 Hi everyone, this is the Wednesday meeting of the House Corporations Committee and we have joining us the House Human Services Committee and we'd like to welcome you all to hear the testimony from the central office regarding the governor's proposed budget. I just want to make sure that all House members realize that the proposed budget on the administration yesterday is for the full year and it's based off the January proposal that was put in front of us and so if you go to the JFO website there's several documents and it will show the numbers for the proposed budget in January and it will show you the money changes and then you will also see they're calling their restatement, they're restating their January budget. So there's some additions, there's some changes, there's some deletions but it's not a three quarter budget or just another quarter budget, it is a full year budget that will make some changes to what was already passed in the quarter year budget and then complete the rest of the year. So it's a full budget and I wanted everyone to realize that. So we are going to hear from the central office today and we have Secretary Smith and do we have Sarah Clark, Sarah I don't see you on yet, oh there you are here, it's like Holly, I call it my screen, you know I'm looking around and people move. So welcome both of you. We have you scheduled until 10 o'clock so for an hour if we need the full hour and Human Services is here and for committee members where there's natural breaking points that's a good place to ask questions and please both committees feel free to ask your questions heard. So Secretary Smith I'm going to turn this over to you now. Welcome. Thank you Madam Chair, this is like Hollywood Square, Sarah Clark is like the Paul Lynn in my seat here. So first of all for the record I'm Mike Smith, Secretary of Human Services, I want to thank you all for this opportunity to present an overview of our FY 21 budget for the agency of Human Services. I understand that you will and matter of fact I know because I saw the schedule that you will have individual departments in for testimony in the next few days so those detailed questions can be answered and of course Sarah Clark, the agency's CFO or the Paul Lynn as I'm starting to call her now will be at those presentations as she is here today to give more details to the budget during the presentation and others. First off I need to do this because it's been such an abnormal year with attention from me in particular diverted in all sorts of directions. I do wish to give kudos to Sarah Clark and her team as well as the financial teams of all the departments in this agency. They put responsible budget proposals forward in record time. I don't think you'll find a place in this budget that we did not take obligation to those we serve seriously. That is because of the work of the financial teams here at the agency. I can't give enough praise to them for what they pulled off in a very, very short time. Secondly we are setting a budget to do the best information we have as time. Circumstances can change but given what we know about state and federal revenues at this precise point in time is what we have based our budget on. Third, as the chair has alluded to, we've based our budget off the governor's FY recommended budget. All ups and downs in this budget presentation use the January governor's FY21 recommend as the base document or the starting point. So the agency's proposed general fund FY21 budget has approximately 24.5 million in ups off the governor's recommend. 10 million in downs and the use of $4 million in increased F-map funding calculated until the end of this calendar year, December to reduce our overall agency general fund by 31 million off the previous governor's recommend in January. Sarah will go over the details in a moment, but I want to point out that we felt it was appropriate to use perhaps one-time monies like F-map, the F-map because it's really still up in the air what future federal revenues will look like at the end of this calendar year. Will states give more? Will there be more flexibility? These are all questions that need to be answered, but to go through an exercise where we didn't use these funds and in some case one-time funds causing perhaps needless disruption did not seem prudent at this point in time when there is so much uncertainty. So we did use one-time monies prudently in this budget. In addition, for those returning, despite what happens in Washington, I'll just give you a preview for January. I still expect FY22 to be a challenging budget year. And lastly, there is an expenditure of approximately six million dollars in here to go to Springfield Hospital. I want to spend a few moments and talk about that for just a second or two. I had to make a judgment call to try and save Springfield Hospital in this budget. And I have done so knowing full well it is a risk. But after the hospital tried and after extensive negotiations with other potential partners, those efforts weren't successful. Instead, this effort will hopefully allow them to emerge from bankruptcy with a leaner operation and assuming the court and it is up to the court agrees to this to try to succeed on their own again. Obviously, there were glimmers of hopes for success before the pandemic hit. But as and pandemic had devastating impacts on Springfield Hospital as it did on other hospitals out there. But as hospital revenues return is hopeful that success will return to Springfield Hospital as well. As we saw during the height of the pandemic and any possible future surge, hospital bed space is needed in our planning when laying out worst case scenarios. Obviously, here in Vermont, we've been really, really fortunate. We exceeded our best case scenarios. We have the lowest case count in the country in terms of positive cases of COVID. And we have the lowest positivity rate in the country. But when you plan for various scenarios, whether it's a surge or other scenarios, you plan for worst case scenario. And that's what we're doing here. So health care assets become important as we plan this. And that's why I thought it was important not only for the community in that region, but also for the state to include a miniature for Springfield Hospital. With that, I'll turn over the discussion to Sarah Clark, who can go through the line by line items and go from there. So Sarah. Thank you, Secretary. Thank you, Secretary Smith. Sarah, do you have a presentation that Theresa can put up? OK, and she has that. Yeah. And before you started, Sarah, when I did the introductions, Representative Pugh, you are here with your committee. Did you have anything that you wanted to say or make sure it was covered? Or do you just want to chime in when something comes up? I should have offered that when I apologize. Representative Toll, that's fine. I think you set the stage very well when you started. We