 Hi, welcome to the Vermont House Appropriations Committee. It is Monday, January 9th, 2023, just about 10 o'clock or a little bit after. We're starting off meeting today at 10. Future Mondays, we're looking at probably starting closer to noon, so members have time to spend with their pets, commissioners and other things. This morning, I hear from JFO for a little bit before the administration comes at 10.30, it's not open or I did for opportunities that would present itself to give us a little room if we had committee discussion that we hadn't finished with and the JFO is going to walk us through not the actual document of the BAA, but how this document is set up, what these funds are, oh, my bad. And before we get started and call them in, I think Representative Harrison has something to say. Yes. Oh, you're about to BAA? Yes, you had something. Oh, yeah, no, I don't know how we're going to divide up the BAA, but there was a couple of things that Friday that had to do with the pay act, which was my section of the budget that had to do with human resources. So I did call it this morning and the state police contract that is added in here, I think it was 1.7 million, maybe. She did help me with my memory. We did include an amount in there last year for that contract, but the contract wasn't closed. So it was their best guess estimate that they gave us to put in there for a number and it turned out, for multiple reasons, the contract ended up higher than say the state employees as a rule and that amount that they're asking is the extra because of that contract. The other area was corrections and references of the site agreement. We had the same, a similar last year, there was a site agreement because of the difficulty of maintaining and staffing our correctional facilities. So they had to, they came up with an agreement which you probably heard about in the media with 12 hour shifts in fewer days that arrangement, new arrangement does cost the state more money because part of the arrangement is they get overtime after eight hours so those long shifts. So it's just an unfortunate reality and corrections we've heard multiple times that staffing is very, very tight and it's not like you can get to work at behind you, you have to have staffing done. You have to answer the phone if you get a 911 call. So unlike other positions in the government that things may go a little slower, but corrections you have to be staffed. So that is reflective of that new agreement site agreement that they made with the, with the, so. Excellent, thank you. Thank you for that update and thank you for the issue to go and track that down as well. Are you good? Yeah, I'm good. All right, so with that, I think we can bring into the chair, Sarah. Go to Monday. Great, thank you. Good morning. I feel very far away, Madam Chair. I feel it, we're gonna work on that spatial. The record, I'm Sarah Clark. I'm the deputy fiscal officer at the joint fiscal office. We thought we had a pretty busy Friday afternoon. A lot of really great information came our way at the end of the day. So we thought we'd kick off today with just orienting everyone to the detailed spreadsheet workbook that commission regression and his team presented to us on Friday. So if you have either online or the papers that you received yesterday, I thought we'd use the one that Adam walked us through, which is a little bit of a higher level summary information. I thought I'd start the distinction between the two big spreadsheets that commission regression provided. One more summary level information in that it is at the appropriation level. The other spreadsheet provides each individual detailed change that rolls up to one appropriation. And so that distinction may be useful for you as you drill into some of those topics, wanting to see each of the individual changes to an appropriation. In addition, over the course of the next week or two, we'll have all of the departments come in and they will walk us all through at a much more detailed level. The changes that are being proposed in the budget adjustment. So if I could direct everybody to the sheet that at the top, it's in a slightly smaller font. It says fiscal year 23, governor's recommended budget adjustment, which is the one that commission regression walked us through last week. So please as you have questions, but I'm just gonna orient you to the information that you see before you. And so at the start of the page, you'll see there's the black line that says as past. And as you move across the columns of the sheet, you'll see dollar amounts by fund source in each of the columns. Those dollar amounts reflect what the FY 23 as past base budget included by fund source. So as you move from left to right across the page, you'll see the columns correspond to a particular fund type. And I think this will be one of our presentations where we'll come in and talk a little bit more about the different fund types. But for today, as we move across the page, you'll see general fund, transportation fund, education fund, special funds. And included in this bucket, there are several different special fund types, most notably tobacco funds, fish and wild life funds. And then there are, I think, roughly 300 different special fund types in state government that are all included in this bucket. Moving one more column over, you're going to see the global commitment fund. This is the fund that is associated with a Medicaid program in Vermont. We are actually gonna have a presentation from Nolan Langwell in our office tomorrow that's going to give you basically a one-on-one of global commitment in Medicaid. It's relatively complex, but straightforward when you understand the financial mechanics surrounding the global commitment fund and how it works in state government. And I'll let Nolan dive into some of those details, but I expect this will be an ongoing conversation that we have throughout the session. Moving across the page, there's also the healthcare resources fund, which is a special fund that's pulled out on this sheet. It's also associated with the Medicaid program. Federal funds, which is one of our biggest funding sources in the state of Vermont, money from our federal partners. The next column over is dedicated funds, which are funds that are dedicated for a specific purpose. They include things like the transportation infrastructure bond, enterprise funds, and there are some other funds included in that bucket that we'll talk more about. And then there's the other funds column, which that includes internal service funds, which is the funds that are associated essentially with the operations of state government. So it's like fee for space, what we pay to work in the buildings that we do. Also includes the human resources internal service fund, what departments and agencies pay to fund the operations of the human resource function. And those are just two examples. And there's also interdepartmental transfer funds included in this bucket. Interdepartmental transfer funds are when one department of state government pays another department of state government for something. And then you'll see the last number column is the total. So across all of those various different fund sources. And then what's very helpful on this summary sheet is the narrative description that describes using words, the changes that are being proposed in those lines. So we've talked, yes. I was just gonna say, so Sarah, if I was to look at that and I'd say, wait a minute, $9.6 billion, wait a minute. I thought the budget said it was 3.8. How is this different? Why is it there? What's different about that number? So this number is going to include duplicated sources of funding. So what I mean by that is, for example, when one department of state government pays another, those funds are actually appropriated in two different places, even though it's for one essential expenditure. And so frequently what we do is we'll back out the duplicated sources of funding. And so that's why you'll see smaller totals. And though we talk about all fund sources, we probably focus more on general fund, education fund, and federal funds. But this committee will get a chance to drill into all of them. So the term, you'll hear the term, is that unduplicated or duplicated numbers? Is it global commitment? Is it what? So you'll hear that a lot is, what is, when something is unduplicated, they've taken it out. Yeah. Go ahead, yes, representative. I presume that under federal funds, it includes both the standard general fund, Steve, and we provide match for, as well as the coronavirus federal related funds, the CARES Act, ARPA funds. So federal funds just includes the federal dollar, not the state match associated with that. That would be incorporated in any one of these state fund lines, for example, in the general fund. So it would just include the federal funds. What I would want to do in this roughly $3 billion that they're including at the top, I would want to, they may not have included the American Rescue Plan Act, state fiscal recovery fund dollars because those are more one time in nature. So they may not have included them in the base on this spreadsheet. That's something that I would need to verify. But it's just the pure federal dollar. It's not any of the match in that column. So we have as a part of our opportunity thinking is to have a Doug Farnham come in sometime this week to walk us through, ooh, not my coffee, walk us through just the ARPA numbers. Can I respond to another question? Forgive me for my, this elementary question, but when you talk about transfers between departments, is that a, do they need approval or two appropriations for an interdepartmental transfer that may be within the same agency? They will need, always need spending authority, which equates to an appropriation. They need that authority in order to actually make the expense. They try to, when an interdepartmental transfer is going to be part of the ongoing base budget or a base arrangement between two departments, even if they're within the same agency, they try to include it in their base budget. So we have the standard set for what those expenses are going to be every year. However, if in the course of a year, a new, let's say the health department receives a federal grant and the department for children and families is going to carry out a portion of that grant for them. They don't necessarily have to come through the appropriations process. There are other mechanisms where they can get the spending authority, the appropriation authority that they need in order to affect that agreement. That makes sense. Thank you. And can I just ask a follow-up question about, you mentioned so