 We have not formally received S-124, but in order to prepare our work, we thought we would get an overview of the bill because it will be coming to us at two o'clock when we go into session. And you have Betsy and Rask with you from the Joint Pistole Office and Noland is also here from JFO. So Sarah, this is if you wanna lead off and turn it over to whomever you want to walk through pieces of this bill. Great, thank you all for your great work and for taking a moment to put your eyes on S-124. This bill came over to us from the Senate making various changes to law enforcement and dispatch and EMS. And Noland has created a fiscal note that goes through the couple of places where there is potential budgetary impact. I think the most relevant section of the bill that he will talk about is related to the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council. This is the entity that oversees the Vermont Police Academy and sets standards for training and certification of law enforcement officers. And the main part of the bill that is coming out of our committee later this afternoon is to expand the Criminal Justice Training Council which has a fiscal impact because of per diems for public members. And so the newly constituted Criminal Justice Council which is being renamed in the bill would have 24 members and 12 of them would be members appointed to represent civilian viewpoints and 12 of them would be members who would be on the council or are currently on the council because they represent various law enforcement entities. So that is the main fiscal impact but I'm gonna let Noland go ahead and jump in with his fiscal note. And then if you have specific legislative language questions we can jump to Betsy, yeah. For the record, Noland will join fiscal office. I'll pull up the note real quick. I don't know why I suddenly don't see it. Oh, here we go. So this is, I kind of came to this part a little late so you'll have to forgive me. And on top of that the committee was still discussing it up until about two minutes ago. So this changes reflect what I've been able to grasp from 930 and then I had to jump back and forth between different meetings. So there's some pieces of the section numbers may not align but I'll finish putting this together cleanly when it's done but I don't want to highlight a few things. First off, as Representative Kopenhagen discussed the main piece of this is the criminal justice used to be training but they actually striked the word training council. The Senate version would have created increased it from 12 to 24 members and it would have allowed there's some new public members and that would have been a smaller cost between 23 and $3,800. This based on for reimbursements per diems and the like the GovOps and then would increase it from 12 to 24 would allow all members to receive the per diem and compensation reimbursements because currently nobody gets them at all. And under this, there are several new members who we think would get it. Under the other version, as you know the 32 BSA 1010 basically says that when folks, if people at all and all basically can correct me if I'm wrong but basically in terms of being eligible for per diems and reimbursement you have to not be getting any kind of compensation through your employer. So a lot of times when we say commissioners and directors of these agencies here and there are on these committees and are allowed to get reimbursement, they don't because they're currently getting paid through their employers so they don't have to get it through here. During this line where there's some new members and public members and so I'm estimating that between seven and nine members would be eligible to receive these reimbursements per diems. And I'm saying for us this meeting because I believe that's as many as they'll need. The per diem costs are still low but they're between 5,300 and 6,800 per year. The language of the bill says that the costs would be covered by money's appropriated to the council. I think given the nominal cost I don't think there's any additional appropriation required for this, it's pretty small cost. So that's the thing, the other thing I wanna flag is in section seven, there's language that basically requires the council, this is again, this is the training council to restructure its program in order, and I'll read this, to council show our structured programs so that on and after July 1st, 2021, a level two certified officer may use portfolio experiential learning or college level examination program testing in order to transition to level three certification such as an officer needing to restart, without an officer needing to restart the certification process. I spoke with folks at the council and in short, they have a very small staff and their budget is being cut in fiscal year 21. So in addition to these and other pressures that they're already feeling based on stuff that's happening in the current environment, there is real concern that they will not, that they do not have the staff or the financial resources to meet the timeline or fulfill the requirements laid out in this section. So I flag this because additional resources may be required. I don't know, I'm not sure, I don't believe the committee has really heard this yet. We haven't had, I haven't had a chance to really talk about this with the committee. So we haven't had a full discussion of it. But I get on my fiscal note, as I said, they're still working through the bill. And then the other two pieces, section 22, it adds four new members to the lead, the law enforcement advisory committee, but there's no, they're not entitled to reimbursements through 32 VSA 1010. So there's no appropriation required. And then the last piece is they essentially, there's a moratorium on dispatch fees, but currently the DPS isn't collecting dispatch fees from municipalities or local entities. So there's no loss of revenue. So again, I just flag these, but they're not anything to be concerned of. It's just the first two sections are the real pieces. Thank you, Nolan. And as I'm hearing, Sarah, you're still working on this bill. I think that we had anticipated, maybe it would be out at this time. And I think perhaps you might want to, do you need to leave to get back to working on this bill? We're on break until 1230. So I'm at