Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: But we are alive. We are alive. It's all that it's fine. Once again, we are eating lunch committee. Is that time of year? Okay. We are going to start this is the health insurance pools, and this is 585. 5 what is it? Yeah. It's 585. Yeah. So, anyway, talks about looking at associations and fools, and you were recommended to us. You were a regular regular in this committee at one point in time. Quite a while ago.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Quite a while. Like a while ago.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: But we're still here. Still working on health insurance. Glad to see you. It's good to see you. And you know the routine, just introduce yourself and the film is yours. Christine Oliver, NFP.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: I really appreciate the time today. I was in house healthcare last week and I didn't really recognize a patient. It's been a long time. Coming into this It was Yes, it was Michigan. So, I'm dressed with FFP, which is a national broker firm. In that capacity, I oversee the Vermont Benefits practice, where we work with employers all across Vermont to put employee benefit packages together, which includes your health insurance, life, disability, vision, dental, all the things you think about as employee benefits, with health insurance being the front runner of. That's what people use day to day. That's when it costs the most. We're very in tune to the health insurance situation here across the country. I was previously a senator, Cummings mentioned the Deputy Commissioner of the Healthcare Administration within Bishop. And why that's relevant for so long ago is because way back when I was there when the Affordable Care Act was passed. I was there when we were starting to have discussions about what are we doing with this exchange? The party line at the time was you needed a million lines in exchange to be successful. We talked a lot about, do we do a multi state? How do you do that? Which way are we going? And we, of course, decided against the multi state that had its own problems with different regulations in each state. But we always knew this hanging over our head was, it's gonna be hard to have an exchange with less than many lives, and we're never gonna get to a good one. So, give that just as background for some of the things that I wanna talk about today. So, risk pools and funding.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Sorry. Okay. There you go.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Just kind of as a starting point, to talk about, people are pretty familiar with the exchange. So, in the exchange, you have small businesses under 100 that are fully insured and everybody takes their premium. Whatever their claims are, their claims are. They paid their premium, they're done. If their group's claims are less than we're expected, the carrier, Blue Cross or MVP in this situation, keeps that money. And if they're higher than we're expected, the carrier pays those claims. So that's your basic understanding of insurance. Of And then on the opposite spectrum of that is self funding, where the group decides, Hey, we're gonna hire a carrier to pay claims and process and do that administration, but we're gonna pay for the claims. We're gonna hold this pot of money and self fund with our own money, whatever claims are. So, in the middle of that is somewhat of a sweet spot for Vermont. Our colleagues across the country, are shocked at how much level of funding we do in the side things that we do. Because I'm in the the region with Boston, New York, and they just don't think about these things for smaller groups because they quite frankly don't have to. What what the level funding is is it's a toe in the water of self funding. You still come up with a premium. Carrier helps come up with a premium, which is to cover claims. But at the end of the year, if your claims are below what were expected and planned on, you can share in that savings with the carrier. And there's no risk if you go above. So it helps give you a little bit more potential to save without a lot of exposure of risk on the outside of that. So those are kind of the three funding models that we deal with the most. And the thing I want to say about that is, on the exchange, which we're most familiar with probably in this committee, that's only 25% of the commercial market. And we know all the troubles that come with the exchange. Small businesses on the exchange are struggling. You see increases, people can't decide how they're going to retain and attract employees, or trying to be competitive in their industry. All very valid real issues. But I would suggest those are the exact same issues that every 75% of the business outside of the exchange deal with. They are still trying to be competitive in your industry, hire and retain employees, avoid layoffs. They're all at the core of what Vermonters need in their business. They're your retailers, they're your nonprofits, you have childcare centers, contractors, you name it. The only thing different about them is where they're purchasing your insurance. The insurance is pretty much the same thing. When we talk about coverage, coverages are fairly the same. We talk a lot about cost share, that's where differences come in. How much do you pay on the deductible? How much is your premium? What's your out of pocket max? Those things change, but by and large, coverage is coverage. And the businesses buying inside and outside the exchange are pretty much the same. Until you get over 100. Businesses over 100 that can't buy any exchange are still the same. They're still dealing with the same cost pressures, still in

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: the same situation. Over a 100 employees? Is that

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: what you Yes. Sorry. Then that's when they're not eligible to purchase in exchange. Okay. So I appreciate this committee and this legislature's focus on affordability. We know that it's like, it pops up for reponders in every avenue of our lives. Really appreciate the bill last year, which turned into Act 55, the specialty drug bill. So, I would suggest that bill has done so much good and we see it already. The beauty of that is it really was applied across the board. Businesses who are in the exchange, outside the exchange, Blue Cross or Cigna or MVP. Everybody's getting the benefits of that downward pressure on specialty drug costs. And it's significant. That's why you pass the bills, That's the amounts that were being charged were so huge. It really wasn't the ability to put pressure on pricing and everybody wins. So when you look at, I know there's five eighty five, there was also S-one 190 that talks about reference based pricing or other association health plan. All the things that you're talking about that should deal with those pressures, my only suggestion is, let's not apply it to 25% of the market. Let's apply it to the whole market because everybody's suffering from the same situation. I'm currently working with a nonprofit organization who is facing a 38% increase on their health insurance. They're not in exchange, they're not in corporate exchange, but we have similar groups that are on and are off, who are in the same situation. It's not just, we talk about premiums a lot, but, and because that's the thing people identify with. And we do a lot of things to keep premiums down, but that's not the only cost. People are paying deductibles that are getting higher and higher. So when we talk about things that could help keep hospital charges or claims down, that's just not a benefit to the insurance company. That's a benefit to those paying the premiums, those paying their deductibles, and for the employers who are, as deductibles get higher and higher, they often offer a health reimbursement arrangement. To limit the impact of that higher deductible, they'll pay a portion of it. All those things, again, I'm just trying to reiterate that they impact everybody. And to single out one small piece of the market, I mean, it's nice for anybody to get relief, but there's no reason that everybody shouldn't get some relief if you have the ability to do so. The discussion about association health plans, we, so again, when I was at FISHCA many moons ago, there were so many association health plans. Had your medical society, the dental society, and what we would call the air breathers, who were just a compilation of businesses working together, and they were an association as well. When the Affordable Care Act came into the East, association, those association plans pretty much went away. So, we worked on them for a long time. The exchange went into effect. And then, about 2018, there was this little window of maybe they're okay again. So, we came back, we in fact developed with Blue Cross an association health plan, trying to mirror some of the plans that were already on the exchange. And that lasted a year and a half. It was in effect about a year or so, and then we kind of had to wind it based on different state and federal regulations. At that time, I was trying to figure out what it pulled from the exchange, because I know that's always a question like, Well, if we do this, what's going happen to the exchange? I believe Blue Cross, I'm sure, would have the exact numbers. There were about 100 groups that ended up purchasing association health plans. Maybe around, I'm looking forward to this, it's not in it. I would say like 2,000, 2,500 lives. But those didn't all necessarily come out of exchange, they could come from it. I think it's always good, but after the associations went away, we then created with Blue Cross, one of these level funded products where smaller sized groups could get into this level funding, that mid tier I was talking about, a little toe in the water, not have huge exposure, but have the potential to get returns if their particular groups did well from claims perspective. So, I think any option for businesses, for all businesses, is very helpful Because we don't wanna tie somebody's hands. We don't wanna be like, well, you could do it, but you can't do it. So, anything that levels the playing field, lets people be able to make choices for their businesses and their employees, I think is a good thing. I'm not sure, again, if it went into a place, what effect that would have on exchange. Sure, people would come out of exchange. People were gonna come out of the products that they're in right now, maybe. It's gonna take a whole analysis to see what's better for any particular business. I think it'd be really hard to predict, but there would be movement in some fashion, as there is with any new product. With that, just ask your questions.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. Chittenden Hardy? Thank you. I was trying

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: to pull up the bill, but

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I couldn't do it fast enough and also listen to you. I think what I'm hearing you say is that you are supportive of the provision in the bill that would allow for the Association Health Plan because then if you feel like it would be more it would provide options and flow and level the playing field across inside and outside of the exchange.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Yes. But I also wanna be clear that I don't think it's a magic. Yeah. Right. There's nothing They're feeling magical. It's gonna save the day. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: But so if you could, I'm glad I understood what you your position on that. And to the concerns about what would happen to the exchange, I mean, do we get to the point or could we get to the point with a whole series of things happening? Maybe this plus other factors where the exchange just collapses because we just can't maintain it anymore because it's not big enough. Well, Rick, like I say, from the beginning,

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: we were not sure how long the exchange could last, could be in existence, just because you don't have the critical mass. By design, it's in what they call a death spiral.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: That's a technical term.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Individuals for sure, but nowhere else to go over there, but as we know, individuals in exchange by and large are subsidized to a degree that Not anymore though. Well, the enhanced subsidies went away, but there are still significant subsidies. And depending on your, the poverty level, certainly they drop way off. But there's still a significant piece of, and I think it's like 80%. Now that's in a range for something's gonna be a lot of help and something's gonna be a little bit of help. Uh-huh. But there is some help there for individuals. And then when you look at the small groups, one of the good things, again, that the legislature did was demerge those markets within the exchange. Because when they were combined into one pool, then we had just small businesses subsidizing individuals. Yeah. Right? So that was a nice move to not make just those small businesses. I'm sure you did. But I would suggest some feedback for her from this committee and the legislators. That was very helpful to small businesses who are always facing these same issues.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: But if if this move and other things lead to the mark the exchange collapsing, what where do the individuals on the exchange that are that rely on it for their individual plans, where do they go?

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: I would suggest they go back to where they were before. You would go to Blue Cross for an individual plan, or MVP potentially for an individual plan that's not community rated. Right? So the benefit now is that that exchange is community rated, meaning all their experience goes together to come up with a rate. Right. Wouldn't their rates be much higher? Well, already I would suggest they're pretty high because people in there are generally high.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Can they get the federal subsidies if

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: they don't Well, no exchange. I have no idea what would happen to the subsidy. That's just a tough question, right?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Exactly. That's what I'm asking when you're It's trying to figure out what do we do for those people. Right. I mean, I

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: don't know how But to like, the collapse of the exchange, we knew it was going to struggle from the get go. Does that mean it disappears? Or does it mean it continues to go along as it has gone? They had some significant increases early. The Green Mountain Care Board has been able, in recent years, to push back on those hospital rates and the rate insurance carriers keep the rates lower, more manageable. I mean, all those things continue to help. The legislation from last year, keeping specialty drug costs down, That's huge in keeping rates down and everybody's ability to pay claims. So when you talk about things that maybe wouldn't hurt, how did the exchange and help people outside the exchange, So, reference based pricing, sure, that's definitely a cost saver. I'm not ignoring the impact that's gonna have on the hospital system, and so I think we have to find a middle ground there, or a middle ground. But I know Blue Cross has done this study already and talks about applying it. So the S-one 190 talks about applying just in the exchange. And I'm not in favor of that. But if applying that across the board is too much for the system to handle, which it may very well be. But let's start with, you did specialty drug last year. Blue Cross is compared, information I've seen, to go next after lab services and imaging, which if you cut the cost on those, to reference based pricing some percentage of Medicare, that again is going to help across the board. Everybody's going to benefit from that, and it gives you another step further, another step closer, without further nitpicking at the exchange and trying to figure out what to do with it or anything across the board. Then gives people their same choices of,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Hey, hi, Julie. I totally hear you and I agree. And I'm just concerned about pushing people out of health insurance and having higher higher numbers of people to just become insured. I mean, one of the things that we have been doing well in Vermont for the last twenty years is making sure that we have almost everybody insured. Right. So And that's going to that's already changing after the subsidy is going away.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Well, the subsidy is going away. Definitely impacts individuals.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: And so now more people are definitely under insured and probably uninsured. Trying to prevent doing more that's going to impact that or offsetting that Well,

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: what I think that the reference based pricing, even reference based pricing light in just two areas does, is that the biggest part of premiums in the healthcare system is claims. We all have claims. Claims go up. We know trend even if the same claim today is going cost 12% more next year. So, I think you push on the system in that way, I don't think you're contributing people being more uninsured.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I think you're making things more affordable. You're making businesses be able to continue to offer. Yes. But if we're allowing more people to go off the more plans to go off the exchange in order to do association plans. And I'm not let me be clear. I'm not necessarily opposed to that. I just want what do we offset that with to make sure that the people who are left on the exchange don't

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: get it. Well, the reason that's a lesser concern the reason that's a lesser concern is that across the board help, whether and whether some small businesses leave the exchange, that's not gonna impact the individuals on the exchange, because they're their own pool. Oh, right. Yes. Right? Uh-huh. So that doesn't negatively impact them at all. It could help them again with their premiums and their cost share, because it would be a cut across the board, but the actual small businesses leaving or coming into the exchange. The one thing about the association health plans is, because we talk about the level of funding has pulled some good risk out of the exchange.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: No doubt about. But those businesses needed those choices. Other thing though, if you have an association health plan, that may in fact take some bad risk with it. Because now your association, any businesses in the exchange, I mean in the association, you don't get to decide, oh, you could come in and you can't come in, you maybe can come out Tuesday.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: It's Yeah, it's everybody.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: If you're in, you're in. So that means you're taking your good experience, and to the extent you were on the exchange, you're taking your good experience and your bad experience with you into this other pool. Again, the claims have to be paid one way or the other. Wherever you land, claims are going to be an issue. Doing something that attacks the claims is most beneficial. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: That's helpful.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I really appreciate you highlighting all of the various efforts that we've been involved in the last couple of years around affordability with healthcare. That was helpful. One thing that wasn't mentioned is that we are in the middle of hospital transformation, which I think is I mean, I'm optimistic that it will have really positive impacts on affordability in the health care world. And so I am a little reluctant to wanna make a drastic change in what we're doing currently when we might really reap the benefits of that

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: work. And

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: shifting to pools from the exchange just timing is really important. I'm just not sure the timing is right. Yeah,