the rental fee. So is that then reflected in BGS's? Yeah, so BGS, when they come and present their budget adjustment and their budget, they're going to say, we need excellent dollars to have a space program across state government. And then every department and agency will pay their share of fee for space for the buildings that they're in. There's a very detailed space book where they calculate what those charges are going to be every year to run the fee for space program. And so that's exactly the duplication that we're talking about when we say duplicated versus unduplicated. Same thing for agency of digital services bills out to all the state government for their services. You'll see when we start to see budgets come in, commissioners and secretaries will come in. And sometimes you'll see it a line item, like fee for space, internal service, or somebody may just roll it all up as internal service funds and not have broken them out by line. Okay. And one of the reasons it's helpful to spend some time understanding this form is that you're going to find as the FY24 budget is delivered that departments and agencies are required to use a format that's very similar to this. And so understanding the flow of this document is going to be useful throughout the season. Called the crosswalk. You'll hear that term. I don't know if that's been a retired term or not. But I think we still use crosswalk. We also, when I was at the agency of human services, we called it the ups and downs form. So ups and downs. So yeah, it's very useful. We'll learn about that one as we go too. Yeah. We'll talk maybe about the rows on this sheet. Maria spent some time with you last week talking about the functional areas of state government and how the budget is designed. And so you'll see this is organized by functional area as you move down the rows. So you see first general government. And so general government. And then section B105, that refers to the section from the big bill where they're proposing to make the change. And you can see that's within the agency of digital services, communication and information technology appropriation. And so as you move down this sheet, you're going to see the changes. Let's maybe skip down to protection because there's more than one change. When you look at the protection function, you're going to see that there are multiple appropriations that are being adjusted. You can see what the section number of those appropriations are. So B209, B225. And you see what the name of that appropriation is. And then there is a subtotal, the total protection. So you can see the cumulative changes in that section that are being proposed by the governor in this budget adjustment. And again, this is a format that you're going to see not only in the administration documents that you get, but also the web report, which is you're perhaps familiar with that from just reviewing the budget and the changes in your role in former committees or if you were at another agency in your previous life, you will be familiar with the web report. And that's where we detail all of the changes that this committee will make to the governor recommend and what the Senate will make. And then ultimately what the conference committee will agree to. And so it's a really useful document following the same structure to understand what's happening in the budget from an adjustment perspective. I think I've hit the highlights if you know the first two pages on the sheet that changes to what we would call their base appropriations. These are all one-time changes. So it's important to understand that the budget adjustment act itself are one-time changes that are happening in the year that we're in right now, fiscal year 23. However, some of these items may ultimately end up being base adjustments. And we will know that when we receive the FY24 governor recommend budget because you will see some of those changes happening again in 24. Departments and agencies do try to know when they come in with their 24 budget proposals when an item also happened in budget adjustment. And that's helpful to understand because you will have already received some of that budget adjustment testimony. And so if it's just happening again in 24, meaning it's a change to their base, it'll be helpful for you to understand that this is something that you have seen before that you've reviewed, perhaps had a discussion. You may have additional questions when you look at it happening in the base, but it is something that was presented earlier. So when you go to the last page of this sheet, one-time expenditures and other appropriations sections where the administration is proposing to use one-time dollars appropriations in the budget adjustment from specific purposes. I'll just talk briefly about the first one and I'm looking at referring to section B-1100, A-24 where they are going to add a new one-time appropriation in the budget adjustment for $3 million to provide some American Rescue Plan Act rural capacity. Commissioner Gretchen spoke a little bit about this proposal last week in terms of providing resources to municipalities and towns to get the expertise they need to be able to perhaps apply for and administer these different programs. Yeah, so in the budget adjustment, are there, I mean, is it a mix of new requests, kind of new program plus redistribution or does it generally really focus on redistribution? That's a great question. I'm wondering like what role is in this? So I'll, of course, you're by part, not the, our JFO, I would say that that's a policy that we would typically try to say or we try to stick to like just rebalancing and there has been efforts in the past to say, we're just going to stick to the readjusting and try that to do new programs. And of course, as soon as we say that, it'll be something that pops up. It's like, well, if we don't get this out the door by, by April, X won't happen or there's some expedient reason to have to do something now, we're instead of waiting. And then we'll hear that. And then we get to be with the standing committees because if it's a policy decision and the standing committee needs to weigh in on that and they, we may or may not agree, but it will be something that will be decided here. I remember that from housing discussions. Okay, thanks. You're welcome. Representative Dolen. Just a follow up question. Yep, please. When I see these one-time expenditures for these types of proposed appropriations, is this new money that has come in during the course of this year, new revenues? Our existing revenue sources and their proposal to target where those new revenues would go to, or are they actually as Representative Berlington pointed out a potential for repurposing or shifting dollars from one cash register to another? So I think when commissioner aggression was here on Friday are currently, we have a surplus of general fund dollars as of the close of state fiscal year 22. And so that balance that kind of falls to the bottom line, if you will, they are proposing to allocate some of those dollars for these purposes. In addition, in July, when the emergency board met and adopted the revenue forecast, that was higher than what it was when the legislature adjourned last year. So there are a variety of one-time, if you will, general fund dollars. Now the emergency board is meeting again next Tuesday and they will re-establish that revenue forecast. Representative, I got to get used to saying your last name. Sorry. Okay, thank you. I just would love clarification on preferred committee practice on two issues. One is when a one-time appropriation relates to a bill that was passed last session, how do we handle that? And I'm thinking of, for example, sustainability planning, I think it was at 167 for the hospitals, which is related to some of the one-time requests here. Is the preference to treat it globally or do we acknowledge it because this budget was simultaneously passed? We don't look at at 167, which was also passed in the same committee as my issue. Making my question. Yes, I'm sure your question is making sense, but I'm not, I don't know how to totally answer that right now. Is that okay? Yeah, totally fine. But the practice would be to understand what the administration's desires are that they're bringing forward and blend that with our committees. And we will decide if whether or not that made sense. Right, and how to reconcile them with other statute related to how we plan in those sectors. What was the legislative intent? Right, and then the second question is with respect to some of the reversions which relate to other pending policy proposals, is the Budget Adjustment Act the right time to ask about those reversions, given that they relate also to other budget priorities which have already been communicated? Okay, thank you. Dickerson, did I get it right? No, Dick Ensign. Dick Ensign, I'll keep working on this. One of my drawbacks is the enunciation. So I will practice harder. Okay, well, I have a question. There was discussion that ARP money said during the joint fiscal hearing that it's all been obligated. So it should be somewhere. So it isn't really one time and it's one time money that's been obligated. Yep. We have these things added here. Some of it may be ARP, but there was discussion along the way previous to this that ARP money that was not spent for specific purposes would be pulled back, clawed back and maybe reapportioned to something else. Is that what this money is or is this all? This is all right here, which you were pointing at. Maybe I can help. Maybe. And I'm gonna see if I'm right too. So this is one of the things. When you saw the words ARPA rural capacity, there's a sense that, oh, that's ARPA dollars. It is not. Just see where it is. It's $3 million of general fund that is saying what their intent is saying. Listen, we have this excess capacity of carry forward one time dollars and we might wanna help the municipalities be able to access their ARPA. So it's not using ARPA money, but it's helping general fund to help municipalities maybe writing the grants or the rural capacity so that they don't leave ARPA money on the table. Right. I see it. Now I see how those are explained. Okay, good. All right. We are right at 1030. We had an official walkthrough. Was this helpful? Okay, good. It's helpful for me too, cause it's been a while. So thank you, Sarah. And then this afternoon, we'll have even more and more what we're calling some more orientation. And to tell you the truth, we worked it up, but I haven't even looked at it yet, but I know it's gonna be great. Commissioner, do you need a moment or would you like to step forward or it's gonna be you and your team? All right. Are we