 I have a new notebook. Welcome. This is the Wednesday morning meeting of the house appropriations committee. Mid sentence before we went live and I'm just going to say it. There's not enough hours in the day. Five or four or six. I just, I'm just finding everything. I don't know about the rest of you, but the. And you sent us that fabulous memo, Kitty summarizing the work that we have in front of us. Thank you very much for that. I just had to, instead of me talking all the time and referring back to it, we've had to organize it in my head and I'm sure I left stuff out, but I think it will help us or it's going to help me when Steve comes in at 945. But let's take this out. We will be getting another bill probably on Thursday or Friday, the justice reinvestment bill. We still have the primary care bill that has a $2 million request in it. That's one time money that Peter has additional information on. You're muted. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. One million. It grosses up. Okay. And, but let's get to the older Vermont. Yesterday we decided as a committee. With straw votes that. Section five. We would not make it mandatory that it would not. You know, A requirement in the upcoming. Budget for 2022. 2021. And, but there was some appetite with committee members to look at the language and get the information. And have a future legislature. Consider the merits of an inflator for the home and community based. Entities. That may be similar, but different than the nursing homes. So a question I have for you. Where's chip? His chip on here. Where's chip? Chip sent me an email. I don't know. I don't see him. I do have the email. Okay. But I don't see him yet. He should be joining us shortly. Diane had mentioned working with the committee of jurisdiction to get some language. Marty had mentioned that it was missing factors. I've jotted down that word. What factors? Would be included that should be looked at. And I personally believe it's beyond the expertise of that appropriations committee to. To know here's chip to determine all these factors. I think we can weigh in. And, and offline work with the. The committee of jurisdiction to do some information on the language that would provide. What is needed for a future legislature to consider? Does that sound. In the right vein. Committee members just unmute yourself and. Let me know if that's what you're thinking. Yep, that sounds about right. I know that I've been in communication with both. Teresa Wood and Dan, who are the. Spokespeople for the, for this bill in from human services. And, and with their help, we've been, you know, we've elicited Jen Garby's. Help to craft an amendment. And including, I think what Marty had, you know, what are the factors that would go into establishing or bringing forward any kind of. Informational direction. So she's working on that now. We had a question because both Teresa and I did not. Should. It would be also preferable that if it comes from the committee of jurisdiction. This amendment and not from us. So Jen was working to see if that's something that's. Possible seeing that we have possession of the bill now and what that would look like. So I know Teresa is working on that. And I told her that if, if it's not possible for them as the committee of jurisdiction to bring it forward. That, that I would bring it forward with anybody else that would want to help sponsor that. Maybe Teresa and Dan would. Or, but I don't. So anyway, that's underway right now. He's hoping this morning that, but I know they're busy that there'd be something in my inbox from, from Jen. But just know that that's, that's where that stands at the moment. Perfect. Thank you for that update. You're welcome. Mary. Yeah. That, that sounds like a great. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Mary. Yeah. That, that sounds like a great solution. The concern that I have had about this all along is. One, I'm. They have a broad philosophical issue with. Inflators. But it is also what we are inflating. And it's very clear that. That we're not going to be able to do this. So. We're going to be able to do this. With a group of folks who are underpaid. And so I'm assuming that part of the study that will be presented in. Next year sometime. Will, will that. Also give us some insight into what the salary issues are so that we can understand. What the base pay is so that we can begin to inflate it properly. So. No, I think it would all be part of the information seeking. Okay. The folks understand for me, the underlying issue is what is the base salary. And then what are we inflating? We've seen this in the mental health system where we are paying those people 25% less than we, we've seen this in the mental health system. We've seen this in the mental health system. We've seen this in the mental health system. In the mental health system. The. The system is guaranteed to fail because you never can hold your employees because they're paid so little. And that's what we need to sell. Thanks. Mary. I think it's. Section six of the bill that talks about doing a study of current. And how that relates to things or what, what are the factors of the current case system? I believe is what's in section six of the bill. Yeah. Actually, Jen. Has her hand raised. So Marty, thank you for. That out. And I think then you joined on and I, is that what you're going to point out as well? Jennifer Kirby legislative council. Yes. I was exactly what I was going to point out a section six is looking at what the rates are and whether they're adequate. And so one thing you could think about doing is just adding. A piece to that study in section six that has somebody look at. An inflation factor. And make that part of that same report. Put it. Put it all together. Put it all together. Yeah. Yeah. That could be a nice solution. Yeah. Thank you, Marty for pointing out