Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: We are live.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Appropriation. We're going through the h nine five one, the FY '27 budget. That's passed by the house. The trustee, the and staff of the JFO, and Mr. Ginny Lyons.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: You, Grady Nixon, Veronica Fiscal. So we left off on section E301, which should be on the bottom of page 52 of the document you all have. That was quite the foot pain here. I just just got into human services.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: So
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: section E301, this is standard language relating to anticipated state fund, state match and federal match relating to various global commitment programs. This relates to the year end. The one thing I flagged for the committee here is there is one reference to the Medicaid reimbursement special fund with the technical letter flagged at the point that this actual expenditure would be made, which would be year end, the school based Medicaid reimbursement special fund that's being set up in the middle language would already be in existence. So that would just be a
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: are these?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: This is on page 53 in sub one. I thought you said e three zero one. It's
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: both of those things. E three zero one.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: In that sub one that is just in the technical letter of refund correction that the new fund have already been established at year end. So that was the change from the Medicaid reimbursement special funds to the school based Medicaid special reimbursement special funds.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: E three zero one point one, again, relating to global commitment and f one twenty seven closeout. Of this authorizes the Secretary of Human Services to make transfers among appropriations authorized for Medicaid and Medicaid labor expenses including a global commitment.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You do? E
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: three zero one point two on page 55, this relates to extending, global commitment obligations for one further year, to bring HCBS plan spending authority forward. So the spending authority, I believe, was not fully expired, so this extends that to fully, utilize those funds. E three zero one point three, this authorizes the secretary of human services to seek an extension of Hoovermont's global commitment waiver through 12/31/2022. Would that be about to reach five years? So the the waiver extension, I don't believe, is on a hard and fast extent there. I think we're allowed two or three extensions, but we're gonna to renew the waiver itself, but this would be a request to extend the waiver for five years.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's the same thing with 03/2006, basically?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: 03/2006 would be, this would be seeking an amendment to the waiver, to establish a program for reinsurance.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Regional negotiation for the waiver for ten years? Yes, believe so.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: And close out 03/2006. 03/2001 would, direct DIBA to terminate any contract for services for the Medicare Advocacy Program.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: This is the ombudsman's office or what what we used to call the ombudsman's office.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I'm not sure. We'll get back to you on that.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: This is not the great pair advocate. No. I don't believe so. We'll ask. Yeah. I think it's from the office. Yeah. I think
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: it's specific to legal aid. Legal aid does. I don't know.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's Legal aid is money done. Like, Yeah. And I don't know what
[Richard Westman (Member)]: thirty three days I've got. That's not okay. Right.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The intersection. Yeah.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: The three zero six point two would be the creation of positions at Devo through the position pool.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is this on the position, the chart?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Oh, yes.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: K.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: E three zero seven, this
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: allows And I'll just say, even though we close that out, we're gonna talk about all the positions later. But we would change it. If we change positions The way we would reflect those.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: E three zero seven, this allows for payments that are ordinarily made by the secretary of education to be made by DIVA relating to, Medicaid receipts.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: following sections that were added by the house relate to the Medicaid school based services program. So this is a number of statutory changes to that program, the repeal of the current fund, that I mentioned before and then the establishment of the school based Medicaid reimbursement fund. I think relating to the timing of the movement of these monies, some of these sections are effective on October 1. And this
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Mister chair, I was wondering if we shouldn't leave this open.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. They call this. We can just leave no terms for move your vote. Center alignments. Got it.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: This is about all three zero seven?
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: It's all related to Yeah. All the
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: way to page 66. Okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: On the bottom
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: of page 65 and then continuing on to page 66, this is language directing EVA to review the implementation of family planning codes in the Medicaid program to ensure that expenditures for family planning services that are eligible for for federal match at a 90% rate are receiving that rate. And then it includes language, directing the Dutch report back to HRD and the Joint Fiscal Committee on its findings and any estimated savings.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We'll also leave that up until we have center lines full attention of all our other areas. I've
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: just been working with some of this language
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I know.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Getting it together.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Three eleven? E three eleven is the repeal of the Ahab sunset.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So they're just AHEC program was gonna be was sense would sunset next year? Correct. We're saying it's not sunset. Correct. I see everybody's supports that.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Seems good.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Both of them out. Thank you.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section e three twelve
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Got it. Thank you.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Is language relating to the allocation of funds for AIDS services and substance misuse or sorry, harm reduction services. So the house added $45,000 in sub two on page 67, reflecting that the budget adjustment added $45,000 to this as well, and there's language directing that grants cannot be lowered from the prior fiscal year. Are you saying $340,000
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: is 40,000 more or they had to It's
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: $45,000 more than it was in the gov rack. It should be read. It should be read. And in the gov rec, this section was two separate sections because, the two respective grant programs are operated by different parts of the department. The government separated it out and then the number of sections of the bill would be separated out, but, the house consolidating the sections back together as it has been for many years in
[Richard Westman (Member)]: the past. The advocates like the way the house did this. They might next week have some additions, but they're good with this. This builds on what we did in the
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: PAA. Correct.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: It's reflective of that change in sub two that was in the PAA, adding it from 295,000 to 340,000. You
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: but do you want to have
[Richard Westman (Member)]: me close that? No. I want I think the language they put in apparently is on the Okay. We will close it out. But they're not saying for nothing. The opening thing before this. But Well or any any but there might be an addition. Yeah.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: On page 69, section e three thirteen directs the Department of Health to review previous appropriations from the Opioid Abuse Special Fund and make recommendations to the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee and relevant standing committees regarding what appropriations that were funded by that fund could in future years be funded through the Substance Misuse Prevention Fund?
