Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: We are live.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: April 21, live. Senate appropriation. Mr. Nixon is gonna give us another wording change that's caught on impressions. In what page in in the translucent parts copy is this going? In the translucent, I believe that would be the penultimate page. I'll get the drop by button.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: We are done.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Effective dates. Great. Next, enjoy fiscal. So reflecting the committee's discussion from earlier this afternoon, this would be an update to the effective date section stating in subsection e that position creation the positions listed in those enumerated sections shall only take effect on August 15 provided that the official state revenue estimate or the general fund approved by the emergency board at its July 2026 meeting has not been reduced by 1% or more from the estimates used to build the budget or that the estimate has been reduced by that amount. But or excuse me. And the Joint Fiscal Committee approves a rescission plan that authorizes funding for the establishment of those positions and then clarifies that any positions for which funding has been rescinded shall not be established. So I think you weren't here, but the No. Sounds good. Just make sure that the joint fiscal committee could keep the position to Mhmm. Needed to be are adjusting. Any questions for mister Ginny Lyons language that goes on with them not implemented today? Okay. Did anybody I need some. You could go get yours. I don't think we're gonna go through a bit with.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: I think the only thing I also to flag, right, I think Brady flagged this before, right? He didn't catch some of those updates that he made earlier. The

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: updates, well he has red version. The translation red version has the updates with cash fund. Yep. The capital bill hasn't passed, but they locked down cash fund parts so that would be the updates. And what was the other? Senator Lyons' proposal relating to the final removal of tax on time and appropriations. Now consider. That. The the $400,000 opioid special fund preparation. Any other questions that people have on the like, the report or any sheets that they went through? There's a question. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: On the second page of this new language, I'm wondering if it should be the in the penalty acceptance, if it should be an or. Right? So in the joint fiscal committee approved the procedure plan on its July 2026 meeting that does not extend funding to the establishment positions in all of these sections. I guess I'm wondering about, like, if we if they wanna fund some but not others.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And if the way I read it is their rescission plan might not include some Mhmm. And then those would be.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: If it's an answer.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: They don't have to they don't have to create a message that they're in. In the. Oh, I just

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: I'm still wondering about, like, the block of them versus, like, individual. I guess that's. Well,

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: it's things like if it doesn't go less than if if the revenue doesn't drop off, then it takes a time. Revenue does drop off and they do nothing, then none of them will do it. But they can approve a plan as an alternative path, and the plan can say if treatments are.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: As long as we're clear on that. Because the way I was reading it was like all E100 through E711 has a block of connections as opposed to like, you could do something on others. I'm just looking for flexibility.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Understood. I would flag for the committee too, as language was added and joined to school work with legislative council, quite quickly on it, but I think the understanding from both our office and the office of legislative council is this language would, certainly need further review and revision for anything that would ultimately be in the final committee of conference bill. So I I understand the concern relating to that and It's quite a time. But this this language, I think, certainly would need to be worked on further and reviewed further at a later time as well. I think it's clear. Think at least my intent is the same as the center of roots you said that. If if the Dragon Mini does nothing and the and the one that's in downgrades, none of them positioned to go. They had to approve a plan and say which ones are gonna go. That's the exception.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Okay. And that makes those

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Support the council. The only other thing which we could maybe change the conference meeting here is that this is the thing. They have to do it at their July meeting. They did at the September meetings. Maybe they would need more information. If July is the same day as they would know about the about the rescission, so more likely to happen on September 15. Absolutely. And the the August 15 day, think that would be a matter for conference as well. That's let's see. August 15, that's when we have to do something. If, for instance, if the Joint Fiscal Committee couldn't address that at this July meeting, then the August 15 date may conflict with the intent that the the duration would have to occur before that decision. I mean, when you budget the city Where is the August 15? Five, then can if none of those contingencies occur, so then the positions are created on August 15. Right. Very good. Okay. Yeah. We'll talk about that. Maybe they could do it after July.

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: I'm just sure if you're seriously saying it

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: would be up after five. I would entertain a motion to by the. So moved. Okay? With that motion, the clerk shall close. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Page nine fifty one. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Brennan. Yes. Senator Lyons. Yes. Senator Norris. Senator Watson. Yep. Senator Perchlik. Yes. Great. Right. Thank you. Kirkwood will be the reporter. If I could figure out a way to assign parts, I'll I'll do that. I don't know. Yeah. I don't I think I you. It might be easier just for me to do it. Unless there's a section you wanted to, so you can let me know. And I'll give the senator for the month.

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: Yeah. I'd like and the juniors. Yeah.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I mean, or we could just write it up. Let's I'll think about it. We're not this will not be on the floor till next week. Finance is good to have it. Beyond notice, skip over it on Friday. No. We've It goes gets referred tomorrow? Referred tomorrow. They could put it out tomorrow, then it'll be back on Thursday. So we could take it up Friday, then it would be on the weekend. So we'll wait. Yeah.