such section six. Chip, you had some language that. Can we just throw it up, Teresa on the. Can we display it that you sent early either. Yes. I know one second. And I don't know if any of these pieces would. Or what people think may go in, Jen, you can take a quick look at this. Can I just. I mean, I just want to say that that was just something I threw together this morning. It's not really. It's not really a draft. So just keep that in mind. I also want to apologize for being late to this conversation. I'm sorry, I was out taking care of my cows. And I lost track of time. It is very hot. So I, and while people are looking, I guess, I'll just jump in to say that I, I completely agree with Diane that this, you know, this seems to me very much a policy committee. Piece of work. My suggestion here was that we, we asked the, the policy committee to consider. You know, taking out section five and. And replacing it with something. And this was my. Attempt at what the something would be. And, you know, they can do that to Diane's point earlier. They, any member can offer an amendment to the, to a bill that's on the floor. So I would suggest that if they are willing to do something. That one or more of their committee just offer the amendment. And I just think that sends a message to the body. That they are on board rather than it being coming from us. Thank you. Thank you, Chip. And let me just one last thing. So what I would, I think David was, it was David who pointed it out. And the thing that I recognized that I really was looking for was something. I think it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a possible, likely statutory that says these are the objectives that that. That the rate is intended to achieve. So that we, the appropriations committee has a basis for. Making decisions about whether or not we're going to raise the rate and what the right amount is really. I find myself looking for that in a lot of what we do. I think that's a really important part of that. So that's, you know, not the minimum home rates and it's not there in these rates. And so that's kind of what, why I was putting this down. Thank you, Chip. We'll send this to Jen so that she has this to work with Mary, your salary pieces. That piece is covered in section six. So if you have more to add to that, Mary, if you could get that to Jen Diane, from jurisdiction and Marty the only thing that's left out of here you mentioned yesterday about including specific factors do you have you know I think comparing to what is what we saw on the side-by-side for nursing homes do you have any thoughts or maybe Jen you have some thoughts on factors that should be considered I think that factors to be considered is probably a policy question okay okay so already specific ones you want to weigh in on put those through Jen or Teresa and Dan in that conversation and and at this point does the committee feel that with legislative and those interested on in our committee and the committee of jurisdiction that we don't need to worry about this language any at this point that will let the work start and then we will see what it what comes back Dave I know this was important to you are you comfortable with this language I do know that you would have preferred a different result but knowing where we are with the committee yeah I sure I also forwarded to Diane a draft of an amendment I was going to offer I gave it to Jen but I told Jen to stop on it however I pointed out only if it's helpful then last sentence speaks to what Chip was talking about about a what sufficient payments are right yeah obviously obviously I would have gone a different way I don't want to repeat conversation again I could if asked but I think this is a good start we'll see where it ends up thank you thank you thank you so I just been communicating with Jen that I think we lost the last thread last night of an answer that Teresa and Dan are part of so I just resent that to Jen as well and maybe that if you're still on the call Jen I'm not sure if that answers the question or not but that we we thought we were we thought we were there with that yeah sorry I think I somehow I missed this and somebody was saying there's a million emails flying around and yes there are so yes I think we can yes we can work and if people want to do that offline I'm happy to do that I think the easiest way maybe to to combine the section five inflation factor concept with the section six study and have a study that looks at kind of the rates maybe the factors to be considered in the objectives that the rate is intended to achieve that was brought up and then how to calculate an inflation factor and what the what the objectives are for applying that yep thank you I'm muted I'm sorry so I think that we have a path forward and the quicker we could get this language in the quicker we can turn this bill around and and move it out but I think that as far as a committee right now our discussion I is there anything else anyone needs to add or can we move to the quarter year the quarter year bill perfect Jen thank you so much Nolan I know you're behind that I can just see your name I can't see the man behind the curtain and as soon as we can get that that would be great thank you let's move to we haven't received H 51 back have we H 951 is municipal borrowing made I'd like to take this time before Steve comes on I think Steve's coming on it this bill very time-sensitive towns needed by June 1st and so it would be helpful I know Mata is prepared with it if she could go over the Senate changes and then when Bill comes in have our questions asked answered asked and answered and turn it around quickly because he's going to support it has to sign it to get it out to towns so Mata do you want to talk about the changes simple borrowing bill sure there will be I anticipated anyway to changes to amendments to the bill