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: So, I wanna keep that open. Okay.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section E316 directs DCF to conduct a report, I'm apologizing for forgetting the bill name or the act number rather. This report was directed in and out about five years ago. Would just be another report on the rate goal reduction for reach out.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: I want to keep that one open as well.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: E317 relates to funding for supervised visitation programs, so it calls out specific allocations of appropriations made both in the face and the one time section and directs DCF to distribute those funds to community based supervised visitation sites, provide some funds for start up funding where additional site for additional sites and counties where programs do not currently exist, and 50,000 to the Vermont network for states statewide supervised visitation coordinator.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you have a pending on this airline? Yeah. I think. Where is this? This is federal money?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: This is this is state funds, general funds, and $100,000 of federal funds.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: This doesn't have the 130,000 housing. Yeah. Does. I might wanna look at that.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: E
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: three twenty two is the amendment to statute eliminating those eligible for the nominal annual home heating fuel assistance benefit to those households with a member that is elderly or disabled under staff regulations. But the Amy was able to look into the $21 nominal benefit here, and it seems that the point of that is not actually to provide $21 of fuel assistance, but to extend eligibility for staff, and then this due to federal changes, further, guidelines on which households are actually eligible for it in the statute needs to be updated to reflect that.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is it to extend benefits to three squares or SNAP, or is it to extend benefits for home home meeting fee loss for loss?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I believe making households eligible for the home feeding field benefit allowed them to Also be eligible. Yes. Kind of an easier way to be eligible. Administrator. That's my understanding. The of the nominal benefit was to increase access to staff benefits and do capital changes. This nominal benefit has to have further guidelines around it to limit limit it to those households that have either elderly or disabled individuals. And could they get
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: they could they could get a benefit over time, you if that's you're you're eligible for that on that benefit?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Yes. So this would this speaks particularly just to this nominal benefit that's provided to expand staff access, and that nominal benefit being provided now would only, assist those with an elderly or disabled individual. If
[Anne Watson (Member)]: by May, about this section, what you're describing sounds logical and good. It also feels like it doesn't if that's what this does, it does not seem very clear. And so, I for whatever it's worth, it seems like it might be, I don't know how much I would want to spend on this, but if we had the time, I would want to rewrite this section to just make it clearer that that's what it's doing.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Maybe we need to hear from oh, did you talk to OEO?
[Anne Watson (Member)]: We got a I think the committee may have also got the I was trying
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: to pull it up, and I can't find it right now.
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: So I think that, you know, this is what the administration requested. So it's and it may be that you're not seeing the entire Yeah. Legislation, you know, statute. Right. But we did. Okay. Get more information together and just
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: talk about it next week.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: I'm also happy to have some offline conversations just to, like, do that research or dig into it because, you know, for somebody who's not seeing the remainder of the statue, it's not apparent. You know, that's what's happening here.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Leave it open, and you can you could try this. Maybe they they sent us an email. Maybe that explains it better. Because over your death loss, then
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: the one there's. Right. There are the benefits.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Right. Like, there's some other reference to the 21 doctors, or if there's, there might be some more supporting language that wouldn't make it clearer. Okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 03/25?
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: That's part of September, the House of Bill. B-twenty five is? Yeah.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you wanna leave that up? Yeah.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Because we're working on the bill. Let's see here.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section E326 specifies that 750,000 of the appropriation E326 need for replacement and repair home heating equipment. And this is a DCF OEO letterization assistance program.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'll put money in 03/26, and this is in 03/26. Excuse me. So it's it's of all the money that's appropriated for authorization. 750 could be used for home heating equipment for pricing. They've always had that program. I don't know if $7.50 is a different number that they've had other years.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I believe it's the same level as it was in x c seven.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: I would like to leave that opinion.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Can anyone talk to them?
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Thank you. I've ideas slash questions about that abuse.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Had Yeah. Just to name it specifically, like, you were going to replace some equipment with, say, something that was more efficient or lower carbon, is that precluded in this? Because it's just strictly a replacement. Does it have to be like for like?
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't think so, but it'd be good to check.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Yeah, and if it is envisioned, then I'd like to be clear
[Richard Westman (Member)]: about that.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Okay. Next one stays open. We spent all morning talking about, wasn't it this morning, with the agency and Medicare partners folks.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Section
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: E329.1 on page 73, this directs Dale to present as separate line items, choices for care program, home and community based services, and skilled nursing facility services. In the technical letter, it was flagged. Yeah. Change that language to
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the appropriation. Line items changed to appropriate. Otherwise, it's fine. Yeah. With
[Richard Westman (Member)]: line items out of there. Yeah. Line items out. Yeah.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Yeah. Section e three twenty nine point two, this is Dale position pool. This is up for one position at Dale, so recommend committee keep it open and consider it under all of the positions. Yes. Section e three thirty eight is the specification of the supplemental facility payments to Newport and Springfield paid from the pilot fund.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I assume we just have
[Richard Westman (Member)]: that value in every year? Correct.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Can I just ask the supplemental facility payment to to Springfield? What is that actually? It's just a an agreement until that property is rehabbed and something else is done with it.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Are you thinking of the Renzy?