doing language? We are doing language. No, what's the purpose? Go ahead, go ahead. Oh, let's, yeah, my turn. It would be a long time if we waited to have to go back. So it's not after a while. And then, okay, does that make sense? Yeah. Checking process. And I wear my glasses, commissioner. I can see you, people clearly, but I can't read the words. I'm working on like this duality. So sometimes I'll see you and sometimes I won't. And I'm gonna let go and make sure that I can see the commitment. Priority to make sure. I'll let you know when I'm no longer here. All right. So does everybody have, this is what we're gonna go through. And I'm gonna just point out that Representative Shy is on Zoom. She's had her cold and thanks to technology, she's able to zoom in. So Representative Shy, if you have a question or when you have a question, I should say, just chime in or if I don't see you, just speak up, okay? Or I'll try to keep an eye for your hand, but I may miss it. Thank you. You're welcome. What'd you say? She's a total laryngitis, which I have to say my family wishes sometimes I have. All right, Commissioner, let's walk through. Morning, everyone. Morning. So when we submit our budget adjustment, there's a big Excel spreadsheet that we go over with all the numbers and the accompanying document is a language document that explains anything that requires explanation. So you have in front of you our language document. And I thought that my colleague, Hardy Merrill and I would go through it and answer any questions that we can and certainly tee up any questions for our departments and agencies of jurisdiction to the extent that we can't answer. So taking it from the top, there is a number of additional one-time appropriations that we are adding to section B1100 in the big bill is for one-time appropriations. And you'll note here that we add numbers 24 to 30. So there'll be, instead of 23 one-time appropriations in the big bill, there'll be 30 as proposed by the governor. The first of which is, as I believe you were speaking about earlier, $3 million is directed to the Secretary of Administration for the Rural Infrastructure Assistance Program. There is further descriptive language later in the document where the specifics of how that money will be used or how it's envisioned to be used. So we will get to that and this is just the appropriation. The, similarly, number 25 is 3.345 to the Secretary. This is to be used as a 10% state match for FEMA COVID funds and recall that FEMA reimbursed COVID expenses incurred by the states at 100% through June 30th of 2022. July one of 2022 and time forward, there is a 10% state match requirement. So this is our best estimate of state match expenses. Representative Harris, do we have the question and then Representative Blooming? Yeah, commissioner just refresh with you. No of that change when we did the budget last year. We were not certain that it would be a requirement. Thank you. Representative Blooming? I asked the same question. Okay. So the next on the, actually dump in the next on the list. Sure, thank you, Adam. And Madam Chair, you'll note that I have the same optical challenges I think is yourself. So I'm balancing my glasses on my forehead. So the next one-time general fund appropriation is for 1.734 million to the Agency of Digital Services used as state match for USGS LiDAR grant. Amount being matched by USGS is 1.15 million. There are also private entities contributing to the effort project total is estimated at $3.8 million. And as noted in the explanation, these funds are available approximately every eight years. And the agency is interested in taking advantage of this opportunity via BAA. It is critical to execute the project prior to leaf out in the springtime, hence the BAA, supposed to- So thank you. I'm just gonna stop only because we're also in a learning curve here too. So every now and then I may jump in for that. So this might be one of those items that said, oh, when would it be of urgency? And he indicated they really would like this now because it's best to be able to get the light. You know what the LiDAR is, that's the filming. Okay, before the leaves come out on the trees, so that they get the best view. So that's their explanation of why it should be done, that there's a sense of urgency around it versus waiting to the 24. Okay, thank you, bye. Okay, and the next item, subsection 27, the 1.115 million to the military department to be the state match for the federal SRM funds, eligible for receipt in federal fiscal year 23. And as noted in the explanatory notes, near the end of last session, the C-section of Act 185 was amended to provide 1.68 million of state match, 5.182 million that became available for the federal fiscal year 22, ending November. So this is, it was expected at that time and I believe explained to the committee that the federal fiscal year 23 match requirement would be coming in VAA, so here it is. Help the people at home when you say the acronym that SRM. And if anybody wants to follow along with this, the actual governor's recommended budget adjustment language is on our webpage, so you can go and pull that up. I know there's hundreds of people watching at home. Yeah, okay, and oh sure, did you want me to spell out the... Do that first and then representative shy. Okay, so the federal facilities, sustainment restoration and modernization funds is what the acronym stands for. Thank you, and we will have to take testimony from them or from, it's a little bit deeper, but okay, representative shy, you have a question, then? Thank you. Is this usually in the capital bill? Cause I remember doing stuff for the armories in the capital bill in past years. So I'm aware of work, capital work being in the capital bill for armory work. I'm not sure whether specifically state match funds for specific federal SRM available funds has been in the capital bill prior. Thank you. I think typically it is not. Typically we do match funds to a general fund, whereas capital bill is typically project related, but that's probably a better question that we'll follow up with you on that representative shy. I do know that you'll be able to hear when Terry provides testimony about the fact that this particular funding tranche allows them to do things that they typically have not been able to do with the typical capital appropriations, which has been more really keeping the roof from leaking and that sort of thing in the sort of capital bill asks and that this funding allows them to really it's more moving forward in terms of more dramatic improvements was my understanding from talking to them last year, it's been a while, but thank you. I'll turn the page and also cover item subsection 28 $30 million to the public service department to be used as state match for the national telecommunications and information administration NTIA broadband grant. This is a, as the committee's probably aware, there were a great deal of ARPA funds for the broadband expansion that have already been realized and appropriated. This is in addition to the funds already coming to the state, this represents an application for a competitive grant for additional funds on top that are provided through a granting program, also created, I believe, in the American Rescue Plan Act. The 30 million represents the state match required toward a project that is estimated at $114 million in total application has already been submitted as of September 30th, 22, and we're expected to, according to the application, we would pull down 67, about 67 and a half million dollars from in federal funds based on this. There are also some in kind matches being provided by three private institutions engaged in the fiber optic network communications industry. Just a quick question, and then Representative Harrison, when you said ARPA, I thought it was maybe the IIJA, the broadband part of it. I don't know if there was ARPA grants, or maybe, maybe I'm wrong, I'm just getting a couple. I can follow up with more detail if you'd like on the breakdown of amounts. So that I heard that from different. I did intend to use the word ARPA, and my recollection is that there were grant opportunities. ARPA funds specifically for broadband, and there may be an IIJA, and I can provide more of a breakdown, I think. Okay, well, I'm sure we'll get there. Representative Harrison, and then Representative. Same area, we had, I think, about 250 million of the ARPA funds aside for broadband. And then additionally, I think it was projected we were gonna get 100 million from the infrastructure. Yes, this is completely in addition and on top of. Okay, maybe it'll make it a little easier. And so this is not automatic, it is a competitive grant and actually, it's my understanding that most of the grant applicants are actually not states, but even private entities, and it will be, I would recommend that the committee take more testimony from the public service department to get more specifics. But this is completely on top of everything else envisioned already. Yep, thank you. That was good to understand. Representative Holcomb, then Representative. I'll hold my question until you hear the testimony from PSD. Okay. And perhaps this question should be reserved as well for future testimony, but interested to know whether the other funding sources is reflecting where the intent of these dollars would go, or would they be specific to these regional locations where these in-kind sources operate, or would it be provided more on a statewide basis? I would encourage the answer to that question come from. Okay, public service department. Yeah. Moving to the next item, this is the appropriation to the state refugee resettlement office. There is language further on in this document that describes the specifics of how we intend that to be used. But what I would say is that this is to provide assessment for communities to help communities assess whether they are capable of receiving refugee resettlement as well as provide resources for various wrap around services, employment support, transportation, and the like. So this, and I believe the question came up last week, this is not intended to go directly to refugee, but it's intended to go to them as well as organizations that will service them. You'll see, as I said, a little further on in the document, descriptive verbiage that. And the next item is 9.225 million to DMH. And this is to continue and to the hope is to complete construction on a inpatient youth facility or down in Southwestern, Vermont Medical Center. The intent is to provide these funds so that the construction and the buildout can happen quickly. And the hope is, and the expectation actually is that these beds will