the bill is up for third reading today and it shows on the calendar an amendment proposed by Senator Sears which was discussed last Friday and it goes back to the definition of the of municipality apparently there is at least one school district in the state that being down in Bennington which actually does the collection of the education property tax and it was deemed that with the definition of municipality as passed out of the house that would have locked out the look oh here we are it's up on the screen it would have locked out that any school district such as the one down in Bennington which does its own collections so this this would correct that situation and as I say it's up for discussion during the third reading prior to third reading today the other are there any questions about that no okay the other I'm sorry Mata I don't see any questions and so I'm assuming that the committee is okay with this change I I just want credit for saying what about school districts you get full credit Mary thank you and you also get it for the Buells and Gores okay so I think that that should complete now that section and made it and the other section I'd mentioned yesterday I must have been yesterday's the only other week this week it pertains to the fund the fund into which the appropriation would have been deposited but in the Senate they have already changed that piece doing away with the fund and having a quote unquote simple or direct appropriation to the office of the treasurer it was deemed that that was a much more streamlined non complex kind of approach and as I understand it it was a suggestion coming from the administration which brought it up for discussion in the first place in the Senate I did check in with the treasurer and I do have an email so it's in writing that the treasurer is fine with Senate appropriations decision to change from creation of a fund to an appropriation I did ask for suggestion of Peter Peter is on the phone okay but we can assure him I followed up on his question as to whether or not it made any difference to call it an appropriation or a grant and the answer for that and I'm just going to read this it says here for our purposes it does not necessarily matter whether or not the term appropriation or grant is used we defer to the opinion of jfo slash legislative council and consistency across legislation so their their bottom line the treasurer's office is fine with the change in this regard made by Senate appropriations and as I say that that change was already voted on thank you made us so this bill is going to come back with just those two changes are there any questions and we would ask Maria would you make sure that the joint fiscal office and we'll have to check in with also how that works to make sure we're just consistent with our wording using grant and appropriation grant granting and appropriating okay yeah yeah I'm not sure who was going to do that proof reading I'm not sure where that that that job lies but the consistency as the treasurer said is all that she asked for it really doesn't matter okay all right thank you so on each 951 I have a question for Mary and Chip so the proposal is that we appropriate this fund directly to the treasurer no would you repeat what it is I'm sorry there would not be a fund anymore this amount of money there's directly to Senate version yes directly to the treasurer's office no fund it takes out all the language about any fund I understood that so my so it goes direct to the treasurer not through some other entity that's what I wanted to understand yeah thank you correct so it makes it much more direct in terms of money in money out it's an appropriation correct yeah to the treasurer yeah okay okay and that's what it says in the Senate version appropriation yeah well Chip and Diane um so maybe Maria would actually another answer this but um the language um said that included a any school district that has authority to collect statewide education property taxes and I just I trust the wedge council they've gotten it right but it just struck me that statewide education property taxes is that is is that a generic term or is there confusion about whether they're collecting the taxes on their own the education property tax is not on a statewide basis okay so I don't know if it's worth checking with wedge council just to make sure that's right or not yeah okay because that is not an area that I have worked in so that's uh something maybe the wedge council could check in and I can ask um I can ask you got it right I just yeah let's let's Rebecca um well actually wash your mind Maria let's have made a checkup this is her bill she's tracking all the data so you can take that one off your plate made I think it's best if you keep track of um since this is your bill you have all that information at hand Maria I'll check if you're capable of doing it Maria but I I think it's just as easy for me okay thank you chip for bringing that up and Diane thank you I'm just making notes on the boat sheet about what's coming so that we'll be ready to turn it around quickly that I'm sure um but my question made it is the the amount the same 2.7 yes it's it's it's the only thing quote unquote the only thing that changes is to do away with the whole concept of a fund and have the amount go directly to the treasurer thank you thank you Diane and Diane make sure that you're also following up with legislative council which is the best way for the older americans act for us to do the amendment or for a group to do it and offer it so that that just moves seamlessly as well okay so are we all set on h 951 does anyone have any additional questions are we ready to turn that around these towns really I know our town clerk reached out to me and said thank you for doing this so I know they need it um the next thing I'd like to do is it's not quite time for Steve to be here