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: I don't think that the, if you're talking, I mean, certainly association health plans, you're kind of studying that, thinking about that for '28, so maybe there's some time to see what that impact would be. If you're talking about reference based pricing, either across the board or in a couple limited circumstances, then again, I think you're at just like Act 55, the specialty drugs, you're pushing costs down for everybody. Now, do we all want hospitals to be able to be solid and sufficient and be there when we need to go to the hospital? Absolutely. I think Act 55 showed us. Know there are people who are It's not an easy system for the hospitals to be operating in, but it was somewhat long overdue. The only way to make things more affordable is to keep that pressure down. And then we have to make choices underneath that. There's a whole host of choices that have to be made, and I don't plan to be able to even identify all those decisions that have to be made, but there are the right people, the smart people doing that, but we do

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: need to keep that pressure on.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Right, and I think possible transformation goes beyond reference based pricing, but you know, really looking statewide at service lines whatever. Right. You just don't know.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Doing things differently, different center of, yes, all those measures.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I've been here in this seat since Vishka. But in that time, what we've really done, healthcare is very expensive in this country. We are a small pool. We've all went through, you know, single payer and the bill came in and it died because the countries that have single payer pay 50% of their income, more or less. It's single payer plus others, but there is a cost, and it is higher than most Americans wanna spend. And so we've been it's it's kind of you spent your whole time balancing the pain. It's a

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. You got it. And now we're seeing people unable to afford the pay. This bill calls for having us set up so that if and when the feds allow association plans that they to appear in Vermont and we we set the standards. Yeah. Your but there's also there's been testimony. We did it for years merging and unmerging the individual and the small group trying to balance the pain there. You're saying that if we do something because, yes, when we reduce the cost of those, I don't think both Senator Gulick and I are on health and welfare. I don't think we realized how huge an impact that would have. I think we've gone for having Courtney's predecessor come in with her grafts and show us how the wholesale price went down and the price charged went up, and that's it. We're also running the balance of keeping our small rural hospitals afloat. Again, that's national. And so the advice right now is, rather than from you, is it is painful everywhere. Yes, I sit on the board of an organization that self insures, it has fairly young employees and yeah the cost of insurance is hurting. And so we yeah. That's Sigmunds?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And it sonic Yeah. It's pencils. Cyclic base. I'm not

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: gonna hold my breath just yet on that one.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. I'm I'm not holding mine. I'm starting to think maybe this committee should go back and look at pharmaceutical pricing because if you look at the online pharmacies from Canada, it is unbelievable the difference. And these are the same drugs that have been sold to my grandchildren in Canada. I don't worry that they're taking unsafe third world pharmaceuticals. They're all coming from the same place.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Well that reminds me of, I believe there's another bill talking about the GLP-1s and potentially studying that as a mandate. Again, I've been part of the mandate conversations since way, way back. What's interesting about that one is in the mandate world, Senator Cummings, you know all too well, every time you bring just one up, it's like it doesn't seem like that much. It's point 1%. Then they all start to add up. GLP-1s we know from the get go are five percent. When they first came into the market for weight loss alone, so if you have diabetes, if you have a cardiac condition, you need them covered with questions asked, It's part of the treatment plan. But if you want GLP-1s for weight loss alone, we've kind of seen that pendulum switch. We started and Blue Cross had included them in their general plans. Cigna and plans didn't, but you could if you wanted to add them, if you were comparing somebody that was with Blue Cross or was thinking about Blue Cross, we could level that playing field, an apples to apples comparison. Let's include them and see what the difference is. We know from those analyses that it's like 5%. Blue Cross started with that in and then we see that they've taken it out, Cigna's taken it out, MVP's taken them out. It's quite a hefty bill. Now, cost of those drugs are starting to come down a little bit, but there are also other ways and programs for individuals that need them for light loss alone, can go to the manufacturer. There are different other programs to help defray some of that cost, but including that in your insurance as a mandate is going in

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the wrong direction on affordability. I'm just getting quoted health and welfare for saying, we have put all kinds of little grains of sand in those mandates. But eventually, you create a beach. Right. And everyone and now the feds are is talking about making us pay for all the meditated medications.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Which And this one's not a grain of sand. This one, like, you got sand castle built near attaching that as opposed to just these little grains of sand that Yeah. We all, on any given time, doesn't seem so bad at the time till you add them up. Right?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Right. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Any questions, Kristen? Thank you. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here again. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Somehow when we did set up the Green Mountain Care Board, I had this vision of a whole bunch of Fishkill employees pushing desks and chairs down. Okay. Let's go to Emily Brown, who's still on 585. Yes.

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: My name is Emily Brown. I'm the executive director at the Green Mountain Care Board. Prior to this role, was the deputy commissioner of insurance at DFR. I'm here to talk about 585 from the perspective of Green Mountain Care Board. So for those of you, many of you are probably aware that Green Mountain Care Board is responsible for regulating insurance premiums for the exchange. So that includes the small group market in the individual market. With our review of those rates, we're charged with making sure those rates are affordable, also balancing solvency of the insurers who are offering coverage in that market. Currently, there's only two insurers, MVP and Blue Cross Blue Shield. We have an interest in making sure that that market is not only sustainable, but affordable for Vermonters who purchase coverage through the exchange. Five eighty five has provisions that could in the future lead to an expansion of association health plans. I was in this committee and part of DFR when the first Trump administration had tried to expand association health plans. There were decisions made at that time to try to limit the growth of association health plans. I think there was a provision put into law actually that prohibited new AHP's from forming if they weren't compliant with law that It could be in an association with somebody in California. Yes, exactly.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They were somewhat bizarre and wild.

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: Yeah, and so going back to that point in time, this committee and the legislature made that decision because there was an interest in making sure that our small group market, our exchange remains stable and that there wasn't essentially an exodus of all the healthy lives away from the exchange into association competence. So, I agree with the prior comments about needing to make sure that people have options. I also think that, as the prior testimony mentioned, Vermont is a really small state. One premise of insurance is that the greater the pool, the more stable it is, the greater ability there is to spread risk across that pool, which leads to, in many instances, stable premiums and then also lower premiums, because you don't have people coming in the market when they maybe can't access a level funded or self insured plan, and then having to jump back into the exchange because at that point it doesn't make financial sense for them to be level funded or self insured. So it's dynamic that as far as the Green Mountain Care Board's interest in creating a stable small group market, we feel that there is adverse selection against the market when you create other options, And that the fewer people, the fewer healthier lives you have in that small group market, the more you create these other options, especially in a small state like Vermont, the more instability that that small group market experiences. And I just want to also raise the point that not all small groups can self insure the level funded. I again remember being in this committee and hearing from a municipality back in 2018 who was trying to get to a level funded plan and was not allowed to do that because their employees morbidity, meaning the health of their employee pool, wasn't healthy enough or maybe not the right age to access that lower priced plan that often employers are driven to because of the lower cost of the self insured level funded market. The exchange is guaranteed issue, meaning they have to accept all homeowners, all individuals, no matter your health status. I know S-one 190 was mentioned, that's a bill that is trying to stabilize and provide premium relief for the qualified health plan market. That's a proposal that's coming and supported by the Green Mountain Care Board. We support that because if there is no exchange, there is no ability for an individual to go buy a plan right now from Blue Cross Blue Shield Vermont. That is actually not allowed. All individual plans right now have to be offered on the exchange. If we don't have an exchange, there's going to be an uninsured issue. It will either be the individuals who, again, can't go and buy maybe they could buy an accident and sickness policy, essentially like a catastrophic plan, or a supplemental, they're called supplemental health insurance plans. Also, small employer whose risk was not suitable for a level funded plan, if the exchange goes away, it's not like magically then they have an option to self insure. So I think if we're thinking as a state about where we want to put our energy, I think the Green Mountain Care Board's position is putting that towards a market which we regulate. We can guarantee the savings are going back to promoters because that's who's purchasing those plans. Lot of level funded and self insured plans,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: while Blue Cross is a

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: large player in that market. There are other out of state insurers who service, they're called TPAs, third party administrators, who, like UHC is an example, Aetna, who offer their services for self insured groups. But we don't regulate those premiums, so there's no way that we can say to UHC, well, we just gave you a discount off your premium, off the rate you pay for your hospital service, so you have to give that back to your policy holders or your group. So again, I wasn't planning on talking extensively about S-one 190, but it was brought up. I just think that again, policy decisions that can help stabilize the small group market are supported by the Green Mountain Care Board. I also want to address one comment that was made about the death spiral, about our small growth being in the death spiral. I was looking at enrollment figures prior to my testimony, and I think the small root market started at 33,000 in 2014 and right now there's 32,000. So, there's been a lot of fluctuation between then. There's been a lot of things that have happened at the state level and the federal level, which has impacted that enrollment over time. But I would like to push back a little bit on this idea that where the small group market is in a dust spiral mode, we to create an alternative to fix that market. I think we have to stabilize that market. So those are my comments on the AHP section. And I also like to talk about site neutrality. But before I do so, I'll leave it to you to decide Judge, you want me to structure that? You

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: we've not Airborne's position is in this bill, it just sets us up so when the federal regulations are boosted and associations can come back in, that we shouldn't do that? Correct. One does that won't take them out of the exchange, which is where we do have some control over making your premiums go back if they're up. When you form an association, you get enough people to go into the large group market, is an ERISA market, and they don't have to abide by any of the state requirements that things be covered or not covered, and so it doesn't but anything we do that reduces health care costs, which isn't what this committee does, just some of us in the morning, that that benefits across the board. Everybody is benefiting from the reduced cost of specialty drugs. Yes. We are now working on labs and imaging as the next area to get those costs down, but at the same time, watching the financial stability of your hospitals. So okay. This is starting to feel like me.

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: I know. Yeah. Yeah. I'm paying for bills. Like I Yeah. Senator Hardy. So I'm just scrolling through the bill.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: That section of the bill that deals with the associate health is a report. Yes. It's not actually doing it.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: It's just

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: a report.

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: I understand that. But then I think there are also changes to the statute that would be effective. It's my understanding. I think it's section four is how I and and I'll defer to Jen Harvey, but that's how I read the bill. Okay. Jen, I don't know.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: The will has What

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: you mean changes? So there's section four, which is the amendment to the association health plans. Okay. She would be at least three. Is it section three as well?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: This is one of those on the list. Right.

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: A really effective date for those changes. Exactly.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Oh. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, it was

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: to prepare for these So yes, you're exactly correct. There is a study, but then there's also I guess. Okay. Okay. And so I'm happy to move on to site neutrality if there's no questions on my testimony on each So, site neutrality is in this bill that would create essentially parallel or the single payments for outpatient physical therapy services that are in hospitals and then with independent or physical therapy services that are offered outside of hospital settings, so create a uniform rate. Generally, the board is supportive of the idea of site neutrality. I think where we get a little uncomfortable is that the board has rate setting authority right now for providers. So right now we have the ability to do this. I'm sure you're also aware that we are starting to implement reference based pricing writ large for all hospitals. We are currently onboarding a contractor to do a lot of analysis about what should our reference based pricing plan look like, How is it going to impact hospitals? So there's a lot happening right now, not only with reference based pricing, but also transformations. I think we heard earlier, there's a lot happening right now. And so, I think that why it's, again, we don't oppose the idea of site neutrality, but essentially this is singling out one service line for site neutrality. I think our earlier conversation talked about how in Vermont we tend to do one thing here, one thing here, and there's not any clarity here about whether this is going to add or take away cost to the system. So, when we are engaging in our reference based pricing work and starting to talk about provider rate setting, which we're planning to do and we're required to do, I think we just want to caution that if you're starting to, in statutes, set a reimbursement rate for one service, that then could create an inconsistency with how we are approaching other service lines. So there might be a reason to have physical therapists outside of hospitals paid more, right? Or primary care doctors paid more. It's going to depend on where we want those services to be offered. I think we, like I said, we already have the ability to do provider rate settings, so we feel like this is duplicative of our authority that was given to us, and that also is creating a carve out for one service line. I think I'm coming to you with just a concern about creating a one off for specific services, whereas we are trying

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: to take a holistic similar We're another beach, but this is one great beach.

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: A different beach. It's a lot smaller. And I wanna recognize, and I understand the pressures that our independent physical therapists are feeling. They have had some pretty, well, in health and welfare, they've had some very compelling tests. Yes, 100%.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And I don't think we'd wanna lose them. Agree.

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: So how soon might so one other thing I wanted to raise is that this applies to health insurers, meaning that it's only the health insurers in the market that the state regulates. So it's only the fully insured market, meaning this doesn't apply to a risk of plans. That's my understanding when I read the

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: bill. Well, we can't

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: tell them. Well, but the way

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: that Green Mountain Care Board is approaching in our authority for provider rate setting is on the provider side, not on the insurer side. Yeah. So if we're talking about again, this goes actually back to my testimony earlier about the QHP market, is there's an unknown financial impact here. I don't know if Blue Cross is going to try to lower the amount that they're reimbursing hospitals or if everyone's gonna be now, then Blue Cross will be paying essentially all physical therapist hospital rates. I don't know the answer to that. Would Then be that will be a cost. Correct. That cost will only be borne by the fully insured market, which is mostly our qualified health line market. So it's just to say, again, am supportive of our physical therapists and I'm not trying to detract from that. Like, there's a real issue here. But it just feels like, again, we're taking a little chunk and doing something and

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: there's ramifications. Some providers be able to survive. Yeah. But in the process, we could make more people unable to afford

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: health insurance. And again, I haven't seen a financial analysis, so I don't know what if Blue Cross or MVP have come up with estimates of the costs of Yeah. We haven't. Okay. That either. Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Send it. Thank you, madam chair. I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: think, Emily, your point about how you're doing the reference based pricing on the provider side and not the insurer side is so important. And I don't think I've heard it stated as clearly, because I'm not in health and welfare committee anymore, but that is that is the way that you can fly it across

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: the entire market. Can act and

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: set the response. Yeah. Individual parts. And so I think it's really important that we wait for that work to get done and not cherry pick

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: things. We are very tempted to cherry pick. Yeah. And when is

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: your timeline at this point?