thank you. I think it'll make our work quicker and easier to join you. And it makes sense to save questions until unless there are a question of content, because we don't understand words or something, to wait until the presentations are over. So thank you, Representative Toll. Perfect. Thank you, ma'am. Sarah, welcome. It's always good to see you. Great. Good morning. And welcome back. Theresa is going to share a PowerPoint presentation. Just to orient you to the materials that we've provided, we sent over this PowerPoint as well as what we would refer to as our traditional ups and downs. As Secretary Smith indicated, the ups and downs is based off of the GOV-REC. And then we show all of the changes from the GOV-REC to this 12-month restatement budget. In addition, I provided our one-page summary sheet that identifies for the committees the general fund changes from the GOV-REC. So, Theresa, if you want to go to the second slide. So as Secretary indicated, this budget reflects a decrease of $31 million of general fund, which is a roughly 3.1% decrease over the FY21 governor recommend. How it's important to understand that this budget leverages $44.8 million from the 6.2% F-MAP fund, which essentially represents general fund savings. And so that is, as the Secretary, it is really one of the big ways in which we've presented to you a balanced budget today. Thank you for your clarification, Sarah. Just a clarification question. We've always heard that the additional F-MAP is about $19 million per quarter. So how do we get to the $44.8 out of the F-MAP if it's the $19 million? Sure, and it's an important distinction to make that this $44.8 million reflects F-MAP bump across multiple appropriations. The big one is in the Secretary's office, where it's about $40 million. So I think that kind of fits nicely with the quarterly estimate that you just referenced. In addition, we leveraged the F-MAP bump in Diva through CHIP, DISH, and CLAWBAC, as well as within the 4E program in DCF. And so that's how we get to this $44.8 million. And again, it's an estimate based on current caseloads. Thank you. I think it is important to understand as it relates to the F-MAP bump that we do now know that we will be able to leverage the F-MAP bump through December 31st of 2020, unless legislation at the federal level changes. The reason that we know that is because the F-MAP bump is in place in any quarter where the federal emergency is declared. And because the Secretary of HHS, Secretary Azar, has extended that emergency period, I believe it's through October 22nd. We know that we will be able to leverage that F-MAP bump through the end of this calendar year, unless something changes from a legislation perspective. So, Brisa, can you go to the next slide? So this is just at a high level, the agency's FY21 general fund budget. So the GOV-REC had us at about a billion dollars. And then adding to that, 12.6 million of forecasted caseload pressures that we've experienced since the submission of the GOV-REC budget. In addition, there's another $12 million of other operating pressures. This is referring to the $24 million that the Secretary referenced in his opening comments. In addition, these pressures are offset by the 44.8 million resulting from the F-MAP bump. And then there is almost $11 million of departmental savings proposals that'll bring us to a new general fund recommended level of $978 million. Next slide, please. And these are just, I have a couple of contextual slides that I think the committees are used to seeing where we just look at the general fund budget by department across the agency. I think the big takeaway that we've talked about in the past is you'll see on the general fund pie chart, the Secretary's Office Global Commitment Appropriation makes up 53% of that $978 million appropriation. When you slide over on the chart to the all funds across the agency, you'll notice that the Secretary's Office gets much smaller, but you'll see the diva and the dale pie pieces get a lot bigger. And that's because that's where the Medicaid program is. And so we're looking at $2.6 billion all funds across the agency in this FY21 resatement. Next slide, please. This is just a line chart of our general fund budget over time. And you can see the $978 million that is the request in the resatement agenda budget. And then here it is again, just looking at all funds across the agency and our request of roughly 2.6 billion. Okay, now I'm going to talk about some highlights that are included in this budget. It addresses caseload pressures that we've experienced since submitting the governor recommend budget. These include Medicaid, reach up, and choices for care home and community based services. We'll talk a little bit more about those as we go through the presentation. In addition, as a starting point for the addendum to the FY21 budget, the agency looked at proposals that had originally been included in the governor recommend back in January, but were no longer feasible due to COVID-19. And so this restated budget either delays or unwinds some proposals that were no longer feasible. A few examples of that is the emergency housing restructure proposal. This budget proposes to delay any activity on that restructuring until FY22. As you are aware, in light of the pandemic, congregate housing was a challenge because of the spread of COVID-19. And so the agency is proposing to delay that in FY22 because it's not feasible right now. In addition, some of the corrections proposals, and we'll talk more about it, were not feasible. Kind of notably, the original governor recommend proposed to fill the Caledonia County Workcamp. As you know, the Caledonia County Workcamp was our site for kind of COVID positive individuals in light of the pandemic. And so this budget kind of restores the savings associated with that proposal from the original governor recommend. As we've talked about, we're leveraging federal funds, most notably from the 6.2% FMAP bum. In addition, there are a few places in this budget where we are leveraging coronavirus relief funds for areas such as reach-up caseload. If you recall, the Joint Fiscal Committee approved, I think it was roughly $1.2 million at one of the meetings earlier in the spring to provide funds for reach-up caseload, which has increased as a result of the pandemic. This budget proposes to leverage coronavirus relief fund dollars to cover reach-up caseload increases from July to December. In addition, we are leveraging CRF funds for DOC staff time that is substantially dedicated to the pandemic response. And we're leveraging CRF for DMH staff and operating. All of these are expenditures that were contemplated and approved by earlier Joint Fiscal Committee meetings. So now as I typically do, I will run you through some of the more specific proposals both in the secretary's office. And I can give you a high level across each of the