Joint Budget Committee [Mar 12, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

We are once again figure setting on the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing today on the Office of Community Living.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tom Dermody, Joint Budget Committee staff. You know, we've got a lot ahead of us. This is not going to be an easy document. There are, I think if I counted correctly, 19 decision items, but it's lots of pages, lots of, probably lots of discourse. So I figured we'd skip over the summary section and just start right in with it, if that is okay with the committee. That would take us to page 10. This is going to be a relatively easy one compared to much of what you're going to have to discuss today. So page 10, R5, Office of Community Living. This is the medical forecast adjustment. This is a standard issue that we bring before you every year. staff is recommending using the department's February 26 forecast for enrollment and expenditures to modify both the 25-26 and 26-27 appropriations. This is the best available information we have for actual costs for the current and upcoming fiscal year. And just in terms of a quick summary, We are looking at for 2526, an increase of $26.4 million total funds, about $13.7 million general fund, and for 2526, sorry, excuse me, for 2627 year over year based off of that February forecast, there would be an additional 63 million total funds roughly million general fund for 2627 So staff is recommending the forecast Mr Germany why is it

That's the addition of the two years. I was going year by year on those numbers

Mr. Dermody. Thank you, Madam Chair. That $21 million is based off of the February forecast. It's higher than the governor's request.

ON PAGE 13, I WAS USING THOSE NUMBERS, THAT ACCOUNTS FOR BASE ADJUSTMENTS AND ANNUALIZATIONS.

SO, MADAM CHAIR, THOSE TWO CHARTS ON PAGE 12, THOSE COMBINED, THE RESIDENTIAL SERVICES AND THE NON-RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, FOR MOST, FOR THREE OF THE FOUR, So for CHIRP, SLS, and CES, yes, enrollment and utilization increased. The one where enrollment actually decreased in 25-26 was the DD waiver. In November.

Huh?

It's based off of enrollment. I mean, we're truing up based off of actuals, and that actual information is feeding into the forecast. So in November, they didn't have the first half of the year. And so given the first half of the year, they're seeing, at least for that one waiver, slightly less enrollment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to Staff Rec R5.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Could we come back, though, to Mr. Dermody, to the question that the Chair asked, that particularly on page 12, the enrollment is not at all linear. I don't know if I'd call it exponential, but it's a lot closer to exponential than it is to linear. And yet our population is not growing appreciably It what the what are the underlying forces that are going on here Is it I mean, I can't imagine that these individuals went without care and all of a sudden realized these programs existed. I just, I can't wrap my head around going from 6,200 to a potential of this year of over 10,000 in a period of less than three years, or is three years, excuse me, not less than three years. Do we know what's happening here?

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do you have any data on what's driving this? I mean, from 1920 to 2324, we went from 6100 to 6200. and then from 2324 to 2425, we went from 6200 to 7500. So that's a bigger increase in one year than the previous like six years or more. The chart doesn't go back anymore. And then it's predicted for 2526 to be 9500. AND THEN IN TWO MORE YEARS, 11.500? LIKE, THIS IS WHAT IS DRIVING THIS, I MEAN, EXPONENTIAL IS TOO STRONG OF A WORD, BUT THIS EXTREMELY RAPID INCREASE IN ENROLLMENT. AND THEN YOU ADD ON TOP OF THAT THE INCREASE IN AVERAGE COSTS. WHAT'S DRIVING THIS?

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. committee. I think that's probably a committee-wide question, but Representative Taggart, Mr. Vice Chair, Madam Chair. So I probably did a bit of a disservice by combining these. I was working off of my templates from last year. But the trends aren't, the questions are still valid, right? These are still the trends that we were seeing during the briefing. Particularly around the children's waivers, CHIRP and CES, we are seeing large increases, year-over-year increases in those enrollments. Partly that's due to some expansion in eligibility. Over the last few years, I can think of at least one example where eligibility for the children's waivers was expanded, so you're expanding that population base. But that doesn't explain everything. And unfortunately, this is an area where I am deficient in my understanding of sort of that core level detail on enrollment trends there's something going on in your gut is right the the trend the rate of growth in these waivers exceeds the population growth and that begs the question of why um some of it may be that that more people are becoming more aware of these programs and are applying for these programs. The underlying driving factors, I don't know in terms of enrollment, in terms of utilization, uh, the cost of services is going up. Uh, provider rates have increased, um, Some services have been added. We've moved some services from these waivers to community choice, community first choice. But at the same time, we're seeing growth in enrollment, and so utilization is increasing in that sense. And so the costs are going up. All of that is to say there isn't an easy singular answer. I don't, and I am also trying to understand what those underlying forces and factors are. I unfortunately don't have a good answer or any sense of a concrete answer for you right now. It is on my perpetual list of things to do is to better understand what those underlying factors are. I'm sure the department could provide some level of detail, but I don't know that it would necessarily address all of your questions. I appreciate it. And, you know, we have the figure setting items before us, and that's, I think, you know, what we'll spend our time on. It just, you know, if folks are to be back here next year evaluating in another budget where the trend line is, whatever word you want to use for it, it is quite an upslope after a somewhat steady line for a period of, you know, six or seven years there. This is going to be an ongoing challenge for our budget. And so I expect we just would like to understand better what is going on, but not for today, apparently.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I think the chart on the bottom of page 12, it would be good to have it separated out for SLS and SES, so we can see if it's children or adults. And then it would be good to ask the department what specifically happened between 23-24 and 24-25, because that's where the huge jump started. So is that where, because that wasn't when we expanded the wait list. That didn't happen until 24, isn't that correct? When the JBC talked about expanding the wait list or getting more people off the wait list. So were there bills that were passed or something that expanded benefits, things of that nature? We need to know what the department believes happened between 23-24 and 24-25. But it would also be good to have adults and children separated out so we know which population is actually growing at the greatest speed. Understanding these are not things we're solving for figure setting, it's just that you gave us these charts that were just very eye-popping.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, for that chart at the bottom of page 12, those are non-residential services. Most of that growth is due to the children's waiver, the CES. That stark sort of growth you're going to see is primarily a result of increases in that particular waiver. Back in November, I'm just looking at the charts that I had back in the briefing, which split these out, so I will take note and make sure I do that next year. the growth that we're seeing that sort of really eye-popping growth for the non-residential waivers are primarily in the children's extensive services waiver. And yes there was a bill in 23 I believe that expanded or maybe in 22 that expanded some or that might have been a budget action I DON KNOW There have been some eligibility changes that expanded the children waiver eligibility base population base, so that would also help explain some of that uptick between those fiscal years. You would see more people coming onto the rolls at that point.