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: So, for reference based pricing for hospitals, I'm not I don't wanna I don't wanna mislead anyone. We are focusing on hospitals first. That work is going to be mostly implemented through We're gonna start implementing that through our hospital budget process, not this summer, because guidance has already been set for that, but next summer. You'll start to see the impacts of our reference based pricing plan next summer for the hospitals. I don't want to mislead and say, Yep, we're going to address physical therapists next year, and that's happening, and we don't have a plan for that yet. It was caution about choosing a one off approach. Oh, okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. And then impacting One Health insurance market. There will be somebody else next year that and once we've set the precedent, we'll say yes. Yeah.

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: And we and we I just wanna say too, we did offer similar testimony when

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: this bill was on

[Emily Brown, Executive Director, Green Mountain Care Board]: the house side, but at that time it was different. The the language was different. It was, I think, like our Mary Care providers, It was a different language. It's shifted a little bit. Just to clarify why we're coming in now too.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I think these are the physical therapists and non hospital affiliated Right, right. Primary care has been here. The differential payment systems have but, again, you can pull it all the way south if you're in the middle. The hospital was after me. It could cause bigger problems. Any questions? So some

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Sorry. Not the most positive testimony. But

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: No. There is no positive. Yeah. Yeah. When you get to the cost of. Yeah. Okay. We've got fifteen more minutes before seven. Five. Five.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Good afternoon, Jen. Hardy from the office of the website of council. We are looking at page five eighty five. Hope myself speed along, but I'm just trying out my sense of my questions. So, H five eighty five is an act relating to health insurance reforms. So, you just want the high level overview of kind of what's in it. Yeah, Great. So, the first part is amending the health insurer governance and executive compensation provisions, specifically around nonprofit hospital service corporations. And you heard Blue Cross Blue Shield was the only one of. So, this language, in particular adds two representatives of the public appointed by the governor to the board of directors for non profit hospitals, service corporations, and specifies what they need to consider in their work on the board. And I

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: have been told there have been some call side discussions on this. I won't have an agreement without getting involved, but this was

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: the

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: two who I'm still trying to get ledge counsel to come in and talk to us about the legal responsibilities of the board of directors. I'm concerned about the president. I'm also concerned about putting someone in with the making it difficult for them to abide by the laws that we that we require from a board of director or members member. But if there's something else that's gonna be proposed, that's very open.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Then we have the provisions around executive compensation that requires hospital service corporations to provide certain information about the compensation paid to their executives, provide that to the commissioner of DFR.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Can the director of DFR get that now? I don't I'll

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: be getting some nods from inside of the room, but I a lot of nods over here. We have anyone actually currently employed by DFR in the room.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I know they could put been told they could put an overseer in anytime they want. I can't imagine they don't Do they file a r 90? Yes. Oh, no. That's what I

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: hear from me. You help us?

[Courtney Harris, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont]: Courtney Harris, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont. Our executive compensation data is required to be publicly filed every year at 01/1952 and available on our website. I

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: know we hear every year your percentage of homes are had, which is in there.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: You've to hear from the FR.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm gonna go through the bill then we'll take testimony. But I've got another senator coming in we're really tight, so.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Alright, section two requires existing hospital service corporations to amend their bylaws by September 1 to comply with the requirements of the act. Sections three, four, and five deal with expanding access to association health plans, as was previewed Emily Brown's testimony and conversation with committee members. Sections three and four would amend the association health plan statutes effective July 1, I think, 01/01/2028. And then section five would direct. DFR would come back with a report in January on expanding access to association health plans, including the status of federal law, including whether we would be able to expand access as contemplated in those sections beginning on 01/01/2028. Anything say about impact on the exchange? Analysis of the projected impacts on Vermont's health insurance markets of expanding access, likely enrollments on, effective enrollment premiums for qualified health plans, that's the exchange in the individual and small group markets. So yes, exactly what she's looking at. And then also, in consultation with the Green Mountain Care Board, the potential of expanding access to association health plans on

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the board's health insurance rate review responsibilities.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Then we have defining a sort of technical change, defining high dollar claims for claims edit purposes. We're replacing a reference to high dollar claims with claims that exceed $25,000 per episode of care. This is an existing provision from two years ago.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. Just clarifying that. That way you move to greater prior approval, there were also changes in decoding. Know one insurance company said if they had to, we had to make adjustments then. Is this a further adjustment? I don't think so. I think

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this was something that was requested by the, well, it might have been, it might have requested by the, but I think we heard at least from the major caregivers in the state that this is sort of consistent with their, how they were planning to implement anyway. All this provision says is nothing in this subsection about health plans not subjecting providers to prepayment, coding, validation, edit review, says this particular piece says, but nothing about that provision should be construed to prohibit certain review of a specific provider under certain circumstances, including evaluating high dollar claims. So this is now naming what is meant by high dollar claims claims exceeding $25,000 The

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: number on high dollar claims, right.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sections seven and eight are the site neutral reimbursement for physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training that would require plans to pay the same amount to providers for the same human services in these areas across all outpatient settings, that's section seven, and express them as a percentage of the payer rate of the same item for service. Section eight, ignore the underlying here. This one I think we've done. Yes, okay. So, it requires updates. Section nine on increasing flexibility in health insurance plan design, directs Department of Remodeling Health Access in consultation with DFR to look at the fees availability and potential impacts on premiums and plan design. Health insurers could offer plans in the exchange and in the larger market that don't include the current requirement for out of pocket limit on prescription drugs, as long as they also offer some that do. Section 10 is the annual reporting on healthcare sharing plans and arrangements. And I do check daily for the status of the I

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: think we've got that just list out That's it. What they

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The effective dates, it takes effect on 07/01/2026, except the expansions through the association health plans have taken effect on January 1, and the site neutral reimbursement would take effect on October, and roll out over the course of the following, roll out as provider contracts are entered into amended, renewed,

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: or otherwise effective on or after that date. Yes. So just be clear. This bill, when it comes to association plans, it calls for studies, but it also says that association plans, I hope under some of the conditions we put in in 2018, like you can't be part of a car buyers association in California.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: I'd have to defer to others,

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I think it loosens the restrictions going significantly. Yeah, I'd extend it. Federal law allows associations to form. If the federal law allows associations, there's a study, but this bill also says that association plans will be allowed here? Yes, it

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: expands- expands the scope of association health plans, so I think it does allow for, it removes requirements like that must have been organized for a purpose other than obtaining insurance. And it strikes out a lot of the provisions we have in our law currently to expand access to association health plans. It starts in 2028, assuming the federal law has been modified to allow that. So you would get information back next year, you could make a change next year, because it wouldn't be starting until 2028, although there may be some plan design happening next year. Okay, and so, we should

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: let association plans move forward because they will provide relief to these small businesses which are hurting and some of them are probably cutting back on or dropping down insurance. We've been trying to find help for the individuals who have lost some of their premium assistance and some of them are seeing some huge upticks in cough. Alright. And if we're going to allow them, I suppose the question is under what conditions, but again, Mount Care Board has said that if we allow them to form associations which get you into the large group market is the reason they do that, where the state has no controls that and then if that doesn't work and they come back and the exchange market is in danger because we let them out. And when you switch, you can't go off and on Social Security or into there's a readmissions charge because you haven't been paying your premiums. I mean, so how do you just switch back into the exchange? So those are questions we'll have to pass through this bill. I don't know what the committee wants to do with health care associations. I don't know if Bischka actually wants not Bischka. The FR. Alright. If the FR wants all that information, and that's just a huge amount to process, I am concerned about their being able to save up. We report all our financials to, you know, or looked at by Department of Financial Regulation. On the other hand, as insurance premiums get unaffordable, you may find more people looking for more affordable and if you have a $2,500 claim, you might have a good chance of getting it paid. If you have a $25,000 claim, you might have more difficulty. So and Hardy people have to rip, and they'll take chances. So I don't know how we deal with that.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Okay. Can I ask you a question? I don't

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: you alluded to this, Jen, but I what on page 11 of the graph, this is in the session that would go into effect in 2028 about association health plan. And it does actually, Madam Chair, like, get rid of some of the narrowing on it. The association health plan is and I'm wondering, was there a reason?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Do you know why the house did this? This was the proposal from DFR. Oh, DFR proposed this. Okay. Because it's certain it seems to expand what could be considered an association. Yes. I think that is by law. I think that is there. Yes. And you had a very narrow Okay. What are they We're going on to other subjects. As far as I could see throughout, we're gonna we might get an hour a day

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: or four off the floor.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm I'm gonna just run. Okay. I'm just gonna reach behind. I've not

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: heard. Hennesdale.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Well, she had said they were going to be busy with

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the education bill. I just sent her a message to see if she'll be able to

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: come over but John Gray is also in that committee right now. On on

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the car. Car. He's He's He's the car. Okay.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Hi. Thomas texted me, which is really the way.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Well, we gave your time to Jen Harvey, but we can't get John Gray either because he's in your space. He's with us.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Yeah. So were you giving me my

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: time No. You're it. No. Okay. You're a different subject, but our next subject is nine fifty five. Well, I

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: also have feelings about that. Don't But you want it

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: are we doing PCB?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We are, you are here till 05:42. Great.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Are we live? Okay. We are live. Okay. For the record, senator Keisha Rompinsdale, former moderator of this committee, served on the senate education, and that is why I'm recording today on page five forty two.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: PCB testing and remediation. I don't know that anyone is a stranger to this conversation that is ongoing in the state than in the building. And I will say that senate education, I believe, tried to find a middle path that didn't involve completely ending the program because there is no money in the fund and recognizing that this is not a year where we are going to re replenish the fund. Oh, so what the house version of the bill did was end the PCB tempting program in school. Now the thing that I think is that our committee found concerning about that and why we voted unanimously for this alternative proposal is multifold. One, some schools, you know, are just completing their testing. It it in some ways put the state on the hook to help them, you know, with their testing, with their program, and with their remediation. And I think the undesirable outcome that house that the house was trying to avoid is that you could learn you have unhealthy levels of of PCBs in your air in particular spots on your canvas, and you could have to move kids or teachers or whomever out of that part of the school indefinitely until remediation occurs. And we took lots of testimony from ANR, AOE, and the districts involved to hear about all of the pros and cons of that, you know, unfortunate scenario of having some of the schools tested have really high levels of PCBs that needed to be remediated. I will tell you as a mom that I would I I think now the tube the toothpaste is out of the tube. Most school districts are going to need to do that testing or going to be asked to do that testing regardless of whether or not the state is involved. If the state has no involvement, we have no requirement to support them in the future if they have if they do find high levels of PCBs. And in that regard, with a current lawsuit, I think it's against Mont Saint Chittenden. I can't remember who's responsible, probably speaking. So with a lawsuit in play around this, the only the only reimbursements that will be made if we win the lawsuit or if it settles will be based on costs incurred. And it is much easier for AOE and ANR to aggregate all of those costs, get the money, and distribute it to the school districts than it is for each of the school districts to then have to become a party to the lawsuit to get their costs covered. So I would propose in the future that we look for a way that we the bill proposes that we extend the deadline without new resources. But I would just say what I said in our committee, which is hopefully we can work with appropriations to come up with the approximately $10,000,000 over the next four years, let's say. So 2 and a half million dollars a year to do the the testing for schools by the deadline. And then we can make a much more informed decision as this lawsuit is carrying forward, and as we look at facilities conversations that should be happening at the same time where we wanna know before we get too far down a path, wow, we're not gonna use that middle school. That middle school's now gonna be offline. That we we, the state, help come up with the money to do the testing and not let individual districts have to make a very scary decision about are they gonna test, are they not gonna test.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I mean, my concern, and I've been concerned for years, we haven't tested schools for radon. Yeah. You can't sell a house without a radon test. We know the potential is there. That's something. If you do, it's not a. Maybe you don't have to granted. But we know the potential is there. We know

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: the

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: probability is there. Yes. To just say, sorry. We don't have the money to check and fix it. I don't think, as a state, I wanna go to court Yes. When some child gets sick Mhmm. And say, well, we didn't have the money. Right. And ANR probably told you they were not ANR. Oh, okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: Well, there are different concentrations depending on age. So there was That's that I tempered. Yes. It wasn't this year. Kind of to confirm your point, there are school districts that have said, okay, we gotta put only faculty in this space or high schoolers have to move here and elementary schoolers have to move here because there are different acceptable levels based on your growth level. And we just don't want our elementary I mean, I didn't want the deadline to be pushed out so far that a whole generation more of elementary school kids could be exposed without any knowledge.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Thank madam chair. Can you clarify a comment you make? Because I didn't understand it. You said that the schools are gonna have to test regardless of state. Why is why do the department schools have to test

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: regardless of state?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: Well, I'm this, I think, gets to the heart of the matter is they are they they will not be required by state law to test if we end the program, but they will

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They're gonna be require them to

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: test. Parents.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: They will be part of the group of school districts that were in line to be tested, and then we ran out of money. So if anyone in that community felt that, okay, we were in this line. Now there's no money, so you're telling us you're just ending the testing program. I don't think that answer is gonna be accepted in a lot of our school communities.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I also asked the question of ANR. Mhmm. And I didn't get I didn't think the answer was sufficient. There is a list, and there are the most dangerous, you know, the most problematic schools, and then there's, a middle grade, and then there's,

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: like, a low level of possibility of

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. A probability that you've

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: And they didn't really

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I wanna know which schools have been tested and which ones haven't because the idea was to do the ones that had the most potential for toxins to be tested first. And what I heard was, well, we haven't really quite followed that. So do you guys have a list?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: Mean, that's just not that's I thought I thought the testimony on what's been tested and what information they do have and don't have was clear in our committee, so I can't speak for It wasn't any clear. Of I thought they were in hearing. Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We haven't had them in here.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: You might Maybe it wasn't in maybe it was it was Matt Chapman was here. Oh.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: Yes. Yeah. And then Martine asked him. Did he do his PowerPoint? No. Because it has all of the so from what