your disposal to answer any questions you might have. Okay. I have a question from Bob and then from Mary. Yeah, can you, can somebody go over the dispatch fees that he just reviewed really quickly? And I was trying to read it. And Maria, Maria. Yeah. Yeah. She took, she blew it off the screen. It's all, a lot of... That was me. Oh, no one did that. All right. Would you like us to describe a little bit about the policy decision that was made there? Cause I might have Betsy Ann just sort of lay the whole thing out. Yep, whoever's most adequate, I guess, available. Okay. Are you going to walk through the dispatch fees? Sure. Hello, everyone for the record. Betsy Ann Ras, legislative council. I will, it's helpful for you. I can do a quick share screen to show you the current law language that currently allows the commissioner of public safety to enter into contractual arrangements to perform dispatch functions. You can find this under the department of public safety statutes entitled 20. It's this language here at the top of page 29. You can see the current law language says that the commissioner of public safety may enter into contractual arrangements to perform dispatching functions for state, municipal, or other emergency services. And then it goes on to say, establishing charges sufficient to recover the cost of dispatching, dispatch positions that are fully funded under these contracts may be authorized under the provisions of 32VSA section 5B, which allows for grants. What the committee is considering now is to put a moratorium on these charges for DPS to perform dispatch until the general assembly can establish itself the fee structure that serve as the basis for the dispatch charges. So what this language would do now as currently written on page 29 is actually amend the statute to eliminate that language that says that the commissioner of public safety may establish charges for DPS to reform dispatch services. And then as we scroll through, there's just some amendments to the remainder of this chapter. And it gets to on page 31, this new section 26, which is essentially a transitional provision. And as currently written, when this was draft was currently being put, was being put together, it was our understanding that DPS was actually charging for some dispatch that it was performing pursuant to contract now. But thank you to Nolan for following up with DPS to confirm that actually no, DPS is not charging for the dispatch. It's providing now to municipalities, for example. So it's not charging for the dispatch that it performs. So for housegov ops next draft that I'm going to eliminate this language that would have allowed DPS to continue to charge its current or fees or lower than the current fees that it's having. So this language in this 26 sub A would go away. And what would be left is this moratorium on dispatch fees. So this language that's currently on line 13 would say the department shall not charge fees in contractual arrangements it enters into to perform dispatching functions for state municipal or other emergency services until the general assembly establishes in law a dispatch fee structure for those charges. The language goes on to require DPS to get testimony from others in order to recommend to the general assembly an equitable dispatch fee structure. So they'd have a requirement to report back to the general assembly by March 15th on a proposed dispatch fee structure. And then also to include any counter arguments to the fee structure that it ultimately proposes to the general assembly. For example, there might be municipalities that might have a different perspective on how those fees should be charged. But big picture moratorium until the general assembly in the future and acts law to establish a dispatch fee structure then DPS could start to charge in accordance with those that fee structure. And Sarah, do you want to add anything to that? It was quite clear. No, I think I just want to make note to you all that we feel that this is an important issue for the general assembly to consider because our municipalities and our local EMS and fire and police services have currently a very complicated sort of three dimensional mosaic of ways that dispatch is accomplished. And we want to make sure that if and when DPS is offering to provide dispatch services that it's done in a way that doesn't create a rate shock to our municipalities given that their only way to raise revenue is through the property tax. Thank you. And just to put a line under this, there is no fiscal impact to us. They are not currently collecting so we are not seeing a loss of revenue. That's correct. Thank you. Mayda, are you on this point? Yes, please. Yes, okay. Just by way of information, following up on Rep Helms question, he and I are aware that as we speak, there has been communication between DPS and municipalities around dispatch services with a draft, I guess I would call it, of fees for dispatch services and the request for feedback from the municipalities back to DPS. Rep Helm and myself, I think the two of us have both been on the receiving end of some inquiries about this. Just as I just want to share that as a matter of information to the full committee and a question for the chair of GOV OPS. So just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, once this assuming this or assuming, right, when and if this language is adopted by the legislature, that brings that whole business right to a halt, correct? Yes, I mean, it doesn't change the current landscape in that they're not currently taking in any fees for any contractual dispatch that they're providing, but it does put a halt to their ability to adopt fees by rule, which was the way the bill came over to us from the Senate and we felt very strongly that we wanted a fuller assessment of the impact to cities and towns before we moved forward with that. Got it, thank you. Oh, excuse me, one more question, Madam Vice Chair, yes, oh, no, Madam Chair is back. So was there any feedback from DPS on this? We have not had an opportunity to have DPS in since we discussed this. Nolan was able to get the information from them that this doesn't, that putting a time out and a hard stop doesn't have a fiscal impact to them, which I very much appreciate. And so, no, we haven't asked them how they feel about consulting