That takes us to page 19.

What would you call?

Senator Mobley.

Mr. Dermody.

Senator Mobley.

MR. DERMODY UH THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR UH SENATOR MOBILAY ALL OF THE WAIVERS ARE EFFECTIVELY HAVE A SET HAVE DISTINCT LEVED TYPES OF SERVICES SO UM IN TERMS OF THAT IDEA OF A MENU OF SERVICES all of those waivers do. The CES waiver is the children's equivalent to the SLS waiver. Every person who is enrolled in Medicaid, enrolled in these waivers, goes through currently an annual renewal process with their case managers, and through that process, they identify you know they have an individualized care plan I might be getting that title wrong but they have a care plan They work with their case managers to identify if needs have changed if that care level has changed and those services are registered for that person. Yes, they would apply for the SLS waiver, but presuming that they had qualified for the CES waiver, they would also qualify for the SLS waiver. the idea being that there wouldn't be any unnecessary gap in care at that point there's also community first choice which has moved some of those services from the waivers onto the state plan the broader medicaid state plan and they would qualify for those as well and receive those services so there's it's not uncomplicated but generally speaking yes someone on the CES would qualify for the SLS and it would be a relatively seamless transition.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Dermody. That really helped. I guess playing off of that, my concern, certainly concerned about youth on the CES, but youth that are in the CHERP are in a residential setting. And so, and DD, as you point out, is also a residential setting. So that's, that group in particular I'm very concerned about because they're in residential and now they've aged out. What happens to them? And you point out if they're involved in child welfare services, they automatically, but if they aren't because they're in residential, and I'm assuming because they've aged out of that home because of their age, what happens to them?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Taggart, the Department anticipates that some subset of those who are affected would, through the emergency enrollment process, be enrolled in the DD waiver. They have 425-26 projected a roughly 260, 265 emergency enrollments, which is an increase year over year of those emergency enrollment, of that forecasted emergency enrollment. So they would still, through the emergency enrollment process, potentially be able to place some of those into the DD waiver on a case-by-case basis. And that is, to an extent, what is driving the workload needs that the department believes justifies the half FTE. I would also note that across all of these waivers, there is a range of acuity. And so presumably the most acute cases would qualify for that emergency enrollment, while the less acute cases, the levels ones, twos, and threes, would unfortunately be on that wait list.

So the children that are in out-of-home placements and they're on CHIRP, they automatically, so Child Welfare Services, they automatically get enrolled. There's no emergency thing. It's an automatic. Is that correct?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkman, that is correct. Children who are engaged in the child welfare system STATUTORILY ARE AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED IN THE DD SYSTEM ONCE THEY AGENT. AND SO THEN DID I HEAR YOU THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS SAYING THEY NEED AN ADDITIONAL FTE to make sure that those children get enrolled when they're already supposed to be automatically enrolled.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Kirkman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to know if they actually know. Mr. Germany.

Because I want to know what they're basing it on. Senator Kirkmeyer, a number of what?

Mr. Germany, do you have granular detail of the table on page 20?

I'm sorry. Do they have a breakout between the CES and the CHIRP? Mr. Durmody.

To my recollection, no. This was combined across both waivers in terms of the data that I was looking at. Well, then how do we know?

Well, it's a forecast, and presumably if we are making policy changes that no longer automatically transition people, but more people will apply for an emergency consideration, it makes sense to me that you would need more people to make sure that folks are having their applications looked at timely. Senator Amabile?

Because it just seems to me that if you have the same number of DD waivers out there, whether you got there sooner or later, how do we save money if we have the same number of people on a DD waiver? And you said we're going to grow the wait list. So that says to me that every DD waiver slot is full all the time. And so I'm not sure where the savings come from unless we're going to have less DD waiver recipients. Is that what's happening?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And if you don't mind, I'm going to work backwards to Senator Kirkmeyer's question about numbers for the FTE calculation. Senator Kirkmeyer, I didn't get any quantitative data on what that workload would look like, hence my recommendation for a term limited. Presumably, there will be more work. I don't know what that looks like. I didn't get any of that information. I think a term limited FTE is a reasonable compromise for lack of a better way of putting it so that the department can give concrete data around that workload and whether or not it's ongoing and what sort of that ongoing nature looks like. I think there is logic that there will be an increased workload as more people apply for those emergency enrollments. I couldn't tell you what it is, hence the term limited nature. Senator Mobile, there are, it is not so much that we are limiting, well, we are limiting the DD waiver, right? Like there is a set number that we have based off of appropriations that limits how many waivers there are. Obviously, the exact number changes based off of the cost of services. but between this particular item and the next one probably or two from now the wait list is going to increase that is that the intent of that is to slow that enrollment growth on that on the DD waiver

Senator Mobley. So the number of DD waivers is going to go down because we're going to appropriate less to that, and then the number of people on the wait list is going to go up. Is that right?

