Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We are live.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They sent our appropriations, Appropriations committee the s f y 20 '7. We're had some language discussions yesterday. So we have our education expert, mister Johnson. And CJ, and found that CJ was gonna help us underhandle that. Yeah.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's St. James, the Office of Legislative Counsel. Are we talking about the language in the state 01/2003?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Okay.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What can I help you with? Without being presumptuous, what types E103. Of Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Are you able to share your screen? So we just saw everybody, it's on the same page, literally the last

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I'm using what's on your website for today. That's the house version with edits.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That would be helpful. Okay. So there was like a technical change, but our main main question was on page numbers. Oh,

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So I was there's a there's a change that we might have on there. So the school districts who talk to educational service surgeons, we want to strike that. That's not striking out of this example. Yeah.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The are you talking about line five? I don't I don't think that's what you want to strike.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. So

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: you can go ahead and break it.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sure. I know what you want to strike and I think I still want to strike.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Is two things

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: So we want to

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the one we want to strike is on the next page, but in our discussions today, it was said that having named school districts in cooperative educational services would be problematic to have it so specific that we'd leave it open to SUs, SCs, CSODs, whatever.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, CSODs are cooperative educational service areas, but I hear you that you just want to make that language more less constricting. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Awarding transition grants to support instead of saying specifically who might get it. Got it. As long as you don't see it's a problem, or somehow they're not

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Now that I understand your goal, I do not see it a problem.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's it. Then the next page, 3b, or just little b.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Are you sure you don't want stay in the beneficiary?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Can you let me know about the school board transition? That is a new no, but yes. That model is. We didn't talk about that.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: So

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this language

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Why do take Greek on it?

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This language, we're we're in Act 73.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right? We're imagining Act 73. Yeah. So, when we talk about new governance and administrative models as contemplated by the fact, we're talking about the governance models that academically contemplated. Right. And I would respectfully suggest that that is a policy decision for you all to make on whether where you are going now was contemplated in 73.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So if we wanted to contemplate a model not in Act 73, this would limit us?

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Correct.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So, again, you're right. So,

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: if you just struck models as contemplated by this act, I would say it's actually very similar to what you're doing on Line five. You're just leaving it open to new governance and administrative models, and you're not tying it to any particular legislative decision? Yes. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We want to

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Two different.

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

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We have to be Models.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's part of labor.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So, yes, now we can do Subsection b? Yes. Subsection b. The last section agency. We want to strike that.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: So here it's

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: If you want to use this money now, I would say yes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Now meaning this this

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Because there's been no new school boundaries in that

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: people pointed out that these are for transition grants, create new districts, but you have to have new districts created to do the grants, it's kind of like the catch point here.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Absolutely.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it isn't, it's more just fixing a catch 22 than a policy.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know that I feel comfortable saying yes or no to that, I will say. I will say I think this language advanced out of the house prior to September taking shape. Okay. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I feel like you could touch on it too that we can remove without having appropriations committed too far in camp for education vaults. So

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: don't think any of the appropriations traveling in HNI 55 work if you

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: don't remove the. That's what

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I I

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: think that's okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So people stress. Okay. There was also I don't know if people told me about the Medicaids.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Think I'm back up to Jen. Oh, that's fine.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Well, good. Well, I'm glad you guys got over. Yeah.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Do you wanna switch with me? Sure.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, you can switch if you just. They just have to find room to pass each other. Oh, no. The first part comes in right at the wrong.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Good afternoon, Jen Carter from the Office of Legislative Counsel. I understand you may have questions, but I don't know, and I'm speaking what language. You didn't understand

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the request from AOE about the difference from what the House had done on the Medicaid School of Language and what they were asking, so what's the reference, the house bill that they had introduced, five eighty eight or something like that?