is it I gotta look for my phone so I know what time it is um he's coming in at at nine this can't be right we're like sailing way ahead here how can this be possible um I sent out that email last night to everyone and we um take that out as a Teresa could you put it up on the screen I don't have two devices okay hang on um and I think we can add to it and um talk about it and then um Steve will come in and he he um oh my god Steve I guess it must be true for Maria I was on the phone last night with Steve at like nine does that guy stop working yeah you know or he'll he'll text at six o'clock are you up for a phone call I'm like sure but he must be the longest hardest working person I know he's he's always working it's true I don't know if you all got a chance to look at your email and see that um I sent it pretty late last night I did I was but I do that like middle of the night kind of wake up thing and and get more tea and then I found it and I actually copied it over so it's on one page oh excellent I had that copy Diana I could take notes on yeah well I'll send it to you man well I have a printer I just don't know it's not hitched up to my computer and I need my kids to figure that out for me Teresa do you do I need to resend it or do you have a see I can't just put up any old email you know because it has like uh people's emails and stuff on it so yeah just you know you just had I will send it to both you and there we go I'll send it to you Teresa I've separated away from the email oops and I'll send it to the kitty thank you Diane okay so um I'm going to put there so um we don't need to read them so much um there is one last at the bottom of my message there was one thing that um we talked about in my in my narrative at the top Teresa can I go back to that right there it says um let's see the last line also um also we can share with Steve any information we've learned from our budget areas savings balances use of CRF etc so I'd like to get that etc into words so that when we pass our budget out we we know exactly where we're looking whether we can actually find uh savings balances and I forgot the word reductions here because there are reductions that may be found that are not programmatic related um that um that we can identify or our departments or the administrators the word I neglected to put in uh there so it's it's savings balances reductions use of CRF and we'll see if there's other things that we can add to that Diane would you add this language to this as you since you have the copy of it the changes and then you can anything that people add and then you could send it out to us so the administration proposal I try to put it in a nutshell for everyone can you move a little bit Teresa so I get all the pieces of the administration's proposal so they propose the proposal states a two percent reduction from the January BAA passed so that January it may have gone out early February but it's the one we worked on in January that two percent that they are referring to equates to about 33 million dollars the proposal as as it's written does not articulate how these savings will be achieved and I think that created some angst in the news media and what we actually learned is that they're actually not just making reductions that they're using things like up above where are their savings are their reductions get testimony that there would be no programmatic changes can we use fund balances um and I listed those things in the ABC through F and I don't know if anyone heard anything that I missed that we could add in the other because Adam talked about hiring freezes and so did Sarah they both talked about leveraging CRF dollars holding internal service fund bills was a way to free up money at least in the first quarter there will be some Medicaid savings and I think Steve has some numbers on that and other reductions that are non programmatic is there anything else that we heard from Sarah or Adam that we could add in that list I don't I'm not seeing hands so Mata Mata um what was the concept of um looking at grants that don't need to go out in the first quarter but can be held to August was that in that context was that a different conversation it is in that context but I think that's something that we talked about I don't remember administration I don't think they're opposed to that I just don't want to um I don't want to um assume something that I wasn't told I um I don't think that Adam you know that they would be opposed to it or Sarah but I didn't remember it in testimony that's great I just couldn't remember the source thanks but I guess might remember that better than I do um Mary thank you kitty I think this is the list that we all recall and if it matters why not just test the administration okay somebody we could copy and paste this and send it is this say is this what you proposed rather than us racking our brains actually that's great my brain cells are pretty limited these days it seems so I think kitty I'm sorry did uh you had mentioned uh carry forward funds I think that was one thing that Adam did talk about carry forward so we do need to add that to the list Maria okay all right so when um when I was reading lots of news articles over the weekend the 2% reduction it I really don't think they use the correct terminology because if you're holding internal service fund bills or you're looking at Medicaid savings or leveraging CRF dollars you're not making a reduction and so I think the media blitz and all the emails I don't know if you got a lot but I got a lot about 8% cuts over the you know they didn't even say over the year that the you know there's 8% cuts which we know that that number would annualize to 8% and so I think it's really important when we put our our bill that we articulate exactly what we're doing so that we don't end up with the same media frenzy and so if we go down to preliminary