Senator Mobillet, not because of this particular request, but because of the R6-18, yes, the churn rate isn't going to be a one-for-one anymore. They're going to reduce that by half for every two that exit the DD waiver. one would be put on. So presumably that will, it's also based off of resources, right? Like there's also those emergency enrollments, some automatic enrollments. It's not necessarily going to be absolutely obvious and clear that the waiver is being reduced. It could also, we could also see enrollment increase year over year. This is really just trying to slow down that enrollment trend in the DD waiver.

Sorry, this will be the last question for me on this particular thing. So what is the DD, how many people are on the wait list now and how long are they waiting? And if we expect it's going to be doubling, what does that look like for a family that's worried that they're going to die before their kid gets a placement?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Currently there are roughly, the department is forecasting, I'm going to go back a few pages. Sorry. No, no, you're fine. You're fine. So currently the department is forecasting for fiscal year 26-27 that there would be about, well, there would be 9,418. so roughly 9,420 individuals on the DD waiver. The current weight, calculated weight for being on the wait list is about seven years.

Senator Mobley, I don't know.

Representative Brown.

They're eligible.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I missed that phrase. Yes, you're right. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate that. Okay. So the savings, so these folks are essentially skipping the line, for lack of better words. That's a very bad phrase, and I apologize for that. But they don end up on the wait list And so the DD waiver and its roles can grow even though we have this sort of cap in a wait list Is that correct Mr Dermody Thank you Madam Chair

Okay. Absolutely.

So the savings then is coming from the fact that we would have automatically put these people on the DD wait list, or sorry, on the DD waiver, and now we're putting him in a less expensive waiver program potentially.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Brown, that's correct. While on the DD wait list, they are still eligible for SLS waiver services, community first choice, and other Medicaid services.

Mr. Dermany, do you have a response to that, or are we ready for it?

Representative Taggart.

Mr. Dermody.

Senator Mobley. There's only a certain number of placements. That's been the limiting factor for the DD waiver. Is that right? Or is it just an appropriation? Like there are a limited number of facilities for residential care.

Okay. Yeah. I got it. Thank you. Okay. Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you. So is the CES, the Children's Extensive Support Services, a different waiver than the Community First Choice waiver, the 1915 waiver that came about in 2324?

So do we know on the differences are like how many children, apparently we know how many children are in the CHIRP transition that are related to child welfare, which is out of home placement. So in the seat where it says, I mean, where it says CES and a number, is there a number for CES and then what portion of that CES is also on the community first choice? Is there a way to divide out community first choice? Because I'm looking at all your charts, pulled up at the briefing, and 23-24, you're right, that's the year. And apparently that must be the year that we did an optional Medicaid program known as community first choice. And things within two years basically doubled. On CES. Yeah. So what is in that program that made these things, that made our numbers double? Why did that happen? And is that where we should be trying to control the expenditures versus the whole population? I mean, I can remember sitting here through a lot of discussions on the DD wait list, but I think now that we need to dig in, so those are my questions. Well, I think we're getting to that later, too. I don't know, because we're making decisions right now, and I don't know how much what portion of this reduction is related to the community first choice waiver. Is that a different one?

Rep Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. So the community first numbers are not part of the numbers that are on page 12? They are separate and distinct? Page 12. Well, I think was where that chart went through the roof. Am I? Yeah. Am I?

Thank you. The reason I ask that question is Senator Kirkmeyer pointed out very quickly, and you touched on it, that this could have changed eligibility for a very specific reason. And if that chart has that, that might be at the core of some of the questions that we've been posing that's causing this very steep curve. But I'll leave it at that. I just have one more question. So effectively with this recommendation or this R whatever it is, R 6.17, are we effectively undoing Senate Bill 23-289, which was the community first choice benefit?

So from 2324 to 2526 the CES program or CES went from 2300 to 4400 approximately. It's almost doubled. Did we change the CES waiver within the Community First Choice Bill? Can we do that in this bill?

Well, everybody in the front row is shaking their head yes, and they're all on the program. All right.

Vice Chair Bridges. I was just going to say that CES is not in the fiscal note. It doesn't appear to be called out in the bill. I don't understand why it would have had that effect. Okay.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff recommendation R6.17.

This is the companion, for lack of a better way of putting it, to the previous decision item. The short version is this is the churn enrollment reduction. This is cutting that churn enrollment in half. So instead of for every one person exiting the DD waiver, it would be for every two people exiting the DD waiver, one person from the wait list would be enrolled. The department is projecting roughly 6.5, 6.6 million total funds reduction, 3.3 million general fund reduction in the first year. That increases to almost 19 million total funds, roughly 9.4 million general fund in the out years. And again, the department had requested one FTE. Last week they revised that request down to a half FTE starting in 26-27. And again, staff is recommending the FTE on a term-limited basis.

That passes on a vote of 6 to 0.

Senator Mobley. So I'm just trying to figure out how all these things interact. We just dramatically reduced the number of DD waivers or the funding for the waivers, which reduces the number of waivers available. And we ended the automatic enrollment in the DD waiver. And now we're saying while you're on the DD waiver, you also have to give up some of your money. Is that right? Did you get presumably from SSI or SSDI? Like the other three waivers. Mr. Dermody.

Senator Kirkmaier. So which population are we applying this to? And do we apply the post-eligibility treatment income for every population? Mr. Dermody.

Okay, but we changed it for a reason. You don't share why. Mr. Dermody, in your write-up.

