 Good morning. You are with the Vermont House Government Operations Committee. We are meeting this morning with a member of the House Appropriations Committee. Mita Townsend, thank you for being with us. And if you would like to help us understand the couple of changes that the Appropriations Committee is recommending on H449, we will take a vote. Thank you very much. And for the record, Rep Mita Townsend from South Burlington here on behalf of the Appropriations Committee on H449. I would be remiss if I did not say at the outset a huge thank you to your committee and to Rep Gannon in particular, as well as the fiscal analyst from JFO and the attorney from Lich Council on this bill, substantial hours and substantial patients that all three have provided house appropriations as we worked on this bill. I also would be remiss if I did not say to House Govots that in the process of working on this bill, we did go through the entire bill. With the help from our three folks whom I just referenced. And we are very well aware that there are fiscal issues throughout the bill, some of which pertain to costs applied to the retirement systems themselves and some costs applied to the general fund. So I just wanted to assure you that we are aware of all those separate pieces and have looked at them all and discussed them. So ultimately, we came together on our proposed amendment, the language of which does show in today's calendar on page 1156. And we have a piece that we start off with a piece that applies to VPIC in section three. And it proposes to include house appropriations as receiving the report required in section three this is the report that change that that studies how to change be picked from a committee to a freestanding entity, and that this incorporates budgetary authority hiring and compensating personnel and such issues. We believed it appropriate for house appropriations to receive that report. Even though as things stand presently, VPIC related costs are borne by the respective retirement systems, we do not know how things will proceed in the future. And we believe we need to be informed. So that's with regard to that piece section three, the rest of our proposed amendment applies to the task force. And the first piece is section 10 sub C sub one. This is the powers and duties section for the task force, and we propose adding a new section J. At the end of the list as as proposed by house gov ops, a new section J, which calls for the modeling and estimating of costs. If the retirement benefits to visas and vistas members were not changed, if the retirement benefits were not changed for members of those two systems within five years, and also within 10 years of the current retirement age. We thought that that would be important information for the, for the task force to have in front of it. We further propose recommending in that section related to powers and duties, a new sub two. The next section where house gov ops proposes that the task force make no recommendation regarding assumed rates of return house appropriations proposes to add to that prohibition, the prohibition also that there be no changes to change retirement benefits for members of visas and vistas who are current retirees, or within five years of the current retirement age. We were given to understand in our consideration of the bill that this had been part of the general understanding, but we felt it important to make that understanding explicit. Then also in section 10 sub e sub two. This is the assistance section with regard to the task force. We have, we have with the help of Ledge Council crafted language that clarifies how the $200,000 is handled. So you see there the proposed a where the joint fiscal office is tasked with executing the contracts for the independent benefits expert and the legal expert as necessary to provide the support to the task force and be that no more than $200,000 in the general fund dollars is appropriated to the general assembly for that purpose. The reason it goes to the general assembly is that the, the expenses for the joint fiscal office are a component within the legislative branch budgetary line items. And then sub G also in section 10. We just felt they that the task force going to need a little more time. So we propose adding a couple of weeks and change the date to September 15 from September one for the final report of their recommendations. And we propose also adding that house appropriations receive this report. Since, since there may well be fiscal impact to the funds of the states involved. And that is it on that amendment house appropriations voted 1100. And just to make sure that you're aware with this amendment from house appropriations, we voted 1010 in support of 449 and open to whatever questions you have. Thank you so much representative Townsend we appreciate the the time and care and attention that your committee gave to looking at this important bill. Committee, do any of you have questions for representative Townsend representative Haley. Thank you madam chair thank you made a made a in regards to the section where appropriations. Put in a piece to not change current retirees pensions. Was there any information from lunch council about the legality of that anyway. The, the issue of the issue of there being a question that there could be potentially legal questions around this that are the next change were brought up we did not have any intense discussion about this that were the next would be the offset if if trying to seeking to change current retirees benefits were actually to be moved forward. We just want our bottom line as a committee was to make explicit that we thought there needed to be guard rails to assure people currently retired and very close to retirement that they would be held harmless. Thank you made and I guess if I could one other question the one member at the end that voted no on the overall bill. Was there a particular reason given or is it. Well you know we don't talk with regard to motivations of others. Anyone watching our YouTube recordings would see that we had a great deal of discussion about the degree to which there were or were not. I'll call them guard rails, or could be called limitations on the. The first year within which the task force was operating. There was a great deal of discussion over. It would have to be in section 10, since that's task force where there's. I have a mental image I have to call up the bill but there's a small Roman numeral I and Roman numeral one and, and a small Roman numeral two with regard to the targets, and reducing the ADAC, those two sections. Again, and I, I bet you can tell me exactly what page that's on to help your colleagues here. But we had a great deal of discussion about those two sections and whether or not they should be included or not. We had no discussion within the committee as to whether or not we wanted to include the language to make explicit that the, the benefits of current retirees and those within five years of retirement should be off the table. Thank you for that representative and again I'm sure that representative Gannon understands that but I think it was important to maybe have a heads up as to what might be coming our way on the floor but thank you for that. Thank you for the question. Other questions from committee members. So representative Gannon since you are the keeper of this, I will let you have the floor for a moment and, and help us understand your perspective on these changes and you can make the motion. Thank you very much representative Townsend for coming into our committee today and explaining the amendments. You know I was, you know, lucky enough to be to be asked by the chair of appropriations to participate in the lengthy discussions about this bill over the course of a couple days. No, I appreciate it. I mean appropriations asked a lot of good questions. We had a great discussion. The appropriations is always a very civil place. I mean, everybody's just trying to do its best for the state of Vermont. So, I appreciate the discussions and, you know, I'm very supportive of the changes that were made. And just to sort of get to representative Higley's question. The one member who voted against the bill I think was really concerned about the specificness of the targets to reduce the ADAC and the unfunded liability. The primary concern. I don't want to put words in her mouth but I think other than that she was fine with the bill. It was just with respect to those targets there was a lengthy debate in appropriations around that and around putting in guardrails which appropriations did and I just remind the committee that when the chair and I put in our first proposal with respect to benefit changes. It also excluded impacting retirees and people within five years of retirement. So it is consistent with what we originally proposed. And so I would move that we find this amendment from appropriations favorable. Excellent. Great discussion. Guys are really fast this morning. Excellent. All right. Thank you representative Townsend and representative Colston if you're ready we'll go ahead and take a roll call. Thank you Madam chair. I shall begin the roll call. Gannon. Yes. Mariki. Leclerc. Yes. Hooper. Can you read his lips. No. Not quite. Not with the beard. You go to the closer. Thank you. Colston. Yes. Anthony. Yes. Piofski. No. Lefave. I certify this is representative Lefave and vote yes. Thank you. Higley. Yes. McCarthy. Yes. Koblenons. Yes. So we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, nine, one, two, nine, one, one. Yeah. There we go. So let's let's hold that open and see if representative Merwicky makes it back he had an urgent appointment this morning and said he'd be a few minutes late to committee so we may get. On more vote on that before we break for lunchtime. Representative Townsend thank you so much for your work and for being with us this morning to help us understand your amendment. Thank you for having me. Have a good rest of this morning and good afternoon also. Thanks. See you later.