Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We are live.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Live with the best office committee in the building, h nine in fire alarm. It's 06:57. Big

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: bill. Friday. Goodness. Second eating of the bench. You're looking at me. Yeah. I'm looking at who am I looking at? Scott? Amy? Who

[Nolan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: They're all looking at

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: each other.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: The sheets. Okay. Okay. Scott is coming up. Rest of the gang is all here. So the capital bill committee of conference passed, so we thought we'd go over that data.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay. And just so you know, we five six seven, the treasury bill,

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the next language with the higher carbon.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay. Also September. We're gonna

[Nolan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: clear our We're clearing the decks. We're clearing

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: the decks. 772 is was that was that really

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The housing. Land Landmark.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: That's the landlord. Landmark. Okay. I wasn't sure who that was. Understand. It's been here. Well, I see it there. Yeah.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We're working on getting those cleared.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Clearing the deck so we can But

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm hoping that that public safety. It's

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: not, you know, Okay. Okay. Yeah. I'm did we figure out the rapid response? He's not in there. Right? Or we just not have accounted for

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That's in the that is in 09:35.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 935. We're going to take the Yeah. Yeah. That's what I was thinking. So we need you to operate in. Yeah. So we're not. Okay. Well, way the bill currently says it's there, but then it says you have no duty to implement the program if there's no money.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, the $500,000 is brokered in there. You take out the $500,000 so the program will languages.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right, in the bill further on it says you have no duty to do this particular program if you have not money, even though it's been appropriated. So you could just leave it there. Probably does. Yeah, Although less confusing than just take it out. That's true. And that means a whole bill has to come back. It's gonna come back and use that. I don't know, maybe there's other changes. Maybe there aren't. I don't think there aren't. So

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: if we don't have to take

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: up $500,000 Yeah. Well, need to check with Yeah. Gotta do that prepared. Okay. Well, then we could just concur if. Yeah. Pass. Correct. Yeah. That would help.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So we'll see if we can do this. Okay.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So no. No. It's just is this

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That's kinda

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Can

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: we put it up on the big screen?

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Thanks for drawing out. We can hand this out.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's easier for us on this side of the table.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: You want me to share?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: While we're waiting for him to be done on the screen, I'll introduce myself. Scott Moore, joint fiscal office. So we can start looking through this a little bit. We can see here the first salmon colored line item you see is with DGS's statewide maintenance. The committee of conference increased the sentencing position in the cash by $500,000. Right down to the letter c, the next salmon colored, the COI Korean compressor stormwater compliance. The conference committee reduced that by $1,000,000.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So basically, he took it out.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The cat position, yes. We had money also in the bonding position. Income. So some people might think, oh, do you have million dollars when you're be but they have money involved in it. It's just a cash position. Right. Going down to letter o, the women's facility. There was also a decrease in $500,000 in cash, but there was additional $600,000 left in the bond. A lot of the other capital bill does deal with two different sources of funding as well as previous money in the hours of years past. So sometimes when you see a negative or a positive, that's the thing. There's no money for that treatment project. It doesn't mean he said there's some funding around in terms of funding or in cash. Let me see the the you can actually see that from the negative 500,000 to about $500,000 in cash, and some of that is just the language that goes into what they're wanting to the money for. Going down to under number seven, Department of Corrections, There's negative $250,000 from ADS to install Wi Fi. But then the next line underneath that is EOSU, the board with ADS, to modernize the Wi Fi facilities, if you will. This colloquially known as

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: a wide side project. But sometimes that is not necessarily a polypoxy wall, game design, and that's actually. Yeah. Was just well, initially, was very surprised to see a $3,000,000 versus $2.50 k. And I'm just wondering what was the change. So the House Committee on Correctional Institutions has been desirous of ADS and UFC to live in

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: that It's last five years, they've had a year or so So they've been asked to do this, and it hadn't been done. So the house felt that giving $3,000,000 in capital bill to get attention and make sure they have the natural resources. They will not have they had the resources to do it. Now they had been some discussion as to other funding sources. We subpoenaed federal government as well as the bond bank, and some of those resources may have fallen through. So the house thought that putting in $3,000,000 would, a, send a message, we want this project done. And b, if the other sources of funding were not gonna happen, well, here's your funding. The administration sent a letter to the senate suggesting that they didn't need this funding. They were in fact able to come up with funding. However, they agreed that having $250,000 would be good to be able to do planning and design for this project. And then the Canadian conference said $7.50 would be able to allow them to do a little bit more work to make the best plan for us to begin with. So

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: this is just for planning? Basically. There's not gonna

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: be any installation yet. There's not gonna be a to actually either crack open the walls and put in wider neck and stuff. So you really have to have your responses in place to do

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: a comprehensive plan across all the different infection centers. That seems like a lot of money just to have.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There's a lot to do because in order to be able to get into the correctional center, sometimes they have to close one unit, move people, get them back, you don't have it.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay, it has, it's more than just what we do. It's more than just plan It's It's activities that are