Okay.

Mr. Germany. Thank you, Madam Chair. That was also my understanding. There are several points in the process where financial eligibility is determined, both in terms of Medicaid and as well as for calculating room and board. and the personal allowance, this would be, in my understanding from discussions with the department, this would be a relatively I don wanna say easy but low workload impact policy change given that those calculations are generally already happening Senator Mobley?

This is a $12.6 million item.

Madam Chair, I would point that that was the example that those numbers are exemplary is not the right word in this one, are for example only. That was, I'd asked the department to provide some sort of case example, and those were the numbers that I pulled from that. I think the average, and my apologies for not putting this number in there, I want to say the department did provide me the average assumption of what that petty payment would be. I don't want to put a number to it because I don't want to be super wrong on that. But in terms of the impact, yes, it's a significant fiscal impact. Obviously, the department is projecting $12.6 million in total savings, $6.3 general fund. It is not insubstantial. I would also posit that they weren't going to bring an insubstantial request for this type of policy change.

Thank you, Madam Chair. They are presuming that roughly 40% of those enrolled in the DD waiver would be impacted by this, and that's an estimated 3,767, roughly 3,800 individuals.

Well, I'll just say the rules for all the waivers sound very different.

All right, Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec R6.36.

Mr. Dermody. Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to page 25, R17, Community Connector Age Limit. So this one, I'm going to talk about the request a little bit before I get to my own recommendation just because there's, the SANS shifted a little bit since November. The department is requesting to change the policy, well, the November request was to establish an age limit for the community connector services for essentially limiting those services to ages 16, not 16, wow, six and older. Like many of these changes, they needed CMS approval. And in their discussions with CMS, it was indicated to them that a strict age limit is not appropriate or approvable for HCBS waivers. As such, the department believes that they can achieve the same effect through guidance and enforcement of those guidance, where the guidance says that these are strictly on needs-based and that the proof of those needs needs to be documented and approved. So the department believes that they can still achieve these savings through that mechanism rather than a strict age limit. I don have any other reason to not believe them that that is possible It seems like they are pretty certain that they are able to achieve these savings And so staff is recommending approval of the request as modified in their update to me regarding guidance versus a strict limit This is one of those services that has increased substantially in the last four fiscal years. Both utilization and costs have increased. This is an area of serious concern for the department. And so this is one of four items that the committee is considering. This is new as compared to the supplemental actions. The other three, which were rate cuts and a unit cap, were addressed and approved during supplementals. This age limit is for 26, 27 and ongoing. So a lot of that background material in this write-up is regards to those other three.

The department estimates roughly on a monthly basis under six, there are 3,100 participants. And they're, you know, in fiscal year 26, 27, because this will be a rolling, you're going to see more costs in the out years because of sort of the rolling nature of, excuse me, renewals. So the department is projecting slightly less in year one than in year two and ongoing.

I know it might get a little confusing, but I had asked Senator Kirkmeyer for some guidance on decision items she wanted to make sure she was here for, and I think we would be okay if we moved to page 45 and started there.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Dermody. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Taggart, so this would be the department working with case managers in determining the services that are approved for an individual and through guidance and through training and work.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, on page 45, we are discussing the R8 single assessment. The department is asking for funding to deploy the single assessment tool in compliance with Senate Bill 16-192. It has taken them years, and not necessarily through solely issues on their end. In the intervening years, there's been a lot that's gone on, including COVID. There's been some system issues, but the department believes that they are now at the point where they can roll out the single assessment tool. they anticipate a net reduction in the first year of 11.8 million dollars total funds roughly 6.2 million general fund that we're essentially looking at a single year reduction and or single year of savings as those older and more dispersed assessment tools are rolled off of being utilized In the out years, the department is projecting an increase of roughly $3.5 million, including $1.4 million general fund and three FTE. I would note that the department is requesting the FTE as term limited from August 26 through August of 29, but there are some contract resources that the department is requesting on an ongoing basis. all that is to say based off of the sort of decades long work of trying to get the single assessment tool up and running the department says it's ready to go staff is recommending approval of the request and the deployment of that single assessment tool in the hopes that it will achieve what it has set out to do full stop

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Kirkmeyer excused.

48 now? 47? 47. Did I skip one? I did skip one. Look at that. I just wanted to make sure we were on page 47.

Senator Mobley.

Mr. Dermody.

It just seems like if you could categorize more people as being in the expansion population and categorize less people as being in the disability population, you would save a bunch of money. Not suggesting we do anything dishonest. I just, you know, if there's some line there. Do you understand what I'm asking?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Mobillet, unfortunately, if you're part of the traditional Medicaid population, you're part of the traditional Medicaid population. If you're part of that expansion population, that's where you fall. That's sort of a line of demarcation. There's no real shifting of that population, those populations across those two.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Staff Rec R10.1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now we're on page 48. Look at me. R7. So I would acknowledge that while we did discuss this during supplementals, there was no action. This is also, the eligibility administration is also the shared services that we've talked about many times because it also comes up in human services. I guess all that is to say, this could easily have been in the administration section of this document. This was more of a, I didn't catch it until I was reviewing my document that this probably was better categorized elsewhere. That's administrative and more just me asking your forgiveness for categorizing this in a confusing way. Ultimately, this does require legislation. The department is requesting the committee sponsor that legislation. This is related to the districting in that really those are part and parcel of the same type of policy change that you are considering and the Department of Human Services and Health Care Policy and Financing are asking I only included staff write for this R7 because otherwise because I already sort of bludgeoned you over the head with all the details anyway over the last several months Staff's recommendation is to deny this on technical grounds. the fiscal impact of this should be carried with any piece of legislation that would change statute and change policy. I am recommending that the committee establish a placeholder if you so deem. And I'm also requesting permission for if the committee wants to sponsor this legislation or is considering sponsoring this legislation to move to draft. I would also recommend that that legislation incorporate the statutory changes proposed by the Department of Human Services for the districting because in staff's assessment, shared services, the centralization of shared services as well as districting go hand in hand and are part and parcel of the same policy discussions. So slightly different recommendation than I made a couple weeks ago under human services for the same issue, but it's deny the inclusion of these fiscal impacts in the long bill, a placeholder for any potential legislation that would come through, and then whether or not the committee wants to, So the end question is whether or not the committee feels like it will want to sponsor this legislation, and if so, I request permission to go to draft and start getting on that sooner rather than later.