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Five fifty eight.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Five fifty eight. Sure. So I don't know if you're able to explain the difference.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I don't

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: know how much time we want to spend on trying to understand what it looks like.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I think, one of the things in anticipation of this, maybe I went back through what I have done in ways and means, and I think that's where the changes occurred. I have a markup version that I think may help show what the changes are from the bill as introduced to what passed ways and means, then what's added to the budget. Just wanna make sure I can find that.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: And

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: if it's something simple, my guess is that we won't wanna spend too much time on it, but we might wanna change it just enough so it's germane for the comp.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So it's but just language. This is not quite the final version. That's the version that had the most chain I think the changes that are dropped into.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: So

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: so this is H five d eight. This is one that was in ways and means, and they made a number of changes that aren't relevant for you here. I think, taking a step back for a moment, the idea behind the bill that went into budget was moving the total responsibility for administering the Medicaid school based services program from kind of combination of the agency of human services and agency of education to just the agency of human services, which is the single state agency for Medicaid administration in the state, and in the best position to ensure compliance with the federal requirements. So there are a few things. So as I understand it under current law, districts, schools, I'm not gonna get the education terminology right, but the schools pay for the services for the students, and if they're Medicaid eligible, then they submit information so that they can get Medicaid reimbursement, and a portion of that Medicaid reimbursement goes back to the schools for some limited purposes. As introduced, I believe the bill had specified that the agency of education may specify the use of program funds that are received by the school, the school district and supervisor unions, and had my language in here providing some

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: rule

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: making, allowing the agency to adopt rules, setting forth requirements that districts have to meet regarding the use of the Medicaid reimbursements from the fund, which is where they get deposited, and coordinating reimbursement related to state based students with the Medicaid School Based Services Program, and addressing the manner in which districts receive and reconcile funds in alignment with education cost reimbursements. And so, this language was struck, as I recall the conversation in ways it means had to do with allowing the districts, because it's their money that's getting spent in the first place, allowing the districts when they're being paid back a portion of 55% of what they spent, that they would get to decide how they would use that money when they got it back. And then I think there was also some discussion about the effective date, and my recollection is that after the bill was introduced with the July 1 effective date, the agency of human services asked to move that date to October 1, everything aligned with the implementation of this change. Also, onto the federal fiscal year. So, I'm not sure what the rationale would be for moving it back to July, but we may want to hear from the agency community services about whether they're working in a position I for this or

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: don't know if they mentioned that, but Okay.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I saw it in the online test that you received, so.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They might be not. Okay. So basically, the AOE wanted to say, the schools show you, we have to decide by this rule, they spend it, and ways and means that no

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right, under current law, there are some parameters for how the money has to be used. Somewhere

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, it's okay, we don't even But

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: yes, it's sort of specific prevention purposes and some intervention programs in pre K through grade 12, facilitate early identification and intervention, etcetera. And take out that existing statute and make it broader, the usage broader, so not limited just to those purposes. As came out of the House, it would allow the schools to decide how they would apply the money, the repurchase funds. So,

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: bill was generally a commitment.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Bill, it

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: was in the house appropriations. It was senate as provisions committee, which took the language and put it into the budget.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We're dealing with it because it's in the budget. So

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Not in the house.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, because this was an AHS, AOE.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Even though the money's coming from AHS in the future, AOEs are like, they still wanna make the decision, but the rules come from AHS, even though AHS is now taking over the program.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know what testimony you've heard, so my understanding is that they were told they wanted the ruble making back, and that is ruble making.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But is it the whole basis of the changes that is moving from AOE to AHS?

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Currently It's a combination of AOE and AHS, and it is moving entirely to AHS for administration.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, except AOE wants to do rule making without the spending money.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: And so, I'm going to be that we can only go as well.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We have an opinion on we we can either just just leave the house language as it is or make changes so that it's a conference or accept the AOE's request which is not to accept the house.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: The AOE probably earn, however, is gonna be an ongoing debate. Ready to see what the house is.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Anybody else have an opinion? We'll just leave it as it is. Which gives the school who already spent the money the authority to spend it as is. In some schools, it's not very much money, but other schools, my understanding, it's quite a large number of person who's. With that, I think we're done with the education language. But your education language people are welcome to stay the whole afternoon. Because I think now we're at the point where we either later, we would want to talk to Greg. We could go through this. Greg, Emily, if you have

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They're being. There

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: are some items that we have kind of left open. Amy, do you wanna remind us with those there? Is that possible? Either language or otherwise. There's some other kind of items.