departments. As the secretary indicated, the departments will be in for testimony starting, I think, tomorrow with this committee. So in the secretary's office, we have roughly $6.2 million in upward pressures, meaning general fund need in this budget. As the secretary has already highlighted to you, the Springfield Hospital Bankruptcy Settlement is estimated here to be $6 million. That's included. That's the biggest chunk in the secretary's office. And say that needs to be general fund and seed-era fund is not applicable here. So for right now, we are assuming that this needs to be state dollars, though you raise an interesting point representative toll. And so there is the possibility that Springfield will be able to leverage coronavirus relief fund dollars through our healthcare provider stabilization program that we stood up in partnership with the legislature over the summer. However, it's not known yet how much they will actually qualify for as part of that process. And so because of the criticality of that hospital, we included it here with state dollars. Thank you. In addition, there are funds in this budget to provide for a general counsel for the agency of human services. And the 211 contract, as you were aware, we're actually funding that from July to December using coronavirus relief fund dollars because of the need to continue the 24-7 coverage as a result of the pandemic. We are also planning to continue that 24-7 coverage beyond December. And that's what this request is for. On the downside within the secretary's office, this essentially frees up general fund dollars. The bulk of that is the 6.2% FMAP bump. In addition, and you'll see this across all of state government, there are internal service fund savings that each of the internal service fund departments were able to identify and pass down to the department. So you will see that in the secretary's office budget. We are also proposing to eliminate two positions. One of the positions is vacant as of the end of August or it will be. And the other is a filled position, but it is for a function that can be absorbed in other areas and that's why we're putting it forward for elimination. There are also some savings from the corporation for national and community service in the match. This is essentially the AmeriCorps program. CNCS has waived the match requirements for all AmeriCorps cost reimbursement grants that were awarded in FY 19 and FY 20. The reason they're doing this is concern over the availability of match at the local level and wanting those programs to continue. And so they have waived the match for now and we are leveraging those savings to put forth this balance budget. And that in a nutshell is the changes that you will see in the secretary's office. Thank you, Sarah. Open it up to committee questions. Teresa, if we could go back to a full screen or maybe a shared screen if we need to access the PowerPoint. Let's go back to a full screen so I can see questions. Okay, Representative Jacoponi. Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. I really appreciate all the hard work you and everybody's been doing. I don't want to create more work. So pushback, if this is not, there's no value added here. But I'm trying to ascertain the potential one-time cost pressures on FY 22 by using CRF dollars and assuming case load and Medicaid and reach up, et cetera, that doesn't abate. And assuming the federal match on the volunteer program, we just mentioned that some of those things were to change. Could you help us with that just so that we, am I corrected into a degree? There's some, and I think it's acceptable. This is not a criticism. There's some risk by shifting dollars here and there if things don't change in FY 22 or am I misreading that? No, I think you raise a good point that there are significant use of one-time dollars in this budget. I'd say the primary use of the one-time funds is the 44 million and the FMAP bump. That's the biggest source of the one-time dollars. But as the secretary indicated in his comments, that FMAP bump is to support states and administering its Medicaid program, which is why the agency felt strongly in our need to use those dollars to basically manage through the FY 21 budget. As it relates to our use of coronavirus relief fund dollars, my hope is that some of those costs that we're using to cover with coronavirus relief funds will not be an ongoing pressure in FY 22. Now that's still a hope. So for example, reach up caseload. To the extent that the pandemic subsides, and I think that's probably still a big if, right? And the economy starts to recover on a more permanent basis. The hope would be that reach up caseloads would decline. And so that we wouldn't see that same continued cost pressure in FY 22. But as you also rightly pointed out, there is a smattering of other kind of one-time sources like the CNCS matched, waved on a one-time basis. And so it's something that we, as we prepare to build 22, which believe it or not will likely happen at the end of this month, we'll start that work. We are acutely aware of the agency of our need to essentially replace these one-time funds when we build FY 22. Did I answer your question, Representative Yacobonis? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Pugh. Yes. Thank you. I have, if possible, I have two questions. One might be more for Secretary Smith having to do with the elimination of the two positions in central office and Sarah reflected one is, reflected them generally. And from the policy perspective, I'm curious as to what those actual positions were and what were the functions? Sure. Can you hear me okay? I just wanna make sure cause I'm getting bounced off and on this. So one was classified as a general counsel and many of those responsibilities and that person's retiring by the way. And many of those responsibilities are being picked up by the general counsel out of the secretary's office. The other one I dealt with data if I remember Sarah correctly and if you could help me out with that, I would appreciate it. The other position is an administrative position. Both of them were involved with how we used to kind of manage and operate our large scale IT projects since they were created in the secretary's office as you are likely aware the kind of management and responsibility for those large scale IT projects has been pushed back more to the departments. Most notably the department of Vermont Health Access, Diva. And so that's why at this time we are proposing to eliminate those. So one of the secretary Smith, one of the general counsel, one of the positions you're talking about is a general counsel that was for within a department because I saw on the up is having a general counsel. So I'm just confused. Yeah, it was a general counsel that was assigned to the secretary's office but it dealt with as Sarah Clark has talked about these big IT projects at one