So are we carrying the bill or is it your bill?

Are you anticipating that we would be carrying the bill as a JBC or not?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Without seeing a draft but knowing the concept, I'm definitely interested.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm fine on that subject. I guess what concerns me both here, and I'm fine on the denial so that we can look at this, I guess it puzzles me that there's another level of funding. I would have thought we were trying to do this to be more efficient. Is that?

Okay, because this just layers on what we're looking on right now, just layers on another. It's up to almost $50 million, and there's no offset built into this one. I'll leave it alone. I'm happy to deny it, but I'm just going by the numbers that were put here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move for a placeholder in the amount requested in R7 for- 2.1. Oh. I move for a $3.1 million placeholder for legislation that is to come related to R7, eligibility administration. And three other items. I don't know what the right name for the placeholder is. Can we talk about that to make it clear? I MOVE FOR $3.1 MILLION PLACEHOLDER FOR SOME THINGS THAT REP STEROTA IS WORKING ON.

Yes.

I made the motion, I guess.

No, just for the first part.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to deny department request, not staff recommendation. R7. R7.

We heard from Mr. Dermody on R17 Community Connector age limit.

We voted on...

I thought we already voted on R17. No.

Madam Chair, Senator Kirkmeyer, it was the R6.17.

Yeah, thank you.

I don't know that I have any questions. Do I have any questions?

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to Staff Rec R17.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving on to page 29. I will note sort of a change, a distinction in this title. For those elements in this document that have the S slash R number, these carry a current fiscal year impact. So these are what would be part of a long bill supplemental or what we colloquially wow that is my tongue call add So there are, I want to say there's a handful, there's four or five of these decision items before you that have a current fiscal year impact primarily due to the forecast adjustments for that February 26 forecast. So this is the first of those. I just wanted to get that sort of administrative discussion out of the way. So page 29 S slash R 6.31 caregivers, caregivers, our soft cap. This is another request that has this generate a lot of discussion, a lot of feedback from the community. on March 3rd, the department submitted a revised request and proposal resulting from that community engagement and stakeholder engagement. The department is still proposing a 56-hour cap, but they are proposing to one delay implementation to fiscal year 26-27, have a phased implementation, so they would step down that cap starting, and I, man, I hope I included that. I hope I didn't just read it and then not put it in here. There we go. The revised plan is discussed and detailed on page 32, starting on page 32. Essentially, the department will begin engaging case management agencies or continue engaging case management agencies starting in April to start this process. Beginning in July 1, there will be an 80-hour cap from July 1 through August 31st. Starting on September 1st, that cap would be reduced to 63 hours. and then starting in November 1st of 26, the 56-hour cap would be applied. The department has also detailed a rolling exemption process and expanded exemption review process, which drives the second sort of the other revision to the request. The department is requesting 3 FTE. and that's sort of the high level review of that revision. Staff is recommending approval of the reductions to the forecast as pretty much as detailed on that table on page 30 and 31. So there is a February revision of an increase in the current fiscal year. That's to fund those three FTE beginning in the first and the current fiscal year so that they can begin that work with the case management agencies. In year one, presumably we'll start seeing savings. The department is forecasting 2.2 million in total fund savings, 1.1 in general fund in that first year that increases to 3.1 total funds and 1.5 million general fund savings in year two and ongoing and staff is recommending the FTE but recommending them as term limited both as a means of cost control and to gather additional workload information This is one of those areas where logically yes it would seem like there would be additional work but the concrete quantification of what that additional workload is is unknown at the moment. And so providing some time to gather that information to see whether or not that exemption process is driving the need for ongoing FTE on a permanent basis is the basis for staff's term limited recommendation. And I just, I want to say thank you to everyone who worked really hard, including especially Rep. Taggart, to bring folks to the table to try and create a more phased approach and also to develop this expanded exceptions review process. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question on the exceptions review process. Reviews will be evaluated using objective criteria documentation, including the last two documentation of attempts to cure alternative caregivers and then document a plan for coming into compliance with the 56-hour requirement. I know people who simply don't have providers in their area. There's no alternative. And so I just want to make sure, like, for them, the documented plan is, I mean, they can't like say I will vote for workforce development programs proposed by my local elected officials. Like there's no, there's no like plan. They can't, like what I'm going to get on a website and solicit folks to move to my city. Like I just, I just want to make sure that if the documented plan is there is no, there are no providers in my area that could do this. So my plan is that I will continue to provide coverage the way that I'm providing. I just want to make sure that that kind of plan satisfies this requirement in cases where there is no possibility for a recovery.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vice Chair, I would presume that in those cases that person would continue to be exempt from that cap as part of that exemption process. Yeah, Madam Chair.