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I recall, and I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: could use ballpark numbers, you know, that let's say something like, you know, 300 schools were built before 1980. And so they qualify for testing period. About a 138 schools of that have been tested and have they have found varying levels of PCE. And I remember those numbers.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And the levels vary day to day, whether the windows are open or fans are running or anything.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: That's the problem. That is yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: And and we talked to a district where they said we've, like, done hoops and jumps and the problem is still there. Worse than it was before. It's worse than it was before, but that's really good information for people to have. Right? I mean, you still might not want elementary schools in a facility at all that you can't get rid of the PCD levels. You may decide if you have a consolidation conversation, we're not even gonna turn this into a community center. Know? We are gonna eventually be asking for demolition dollars, and those demolition dollars could be included in the lawsuit against Monsanto. Anything we don't do under the state umbrella, we'll have a very hard time getting reimbursed for. And I think there will be large groups of people in the state who thought their school was on the list to be tested that will want that information.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I think it's a great theory. I think it's a great idea. You don't have the money to back it up, sadly. And there are some really rural schools that if they get tested and their numbers are over our limit, the limit set by the state of Vermont, there's no other school for those kids to go to. And so I like to Where are you

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: in places where they went and learned in a mall, Right? And they

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: available. Yeah. So I I you know, it's great intentions here, but it's it's been so problematic in so many ways.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: And this might be where we disagree, but our committee came out unanimously with proposal because

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Oh, I know. Was in the committee when And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: at least I I as someone who's passionate about school construction and regionalized high schools and things like that, I think this is part of the tail that wags the dog to say some of our buildings are too old and they're too full of PCBs to be part of the conversation about what school facilities are in use in the future.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And just to be clear, when you do any kind of renovation, that testing gets done first.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: And to me, it's an environmental justice issue if it's the districts that can afford to do facilities planning that go first. And they're on their they're all if they're all on their own, then it's gonna be the wealthier districts

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: who do the testing.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: But what happens if a poor district tests and their numbers are high? And then then what?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: Then I mean, so if we weren't involved, then they have to figure that out on their own. Right. If we are involved, then they have a better chance of recouping the cost and working with experts in the state. That's the problem.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: The thing that's changed is that for better or for worse, we now know that schools built before 1980 or between sixty something in '80, which is when the bulk of the schools were built to take care of the baby boom theaters. Right. So we have a whole lot of those schools. Right. We know there are chemicals that can cause cancer in children. Generally do. Yeah. There are more essential. And it may take years. Right. There is there was a new story about a building on a college campus in one of the Carolinas that has had 22 former students whose major had them in that building that have all come down with strange and rare cancers in their

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: late thirties. Yeah. We have a high level of cancer clusters in Vermont.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yes. So we know. That to me says we have some liability, the equity. And to just say, well, we don't have the money, so we're not testing your kids because it might cost money to have to fix it. I've been even said

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: to say you're on your own with all of that. I think that's the question. If some people wanna say you're on your own if you test and find that out, I don't wanna do that, and our committee did not wanna do that. And AOE doesn't wanna do that in ANR as well.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: But it should also be part of the decision. You're looking at if you're going to do consolidation what school there's there's so I'd be exclusively in schooling, but you're going to have at your expense. Okay. We're gonna have to go on this. No. Don't It's difficult. Well, okay. I ask just a question. Yep. I don't know if you did

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: you guys get testimony from the AG's office when you were doing this bill? Because one of the things I think you alluded to And the Department of Health. Yeah. Most specifically the AGs, because you alluded to the state involvement for to be In the lawsuit. Yeah. And and helpful or important in the lawsuit. And so I would be interested in hearing that testimony in here. Mhmm. Like, what is the connection between the state's involvement and the potential viability of the lawsuit that's

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: I may have said that before you came in.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I heard you say it as an as a walk. Oh, okay. So, and then the second thing is-

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: It is, can I say that, can I answer that question a little bit before you can only recoup an expended cost?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: So if the We don't expend any cost, we can't get it. We don't

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: have a chance. And you would then have the district have to be on their own to recoup any costs in that And if the

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: district is on their own. If we were to get rid of

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: this sorry. Put candy in my

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: mouth the wrong time. But if we were to get rid of the program with the districts decide a district decides on its own to do the testing

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: They're not part of our lawsuit.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They're not

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: part of the state lawsuit, but they could potentially otherwise

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: They could try to be a part of the a lawyer. Hire her.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: Sue. Back

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: into her head. I know we're gonna talk about school construction, and there is a way to integrate this whole concept into the school construction as part of the as part of that program. Mhmm. So that it's not this sort of standalone thing, but it's more integrated into what we're gonna do potentially with school.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: And we try to work on that, and we don't disagree. I just wouldn't want to the the big question is whether you end the program this or you extend the deadline. And I do believe the testing should happen. It is. And we should find the $10,000,000 at the state to do the testing over

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the next four nothing. The deadline stays where it is. So, I mean, there is a deadline. Mhmm. Schools have to meet it. If we don't have the money, then the schools have to come up with the money.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: then they're not, even if they hate for themselves expecting the state might reimburse them, if we end

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the deadline, they're no longer part of our program. So that's what we need to do. Sandra Brock. And then I'm gonna move us on, because we have John, and we're going to move. Well, have John.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Well, maybe we brought money with him. Say maybe he brought money with him, so he might want

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: No, we need a $10,000,000 John.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You want $10,000,000

[Sen. Randy Brock, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Just a question. Perhaps you can refresh my memory. It seems to me that there was some controversy regarding, say, the Burlington High School issue regarding the levels of PCBs and so on that were there, whether or not the levels that were there at the time were tested were actually sufficient to demand the renovations or replacement that actually happened. Is this a fixed thing now that we know what we're looking for and we know how much of what we're looking for?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: I'm going to give two generalized answers to those questions and then you probably would want to ask the ANR and AOE. I think ANR and AOE would say they learned a lot from that situation. You know, that was and and I'm sure senator Gulick has thoughts on this, but everybody was like, well, we're moving to Macy's. You know? And then sort of in the aftermath, was, how do we do this better? They did have extremely high levels of PCPs in certain parts of the campus that were not considered taken by both state and federal standards. The second part of my answer to all of this that we I asked natural resources, like, do you wanna get involved? Is there's a question about the standard that the federal government has for PCB levels and the state has. And ours is an air test, and theirs is like the core of a building. And I think I mean, like, I felt convinced that we could be using an an air test, and a lot of the remediation that's been done in high PCB level schools is fans and HVAC systems and things that are not tearing the whole building down. But you really wanna know if you're if you're breathing in this carcinogenic matter, not is it at the in the core of a building. So that is where I don't know that we ever got satisfied that you could do apples to apples with those two, but many of our schools are at levels above what the federal government or the state believes are safe.

[Sen. Randy Brock, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Do we have any evidence of harm?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: That would take some years, and this happens with all of our environmental toxins. When we have a cancer cluster, it might be the super fun site, it might be the asbestos mine, it might be your school.

[Sen. Randy Brock, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Other than schools is really what I'm trying to get at. Do we have any evidence, for example, of harm?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yes, yeah. I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale, Senate Education Committee]: guess what I would say is we didn't ask, Department of Health would say there is significant harm and test after test of exposure to high levels of PCP shows almost, you know, universal harm and especially if you're more vulnerable. So if you get exposed to them when you're five instead of when you're 17, that also makes a huge difference. Did we ask the superintendents, like, have you have you talked to, you know, the kids who are in this elementary school? No. I think we did hear from senator Campion. Right? And so we did hear about what PCB exposure or PFAS exposure, you know, what these carcinogens and things you can absorb into your bloodstream, you know, that we have parts of the state where there are pretty high cancer clusters that have nothing to do with burn pits or your veterans' status, etcetera, but, you know, seem like a cluster of people that, because of their geography,

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: have a higher risk of harm. Okay. We're gonna have to go over this, and we will have to figure out what to do next. We'd love to see the bill make out. I think the United States Department will love to make sure. We've got a few we have to knock out here. Yeah. And I'm hoping the next one is one that's really one we can knock out, John. It says something about fees.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: You wanna get the

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: $6.35?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Alright. That's right. We had you in here for $9.50.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. But I I actually think that's great if if you're agnostic as to ordering. Scott is already here, and then

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: we'll be waiting that. Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. I think I'd rather yeah. I'd like to get $6.35 to release Scott. And then because 955 is not coming out of here today.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: That's not what I Look

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: at those.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We have a couple other ones, 6577 and 753, which I wouldn't mind getting out of here today. So let's see what this one is. Let's see. Let's do this one.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. John Gray, office of legislative council. I am joining the Zoom now. This one will be pretty simple, so I think he will be pleased if you like to solicit. This is a while I'm pulling it up, this is a bill that relates to it's really simple. It does one thing, and it says it five different ways, basically. It's a bill currently, the Commissioner of Corrections has the authority to impose supervisory fees on folks under certain sentencing, basically, parole, work release, that sort of thing. And they have authority to impose up to $30 as I hear the existing practices The fees from From the Inmate. Exactly. Whatever the term Exactly. So, the testimony, before I show you the language, the testimony is basically that the cost, and I think that Scott will speak to this as well, it actually costs more essentially to collect the fees than you gain from the fees themselves, so sort of a That's what I had to

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: say You're in about the principal, but it costs us money, okay.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And of course, some folks have opposition to the principal as well that you should pay for your own supervision. So, $6.35, that really is what it does, but I will walk through the language now and see all the pieces here.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And this came from, with the supervision of your children, maybe.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, this came through institutions before This

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: our institutions, okay. Yes. Okay.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, so it originated on the house side.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: House side in, I assume House Corrections. House Corrections.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Exactly. Yep. I think this was initially from representative Hendrick, if I recall correctly. Yes. Alright. But yes. So h six thirty five. I'm gonna skip past this language. I'm gonna kinda come back to it because it's really a conforming change. Page two, this is the core provision. In title 28, this is the existing authority for the Commissioner of Corrections to impose that supervisory fee. I can read through it as if it was not struck through, can collect a fee.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And it's $30 a month.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Dollars 30 a month. It's for those under supervision of department who are on probation, furlough, pre approved furlough, supervised community sentence, or parole.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay, so you're out and you have to report to a probation and this is either supposed to offset the cost or make you have some financial buy into the program.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that's fair.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And when did we set $30 fee?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This was a long, long time ago.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Like, the 18 hundreds. Do

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you have any notes, Scott?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I said the $30 did not they bought a lot more ten years ago.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: It's for me. It's my husband.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Pre nine pre nineties? It's pre nineties. Yeah. She definitely bought a whole lot

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: more in the nineteen eighties. So

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Yeah. I do wanna call up the next language just to reassure you that this doesn't have some knock on effect that you might not like. So here you see supervisory fees collected by the department shall be credited to a special supervision and victim restitution fund. The thing I wanted to call is this does not affect the victim restitution. There's a separate fund into which victim restitution funds go. So this doesn't disrupt anything related to that. It's truly just for cost of

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: that before the eighties, there wasn't a victim's restitution.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. I think that this call out isn't even to the specific fund that you guys might regularly talk about. And I almost view it as a reference to something more general. It's a fund into which you could deposit both rather than exclusively one. Just wanted to note that this does not have effect on victim restitution. And then you see the authority to adopt rules related to the supervisory piece. So this is the core provision. It strikes that authority even though the commissioner doesn't have it. I'll scroll back up. Here you see that the commissioner is also charged with this general authority, which is not specific to supervisory fees, but being precludes supervisory fees. So to enter into contracts with private collections agencies for the collection of supervisory fees and fines, penalties, and restitutions. If you remove the authority to impose the supervisory fees, you no longer need it or contracts to collect it. I additionally would note that the testimony we heard from DOC was the whole rulemaking they had undertaken for supervisory fees was a rule on using private collections agencies. And we talked about a little bit too. This is really all you need to know, but I'll keep talking anyway. Section two is just to be incredibly clear. So you've removed the authority, I therefore

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: hope so. I'm hoping to have two or three of you. Including this one.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, yeah. You'll get this one out. You've now removed the authority from commissioner to impose these, but in case you didn't know, under sub A, you now prohibit them from imposing the thing they no longer have the authority to do. So that's what A does. It says, DOC shall not assess bill or collect any supervisory fee either directly or indirectly, is basically what it's saying. In any case, you've removed the authority.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. So this, there is just no more fee?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No more supervisory fee.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Okay.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You can't do something like this. But you B, C, and D address some separate questions. So you might ask, well, what about ongoing efforts? What if you're currently engaged in the collections process? What if you already have the fees? They haven't been credited? Something like that. So B says, DOC shopper give all outstanding supervisory fees and they use a web portal to, they can use a web portal to collect some of these payments. So eliminating all references to the outstanding fees in their records in that web portal. Under C, DOC should cease all efforts to collect those fees including through, and then it specifies some of the common ways that they might wage garnishment, tax it off debt collection, and DOC is also required to coordinate with any agency made party to supervisory fee collection to cease collection. You might naturally expect these things to happen. The line makes it clear. And then d speaks to something that does not happen, but says that it can't happen. So on page three, notwithstanding any law, failure to pay the fee shall not constitute a violation of any of those conditions. Okay. But we heard testimony from the department that they don't do this, but this is just saying

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: In case somebody thinks about

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: How do you feel about this?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is definitely They do collect the fee and I think

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: collect the fee right now.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They collect the fee, but there's no real mechanism, I think, to incentivize if you don't choose to pay. I don't think they have strong mechanisms to enforce it, and I think that Scott may speak to this. There's a large backlog of unpleasant disease that take back a long voice. Section three is yet another similar section. It is talking about rule making authority. So as you know, when you adopt rules under the authority of a particular law, if the underlying law that extends the authority is repealed, then by operation of law, the rule that was predicated on that law goes away. And this is just being clear that that's the case. It says, DOC, identify each rule adopted under the statutory authority that you've now repealed. And this is a thing that you're meant to do, but it's nice to have the direction. For each, the commissioner shall notify the Secretary of State of its repeal by operation of law. Again, you didn't have this section, still happened. And then B says, Review your rules, policies, procedures. Remove any references to this now nonexistent thing.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. Where did this did this go through a senate committee?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: This come to us.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It went through a senate.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: But they didn't make any changes.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Didn't make any changes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: The committee just have a really long time to upset.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm thinking this committee had a lot of free time.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: A lot of time.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: It's like repeated three times. Just in case you didn't understand, though.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's some there's there's some clarity.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: What it doesn't say is if somebody's paid these in, they don't have any responsibility. The department doesn't have to pay them back. Right?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. And so that also speaks to why initially this was proposed to take effect this summer and it was pushed back a year to give the department time to figure out how that's

