 All right then so welcome and thanks everybody for coming this is just an opportunity to to have the chair and vice chair of the appropriations committee they here to help give you the big picture view of what's going on in the budget this obviously was an incredibly difficult year because the the governor's budget as presented created some really significant problems that were counter to some of the Vermont values that we were hearing in terms of wanting stability and and and protection from property taxes and so by the committee had a lot of work to do in moving the budget to balance and sustainability without raising property taxes and so to sort of hear the thought process behind it in the big picture view of the budget I'll turn it over to the chair of the committee representative toll thank you madam speaker the goals of the House Appropriations Committee obviously first and foremost was to pass out about a budget that was balanced that that that was our first priority and equally as important was to pass out a budget that aligned our revenues with our spending we have had we have had our expenditures outpacing our revenues for several years now and in the past few years we have made some significant changes in structuring the budget to to overturn that path that course that we were going down this year we worked very hard and with very limited revenue which included no new taxes and fees we were able to present a budget pass it out of committee on a unanimous vote that the overall unduplicated growth in the budget was 1% the focus always seems to be on the general fund and the general fund growth was 1.8% which we felt was a significant accomplishment of our committee we had the help of the other committees of jurisdiction within the house that set priorities in and assisted with information that we needed to make our critical condition our critical decisions we feel that we have made investments for Vermonters in this budget and we feel that we have carried on investments that have been made in recent years as well as some new initiatives and some restructuring using money differently thinking about how to do things differently and so we feel we have made some good changes there's good things and there's some things in this budget people will not like because there are reductions and reductions do impact Vermonters and we have given the administration as much as much flexibility as possible so that depending on what happens at the federal level that the decisions on how to make reductions especially in the agency of human services can be done with using RBA methods outcome measurements in place and also what the critical need is of grants and programs so that they're they're considered very carefully before they are just reduced so flexibility was key we're very pleased with the budget we're excited to bring it to the floor we're anxious for the debate and for the questions and that we will get but we really feel we've given every legislator in the house opportunity to weigh in what do you like what don't you like how would you do it differently what proposal would you give us we have a loud time for testimony we've met in small groups we've met offline in coffee shops and you know area restaurants around the state we've included plenty of opportunities many opportunities for Vermonters to weigh in in public hearings for advocates to weigh in and it has been as open and as transparent as possible and legislators were told today at a final noon meeting that if you were unable to have your voice heard or unable to come to the committee with ideas and suggestions that as soon as this budget is out on Friday we'll return next week and start our work on the FY 19 budget and if you have a good proposal or an idea that you did not get to us in time for this budget we're all ears next week to start the 19 budget one of the things I'd like to point out here and madam speaker started this as the chair of appropriations over the last two years really a big transparency push in in our committee to involve earlier and in more completely all the members of the house and I didn't think it possible to really expand on that but we have at our chairs urging we have gone out and we have briefed committees talked to committees about about what their input might be made sure that they understood when I was in government operations they understood I was their point of contact for the budget did they have any questions now or at some point in time many of them came to me we actually had a freshman orientation some two weeks ago in the well of the house where we explained to them how you get to the starting line of the budget so they understood what the makeup of the budget was and so that they could better understand the budget and ask good questions when it came time for presentation this is a an extraordinary year that we have had and the chair is absolutely correct we have made important either ongoing or new initiatives one of the pieces that is near and dear to my heart is the drug and alcohol piece we we continue to fully fund all efforts for folks that have stumbled into a problem to try to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and to to get clean and sober and that piece will continue despite the fact that there's obviously spent some closures with the under hill facility we have the other two facilities in the state stepping up with additional inpatient beds and virgins and ron we've got a hub opening very shortly up in St. Albans we are addressing the issues and that's about it for now so there are a couple places I mean the the big story is that that you were able to balance the budget balance a 70 million dollar gap the budget that came to you balanced that with 60 million dollars on property taxes and you were able to instead balance that with five million dollars of increased compliance with existing revenues and taxes and I think that's the that's really the biggest shift between the two of them you have you also had some very subtle shifts to redirect money from you know things like the the well cold cold weather exemptions you know rather than paying for motel vouchers to try to invest instead in shelters that could serve more people in a more sustainable way and provide a point of contact for you know for for outreach workers shifting money into community health into home health agencies and community designated agencies really trying to bring more people back rather than close the Windsor facility that it would it would bring people back from out of state and and get