time. As we sort of started looking at the functions here in the secretary's office, we just felt that position wasn't needed given the fact that we have a general counsel here in the secretary's office that could assume some of those and plus some of the responsibilities have been shifted elsewhere over the years. Sure, thank you. And Sarah, my second question probably is more directed to you in terms of the reach up dollars. My understanding is that the federal money that we get for reach up that actually the vast majority of it does not go directly to reach up participants but rather to fund equally important aspects of supports for families struggling such as childcare and the earned income tax credit. So I'm just wondering what is happening with those. I think I want to refer you representative Pew to commissioner Sean Brown who will be in, I think it's tomorrow. We can give you more details on how the reach up dollars are spent and I will give them the heads up to prepare for that. Thank you. Muted. Thank you, Anne. And thank you, Sarah. Kimberly, representative Jeff's up. Your hand was up. Was your question answered? Yes, that was my same question. Thank you, Rep Pew for asking. And representative Bromstead. Thank you. I think I have two quick questions and I think they're for Sarah and maybe they're for Sean Brown as well. So I apologize if so, but I wondered under highlights, there's a section you talk about the pressures and then under that is delays activity on emergency housing restructure. And I just wondered in the original governor's budget there was also restructure around transportation under the child development division and also restructure around the children's integrated service. It was more of a regionalization. And I wondered if both of those are being delayed as well. Thank you. My understanding and Commissioner Brown can give you more details is that both of those efforts, the transportation and the children's integrated services are still slated to be underway in state fiscal year 21. I will say that I'll expect that there has been delays in that because we have been, as you know, pretty much out straight on pandemic response since March, but that we are still planning to undertake those activities. Thank you. Did you have a second question, Jessica? Those were the two. Okay, thank you. Representative Hooper. Thank you. My questions are in the more mundane areas of just general management of the agency. Let me begin by saying, I think AHS has been spectacular in its response to the virus. And I was a little bit rough on Commissioner Baker about some other issues going on within the agency and within his department. He had a lot on his hands and was doing a pretty spectacular job. But at the same time, all of you have to continue managing personnel issues, IT issues, and just the kind of the bricks and mortars of how you get work done. So I'm wondering, and one of the issues that I have had is how quickly AHS is able to respond to personnel related issues. And I think Secretary Smith, this has been a concern of yours in the past in terms of kind of the timeliness of resolving issues. I tried to find an email from the auditor who said that in the past calendar year, and I think it was $1.8 million were spent across state government in relief from duty pay. And I'm guessing about half of that probably belongs in AHS. So my general question is, can you comment on initiatives or efforts that you're making to deal with personnel related issues and the timely resolution of them? And maybe I'm also wondering about IT, but I think that's gonna be more a DCF and the integrated eligibility system and how that is coming along in the management of that. Thank you for the question. Obviously, some of the best laid plans were thrown off track when the pandemic hit and we had to concentrate on the pandemic, but the personnel aspects of responding quickly still are at the forefront of what I'm looking at as we move forward with the agency. I think you're gonna see a concentrated effort in that regard in the remainder of FY 21, assuming we don't get thrown for another loop on something else, but it is a priority of mine. As you know, in a report, I was pretty critical of the delays in the personnel system that we have. Here in the agency and as we have in state government. So I think I can assure you that it has not gone off my radar screen. We are moving forward in trying to expedite those issues as quickly as possible. I will say we've probably been delayed in a couple of areas that I wanted to see moved, particularly some of the internal investigations that we were doing that have been ramped back up now that we're delayed because we simply couldn't risk putting people in that weren't being tested and putting them into our prison system. That's on the correction side, but I think generally, I've been very critical of the stipulations that we've done in the past. I've been very critical of sort of the delays in personal action that seem to take a long time and still remain that way. And hopefully we'll be able to concentrate in FY21 on some of those issues. Thank you. And I just wanted to raise this with you so that I could hear you say that and to say that I believe it really is a significant issue that we tend to forget because it's not, the top of the mind sort of thing. It needs to be addressed. I haven't forgotten it. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Marian. Thank you, Secretary Smith. Are there other questions from committee members from either committee? I'm not seeing any. So we managed to go through this budget much more quickly. Oh, excuse me, Representative Akavoni, you have your hand raised. I apologize, I wasn't quick enough to get my virtual hand up. Maybe this is something, Sarah, I can go over with you offline, but by the way of background, some of the other committee members may hear from their communities also. Last year, it could have happened before last year, but in any event, in the past, there was a change to how the agency, and I believe the departments transferred money to community partners. The easiest way for me to explain it might be, instead of my receiving my first quarterly payment to provide services in July, I didn't receive it for three months after I submitted documentation showing that the services were rendered and the outcomes and specifications were met. And it created for some a cash flow challenge. And I think you and the agency helped to ameliorate that, to mitigate it, to help those agencies. There's a new agency, I won't go into the specific, excuse me, a new organization that's, I think for the first time, going through that kind of cash transition, if you will. And I wondered if in the same way you were helpful with some of the parent child centers and others, if I could just work with you on that later to see if there might be a way to help with that transition. Yes, Representative Yacoboni, I believe I'm aware of the specific situation that you're speaking of. And I know that there is a team of folks that are kind of researching and working to understand that issue. Thank you. Yeah. I'll follow up with you then. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. I'm wondering, and one of the pressures you talked about, you mentioned the 211 contract, could you tell us the status of the 211 contract? We have a question from Representative Hooper. Sure, the 211 contract is in place and is fully funded through the end of the state fiscal year to continue to provide those 24-7 services that I believe we were when we were in your committee in January talking about the need to be able to continue to do that. And so the contract has been amended to allow us to do that through the end of the state fiscal year, especially in light of the pandemic. Thank you. Representative Hooper and then Representative Feltas. Thank you. Just since we have a little bit of time here, reference has been made to some of the planning and anticipation of increased caseload demands. But generally, what sort of planning is going on for the increase in homelessness that certainly my community is experiencing, notwithstanding, again, another spectacular effort by DCS. But here in Central Vermont, we're seeing a huge bump in homelessness. I suspect that food insecurity, notwithstanding efforts is going to increase. The issues associated with people losing their PUA or UI payments is going to exacerbate all of that. And so Secretary Smith, I was wondering if you could talk about how you're planning for these unplanned, unforeseen things that could be happening in the future. Sure. As you know, we put forth a sort of a plan to move people. Let me even step back even further. During the pandemic, we did the unprecedented thing of housing everyone that we possibly could into the hotel motel voucher system. That was one of the things that we thought was necessary. And if you look at our track record in terms of spread, that was a wise decision to do that. Now we sort of have to unwind that because if we kept that program going at the pace that we have now, it would probably annualize to about $48 million a year. That is something, going from $5 million to $48 million with the same program is something that's unsustainable as we move forward. I'm racking my brains, Representative Hooper, to come up with the steps and the specifics and the cost of the program that we put in place. But we do have a program in place to move people from those motel hotels to especially families to permanent housing as we move forward. So 23 million, I think Sarah, a $23 million program, 16 of which is a coronavirus relief funds that we use in order to stand up this program to have available housing. Couple that with what is going on in Gasilic Shop and at Community Development in terms of housing. I think it's over 50 million, don't quote me on that, but there is a substantial effort to move people into permanent housing as we move forward. So we're not gonna get rid of the motel voucher system and it's gonna be more than $5 million that we normally pay for it, but we are trying to move people into permanent housing as we move forward. On the issue of food security, as you know, the legislature granted those that deal with food insecurity, the Vermont Food Bank, $4.7 million, I believe that money has been released to them to help out with the programs. We don't know what the federal funding is gonna look like in the future in terms of that, but we are rapidly moving to make sure that we have this at the local level that we can address those sort of issues, but we do have programs in place. These are interim programs until we can get back to the original program in FY22 that we talked about in terms of the homelessness program that we originally talked to the committee about seems like years ago, but probably six months ago that we were talking about that we will move forward in FY22, but we have the $23 million that we're spending in various phases to move those that need housing into permanent housing. Mr. Secretary, I'm certainly aware of the initiatives that were begun and what I was trying to reflect upon is kind of the next level, the increase over what we knew. So we knew we had what, 1,100 folks without housing in the state and we are now seeing an increase over that number. And so it was kind of, I was asking you to look into the crystal ball and figure out how you're going to respond to those pressures, not the pressures we knew about. We actually had 1,500 into our system. And that is, I think we eliminated just about the entire need when we did that. So that's our, I think our high watermark. Now, how do we bring it down from there and get people into permanent housing? And these interim steps, I think, as we move forward, there's some ingenious things happening out there in terms, especially in families, eliminating family homelessness. That was a goal of this interim step and I think a good goal. We'll have to take a look at how our progress is going as we're moving forward. But I think we're making good strides in sort of moving forward in a constructive, permanent way for housing. And you've got to remember some of the shelters are starting to open back up. They won't be at the same capacity that they did had prior to the pandemic because we have to talk about social distancing and other cautionary things that we have to do within the shelters. Thank you, that's a conversation. I think that's continuing. And in the crystal ball, there is going to be very murky. I don't think there's a clear picture, Mary. I know that that's a priority of yours and trust you'll be following up on that. Representative Feltas and then Representative McFawn. Yes, thank you. I continue to have some confusion about this general council issue. You indicated an increase for that, but then one of your decreases was apparently also a general council issue. Maybe I'm not clear on how the distinction between those two, can you please help me? Yeah, we have several general councils or we had several general councils. Okay. And I'm trying to consolidate it into one. If I may, it's a bit of a technical point. The positions that we are proposing to eliminate are limited service positions funded by the IT projects, as we said earlier, whereas we're looking to fund an ongoing permanent general council. And that's because- Okay, I understand. And that's because, frankly, our previous general council was stolen from us, but that's- So basically it's a swap. You're eliminating one that's limited service. However, you are adding one that will be permanent whole time. And we did have a general council that was funded out of the Attorney General's office. This brings it into our office to fund it. That person is left. So it's not a brand new position. It's moving