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay, again, we still work as I'm planning this, what we're doing. The stuff they have to do. That is why it went from 3,000,000 to $2.50, back to $7.50.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So the dollar amount has not changed. The total amount Just the you see inside it. It, there's been some Okay. Little levels in the. All of these projects end up in the budget. Is that right? They're all short in budget. If we just say yes. Right. It's all fine.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right. So if you remember the contract, the cash funds takes up to 4% of the previous year's dollar amount and that was the $17,000,000 that got transferred to the cash fund. That number stayed the same. The interest earned just stayed the same. All the other dollar amounts have stayed the same. It's roughly $23,000,000 in cash. You see that in the green, The fourth one. 79% the same, just inside of it. The committee agency and chimneys.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Right. And we So that would close out a few lines. One line. Just one. All that for one line. I just throw this out there because it I had a conversation with, Chair Evans who thought it might be a good idea, to include section 300.1 E 300.1 which relates to secure youth facilities both in the budget and in the capital bill. It's now a capital bill in that language we've given to JFO, but that's a question for the conference. Well, it's a matter of policy and it relates to decision making that both Senator Lyons' committee will do and her committee will do as it relates to the future of the security the facility. And it's not just a capital project that is the concern. Yeah. I would agree with you. So you're okay with the language in that? Yeah. Okay. We're gonna be talking about trying to figure out all the language stuff so we can bring up some of that stuff. Okay. We'll we'll bring some. That's what we got. That's it.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No information about the hire, about the.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: It's working. We're we're working on that. I I think they're not fine. Scholarship Oh, I forgot about that. Yeah. I forgot about it. So the in the VSAC proposal, there were there was a request for some continuing funds for allied health nursing scholarships in particular, which is not included in the budget. And it turns out it's actually, it would be $1,400,000 and then a match up to about 3.4. We do have funds available in the provider stabilization funds to cover that amount, space amount, one time amount, shouldn't use the word base, to continue those scholarships for one year. And the reason I think it's important is there have been folks who are actually being, haven't been committed to already applying for and receiving those scholarships. The money is not there. Consequently, the administration has put through the RHT proposal for scholarships for nursing as a replacement. But that won't cover all the people who have been previously covered. There will be a requirement within RHT to work within specific zip codes. It excludes specifically some very important sections of my district and the tips that you need to do well. I'm thinking there are a couple of reasons here. One, the most important reason for me is that people have expectations and promises for funding that's that's now gone. And so I think if there's a way that we could put some, put the funds in and then have some conditions around use of the funds for loan repayment, that it would, let me go. And it's important for workforce. So language You have language. I don't have anything right now. I've just been working on this with Nolan, and we're asking grading to put some language about us. Nolan, do you want to say anything more?

[Nolan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, other than the RTP also does not cover doctors or dentists. Right. So they cover nurses, right? Nurses, not They open

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: open that up, fund up for those folks in a way that we can't with RHD. And we wouldn't have before RHD. So did we just find out that they had this problem?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It came we should have known about it, but it came we have some students that reached out to you. It's like, I was counting on this. I picked up the debt to go to the school. Now I'm not gonna buy a

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: box. And the issue of the rural health transformation, you know, what is actually defined as rural has been up at the air. Oh, I know that. Yeah. I know that. I was just trying to figure out the story of how this got here. It just got here. And been mulling over and asking for data and information, so I got the information from Amy on what has existed, what was existing for the scholarships, and what the proposal was from VSAC, and that's included. So did it get cut in the budget?

[Nolan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. It was part of the governor's record. Spent over $4,000,000 for workforce. AHEC was part of that package. You restored the $6.67 for AHEC, but there were still another 3 plus million of ESAC scholarships that were not restored in either the House or Senate budget, and now they're starting to hear from folks who we thought they were young. Well, yes, you have one step, one program ending, and then the new, program started. So there's an end period in some people started under one set of parameters and the new program has a new set of parameters.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There will be an RHT program that's to be developed.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: But think they have to deploy that money this year? Yeah. They're trying to Yeah. But I to have it. I'm obligated by August. Oh,

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: so Tuesday.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: So if it gets drafted, ahead of time and we can see it today, then we can look at it more closely. But you're proposing at this point to use the provider's stabilization, money. So that's sort of a policy question too about, is that the direction you're trying to go? Like you said, you get the balance.

[Nolan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The rest of the provider stabilization, the flip side is the provider stabilization is pure general fund where this you can get global investment allocation. It's a 64. 50. 4193. 093. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: 1.93. Yeah. Yeah. Don't you go yeah. So Okay.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So there's nothing else we have for. I don't think so.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I think we'll have a fair amount Tuesday. I assume we wanna meet a couple of times Tuesday. I would be good at five. Are you meeting at ten on the floor on Tuesday? Yes. We are too. Yeah. Yeah.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Transportation So bill is gonna be the New Year. That's gonna be pretty close.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Okay. So, I mean, 04:10 sometime? Oh, I don't know how long think you need the transportation.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We can be at 09:15 here, though. Yeah.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: I'll do 09:15, and then 01:15 again.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And I hope this thing maybe.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Kinda depends on the other bills.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. It really does. Right.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: We should just say the same for Wednesday, same times. Sounds like you're hoping to close the T bill on Tuesday.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. So,

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: that would be one. We've done the capital bill. $9.38 is done. So actually that's another, those are other gray out of things because you guys will be working on fixing up the budget to be specific to September. Okay. So we're still waiting on this tax yield education and transportation reverse order.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: My understanding is, well, we will present the education in the.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And then fortuitize to the house that.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Then do you have something? Go ahead.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: Yeah. Oh, was thinking about the language justice project where we had talked about a version from the office on racial equity and we need to do it. Need we need that. We have language going on about that, don't we? We're gonna go over a whole bunch of language things that we hope to bring to you on Tuesday and then one of them.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Good. Thank you. Did you have something to say about that, Brandon? Oh, yeah. I was saying the language currently exists in the senate budget.

[Brandon (Legislative Counsel)]: It it'll just be adding the reversion to the reversion section to offset it. Right. We're hoping to hear in the UVM.

[Andrew Perchlik (Chair)]: And do stay. Good. Looking forward to