Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: Mention it. We are live.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Is that appropriate? April 17. That is It's the Okay. Reading this now. Well, that's. So

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: at the first second.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: You're going off to. Yes. So I handed out a document to the committee. This is or sorry. This is a document mostly of committee member requests. So when we get to, each piece of language, I'll just defer to the number of the committees so they can go through it. And then there are a couple of things that are technical in nature in this document as well. Substitute basically? Yes. Think I have. On the first page, you'll see a proposed section b 11 o one. This would be a contingent transaction list. So in sub b, you'll see that it to the extent that there's an unallocated balance in the general fund, in f y twenty seven, 4,700,000 would be transferred to the technology modernization special funds, then 1,000,000 would be transferred from the farm and forestry operations security special funds, 5,000,000 would be transferred to the human services caseload reserve, and then 25,000,000 would be reserved for future appropriation or transferred by the general assembly for various, needs deemed to be in the best interest of the public. Then I would just note for the committee in the slide five, you'll see a reference to, the Department of Finance and Management executing the requirements of 20.5 accident result number 27 section b one zero three a one g. That's the 70,900,000 that is being carried forward as a part of the property tax buy down. And the 30,000,000, or did that still carry? The 30,000,000 is just unreserved. So in the reserve section of the building, there's language that sets that 30,000,000 is unreserved. Okay. Any questions about that? That's the contingency lines, which Richie and our center Westman continue to call the waterfall. I'm gonna try and get them up.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: She can get everything she wanted. Okay.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Page three. On page three, so this would be a committee update to the proposed language in the house and gov rack. This would be expanding the allowable uses of the proposed stage release radio equipment fund, to try adding in fire alarms. So this would make the purchase of firearms allowable use of that fund and also retain the proceeds of any sale of firearms in that fund. You're okay with this? On page four, this would be a section of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to as part of its f y two eight budget presentation include information on the cost and schedule of radio equipment and firearm life cycle replacement and recommendations for future funding, including establishing a new designated special fund for that purpose. Very similar to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: the Long Beach Glenorgy. Oh, sorry. Apologies. Very similar to the

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Long Beach Glenorgy. Yes. Yes. So, the idea would be this would give Fish and Wildlife, time to compile information to see if a similar fund would be necessary for that department. On page five, this is a section that would express the intent language for the general assembly, relating to inflationary rate increases for the parent child center network and dictate that such increases, would be intended to be targeted based on the network's integrated block grant to the 15 parent child centers that provide eight core services required pursuant to 32 b s a three seven zero one d. I believe this is a proposal from senator What's the senator Perchlik? Yes, this would have got a personal parent child centered formulation that would be under their VAs, so they're not always trying to see you separately. On page six, this is proposed language designating $85,000 of the appropriation section p three thirty eight for a grant in Janice's promise to support reentry services. And this was a proposal from senator Westman? What's the

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: They expressed some concern about the. It's the conversation.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: It's what is the the file was asking about the appropriation section b three thirty eight. It's incorrect. It's. It's in the. Is that the B-three 38 Corrections for all budget?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Actually, please go ahead.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: Go ahead. Commercial service is sort of

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: their big appropriation for all their Service that they've got. Okay.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Yes. Section e three thirty is also a proposal from senator Westman. This would designate a $100,000 of the appropriation in section e three thirty, to support a grant for startup costs for a new adult pay program in Washington or Roehlick Counties or to support the cost of the existing adult pay programs or set capacity to serve more individuals. This was part of the proposal that the committee went through a month ago. On page eight, this is language relating to Medicaid and SNAP needs assessment. So this would direct the Department for Children and Families to the Department for Vermont Health Access to report to the relevant standing committees as far as before 12/15/2026 on a needs assessment related to the implementation of HR one changes to staff and medicate work requirements. It would also direct the departments to, update this report in calendar years twenty twenty seven and 2028 on a quarterly basis, So the the relevant standing committees will continue to get updated information on those facts. The committee's information since in terms this is a report. We've had people talk to you about the Sisters program. This will help us to move towards that. This is language that would direct the Department of Vermont Health Access to establish and distribute per member per month primary care case management payments. In FY '27, this also came from Senator Lyons. Page 11, this is language relating to a report from the Department of Human Resources to relevant standing committees on any recommendations for legislative action on amending statutes governing state employee compensation. So this relates on a report on the payoff formula and statute. Talk about this a little bit. Commissioner, research that you've been here. On page 12, the proposed change here, the committee won't see until page 13. The committee made updates to this language limiting the allowable use of the land facilities fund. This was is a technical correction. There was an issue with the language that you've been reviewed yesterday, where it would pro have prohibited the agency from, using fund any amount from the fund that would be that would create the funds to be its total cumulative principal. And the current balance in the fund is lower than the cumulative principal, that would have resulted in the agency not being able to use the fund for several years. So this new language states that the fund balances go below the prior year's ending fund balance. So it would essentially protect the corpus of the fund as it currently exists. But start doesn't start the process now, or is this something that happens every fiscal year? This would dictate that in any fiscal year, uses from the fund cannot go above cannot dig into the principal of the fund. But that's the same impact that we wanted to Right. But we're not gonna address the cumulative principal, which would issue. Okay. On page 16, this is a proposal from senator Westman. You'll see in sub b in section a one zero seven, this is language that would state that any new positions authorized by the general assembly in this legislative session, shall be created on 08/15/2026, provided that the census revenue forecast of the emergency report adopts in July is not lower than that forecast, which was adopted in January. Just for the general Correct. So my, I was wondering about when we say any new physician that would include like the physician. So I thought we were going, when we talked about this before, wasn't gonna be all positions, because there were some that we kinda had to do regardless of, There was revenue forecast. I had that we were only gonna do this for I don't know. That's specifically the ones that would potentially lower general funds. So like the one we talked about, where secretary of state that they even though there was a general fund, said general fund Yep. Direct that. But other ones, like, the child care position. It's pretty passive thing that have to do. Right? Things like that. And it's going