[St. James, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Want some of those today. I think the your natural process of going through language and the spreadsheet is gonna help.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They're already in the language already spreadsheet. So we think that'll that'll finish our work once we go through the language of grading, go through the expressions.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Think so. I can go through some of the more, like, super interesting spreadsheets that we can present to you, like, reversions, transfers.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Do you have those?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: I can put them on the screen.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Do that. I know the committee would wants to work really hard.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Alright. The record, Emily Burns. I'm doing fiscal office. I'll go through the reversions real quick just because there are some updates that I have

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: spoken about. We haven't seen the reversion. Yeah. Actually Yeah. Think

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: I did I gave it to you, like, at the very beginning. Up the I got the house did when I came over to the but I haven't shown you the updates. Okay. They all came from the technical letter.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It would be in.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yeah. Probably under my name.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: that there are three the house found three additional items to revert compared to the governor. And there were some technical issues with all of mine, they need to change in the Senate version. With the first two, the AADS Redistricting Task Force Fund and the Correctional Services Funds. These are both FY 2026 appropriations that were made. The EDS Redistricting Task Force, there was $100,000 set aside for EDS to help with the Redistricting Task Force. They only spent about $30,000 of that money. What the house did was they did a reversion of those funds, but the more appropriate action should have been to just reduce the FY 2026 appropriation because we're actively in FY '26. So, this eliminates the reversions and then we're going to carry in the C section a reduction in the appropriation to BDS. Now, you'll note that I said there was spent $30,000 this number $80,000 We got an updated number around the agency of digital services. They had some extra bills that cleared, so the actual amount remaining in that appropriation is about $70,000 So this gets rid of that reversion and will true up the number in the C section to correct that. Additionally, at the Department of Corrections in line 16, this is related to the pretrial programs in FY 2026. That's all that's going away or doesn't exist anymore. So you can get a revert $650,000 or the house had booked a reversion from corrections for $650,000 What they should have done was reduce the appropriation in FY '26 for 650,000 This gets rid of the reversion and then reduces the the appropriation in FY '26 to the C section.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: K.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Finally, in row 19, the emissions repair program, the house, reverted all of the remaining funds in the appropriation of the DEC's emissions repair program, effectively canceling that program. In conversations with the agency of MAPA Resources and in the technical letter, there are some there's some obligations against that outstanding appropriation that still exists. So the only they need to hold on to about $235,000 to cover outstanding contracts and some additional administrative costs. So that number has been updated to reflect what ANR believes can be reverted from that incorporation. Paying Art has said there's $200,000 about $200,000 out in existing contracts. They would like to maintain those contracts and sort of let the program run its course until that money is spent. Could request that they cancel those contracts for her money early. But this is updated before they

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But all these are accounted for in Correct. Spreadsheets. Yes. So this is just showing exactly

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: What's happened?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: What the governor has proposed changes to the. And these are really all group version. Thought there was more. Just 2023, I hope.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: In FY '26, there was a much bigger list. And then the budget adjustment. The budget adjustment is rather skewed. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Got me. Okay.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: This is all I got so far.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Have any questions about reversions?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Well, about the admission repair program. And my understanding is that that program is pretty under subscribed. Yes. I'm just contemplating the saying, well, I've been feeling like the things that the well, but here's saying, let's cancel these contracts early since they're under subscribed. Have you somebody else?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Where did the house use them? Did they have a direct connection with this? So they just took this money. Yeah. I don't I think there was $600,000. So I think $5.98, they're only about, like, $1,700. They have to have, like, the one emission repair.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But they're saying that they have contracts for for I don't know how many emission repairs they actually have pending. I think this is the the contract to the vendor that would Right. That would be from the program. They don't do the missions repairs. They just send it to the phone, but it's car on there. Need a car on the state shop. I'm not sure how they calculate it, but I feel like I would need more time to figure that out. But if you if we could change the reverting by some amount, then we'll get more time. We just had to talk about it.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: We're already changing. It

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: is changing. Oh, because we changed yeah. Alright. We're making this set of change decrease. So then we can we can ask them for this contract. Mhmm. Because they came in and said they had a contract where we haven't seen. Okay.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Something will tag will flag your. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. We'll flag that we need to get more information before we come. Okay. So we can close out the reverting thing. Great. So that's success. Do you have other do you have other tables?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Have the big chart, but they're not print they're still being printed.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So Is there

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: anything else

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we could do before?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Usually tells jokes. Interesting.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Okay. I