Rep. Taggart. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you indicated, I hold the cross-disability organization together along with the department and along with insurance providers. And the give and take in that discussion, I was very pleased with. I think everybody understood that my concern was the phasing down in addition to my concern about having a robust exception process, which had not come across well in the hearing. and I thought all the parties got to a good place, and I was pleased that they got to a good place. The one thing that is missing from this, and I realize it's going to cause some headaches, was that it also there was more detail about the abuse that going on here And the abuse seems to be in two areas In one case, and many of us may have seen this, we have providers out there that are advertising, we'll get you $100,000 a year as a part of this program for Medicaid. and they literally showed me the ads, and it came from the disability group. It did not come from the department. And the second thing which has come up before, and I was hoping, and maybe we address it in the future, that we have organizations that the providers work for where the providers are taking 30 to 50 percent margin right off the top. And we wonder why we don't have nurses or other expertise that want to stay in supporting these wonderful children and or adults when we've got providers taking 30 to 50 percent off the top. And I initially didn't react in a negative way there because I thought, well, maybe they're providing a full benefit package only to find out they're not providing anything other than matching up families with providers. And, you know, I'm all for free market. And I've said this before. I'm a capitalist through and through, but 30 to 50 percent off the top, and we can't keep providers. I was hoping that the department would also take a stance on this, and I'm a little disappointed. But I just want you to know they worked very well, and I know they kept going long after the meeting. And so I will support this, but I do want to do something on the provider side, and I don't know. what that is.

from the department or anyone else on this particular area and would have any input there, or if you feel like this is too weighty a thing to try and address right now. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have heard the same concerns. I unfortunately haven't had quite enough time or capacity to dig into that and be able to provide you some level of idea or thought around how to address that. My initial understanding is it would likely require some level of legislation. I don't have any more detail than that. This is one of those things where your staff tend to create a list of things to address later that we find during any particular budget cycle. this is one of those that I've added to my list to look into in terms of what would be potential solutions for addressing sort of for lack of a better way of putting it exorbitant finders fees or whatever that is trying to address this issue sort of from a more holistic point of view it would likely require some level of legislation I don't have specifics for you right now I would say I would need the interim in order to sort of come up with the idea for you or that policy change and what that would look like.

Senator Kirkmeier. So I just want to make sure I'm reading everything here correctly. So exceptions will only be approved on a one time on a time-limited basis. What exactly does that mean?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, this is, for lack of better way, putting it a copy-paste from the information the department shared with me. I tried my best to summarize. I did not have time to dig in, given that this was sent to me on the 3rd in terms of the exact wording and what any of those specific provisions would mean. So to your question, I don't know what time limited means, but that's department language.

Senator Mobley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there was, I think there is a, I forgot what I was going to say. I'm sorry. Okay.

I move SR 6.31.

Staff rec. Staff rec.

VICE CHAIR BRIDGES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WANT TO FLAG THAT THERE IS MORE INFORMATION I NEED FROM HECKBUFF AND THAT I MAY WANT TO REVISIT THIS AGAIN AND NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SAVINGS THAT WE'RE SEEING NOW WITH THE ADDITIONAL FTE AND WHATNOT. BUT I DO APPRECIATE, I THINK, THE GREAT WORK THAT REV TAGRES AND OTHERS PUT IN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EXCEPTION PROCESS IS ROBUST AND WELL-FOLLOWED.

Yes, thank you very much. I now remember what I was going to say. I appreciate, I am very supportive of the conversation around the sort of admin expenses or the sort of withhold, if you will, by the agency. And I appreciate that our colleague, Rep. Furey, has been working on this issue as well. And that in her bill her updates to Medicaid bill she is trying to get a handle on just even what the exact withhold is from the various agencies So I think that at least a start to the conversation and I hope the committee I would love to be involved in these discussions going forward at the committee level.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're on page 35. We're in the next section, provider rates. The first one up in this section is R15 home health nurse rates slash nurse rates. The department is requesting a net reduction in funding resulting from modifications to the private duty nursing rate structure and the home health rate structure, as well as to develop and implement a new rate negotiation strategy for the DD waiver and the CHIRP waivers.

Can we take a break? I need to check on a couple of facts here having to do this last one. Can we just...

Are these the same home health nurses that these families are going to...

Madam Chair, yes, ma'am. R15, home health slash nurse rates. The department is asking for a net reduction in funding resulting from the modification of these rates and these rate structures. There is a temporary increase in administrative expenses, but those are, well, temporary and there are some contract resources that the department is requesting on an ongoing basis but ultimately the department is requesting a reduction of 26.6 million total funds including 13.7 million general fund in fiscal year 26-27. That increases to 58.4 million total funds and 27.8 million general fund in fiscal year 27-28, roughly the same in those out years. And those FTE resources would be term limited through fiscal year 27-28, annualizing to zero in 28-29. Staff is recommending approval of the request Ultimately sort of a brief synopsis is the department is proposing a per diem for the private duty nursing and then shifting some rate structures on the home health and community first choice side and they're projecting savings from those shifts. the negotiated rate for the residential waivers, for the DD and CHIRP waivers, it's been over 10 years, or roughly 10 years, excuse me, 20 years since this process was evaluated. The department is looking to evaluate that this year in the hopes that they will get a more accurate representation of those rates in those out years.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move our...