a position. Let's call it a brand new position because it's easier to think of it that way because they're so complicated in terms of how this integrates into this. But I would call it a new position that isn't really new because it used to be in this office in a way. Okay, I'm just thinking of the hiring freeze. And we're not creating a new position. No, I think, I can't remember how we did this, Sarah, do you? It's a position from the pool. So we did get the, in light of the hiring freeze and all of that, we did follow the right procedures to get the actual position. Okay, Kimberly, you'll follow up on all of that and be able to explain it to anybody who asks, I'm sure. Yes. We'll make it, we'll make it as plain as mud. Marty, were you finished? Thank you. No, I'm through, thank you. Thank you. Representative McFawn. Thank you. Let me get the dog out of here. I have had some questions this week from Child Care Center people. They have a concern, I think I gave them the right answer, but I want to make sure. They're worried about all of this money for stabilization, grants that they may receive or they can apply for, any of this cares money. They're concerned that it may be considered income and they will have to pay taxes they might end up in another tax bracket because of it. And so if any of the administration people can answer that question, are those grants or any of the cares money or any of the stabilization money is that considered going to be considered income to those people? Yeah, Representative, I'm gonna have to take that offline. I don't have a quick answer for that, but let's write it down, let's take it offline. I mean, I'm trying to think of the circumstance and maybe I can get to it offline a little bit. We have funded through the Coronavirus Relief Fund and perhaps other funds approximately $35 million to keep childcare open during the height of the pandemic plus on the restart and that was for essential workers and also we kept the infrastructure of the childcare centers intact by paying them during when they didn't have people, when they didn't have children, keeping it intact during the pandemic. We started up on June 1st with $6 million, I believe it was in startup grants, the legislature added to that of $12 million, which we're taking applications in now. The governor announced yesterday another $12 million going requesting money from the legislature to add some capacity in childcare. So there is a lot of money in there and plus, what else is available to them in terms of relief? I don't know the answer to your question in terms of what's taxable and not taxable, but let me, Sarah will follow up offline and we'll try to figure it out for you. Secretary Smith, actually we have legislative council here that will be able to weigh in on the new CR effects and questions. So we can get a quick answer from Jen Carby. Thank you, Jen. Sure. So Jennifer Carby, legislative council, the federal government recently updated their CRF frequently asked questions and one of them went to exactly that question and then they link to the IRS website and the short answer seems to be yes. The question is if governments use fund payments as described in the fund guidance to establish a grant program to support businesses, would those funds be considered gross income taxable to a business receiving the grant under the IRS code? And the answer is yes. The receipt of a government grant by a business generally is not excluded from the business's gross income under the code and is therefore taxable. I don't know how it would be treated under our state tax laws, but the answer from the federal level seems to be that that is taxable income. Thank you and maybe follow up later with Topper about state taxes, whether they would be applicable for Vermont state taxes as well. Topper, did you have a follow up or? No, no, no, that's not the answer I get. We have just under 10 minutes left. We have a representative Lamper and representative Yakovoni. There were some additional slides that Sarah had in this deck. However, they're directly related to a overview of the specific departments. And so if you wanna go through those on your own and when the specific departments are in, those are where those detailed questions could be asked or should be asked. So Diane. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's exactly what my question was. I was thinking and watching the clock like, wait a minute, we've got so many slides to go through. And so I think you've answered it. We will go through those with the department or the agencies when they come in. Okay. And Sarah will be here as well to help answer but the commissioners will really have the detailed information that will answer some of our questions. To be clear, they'll go through a more detailed presentation. This was just designed to give you across the agency. This is what is included in the restatement. Thank you, Sarah. Dave? Yes. Thank you. Secretary Smith, yesterday when I was speaking with Secretary French, we brought up the issue about success beyond six and the importance of what that is not just to our designated agencies but to children learning in a remote learning environment who have safety and supervision issues. He said it was front and center, I think he said on his burner. I think those are the words he used. It's complicated as you may know because to a large degree, it depends on what the local school districts do. And last I checked, I don't think your position can do a lot with that. Though I wish it could. You've done such a great job with everything else. My concern is that to the degree you can, you help with that. I'm worried that the commissioner of mental health who's doing great work alone may not be able to move the needle sufficiently. The revenue from that program, notwithstanding the importance of the work is critical to the stability of the designated agencies. Without it, I would assume they would be knocking on your door for more stabilization funds help. Can you speak to this at all? Is this something that's on your radar or is it to be moved? No, it is on my radar. And Representative Yacoboni, you may recall this is a program that's pretty near and dear to my heart, given the fact that I was here when we started this sort of program as we were moving forward here. I met with the designated agencies the other day and said I would meet with Secretary French. I made the commitment to meet with Secretary French to see what we could do here to advance and continue this program. I think it's a wonderful program, obviously, or I wouldn't have proposed it a long time ago, but it is something that I think is needed. I think it's something, especially during these times, that is important. So Secretary French and I, and I think it's this week, are supposed to get together to sort of noodle this and figure out a way that we can get together. That was the promise I made to the designated agencies and I'll fulfill that promise this week, I think. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dave. I don't see any other questions at this time. And so I would like to thank Secretary Smith and Sarah Clark for coming in knowing that much of what is covered here as far as reductions in pressures within programs, we will really be addressing within the individual budgets. This is where the conversations will go a bit deeper, but I did wanna keep both committees on for 10 minutes so that we have a plan to expedite this process through with each budget and getting feedback back to our committee. So Sarah and Mike, you're welcome to stay. Sarah, we'll see you, obviously when the other budgets come in but we're just going to do some coordination of how we get feedback and move this budget quickly since we have two weeks. Madam Chair, I'm gonna sign off, but thank you so much and thank the committees for your time. I really appreciate it. And thank you for your work. We know how difficult this has been and we really appreciate what you do for struggling for Monters. Thank you. I'm getting too old for this. No. We all are. Bye now. Thank you. So with the two committees, what I would like to do is to make sure that all questions are answered or at least we have the questions if they're not answered on the table or our concerns on the table. And ultimately, and from your committee, we want an informal letter. We don't need any formal letters but I just need something better than my notes. That says you are or are not okay with the elimination of the two positions, maybe weighing in on the need of the need or not using the one-time money so that we're using the one-time money either way so that there's not disruptions in services at this time because we don't know what the fiscal landscape is going to be. We don't know what the pandemic is going to do. And so some confirmation either way at the use of one-time money. As far as the pressures that were mentioned on choices for care and on reach up and on Medicaid in general, I'd like to address those within the specific budgets. And so if others agree and ask me if I'm missing something, it's really the use of one-time money to not disrupt services mostly through the Medicaid CFMAP bump and then the positions, the eliminations of two positions but one being created within the secretary's office. Does anyone have something else? Kimberly, thank you, this is your budget. Yeah, I just also don't want to drop Rep Bromsted's good comments about DCF specific issues relating to CIS and transportation. But I think, Kitty, you're focusing right now more on AHS. The only other topic that I've heard some chatter about and that didn't come up is I know that the racial justice position is in the AHS office and there has been some interest in the political world about what that director is doing and whether there's sufficient staff support. And I don't know if that's something we want to put in a query. I can pop out an email on that. And then also there was a substance abuse position that was also in there and I don't know where things stand with that. So related to the staffing questions on general counsel which I'm crafting an email right now to follow up on those are just the other two pieces and I don't know if anyone on human services wants to weigh in on any of that. Thanks. So Kimberly, I'm going to leave those two to you those two positions and whether there's sufficient staffing those would be good questions to start with. I think Sarah Clark and then she can lead you where you need to get more information. Thank you. Let's see Diane. Thank you. Along that same line, Kimberly is you know, I had just a momentary thought around the positions around that general counsel that typically they were in or maybe it's in the attorney general's office that they work on with AHS. What does that mean to have that coming now not from the position not being a part of the attorney general's office and the attorney being now very specifically to a particular department within a political environment. I'm not too sure where that could have problems but I thought we should probably check that out. Thanks. That's a great point. Thank you, Diane. Perfect. Anne. Thank you. Kitty, part of me thinks that I need to hear some more specifics from the departments. I mean, as they identify one-time pressures or as they identify caseload pressures the community providers and individual Vermonters may in fact be identifying different pressures or additional pressures. And so that is, and I in particular and very curious I think where are the case, where are the savings coming from all of the departments? There was, so what aren't we doing? And what is the impact in terms of that? And so that in some level, I rely on members of my committee and the community to let us know in terms of sort of what are the questions to be asking. For instance, a very narrow kind of questions as an example, how much money is going to be in the tobacco fund? What we have heard is that it's important to reduce smoking especially during COVID because of its connection to the additional risk in terms of health risks. And so, you know, those kinds of things. I certainly understand that, Ann. And for you and for your committee, we have two public hearings scheduled where we will hear from advocates and we will hear from Vermonters. They're next week on the 27th and 28th. We're holding them with the Senate just to expedite this budget. And the first one on Thursday is at five o'clock. And the second one is on Friday at one o'clock. And Teresa, will you be sending out those links to all members so that they can listen in if they choose? Yes, the press release with the YouTube link has been sent and I'll resend them on Monday. So Kitty, what is the date by which you would like the feedback from human services? So, I don't know what's going on with my throat. What I would like and what I'm asking, we had a couple of budgets in yesterday, is not to wait for all of human services to be covered. So if, let's say the central office is, you've made decisions that you have recommendations or you agree with what's being presented that as soon as an area has been, you've been able to reflect on it. And if there's no changes or you know it, you would like change, get that to us as fast as you can. And they don't have to be formal memos. They can be an email to Teresa and to the committee just saying, we've reviewed the central office, we agree or disagree with the position eliminations and understand or don't agree with the use of one-time money. And it can be as simple as that. But if there's a big issue with DCF, I don't wanna hold off on the other pieces. I wanna close out as many or get working on the issues that are at hand. And so I know that's a little bit more work, but it's completely informal. And as we go through