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: yeah. To deal with the trash can?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. It's like That is so. Keep it on their side.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So really simple concept here, and it's in the title. If you just read the title, you would know.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Oh, well, as long as trash can.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Nice work, John. It's just positive. We I

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: know that over here.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No one else works. Thank you, Scott. Alright.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Know, the good slate is there aren't enough trash cans. Scott just constantly is kicking it

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: over to to Chris and me and then we end up with this like

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: pile up of gratitude. Sorry, John.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. Would you like me to turn it over to Scott Moore?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Probably. Yes. Thank you, Scott. You dare

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Madam Chair, can treat

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: you Wednesday. It's not.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Alright. Got you. I can treat you. I did not kick any drivers.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Thank you.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And I don't think we kicked any at you, so we're all

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Yeah, we'll see how it goes. For the record, it's Scott, I'm Ward Grant, the school office. I'm gonna share my screen, I can share the fiscal notes. And I didn't share, I believe John was sharing when the trash channel was being passed, the YouTube world probably didn't see.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: It probably wasn't on YouTube forever.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Not that I can say. Yeah. So just here again, the bill summary would as John just spoke to, this bill would remove the advisory fees. A couple notes in the background of this, Department of Corrections has the authority to charge up to $30 Their practice had been $15 per month for a justice involved individual. With the exception of that, there are some individuals who are enrolled in Reach Out Social Security, Social Security Disability, and the Montage Blind and Disabled program, they will not have to pay this. Individuals accepted by another state under the interstate compact, individuals residing in a residential treatment facility or housed in a correctional, I'm sorry, against correction facility, and individuals who are on co op life will approve exemption requests. So those would not have to be subject to this particular sublimitory fee. So what that looks like for collections, you were talking about public loan, there's an electronic payment portal where they can go online and pay with a debit card or credit card that does have fees associated with it. Those fees are paid for by the Department of Corrections, so those are not passed on to individuals. There's also a lockbox option. That lockbox allows them to use a dedicated post office box, monitored and run through the TV, where they can go and give a check to that post office box. That does have monthly fees for the post office box as well as some transactional fees. And then finally there's a tax setup program wherein an annual rate of repressions would submit a list of accounts that are 90 days old or older and they would then try to garnish some wages as it were.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: So there are fees on the fees? If somebody pays using the lockbox, they have to pay the fee plus the fee?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: The individual would not. The Department of Corrections you are.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: So the Department of Corrections is paying a lot of money to use that a little bit of money.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: You can see this chart here.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And this doesn't talk about the personnel time it takes. Correct.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: So we can see that the revenue of the past couple years, we'll have $300,000 FY25, FY24. The operating costs are the costs for the ePortal for the LOPOS program, and then therefore your net revenue FY25, 283,000. That revenue would not exist anymore. That's one thing to note. And

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: it's going into a special fund? Correct. So this doesn't impact the budget that we just have?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: No. Section two of the bill does talk about forgiving outstanding collections that are out there. You will note that above one hundred and twenty days is roughly $3,300,000 for grand total currently as of last month, 3,500,000 in outstanding supervisory fees, which goes to show the lack of enforcement really that they can't, there's not that they can do really effectively collect this money. And one thing I would point out, the Department of Corrections did mention that although this chart does show one hundred and twenty plus days, most of this debt is years and years and years old. So it's not just like suddenly They

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: don't just write it off after a year

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Often or times you look at bad debt banks six months from a year old or some of the stuff is just really limited.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We are never going to collect.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Most likely. Yeah. It does look like that we don't collect about half, maybe a little more. Does that operating cost include chasing around the accounts receivable? It

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: does not

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: necessarily include that. This is just the cost of the fees. Now the Department of Corrections did share, which is not my fiscal note, but I'll just share that with you, some testimony that they had, which I can show you what they had.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: But the interesting thing about those numbers is between the 60 and the 120, it went, like, from 50 some thousand dollars to 3,000,000. Yep. Normally, you'd expect it to to go down as you if you were trying to collect it. So have

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: to show just how old it's

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: been sitting down? Yeah, and the odds that you're gonna collect anything are pretty minimal.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: So Senator Mattos, your question here, this is the overall cost for serosional snapshot provided by department collections. What they're showing, if you look at that FY25, they collected $303,000 in these fees with staff and effort, time. They're suggesting about, I think, over 5% of their time spent on this. That cost of credit is about $560,000 So $5.60 to get to $300 You're having an operating loss of $2.56 per year. It effectively costs more. If you think about it this way, I don't have the exact numbers to quote me, but I remember from testimony, Department of Corrections said there's 4,000, 5,000 just as involved individuals on parole right now. If it takes five minutes for 4,000 people just to go and check once a month, that's $300 a month, roughly, something like that. People's time to go out and say, don't forget this month you gotta pay your fee. Don't forget this month you gotta pay

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: your fee. So there's a substantial cost to the operations of the department to be able to collect these creatures. Gas mileage isn't going down. Not

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: to mention that.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: No. Let's see. Okay. So it's costing us money just to chat. At best, if you are a person that is really trying to get back off your feet, you're on the roll. You've got a family. You're trying to get a job, and you are trying to stay clean and pay your debt. This is just pushing you where and and setting you up to fail, and it's costing us money to do that, and the people that aren't gonna pay it aren't gonna pay it. Correct. And $30 in the 1970s, you know, this would then in those times, the eighties, that was a significant amount of money. You made $35,000. When I moved here, teachers in Montpelier were making $18,000 a year. When I got out of school in Boston, it was $7,000 to $8,000 That was the last four of the farmhouse. Yeah, that was real money.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: But

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: it's not anymore. The Public Corrections did

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: have a graph here about showing this is their graph showing the amount of money collected versus staff only spent to collect. Now there is Department of Corrections numbers. One thing they did mention as well is wage garnishment often that go to child support versus, you know, that's I

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: think we probably wanted to go to child support first. Corrections says get rid of it.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: The Department of Corrections testified that this would in fact be less revenue for them. At this point they are not necessarily in favor of the bill. It would be pushed out a year so it wouldn't have an impact on FY '27 budget, wouldn't start up with '28. But because of that, they haven't looked at housing in place with that.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They wouldn't have the expense, because it'd still have the personnel, they'd just be doing some other things. That would be Okay.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I don't wanna say more worthwhile. Is that what my Or they would they would might not generate revenue. No. But then give them more time to spend with each other.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Way. Do bake sales.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Pretty big bake sales.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: So, Chastor, somebody can do this. No, doc. You should've taken a picture of Joan, I guess. Using Montpelier jail cell as a dressing. I mean, that's She got a kick out of that. Wow. What? Joan Baez came to Montpelier City Hall, and they had turned our one unused jail cell into a dressing room in City Hall. She did get a kick out of that. I was saying if we had a picture, we could have sold autographed pictures of that. She's thinking. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm gonna give you a few minutes to ruminate, but I'm

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I don't know.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: This so Let's vote. This k. If you're ready to vote I move h six thirty five We concur with the proposed house as passed by the house. Oh, okay. It said it was by the institution. Yeah. Because institutions didn't make any change.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Correct. Did they add

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: a section to repeat the others?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. Senator Hardy has moved that we approve age six thirty five as passed by the house and sent to also passed by senate institutions. Are there any further discussion? Are there any amendments? Okay. Hearing nothing, I'm gonna say all those in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Do you want me to? He would would ask ask that. Oh,

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Alright. Alright. Alright. Thank you. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We've got until four to

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: to us about school construction.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know what you guys want to hear, but I'm happy to come up.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I don't No. We didn't have to choose to

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm fine. So I'm about distract

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: because we were No. And you have Oh, is

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: that what John's here to talk to?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: No. I mean, not on this. I wanted to show it to you first. Okay.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I'm gonna try to be two places at once this afternoon. I'm gonna go on a zoo. That's all.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. Well, let's still have some bodies in this Oh, no. Cheers, ma'am. Alright. Cheers. We are still trying to get through this bill. So when it comes to us on Tuesday, we will be ready to vote it out on Wednesday. Told them bad chance, but maybe we'll get there. There isn't everything in there that has to do with revenue taxes is contingent on everything else happening. And I have a feeling that as the contingencies come, go, and get changed, that then we will need to be making adjustments. But this is really flushing out things that were in '73. And, John, I don't know. There's a couple sections. School construction is one. Can we just well, we know this is going to go to bonding and but so that's one. The other one is it's probably one we wanna look at. We've looked at the mechanism for setting a second homes tax, but that money is in this bill being targeted to covering the cost of the homestead, some homestead, whatever we end up with tax abatement, rather than putting the cost of that abatement back into the overall cost of the system at raising everyone's tax rates to offset the cost of some people paying less. Senator who will need to get in at some point. Tomorrow. Tomorrow she's coming in, but at if it is the same, and I think it's very similar to the bill she sent us earlier this year, is going to propose that that second homes tax go in sooner and that the money goes to school construction, which would have an impact on our ability to actually lower everybody's property tax rates if we don't include the cost of buying down some people's rates in the overall fund, but raise revenue outside, then it's it's going to lower rates.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: But, yeah, is that currently all the money that we're spending on school construction, whether it's through debt, you know, repayment or deferred maintenance? I mean, that goes to the bottom line of our, of the Ag fund and so you know? Well, it's

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: not it's not fee. Yes. That's

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: what I mean. Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: So it does affect our property taxes. Right. But we're moving.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I mean, if we use this revenue to do something other than buy down the tax rate, and I will have to ask Julia if we can figure out we did. How much? So, senator Beck, you had numbers last year where we figured the cost of the fly down, the sensitivity, buy down, and what it if we do if we weren't buying those down

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Oh, yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: People would be paying less because that money wouldn't be coming out of the

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Right.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: It would be being added to the overall money that he raised. The exact

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: percentage. But it's a, yeah, significant percentage of people that get the credit would be better off if we didn't even have If we didn't have a credit. Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And that's the problem that you need to sign that. I have to go into that. Okay. That's the problem that the house in Acts 73 were solving with the second homes. And we won't know until we know how many second homes there are. There are some estimates, but it's I think it's, like, two to one based on some very preliminary numbers that the tax department pulled, but we won't know actually what's out there until they they finish updating all the grant list, which will be a year from now. So that's where we are, and we're theorizing. So, John, what do you have?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I don't I I today he's gone in a strange way. Okay.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: What would you like to talk to?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I can really only speak to the school construction section I of the do know that Herbie is watching if you want to talk about

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: He may appear in the doorway too.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. But to the extent that you wanna talk school construction, can do that. And there's different ways. Obviously, we've gone over the language a couple of times. I don't know if books have reactions to those things, if they just want me to pull it up. There's also proposals that they

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Right now, as I'm remembering, this proposal is that schools would bond.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And the state.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And the state. It would go through the municipal bond bank. Or some of it would go.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, you're recalling the discussions around the Rhode Island model. Yes. So that is the portion of the program that is through the debt service subsidy, and the idea there is to have folks bond locally, that would be done through the bond bank, protected credit rating of the state. But separately, that's what was contained in Act 73. Separately, the House added these state bonding support provisions, which could, we don't know, but they could impact the state. So tied to that determination is a request for the treasurer's office in consultation with CDAC to get a recommendation on what kind of state bonding support could be provided without hurting the

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: So we're still looking at the Rhode Island model with the potential that we could also do some bonding at

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the Exactly. State

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: That's right.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. Alright.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: So Something I have I've been working,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: as you know, working on this section with John and and others to try to clean up some of the questions that came over with the draft. Like, the things that work didn't work, but also to make some other changes based on our discussions and what I've been hearing.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: But I wanted to Talk to me.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Talk to you first about it. And then we're We're on the floor. So, I mean and and there's still work to be done. Like, I haven't actually I've gone through it. I have but I'm, you know, I'm trying to help make things a little smoother by trying to work through some of the problems. I have it, but I'm it's up to you, madam.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: No. I mean,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I don't want to If

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: you don't feel ready to share at this point.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I could be ready by tomorrow as long as you and I and John and get a chance to talk about it. And that's That might

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: but Yeah. I mean, finding time. We've been on the floor until we start committee. Right. Tomorrow, I'm starting at 07:45. This is getting crazy.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I mean, I can we can go through it as long as everybody understands. It's a draft. It's just a Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: A draft. It's just a thought. So you can get the feedback here, which might help. If you're

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: open to that. Yeah. Okay. Because we've Both people have time. You have a job. A couple hours.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Do want me to pull it up?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Sure. And I will say there are some things in here that that are not

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: this is not ready for prime time.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Exactly. Although it's gonna be live on YouTube. So this

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: is because this the already process is Yeah. Throwing something out there for our thought process. Okay. Can you before sorry.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Could you mind before you get into the exact language what you're trying to do? I know there are Yeah. Like some So implementation issues.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I mean, so there were couple things in the the draft as it came over from the house. I mean, just sort of generally I mean, the first things you're gonna see in the draft, just looking at the the order of the way it goes, is that you recall from the draft as it is from the House, gives the agency four positions, but doesn't actually fund those positions, and it just says you have to come back next year to request those positions. We did that this morning. But it also asked them to do rule making and do various things, but as you heard we heard from the agency, they can't do any of those things unless they have positions. Well, in the

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They have Senate a program anyway, which I didn't share.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: They have a division, but they don't have

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: all Anybody in.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: They have one person.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: So, in the Senate budget, is $1,500,000 on top of the $1,400,000 that was in the house budget for education transformation. Okay. A 1.5 so it's 2.9 total. 1.5 is not allocated yet. It's just there. So in this draft, I use 500,000 of it to fund those four positions so that they can and they're since it's one time money, there's they're in there as limited term positions for one year, and then they have to come back and ask for them for permanently, but at least it gives them four positions to get started. So that's part of what is in the draft. And then as we heard from the both the agency and actually Senator Ralph Hinsdale made a reference to it, that we created a few years ago, and I don't know when, maybe John does, a Facilities Master Planning Grant Program, but we didn't fund it. And this is a program to help school districts do facility master plans. So the rest Fund it. Okay. Exactly. We didn't fund it, but this would be helpful to school districts