It just seems to me like we're just adding cuts on top of cuts to the people who probably need the services most, the people who are the most medically fragile in our community. And that's what this appears to be. Now we're going to... They already have told us it's hard to get providers. It's hard to find nurses to help them out. And now we're just going to cut those two. So I will be opposed to this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Staff Rec R15.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Next up on page 39, we're in the administrative section of this document. My apologies for going out of numerical order. This was just short and sweet, I think is kind of why I put it up top. R19 line item consolidation. The department is requesting a budget neutral restructure of the long bill, essentially moving all of the IDD waiver services line items into the medical services premium line item. The department contends that this will help reduce their administrative burden. Staff is recommending denial. The effect of this would be reduced transparency on the budgeting side for these waivers and for these programs. And so staff is recommending denial. I had had grand visions of coming to you with an alternative proposal. Capacity is such that I didn't have that. My intention is to take a good hard look at the long bill structure over the interim and assess whether or not it is meeting the needs of the committee. It is certainly has been a point of confusion for me as I picked up this assignment last year, understanding the scope and breadth of what it is I am here helping you understand. And so for now, I recommend keeping the long bill structure what it is. And presumably, once I have some time to actually wrap my head around it, I may have an alternative proposal for you. But for now, denial of R-19.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec R-19.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Next at the bottom of page 39 really page 40 and several pages thereafter this is BA10 DOJ housing vouchers There is an associated supplemental but this has several new items that weren supplemental or addressed during the supplemental. So this is really sort of a new thing, hence no S on this title. In the various discussions that I had with the department, there were some points that needed clarification. As a result, the request was revised by the Department of Healthcare Policy and the Department of Local Affairs. The HICPF revised their FTE request from two, one, FTE, rather than what it had been. I believe it was two. And the Department of Local Affairs revised their request from four and a half to three. The impact of the revisions are a net reduction of $20 million total funds, $9 million general fund, and an increase of 3.7 FTE in 2627. That net reduction decreases to roughly $16 million total funds and $3 million general fund in fiscal year 2728. That general fund savings gets eaten into the further out in time you go. And the reason for that is the new component to this request is appropriations for housing vouchers. Those housing vouchers are general funded, and they are intended to help offset the cost of housing for individuals transitioning from nursing facilities into community-based settings. This is related to the DOJ settlement agreement that was a voluntary agreement between the federal government and the department to address allegations of violations of Title II of the ADA. The settlement agreement is the negotiated agreement by which the state will avoid litigation from the federal government. Ultimately, there are cost savings because the care setting and community care is cheaper, less expensive than receiving care in nursing facilities. That's where you're seeing the really large savings is as we transition individuals from nursing facilities to that community care, that the cost of that care is reduced. I did have some, I did ring my hands a little bit around the cost of those housing vouchers and the out-year increases. It goes from roughly $2 million in fiscal year 26-27 to almost $11 million, $10.5 million, $11 million general fund in those out-years as those transitions increase. The department is anticipating roughly 700 some odd, 730 vouchers being funded through this request by the end of fiscal year 28-29. Again, the general fund cost of those vouchers is offset by that cost savings of that shift in care setting. AND SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS, BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY KEEP AN EYE ON THAT COST OF THOSE VOUCHERS. Additionally, sort of as a result of staff's research and digging into this particular request, staff is recommending the inclusion of an RFI to get a full accounting of the amount of federal Medicaid funds in the Department of Local Affairs. I dropped a memo on your desk this morning or on your dais this morning with the language of that RFI. I had run out of time in putting together this document. So that one page memo that you received is staff's proposed language for that RFI. You can also have mine if you want. I have found it. And that's staff's recommendation is approval of the request with an RFI.

That's right.

Senator Kirkman.

And Senator Kirkman. And what is this? A waiver that... A waiver or housing waiver. Was there any sense of a dollar amount attached to that that would be able to be drawn down?

Are we presuming that the people who will be eligible for the housing vouchers are going to be eligible for an ongoing basis, or is it time limit? WHAT ARE WE ANTICIPATING? JUST MORE AND MORE PEOPLE WILL ULTIMATELY NEED THESE HOUSING VOUCHERS INSTEAD OF BEING IN AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING OR FOR, I DON'T KNOW, THE REST OF THEIR LIVES OR THESE ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE MORE TERM LIMITED MR GERMANY THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR IT IS YES AND YES THERE ARE SOME AMOUNT to be more term limited Thank you Madam Chair It is yes and yes There is some amount of for lack of a better word attrition on the vouchers

Well, I mean, it seems we need a court order. We're court ordered to have a solution or court or I guess federally ordered to have a solution to this issue. So I see we must do something, but it does look like it's going to be a future year problem for us in terms of costs.

Yes, this is there's obviously I this is year two of me looking at this particular issue. This has been an ongoing issue for several years, as is really sort of highlighted by the table at the bottom of page 44. We seem to be talking about this every year. I would imagine that this will come before the committee again, if not next year, then the following year. I believe the settlement agreement runs through sometime in 29, 28 or 29. And so there's likely ongoing beyond the settlement agreement obligations and funding that will need to be in place in order for the federal government not to come, for lack of a better way of putting it, knocking at our door again. but that is also to say to this point the committee and the General Assembly has provided substantial amount of funding to address the settlement agreement some of it preemptively and I think while wise has also led to some additional requirements here there were some previous decision items from several years ago in the Department of Local Affairs to fund sort of the first tranche of housing vouchers but because of the timing of when the settlement agreement was signed those vouchers don't count towards the total that the departments have to meet post signing of the settlement agreement so this is not uncomplicated we will be talking about this again is my guess.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Dermot. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Taggart, to your first question, that 30% is, if they don't have that, then the voucher would cover more. That is based off their adjusted income, so it's a pro rata share of that adjusted income. So if they had, I don't want to seem flippant, but if they had a dollar, it would be 30 cents. If they don't, if there's nothing, then that'd be 30% of nothing. The voucher's intended to cover as much as it can, and they adjust those amounts on a case-by-case basis. So the funding isn't setting a voucher amount. That amount is the average amount of those vouchers. To your second question, it is, based off the calculations that I saw, it is a monthly amount.