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: But if we did that, then it would be a Tuesday and Wednesday.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right, so that's what we're we'd rather do a Tuesday than a Friday. Yeah. And that Octavia's plan is they need enough. We can

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: get 09:38.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yes. And you need 09:38.

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: I have no idea.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Thank you, miss Ginny Lyons. Are you gonna experience in your life right now, brother? And follow your Just make sure it's the okay. Give me a text after parts. This is the act of the county government's regional study committee. In essence, this is extending the life of the summer committee and county and federal government study committee, as well as restructuring some of these aspects having to do between chairs, bringing from above chairs to a similar chair, adding, and minorly adjusting some procedures as it's the committee of the operations committee. The report back to on November, and and I should just say I provided a bill overpayment for those who are more curious than not in this committee which lays out a summary of the enabling acts of the committee as well as some of the changes and provides an extraordinary report of somewhat initial findings of the committee. Membership was kind of scrambled because election, and they really never had business, but Any questions, general? I don't have any. We're talking about a little bit earlier. We have a member of the. Good afternoon. Records of the office. This is a relatively very simple bill. We did look at an examination of what the expenses would be. I do have fiscal notes that it's underpaid, so it's not being if those would like a hard copy, I have them. Otherwise, they are posted. It's very simple. I told Philip earlier, it's 200 some odd words in total. The total expenses we estimate in this year is only $16,500 earlier this morning, or actually this afternoon. I only went through the one time appropriations, and I believe the one time summary of the appropriation line 64 is the appropriation for this. We should be good to go there. The one thing I would also note is that last year's bill did, last year's budget bill did appropriate $50,000 for this, for studies or other expenses. None of that has been touched. That's still left over from last year. But I think the green light resources, $50,000 is still there from last year. And where is that? Okay. So we already accounted for the money. Yep. Anybody have any questions, comments, concerns about this development? If they will entertain a motion to pass. Moved. So moved. I think it's wet. Thanks. Senator Baruth. Yes. Brennan gets senator Ginny Lyons. Yes.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Senator Lawrence. Yes. Senator Watson. Yes. Senator Watson.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Senator. Let's Let's see how he puts me on this. I knew we needed an. Of change. Who are you gonna appoint to? I think that's three. It's in college. Stop it. Okay. Yes. This will be it. I'll need a coffee to drink. Patrick, Okay. We have another day. We're hoping to get through today. We don't today. Have to repeat that. Tomorrow, we're gonna do the miss Whitney's tax bill, which we could spend five minutes or we could Hang on. How much do wanna go through? And then what?

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: H 90. The.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh, the yeah. Energy plan. Did you do a did you ever take that at your?

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: 940? Yes. You did.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 940.

[Senator Anne Watson (Member)]: Then we're 90. Yeah.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 490. What is it? 940. Yeah. 940. 940.

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: I already made a motion on this puppy. Wow. Okay.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Pop, we need to act patient. We're a puppy. Due to age five nineteen, we have our elected council here. There's any financial impact. We got started general. We gave you a general idea already. You can give us a short break. Sure. Sure. For the record, Cameron Wood.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll split the council. This bill is pretty straightforward, so I won't share my screen unless you all find that to be helpful. But this is meeting the membership in group G of the State Retirement Program. There are three municipalities that participate in the state retirement system. It is Randolph, Bethel, and Danville. This bill amends the group membership to allow municipal employees of those municipalities that are law enforcement officers with a level two or a level three certification and their primary duty is law enforcement activity allows those employees I should say and moves them over into group G which has slightly different calculation for when the individuals can retire. I mean, it's it's a 55 after twenty years. Yeah. Instead of thirty years. So, this would ensure that those municipal law enforcement officers are on par with what other state law enforcement have within their group for shipping. So, that's pretty much the bill. It has the definition of amending all of the definitions to add in those particular employees, amending the definition of retirement date to add in the retirement date to make them an equivalent with other members of Gucci and other state law enforcement. It has the kind of corresponding amendments throughout that chapter, the state retirement system to identify that they have the retirement date, incorporating the necessary cross references, etcetera, and then it has a section that says, there are current employees that would be covered here, and when you all as a body have done this in the past, where you take an employee that's in a group and you move them over to another group, you allow the individuals that are currently employed the option of whether they want to move over or whether they want to stay within their current retirement group. For everyone moving forward, they'd be in group G beginning next year, January '27. For the individuals who are currently employed, they would have a one time irrevocable option. Do you want to stay in F? Do you want to move to G? That's what I was thinking of. The employees at Randolph, Bethel, and Danville, Alabama. It's the only police officer. Currently, so those three towns are participating in the state system. Only one of those towns currently has employees that meet the definition that would move over. In the future, if Anne Bill or Bethel wanted to employ law enforcement officers that meet those definitions, then they would be approved. Currently, Grand Isle is the only municipality that has employees that would fall under that category. And then it also includes any current retired. Retired individuals would be within whatever retirement group at the point that they retired. So it wouldn't impact previous employees. These are only new employees, those that are currently employed and moving forward. And this is