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: to make the Someone around called us on that and told them what it

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: be. Yeah. And I don't remember when we created it. It was I

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: could find out at least somewhere between 2018 and 2021.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Wanna Yeah. So it was a while ago, and we didn't fund it. And or maybe we funded it briefly, but didn't keep it going. So this would fund it. So right now, the draft just plops the Plops. Plops the other million dollars into the Facilities Master Plan. Now I don't

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: know if that's how much

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: we wanna put into it, but we had 1,500,000. So we- We need to make sure that appropriations doesn't have their audit. Right. And I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: talked to I talked to Senator Perchlich and let him know that I was contemplating. I talked to Senator Baumgartz also about it. So they and I wanted to talk to you before doing So

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: You did not get the talk.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Right. So, we're so that's part of what's in here is trying to, you know, staff up the agency and also pay for school districts and maybe CISAs or supervisory unions to start doing some of these facilities planning to the extent some of them already have, but not all of them. It it pushes out the rule making. The the house draft pushed the rule making was in 03/01/2027. That's probably unreasonable, so it pushed

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: it to 2028. And then Yeah. The four positions going to

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the AOE, are they they all each have, like, a title and Yes. And a purview of work that they're gonna have

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Out. Yeah. So they Act 73 asked the agency for a report back on school construction and and the positions they would need for the school construction division. And they and that report came to us in December 2025, and it said that these are the positions we need. So those were the positions that the house put in their draft but didn't fund. Mhmm. So this draft funds them. So they those are the positions they asked for. This would fund them. And you might recall deputy secretary Brooks Campbell also said, hey. You should fund these facilities planning. Yes. So this

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: is one who's very different. Yes. And

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: then maybe do you want me to send this to Charlotte so it

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: can be posted if people wanna look at it?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Or John can pull it up.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Can you can you actually send it to Charlotte?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. You have it. I sent it to you. Yes.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Is this on the website?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Not yet. Because I just sent it to her to print because I can't print from my computer. So then there was also this rulemaking that the agency was supposed to do. They pushed the date to March '28, but they're supposed to create rules to address the prioritization and bonus incentives for school districts to get the aid from the state for school construction. The house had put that language in, but that hadn't really defined what the bonus incentives were. So this draft tries to better define what the bonus incentives are that the agency is supposed to make rules about. That's really important. Yes. It is. So one of the the bonus the three bonus incentives that are that they have to make rules about are one, consolidating school governance structures. So this is sort of

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: like, you know, one of the carrots to merge. That was my question. Are we just going to fund pods of schools or is this going to be part

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: of The draft sort of walks it through like how the so bonus incentives would, one for mergers or consolidation of school governance structures. They they could get bonus points if they're doing that. The other is for improving access for public school students to excellent educational opportunities, including CTE, shared special education services for high need students, and improved comprehensive curricular offerings. It could get bonus points if their school construction project is gonna do those things. And the final thing that they could get bonus points for is remediating or eliminating health and safety issues. So this is the connection to PCBs. The PCBs. So if part of what they're doing is, you know, remediating that, they could get bonus points. And the bonus points are on top of the base amount, which is the base amount is I do make changes to that too. I'll You're doing this all with a million dollars? No. No. This is this is creating the program. The program. But yeah. Not it will have to be funded. Yes. And now we'll get to that part of it. So then the the house asked the state school state aid for school construction advisory board to do this, like, very comprehensive report that would have suggested where, in in part, one of the things was to suggest opportunities for the construction or renovation of regional high schools. This draft greatly reduces the the scope of that report. This this board itself sent a letter to the the the who did it go to? It went to ways and means, I believe.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I it's also I know. I think it's supposed to have heard Senate Ed today.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: So Yeah. So Senate Addison at ways and means. And, basically, this advisory board was like, we can't do that. We're an unstaffed board, you know, board. We don't have the the ability to do it. So I shrunk down the report more, and, also, we made it clear that they have they will have the support of this the staff that we just gave to AOE in doing this. So that's in there. What

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: page do want?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm on page six.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Would you like for me to screen share?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Oh, yeah. Sure. As I'm walking through this. Then the state aid for school construction program, we added some intent language that just it is the intent of the general general assembly to clarify that the state will not offer aid under the program until the general assembly has received the treasurer's recommendation on the total state bonding and annual debt service subsidies to be awarded under the program. So, basically, until the treasurer recommends how much we can bond for, we're not gonna promise that we can bond. And that the agency has operationalized its school construction division and completed goal making. So there's there's this process that has to happen and

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: looks like 1.1 was That's what I have.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Oh, it's 2.1.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: That is 2.2. This

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: is two point know, but you know, the site, I was

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: trying 2.1 is what you printed for me this morning, Charlotte. Oh, yeah. Take 1.1 down. That's not your first. That's okay.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I will send you two points.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Thank you.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Thank you, John. So then the there's a there's more intent. There's a lot of intent language. Part of it is that half of that 73 is kind of intent language. There's still more of it. And it's further the intent of this chapter to prioritize dual construction projects that align the creation of new school governance structures under legislation passed by the general assembly. That's this so I didn't change this. This is the way it came over for the the house, the that intent language. So then the state aid for school construction program, a lot of this is current law that we passed in act 73, and it continues section seventy, seventy one, 72. I didn't make changes to the current this current law. The one thing I did there are two yes. So starting on, age 11, there is a slight change. This is something that John pointed out that was a little funky in current law that the applicant achieves a level of proficiency in the school district quality standing standards regarding facilities management. And this was just a self kind of like, I'm proficient. We're proficient. And so I changed it to demonstrates proficiency.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They have

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: to show that they're actually proficient, not just say that they're proficient in their application. And this is part of the application process.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is one of the eligibility conditions.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah, one of the eligibility conditions. Thank you. And then on page 12, this is tying it even further to the PCD question. So if you're applying for state aid for school construction and your school building was constructed before 1980, the applicant must complete an indoor air quality testing for PCBs that was conducted according to the DEC standards for testing. So this is further tying it to, like, hey. You know, we're gonna you're applying for state aid. We we need to you need to do PCB testing as part of it, and then then the remediation would be part of the school construction aid that you would get in your project you would get. So this is sort of helping along the school construction and the PCB stuff. The next change

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Do want you me to talk about this?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah, I don't know what this is.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the highlighting here in the priorities, you'll recall that when I walked through the house version, I talked about some of the sequencing issues that arise from not knowing your state aid package and just confirming the way that the authorizations for bonding work. Senator Hardy had pointed out, it's really just you approve of half the amount and the panel may actually go out and bond for less. You're just authorizing a larger amount. So we'll come to some ballot language later in the bill that deals with the sequencing of authorizing a bond and doing yourself a little bit strict spending ballot. But this is just saying the sequencing, you can there's a way to work it where you can have authorization prior to prioritization. Just don't issue the bonds till you know that, hey. Basically.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Feel a lot of what John and I were talking about was, like, how how what is the order of operations here and how do we make it all work? So for example, if you Yeah. Have a project that you know is gonna cost $50,000,000

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Right.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: But you that's the total cost. But you might get $5,000,000 of state bonding with us. Yeah. And maybe $5,000,000 of state aid, and maybe you get a donation of a million dollars. So that brings down the cost of 39,000,000. Yeah. I did that math. Right?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: You're gonna you're gonna authorize you're gonna ask the voters to authorize. I think you have to author have them to authorize the full 50,000,000. So that's what is authorized. But when you issue the bonds,

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: you would only issue $39,000,000 of it. It's like an electorally difficult decision.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: That's what

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I was gonna say. There's really two. One is just a this is the kind of language that was used when it was routed through the capitol bill, so people have done this approach before. But to your point, that's exactly what I was kinda writing, which is, you know, it does mean the voters have to be willing to authorize Yes. An amount that may not be what they end up paying. But this is more than what It's gonna be more.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. This isn't

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: already happened, for example, you know, my town issued approved a bond for a library that was, I think I can't remember the total. It was, like, $17,000,000, but then we went in a town like went out to to the voters that, you know, we are committing to raising $6,000,000 in private funding and getting a grant grant money for 2,000,000, 2,500,000, or something like that. So when we when the town issued the bonds, it was far less because they were able to offset it. So

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I mean, it's great. Yeah. Just how they

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Exactly. I mean, it is it is a it's a it's it's a communications issue. And, I mean, this also happens for, like, wastewater treatment bonds and things like that where they get state money out of the bank. You don't get.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Yeah. Sequence of grant. Exactly. 39,000,000 way back when and same thing.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. So I think it's it already happens, but what John and I talked a lot through was, like, how how do we sequence this and then do the ballot language to make it work. So so that is pay oh, so the next is page well oh, no. Page 13.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Wait.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Page 13. Yeah. So this is Clarifying. Clarifying that this the school district will not issue the bonds until the secretary has notified the district of the state bonding support. So, they they find out what their state aid is before they issue the local bonds. And then there's a lot of stuff. That's all bad. Oh, Bottom of page 14. So as the bill came over to us, the base amount, this is the section that shows what the award of state aid is. And the base amount as it came over to us was twenty

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: percent?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Fifty fifty.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: 50%. Right. It was current law says 20. That's what's past '73 put in there was 20. Like, the house upped that to 50 and then upped the bonus aid to 45%. So this draft reduces the base amount to 30%, keeps the bonus aid at 45. So the bonus aid would be based on those three things that I mentioned before, the merging, the excellent educational opportunities, and the health and safety. They can get bonus aid if they meet those things based on the rules. So the total, the most that you could get was, district could get is 75% of the aid. And that would be like the next, you know, they got all the bonus points. Then top of 15, this, I'm not sure why

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, part, this is a presentation thing just for showing while I'm drafting something is less necessary here. Formerly subsection B in the House section had a different solution to the sequencing problem.

[Maria Royal, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, right.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It included language here that said funds shall not be released until you've authorized the bond because you've now steadied the language and said, well, you can authorize prior to this, but just don't issue the bond. This is highlighting just indicating that that language has been dropped. It will make sense to no one but me that that's what it's gonna take. Thank you. And

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: then we just added the word annually. The treasurer will, in consultation with CDP, recommend how much bonding authority in case it changes on an annual basis. Then going down to the legacy debt aid, which is on page sixty sixteen. The legacy debt aid was put in there by the house for a number of reasons. One, because the foundation formula doesn't actually include debt. So, it doesn't pay for debt. So, districts that have current debt right now, it's not as the foundation formula is created right now, it doesn't take into consideration the cost of the debt that a district already has issued. And secondly, it it can be a barrier to merging if one district has a lot of debt and another district doesn't wanna merge with them because they don't wanna take on their debt. Now, of course, if you have a lot of debt, it usually means you have a beautiful building. So you're gonna get a nice building potentially. So there is a cost. But the point is is that this house had the sets at a 100% of that legacy debt be be covered. I, first of all, tied this in this draft that to be eligible for legacy debt aid and maybe, John, you might need to weigh in a little explaining on this, but this was sort of tying it to, like, you have to actually be part of a merger study committee and act in good faith, except for that we

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Yeah. Think one

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: of those.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the concept began from extending eligibility for legacy DFA only to school districts that act in good faith as part of the study committee process. As you'll recall, you may recall, I don't know, it's a big bill, section 15 has a final facilitator report that comes and says, here's the results of the different study committees. If you were to impose a requirement here that said they need to be, one thought I had is to try to link the, it's hard to make an assessment if someone's a good pay participant, right? Like, could show up and act as literally infeasible. What is being asked to do? So when you show up, you say, We're not doing this, I'm done. Not that you're a bad faith participant, it's just that it's literally not possible for you to participate. So it might be harder to make a good faith determination and that's also a huge demand on that facilitator evaluation to ask, did everyone participate in good faith? It's easier to make a slightly smaller determination, which is were they a bad faith participant? So the default state if you chose the good faith group and were leveraging the section 15 report is, the default state would be unique if you're not picked yet and you have to be found to be a good faith participant to receive Legacy Debt Aid. In this case, it's the opposite. The default state is you are eligible to receive legacy debt aid unless the facilitator in this report says, determines that you're a bad faith participant. So it changes the default state and it reduces the burden on facilitating to make this determination. Still a question whether or not they could make it, but this was one idea as to how to try to get this good faith participation kind of idea from the other side, which is by default you're eligible, but you're kicked out if you just really did not participate in your study committee process. Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: So it was, you know, somehow trying to tie the legacy debt aid to the merger process and participating in the merger,

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: but not say If it's a deterrent to the merger, that So

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. And I mean but it's

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I mean, an example, and

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm sorry to use Burlington all the time, but Burlington has legacy debt. Debt aid. So Chittenden. The legacy debt aid will be helpful to Burlington, but they might not need to merge because they're already working at scale. Right. So tying it to them emerging isn't necessarily fair. But if Burlington still has to Burlington would still have to be part of the merger conversation and show up and not be a bad faith actor. The end result might be that they say, it doesn't make sense for us to merge. That's not being bad faith, as John said. That's just saying this doesn't work for us and doesn't isn't necessary. But if they show up and are just like, no way, or just don't show up, then maybe they're acting in bad faiths. That's so It's a slightly different take on it. New one. But it's nuanced, and maybe there's a better way of doing it. But this is what we came up with as we were trying. And this also, the legacy debt aid is reduced to 75 percent so that it matches the the aid for the new debt. So legacy debt and new debt, the maximum you could get for new debt is 75% in there, and that matches with the legacy debt.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: So that was my my question on fees. So it seems like the the legacy debt, they get 75%,

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: but the new debt can get up to 75%. And with the bonus that I've seen. And So and