be online by January 1 of 2024. Why there's been, this was presented in the budget adjustment. As I said earlier, they have a facility, they're not building a new building, but they're retrofitting a space within an existing building. And these, anyway, so that is in the budget adjustment to try to keep the momentum going. Thank you, Commissioner. We have two questions, Representative Shah and Representative Holcomb. Thank you. I contacted a friend who's on the Green Mountain Care Board who had not heard of this at all, their staff just had, and they did think a certificate of need was probably likely, although that wasn't the final say at that point, they're looking into it. So that could be a concern in terms of getting it out by January. I also know that there's urgency. And as I understand it, this is in response to the fact that UVM Medical Center couldn't, didn't have the funds to put in extra beds at Central Vermont, I believe. Is that right? That's correct. So I think the con is the big deal that we'll find out about from other people, if you don't know about that. I don't know. It's a certificate of need. I'm sure that the department speak to that particularly, but I can answer affirmatively that this was in part or in large part in answer to the fact that the buildout did not happen at UVM. There is a great need. And keep in mind, these are supposed to be complimentary to the retreat, to Brattleboro Retreat. These are for youth from 12 to 18 years old who quite possibly presented at the retreat and were not accepted, were not accepted for residents. So these are children. I wasn't in need. And this facility is designed for that to be for those people. So, you know, we know there's a need. We don't have the capability right now. So... I think we appreciate your experience with it, but I think, yeah, we'll have to find out if it's what's possible, or if there's anything in the way. What is... Yeah, just, can I just follow up on? Yeah, so my understanding in part is that when there's kind of co-occurring medical needs, that that isn't a good fit for the retreat in terms of what they have on campus, that that was one of the holds. So it wasn't that they, like certain patients may or may not be an appropriate medical fit with what their capacity is. And so I believe that being at Southwest or my medical center, that the young people who have this sort of co-occurring conditions will be able to have all of their needs met in a way that the retreat can't be. So that there is a differentiation of practice. Thank you. Representative Page. Yes. Back to the refugee resettlement issue. And I had read where the focus is on four, four communities. That's correct. Vermont. There are other communities within Vermont. And I was just curious, will there be more funds coming forward to them versus just, is this specifically just for those four communities? I think the language needs with a focus on, I actually can see it later on. I forget how they put it, but I think the representative Page referring to Tin, Rutland, Hittenden, and... Ratterborough. Ratterborough. And I think the focus is on those communities, but I don't think the intent is to be specifically for those communities. So I think the initial focus will be on that. And why they chose those communities, I think it would be a better question for the refugee resettlement office. I don't know the specifics. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Welcome. Since we went back to refugees, I have a question about that too. If, when you said, is there, well, what's your understanding of how these dollars will be applied? Some of these services are pretty specialized. Is the intent to build on existing state capabilities? For example, through the adult education network, or is there a vision for how this will be? So this is a grant program. So organizations or communities will apply for these funds to do various things. Find out whether they have the capability or whether they have the infrastructure to handle refugees. That's really the first and probably foremost. But then secondarily, there will be within those communities that will apply for grants to help with various wraparound services, housing, employment and the like. But they will be applications. Refugee Resettlement Office will then determine what the most appropriate use of those funds are. So it's a grantee. And then representative Tweed. And then to go back to the health, the Southern Vermont system. I know that last year, the legislature passed Act 167 around sustainability planning. And I'm just curious, we agree that there's a critical shortage. Was this proposal developed in consultation with that process? And I noticed that this is wrong, that the federal bill comes up as well at a different point. Can't answer that. I'm sorry. Don't know. Tell you how proud I am of the members that are in this room, because they know this stuff. Thank you, sir representative Torino. Just a comment on the refugee piece because Brother Bear is named. And I know a little bit more about what we've gone through a very rapid standing up of a local refugee resettlement program. There is of course a partner, ECTC that is sort of the day-to-day, but several of the community organizations that wouldn't normally have this as their primary responsibility have dedicated significant staff time to it. This grant program, they may or may not be eligible. I'm going to look into the details to try to understand it. But I think based on what I'm seeing and hearing from my community with a hundred or so individual families coming in for short order, it required a significant community wide effort. And this is, I think speaking to the need to be able to re-grant and support some of those organizations for whom it wasn't their primary mission. Representative Fage. Yes, I'll just say my humble opinions are $350,000 for the four communities seems to be, to me a little less probably should be, that's just my opinion, sir. Understood, we're trying to balance what we have available, what the need is. But with so many refugees coming in and we would like more too, it just seems woefully inadequate, sir. Noted. Can I have Dylan? I appreciate the focus on providing the wrap around services. In terms of capacity, I know that we have in-state contracts for all interpretation services, but we outsource all. Translation services and in terms of providing a sustainable long-term wrap around service with language support, I would be very interested in seeing what we can enhance our in-state service that can provide written translation as well. I just wanted to make another one. I see you. Did I get it right? You got it right. I just wanted to piggyback on that because I know that Office of Racial Equity has done kind of an assessment of the state's ability to provide kind of critical information to folks who speak different languages. And it's very uneven across departments. And so I think that the point that you raised about the $350,000, but I welcome that discussion when it comes. You're at the table. Not to get too far ahead of ourselves, but that may well come up shortly. Okay. Okay, moving on to the appropriation of subsection 31, which is $3 million to the Department of Children and Families Office of Economic Opportunity, the CARES Housing Voucher Program. And my understanding of this appropriation is to provide general fund dollars to a housing voucher program that is administered by a contractor and has previously been funded by federal funds provided by the CARES Act which have dried up and AHS and DCF are very interested in providing a temporary bridge of continued funding to service clients that have made use of this program. My understanding is that they proposed it as a one-time appropriation intentionally and not as an ongoing base budget item forever, but that they do see a need in particular as there are delays in new housing stock coming online and as well in the timing of the issuance of section eight housing vouchers. This is a bridge program for certain families in need to bridge them to a more permanent housing voucher like federal section eight. I can't, I'm happy to take questions, although I can't speak in much more detail authoritatively on the nature of the program. And I think DCF would be best positioned to provide more detail, but I'll pause there for a moment. Thank you, Representative Harrison. Yeah, just clarification. When you say housing voucher program, is that the same as the hotel voucher program? Are we talking about something else with extra rental assistance? My understanding, well, not complete is this is more of a rental housing voucher. I don't believe this is associated with hotel voucher program, which is really an emergency housing and that this is not an emergency housing situation but it's to provide a support for, I can be just a tiny bit more. These are people coming out of the hotel voucher programs. So this is a transitional program that was stood up to get these people into housing. Ideally, federal programs will be able to provide subsidies for them. And it was set up under the CARES Act, but it was federally funded. But these are for people moving beyond the kind of the hotel, motel voucher programming to rental. Thank you. Holds that? I'll continue on to subsection 325 million dollars department of housing and community development as additional support for Mount housing improvement program. So this is really a request for additional funds into an existing program that has been apparently successful and oversubscribed. So I would note that this is in addition to $5 million of ARPA funds that were provided in section G400 of Act 185. And it's also less obvious, but what you've noted is that this is also in addition to $1 million of general fund base budget that was provided fly 23 as well. So this is on top of- This is on top of, and this is not proposing any changes to the program design or structure or how it operates, but it's more funds to do more of the same work. Did I hear you say that it was all expended that that five and the one, so the six million is- I could not confirm whether it's been expended as of this date. I think it is expected to be expended and hence its inclusion in BAA that more funds could be needed in the timeframe of a BAA enactment. Great, we'll get more details on that. Did anybody else have any? On the next page, I'm now on page three. We're adding a new section to Act 185. Act 185 did not contain any one-time special fund appropriations. Typical convention in the big bill language is that B1100 section is used for general fund, one-time appropriations, and then other section numbers are added subsequent to the 1100 number to provide