more people out of incarceration and and out of out of state facilities that frankly we're you know having trouble with on occasion and yeah if you know that the choices for carepiece is I mean sorry not choices for care in that there are there are three initiatives that we have undertaken to save money it is a coordination of benefits unit it is a fraud unit I'm sorry I can't remember the exact terminology but I call it fraud unit yeah and then the chronic care initiative so I'll start with the chronic care initiative all of this will after we we after we hire some state employees to fill existing vacant positions so there's no new positions in this bill we are filling vacant positions new bodies in vacant positions we will see savings beyond their payroll and benefits to the tune of more than a million dollars and that money will be reinvested by with the home health agencies to increase their pay for folks that have not had an increase in a very long time and do vital work around the state the chronic care initiative there's approximately 8,000 individuals in the state of Vermont that have ongoing and serious issues with their health the current initiative is able to address approximately 2,000 of those folks to try to coordinate their care and ensure that they are receiving care at the time that they need it to hopefully hold cost down and it's working with an with more individuals doing that work an additional five individuals doing that work we feel that we can harvest even more savings from that and reach more individuals that are on that chronic care list that the that the agency has so that's the intent there coordination of benefits and the fraud the coordination of benefits is much along the same lines the fraud unit we really don't have a fraud unit in the state and we do it small it is work that has been done in the federal government and in other states and we feel that there's this is an important aspect to it so we are applying some resources some individuals to that effort and the money that is saved again will go towards the home health agency that's Medicaid yes the speaker also mentioned the cold weather exception we did make a reduction in the cold weather exception and we've heard from many many Vermonters in which we should but we simply didn't make a reduction and do nothing else our committees had many discussions on the best way to use state money and we really felt that giving an individual a voucher for a motel room locking the door behind them that night and leaving in the morning was really not identifying a Vermonter who might be in trouble or who has who has needs that might need to be addressed and we thought that the money would be better spent in expanding homeless shelters in Vermont where there are areas of need if you go to a shelter you are being identified and if you are in need of a service you're much more apt to be identified in a shelter than you are by yourself and with a motel in a motel with a voucher and so we added a hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the expansion of homeless shelters but we also expanded the language for general assistance for flexible funding that in that now includes emergency housing and so if there is a need and you do you know there you do need a motel voucher within that flexible funding it would be available it is not to have anyone freeze to death on on the streets or anywhere in Vermont so flexible funding will now be available to emergency for emergency housing and there's more money being invested in shelters so we can identify Vermonters who are in need did you increase funding for the flexible we in our bill we targeted a higher amount we targeted 200,000 in the bill for for flex funding within existing within existing dollars we are working with in existing dollars throughout most of our programs because of the revenue increase rate of growth compared to expenses and the ways in means bill was five million dollars for all of state government which is you know billions more than that and so but the but the flex funding itself got an increase that that was that was increased yes but that was taken from somewhere else in HHS within existing money it must be targeted in this area for it basically motel vouchers it's trying to shift resources we've we've been struggling with increasing costs of the motel vouchers for a number of years I mean how many years and use of motels in cases of emergency homelessness or emergency housing to address homelessness use of motels has skyrocketed and so we have taken a number of steps over the years to invest more in shelters in emergency housing in emergency housing with co-located facilities much like a few initiatives that are in the Burlington area and every year we've we've looked and said okay geographically where are the vouchers being used most and first it was the Burlington area so some money went in to those facilities and we saw dramatic decreases in motels and then you know we looked at then Brattleboro and the Northeast Kingdom got some investments and you know Rutland and Barrie Montpelier area are now are now the two high users so we're we're sort of moving geographically around the state to address regional problems and really work with with local communities on regional solutions a couple of ways first of all if you're a family with children you're not included in you know your exemption that still exists so women in their third trimester of pregnancy families coming in with individuals coming in with children they are not part of this decision those exceptions will still be there if you're coming in we will see you we will know if there are beds available in shelters and you will be directed to a bed in a shelter if there's no capacity elsewhere then the flexible funding can be used for the motel voucher after other better sources are identified and and and to see if they're available so basically this is that's the process that exists now when it's when it's predicted to be I think over 20 degrees or over 32 degrees if it's raining I'm not quite sure if I have those temperatures exactly right so now this says those rules stay in place even when it gets colder because that's what the cold weather exemption is so we have we first we first a few years ago put those rules in place and that was a long process and a lot of community input but the cold weather exemption remains so that it the cold weather exemption basically means the rules go out the window when it gets cold in Vermont and anybody can have access to a motel voucher so this is