discussions what what we were discussing can we go down to that one and I didn't mean font to be different for any reason I just couldn't figure it out last night um we talked about I and we took a straw vote last week that we agreed with the administration that there would not be programmatic changes that those those changes in system reforms will occur in the august budget um the administration and the committees of jurisdiction and all of us with these budgets we have from now or actually last week through august to start thinking if we have to make some major changes and and redefine how we do our work and make cuts where would they happen and when we come back in august the more prepared we are the faster we will move the budget and that's really key if we're coming back and only reacting and working through committees and don't have any of our own work done we could be here through september and I'd like not to be um I think that we all agreed that this was a first phase keeps the lights open doors open lights on I think that's how that work and I I had written down somewhere somebody wrote basic functions of government will continue we agree to use the CF dollar CRF dollars to replace general fund and we've got to make sure it's we can do it where it works uh fund balances we have talked about and I think many of you are already asking your budgets for those and carry forwards um that that we can pull these dollars and consider how to use all these dollars in august uh peter brought up is there a capacity within the special funds and if we can't use them now we need to do the work to to know if there's capacity if we need to change statute or rules um maybe to free up some of those federal funds to help us in august so that could be an august issue or maybe we can do some of that now um we talked about identifying discretionary grants that could be held in august so that we could pull the first quarter dollars and then determine how much in what would go out if available for august we agreed um or talked about the hiring freeze and that there's some savings there which jfo should give us a target um and then I'm asking the committee now for number nine because this wasn't part of our discussions should we target a number to achieve in savings you know in savings reductions securing dollars and if so what should our target number be the administration I want to get away from their 2% reduction because it's not a reduction they're actually targeting can we go back up to what is that 33 million 33 million through very similar things that we're talking about what is a target that this committee thinks well should we have a target and if we should what are we thinking it should be I have marty and I have chip and if I've mischaracterized anything now's the time to uh bring it forth marty chip well I was just going to reply that I've got a reply back from ADS and they had reviewed those instructions as well and they have come up with a plan but it includes things like um defunding three vacant exempt positions and downward classification of certain vacant positions as well and then they talked about some other savings in terms of space and and some other expenditures they have but you know I think they're going a little bit beyond the hiring freeze uh but I guess that I think that's fine if they've reviewed their organization and decide that they can afford to do that that will have a longer term effect than just the first quarter of the course but they have looked at their own organization and come up with those kinds of solutions so beyond the hiring freeze they would go up into um in hours or in the um in the governor's list it would be um let's see um we go up to the governor's so it would be definitely on that list to to where or go up again to my words go up again to my words things that we talked about savings balances and we Diane I asked to add in the word reductions and use of CRF so I as long we're sticking on programmatic changes that you know impact Vermonters and so uh you know the committee can discuss that but if if that is um and it would bring the report back if if they feel they can do this work and it doesn't impact um the job that they need to do for Vermonters and it's reorganizing what they have it's kind of what what we're asking government to do at this point because we do have a 200 million dollar yes in august so I think it fits in so far to the skeleton that we have in front of us yes I was just going to say that they've gone beyond just postponing hiring in terms of a hiring freeze they have actually looked at their personnel list and discovered that or believed that they can cut actually cut some classifications or some positions yeah and um which maybe won't work for other departments I missed what you said marty that move maybe will not be palatable to other departments but apparently this department believes they have the capability of doing that okay so they're there they don't have the fund balances they don't have carry forward um they're they're looking at their budgets in it in a different way and in what they can do to create savings thank you marty for that is there right more i'm done so steve needs to we'll catch up with him if he missed the abs part marty I think it was okay oh go ahead marty one more comment is that this two percent cut or the actual legislation says use 23 percent of the former b a a and the numbers come out slightly different but they're very close um but that's for the general fund right many departments depend upon special funds and interdepartmental transfers and that sort of stuff and that number was to use 25 percent or so called full quarter of last year's um money and and for instance like ads they have very little general fund they have all these other funds that they had to work around my other concern is regarding departments such as the