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: thirty years since then. And we did this for a number of sheriff deputies too. Yes, sir.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Recently did, exactly. You recently did this for sheriffs and deputy sheriffs two years ago. Before that, you initially created group chief for certain Department of Corrections employees, employees at Vermont State Hospital, etcetera. Yes, And sir, that's the primary differences is how they get to their normal retirement calculation, and it's after twenty years as opposed to thirty years. I would suspect if plan is thirty years that the community was doing is having trouble maintaining their online course. They get on

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: the train. They moved to some place. They've had a

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: group of retirement. Twenty years and 55. It's 55 after twenty years since I mean That's the Just to clarify itself, our wardens DMV enforcement are still in group Do you do you know? I'm getting a a no from our JFO representative behind you. So I don't know if those are in in the state. They're in group c with the state law enforcement. Yeah. With state. Group C is also where the troop incident is. Trooper Trooper wardens. Are you sure? Yes. The state law enforcement. The state law enforcement are in the sea, the the state troopers, the wardens, the DMV inspectors. I think some of the some of the issues that senator Brennan might have been alluding to have to do with their their concerns about their compensation plan, but that's different than Yeah, that could be too. It's because it's '65. You have to be 55, fiftieth, twenty years, and you're under 55. You have to be 55. To 10/20/2000. I will also just comment there is an amendment to the bill. Initially, it came over from the House. The Senate Government Operations Committee approved it as it was passed by the House with no changes, and then brought to their attention, there are just some incorrect date references and some of the definitions in group G that don't actually have anything to do with moving these individuals over, but from a previous transition, from the previous positions, you all moved over to group chief. There's just what I would say is kind of just a technical error in some of the date references, so the members of that committee do have an amendment that they would just be offering on the floor. I don't want to speak with them, but I've drafted something up to make some fixing a few errors in the definition section just for your awareness. It's a quick answer. Why those three towns participate in the space? I don't know the answer to that. It's my understanding from listening to representatives from the, you know, retirement division safe director's office is it's just legacy holdover. Those three municipalities wanted to participate in the state system as opposed to being in the municipal retirement system and at this point, they're they're there. So, they don't change.

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: Back in the day, and they thought they were doing a good thing, and then they get down into a retirement plan. Others are in a twenty year retirement, so they end up in competition where they had made this election years ago and are caught. And I suspect it's probably something very specific. Are other municipalities,

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: municipals into another twenty year protection for two options. So there's not other towns that are going want to switch over? No. This would make it equivalent to what you have for the state police, what you have for the sheriffs, what you have in the municipal system under that membership or similar positions. This would make it relatively equivalent to all other law enforcement. Okay, wanted to ask Mr. Rick if the fiscal note said it. He said it would be on the side. Chris, the fiscal, I mean, are words in the fiscal note, but I mean, I'll give you the highlight. This is not going to have a cost to the state.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: It will have a de minimis impact to the pension system. And there's just a couple reasons for that. One is the towns that participate in VSERs, they pay for the share, the employer share of their benefits. So the state budget isn't paying for the employer share of Grand Isle's employees. Second reason why is that the added cost of being in Group G is borne by the members in Group G. They pay a contribution rate that's 1.68% higher than they otherwise would had they remained in the move after, and that's to make this cost neutral to the employer. And we're dealing with three FTEs in a system that is, you know, almost 10,000 active members. So this is just a negligible number of people, and as Senator Westman mentioned, you already did this for deputy sheriffs a few years ago, And so you already have a demographically similar workforce in each case. So this is just three additional people. And my last point is even though one town I don't want anybody to think this is a special villages for one town.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: This it just happens to be that there's one town that's caught in this unusual situation. Yes. I don't know. I know it's late today. I think that's the question. There's probably going to. I will strike. When did they start allowing level twos to participate in the retirement program? Question that I would need to go do some research about how the risk may actually go in, sir. I'm not aware of the temper not being with this. Level twos? Are Long you thinking of? They do. Well, the three. Individuals. Long term. Long Long Long term. Term. Long two weeks after a twelve month period, then have a phase three. Term. Basically, I'm assuming they're sworn in as full time officer in the phase three. Since I've been here, they've never made a policy, you all have never made a policy decision to make this differentiation, so I think it's a great program. Should've been 11, too. You're restrained. A lot less strained. Yeah. A Well, lot less time after you cat act versus seventeen weeks after you had. I mean, that Yeah. I'm done. Yeah. I'll brush you. You wanna make your motion now?

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: I already made a motion I

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: will not recognize that. Alright. Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Lyons? Yes. Senator Norris? Yep.

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: Senator Walker? Yes. Senator Watson? Senator Perchlik. Yes.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And those have the word de minimis. So do you wanna report it? How long do you That sounds like my a lot of.

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: Perfect.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Oh,

[Senator Robert Norris (Member)]: George was sitting in his seat. Damn. God. Little water

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: belt.