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: to be hopefully, so it's used a standard to create a conversation and quite frankly, we're unfriendly. Right. And now, if this conversation is as much time as it was like.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Okay. Well, we'll we'll work on this language before it turns to end. Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Emily, we talked about this. We I I had almost given up because they were so busy. Didn't know if was gonna get to the NSA. This is the first time that I've seen them. Okay. So, the push to do this was my

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Yeah. Okay. Actually,

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: in the sense that my concern is that there's ambiguity around, if it is, if the revenue forecast is lower, then what happens? Are they just canceled? It's a keyboard. Like, who like, what happened?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: I would I would expect they're in that position. I would rather have the Joint Episcopal Committee that will meet with everybody here at the vet.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: I just think it should be clear how perfect Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: I'm totally get them. We're we're so very much I'm so nervous.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: Just wanna make sure I put that in.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: I think it's awkward if you hire the new physicians, and then the revenue estimates are there.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: And then I also wonder if the revenue forecast is lower, if that's lowered by $7. I don't know if they ever do low forecast changes.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Well, maybe there's some discretion in the decision making process.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Right. But we might Well, in We might just wanna set a trigger, like, if it's lower than if the downgrade is 1% or something.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: You could tie it to again, having not thought a lot about this, it's a pretty new idea, but you could tie it to the residual language itself, triggers JFC involvement, if it's a certain percent of the downgrade or a certain threshold, so you can tie that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: I would like to ask.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. You know, if it's a Frank, so if it's a small if the downgrade is small, the administration can handle it themselves. So you could if it's a small downgrade, leave it in their hands. If it's a larger downgrade, that would normally trigger JFC involvement. I agree the established conditions to that trigger. Yeah.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: We'll we'll do it threshold or a trigger, and we'll we'll be clear on the drug based policy. That'll be at September meeting, I assume. As per the joint fiscal chair's request, we should let the chair

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: That we copy the latest.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. And it would sometimes it's at the September meeting. Typically, it'd trigger a JOC rescission process. Not knowing off the top of my head, but the triggers, the administration has a certain number of time, a certain period of time, and submit their rescission to the Joint Fiscal Committee. Joint Fiscal Committee has a certain number of needs to respond to it. Usually happens before the sometimes the initial submission is before the September meeting. Just to try to catch up immediately.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Also, doctor Joe Episcopal, the theology, the theology, theology, the theology, the could be some step if you say, yes. We want the committee by September. Yes. But I assume

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: it'd be that, you know, September meeting, direct fiscal beats kind of the same day as you board. Yep. So they wouldn't have the time.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Yeah. But they could say, we want a plan based on. Yeah. Good service.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: We'll work on that. Does anybody have any questions, concerns?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: We'll we'll work on the.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: We'll work on it again on Tuesday when we vote on the bill. Well, the hope is you will stop long today, but then we'll actually have the real bill in front of us on Tuesday, and

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: that's when we vote on

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: the But this will be something that will be different. Probably, we won't really have anything that's different. Just That'll be my small. Yes. The the final page touches on the same issue. So doctor Lee, who do you need to review it? Sure. This year and last year, both pretty long, effective date sections. It seems pretty short for the for the the big bill. But for other bill. Do you have a question?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: I was just gonna ask about the proposal of language that I submitted yesterday.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Yes. So the committee saw it yesterday, so I didn't include it in packet. Okay. Which one was that? Oh, yeah. We had four different. Yeah. We we were up there.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes? I'm wondering about the section page of of this slide. These the e sections that are taking effect provided those revenue forecast is not lower. What what are these sections?