public service department or the e9 not one one board or the public utility commission where essentially well for all of their income comes not from general fund it comes from a particular tax source and in both the cases of the dps and the puc i would presume that sales of electricity are not necessarily going to go down and therefore the tax income needs would be fairly stable but nevertheless they are being asked to to work with the 25 percent and and they're both working on that and they both will come up with it but i'm wondering how that might flesh out in august when we see that those particular income sources are indeed stable will those departments be allowed to go ahead and stay with that income source and use it or in a sense of solidarity with everyone else will they be asked to make some reductions do we have any idea how that might play out um that would be a good question for steve plym is i don't have the answer to how that would play out but i do want to go back to the 23 percent i i don't believe that it was articulated the 23 reduction and how the reductions are going to happen don't match so i want to i want to go with the 33 million because that's that looks like the target that the administration was working toward if they're talking about fund balances and carry forward but also there there would be some reductions like you mentioned within ads so i think it's a pool of things and so i want to make the definition i want the i want to define what the job is because i don't think that the definition defines it and it became very apparent this weekend by reading these articles that it looks like an eight percent reduction overall and that's not what's been put before us by the by the administration that those decisions will be made in in august do people follow what i'm what i'm saying there or am i not am i no marty or mary you're shaking in in my opinion that's not the problem in front of us and you you so let me go back to a question that you asked which is should we target a number to achieve savings i i don't know what that number should be the administration has in in has made a suggestion that nets out to 33 million but i don't know i don't think any of us know that that's what it ought to be i think that we have described a process for using a fine tooth comb to go through everything to achieve as much savings as we can and that that is what we should go for rather than saying by golly we're going to find 33 million or by golly we're going to cut two percent from this and not from that i i think we've used nicely articulate a process that we should stick with rather than having a particular target number because then we're going to fight about the number and i don't think it's relevant and so what what would actually probably be more beneficial is for us to do our work can see it the number that we arrived at yeah you know but i but i can i still think that we we can compare to the administration's work because the administration is doing very it's the same work that we may just find some other areas that we can add to it but it's not an overall reduction to every budget of two percent that's not what they're asking it's it's how it was framed but it wasn't really what they were asking um anyone frankly they are using accounting tricks to solve much of that and let's just be clear that this is how we're going through it and you've laid it out nicely for us in in your memo thank you and i don't want to use accounting tricks as a term because you know we may use some of those um some of those ways to in order to secure dollars to you know until we can make more informed decisions in in august so i i don't i i don't want it to appear to anyone's who's listening on youtube that we're um being critical the word tricks always sounds critical but i i think it's a way to manage money in different ways unless you i don't want to put words in your mouth mary it however we care to frame it i i think that we in our conversations over the past week have concluded that in fact the administration did not intend to literally cut two percent out and instead they were using other techniques to reduce spending thank you um marty bob i can hear you okay sorry i know nothing for me i'm going into mute right oh that was you marty that was tapping your fingers no oh no it was me probably marty too okay that's not a band marty marty took her you're done marty thank you and and we'll catch steve up on the areas that you said we'll see some reductions i have chip and um let's see chip i think you're up next i've got to get my hands down here and then i have um my hands move around on me uh dav and bob and we have steve climb on so you don't have you don't have me because i forgot now what i wanted so so let's do chip and uh dav and then we're going to go to steve climb okay this can be quick or we can even talk about later i just need help understanding on our list the discretionary grants is the idea that that those grants would have likely to have matching funds that we'd have to come up with now if we can put them off for august is that is that a great question when steve comes on for steve when we get down to that area that's a great question what we would do about matching funds and maybe they wouldn't be so discretionary at that point if we're going to leave money on the table on the table okay i would just try to understand how that helps us um sort of save not through spending now but perhaps do it in august um and and i'm not suggesting this grant but it's the one that we keep talking about the working land grants are all um the additional money is all general fund dollars and so i think it's targeting looking at grants like that i see putting out state state money grant okay thank you okay um and then dav i think your hand was up and we'll move to steve kitty i'm okay i'll come back later thank you okay