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Springfield, Renzy, please. Yep. Springfield. There's a prison in the spring. That's what I'm talking about, but it's is it functional
[Richard Westman (Member)]: at present? Both in Springfield and Newport, these are these are part of the agreements when we opened the both communities negotiated with us. But am
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I thinking of the Windsor? The Windsor in the lockdown.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Called down. Yeah. No. This is They would like a payment. This is this is Springfield and Newport, and this goes back to the agreements we made with them. Let me put it down. Got it.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Alright. We can close that out.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section e 500 is house added language, directing the agency of education for its FY twenty seven budget adjustment presentation and its FY twenty eight budget presentation to include, specified and detailed information including an account of FY twenty seven appropriations, an account of anticipated carry forward, information on third party contract agreements and organizational charts, and a written explanation of many changes to the agency's organization, so as a comprehensive account of any vacancies and information on federal funding changes.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: I did ask our education committee to make I get this language. I
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: I wouldn't use commissioner Gresham's word spiteful, but there is a kind of intensity to this language. You would say it
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: was expected to grow in or anything. But, you know,
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: I understand the concern about the organizational chart because it's looked like Swiss cheese for a long a long time,
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: but this does seem like a I I talked to members of the committee, they feel like more information would be helpful, but I'd ask them to look
[Richard Westman (Member)]: at this language in particular and see if they have agreements or comments. Well, one of the distressing things about AOE, and it showed up in DMV this year, is the surveys of employees within AOE has for a number of years now, they've been at the bottom of same satisfaction of employees. I'm not really sure that this exactly gets into that. But I I can see why they might ask questions. Well, can too. I'm just looking for instance, sub five, top
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: of page 75, written explanation of any changes to the agency's organization instruction personnel. Usually would have the men ask them. Ask the
[Richard Westman (Member)]: I know. I I told I totally agree with that, but I I'm not sure that a a a explanation of organization organizational stuff gets at what? The low marks in employee satisfaction stuff that personnel does, that I think you should be concerned about.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. And I would bet that the two are connected in that people are having to carry workloads that should
[Richard Westman (Member)]: be added by Right. Employees.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: So leave that up. Section E500.1 explains that the Global Commitment Appropriation in B501 is for physician claims for determining the medical necessity of IDPs.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: So, it's not actually about this, but about budget presentation in general. Actually, I'll ask my question later, then let's
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Let's see. There are more charts.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What does this do? Does the goal equip it?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: It specifies that the appropriations for publishing claims for determining the medical necessity of IEPs, just providing funds to ensure that there's more access for uninsured persons and uninsured persons as well as Medicaid beneficiaries. Okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Section
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: E 500.2 this, converts positions that were created in app '73 from limited service to permanent.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Alright. Position. Is there other timeshare in the bill or they do anything else with these positions, like change them or none of them?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Five. The house does? This is the only thing that affects x 73 created positions. It's just the conversion of them from limited to permanent.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, it's not the language, but well, so it's is it on the assume that those are on Maybe. Or not on there?
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: They are on the list. Yep.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section E 500.3 amends statute to of the agency of education to use up to 5% of annually forecasted revenues on administration for the universal after school and summer special fund rather than the set dollar amount of $500,000. And
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: do we know what percentage of $500,000 was?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I can get back to you.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: The only thing I remember is that they hadn't used up to five. Right. Yeah. But they were projecting that they might.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And I think it was close to the like, they had can't remember that. Yeah. If they were thought they'd get to 500. Can't remember if they're asking for this because they think they'd kill over five. Yeah. If we could just deal with the total. So there's thing of the money that they get for after school, which is all the money from the the Canada sales tax, they will use 5% of that.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: And you had sent these out at once.
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: That was in your bills. $2.32.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: When you talked about this bill, how much they but I think it was at 17,000,000. It wasn't that high. Oh. That's the sales thing? No. Mean, it's
[Anne Watson (Member)]: not Yeah.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Have to seven check.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. We'll we'll come back to it.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: The ending fund balance in f y twenty five was 12,900,000.0.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: This is of the annuals forecasted revenues. So is the forecasted revenues the same as the appropriation? Or is the forecasted revenues from the forecast of what 5%, 6% of the sales would be. So it's irrelevant of what we if we were to change the appropriation, they could use 5% of the forecasted revenues. We need it to be forecasted by the Not appropriation.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: You know what mean? So this this isn't specifically appropriating any money. This is I I can get back to you on that.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We appropriate I I guess we don't when the 5% when the sales tax goes to the actual program, is that an appropriation purchase that Assume it is, even though it's an automatic. So that's just a transfer.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: You have to
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: appropriate whatever money is Even if it's transfer of our appropriating If you're transferring money to a fund,
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: and then you're going to appropriate out of that fund. So
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: there is an annual appropriation of the universal after school program. What's the difference if you're saying we're doing 5% of the appropriation and 5% of the forecasted revenues? Is there a difference? I mean, I'm assuming ever since we've been doing the school program, we have appropriated all the 6% self tax over there. In the future, if we chose not to, then there would be a difference. The fund, do you know the fund balance? Do know what the appropriation was?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Yes. So expenses from the fund in f y twenty five were about $855,000. So if it was 5% of expenditures, that would be far lower than 5% of forecasted revenues.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What are you saying the forecasted revenues are?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I don't know what the forecasted revenues are for FY twenty seven, but it ended the fund balance was 12.9. So Is that top of that, I
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: would assume. That could have been two years. And if it's like
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I can reach out to Philip Baruth and get you an estimate. Okay. That'd pretty helpful to know.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But in general, support support, and I just wanna make sure I understand.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Five zero two. E five zero two, this is language that allows for, its annual language relating to special education formula grants specifying that of the appropriation e five zero two, but an amount not to exceed 2,000,000 shall be used by AOB, for special education four milligrams.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Two, I think that's 5,000,000. I'm not sure that's what they're saying.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section b five zero three, this is annual language that clarifies that the Independence Place program of a new place is considered a twenty four hour residential program, for the purpose of reimbursement of education costs.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's the name of permanent Independence Place program? The
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Independence Place program of new place. Section e five zero four, this is annual language specifying that of the appropriation in b five zero four, 4,300,000.0 general fund shall be for a grant to adult ed and literacy providers.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And language about how that's provided is one more less?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Yes, so the house added sections that change and update the out ed formula, so you'll see that. Later on? Yes. Coming attraction? Yes. Okay. Alright. Cool. Section E 504.1 is the annual language specifying the allocation of flexible pathways funding.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Is the Vermont Virtual High School
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: the same as community high school? Like I don't incarcerated?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I don't believe so. I think the Vermont Community High
[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: School still has the same name. Okay. And the Vermont Virtual High School?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I I think this is the same as the Vermont Virtual Learning Cooperative, which is virtual learning throughout the state.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. Okay. I never heard it referred to that way, but
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: This is probably, I assume this was the name at some point Yeah. In the past and most likely ought to be updated to reflect the actual name of the program.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And you're saying grade these are the same amounts every year or the amounts change every year?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: The amounts are typically the same. They've been updated from Act 27.
[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Chair? Yes. Are you Christopher, asking for the universal after school a few minutes ago? It was. That's just over $10,000,000. That's the annual. For '20 for FY '27. In Maryland.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So that 500,000 would be 5%. Yeah. But if we do increase this in the lower. Thank you. Any questions about the flexible pathways?