with these various groups in order to come back and propose dispatch fees. Anticipate, do you folks have time to hear back or is that out of question? We do have time if they can make themselves available. That's been a bit of a challenge in that they seem to be doing different things at the moment as opposed to following along. And we can always make time if they are interested in weighing in on this. Got it, got it, thank you, thank you. Thank you, Madam Bob. Yeah, I just wanna, they have their fee structures all set. And they were going on the law as it is today that they can do this and they can. And my issue, I'm very glad by the way, to hear that the legislature is gonna take a look at it because I have four towns, two of which have police departments. One is a $350,000 budget and the increase that the state police public safety wants to give them for dispatching is 115,000, which is close to a third, I guess, or somewhere in there. I mean, that's quite an increase for taxpayers and taxpayers will start putting their foot down. Castleton isn't much different. They've got a little higher budget but their fees are a little higher. There are also, by the way, it doesn't appear to me that they're addressing towns that have no police department. And I thought that was a bit of an inequity. But right now, our towns kind of slide over there and cover them or the state police may, but usually it's Castleton will do Hubbardon and very even will go do West Haven and that's the way it works. But, so there's that question I've got. And I just think that the Department of Public Safety is getting their cart before their horse. And I just wanna say I'm very thankful and glad that the legislature in this proposal at least will be taking a close examination of this. And with the understanding that, yeah, towns will only take so much. And next thing you know, your police budgets are voted down and then you don't even have a police department any longer but I won't go on anymore. Thank you very much. Thank you, Bob. Mary? Nolan may be on this point. I see his hand up. Yeah, for some reason I can't see. When you're a host, you don't get a hand to raise. I've learned this. Sorry, I didn't notice your hand flying. I just want to follow up and wrap up about dispatch things. One of the things that came up in my correspondence with DPS was that the local agencies that get their dispatches through DPS don't pay anything right now but there are several other entities that get their dispatch to other and they are paying quite a bit. So there's sort of a disparity where some people are paying and others aren't. So I just wanted to sort of flag that. It's an interesting repellent to hear that. Thank you, Nolan. I knew that and yeah, that's one of the problems I had. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Nolan. Mary? Thank you. This is not why my hand was raised. I'm glad you raised that Nolan because that is absolutely an issue. And so I'm glad you'll be looking at the municipal provision of dispatch services and make sure that there is an equity across the board for those that are being offered by municipalities and not subsidized by the state. My question was on the criminal justice training for per diems and perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought I heard that people who are participating and are reimbursed by their employer would receive a per diem in addition, well, period. Is that correct? That's what Betsy Ann resolved that for how the language fits together. So in fact, people who are paid by their employer, so the commissioner of state of DPS will receive a per diem in addition to a salary, no. No, if I can share screen again, I will show you the language in the bill and the strike all amendment as currently written. Here we're in page five. This is right after the new membership of the council and the proposed language is now with this 12 and 12 mix. Some will be law enforcement related, some public related. You can see the current law language of the statute says members of the council shall receive no compensation for their services, but shall be allowed their actual unnecessary expenses. Under the current makeup of the council, it's 12 member council and at least under the most recent version that we looked at of membership, they're all law enforcement officers. If we are understanding the current makeup right, and so all of those members would likely be going and getting paid by their employer anyway. So current law doesn't allow anybody to get per diems. This new language in the strike all would say, members of the council shall be entitled to receive per diem compensation and reimbursement of expenses as permitted under 32 VSA 1010 from monies appropriated to the council. And if you go over to 32 VSA 1010, which is our standard per diem statute, there's two relevant subsections. In regard to per diems, where subsection B provides a $50 per diem when people are entitled to it, there's this language in subsection D that says notwithstanding the provisions of A and B. A member shall not be entitled to receive state per diem compensation for any meeting or other official duty for which specific compensation is provided by another source. And so for our commissioners that serve on the council, they're already getting their paid their state salary and they're serving on this council as part of their state duties. And so they would not be entitled to get per diem compensation. And any of the other proposed members of the council as proposed under this bill, if they're getting paid to be there through their employer, for example, one of the members is an employee of the VLCT. That person likely they have a salary and they're just serving on the council as part of their duties of working for VLCT. And so they would not be entitled to get their extra per diem. So it's just the 32 VSA provides that you can only get a per diem so long as you're not already getting paid to serve on the board through another source. Thank you. So you've clarified that in fact, this council will be treated as all of the others that we have in statute. We're not carving out some sort of particular treatment for them. That's correct, especially with that phrasing as permitted under 32 VSA 1010. Thank you. We address per diems. I'll just note as far as