these budgets when your committee has made decisions or recommendations, get them to us as quickly as possible. Absolutely. I'm assuming that you all will be looking at the legislature passed a quarter budget. And the administration is basing this on the budget that they presented in January. And so if they're making any changes in terms of the budget that we passed and was signed that reflect not just money, but perhaps a policy direction, how are we gonna figure that out? Well, we're going to figure it out together. It may be things that we agree with because the landscape may or may have changed. And so if we agree with it, that will be easy. If we don't, then we will have an alternative plan that we would put in our budget. So I see that Sarah is still on the call. So Sarah, I would appreciate that as either in an email to me or as part of the presentations, if that makes sense for the department commissioners to make mention of that. The highlight changes from what we already passed in the quarter one budget, especially. Thank you. Sarah? Yeah, I was just gonna say, I think we can maybe at a high level, let me get a narrative together that talks about what the difference is between the one quarter budget and what we're providing to you now. That would be helpful. Thank you, Sarah. The exact timing of the budget, I do not know the date that we're going to be expected to get the budget out of committee to have on the floor, but knowing that our public hearings are not until Thursday or Friday, we will not be making any final decisions until we hear from Vermonters. And the following week, we have, I don't even know when Labor Day is, Labor Day is the seventh. So I'm not sure if the fourth is the date that we would, the third and fourth to get the budget out or if we have a little bit more time after Labor Day, just to give you a timeframe of where we are. But we do need a couple of days, at least after the public hearings. That date is above my pay grade right now of what the schedule is for the House and Senate and to adjourn. Mary and Kimberly. Yeah, thank you. You were looking for questions or concerns that we need to go into some more. And I was trying to get at this with the secretary and it has to do with our capacity to address the unknown that the future is going to bring us. And I'm really concerned that we have so constrained our staffing resources that we don't have the ability to get at the next wave. And that's a real ethereal sort of conversation sadly, but I think it's one we need to pay attention to. So if human resources has any ideas, human services has any ideas on what we ought to be doing there. I sure would be interested in how to pay attention to that. And then a very specific question. Part of the Vermont legal aid budget resides in the central office budget. It is also in other parts of AHS. And I don't know if it is adequately resourced to do the job that we've asked them to do with regard to housing and rehousing and kind of rental assistance. And those are the things that come to my mind, but there may be no. So that's a question on my hand is how are we doing with legal aid? And there's two different pieces here, whether we're talking about the general fund budget or whether we're talking about the use of CRF funds in order to pay for specific projects and programs to get through this pandemic. And there will be probably some CRF funds were reflected in this budget, whether we'll do a separate bill for the remainder of the CRF funds that is still under discussion. The administration has combined both the budget and their CRF priorities all in one bill. And we do know that there are some CRF issues that need to get out faster than this budget is going to get out. So there will probably be an earlier CRF bill for things that need immediate attention. And then there will be the budget and whether there'll be then another CRF bill that's, I'm not sure if it's going to be all in one or we'll separate it out in two. It all depends on timing and what the federal government does with a next package, not knowing what, well, we'll know what our priorities are, but we won't know exactly what the federal government is giving us for the amount of funds, how they can be used, what restrictions are on them. Okay, any other final thoughts? Kimberly will be directly in touch with your committee and Ann, whenever you could, if your committee assistant could send an email to our committee member so they can listen into your discussion that sometimes is helpful in moving things along quickly too. Any other final thoughts or questions or concerns? I'm just a kitty, I was not, and if you want us to do something different, I will. I was looking at this week as members getting the information and that us having the discussion on next Tuesday when our committee, sorry, you don't know this yet, when the committee is going to be meeting, but do you need it before then? Next Tuesday is the 25th, is that correct? Yeah, I mean, that's when we begin. That's when we all return. No, no, no, no, and no, you have plenty of time, you have a few days in. So, and if for some of this, you may want to hear, Wade, until you hear from advocates and hear from Vermonters regarding certain policy, but anything you can get into us as soon as you can after you've formally made on the 25th would be wonderful. And don't hold anything back, send lots of small memos and emails instead of one large letter from your committee. And Teresa and Maria will not be sending out letters to the committees, they take at least five or six days to go through the entire budget and cite all the sections. And so that's why we're meeting jointly to expedite this. And so don't wait for a letter from our committee saying, you know, you're in this, this, in this section, those aren't, there's not time to put those out. But we're more than happy to help you find the sections of the budget if you have a question. Okay, any final thoughts? This is new territory for all of us, but I really appreciate both committees meeting together. I think that it's going to help us move more quickly and understand each other's concerns and to get a budget out that is responsible for Vermont and to help Vermonters. And any final thoughts? Thank you for joining us. Whoops, you were muted. I was just saying no and thank you. And I want to say the Committee Human Services knows what to do, which is to connect with the folks that they've been connecting with and we can all circle back next week in terms of what we've heard and what else we need to hear. It's going to be a fun ride. Let's just hold on. So we're going to take a break until 10.30 and at 10.30, Teresa will have, it's the same length. Teresa will have the link for you. I'll send you a link shortly for the next meeting. Thank you, Teresa, and be ready for the agency of digital services. Okay, thank you very much. Live stream now.