[Richard Westman (Member)]: So
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: the following several sections, five zero four point two continuing on to e five zero three point five ending on page 82, these are the house added updates to the out and formula. So there are two separate formulas being established here, one that would begin in FY '29 and one that would be effective for FY '27 and '28. And I would also flag for the committee E five zero four point five is technical conforming language if the contingencies in Act 73 is currently enacted are implemented, then this language would conform statute to align with those act 73 changes, just, adding in the word categorical into statute here, and that change would only be effective if those act 73 contingencies are met.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Me. I think there's
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: just one. I know there is negotiations with us. Makes sense. Can I get them? Nope. I
[Richard Westman (Member)]: just left that question.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Okay. So for the part that is for effective for FY '29, is it just for '29, or does it go on into the future?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: It goes on into the future. Section e five zero seven point one on page 82. This, specifies that the appropriation in e five zero seven point one meet for categorical aids to school districts for English language learning services.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is there something like this for each category? They must have Like, the transportation in that 50%.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I don't believe that all categorically would be specifically called out. This, was designated as a separate appropriation in recent years, I believe, either in Act 78 or Act one thirteen. And so this language was added then to clarify that the purpose of that appropriation.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. I'm going to post that out.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Sections e five fourteen five four fourteen point one relate to the specification of the contributions to the Vermont State Teachers Retirement System, and then the Vermont State Teachers Retirement System's portion of the VPIC budget are just black for the committee. As is often the case, these numbers are updated just at the end of the process pending decision for late meeting retirement systems and VPIC.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Section
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: E515, this relates to the annual contributions for retired teachers health and medical benefits plan specifying the state contribution and the annual charge contributed by employers. Section e 600, relates to this annual language relating to the commissioner of finance and management's warrants of the payment to the University of Vermont, so specifying, that there are this is split up into 12 warrants. Section e six zero two does the same for the Vermont State College. Section e six zero three establishes that if global commitment fund monies are unavailable, grant funding for the Vermont State Colleges, shall be maintained through the general fund or other state funding sources, and then specifies that the Vermont State Colleges shall utilize the appropriate, the global commitment appropriation in E603 to support dental hygiene, respiratory therapy, and nursing programs.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: The dental hygiene is not going very far. Yeah, that one might disappear.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section E605 is annual language relating to the allocation of funds appropriated to VSAG. Section E605 on page 86 relates to dual enrollment from early college, specifying the ed fund general fund split to VSAC in section E605.1 for those purposes.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Hold on. Might it close through reset for aorticology, or is that just some? Depends on.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Well, this is just the
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: money for the supply. Right.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: This is This is the stope. Right.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section E six zero six, this was a section where the administration had proposed removing the, direction of excess receipts from the state tax to the Roth Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. The administration had proposed to remove that from section of statute and instead direct those access receipts to the school construction aid fund. This section just retained the technical change so you'll see that appropriations is struck and transfers is not in.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Section
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: E700 makes various changes to the land and facilities trust fund, so it specifies that the lands, facilities, recreational assets owned and managed are managed by the agency of natural resources rather than specifically the Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation, and then these similar technical adjustments to refer to the secretary rather than the commissioner, and then it allows for up to it allows for expenditures from the fund to also be for administrative costs.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Project management, project development, and administration. And they presented that.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: And we talked about also the. Right. So that's different. Yeah.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But there's no cap on the amount of money they could use for Administration. Administration. Because this is of what funds? But they're just the money on the trust fund. And what money goes in it? I know they told us. Probably was like, well, these things. Maybe that's how we got into this area discussion.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: That's when we had Forest Parks and Recreation and talking about their land management and leasing programs. This is
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I think this is Well, just wondered if we want to, similar to the after school program, do we wanna limit the amount of money that you needed in the trust fund for administration? But it would be, they don't get an annual appropriation, how would you limit to 5% of the amount of money in the trust fund?
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Wanna know where it goes For both forest and parks and in Fish and Wildlife, but particularly forest and parks, the amount of general fund that goes in to fund them is pretty small. Yeah. Because most of it comes out from park fees and all of the way you administer the parks and all the different things that come together around that. So it's not the same as everybody else.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: There's language on page 89 about the 8% of the moving average over after the first three years, that they're increasing the amount five to 8% that would be distributed to the son.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Remember when they talked about that?
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Yeah. Then there's questions about the like, do we think
[Anne Watson (Member)]: that the returns are gonna be that high, but there's other sources that it would
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. They thought they they thought they would be they would take down 80%. Right.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: And I would specify for the committee too. This is an instance where the statutory cap on the percent of the fund that could be distributed is being raised here, but it's still pending approval from the house and senate. So still subject to the appropriation authority of the General Assembly.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. So they get a this was the past, could take 80% of the trust fund. Of that 80%, they could use they could use all of it for administration, but assuming they would use just a portion for that. So they can't use more than 8% of the funds than anyone.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: So this is stories.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Would be interested to know everything that goes into the fund.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: In sub four on page 90.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Oh, that says There it is. So how much is in there?
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They told us how much was in there. Yeah. Yes.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Well, you notice that their their budget back in in the can't coordinate the system. It's just the parks area. The special fund appropriation is 18,000,000, and there's 1,700,000.0 in general fund. So I would think that
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: So I pulled
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: up their budget documentation.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Would you like
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: So to read in fiscal year twenty five, the year end balance was $6,250,000 and they estimated 5% was going to be 257,000, and the 8%,
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: which they're recommending Read it. Is 437,000.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Nothing's up. A lot of them been.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: They because the documentation doesn't specify that. And and they don't say what they're using it for. It just says they wanna use it for project management and administrative costs. Yeah.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. They gave us some examples in the area of the repairs of some of the buildings.