for one-time appropriations from other funds. So this is adding a section B1101 for fiscal year 2023 one-time environmental contingency fund appropriations. So this appropriation is depends upon also within the budget adjustment act as recommended by the governor to make a $3 million transfer from the general fund to the environmental contingency fund. And then that would then create the ability for this one-time environmental contingency fund appropriation to date. And the purpose for the appropriation is as stated in the language to the Department of Environmental Conservation for PFAS remediation. And you probably appreciated if I could spell out what the acronym stands for. I won't test either one of our, I'm gonna enunciate that. There may be somebody here who can though. Representative Dolan, I'm sure that this is. Stands for PER and polythorial alkyl substances. I welcome having a subject matter expert. It's so nice, isn't it? Thank you, go ahead. If I may though, I do worry about the, again the sustainability of the environmental contingency fund, it appears that every year we need to keep adding money into that fund and look forward to a conversation about how we can really sustain that fund over time. Knowing that some of these contaminations that we see, whether it's PFAS or other type of spill-related contamination, it seems to be ongoing in this fund and it's critical for enabling this state to be for those sites here. Thank you, Representative Dolan. I'll also add the one other note that doesn't appear here that I am aware of from communicating with the National Resources on this request is that initially it was proposed as a general fund appropriation and then it was subsequently determined that it was advantageous to employ this structure of transfer into the ECF and then appropriation from the ECF because they could speak better to the particular details but there were some technical reasons for that having to do with statutory aspects, I believe, pertaining to the Environmental Contingency Fund. You're right on that. It needs to have something that triggers it. We need to put money into it. Just a process question. In a case like this, where we're setting up basically a sinking fund, we'd also expected that there would be language coming forward to prevent the continuing infusion since the environment. I think we'll hear, and I'm like reaching way back in my memory too, that there is something about that there needs to be the reason for the transfer to happen, right? Am I getting that right or close? And it's okay if you say no, ma'am, you have that totally wrong. I think on this, I can't affirmatively support or contradict John, the chair of state. I think we'll hear more about this from A&R, the next level of detail around your concerns around the sustainability of the fund, having dollars versus it's just like, we hope we don't have any FEMA disasters but tough to tie up dollars in there for the year when nothing happens. So you keep that open and you put a million dollars in it or something to be ready. And then if you watch, if you need to make the adjustment to add to it, am I? That does, those statements make sense to me and my understanding of how the fund has been handled. Yes, it is not like many funds there's an effort made to set them up with a sustainable source of revenue and this one has not been like that and it's been, we put money in when it's needed to respond to particular events. I think the world now is at a place where this isn't a one-off that's once every five or eight years. So there's a concern that when there is something that happens, how are we building in the resilience of our ability to respond to it? Because we know now that whether it's climate issues or other things, the variety of flooding that you could look at the trends going, this might need to have some more like this sustainability within that program. We worry that there'll come a day when we're not able to that something will happen and we're, well, some days we're like that every day aren't we? All right, sorry to trail off, Representative Moonly. When we talk about PFOS, then I'm reminded of PCBs which I actually got totally jumbled in my head on Friday. I'm wondering, I'm not recalling anything from these spreadsheets or the narrative here about PCB mitigation. And I know that we appropriated, I can't remember the actual, the $32 million for PCB mitigation, but there's nothing in a budget adjustment that about that, right? They're not asking more and they're not asking and they're not saying, oh, we don't need this here, you can have it back. So there was 10 million that was appropriated in from the Education Fund and then maybe 12 million and then another 20 million of so-called waterfall money to the extent that the Education Fund had it available at the end of the year. And I did, so there's a total of $32 million in PCBs, 2.5 of which was loosened by the Joint Fiscal Committee to start with mitigation efforts, but the body of it, let's say $30 million is available. And so that is for youth by ANR, Department of Health and AOE, but there's nothing in this budget adjustment that you just said. Okay, thank you. Okay, moving on. The next section adds another new section, section B1102 for the purpose of making another set of one-time appropriations from a special fund. In this case, the fund in question being a technology modernization special fund. And to recap our testimony that was provided when we reviewed the worksheet, the first four appropriations, so subsections A through D apply to 16.76 million dollars that was actually first appropriated in section B105. So in the Agency of Digital Services base budget, that is where the appropriation for these items was made with the passage of the big bill. This is a change to move, we reduced, as you could see on the worksheet, presented on Friday, the base appropriation in the Technology Modernization Special Fund for ADS by 16.76 million dollars, and we're adding it as one-time appropriations. And this was really an opinion of both the Joint Fiscal Office and the administration a more appropriate way to handle these appropriations. And to those four, appropriations, we are also making two more. These appropriations had not been made with the passage back to 185. The funds to fund these two appropriations were made available as part of contingent transfers dependent on surplus revenue being available at the end of FY22. That revenue was in fact available. It was actually an amount of 50.25 million dollars applied for these two projects that was transferred from the General Fund to the Tech Modernization Fund at the closeout of FY 2022. This is now taking the action of making an appropriation for these funds. This is, I believe, was the need for these to be identified as appropriations was I believe identified in the legislative intent letter. And I guess the only other significant thing I would note is that, well, the entire project amount of 20.25 million is being appropriated for the DMV Core System Modernization for these two projects. At this time, only three million out of a total of 30 million anticipated project cost and 30 million that was transferred to the fund for this purpose. Only three million is being appropriated for use in FY23. And that is to be consistent with section E105.2, subsection C2A language in Act 185 that specifies clearly only this amount is intended for release in FY23. Do you have your hand up? I'm sensing the question. I just need clarification a little slow. I'm gonna figure out this explanation here. If you're removing this from the base appropriation. Yes. On time appropriation. Yes. Maintaining the base appropriation. Does that leave ADS with a 16 million? No. If you look at what you'll, it's perhaps most illustrative to look back at. If you look at the worksheet that was presented on Friday, what you'll see in B105, the very first line of the spreadsheet is it had a number of parentheses around it. I see. Which is 16, which shows the 16709, which actually there's actually a combination as you'll see in the sidebar of a reduction of 16.76 and also for a technical correction, an increase of the 1,000 taking place in that column. But that it is definitely being reduced added as one time and that's what's happened. Thank you. Excellent question. Representative, thank you. Thank you. Under E, if you're taking only about 20.25 million, then I'll be three millions out of a total 30 million that's being appropriated. Why aren't you spending more if you're more than 30 million? What's the logic behind all of that? Okay. So for the 20.25 million, we are appropriating the entire amount in section, in subsection E. The entire amount that was transferred is being appropriated in this year and it will, the appropriation will probably remain and be carried forward past the end of fiscal 23. This was a major project. However, it's subsection F that has something unusual, more unusual going on, which is the legislature did not wish to make the entire 30 million dollars available in FY23. And if you consult the language in section E105, 2 of Act 185, you'll see there is an intent to really build some fences around that. And I believe the language will show an intent to see plan plans and approved plans for releasing more funds to go forward and. Yeah, it wasn't ready yet, but we're willing to put some chips on the table to go forward with it. Software. But the DMV piece is, this is the second year. This is, this would complete what they need for that project, correct? They've already, yeah. They've already had the 20, this is the other. I'm not sure a phase two will absolutely complete it, but it's a continuation of the phase one. And so it's something already underway and keep it going. And whereas the DOL, the UI modernization is a completely new project that's starting in legislative intent to fence the amount that's provided in the food and providing incremental amounts. Thank you. Okay. You're done? Yes, sir. So in the next section, the D section of the big bill is typically where we put transfers. And so you'll see that there are a number of entries there. The first of which is to transfer to the ERAF fund, Emergency Relief and Assistance Fund. We transfer money in there every year. We typically, if we have available revenue, we'll do it in the budget adjustment just to kind of get it out of the way for the big bill, but there's no reason why we have to then accept. We do know that we have $2.1 million of need, a match for FEMA reimbursements, FY23 and FY24. Those are known match requirements. Did you say? I don't know, but we know now that we'll need at least $2.1 million to meet our FEMA match requirements. So