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I think that part of this was, you know, if we don't pay for it this way, then how where where's that money gonna come from? Because it's not baked into the foundation formula. The 25% that's not paid for this way could be paid for by the supplemental district spending, but it would require another vote of the voters because supplemental district spending requires a vote. So, this is is just trying to make it equitable. And then on the top of page 17, this is the aid that's awarded. This is essentially a categorical aid grant to pay for this legacy debt in the as it came over to us from the house, this number was 61,000,000.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. So I think it works this way, but I also don't know what the annual variation of debt service cost is. The way that I have the $45,750,000 figure is I just multiply 61,000,000 by point seven five. But if they don't work out flatly in that way, right, like if there's a variation, 75%, we would need to ask the question, but I think that it is this figure.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: And where does the $45.07 50 come from?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the initial 61,000,000, which I think the question you are asking, was the estimated maximum annual impact for all existing debt service costs as of that deadline. So the worst year you could be hit was 51,000,000, and then this multiplied that by 75,000,000.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Where does where does the revenue come from to pay the age?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, I I I don't know where the revenue

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I think it would just be it would be

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: a line it would be a line on the education.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, yeah. You you will recall that as I walked through the first time I said, you don't know the revenue source from.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. I mean, it's, you know, where everything else goes.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I should say another thing about this section that's maybe not it's not apparent here because it's in the effective dates.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: In the house construct, this does have backed up July 1, although without a revenue source. In this case, section 74 is made contingent.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. This 31,000,000 on the end, this year. So not in the drafts. No. Notice But mention that.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This section is 07/01/2030, and it's contingent like the foundation formula. So only your Yeah. The foundation formula and all those pieces came into effect with the legacy decade coming on. Let check that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Almost kinda like that. It's it's one of the many contingencies.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: By the end, it'll be paid down for a couple more years. Yeah. So then

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: on page 18, there's a lot of yellow. This is the conduct of meetings and the ballot language for these things. And, John, I'm gonna ask you to walk through this.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So this is a section I wish that I had been aware of previously. I'm sort of embarrassed that I did not know this one. You guys have seen before the ballot language for the school district budget and the sub loan district spending budget, but there is specific ballot language for school district authorization for indebtedness, and so that's what this section of existing law speaks to, and it shows the ballot that would be provided. The issue that's trying to be solved here is that earlier sequencing problem, and the kind of concept before I get to the language itself that's in this draft is that you would authorize the total amount of the project. That's not necessarily what's gonna be issued. That'd be the first thing you do and then you would use the valid language that you'll see shortly. Then you would receive your aid package. Once you have the aid package, you would go for a supplemental district spending vote. Oh, bless you. Bless you. And then you could say the supplemental district spending vote, because you're issuing the bonds on the basis of the aid package that you perceived, what the supplemental district spending tax rate would be to cover those annual costs. To even further complicate it, you only authorize supplemental district spending tax to cover the ongoing annual debt service costs at the initial authorization. There's two different balance for supplemental district spending, so we're gonna see many different balance, but this is just talking about the incurrence of the authorization for bonding, it is not the issuance of bonds. So, there's a couple of cleanup changes here to reference the agency of education instead of the state board with the transfer of duties. And this is the language that's existing in life. In part, it speaks to what happens if state aid is not gonna cover all the portions of the project, and you have to include this kind of clarifying language warning the voters essentially, you know, that the full cost may not be covered under the formula, but you're gonna be liable. And it estimates the percent of the project that might be ineligible. Again, more cleanup changes, disclaimer that state funds may not be available and district is responsible for all costs incurred in connection with any borrowing done in anticipation of the state school construction aid. And then here's some new disclaimer language that you have. So at the point of this, you're going out to see if the voters wanna authorize indebtedness for school construction. It would say in and I think it's in bold language, warning ballots shall contain the following, so forth in boldface.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: And that's current law. Word that's that's from when we used to have one of these this program. Yeah.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Annual debt service costs on the bond shall be raised with the district supplemental to expending tax. So you're signaling to folks, this is where you're gonna be feeling this. And then any bonded indebtedness incurred for school construction shall constitute an ongoing obligation of the district that is not subject to annual authorization. So here's where you're fill it, supplemental certificate acts, and you're only gonna authorize it once, so don't expect to see this every year. Separately from the ballot language including the disclaimers, there would be a public informational hearing that sets out certain information, and it would include the following factors. In existing law, it speaks to the percentage of the cost of improvements that wouldn't be eligible for state school construction aid, and that is like the language that we saw above, right? That disclaimer to the voters.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: This is included in the hearing, Doctor. Bethesda?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Yes. This is information provided outside the ballot itself, and it's important to note too because the ballot could become quite complicated.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I vote year one to authorize, and that's my supplemental spending. Mhmm.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: make that payment every year.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Wow. I think

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Is that my supplemental spending for the next twenty years?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You will not know the exact rate that you would be charged for the next twenty years because it would vary annually based on whatever the supplemental spending yield is. However, I should say, we don't expect that yield to vary in the same way that the current yield does, because that yield is truly just a function of whoever the lowest tax and capacity district is. So it should be more stable is the thinking. It also varies based on your long term membership, your student count, because that's going to affect what per pupil spend is, which affects the way that your rate is calculated.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Basically the payment will, with all the variations that go on, it will either be all good part of the school's ability to spend over and above foundation for twenty years.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: What the language is trying to do is signal to them, you are authorizing something for a twenty year period, and you're only doing it once. You are gonna know

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We do that now,

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Exactly, we do it now, and the difference that folks pointed out in the house, or the way I try to sympathize with the house's position on why they want a new one, which end for this, although it is an existing problem, is that in your current system, there's an annual budget anyway. There's always an annual budget. You may not have an annual

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: It's something happened what you can spend above any amount. Except what your voters say. So And you can that's in your base budget, so you can ask next year for Yep.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And you can offset potentially depending on the constraints you have. You could offset those annual costs with other kinds of expenditures. Here, you can't really do that because you're just receiving the EOP, and this is within your supplemental share of spending. But but getting to your point, this informational gearing, which again is separate from the ballot, so this is not gonna be filling out a really long ballot to confuse the voters. It's including estimated tax rates for the future, and it's saying, here's the estimated tax rate that would be required to pay annual debt service costs on the bonds under these eight scenarios. And it says if you got no aid, if you got the base aid, and if you got the maximum aid, these are the supplemental strict spending tax rates you would face based on and what you see in these sets of assumptions. It is complicated, but this is trying to provide at the authorization for indebtedness all the kinds of information that folks would want to know about what they might reasonably expect their annual local supplemental extracurricular tax rate to be.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: You'll what the have to do a lot more than one hearing to get your voters to approve. I mean, it just takes a grassroots effort. We are running a I

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: can be quick, yeah. It would notify them that even though you're seeing these estimates, it's going to vary annually. Next is the supplemental interest spending balance, so separate from the balance Okay, for the

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: think we can move through the balance.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And it just distinguishes between your normal, this is your normal supplemental interest spending mode, and then you'll see there's a separate vote, that one time authorization. So that's what's set out, it's the two separate authorizations. Then there's just some cleanup changes. I'm happy to stop here, but also we can, of course, come back to the ballot language itself.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. I mean, the the ballot language looks more confusing than it is. I mean, I think it it is it is not radically different than what kind of we do already. It's just laying out the difference what will happen when we have the spending of the supplemental district spending. And then there's the last changes are just in the effective dates about the legacy debt aid and the school districts incurrence of debt and putting those in the

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the contingencies. Okay. So we just once we decide what we're gonna do in the first half, then the ballot won't

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: kind of fall into place. Yeah. I mean, I think so. And, I mean, just this was my attempt to start trying to clean up the section a lot.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And And so, I mean, literally, in the committee of conference would say, and page 22 through 45 is schools construction. And we just swoosh on past it because all it said is, yep. We need school construction. We don't have

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: any money. Yes. This is a blessing.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: You know? We're getting closer to getting this. Thank you. Yeah. Looking for that. Thank you. Help. I think we do have something to work on. Good. Now I'm gonna go back. I like it so very dear. We're going back, and I'm hoping to get both of these bills out. $5.67 unclaimed property, state retirement system, and capital debt. And, Senator Hardy, you had

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: a proposal. Yes. I have an amendment, I sent a short did you get it up there? Okay. It should be on our website. It's very. Cameron is here if you need it, but

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We'll need a hard copy. It is it is on Go back. On the website, h five six seven amendment.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: It is just making some slight changes to the language that's already in statute about the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. It just makes it clear that this it there this the council there's a council Yeah. That was created. It doesn't actually it just says to perform the duties. Excuse

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: me.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: It's set forth in d and e, but the duties are a little vague. So it's just to advise the treasurer on expenditures from the fund. So just add in that language. And then it adds a student of the University of Vermont or Vermont State Colleges appointed by the governor to this council. It's a seven member council would add an eighth member. That's if you need a number.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: That's good.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: You could add two students. And then the count the council create and then adds the council created an age. So this council shall be consulted by and provide a formal recommendation to the state treasurer and the general assembly regarding any proposals to modify the use of the fund. So it's just a they Check that. They Check that. They provide a recommendation. People can ignore their recommendation. It doesn't say that the legislature has to do anything. It just says that they'll beget a recommendation. So if there's another proposal to build a basketball court with this money, then at least they can weigh in on whether they think it's a good idea. That's the amount. Committee, it is

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: senator Chittenden on Zoom? Yes. He is on Zoom. Sounds like

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: a

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: reasonable request. And maybe what's your pleasure on this one? I thought you wanted David to speak. Okay. Share share. David, he's here. Okay. I'm trying to see if there's interest. David, do you wanna I'm thirty seconds or you've gone up. I would love it. I'll give you a whole minute. The

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: legislature could still do what it wants. Right?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Mean Cool. Just getting There is that word not standing? Yes. Getting input from Well, and this is not

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: you wouldn't even have to with not withstanding it because all it is is a wreck. It's just gotta reduce it. You know, like, we're recommending this and then we can ignore it. Like, we we ignore lots of stuff.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: We ignore it

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: once study connects. Exactly. Exactly. Yes. Okay. Chair has the floor.

[Cameron Wood, Deputy State Treasurer]: Thank you, madam chair. For the record, chair and deputy treasurer. First of we wanna say that we don't have appreciate the senator's concern around the Vermont Higher Education Trust Fund and very much appreciated work on the amendment. We don't have any substantive concern with the amendment, but I would like to make a couple notes. One, the just noting for the record that the final section about modifying use of the fund wouldn't apply to our proposal, which did not modify use of the fund. So it's not something that would change how our office's proposal have been brought forward. More broadly, omnibus bill was constructed carefully with the input from every stakeholder to whom this omnibus bill might apply, and we got buy in from every stakeholder to whom this omnibus bill might apply. That includes the higher education trust fund transfer, which we talked about a lot. Yesterday, talked to all beneficiaries. It also includes the pension benefits task force, which has a number of unions and other state government and public service entities. We spoke with each of those folks and got their approval. So this bill has really been a consensus construction, and the unanimous votes from every committee and the full house, they considered it reflect that consensus construction. This makes me an idea that ultimately gets consensus buy in from the beneficiaries of the Higher Education Trust Fund. It may get consensus buy in from the council that administers the endowment. But we haven't had the chance to have those discussions. It may be that in the, you know, in the next year or for the next legislative session, we can kinda talk about this with all the beneficiaries, with all the stakeholders, and come to a great proposal, either this one or maybe something similar, there may be other governance changes that we could make. Those are discussions that our office is happy to have. We have been in ongoing discussions with the beneficiaries of the fund for various reasons over the years, even recently right before this session, around some more technical governance governance changes that had were not brought forward over the phone. But the point the larger point being that this is a bill that's very consensus straight out of the law. The results throughout the legislative process reflect that, and we would suggest that it may be a good way forward for our office and the beneficiaries of the fund and the council members to take this under advisement, figure out a good way forward, and come back in a future legislative session with a consensus driven proposal for how to make

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: changes that will benefit the fund and benefit the council positively. Okay. So your concern is like the coerced debt, Phil. This one has been carefully constructed with buy in from all the interested parties. And where this may seem like a simple little request that they haven't had time to run it by everyone, which means it could send it to a committee of conference and could slow the process down or not. But that's the concern.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I think that would be one way to put it. They just wanna make sure that

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: That everyone is And I

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: think just in the spirit of how we've approached it so far, our hope would be to continue to work on these issues in a consensus driven way. And, again, very much appreciate and respect the senator's concern around the health issue.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Could we ask you to consider this and bring us back a court next year on way any any way to protect the fund?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: We're certainly happy.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Would that work?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Just a

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: dummy. One one thing doubt.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Do can I just thank you for trying to find I appreciate it, madam chair? And I I understand, like, this is your baby, and you guys have nurtured it through the process, and this is one of the last stops in your worry. I totally get that. And I know you understand why I'm concerned. You you I've talked with the treasurer before I brought this up, so it's not like I surprised him with it. I talked to him beforehand. And and I you know, one of the things you've mentioned a couple times is the beneficiary of the beneficiaries of the fund. And I just wanna be very clear that the beneficiaries of the fund are the students, not the president of the college, not the the boards of trustees. They are the students. And this is really it does, I think, gets really lost in this conversation is is that this fund is to provide access to higher education for students in Vermont. And and that has in both the presentations of both your proposal and the other one that's on the table, the student voices have been completely absent. And that's really irritating to me, and and I think it's gonna ultimately not serve our students well. So I I think if we have a report back, I would wanna make sure that students can be involved in that and to make sure that we this is an endowed fund and that you're not supposed to mess with an endowed fund in the ways that have been proposed this session. So if a study is or report back is something that people can get on board with, I would just wanna make sure that it's somehow that students can weigh in on that report back and that it's clear what the purpose of the fund is.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Committee. I'm not seeing a lot of enthusiasm. When we do thumbs, we'll do the McDonald method.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: For what? For the amendment or for the before I Thanks to the report. If I

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: can't get the report, there's no way I'm getting the the amendment. To the report. Just to have

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: them report back any changes. Is that

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. Cameron, can you grab?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Some of them.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Alright. Alright.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I've I mean

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Chittenden, you want there? Do you wanna chime in?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. He's on park.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I don't see him or hear him. Okay. I don't see him. But he's driving.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I mean, I just think we need to ask for report.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't have a

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: big problem with the report. I don't know if

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it's necessary. Sorry to chime in late.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. He doesn't know if it's necessary. Is that what he said?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I don't know if it's there.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I just wanna make sure something happens to prevent the same kind of

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: problems. Okay. I don't know that we can as long as we were not as

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yes. That's fair, madam chair, but it's just