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: And this was sort of the only fund they have fund source that they have to maintain their buildings.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Very good.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Yeah. Might
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: been even some lobbying.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Yeah. Might have to say that that trees for more to to cover projects on the ground, used for project management.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: It's one
[Richard Westman (Member)]: of, it is one of those places where a whole lot of this is special on the front end.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: It's the thought that we're just we're trying to limit how much can be used on admin.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Do we want to That's the only question.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Yeah. And
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: any proposed uses from part of a bunch of presentations.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's actually nobody we wouldn't notice. I think it's there if they use a higher percentage. It would be very. I'll ask Danny and our Or commissioner.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: So leaving that open.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Yeah. Section e 700.1 beginning on the bottom of page 90. There are two sections relating to this amending act 11 from 2018, the Volkswagen Litigation Trust Fund, and this is I believe the intent of this language is to expand allowable uses of those funds to make ensure that, all funds available can be used.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: How much money is equity back?
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I remember I think I'm the secretary said there was money, but I can't remember if they said how much. More than much.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: It's not available now. Yeah.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Mean, it's 600. I feel like I'm, like, reluctantly agreeing.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Yes. It's not the ideal, but okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. Although they're arguing it was it was the national deal with Volkswagen.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Literally, it was sold. Okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 700 we're closing out?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: 07/2001 and 07/2002. Yeah. Then seven hundred point three is the creation of two environmental engineers at ANR through the position pool.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Physician sheet. Did we say that this section number will change? Is that just yeah.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Yes. So apologies. There's a correction in the technical letter that the internal reference here should be the section b seven one one, and so then the e section number would also be updated to be section b seven one one.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So I think we want seven one one five three. Just seven one one.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section e nine twenty three, this is language relating to the retention of interest in the transportation funds, and, the gov rec language had it as simply all interest earned on the funds. And through consensus, it was determined that this language should be tweaked a little bit to specify that that interest is solely on the non dedicated component of the T fund because there are other funds that receive interest. I think the statutory reference here is to the transportation stabilization reserve. Now I also applied for the committee, the FY twenty seven budget did not have was not proposed or built with this retention of interest, which I believe would be about 1,000,000, in mind. So this section is effective for FY '28. It would not affect the current year budget. So you're saying that 32 BSA three zero eight is, just the reserve? Right, so there's a specific, statutory reference that that reserve retains interest earned on it, so this would be the retention of interest in the transportation fund solely upon the non dedicated component of the
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 22, which is the only non dedicated amount the reserve fund or is there something else that's been funded?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: I can't speak to that, I think that there are a number of funds within the transportation fund that may complicate this, so this was just the most efficient way of specifying, this holding interest on that component of the fund. Non dedicated.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What is the non dedicated fund of funding?
[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Christopher Ruth. It's the major T fund that we think about. The issue is there's some sub accounts within the T fund that can run into deficit because they're reimbursement based, and you don't want a situation where these funds are having to pay interest, like or or be owed interest. So, like, the cleanest way to deal with this just just make it
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: a lot of sort of
[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: what we think of as fund code 20105 or something like that is the main T
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: fund that we talked about. It's a T fund, T fees, etcetera. Sorry.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Section E 923.1 makes EVSE farming equipment and allowable use by the Department of Housing and Community Development just so that that t fund money does not have to run through AOT and then eventually to EHCD, but can be appropriated directly to GHCD for that purpose.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yep. So, otherwise, it didn't do that before.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Beginning of the bottom of this page and continuing for about 14 pages. Just give me one moment. This is the pay act. So Okay. The house added a pay act to its bill. There are 10 or 11 sections that relate to this.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is is that not normal?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: The impact is often added to the budget.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Will gov ops look at this?
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I don't think they're gonna look at it. And
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: then that brings us to the fact that it's section end of the bill beginning on page one seventeen continuing on to page one eighteen. So again, for the committee, multiple of school based Medicaid reimbursement sessions are effective on October 1. The allocation of the retention of the T Fund interest would take effect for FY '28, and then that section conforming panel ed statute to contingencies in Act 73 would only take effect if Act 73 contingencies themselves are But before the transportation fund interest did go to the general. And
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we were gonna It still has the longest effective date. It's actually manager.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Year was pretty long as well.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: K. Anything else you wanna say about all this language?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Oh, that's that's all the language right
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: now. That's. Any questions?
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Yes. Go right ahead.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Saying it. So I'm not suggesting that we make this change right now, but I just want to flag that so looking at page 97 Yeah. Where we have the governor of salary. And I would say this literally got any governor. It's not just this governor. This would be you know, if this was effective next year, if it was effective three years from now, whatever, that amount just feels very out of proportion with everybody else that's in that list. And I as I understand, there is some mechanism for that accelerating over time, and I think that should be reexamined. Again, it doesn't have to be now. It doesn't have to like, I'm this is not this is not commentary on the individual people. This is I think the mechanism needs to be, well, thank you. And
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I we were gonna ask our human resources to come in and talk about that a little bit. And although I did find out that these numbers in here don't mean this is the salary they actually get. So the governor the executive branch has the ability to be within this or even less. So this is this this is kinda based on the formula. Okay. So, like, the governor is not making this dollar amount this year. So, like, he's chosen to make less
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Oh, so he's opted to so this is, like, a ceiling? Yeah.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, it's not a ceiling. Floor and a ceiling.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: That's right.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's it's a floor, but they they have the ability to go below the floor. Like, there are some governors out there that just need $0. So the governor could remember, like, Tom said, I have one money with the state. He just said, like, I don't need anything. I we we work for a dollar. So the the governor could take a dollar, and they could make an argument or an even higher salary. Because this isn't the maximum. This is the base in 2007.
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: It's the 50%
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: What is it? Of that
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What's what?
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Base. But because he give you pay. Like, who This is I I know what this is, but this is But Amy
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: did Damien did look it up.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: It's budget in documents that you get. Right? It is in the twentieth. Right?
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Page on those documents that you've got from them or In
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the governor's budget?
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Should be.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So we only well, I have some more provisions. Okay. About this and about the formula of the counter here. Let's folks will turn up because these numbers are our
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: base number. This kind of formula? Yeah.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Is the base salary for this position. Sorry.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Wanna try to explain it, Amy?
