the building of the

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: For this language, yes. I spent a little time trying to look into this and could not not come up with much. So I have to dig in further to find out the history of the origin of this business annual language of a $55,000 allocation for the design of dry hydrants.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it's probably been there every year

[Sen. Richard Westman]: or three years? It's been there for twenty years.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I would just say there's not a lot of design. I mean, there's pretty street floors.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: They're so close to perfecting it.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: What would

[Rep. Robert Norris]: happen if we just cut?

[Unidentified committee member]: Let me just go buy dry

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, dry items are important, but I assume it's for putting them in and not just like somebody designing like yeah put pipe in the water and put the pipe outside here for the truck to hook up to it.

[Unidentified committee member]: No stress. Maybe

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: each dry hydrant is unique to this situation, and they're Yeah. In. Does that include both? They maybe need, like, stream engineers to talk about where you're gonna put the pipe in the stream.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: Or maybe they're changing the paint job. Yeah. Designing new

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Try new logo for the dry. Okay. Well, if you wanna look into the.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That's a lot of script.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I do like dry.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Well, we've been doing this for years. So There

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I mean, for, like, where I live, when I was on the Voltaire Fire Department, we didn't have dry. We're going to

[Sen. Richard Westman]: have water without fires. Like, it's certainly the only source of water. They control insurance costs. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Like distance to a guy. Mhmm. Okay.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e two fifteen, this is the annual language directing the amount appropriated to Visa for the Vermont National Government Tuition Benefit Program.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The fact of the driver is the fire protection task force part

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Like, prevention. You know where in that? Digging around, I do not the Vermont Guerrilla Fire Protection Task Force is not a state entity. So who where do they send money? I this is an appropriation to public safety, and then the this is 55,000 of that appropriation granted to the Oh, yeah. So they just sent them to e.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So e two fifteen, we can look out and then the are people okay with all the military positions that were created? Mostly federal funding?

[Rep. Robert Norris]: 75% for the company. 75. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I mean, I'm okay closing all those out. Assume we're not gonna object for those positions or the $10,000 for The US and Vermont support group. I saw a submarine, by the way. You did? Just recently.

[Unidentified committee member]: Did you get out of Connecticut?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I was actually off the coast of New Hampshire. I was on the coast. The submarine was off

[Unidentified committee member]: Oh, wow. Did it Sure.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. There's a naval shipyard there. Yeah. Going in for repairs or something. But for that reason, I'm kinda getting checked out.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section e 222, this is a position for position to the agency of agriculture food and markets.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's always hard for these administrative services. But this was included in the governors? Yeah.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I see the governors recommend the Internet. What's it doing? Administrative services. It's managing administrative services.

[Unidentified committee member]: USAA.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: spoke in the. She's gonna get back here. Oh, she is. Okay. K.

[Unidentified committee member]: Do you wanna leave it open?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Keep it open until we Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We did get an email from her on the She did. No problem.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Did we send it to the whole committee, did she send it to

[Unidentified committee member]: No, you were not on. I sent it to you. I sent it the committee. Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, so the committee did get it through with Al. Yeah. Okay. Or she answered some of the questions we had on

[Rep. Robert Norris]: the fees. Hopefully, haven't seen the letters. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'm very You're talking about the positions.

[Unidentified committee member]: Make sure everyone. Eyes. See? What do say? Pending it again.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: Not approving. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: E two three two. So this

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: is calling out the allocation of the appropriation to the secretary of state, should be provided to the Access Network. I believe in the gov rec, the number was a bit shy of 1,300,000. The house has it as $1,800,000 changing the allocation of the appropriation.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: You mean because it was going to secretary?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: This is calling out of the amount of money that's appropriate to the secretary of state how much is to provide to the Vermont Access Network. So that happens to not increase the appropriation to the secretary of state, just increasing how much of that appropriation is for the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Vermont Access Network. And this was the second of three stage bump up. I guess 1.35 last I see. Well, that in in Vermont Access Network once, that's their request is to have a slow increase of support for media access TV.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: Assuming you could open these preparations,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I support it though. We keep it open. We talk about it.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section E two thirty three, this is language relating to the adoption of a telecommunications plan. This just amends that plan from being every three years to every five years.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: All okay with that? Mhmm. If you want it to be three years,

[Sen. Richard Westman]: you have to read the last three.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Rights Commission. Section e two thirty six, this is a position school on staff attorney investigator position at the Human Rights Commission. Did we add a position attorney?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: We did. I can't what we did in the budget adjustment. This reflects that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: This yeah. Is this, like, close out the years? I think do know? Or do

[Rep. Robert Norris]: we have heads? Was it was they wanted four, and

[Sen. Richard Westman]: we did two. Doctor did it the other question. Something like that, and but but, you know, he did it in the the budget adjustment. Yeah. So is this does this track with what we did in the budget adjustment? Would be another one.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I I think 30 would be more than than just to finish up the year that I Well, the CFO member is in the room now.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So the food. I would think so.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's because it's an attorney.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Which section are we? When the government would put together their budget, they wouldn't have reflected what we did in the budget adjustment. So I'm wondering if this is the position we had and and it's the full year. Right.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 50 to 20¢. Think that would be half. So 130 for half a year.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I Well, but this would be the whole year because this is an extra Alright. Budget adjustment would have been the half. Just the half. So this would be the whole fiscal year. Yeah. So 130, that's still cheap for an attorney. Institution.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Skip it all. Thank you, Jim. It's my second. Go Brandon down. Just so we know how many positions when we're talking about positions, we already added one. This was it a staff attorney that we added before?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: To my recollection, there wasn't a staff attorney investigator position that established in the budget adjustment. There was a staff attorney investigator established in act one seven, but this would be a separate new statutory What does issue in the budget adjustment? We did

[Sen. Richard Westman]: something right here. Right? We did. We funded a position.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's how we did an intake specialist, And maybe it was lower. Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Brad's gonna figure it out. Well, we're not. We did the budget adjustment that wouldn't have been in the governor's budget at that point in time. Right.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. We're gonna have to leave it out and probably get more clarity.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I think you've won on the slack at least at least what we did in the budget adjustment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. And e 300?