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We created it. We cannot create it.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. I think just there's a difference when it's a trust fund. It's an endowment, and it literally says Yes. Endowed trust fund. And

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I don't know if the poor state planners knew that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. I mean, it's one did. But It's it's that's a different thing. Yeah. Just creating a special fund. You know? And when you start to take money from the principal of an endowed fund, that is just incredibly bad financial

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: mechanisms. Do we need to get an amendment and amend, or can you just agree that you will talk to members And next year, we'll have you skins and senator Hardy's little reminiscent. Well, if I'm here, you know? Well, if any of us are

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: That's why I want language in the bill that says you have to do it. So if I'm not here, the students still have a mechanism of having their voices heard at this table.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: We'll be happy to do it. We will represent that we don't need the amendment to tell us to do it. I understand that's ultimately the committee's decision, but we I I can assure the committee that we will do it and that we will include student voices. Senator, your point is well taken about the students being ultimate beneficiaries. In in trying to get through it quickly, I didn't make that point, but that is absolutely true. That's a point that we talked about previously as we discussed the bill. Point well taken and that would certainly be a piece of any of the board is talking to students who have benefited from the fund and doesn't disbursement from the fund.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: With that Sounds good. Is there a motion? We're here to approve bill. I think unless there's an unless there's language in the bill, that's how I'm typing that one. Okay. Senator Chittenden, are you there and able to vote?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yes. Yes. I am.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Okay. I think on this one We will call the roll. I want to make sure everyone heard. So I need a motion first. To approve as amended. Right now we are looking at the bill which is the one brought to us, and Maria is here by the treasurer's office, which is raising now anything less than a $100 or less than less than a $100, ten years old and on claim property, percentage goes to or the whole thing something goes to the trust fund and the rest goes to the general fund. This would raise any up to a $150 the amount, and that doubles the amount of money. We would do that, and then a portion of that money would go into the Vermont Saves program until which is the state pension managed plan that small businesses and employees can buy into or participate in. We need to get that fully capitalized. I think six years was I'm doing this completely.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Yeah. The provision lasts until 2040, but we project that it will be completely self funding by FY '33.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: But this would get that fund capitalized, which is providing retirement savings for a lot of people who probably wouldn't start retirement savings in their 20s since they're at 82, and give them something to build on they go forward. And I think that's it. There's some more in the Oh, and then there's the you you can union that it does the whole thing in changing the Maria, are you there? I'm going through the bill.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So we're voting on them.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: You're voting our next bill. Yeah.

[Maria Royal, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I'm I'm here for the next bill, but I think Cameron

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: is changing the removing the state employees retirement systems from the treasurer's office over to the retirement board that manages all the other.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And you're moving just the post employment benefits

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: That's right.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Which are currently under the sole fiduciary responsibility of the treasury are moving those trust funds under the Vermont Pension Investment Commission, which already oversees the state and retirement.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Because we did not have a capitalized fund, at least for teachers, health care, and part of the workout of the pension solution was to set up and capitalize a fund. It's now reached the point where it needs to be managed by the board that manages all the other pension cards, and it says that a state The

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: last piece is for the teachers and municipal employees, if there's a member who becomes the president of the bargaining representative for any of those employees, those employee groups, then the individual can receive service credit towards their retirement or the years that they serve as president.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They have days where the organization they represent has to pay in that amount. Yes ma'am.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then the last piece was a very small technical amendment to the Capital Debt Advisory Committee's report to the General Assembly.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: So it were people are not willing to put in language about report back?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I I'm I'm willing. I'm also willing not to. I'm sorry. Voting on h five sixty seven as passed by the house.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We're trusting the treasurer's office who we should be able to trust, I hope. Yes.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I I just wanna make sure

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Does a report make you a yes versus Okay. Makes you a no?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yes. Correct. Then give Ruth a report. I wanna make sure it happens, and I wanna make sure

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Cameron. Voices that we need.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Otherwise, might know. And, you know, Morris,

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: I can borrow about your perfect little

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I can have you something by tomorrow. I will work with Senator Hardy to figure

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: out exactly what that report should be.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And we will go Thank you, Everett. You're welcome. All right. Now we are going on to 07:53. Another simple little bill. Thank you, Cameron. Now we're going to Maria. And seven fifty three is the act relating to utility service disconnections and ratepayer predictions. We gave

[Maria Royal, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Maria Royal with Legislative Council. Yep, this is the bill we discussed yesterday. There were two proposed amendments that you considered. And then we discussed you

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: wanted

[Maria Royal, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to put some language in the report that the department is doing on utility connections that specifically looked at vulnerable populations and folks that might not have access to a healthcare provider, and see if you could get more information back. So I'm going to share my screen. I think I just need permission and now I have it. So you'll see this is section two that's now included in the amendment and this is the report that you'll receive back from the department doing an assessment on involuntary residential service disconnection. So the new language is highlighted. So basically in this report, it says, in addition, the commissioner shall consult with the commissioner of health, the chief healthcare advocate, and any other interested stakeholders to determine whether Public Utility Commission rule 3.3, which is the disconnection rule generally should include added protections for vulnerable populations, including those who have no or limited access to healthcare in the event of a health hazard and households comprising young children or persons who are pregnant. So looking kind of specifically at some of the categories that you are thinking about adding to rule, and then also looking at the idea of how access or lack of access to healthcare might impact Vermonters. And then in addition, finally, the commissioner shall determine whether increased outreach or disclosures are necessary to ensure ratepayers are sufficiently notified of the ratepayer protections applicable to utility disconnections.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: You're being disrupted by the arrival of fire trucks and ambulances outside the window. Oh. I don't know what's going on, but they're putting on their firefighter suits, but we haven't been asked to leave yet.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Fire up. I'm searching for a gunfire.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Senator Benson and I can smell a fire. Do you smell the last one five minutes before the alarm went on?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: They put their own big eggs on and everything. Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Are they? Yeah.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: So Moses coming up with her feet now.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm feeling it in.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Is somebody stuck in the elevator?

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's Somebody's got an axe.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: He's got an an axe. The elevator's having some Somebody's stuck. That's how they came dressed when we were stuck in the elevator in the pavilion. Mhmm. And they opened it with an x. Okay. They need to press. No one's running. They have oxygen tanks.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And I don't think it's

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: too private. Alright. We will finish. The concern yesterday was that the utilities didn't wanna know who's pregnant, who has minor children, who's what. So, Dylan, this says they're going to study whether or not other vulnerable groups should be added, and I think it's to the list that you get a medical report from. So does this work?

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: It's almost Ricky for the record. I wanna make sure I'm looking at the same draft. This is One point. Yeah. I I don't think we have any concerns with the study. I do note that on page three, the language that we discussed yesterday is still in there. Assume that that is a decision point that the committee would get to.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, yes,

[Maria Royal, Office of Legislative Counsel]: so yes, I didn't know if you wanted to definitely strike this language here again. This is, Things that the commission may include in its rule, but it's not required to, and the commission is not required to initiate a rulemaking right away. It actually basically says that if it engages in a rulemaking as it periodically does with its rules, it should consider these things, or not later than 01/01/2028, whichever occurs first. So, I'm

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: asking them to do rules, we're asking them, can you make that a little larger?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Oh, sure.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm trying to see what's under the yellow. That's good mark. Okay. The commission, which may include a lower temperature threshold for households comprising young children as defined by the commissions for persons who are pregnant or at 62 years of age.

[Maria Royal, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, so just one thing I'll mention. I didn't know if you wanted to be so specific about, there was some conversation about should it be eight years of age? Should it be six? Should it be another age? So I left it a little bit more open ended.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: I think the doctor's not satisfied enough.

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: Yeah. I think

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the thought was yesterday that a doctor can write a medical note that if he's got a patient who's pregnant and, you know, having difficulty, he can write a note now. It just says a medical note for anyone. We're asking them to consider what you do, but I hope if you're pregnant and have young kids you have a medical doctor.

[Maria Royal, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, can I just clarify one thing? Yes, all of those things might be considered under a physician's certificate. This subdivision one pertains just to disconnections during periods of extreme heat. So under the existing rule, which applies to similarly applies to disconnections during the winter months, you know, and all of the protections, you know, between November and whatever March, no disconnections, etcetera. I'm just summarizing. But in the existing rule, is a lower temperature, or actually a different temperature threshold for households with individuals who are 62 years of age or older. So the proposal was, should there be a similar temperature threshold, more protective for persons who are 62 years of age or older? And then the new language here is, should that also apply to households comprising young children or persons who are pregnant? So again, this is just for the during periods of extreme heat and what the temperature threshold should be and whether it should be different for these categories.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Sounds like we're gonna have to do

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think so.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. Come on up, Dylan.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Andrea, I'm here from you.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Thank you, Matt. Sure. Okay. So I think what you're looking at here is first and foremost, the study you're asking the department to report back. I think in part of their report, they may include recommendations about additional statutory changes that could deal with other populations that you may want to address here. As I articulated yesterday, mean, conversations with my client, agree that the underlying rule as it pertains to periods of extreme colds does include a separate standard for a separate temperature threshold for customers who are 62 years of age or older. And so what you're doing in the bill here is taking that and applying that to periods like extreme heat. And the question is whether during periods like extreme heat, there that the population that has a different threshold should be expanded. The concern, as I explained yesterday, is really that when we're talking about the utility identifying specific customers and whether or not they have specific medical conditions. I'm gonna Yeah. Retract that. Specific medical situations You

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: would not normally know if someone were pregnant.

[John Gray, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: There's an age for kids, you would not normally know their age, and this would require that you have to keep track of their age and know that this year you've got this, but next year they've aged out, which I assume would be a lot of keeping track, especially if these people move or don't think it's any of your business if

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Well, think about the term of a pregnancy, right? It's usually a specific period of time. Yes. Relatively short. And so would we need to know where they are in their pregnancy to determine sort of when they come off that?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Because I know they're not just survivor. But if I don't know how far along I am, I don't know that I'm still qualifying in January.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: A point of personal reference, my wife is a nurse practitioner, therefore, falls under the PUC's list of eligible providers who can write these types of notes. I I asked her last night, kinda whether she knew this was an option that her done that. Her practice has a a basically standard form that they would then send off on the application and send it. It does not include kind of what the medical situation is that justifies the They've just request. I realize that it's sort of separate

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: from be against their health. That there it would be it would be unhealthy for their health Exactly. To be exposed to heat. Yes.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm happy to retract this amendment if it's causing undue consternation, if it's as simple as a note from a doctor.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: So that's what we've been hearing and we haven't heard that there's been any problems with people having their electricity turned off during heat waves or cold waves.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: We certainly share a concern, Senator, and happy to continue to think about how that might be addressed. Maybe the department's report will shut some light, but the privacy concerns and what what the type of information we wanna have are systems about.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: Doctor Hardy. I I'm sorry. I'm just walking in on this, but Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. I don't know what's going on out there.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: But in the in the graph, there's this is basically about making rules, right, for these kinds of things. We're asking the AUC to make rules. I wonder if we could just add something like in consultation with the Department of Health or something like that so that No.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They already said they don't wanna be making health calls.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: No. No. No. I know that. But when they're making the rule, if they are having because there was a there was language. I'm sorry. Don't have the thing pulled up. But there was language in the bill about making new. It's the

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: First Amendment, I think. Consider

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: whether medical judgment should be incorporated.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And that, okay, that we put in because we told them, originally said something about best medical judgment. They said they weren't making medical. Exactly.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: So, and then there, the, the concerns that Senator Gulick has and, and I think we all share, we want to make sure that pregnant women and young children and, and older folks are not overly hot or cold, but that instead of pushing it on the utilities or putting it on the PUC, get while they're making the rule, could consult with the Department of Health as to whether or not what the rule parameters related to health.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden, Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And they might say it's fine with a note pad. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: A note like that. Alright. Ready? Stand with something.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: What is a period of extreme

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: I'm losing committee members. Yeah.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: What is a period of extreme heat?

[Maria Royal, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's to be defined.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Well, the question I'm asking and trying to lead to in a way is maybe just leave extreme heat, leave all the detail out of it. Don't disconnect during a period of extreme heat. And that's assuming that periods of extreme heat, as we define it, don't last forever and are clearly defined.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: That's what they do now.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Then if you do that now, why do we need to change it? Do you have so many disconnections that occur during periods of extreme heat that you have to redefine it? And that you have to involve all kinds of people in making determinations on a case by case basis.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: We That's right. Nobody has time to haven't heard any testimony that there's been a problem other than the one world landlord.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: So, if you just say that, don't disconnect during periods of extreme cold or extreme heat and define it.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: They do that. Well, I think this

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: is updating the rule. They don't It's have updating the rule to make sure. I mean, think that's the point. We could just ask them to update the rule to make sure that they don't disconnect during of extreme heat or periods of extreme heat.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: Well, you don't have to measure everybody as to whether they're a certain age condition or whether they're older than 62 years, you can do that too.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: Yeah. And that's what we're doing.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: This feels like deja vu, doesn't it?

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: It sure does. But we have another bill that I'm I'm told I'm probably not gonna take up, which is the one about telling old people they when their phones switch over, that they might wanna buy a $150 battery. What was Is

[Christine Oliver, NFP (employee benefits broker); former Deputy Commissioner at BISHCA]: there an h on on that one? I don't think there is.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: It was no. But it was set because us old contractors are gonna get really confused about No more copper. Yeah. Going from copper to fiber. I never noticed the difference. But this is another bill where we haven't heard there's a problem.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: We're gonna solve it anyway.

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: And we have been going around with the testimony is they don't, during extreme heat or cold, shut off anybody's electricity, and they have no intention of doing that. So and I I think we've got enough heavy bills. I'm starting to lose committee members, I think, in frustration.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy, Member, Senate Finance Committee]: No. I think he went to pick up

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: his kids. Yeah. And Ann was frustrated. Yeah.

[Scott — Joint Fiscal Office fiscal analyst]: This is just one of the Go by the wayside there in

[Sen. Ann Cummings, Chair, Senate Finance Committee]: the session? I'm not I'm not inclined to take this off the board again. K? K. I'm sure. I we're done. Can you let that we're not