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: have a friend who's renovating his house. He's totally changing his house around. His 1st Floor looks great. If you wanna go up that, it's a whole other show.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. That's.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Also, I heard they got they arrested the devils. Got them on possession. K. With that, we'll take a break. K. We're back on mute. K. We did the reverting, so we don't need those.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: We're gonna start with the base. Base. Changes. I like this.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Good.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Your mother loved that song.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: She gave more of that. He would if something about a bass came up, he would start singing them, everybody That was very cute.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: I can have a there is one thing that I can mention about these are now related to this transportation fund. For the e bill, maybe I'm good if I get this wrong. Logan wanted me to make sure to remind you all. Some have not quite happened to you. You've seen the T bill, but the rest of you have not seen it yet. There is a change in B-three 09 into the Tibb fund, I believe. 903. Sorry. 903 that we'll make to map out the appropriations bill with the transportation bill. Alright.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: In

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: terms of full disclosure, we will make that change in the bill that will show up in the web report.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: We appropriated. Yeah. One.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: You check that list. Anyway okay. So the visa preparation changes. I've highlighted in salmon

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Nice.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: The changes from yesterday. Some things are totally different. Things are moved around a little bit. I'll walk through all of them. The first one highlighted is row nine for the sergeant of arms. The new single point of entry policy was not in the sergeant of arms based budget in FY twenty seven as approved. This would add about $60,000 to cover sick point of entry in FY twenty seven.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Did you give the specifics of the charge sergeant? Because

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: can't get down. Because there was some difference in the number between the. We referred at one time, and that's why. Yeah. We were gonna send an email.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: It's a.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Do they remember we thought maybe it 35, and then I was Yeah. So we confirmed it is. Yeah. So

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: that's been added on line 26.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Any questions about that?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Line 26, the agency of agriculture. This was the conversation. Spook back the money so that the fee at the agency of agriculture for large farms will be eliminated and

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: the

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: additional costs covered by general farms.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: And medium And medium farms. Yeah.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Line 27, yesterday, I think the constructs had 350,000 for the Vermont Access Network. This puts it back up to 450,000 in addition to what's in the base. Line 39, this was part of the construct presented by Senator Lyons yesterday related to maintaining the historic rate of prescription co pays at $1 and $3 instead of the governor's proposal to raise it to $4 and $8 In line 40, reduction to the Bridges to Health grant. It's part of way to pay for the prescription brush. Line 44, the elimination of the two eleven contract addition. There's still a two one one contract. Is the addition to the two one one contract.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So it's I don't know if you wanna talk about we can leave that open before we're gonna talk about the center lines construct total, or do you wanna do it longer than that?

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I can do it over the time, I think, unless

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Might as do it while we're doing these things. Actually, do you wanna say anything about it?

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: On the two one one?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: Yeah. I think two one one is critical of my grade and center of Westman at that time. But as as I look through all the AHS possibilities, maintaining with primary care. This is what came up and it was recommended by AHS. So, and then, and then outside the. And we have heard from two one one. It was I'm willing to look at this. I just wanna strike. I strike it all the way to be willing to, perhaps, strike half of it.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's like,

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: I think the difficulty in this is with getting proper information. She's there. The information has been conflicting and the concern is the busiest time for two to one is between 04:00 in the afternoon and 10:00 in the afternoon. And and if, for example, that that's the one that is gonna make a call, they're probably gonna make it to be out of here. I don't wanna cripple them so.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: At the same time, we're doing a total new investment in how homeless people connect. And at the same time we have 988 and so other ways of reaching services. But I don't want to close this down. Understood. I've heard more recently this would shut it down. We can't do that. So I think maybe I'll provide more some sort of things. Absolutely.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So my understanding is center lines proposing to change this to point one one. Yeah. And,

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: again, with the issue No.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: This issue in

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: the conference. Yeah. And being able to do discussions. So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: you right now, if you want to. Yeah. Well You can do it. It's okay. So I I changed it on the points one one. K. That'll be something we Next page.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: The opioid recovery employment program proposed to move that to the opioid fund at one time. Wide 65, the Department of Fish and Wildlife backfilling the access fee. My understanding is that in Senate Finance, while the miscellaneous tax bill hasn't been settled, that they are going to accept the House's position. Whether or not Fish and Wildlife can charge that fee, which would require providing $50,000 Fish and Wildlife in a whole. They don't charge that.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And that miscellaneous bill has come to appropriations. Well, come to appropriations. Yes. In a certain sense, would have that discussion all over again, but by that point, we had passed the amendments. We could do it either way, really. But this way, we're covering the money that later we put back in their authority to charge the fee, we have $50,000 in the budget when we get the. So where does the where does the authority to charge a fee get taken away in the ways of the house ways and beams original bill, like, at the center for here. Yeah. And the senate finance concurred with that.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: I understand it, mister Eric. They haven't They haven't officially voted yet. Correct. It's looking