saying you know what we still need to focus people direct people first towards shelters it's frankly it's it's less expensive and and people have a chance of being rehoused faster than they do when they they have a motel representative told I believe it was you who said or referenced keeping property taxes essentially flat is it your understanding that based on what you don't the budget based on the budgets voted by schools that property taxes that the rates will be flat or that the bills will be flat for most from others well that's in a different well it all meets up in the end there is an increase in the net education fund the one year growth is 2.7% in the governor's in the governor's budget if it if it were if we pass if it were adjusted with the 10 million we had to do an adjustment with the budget governor's budget to compare apples to apples which is almost impossible with the two but but the I think that right you know though if the governor's if we had simply passed the governor's budget based on all the decisions that Vermonters made in town meeting the governor's budget would have resulted in 6.7% increase in the education fund if you know with this budget in place and the decisions that Vermonters made on town meeting day that is 2.4 or 2.7% so it's it's you know the governor's budget would have in would have had almost triple the increase that this budget had but but Vermonters not saying that you folks haven't done great work to keep it where it is but Vermonters should expect their property tax bills to go up even if that's based on based on their local decisions based on local decisions there's nothing that our committee did that would increase property taxes we did not shift higher education to the property tax we did not shift child care to the property tax we did not shift any initiatives to the property tax and so the increase that you see on in our budget documents is solely based on the local decisions when when towns pass their school budgets in large and in and in fact your your committee increased the amount of general fund money going into that's correct so there was a town meeting day the the folks who voted themselves 61 million dollars in increased costs to to schools the budget here will add from 305 million to 314 million dollar general fund transfer to the education fund so that's an increase of nine million dollars so it's a penny on your 10 million dollars is a penny on the property tax rates so this budget I just want to reiterate we will not cause this budget will not cause income taxes to go up fees to go up or property taxes to go up now the education setting the education tax rate which is supposed to occur sometime today or tomorrow yeah like probably doing it just about now okay that that that will impact what the tax rate is but that is not embedded within our bill we're truly trying to find what the cost drivers are for education spending so that we can address it in future years it's that simple but there was just the PICUS report then how does it differ from that the how this how this differs from that the PICUS report is a more formal report and and and the group it's it's more of a study group that will meet and they will use the PICUS report they will use other reports any national data they will use resources like the Vermont school boards association the principal's association they can reach out and and there has been there have been a few education spending bills before the house and to look at all of their to look at all the information and in it really can't be in bill form but very similar to bill form a proposal that looks at all of the information on the table to see if there's a direction that Vermont can be that Vermont can move in it's a much smaller group it's more informal and it's to bring information back to our committee and to the education committee with real possibilities of how we could either tweak or change education the funding mechanism it looks like you didn't go along with the government's proposal to get some savings from merging that was never in his budget nobody was a proposal later I mean it he never he never told us how how all that okay could happen so it's not there and are you going to go along with his executive orders we're still working with the committees to see where there's where there's some alignment and I think I think one of them we can we can move toward you know I think I think we're we're still working with the committees on that in one case with liquor lottery the legislature has kind of proposed that before and so we're trying to think about what that structure would look like and what the implementation would look like and how to not interfere with the really important modernization work that's going on right now and I think in the in the area of DI we're trying to figure out what the what the problem is they're trying to solve not you know DI definitely has some issues but so far the conversation where we've asked how this structure fixes these problems it's been fairly it's a it's been a mismatched conversation so did you just not know no it's not a part of this saved money well it's not it's better it's just not a part of this budget because because we didn't have a specific proposal the administration still hasn't come forward saying here here exists here is exactly how this would work and so they can't bank on the savings if there's not sort of operational proof that that's that can happen we're funding I'm thinking specifically the IT projects here where something was moved out of this budget and into say the capital bill we're corresponding cuts made there to make up for the new costs put in so for instance the IT projects I believe is ten million dollars is it were ten million dollars in cuts made elsewhere in the capital they weren't actually ten million they showed is ten million the governor had them and had those numbers in his original construct when the when the institutions committee reviewed the cap on the projects the IT projects some of them were a two-year project and they were looking we need to look at them one year at a time because we appropriate one year at a time and so they were substantially reduced and the institutions committee had capacity within their bonding ability to take on those projects I believe they ended up to be about six point four there in the six plus million dollar range because they were they were two-year multi-year numbers but I did want to can I go back to the two-year budgeting cycle it was a priority for the House Appropriations Committee