reimbursement of expenses that current language in statute for the council says everybody can get their actual and necessary reimbursement of expenses. And that's also what 32 VSA 1010 C says that even if you're employed by the state, you can get, you are able to get reimbursement of expenses. For example, if you drive your own vehicle down to a meeting, you would be able to get the gas mileage reimbursement. Thank you for that clarification. Mary, that was an important question. Marty, you have your hand up and then Mata. Yes. Maybe Mata is gonna ask the same questions because it seems to me this is the group that Mata had was very concerned about their general fund budget. When we were going through the regular budget and it would seem to me another potential $6,000 there might make a difference to them. And also on section 22, Nolan indicated that the organization felt that, I'm sorry, section seven about changes in the certification that they felt the organization did not feel they could handle that because of their current fiscal status. I need to understand what that means. I mean, the change in the certification, what work does that require for them to do? Yeah, so when I spoke to them, they were concerned that they said the testing and management of these students would be time consuming. Their testing processes for certification are both written in live scenarios for multiple people to administer. So not only instructor evaluation time but the time of the staff member to coordinate the testing would be needed. So they were concerned that they're already maxed out and struggling to fulfill their current needs. I guess they had asked for more money in the budget and in the end, they actually were cut. And so their concern was that they just don't have the resources and there's a lot of piling more and more pressure and demands on their time and their limited staff. So that's based on my conversations that I've had with them. Again, I don't know that I came in late so I'm not sure what the committee had heard on this and I don't know if they heard it. Thank you, Nolan. Marty, did you have a follow up? No, I'm just concerned though that these two requirements perhaps require more money for this eight for this department. And we made a, we'll find out through Teresa the appropriation that we have for proteins. Oh, is that where you're going, Mita? Go ahead. Yes, yes, yeah. And following directly on Marty's question, I did happen to check in the materials we received from the Senate and they did maintain our restoration of the 3% reduction. They did not change the amount which was passed by the house, which again restored the 3% reduction. You'll recall we did not ask to restore the 5% reduction. So that reduction is still there. I would add also just so the committee is aware, you'll recall the past, well, I'm certainly aware of the past couple of years. We have talked about the temp position for which we'd been trying to find about $40,000 to make full time. And that person who had been hanging in very loyal to the program and all has moved on, sort of reading the handwriting on the wall that there was just never gonna be support. And that person was the program curriculum clerk, as I recall was the proper title. And when I asked, it was since we've been back in August that I discovered that this soul has moved on. I asked, so how is that work that she used to do going to be covered? And the response was, I think this is, I have it in an email. It was akin to, we have no idea, we are at a total loss. I mentioned that just to underscore that these are realities and there are legitimate issues brought forward as far as the needs coming with regard to proper training and all of that. But somehow we can't keep asking this very small group of people to keep doing more and more without some kind of support from us that's real, that is equal to what we're asking them to do. Thank you, Maida. Okay, so Sarah, I'm gonna bring this back to you because I know you have a time crunch and you're still working on the bill. Is there anything else that needs to come before the committee before we get the final bill? You must still have some pieces in motion. I don't think so. I think that I would just encourage us to earmark a little bit of time when we get back into session in January to have a more robust conversation around the budgetary implications for the criminal justice training council, which will be now the criminal justice council because they are in a period of transition and Maida articulates that well. They are waiting on the announcement of their new executive director who we certainly hope will be on board in short order and then with the expansion of the actual membership of the council, we can hope that maybe some of the duties that have typically fallen heavily on the shoulders of staff might be supported by a more diverse and larger number of council members. But Maida is correct that this is a really important body that deals with the certification, professional standards and training of our law enforcement officers and we ought to be very careful in the future to make sure that they're getting the funding that they need in order to do the important work that they do. Thank you, Sarah. Are there any final questions for Sarah, Betsy Ann or Nolan that the committee has knowing that the bill is still a bit of a work in progress? If you come up with questions or concerns, we'll file those through Maida. We'll run those through Maida and we look forward to your bill, Sarah, as soon as you get it out. So good luck with that. A matter of hours. Thank you so much. Have a great day. Thank you. I think, thank you, Betsy Ann. Thank you, Nolan. I think this now completes our agenda and tomorrow we will pick up with some time on the budget. We will have the joint fiscal office in to review things outside of CRF funding, the differences between the proposal and what we passed in the house and we need to be on the floor at 10 o'clock. We will not meet Friday afternoon because it is a holiday, it's Rosh Hashanah and we will not meet tomorrow afternoon. So Monday we will definitely be meeting to continue our work on the budget because next Friday, boy, everything needs to be done more or by next Friday. Any questions? I think we can go offline, please. Thank you, Theresa.