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: like a. So when did we get that bill? Could have that discussion too. Yep. But we're we're putting the money in here in case they don't have that. Yep. Any other comments on them?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Okay. That's just the p seven one, slide 66. Yeah. Slide 66. This was on the one time so one of the things I tried to reconcile some last night is things that were in other bills that are actually based spending. We moved over to the base sheet position in S two eighteen for the road salt program at ANR. That's got it in there. Can see I see some 150,000. Yeah. And and just to be clear, this the last time we looked at this, it was like point three five. So, it'll be that other The one time will be Oh, yeah. Right. Zero point $1.05. There's 200,000 on the other sheet for the one time contract cost. On line 80, we're gonna highlight the title, in S206, the Actuating the Licensure of Early Childhood Educators by OPR, there are two positions in that bill that are created. Though we were looking at the bill itself, the funding for those positions is in the bill itself. So we're gonna carry it. So we're gonna account for it, but it's not gonna be carried as a separate corporation. Postmer's is already in them. When the Senate passed two zero six, it included an appropriation to OPR to fund those positions and the creation of the position. Yeah. The positions are established in the appropriation system from that bill that the house does.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. So

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: when, we know whether they can pass the bill or not, they can't.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yep.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Or we're reserving the money. Yeah. If your bill doesn't pass, we have this money now.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: And if we appropriated it directly to the Secretary of State's office through the Bay Bill, you will have appropriated it twice. Right. And then the last change on this sheet, on line 93, this is also our most up to date understanding of what is happening across the hall of incident finance, but the pending the adoption of the miscellaneous tax bill, are discussing reducing the expansion of the Downtown Village Tax Credit from $1,000,000 to 5,000,000 to $05,000,000 So the total Downtown Village tax credit would be $3,500,000 instead of $4,000,000 what we saw.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I just

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: house wanted to reduce the amount. So we're saying we're not gonna reduce it as much? Yeah. So because it's a tax credit. Right. Reducing the amount of revenue that's available. Yep. So they're gonna reduce the amount of revenue available by March 20 plus. Sorry. Okay. So more we're saying that, you know, more funding to go for this at that time. No. No. Half 1,000,000 left. Okay. That wasn't right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But they have 3,000,000 of the base already.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: 3,000,000 of the base. The house brought it for, my understanding, Senate Finance.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Think one of the Senate economic development bills had it, the housing bill had it as valued as well. So we only have to account for half. So that's the base sheet. So just leave this at $28,000,000. Plus 1 0.1.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Last one.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's why we did. That's $28.04 30.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Alright. Change

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: directions. This thing, Neil, has been updated, pink, and pink, salmon, whatever that color is, reflects updates from yesterday. Then there are a few other fun colors I'll address when we get that. But the online one, that update, that reflects the reversion sheet we just went through, but that hasn't changed. So I'm just gonna update that a

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: couple days ago. Just to

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: show where we're carrying that. And then in the yellow on line five, that's math. The number on the bottom line on the page.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It'll be

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: 24. Twenty eight four. Yes.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: So it's. Okay.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: On line nine, the provider stabilization for the reduction of 575,000 for the proposal presented to Ryan yesterday. On this one, it's I know it's not highlighted, but lines 10 through 14 related to DCF and the housing proposal. There was a technical amendment requested on how those are appropriated. So when we do the one time appropriations, we'll be able to show it. We'll update sort of how that appropriation works in a technical letter. Just applying that. Line 20. This is a placeholder for funding for local food shelves. I don't know. There's a proposal potentially, but we can save over that people are ready to propose it.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Senator from the lawyer has the proposal, but let's let's go through all these, and

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: then we'll do your. K.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They can do what they can do.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: I have one. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But you also have one of our position. I I

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: talk with with with with with. We'll take a break. It's a place. We'll take a break. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Let's go through all of these and come back to who's dealt with. The the money around the Google. Right. The other one doesn't affect me.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Yeah. It doesn't affect me. Well, I

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: guess it depends on the date. We'll be on that.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Line 21, initial $100,000 for one home. And then line 24