to start two year budgeting cycles and we had three tiers and the most complicated tier was one where there would actually be structural changes and we we've been talking about liquor and lottery the governor had his executive order this the liquor lottery or any two groups that would come together for a structural change would need the work of the policy committee and we did not have that yet and the governor had put out at the end of our of our budget work of the possibility of a savings in liquor and lottery but we didn't have a firm proposal in hand and so that's why we couldn't bank on those savings without a firm proposal in hand but it's in our two-year construct of the three different tiers that we hope to move forward whether it's liquor and lottery or another construct we're still very excited to to find a bigger restructuring for savings and efficiencies that would would help going forward with the state budget did you agree with any of the governor's requests for increased spending specifically in education but I guess any any area the new grants that you propose like that well I think that we agreed with the increased spending but finding the money proved to be more difficult anything make it into the budget we were able to no we didn't have millions of dollars to to to find to to give four million dollars to the state colleges or nine million dollars to child care which are all deserving deserving deserving programs that need the money what we did do we were able to find within the four million dollars he identified for the state colleges between the capital bill they found six hundred dollars in our bill six hundred thousand million six hundred thousand dollars and we found the other 280 so we could continue with our agreement our commitment for the unification of london state college in johnson additionally we did a different construct than the governor we looked at the higher ed trust fund and we trifecated it between if it goes to uvm the state colleges and vsac and not to have vsac or uvm feel any of the pressure the we trifecated the the fund and we assigned two million dollars to the state colleges to be used for operating money to short to help shore them up is that increase over what they have this current year yes absolutely yes yes one time one time are you not sort of taking from the students to get to the college that is why we trifecated the fund because we felt that the need at the state colleges is critical at this time and unless they are short up and remain solvent students attending those colleges could be in jeopardy and and they're very important for educational opportunities and if you think of the northeast kingdom this is a this is an institution that is desperately needed for for kids to access college and without it it would be obviously would have an economic impact for the northeast kingdom but more importantly it would have an educational impact on many high school students that need to commute and go to school part-time and work or or adults that are going back to finishing degrees it's critical for the colleges are critical for the areas in vermont where they're situated how much of this no new taxes and fees do you feel like it is something you wanted to do or is is is a flavor that the governor put out there that he had to follow i think a bunch of that conversation um all we a bunch of that conversation was really uh i think shaded with the federal government you know when we think about what could be facing us on the federal level this was a chance to to to not do a whole lot of expansion because in six months we could get information that completely upends our priorities and what we consider the most important resources so i think i think feeling like feeling like not uh significantly expanding programs was important so that we could really be prepared for what could come at us federally we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars and some of that is money that comes directly to to or through the state government but some of that is also money that is critical to the fabric of vermont that state government never sees because it goes you know directly to an individual for um you know for a health care benefit or something you know that um affordable care act got a stay of execution a week a week ago but we're not you know that's not a promise for the future there are um there are nonprofits that receive direct federal grants that could disappear and so so we could we could be facing some pretty serious issues in the fall that we need to be prepared for and need to have some capacity for but how much is um that it would be tough to override a veto also i mean i think that that's that's a piece where we were trying to come in and say hey let's all work together um obviously obviously the this budget is significantly different than than what we got in some key ways that we outlined earlier but um but it was it was it's been important to this committee for a long time to put us on a more sustainable path to really get our fiscal house in order to um work to make state government more efficient and provide more direct service and you know i think i think i think the steps that we've taken in the last few years are are all a big piece of that with this i don't believe i can't think of a day that the house appropriations committee was under a shadow making decisions being worried about a veto i can't i don't think i don't even remember i don't think we even had the conversation around the table um our focus was on restructuring the budget so that the infamous alligator mouth that we could make a you know really curve uh bend the curve and bring spending into alignment with revenues that was our major focus and the only way to do that was really finding reductions and that is why we allowed so much flexibility in this budget because those reductions are going to be painful and difficult and um and not knowing what's coming down from the federal level we don't want to make reductions in this area where reductions are made here on the federal level so it allows the secretary and the administration to align anything that happens in washington with with what we can do here to adjust the budget so i don't think that we were ever under the cloud of a veto we were doing our job to restruct to make structural changes in the budget to make it sustainable and also to set us to set ourselves up so when there are federal reductions we're in the best place possible and i do want to say that our reserves are are in pretty good shape uh they're