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: I can try.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: I'm good. And then we
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: can try again next week. So it is the base salary, and then the top is 50% of the base. So you add 50% of that, and that's the top. So that's the range. And
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you take
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: 50 The range, but the top is not the top is not in statute, just the base.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Base is two for 2026, for next year we're talking about, the base is $2.48, and the maximum could be 50% more than that. Correct. At the base, doesn't mean that's what they get paid, they a thicker loan.
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: Right, so that is their statutory, like, offered amount. This is what they are statutorily allowed if they would like, and there's nothing that prevents them to take less than that.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And that's the same with other positions in here, know, the commissioners and secretaries. What is here is is the kind of calculated base amount. They could have a max of 50% of that, but it may not relate to what they're actually getting paid.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: People just ask. Each one
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: each person because they might have been here for several years. It could be new, and that's gonna change their service.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: And if they had been here for several years, I mean, this was any other job, that it would be more than that, right? So, it would be more than the base. Though, so, feel like I'm hearing two things, if I can say it back to make sure I'm understanding. There is a top, there is a upper limit, but that's not
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: in statute? It's a calculation. Okay. So it changes every year. And you've chosen to have the base in statute. Could choose to do the math and have it in statute every year.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: So that's
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 50% of the bid.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: The calculation is the statutory part.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You could take $2.48 for the governor, for example. Great. 50% of that add $2.48, that would be the max.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Okay. I
[Anne Watson (Member)]: see. And then, but regardless of what that cap is, they can just opt for less.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Because they have a total, they have a total like, dollar amount, but they have to fit within the So there's a floor in there? Well, there's a total floor in the whole patch. The entire famous furnace they employed, exempt employees. They might have some, but they were telling us because of the corrections, since corrections got, a lot of officers got paid a lot more to try to keep the issue with the vacancy savings in the corrections. They used a lot of the pay act money that year, so there was less money for rate
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: this quarter. Okay. Commissioners. Okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They have flexibility. So we can also ask the Commissioner of Finance and Management to come in and talk about that.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Okay. That would be good. And then the base level that's here, is this increasing according to formula? That's what I'm just saying.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Yes.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Okay. And that formula is also in sections. Yeah.
[Amy (Legislative Counsel/Committee Staff)]: So the formula is in pay act. So the first section outlines what the annual rate of adjustment is. Mhmm. So the annual rate of adjustment is applied to the previous year's So,
[Anne Watson (Member)]: at some point, the governor's pay was just a lot more. So, everybody is having the same, accelerator just kind of made the wrong word, but percentage increase. At some point, the governor's pay was just much higher, and so it accelerated it for instance.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Because it's the percentage, and the percentage is based on what the negotiated raises for the youth, so that the collective bargaining agreement gets put into the But yes, that was kind of one of my concerns. We're doing it by formula. The higher the salary is, more exponential growth will be compared to a regular classified snowplow driver or something.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Okay. I will just note, again, this is of interest to me, and if it takes effect, I mean, I know this is paying actually, it's not. Yeah. I guess it would be FY27, so
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: that's next year, but in the future.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Again, not how we do, I'd like to
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: know how we do it compared to other states.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: We can ask
[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We have some some HR.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Next week. Are we saying
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: this too much or not enough?
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: I'm saying it's too much.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: My understanding is that we have one of the highest paid governors in the
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: country, Which, especially for a small relative, your state is.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Go by the 27 number, your suggestion would be on that.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Well, don't know. I'd like to look at what the range is in the country. And I'd
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: like to
[Anne Watson (Member)]: I'm open to arguments about, you know. Debate. I'm open to debate about what it ought to be.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: No arguments. So could
[Richard Westman (Member)]: a candidates
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: or governor submit bids and take
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: a lead? I
[Anne Watson (Member)]: I will seem to say, like, get the idea of somebody being able to, like, opt for something less than what it is. But I that also I don't like that. I don't like that either.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: No. Puts pressure.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Why you
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: know? Somebody would say you like rich,
[Richard Westman (Member)]: you you can't do it. If you're
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: not rich, you can't do it.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: But I I think it would be better to get some I think the thing that always bothers me about all of these is it's compensation package that's more than having set on a university board and and had them lower the salary so they could get retirement benefits and health care benefits that were jacked up so it looked like they would look better, people play with it. It's the whole compensation package that I think you have to look at.
[Anne Watson (Member)]: Yeah, I remember as mayor during COVID, at one point there was a movement among the counselors to be like, I will forego my paycheck, and we were told that we were not allowed to do that. And that if we wanted to do something like that, that we could end up donating money back. Right? Like, no, you have to take it. What you do with it afterwards is up to you. And so if that is the sense of like, I don't really need this money. Great. Take it, donate it back. That's, that's unneeded.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: When they build their budget, they make those investments. It's not like individuals. I think they're like, well, how much money do we have? I'm sure the governor being the governor, we can just make more decision if Sure. Some other object, but we'll have them in and just don't learn more about It
[Richard Westman (Member)]: would be nice to understand it. It to me, it's the whole compensation package. Like, frequently, hospitals, it's all over the town. Mhmm. Same to
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I do
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: have a question, Amy. Yes. My question is put basically, is this in the realm legally of pay act? Is that what can deal with? Is this let's count this to me. I mean, this has been set in statutes. Pay act. Right?
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The negotiate. Right? Negotiate. Well, the negotiation was between the union and the state. The pay act is based on that. We're not affecting the collective bargaining agreement. That would be problematic. Problematic. So this is just thinking that what was the collective bargaining and sort of applying it to all the exempt, the nonunion employees. That's what the fact is. So
[Richard Westman (Member)]: that part is Well, if open to the legislators. It would be nice to know what when the last time this was said, because if you agree to percentage increases and you have the higher salaries, they go up faster, so it's, you know 5% of zeroes. Yeah. So you they don't yeah. We need more information.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. We will get more. Okay.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Thank you. Yes.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Part of the committee discussion is any proposals people have. I know that tem with senator Baruth is he is a messenger.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: I'm gonna be bringing in some proposals next week. Okay. Working very hard this week to find out. You want
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: me to pass this on? Sure.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: I've got some language that's and it's moving in Dale because it went around on
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. Those old days. Okay. Just let me let me see this before you want that set up.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Mhmm. Do you want me to yeah. I I do. Okay. So And
[Richard Westman (Member)]: just to be clear, I have been kind of talking about this.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is that supposed to help with?