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: These are e 100 is the general position creation section, and then the rest of those are the pool position creation sections except for the military positions. There are two sections that are creating military positions through the full, and those are limited service. So those would or limited service predominantly with federal funds, those positions, and this contract is what we created.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Okay. Good.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Then we have another here. So you're gonna get one. This is also a senator line. Yes. Yes, I we just received this from senator Lyons. This would be a proposal to amend language that's in the house relating to supervised visitation programs. Rather than splitting out, the specific uses of that allocation of funds, this would, consolidate it to be 367,500 to six existing community based supervised patient sites, and then specify that the remainder will be used for funding for additional sites in counties where programs do not currently exist.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: So this was a request and a network since the funding is somewhat reduced, that it may rather than try to split it up here to allow for it to go to DCF and then have it sent directly to the field as a system could do that.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: You're good with it. I'm good with it. Any price coupon

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: comments? It's the same notes.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: The same money.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Oh.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. Anne Watson. Did we are we looking at the UPM abstract language yet?

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: I think so. Okay. Well, just. Oh, we added it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: So is this something that the network has been doing in the past or just looking at it in conjunction with the website in network?

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: That does do it in the past because they were you see they're listed as receiving $50,000. It strikes through them. I think it's different than the thing that you had been earlier with the program.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: I just wonder if they would evolve with the same operations.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Is it Yeah. With the network or

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: is it their to a

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: The

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: services that you mentioned, but in the struck out language, the Hamburg is. And this will be set this to change. This will be subject in conference committee if we need more information about this. Yes. I mean, I don't

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: oppose them. It's not your right.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: It's it does nicely go off that. Yes.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Any other language things? Maybe do you have things on our to do list? I

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: was wondering if you wanted to talk about

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Oh, we definitely.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Terms of Yes.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: And the progression changes or

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: So when we went through the plan report, center line for the district skipped the whole thing. One thing to make sure that you're okay with the entire age and budget, skip those sections, if there's anything in there that needs addressing.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: I've been through it so many times. Yeah.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: So we're trusting if there was something you would have brought it to. Then there is nine thirty eight, the big

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: nine thirty eight is a working progress in our facility.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: So we're assuming the money isn't changing, but there's questions that you're not changing something based on one time or one time based. You're doing any of that stuff, that we would need to know.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: We are not doing that. We haven't looked at it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Once we pass this out,

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: seal off. Understood.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: I'll look at it again. The weekend.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Better not. Yeah. I just wanna bring something up. I mean, as long as we're talking about the network, there was a question language on fund transfers, the government fund, the $350,000 that goes through fine center. That's in our crime center. Generally, it passes straight to to network anyways. It's they're requesting a. This domestic sexual violence special fund. The branch of members organization, you know, go straight through to Vermont now with another elected doctor dedicated to. I guess that'd

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: be a conference when the issue works. You're saying this was this I wasn't sure this was the suggestion that House made or that somebody wants to make now. Now. So I'm just bringing it up

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: to see if y'all wanna discuss it or bring it to the conference with many or Are you bringing

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: it up because you wanna see it or you don't wanna see it? I have had opportunities to I mean, I know what the problem is. Okay?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: I know I go to the senate president. I know it's

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: the last one through the network, through the med network.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: I thought that it may be more comforting for them to see the actual language on it. Looks more push behind this.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: This It's exactly what that was. B one zero one. Untransperienced.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Was this a string of mess? As

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: As long as we're on the network, I thought I'd bring it up here.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: You want to share this with Greg?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Okay. But

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: this is a request from from now. And

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: I'm not gonna chime in. Request. All very good organizations, so it's just an down estimate discussion if you choose to have it.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: I'll make sure we understand

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: it.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Highlight as of the on Tuesday. That's the position of that Anything else? People thought we'd be here till five. I told people the committee is a great work. There's no other comments from the GFO or the committee members, Emily Vernon.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: I would just we're gonna give you a bill by Tuesday. If Monday or Tuesday morning, we find stuff. We'll make sure that we flag it all for the committee before we read through the bill. These sort of things that we find then.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: But we should get more

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: coverage on, know where that would be something that doesn't add up very much. We'll make sure to flag all of that. So this way, this doesn't mean you'll have

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: an actual bill, right, to say.

[Emily (Legislative Staff, likely Joint Fiscal Office)]: And a million spreadsheets. Well, so many spreadsheets. Yeah.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Of course. Spreadsheets. Already have. No. I think there are a couple of things I need to touch base with members. We can go on file about it. Are there any stuff that we needed to address today, or we should address it? The committee would want to go through h nine fifty one language that's currently in the bill that the committee didn't close out, or we can flag those sections on Tuesday for the committee to review final time. Yeah. Well, where does with a whole bunch of sections. There's a number of sections that were held up. I think most of it was addressed, through this conversation with senator Lyons. Looking to. Yes. Exactly. Yeah. People are assuming that they're okay. There weren't big changes. I remember. Okay. So what we wanted to do is drop also. We'll go around the roof. You might have to.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: I'm not sure I can answer that.

[Legislative Counsel (Unidentified)]: Ready? No. We'll go around. Ready? Let's see how you're feeling about your. I like that. How many is? K. Yes. Are you feeling bored? Yeah. Okay. I didn't see your shot. I thought you were gonna, like, psych us out there. Okay. I was on that. Have a line muscle. Yes. So straw fold is the. Okay. So with that, we can