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

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Apply 24, change the appropriation of Meals on Wheels. Yes. The proposal from Senator Lyons. On line 26, additional funding for primary care case management, dollars 1,900,000 of general fund that will gross out to $4,500,000 in global commitment funds. Line 33, funding for community resource center up in

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: North South Europe. South Europe. Thank you.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So the so it's something that brought by. We have 25 on on the bottom line. So you know, if it's 25 because that's what we got.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: On line 37, this is a technical correction that we needed to update with the AEDs and Schools appropriation. The House had appropriated it to the Department of Health. The technical letter asked that it go to the Agency of Education. We've looked at the bill that set up the program and the Agency of Education to charge managing it. So that would bridge the net neutral change out of health and will appropriate it to the use of the vaccination. Line 42, the CDOEO day shelter.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So why wouldn't we put the money at the call center at home?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: It's on the next page. So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we put in the report.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yeah. Is Sorry. Five forty one, the CBOEO day shelter reduced the funding for the proposal from Central Alliance. Yes.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: So I think we can talk about the abolition of all the funds. We did put the funding against the VA 50% of what was needed. And this shelter has been funded one time since 2020. So this is one time when they us is to take the money. They now might be pretty categorical. Do not to shelter. So, yeah, I I would probably recommend for us to have that number to ensure that there is at least some funding that we get through. I think we get through the yeah. Yeah. But get through the pathway.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Similar to the two of them, reduce that, increase the fat by fat, again, out of the four studies. So it'd be in Senegal, it'd be point two three four. So that those two changes that's under the lines of reduces the amount of money that'll be available for primary primary care payments.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: It's and

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: we wanna help support that primary care payment plan

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: for work. I'm hoping to find some more.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: It'll be just a five point

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I got

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: a quick one. Yes. It's not highlighted or whatever. Don't know. On line 43, what is that? That's another from the center of New Orleans, or the center of Washington. We have senators. During the case, lost three adults in 2,000 centers in the state. It's interesting and different data there and sheets like halfway through the process. And this is how we're open in adult day. Development of the hospital has shown some interest between the adult A. In Rotman's, the aging population.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: You need a lot more. Yep.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: And this would this is really a 100,000 is a place to say to Dale that we gotta pay attention to see if the needs can be. That seems to be Okay. And you got it. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Good. So before we flip the sheet over, I think we should go back to the Westman proposal because my understanding is

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: your proposal affects the appropriation of line 40. No. You don't know that you to drop enough sheets for everybody, but Not blaming. I'm but 43.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: No. 43 was a proposal to add in a $100,000. It's still Not enough? But 9. I have your proposal to last 44. So we have. That'll Ah. I

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: basically tell you. Wonder why. Nobody wants to. Well, I share your problem. Let me start with this. Last year, we put a million dollars in for money in the shortages. And this budget that we received from the governor and from the Fed has not been paid for the food shelters. If you remember in the fall when the federal government shutdown was in place, we took money quickly through the food shelters and houses for people during that month long period that they've that their EBT plus cards should shut down. They have a vital role in this, and they're zeroed out in the budget. I don't like making this as a proposal. I really suspect that this will be an issue for the home socetarian that is not on the conference committee, but this would reduce Vermonters feeding Vermonters, which I really not at the end, it would take cash crop and cash crop plus and reduce the number and move the money into food shelves. And that lot here, you can see, and it would do a slight reduction of 32,000 to MAO and LGBLS and SNAPs for children, and it would put the money into food shells. I would also say that food shells is a slay spin from your food assistance funds out in the month of money. Families end up with food shell, And what food shelves need the most is flexibility to get protein for kids at the end of the week. And this is not any I don't do this happily, but I'm fighting. We need to be aware that blue shells are a place where there's no overhead there. I put this in front of me because I like to keep it. This is on the discussion table, and it is significantly less than we would have. So I'm just trying to understand. What you see is in is but the house did in h nine fifty one. And if you see in the general fund line, you see the 182 with four hundred and five hundred beds with the house. What you see in the line, the blue highlighted line is the million dollars that this last year, what we did, the upshot of this would be we could lose 697,000 And it would come in the form of these subtractions for Yep. Yes, it would. But we don't zero anybody out. Is what fairly the intent here is to be give something that we discuss when we have to. And I'm sorry if I missed this, but robotics feeding reminders Yep. Is I'm right. But that's