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: I was just gonna say.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Whatever. Just to be honest, it it's whatever it is.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: So everybody remembers probably that the governor had $15,000,000 from the Higher Ed Trust Fund going to the the stadium project that you'd be on in his budget. And one thing to note about that is that the original ask for the governor was 20,000,000. The governor's team were very interested in it, but they feel they could fund the full 20,000,000. Theirs was based on taking product, 15,000,000 from a $26,000,000 windfall to this fund. So I think in general, I agree with everyone who is protective of the fund. I have always been protective of the fund. But I was open to discussing it this time because, again, we had a $26,000,000 chunk moving into it. And if we did the governor's time, that would leave 11,000,000, which is still a very big infusion into the corpus of that fund. But it seemed to me that it was better to think about it in terms of the traditional beneficiaries of the Higher Ed Trust Fund, that is UVM Stakeholders and VSAC. So talking with Senator Westman, other people, this proposal takes the governor's 15,000,000 and allocates it somewhat differently. So you'll see that now $12,000,000 moves to the multi multi center project, which I think of as an extremely robust economic development proposal. Then you'll see that the Vermont State Colleges, the McLeod Hall Housing Transformation Project, that's something that I've been working on with the chancellor for the last couple of years. We had talked to our institution's chair. She was interested in it, but ultimately it didn't appear in the house version of
[Richard Westman (Member)]: the bill. It seemed The
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Right. The cattle cattle bill. Yeah. So it seemed like it was a good place to put it here with if you turn the page This is at former Johnson State? Yeah.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Actually, no. It's It's the Johnson campus. Where is the two point
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Oh, right.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: So the 2.32 is in the house budget, but they take it out of the interest, the accrued interest, the 9,000,000. So what what this does conceptually is it takes the 15,000,000. It reduces the amount to UBM by 3,000,000, and that 3,000,000 now pays for the 2.32 that was approved by the House for Freedom and Unity grants, and the 600 that would go for the McLeod Hall Housing Transformation Project. So I think the main knock on doing that, removing any money from the grant money, is that it winds up costing students who are the recipients of the grants from the Trust Fund. So what this does, if you look on page two, is it takes 20% of the revenue from the cannabis excise tax and it feeds that into the Higher hiring trust fund. What you have then is we now have 30% of the excise tax money goes for substance misuse and prevention. The after school funding is from the sales tax. So right now, percent of the excise tax drops to the bottom line of the general fund. This would remove 20% into the higher interest fund and continue to allow 50 to drop into the general fund. So I see that as a way to make the fund whole over a few years. And then as it continues, it would accrue in the the balance of the fund and offer much more of the way of scholarships over time. So to sum up, I I feel as though it allows the governor the money he wants for the economic development project at UVM, and then it allows the house what they want in terms of the 2.32 Freedom of Unity grants. It gets Vermont State University shovel ready plans for the McClellan project, and it makes that movement from the excise tax to fund going forward. So that's the proposal.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: So I want to be clear here. So you're talking about taking, tell me where the $15,000,000 comes from.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Comes from
[Richard Westman (Member)]: the money that went in which is past due on the sixteenth. 15 comes out, 11 stays in.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: And of that 15, we're putting 12 Toward the multipurpose side. We're putting 2.3 into the Freedom in Youth, I believe.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Yeah. 100,000
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: into The McClellan. The McClellan McClellan project. And what about the other? That's it?
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: I think there's some small amount there.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: 2.9, and then so we're about
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: It's 80,000 a month.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Yeah, so I'm not worried about that. It's
[Richard Westman (Member)]: been a fifteen month.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Did you do any thinking about, I understand the need for the economic development, and I know how long this multi purpose center project has been discussed in our state. But any thought about, once we're doing this, taking it out of the endowment fund, looking at how to provide support for Vermont State University, increase that commitment and also CCV so that there's more of an equal distribution across UBM, CCV. Going forward, the cannabis revenue, the 20%, which is, I'm told,
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: between 4 and 5,000,000 a year for the 20%. Once that is moving into the higher trust fund, the three traditional beneficiaries would wind up getting more and more to achieve them. So Vermont State University would benefit more going forward, but I hadn't thought about any, anything other than the House's free ingenuity 2.32 out of six zero three.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: I'm just thinking about sort of
[Richard Westman (Member)]: the equitable treatment of all
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: of our higher ed. Well, if I could just have a note on that. So I
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: know we've given a lot to BSU. Yeah. Understood. I know. I just want,
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: for folks around the table who weren't here, I just wanna say that if you go back ten years, idea was that a dollar for the state colleges was a dollar for UPN. Across the board, it was, there was no negotiation. There had to be equal amounts. Otherwise, we'd have all kinds of fighting. So that was the agreement when I came into this part of the budget. Then we hit, as you know, this existential moment for the the state colleges. We scrambled, we put together a blue ribbon commission, came up with a plan of unification. They're doing pretty well now coming out of that. But for the period of five years, we put literally hundreds of millions into the state colleges to stabilize them and allow them to make their transformation. I was the one that had to go to UVM every year and tell them the bad news, which is that they were in that 50,000,000 less, 40,000,000 less than state university. And they, to their credit, they understood the, you know, the need and they went along with that. So this is the first time in six, seven years, UBM had received more than the State University, and I believe this is a one time thing. You say
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And you you said that JFO or somebody said that 20% of the revenue would be 5,000,000 a year? That was
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: a yes. Yeah.