we're transferring that into the ERAF fund. The next transfer is, as we've discussed, the $3 million from the Environmental Confinancy Fund will be fast remediation. We have to put the money in the fund first, and so this is the transfer into the fund. And then there is also a little more than a half a million dollars into the Cannabis Regulation Fund to meet a compilation of operating expenses that will happen in FY23 through the next six months. I know that's representative Shai's area of depth. Do you have a question around that right now, or are you good? Okay. There's also what I would term kind of clean up a little below transferring small amounts in the Agency of Human Services, various special funds back to the general fund. You'll see that at the bottom of the page. On the next page, five of 22, there is, that is where we are reverting to the general fund, various carry forward amounts from the departments that you see. We do that in budget adjustment, and the total reversion amount is over a half a million dollars. And we arrive at that number by the numbers you see laid out in front of you. Totally just have a question because the first two are not underlined and the others are because they're new. I mean, well, help me. Those were in, those were already. They were already anticipated. Okay. They were made. Underlined out, they're new, they're in. Okay. Yep, yep, those were made in Act 185. I guess I would note that all, it being a similar case last year that more than half the total amount of reversions are made up by reversions in from homeowner rebates and from renter rebates. And I know there was a large amount of renter rebates specifically last year as well. We'll be back to the general fund. So that's more than half of it. And then there's another 1.376 million reverting from a one-time appropriation in AHS from which there was no expenditure in fiscal 22. Just one technical note I'll also make is that you can, some inside baseball where you see the depth ID numbers which are the long numbers preceding the description. If you see the numbers, the digits 89 in the middle that indicates a one-time appropriation as opposed to a base appropriation. And so commonly departments will submit for reversion amounts that are left in one-time appropriations for which the project or use has already been complete. And then at other times there are amounts left in base budget, depth IDs where there's a surplus that's not needed for another purpose. So combination of factors, but again, highlighting that the two largest amounts are again, homeowner rebates and renter rebates. So I've just got a question myself around the food bank at 1.3. It just doesn't, you know, when we talk to the public which is also us, you know, when it doesn't jive when there's so much food insecurity and drives for it and then they, I think that's right. It was a one-time because it has 89 in the middle of it. So they had gotten a one-time appropriation which was, I'm gonna assume was much larger than the number we see here. At the end of the timeframe, this was not able to be used because it's being reverted back, right? Well, all I can state on this is that it was in fact recommended for reversion by AHS to finance and management when we receive a department recommending that their funds be reverted from a particular appropriation, we typically don't argue but I don't have any additional information, you know as to whether there was a federal fund source that made this not needed. That would be a question, you know, for AHS on this because we didn't go. I was on your side of the table. I wouldn't argue either, but our side of the table we're gonna maybe wanna know why. Representative Harrison, did you, I've got a sense that you had a question or no? All right. So does this seem like a typical, it just seems bigger that there's more reversions here than normal. So how are- For normal is anymore. I mean, the eye popping number actually was the amount of requested carry forward, which was true. It's over half a billion dollars of total requesting carry forward, which you might think is extraordinary being that our budget is two billion. So that's a quarter of the budget being asked. However, that represented that to Hardy's comment. A lot of that was one time money keep in mind some of these programs, the budget passes in May, the fiscal year ends in the end of June. So in many cases, they just haven't got the money out the door, particularly one time appropriations that they may or may not have anticipated. So that was unusual, but you know, having said that I'll say there was, I don't know, I think a little over $200 million of kind of base spending carry forward and a good amount of that was the fact that we have a fair number of vacancies. And- You have a fair number of what? I'm sorry, vacancies, yep. And there's a fair amount of payroll that is budgeted for that is not being paid out. That is very unusual. So, you know, I would also add that many times departments have a lot of needs that are not met in their base budgets because we don't have the funds and we try as best we can. And so these funds are put right to work. We typically do not revert funds from departments unless, you know, it really is, unless we're requested to as sometimes we are. But you know, many times the funds stay with the department and they're used for one time expenses normally wouldn't be funded. Right. But you're right. In future, you're going to fill that position and now we don't need to have to have to break that into the budget that's already in their base. Yeah. Like Representative Dolan and Representative Holcomb. I appreciate that the realities of, especially during a time where we received a significant amount of federal dollars and the capacity of this to get those dollars out. Perhaps there's quite a challenge across all agencies. I do worry about the vacancies, though, whether they're left vacant, you know, as vacancy savings or are they vacancies not being able to hire fast enough or finding workforce challenges as well. And so those are just sort of a general concern I have that may result in why we have such a special amount of Harry Ford reports. The vacancy savings pressures. I guess, but what I would, I think I would respond that if vacancy savings is being budgeted and if perhaps vacancies being held on purpose, you know, and not being hired, it's because it's budgeted. Well, there's not going to be any carry forward funds resulting in that situation as vacancy savings is budgeted as a reduction to the budgeted amount. So I don't think the budgeting of vacancy savings is resulting in carry forward. In fact, it's exactly the converse. If your actual vacancies are higher than what you've budgeted as vacancy savings, that's what results in a surplus funds to carry forward. If that makes sense. Okay. I think around 40% is about the normal turn in vacancy savings. So like if you're running an apartment, you might want to be able to think that usually 2%, you could probably build in your budget, but 10% and this is really particularly high. I will also confirm that we have been reasonably, in fact, we've been more than reasonable. We've been very aware of vacancies and we've asked departments to budget for what they actually anticipate vacancies to be, because it does us no good for them to budget for a 3% vacancy rate and then have a 10% vacancy rate. I mean, yes, that results in carry forward, but we want them to run their departments. So we've actually you'll see, and when we present our budget in a couple of weeks too, that we've looked at what actual vacancy rates are today. And admittedly this budget will be for six months from now and updates. So we've asked for some prediction, but we also don't buy the idea that you have a 12% vacancy rate today and suddenly at budget time, in July one you can have a 3% vacancy rate. That just typically doesn't happen. So we've tried to be very accurate actually with the amount of vacancies that departments budget for. But above and beyond that, I mean, it's, you know, we have a lot more vacancies than we anticipate. I'll just say that. And most departments are not holding back to hire. Most departments can hire. You know, I would say that many of our largest vacancies and corrections, state police, they're on bended knee. They're on bended knee. They're not holding anything back. So anyway. I hear one of the reasons why I've been working as a substitute teacher, not in corrections. I've got representative Hulcombe and then representative Dick Inson. One question and one comment. With respect to that, has the state evaluated the classification systems to look at whether state positions are actually competitive? I mean, I know in the education sector, for example, you can get paid $30,000 more per year in school systems than you can in state government for comparable responsibilities. And I just wonder if the state's gonna have to look at the staffing structure for the state and the compensation for state in certain professional categories. And then the second question was with respect to some of these counterintuitive surpluses, I'm looking at the homeowner rebates and the renter rebates and the food bank, if people could come prepared to talk about the contacts. I mean, the first question this raises to me is what's happening with three square square square. And what's the implications of that for drawing down federal funds to support school meals, for example. A lot of these things are connected to other funding streams. And if people could come prepared to talk about that, I think that would be really helpful in the sense of these as indicators of what's going on in the state right now. Sure. Thank you. In brief answer to your first point though, we're beholden to a collective bargaining agreement as you're well aware. And so we pay our employees according to the agreement. And if state employees believe that they are under compensated or under benefited, they come to the table and they ask them. So we have, but whereas that's a good thing, it's also kind of a bit of a straitjack. We don't have the flexibility that a private entity might. You'll note in here where we have found some flexibility is in, you'll note side agreements, for example, we mentioned that in corrections, state troopers, there was an agreement that we locked in after the budget went to rest. It's currently featured here, mental health. So we're doing what we can within the agreements that we have, but. Sometimes there's a review through HR, right? There'll be a whole class. That's correct. And I remember a few years ago, there was large, we were like anticipating that this, that the number of classes