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They buy food from farmers Right. And then supply us. The nutrients. So

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: if we're taking money from that That has a it's funny that most of the ag department, They buy food from most locals, farmers, and it works through a process. It's a great program. It's a great, you know, fanatics are aren't great programs. They we're down to the yes, and there's no money left. And I'm I'm just wondering if we take the money there, aren't we taking them as a bit and getting them

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: bit as from food shines. In a way, if this what senator Westman's proposals have DCF give a right to the food shelf that it gives us to ag to buy the food from the farmers to give a good picture. The food shelf could buy from the farmer, and it would be the same or they could use whatever the food shelf site want to do with the I see. But you are reducing the programs so that

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: the food the local food shelf stuff more. I had some other rush years, but that money got paid.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. He had to take a little more because there was not money available. That's what and he didn't wanna take it for the. Well, I don't

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: know where I think it. I do think this proposal raises all this deep discussion. Yep. There's not anything trying to figure out in the sector how far it is. But food shelves are flat to the ceiling. How many food shelves are there?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: How would this money how does I'm not sitting right here. I know. Yeah. We've done this even a couple times. We have language, and I think it's directly to DC. I think at one point, we did manage to the food bank group, but we told the food bank they had to give them to the local.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Right. And we gave them the I I would remind everybody, though, that in the fall, when we when the federal government was in shutdown, the first place we chose to send money out to the wisterhood food shutters. This is they're a vital one in this. There's zero value in this. That's never happened unless we. You're mostly volunteer? Yep. All volunteer. You're pretty much all volunteers.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We did. And do you remember, senator Watson, it was just each boot shop got the same amount?

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: A little birdie went pretty much here at the two twenty two shelves.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You're in our point. Hard to know if that all that all that got many in the past when we did this. I don't know how ask that,

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: but a little birdie went up. There was.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. Well, does any anybody else have any questions for on this? It's not my common.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: And I trust senator Westman has the skills forward to and the conflict.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. So we will direct these changes, Which the other the changes would be to line 44. To that 46 they can see that 50 line sixty fifty two standard. Those are the three programs that would see a reduction. But it's a net zero change of bottom line.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: That was not.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That brings us back to

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: the line of 45. Yes.

[Jen Carter, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We're on

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: the next page. The conservation districts. I believe yesterday, there was some discussion about zero. This brings it back then conversation to bring it back up to 300,000. That's nice to hear. It's not lying to someone. Yesterday, this proposal to reduce the funding for Advance Vermont. This restores that funded. Line 53, the the one that I Sorry.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: What is Advance Vermont? Senator Brad. So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'll have Brad now. It's Vermont youth graduate graduate school with CLEAR. I've I've got it all written down here. Clear actionable plan. What they do is Vermont, Delaware, successfully navigate edge in the various different paths forward. Basically, educates them as they're moving forward in life. It's a clear path that builds up opportunities, educational opportunities. And we funded them last year. They had a 600,000 base request this year. The house went on, I think, 400,000 What was again, for now, which allows them basically to keep the door open and explore. It gives them the opportunity to explore further grant opportunities.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Well, I've got You need more. Okay. No.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's just out of this one.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Line 53, we talked about this just moving to eighties, the patient or from the health department. Line 61, there was some funding for VAPO inspection training here. It's at least been removed. And then on line 62, adding in 25,000 for the LCI. Then in the other fields section Line 68, the prescription drug discount card program. So, that funding was taken out in the construct yesterday back in in today's construct. This one was carried in the one time list, but is more appropriate to be carried, I believe, in H740. This bill, I understand, is still in Senate Natural and being contemplated if the decision is to move that forward, this would reserve $300,000 to be appropriated in that bill.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Need to put it in there?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Correct. Yes.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Why would they need we'd have to just need

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Well, we could decide to put it in the budget, or you could let it travel with the bill.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You'd only need one or the other. You wouldn't. So right now, we have this travel budget. They would need that.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: They would have the Senate. Yes. And I think because it's where it gets a little funny is if it's an S bill that you've already passed out, was with the House, and it carries the money in the budget. But if it's an H bill that the senate still has possession with, if you wanted to, you could put the appropriation in the bill itself versus putting it in