[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Give or take a couple 100 jobs.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And it depends on Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: it's only for a limited time until it's a payback? Well, as it's written here, it's going over.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: That's, I imagine, in conference with the House, lots of aspects will be done for discussion.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Freedom
[Richard Westman (Member)]: immunity, this will increase freedom immunity up to 85,000. And
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: in the
[Richard Westman (Member)]: present day, across the state college, we pay for CCB off of two. Yeah, 100,000. So this would bring the Vermont State University to 85 ranks. So you
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: don't have that 3.3 does the Freedom and Unusual grant, is that like the one year that
[Richard Westman (Member)]: is expanded? Well, it would be for this budget here.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What we can do with the following year, they have to
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Okay.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Any other questions about this? Yes, Senator Norris. Christina, the new public health Tell
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: me about the fund that we're pulling it, to pull it from, how did they get started? How does the funding go into that particular fund? And what has increased or decreased over year other than the interest of
[Richard Westman (Member)]: the 125% of the estate tax revenue. So if you go over the 125%, it's into the higher education And trust equally, the state college system, the university, and the BSAG have, up to this point, separated them out. But for me, the thing that's most appealing is we produce a way that allows us to backfill over time that $15,000,000 that we get back to as it's And been for everybody it does initially front load money to the University of Vermont, but, and there are lots of reasons to do it, but this does backfill the money over the next, I would say, about three years. And it would take three years to backfill the money as it did that.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Well, how might you sort of take advantage of this problem?
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I don't know the exact number. So right now, and JFO has a whole memo on the higher interest fund amount, right? I don't know
[Christopher Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: if Chris did that. And I'd also, Senator Norris, I emailed you the higher end trust funds annual report. They go way back on the treasurer's website and they probably answer it. The report probably answers every question.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So they do 5%, like they have this trust fund, they issue 5% out every year and they split that amongst the three beneficiaries, ESAC, UVM, and State College. And then State College gives 40% of what they get to Vermont Community College. So they could split theirs up. Right, I
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: was wondering why CCE wasn't part of brochure.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, and there's people that feel, well there are only through state colleges. State college takes their third and then splits it kind of in half and gives 40% to Vermont Community College and keeps the rest from Vermont State College. So there are interest in splitting it four ways. Some people would like to do that. That's was my question. Why isn't it four way splitter? It just wasn't. I wasn't here when it was created. My understanding that was the deal when it was created. I got an email today from Jeff Spalding who was the chair of this committee when it was created and they were looking to how can they sustainably fund these scholarships. There's also some money from, if you remember, from the Treasury report, there's a little bit of money from the unclaimed property. Those unclaimed properties under $100 that are ten years old, they send me the treasury proposing to divert that away from the fund to the SAES program for four or five years. And then there's also a provision that if the fund has they can never Go below the corpus of the prior year, but they can also do up to 2% to the endowments at state colleges and UVM, but those UVM and state colleges have to match it and they can only put it into their own endowments and they did that last year because of this large gift that they got from the rate.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Basically, one individual. Let me let me press it for the community college, pay for families up to around a $100,000 for everyone in their family to go, tuition free to, CCV. We presently, Vermont State University, I think it's 65,000, and the question would remain for me for a struggling family, is it fair that the only choice that you give someone that's about, at a 75,000 or $100,000 level, the only choice you give them is to go to a community college. You don't allow them to go to their campus. That is that fair.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: There's a lot to read here from Yeah.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So Yeah. That's a beautiful I have a pretty good I have have to report the.
[Joint Fiscal Office Analyst (Name Unknown)]: Well, I I know, and I'm not we're not sending them against it. I know that When we talk about equities, which we're always talking about in this state, not equities. Seems like a CCD in a portion of this.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: CCD was under the umbrella of the state colleges, and it was only when we paid three of them, Vermont State University, and they were delighted not to be included in the new Vermont State University. They wanted to remain Southern. So they've always gotten the, you know, the share we're talking about. It's only the fact that we created Vermont State University that makes it look like they're They're, out of it they're still taking care of under this statute as one of four recipients. You
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: know, they're in. So They get 40% of 30%.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. They're not in any worse position than they were in 40% of their average. Definitely.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: And they're part of the state college. Most interested in the students, if I'm a student that's in a family just over 65,000, they should have a choice.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Well, then that was a presentation. Right? Yes.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Well, the only choice is is to go to CCP, and I think Probably in the campus if a kid who comes out of school and wants to go, you have the choice.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So we will discuss this more. We'll give you some more information. We'll get more information that we ask for the languages that the sections of the bill that we kept open. I have received three letters from committees, but some of the committees might not do a letter.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: I'm in the process of doing a letter.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Doesn't have to be an official letter. It's syncing the name of the So my plan is to take those other lists that we have and try to create a spreadsheet that shows kind of everything on there, kind of where we would be if we funded everything. I'm just actually not much of all, because a lot of, even though I
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: will tell you that, I am not asking for additional. I am looking to move and rob Peter to pay Paul.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You're gonna go
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: And we decided that Paul needed more money.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: So we're we're remove I'm moving some things around that they're very difficult choices. Okay. Haven't added money, but if you would like me to add money, I can do that very easily.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Yes, that's great. Very easily.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So some of it, even though I kind of ask the committees to rank their priorities. Some did, but some of them like, here are all of our priorities, which is not as helpful. Or they just prioritize their bills, then they say here are the office things we like, our house bills, they prioritize those. So that'll be the job that we get to do. We'll kind of seize everything because there's a lot of things that we want to do, obviously, when there's still no funding, so we'll have to figure out what what to do. So any other things you wanna make sure that aren't in the list, let me know. Yes. Let's
[Richard Westman (Member)]: hopefully see that ask that.
[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Clerk)]: Yeah. What you wish for?
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, it'll just mean more than we have to cut this. Yes. So that's the plan. Are there any questions about that?
[Richard Westman (Member)]: I'll be
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: working with on this. We've got work some of it up today to the transportation chair called the committee meeting for Monday afternoon. Yeah.
[Philip Baruth (Member)]: That would happen.
[Richard Westman (Member)]: Not Morning committee. Gotta have the afternoon committee. But the neck, you can work. Yeah.
[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Well, the transportation needs a lot of work. So transportation community needs more. So that's all I really had unless there's any questions or other comments, concerns.