that were going to be reviewed will have an impact. We just didn't know how much and we could see that kind of wave coming. And that's- We also have to be careful though that reclassifications are not forgiving raises. Right, no, they are not. There has to be a reason to reclassify a position. That has, reclassification has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with your job responsibilities. If you're asked to do ABC and most of your job is ABC and D, then you can reclassify to include D. But you can't just reclassify positions to give out raises. And that's- That's the system. I just wanted to clarify. I wasn't talking about the bottom. I was talking about Wilson's and the classification system and the reality that being an analyst today is not the same as it was 20 years ago simply because of the technological tools. And that's just, I think it just changed how we work. So I hear you and I know it's a tough issue, but I need to think about that. I think I've got representative Dickinson and then representative Harrison. Yeah, if I hear you correctly, the vacancies are related to workforce. Lack of workforce, not just you guys. It's everybody, is that correct? It's everybody. I mean, you'll see in initiatives that we present in a couple of weeks. Not to get ahead of myself, but we're suffering as many other states and industry is suffering. We just don't have enough workers. So that's reflected in our vacancy. You good? I don't have Harrison. I don't remember. Just a bit of information. We're going to begin the process of human resources to do the re-classification. It's not a short process and it's been 40 years since it's been done, so. Thank you. Okay. So you see further down the page, there are reversions to the Ed Fund from various programs that had extra. That stays, you know, in the Ed Fund and cycle back into operations the following year. Of note, I would comment on the special education formula depth ID, well, a large amount of $27.3 million. Still $30 million of carry forward left depth ID. Specifically for the purpose of mitigating the impact of one time, the one time tail payment that's anticipated with the shift from the reimbursement model to the census grant model. And this is also tied to a question that was asked by the committee during our presentation on Friday about why the special Ed was not seen on the worksheet page of the BAA. And that's because it's being handled via retention of this carry forward amount of $30 million, which you don't see here, but that's being left in place and there's still the 27 available for reversion according to the numbers we've gotten from AOE. So. So if I was to think about this in the terms that there was 57 there, 27 coming back and leaving 30. If there are no other questions or comments on the reversion section, I'll move on. The next section is an amendment of D102A which is the section that pertains to the 2753 reserve. And this is a purely technical correction. The fiscal reference to fiscal year was made in the bill. So we're correcting that to refer to 2023 and not to 2023. The next section is also what I would consider changes that are technical corrections in nature. The section E100 is typically utilized in the big bill for creation of new positions. There were positions that were what they intended to be created by other bills other than the big bill. However, they did not include the actual proper language actually making that position creation take place. So things were defined like what the job duties of the position would be, but there was not actual position creation language which follows a pretty specific format. You need to define whether it's permanent or limited service and you need to define whether it's classified or exempt basically. So there are those different combinations available. So this is clarifying that the newly created office of child youth and family advocate is having two positions created and that those are in fact permanent exempt positions in this case. And so this provides the positions tended by Act 129. And then subsection G creates three commissioner positions which were the intended to be created by Act 128 for the truth and reconciliation commission. However, again, that very specific language creating them and specifying the nature of the positions wasn't present. So that's what's happening here. Oh, did you have your hand up? No. Let me just... In the next section brings back up the Rural Infrastructure Assistance Program. You saw the appropriation made earlier in this sheet and this provides some description of the program. I am aware that you I believe have invited the administration and to speak to you. I think they'll be able to provide in greater detail. But suffice it to say that this is a program to help smaller or rural communities access many of the ARPA funds and granting opportunities available to them. It includes kind of a measure of how we will define which communities can apply for these funds. And also it includes various support services that will be made available to eligible communities. More than a few hands went up. Representative Tarino. So thank you. I'm trying to use my weak memory to remember. But so there's something interesting here that I guess I will hear when we hear back from the administration more details. Vermont League of Cities and Towns asked us for money to do something very similar. I thought we funded it. RPCs are doing this in their day-to-day work. We did a little bit to help them last year, but I mean, independent of whether they're funded correctly or not, this is their day-to-day work. Why within the agency administration? And it also doesn't, I mean, it looks like it sort of contemplates its own demise, but the funds not being available because it's one-time dollars, but it also reads as something that could become an ongoing program. And so I'm just curious all the intersection of all of those things. Great. So the agency may well decide to work with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns or local RDCs or RPCs. So there's nothing in here that says they can't. But I think they are going to stand up the program so that the resources go to the communities. They try to limit the administrative expenses that are taken out, and they try to be thoughtful about which communities are accessed. The fact is if this work were going on already, we wouldn't need to do this, but our worry is that as the clock ticks, time is moving and we don't see the amount of support or the amount of money going to rural communities as we'd like. No, it's not a fair race in many ways. I mean, some communities have a bandwidth, others are very small, I don't know. There's nothing that precludes the agency from reaching out to these organizations and working with them to do it. I think they would be the better place to come in and tell you how to do that. I've got Representative Harrison, Representative Page and then Representative Tolton. Okay, and Shai. And Shai. Representative Page, you were next? Yes, as I look at this list here, maybe you could apply it to, other than the example I'm going to use. I see broadband development. The communication union districts are already getting funded. So why include it here in administrative support? For the local communities. So there is a fair amount of broadband money, ARPA money, roughly a quarter of a billion dollars add another hundred million from ARPA capital funds. And those are dominantly granted. So we want to make sure that these communities are in line for that. And it's true that the CUDs are fair, kind of representative organizations. But there may be different levels of participation among the CUDs, different amount of broadband. We don't know that. We just want to make sure, at the end of the day, ensuring that the playing field is level is a good thing. If we find that it is level, then there's no need for this money. And it can revert back to the bottom line of ARPA. But I suspect the more we look, the more we'll see that there are differential resources in different parts of the state that we addressed. So the resources to access it. So you're getting a letter in the mail that said, if you apply for this, you can get this. And they go, I don't know how to apply to that. And I don't have anybody and there was nobody to even open the mail. So we want to make sure that they get, that's what, if I'm reading the intent. Correct. I think we're representative Dolan and then representative Shai. I appreciate this focus on, especially the smaller perhaps underserved communities. I worry a bit that the, as I understand, I checked in with Joint Fiscal that the ARPA funds have been fully allocated. And so what we're talking about here is perhaps access to our traditional funds that we make available or perhaps other federal funding, such as the Inflation Reduction Act or the Infrastructure Act provides obviously additional funding for these similar purposes. But I do worry that we've already perhaps allocated ARPA funds. Do you anticipate that, and that's a 100% grant related funding? So some of those funds were allocated to granting programs through ACCD or the like that we need that local communities will apply for. As well, there is other IIJA money that is coming down the pike. So ARPA money has been appropriated, but not all of it's been used. In many cases, we've appropriated say $50 million to ACCD or ABC program. And then organizations or communities will apply for that. So that money hasn't been spent. It hasn't been obligated. It's appropriated, but not obligated. So that's available. We're hoping the communities will put their name, throw their name in the hat for that. As well as you mentioned, there is more money coming down the pike that I think these communities should be part of. That's all. So it's not really of the granting programs out there and I don't have a number in front of me that tells me of the $1 billion that we've appropriated, how much is actually going to be granted out, but it's fairly substantial, fairly substantial. So that's the money that we're thinking about as well as additional programs like IJA that are out there. Thank you. You're welcome. Are you good? Representative Shia, then representative Page. Thank you. I had similar questions to Reptilino, but in addition, I'm curious as to how developed this program is now, and what this Vermont underserved community index is and who is developing that and what expertise they have to do so. So, and thank you for the question. So that is being developed by the agency of administration. I suspect with the assistance of Guidehouse, our consultant, but I will yield to them to answer that question. For those of you that