above the statutory levels and we have done a construct looking at special funds to bring our rainy day reserve up from six point six point eight percent up to ten million dollars and um that's one of the projects that we're going to start looking on looking into for 19 our special funds what their balances are those that are in a negative balance to start addressing that uh those that should be closed and so we're trying to tee up a lot of things for 19 with the work we've done in the 18 budget part of that answer anticipated my question which is you reference the alligator's mouth will it reemerge in 19 um if this budget goes the way it's anticipated so barring some big economic shift is the alligator's mouth finally closed it should be we're we're we're getting it is it is closing it took us a long time to get into that problem and it's you know it's taking some you know it's it's multiple steps to get out of it it's the other half of the alligator's mouth the bottom jaw is the revenues so depending on what revenues do and frankly that's going to a big part of that revenue is the federal government so that's why this is really focusing on on bringing down those growth rates and creating a lot of structural stability and a little more long-term vision for that strong healthy future and um and we don't have a whole lot of control over the biggest piece the biggest single source of those of those revenues which is the bottom half of that alligator mouth which is the federal government but as this stands would this leave a projected budget gap for 19 before you start work on that in a week i so i'm not sure i don't know yeah i mean the part of the problem with that question is that revenues aren't necessarily forecast out sure that you know the so we don't they we aren't right now working with a solid number on next year's revenue forecast but as but as we as we bring down that growth rate you know the the growth rate of one percent for the overall budget and 0.8 percent for all state funds is tremendous work to help bring that in line and create that sustainability yeah so i mean the economy let's say the economy is growing at two percent they can be conservative there um that puts you in good shape without federal changes right yes it's the it's the federal pieces that are that are good we have time for a couple more and i know but there's so many variables that's why to give an answer yes or no can we can we count on it being you know equal going into 19 there's too many variables on on match rates in medicaid on the health of vermonters on you know federal federal decisions next year snow season ski season i mean there but this does put us in an incredibly strong stable place moving forward so ahead of the debate tomorrow what areas of the budget are you expecting pushback on for chairman well you know if we give you ideas and people read them i really want to do that i'm really curious about the debate tomorrow i'm really quite interested because i don't remember a time when legislative legislative members have had so much opportunity for input and questions and and bring us bring us your concerns and it and it's fine i we want to hear the debate on the house floor you know people need to know the restructuring we've done with corrections and and they need to know the change in policy with the cold weather exception but you know if somebody comes to the table and says why isn't there more economic development in your bill but where have you been for the last six weeks when i've asked you to come to my committee what do you want to see how would you find the money to fund it what are the problems you have with the budget where are your concerns where would you like to see restructuring we have opened our committee doors for formal testimony informal conversations small groups large groups community groups and so if a legislator has a major concern with something that is missing in this budget or spending that we have had i'm just really confused why haven't i heard it yet so i'm hoping it's informational tomorrow you know i mean you haven't had the pushback from your caucus that you had in years past we have had incredible input from all three sides of the aisle all three political parties here have have input to us so how does it compare to other years for for republicans do you think i had somebody say that they never thought they would see a growth rate in the general fund below two percent to me and this is 1.8 percent the the overall growth rate of of two of one percent grand total if you back out the education piece of 61 million dollars that's actually just below 0.9 percent so this is an extraordinary piece of work that we've come together and worked as and and produced as a committee really proud of all of us upstairs this has been an extraordinary difficult piece of work to get to but budget should be the senate has been looking at increasing pay for workers at end union agencies to $15 an hour or some comfortable to other sectors and there's a part in this budget that asks the secretary of human services to come with a plan for employee wages at the singing agencies is that a sign that the house does not agree with the senate's approach right now to increase that for this coming year so this the senate still needs to put together a budget that accommodates that i think we just need to you know wait and see what the senate's full proposal is i do want to say to build upon peter's comments that that the work of the appropriations committee has not been political at all it's been the work of the committee and we haven't you know had the you know the chomping at the neck of either of our caucuses we've had the input from people who want to get a great state budget out or the best budget that we can get out possible and there has not been any political tug-of-war within our committee it's gonna it's a document from 11 individuals sitting around the table getting the information they need and and getting something out that works the best that it can for for monthers yes well i hope so is it gonna be an answer i hope so boy wouldn't that be something i'm not willing to bet on that but i think not me either you know the indications that we're getting right now are that it will be a strong vote um and uh i'll let you what do you recall from your charity so um we we got in past budgets that the three of us worked on together um we did have you know tripartisan support on things but um but i'll be watching to see if we break the 100 number thanks everybody i won't be watching at all