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: the budget.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: So this is contemplating adding it to the bill itself rather.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: No. No. No. I see. This is contemplated. Oh, so you're You could tell us we're still accounting for.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Correct. It's still accounted for.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And so if we wanted to keep it in this budget, we would put back in the. I think that's not going to schedule. Do you have a

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: preference? No.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Guess for now, we'll leave it as as it is on cheap. Money is there anyway. And you're working on passing the bill right down the bill as it's positive appropriation. So he took out the appropriation that was in there, but you don't have to do this if there's no appropriation.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Line 73, this is the Education Transformation bill. My understanding is additional conversations with the Education Committees based on what passed out of the House the SEC or NAG and what the Senate's Education Committee is contemplating this would hold $1,500,000 to be appropriated in H nine fifty five if needed.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And I should say that this is not only a conversation with Senate and Education Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, because the Senate and Education Committee was talking about using some money from the ad fund, which changes the yield, changes the property tax. So the finance committee said, we can find the money in the general fund to deal with it, then they don't have to change the yield, which they were about to vote at. So by putting the 1,500,000 at year of the general fund, the yield stayed the way that they could vote it out with a little less pressure on the property. So that they're they're counting on us, not changing that.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: On line 76, and that's why I should say back to line 73, this is in addition to the money that was appropriated or reallocated in the language that came up in the house.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So this gives Senate education committee about $3,000,000 to build their version of the transition grants, basically.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Line 76, this one we talked about on the base sheet, we moved the two positions related to early childhood education licensing over to the base so we don't have to carry it on one time sheet. Line 77, this is another one we talked about on the base sheet. The position moved over to the base, but the $200,000 for one time contract cost remain as one time appropriation. That will go to AR.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Again, with that, when it's listed in a section like this, does that travel to the bill?

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: No. That bill, because that bill is already over with the house that will travel. The next version of the sheet that you see on Tuesday when you get the bill will move the SBIL appropriations to one time appropriations to the agencies.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Is that progressing in the house, Senator Watson? Yes.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: I believe it's I believe it the service. Okay. Yeah. I believe it has.

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Perfect. And

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: then the last one, line 85, s two thirty eight funds only the first generation homebuyer program. On line 89, the Vermont State Police Radio Equipment Replacement Fund. Just wanted to flag, we all had a conversation about potentially changing the name of it or addressing different equipment in that fund. Just wanted to flag it. I don't know if there was any other discussion. I know Brady potentially has some language around the name. Never mind. I forget what I just said. We're gonna talk about it first, and then they'll be like

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: Just a quick question on this. Is this all just gonna be well, this is a one time transfer fund.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yeah. Alright.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I read that.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yeah. So half 1,000,000 this year and half 1,000,000. Like, presumed the governor will propose to continue to make half 1,000,000 or a ton amount an amount.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But the I I was reading something else. You were talking about that. You may or may not have language about the.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: Great. That's not crazy. No. Sounds crazy. It's Friday. Who knows? Anymore. 91, the Communications and Information Technology Fund. The House had added a million dollars to help repay the deficit. This construct would not add any additional funds

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: to

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: to pay back that deficit.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Basically, if you use the million plus money we had on the bottom line, fund, the education transformation, 1,500,000 on the line.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: And then the last one, this one's a little funky because of the front limit, but yesterday, talked about eliminating the state PACE reserve fund and transferring the $60,000 net on the back. That adds a little bit more resources. After all of those changes and I should flag heard from Chris Root that the plaintiff's tax bill has passed Senate Finance and it includes the changes to the tax credit, incurs the house position of fish and wildlife needs. So, that's the match goods. And there's $50. I think it's $49,000. I don't see that. So it's defense reserve fund. It's the reserve fund. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's just enough to open the appropriations speak easy loudly. Okay. So I'm gonna propose you break, and then we'll have mister Graves. And then he'll come and do I could be I'm guessing. We'll do the walk through of the language, and it comes I think the walk through language has to deal with any other open things that we have. And then we could scruffle. Do we wanna just have you do a new message or no?

[Unidentified Senator (possibly Richard Westman)]: That's gonna be my question. No.

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: I the local food shelves, we have a spreadsheet and understand that. So with the CDOEO change and the two one one change, there was that Was this moved or is it reduced?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah, I have spreadsheet. Okay. Perfect.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons]: I'm sorry.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Gonna come back

[Emily Burns, Joint Fiscal Office]: and