don't know or not familiar with the term Guidehouse or what that means, it's the entity that the state of Vermont has been working with or hired to help to be a consultant to make sure that we don't step out of bounds with the use of any of these federal dollars at our grants. So they have sort of the expertise in advising a state when we say, hey, we think we wanna be able to use all our ARP of dollars to buy clementines. And they go, that's probably not gonna fly. So we use them as a helpful to our business. Does that make sense? I just wanted you to know who Guidehouse was. So just to go back to my first question. Has this program been developed at all by the AOA other than the language that's in here and when do they expect to go live? The program is being developed. It has not been developed yet. It's being developed. And we hope to bring it live as I would say ASAP, but I don't have a timeline for you. I will get you on. Thank you. You good? Thank you, good. Yep, representative Page. Yes, just a comment. I think this is a great idea for some communities, okay? That really don't have the wherewithal to write grants and things like that. But it also strikes me as, oh, there may be state agencies that are already or should be doing some of this work to help their communities, like development agencies. Would I be off the mark by saying that? Probably the single most important agency in that regard would be the Agency of Commerce and Community Development. And they work with local development agencies like, you know, the RDCs and RPCs and the like, but that typically is the extent of their direct involvement with communities. It just seems like a duplication of effort in some cases. It's just... It's, I think it would be much welcome to buy communities who need it. I can assure you, if we had that bandwidth, we would be doing it now. Thank you. You're welcome. I think we're caught up. So it's a quarter of 12 and we're gonna go to lunch and around that. We're on page seven. So if I was to reach into my hopeful hat, right if we got to 10, because it's almost about halfway through. So I've asked our committee assistant to take a look at our schedule because obviously we're gonna need you back for the other half and commissioner. So before, when we go here at noon, if you could check in to see what your schedule would allow as well. Okay, thank you. I think we can, there are a few of these that I think we can go through relatively quickly because they're either just of what we've already said or otherwise, but we'll... For moving to the next section, which amends act 185 section dot 105.2. This is purely creating alignment of technical language with the changes regarding the technology modernization special fund appropriations that have already been discussed in a couple of previous sections. I think we could probably jump past this if we'd like to keep moving. There's no new elements here. This is just making the legal language comport with the financial transactions. So the next section being an amendment of act 185 section E dot 233.2A. This is the language that follows up on discussion we had on Friday, which is aligning the actual appropriation to the Vermont Community Broadband Board with the budget that they were required to develop for this purpose of making these adjustments in the fiscal year 23 BAA. So originally you can see in this language, $1.5 million special fund appropriation was made to fund the VCBB in 23 with the expectation this would be adjusted based on an actual budget being created and presented. So we're decreasing that $1.5 million appropriation slightly to 1.435 and then we're adding another $684,000 from federal funds to operate the board. And we're now crossing out the second Senate at section because this has already been done. Next section. The crew up of what's happening. Do you want to pick on the next? And at the bottom, very bottom of page nine, we go back to the employment support for new Americans. We spoke about this program earlier. And I think we spoke about it when we went through the appropriation for this program. This is the language that describes what exactly we intend to do. I think the state refugee office, notably Tracy Dirling would be very happy to come in and speak to you more in more details about the program as said, but it's a $350,000 appropriation to stand up a new program to help communities assess the ability to support resettlement and help organizations that provide services to these organizations. I think, you know, moving on to that, there are a number of what I would call technical adjustments to appropriations within human services, really more true ups to what we think will be the actual number as opposed to a forecasted at the very top of page 11. We're truing up a global commitment amount. And the same is true underneath, we're just providing what are more accurate numbers to what we do when we did budgeting. I know we're all getting a little bit hungry and then our voices get a little weaker, but I know you're so far away, commissioner, but I can't. I think you're holding up okay. You're doing all right. We're happy to. A little out, yeah. Representative Holcomb, go ahead. I second that you're doing an amazing job. My question on global commitment, I think is something you may get answered later, but when we get this adjustment, does that also affect the Medicaid, the match? Yes, yes it does. So what's the opportunity cost of reducing this investment here? So when we're changing the amount of global commitment, you can think about it as changing the amount of state match, state general fund, as well as federal funds that we anticipate coming in. So there'll be a reduction in global commitment amounts. Well, you'll see a corresponding and B-301, generally a reduction in general fund as required. So what's the opportunity cost? What are we not doing by not pulling down those? So these adjustments typically are truing up to what our current utilization and caseload amounts are. Okay. That's all. We're not, this is not a policy move. This is more of a truing up to what actuals are relative to what we estimated. That's all. So there's no policy involved. This is just associated with case use. We have more current information. We're halfway through the year and we were pretty knowledgeable anyway. There'll be actually again a truer but kind of at the end of the year. And there will be with respect to general medical education. And this is 301, which is the mixing bowl. So that's where like a lot goes in. So the chair is okay. We can move on to the following section, which are the increasing reimbursement rates for so-called PNMI, private, not medical institutions. The agency has asked to provide rate increases for PNMI. These are providers for both sides. With the PMI, the per member per month, is that just so people listening and that new people here, we make sure we're on the same page. They're private, non-medical institutions. There we go. Like when I- These are providers to the state and they like many of our providers have been under severe pressure to maintain staffing levels and to provide essentially staff their beds and staff their organizations. And so this is acknowledging that in FY23, their rates, what they're trying to do is lift their rates and backdated from the beginning of FY23 through June 30th of this year. So it's one year of increased rates to providers. You see this twice, once for Department of Mental Health and once for DCF. So these are gross amounts. The general fund amount is less than that. So in section E314.3, you see $420,000. If you look back at the spreadsheets we spoke about or we distributed on Friday, $47,000, $48,000 of general fund and the remaining amount would be global costs. Similarly for DCF in E317.1, the total appropriation is 1.9 and that's $200,000 of general fund and it got 1.7 of global commitment. So the total amount, the gross amount going to increasing provider rates at PNMI is about $2.3 million for FY23. And you can anticipate that when we present a budget in FY24 that these rates will be. If I look at it too, I see the B314 which is mental health on the first one. So just as we're all in a learning phase and somebody's giving me an example to help us dial in for people who may not know what is an example of a non-medical institution. So- And I don't know the spot, sir. No, no, that's all right. Actually it would probably be better to ask the folks that DMH and DCF, but these are providers that are take, I think it's predominantly- The DC children. And that are being provided for there for various supports of the dominant lead children. Okay. Representative Dickinson, you have a hand up here. Oh, thank you. Representative Shah, go ahead. Thank you. You asked my first question, my second question, which may also be for others, is do we know how many PNMIs there are in the state? Gladly punt on that answer. And I think it's a much better topic to take up with the folks. Go to that level, yeah, okay. I really, I bring that question up because sometimes I have been around it for a while, but then I can still be off by a curb or something. Often I'm in the right church, wrong queue. I'm getting a dozen, am I, 12. 12, okay. That's what I'm hearing, but- She'll get you a little helpful earpiece. I have someone who's smarter than I am sitting behind me, so sometimes that helps. If you guys ask the right questions, you have support, I can- Exactly. All right, I've got one minute to 12, and is that a good spot to stop because we go into 500 then. That ends the human's right. You've got the next starts in education. I'll, Commissioner, are you- Yeah, I'm happy to- Potter, you can tell me if it's not. That's as good a place as any of this. Okay, all right, so we're at the bottom of page 12. And we'll work, we're gonna work you in to get the rest of this presentation. Sounds good. Thank you for your patience. No, thank you guys. Thank you. So, sorry, I was gonna say, okay, class. I've been- Same thing. And six days are kind of fun. I don't know if it's noon, so we've got according to our agenda, we're off for lunch until one, and at one o'clock, we're gonna hear a walkthrough on the letter of intent that you've heard them mention that was left off at the end, and then we'll have a break, and then we will, we have a lot of scheduled more orientations. All right, anybody need anything from the supply room that I could go down and make sure that you've been in our sort of evolving space. Make your life comfortable. Pencils, pens, can you add stuff? Manila, Manila folders. Manila folders, that was, yeah. Chair. Oh, I think we could. We could buy live strangles in an hour. Thank you. Thank you.