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes. So this, is specifying funds appropriated in section b 300, 2,450,000, for a contract with the office of the health care advocate, 1710000.00 for Vermont Legal Aid including the Poverty Law Project, and 650,000 for maintaining current Vermont Legal Aid program capacity.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you know what the gov rec was for the Office of

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Health Care? I can pull it

[Unidentified committee member]: up. It wasn't anything.

[Unidentified committee member]: It was flat funded.

[Unidentified committee member]: It was flat funded.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. What's the difference of 2 forty's? I assume the $4.50 spread because it's the only part of that number that changed. What was it? $404,150,000 difference? I do. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: They I can have that gave them an increase.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I know it level.

[Unidentified committee member]: But the governor level funded then the house has been increased

[Sen. Richard Westman]: four Yeah, that's the question.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it's two zero zero four zero six?

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Oh, yeah. It's out there. Yeah.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes, exactly. Correct. That's right.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: So it's a 450,000. Correct.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Actually, I have human rights commissioner. Ah. I will be honest. You don't wanna stop Brendan to do your work? No.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: I don't. I was staying silent. Figured it out.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You figured out that somebody else.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: Do you want to do it?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: There you go. Perfect. Okay. So for this this health care advocate, should we leave that open as

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: we talk about all the? Is

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: it part of

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the whole health care stuff you're doing?

[Unidentified committee member]: It's not part of no. I would support it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'd support it too, but do we wanna

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. We probably should.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We haven't gotten the health care committees.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's only like 68,000 fund. 8,000 general fund because it makes a bill back and all the equipment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I forget the exact number. Right? Right. Let's do one more, and then we'll have to learn.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Section E 321. This relates to monthly reports from AHS to the Joint Fiscal Committee and the Joint Justice Committee on the plans to develop the Green Mountain Youth Campus. And then it also states that DCF and VGS cannot expend funds on the further development of the youth campus until either the joint fiscal committee consultation with the chairs of relevant standing committees, reviews, or more of the reports received or until the general assembly formally authorizes resumption of spending by legislative action. This is the complete unambiguous written

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. This is the unambiguous Oh, yes.

[Rep. Robert Norris]: As opposed to the majority of the written analysis.

[Unidentified committee member]: They should do that. The general receipt.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is anybody that have the agency agreement services? Do you know how they feel about that?

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. I had a meeting with them yesterday, I can't remember what we decided. I think it's okay. It's on

[Rep. Robert Norris]: It should

[Unidentified committee member]: we we should sections here. We need tell him. Remember what was the guys on that I don't remember. I think it's probably Okay. There's no money in here.

[Unidentified committee member]: PCF likes it. But I

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: would assume I

[Unidentified committee member]: don't think BCF likes it.

[Unidentified committee member]: No. They don't like it at all.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So that all puts the side.

[Unidentified committee member]: Unambiguous probably should be changed. That's just a fucking pie. It's not. It's not a healthy word here.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Not a healthy word?

[Unidentified committee member]: No. No. Maybe.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So we have making this?

[Unidentified committee member]: Or That's right. To to develop an analysis, and it says written analysis.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Complete real events.

[Randy (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It's progress on a written analysis.

[Unidentified committee member]: Not an analysis.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Just end

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Get rid of the written thing.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: In analysis. Yeah. It'd be weird if they did an analysis.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: If there's anything else And it's numbers too. It's a shit cost. This shit probably weird. Yeah. Somebody else Yes. We could fix We need Mhmm. You know, it's 41 bed. Yeah. It's just a minute. Yeah. And it it it is I think it's you have to

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do they have the money for it?

[Unidentified committee member]: So I think what's happening is they're laying a capital bill to do the plan. And I think they're spending $4,000,000 on, I think with Red Clover. And I think the issue is if the campus isn't built, then that's another year they're gonna have to continue to do one time for Red Clover. It's like, I think the House wanted to postpone it because they like that they're signing contracts to do it and then coming to the appropriation after they've already signed the contracts. So that was the thinking on it. That's how it was smooth. But DCF says this, the longer we put on building it, the more time we'll have to continue to do one time 4,000,000 to keep the board closer. So that's the route.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. I

[Sen. Richard Westman]: think we should leave it open.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So we'll ask PCF Yeah. To respond to this section e 321. I And in the Essex? Before they wanted to do it.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. We started out to do

[Sen. Richard Westman]: it very citing it. We're so successful in citing That's gonna be in the print. No. No. This is kits. Oh, that's the print. It may be.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. I think that's overachiep.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: Just this This is kids. Just kids.

[Unidentified committee member]: We're not yeah. So they've been going to sit out. But So let's sit out. It is in institutions right now, and that's the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So maybe for something money in the bills, are we interested?

[Unidentified committee member]: There's, like, 770,000 or something like that. It's a capital bill for, like, planning of it, which Guy can talk more about that.

[Sen. Richard Westman]: I was wrong. Okay. Revenue setting says January 15. And the July 1 says they will come out with an estimate by July 31.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. They're coming here? I don't have a

[Sen. Richard Westman]: statute out of Wait.