And so it's, and particularly if you're looking at sort of that funding increase year over year, it's as you add more vouchers. they're looking at, I think in the first fiscal year, it'd be 39 vouchers per month new. Those numbers decrease slightly in terms of new vouchers added in subsequent fiscal years per month, but it is additive. And so that would be, it's the per month amount and then it sort of, that's why you're seeing that sort of escalation in costs in those out years.

And a third specific question. when you point out that at least 900 individuals, 950, have to transition. Is the department certain that there are 950 units across, I mean, within communities? Do these types of residencies exist?

Okay.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Mr. Dermody.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of four to two with Kirkmeyer and Taggart objecting. Thank you, Madam Chair.

of that February forecast. Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec S.

Senator Mobley. So I know we talked about this, and I'm sorry that I don't remember, but we're cutting the community connector rate by 15%, and then we're cutting the community connector rate by 23%. So are we cutting community connector by 38%?

Sorry, Senator Moller.

Me too. My apologies. Oh, that was nice. Uh-oh. You know that's a myth. Did they call you Kirkmeyer?

You don't have to apologize.

And we save a whopping 1.5.

Okay, it's parity. I'll give you that. I don't think anybody wants to get cut by 38 percent, I mean, had we gone just completely crazy with what we were paying these community connectors? And that's why we have to dial it back by almost 40%?

My goodness.

Just don't call her Senator Bridges. Senator Mabale. I wouldn't call that a compliment.

Vice Chair Bridges. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staffs. Oh, I already did. I renew my motion.

The department is requesting funding reduction for to as a result of placing a cap on the number of annual units, unit being 15 minutes on the community connector service. This essentially cuts in half the number of units that are available in any given year, any given plan year for an individual. This also has a revision based off of the February forecast. Staff is recommending approval of the reductions as this is a continuation of the committee's decisions during supplemental.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move SR6.34.

Madam Chair.

Can I assume that that was staff's recommendation? Yes. Yes.

individual residential services and supports shortened its IRS. SS. Um, the department is requesting, um, a reduction in, uh, in the forecast based off of updating billing guidance. Um, this was a supplemental decision that was rejected, um, pending further research and investigation from staff. Uh, this is also another, um, area where the department engaged with the community because of concerns around this proposal. Um, and as such, the department has, um, provided some additional information, uh, to address some of those concerns. Those are, uh, summarized on page 61. Um, ultimately staff is recommending approval of the, well, staff is recommending the committee approve the forecast adjustments based off of an implementation date of July 1st. So this would be delaying the implementation by about three months as compared to the request in order to provide some additional time for family caregivers to prepare for the fiscal impact. This would result in fewer savings in the current fiscal year. But based off of staff's assessment, that would be roughly the state or the General Assembly wouldn't save roughly three quarters of a million dollars. I would note that the department's current year assumptions in terms of savings was based off of a half year rather than a quarter year of implementation. AND SO GIVEN THE IMPACT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THOSE FAMILY CAREGIVERS, STAFF BELIEVES THAT AT THE VERY LEAST PRUDENT TO GIVE THEM SOME MORE TIME TO ADJUST. SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE ADJUSTMENT BUT BEGINNING WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF JULY 1 26 Thank you And appreciate the clarifications noted on page 61 about allowing the higher staffed home rate when rotating staff are used as the rate was intended to do in distinguishing family caregivers from host home providers.

Yeah. So I think I voted no on this before. And I have heard from this group that this is, if you're on this waiver, this is all you get. And so for the people that are on this waiver, it's a substantial change. And while I appreciate three months, I mean, I understand that recommendation. But, again, if you have built your life around these benefits, and now we're saying these benefits are too much, I don't know how anybody makes all the adjustments that would be necessary in a three-month period of time, especially with the other things that we've done here today. So this just feels like a real hard choice for these families. And, you know, if you have to sell your home, if you have to move to a cheaper apartment, if you have to, you know, I don't know. I think you need a year. I think, I don't know. Maybe you, I don't know what the right number is. I don't know if the delayed time frame is the right solution, but I have real heartburn with this.

Yeah, I voted no for it as well. I mean, it reduces the rate for people who have live-in staff unless they rotate staff. I don't think you're my excellent. It just reduces the rate for people who have live-in staff unless they rotate their staff every 12 hours. It just doesn't work. and this one will probably head us into court.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding is this is not all that people get on a particular waiver. I think there are other things, but I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. I mean, they're saying it's all to get. I'm also concerned about the per diem breakdowns between Denver and non-Denver. I think people forget that there are areas of this state, including in rural areas of the state, that are just as expensive, if not more expensive, than Denver. And to have a 10 percent change just as soon as you go outside of the Denver area is not, to me, equitable. I mean, I'm not crazy about the program to begin with, but I really don't like the fact that those of us that are outside of Denver, it's just kind of assumed that it's cheaper. That's just not a true statement. There a range here So there a range for Denver and there a range for non So you could end up being at the you know the range in Denver or the range in non And that's a 10% swing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That range is due to level of care. so at a level one in Denver and a level one outside of Denver. So that level one in Denver would be for, let's say, the host home. That's that 89.96 rate. If you're outside of Denver at level one, you would be at 83.57. That range is the range in those care levels. so it's not it wouldn't be that if you're in a level one inside Denver and a level one outside of Denver that level one outside of Denver would be pegged to that lower rate as well. So is there just are you making a request that they break down different levels of outside Denver range?

Anything else to add to that, Mr. Derbide?

Yeah. I'm a no on this. There was a no before. I'm still a no. I don't know why we keep cutting it. They're only making $9 an hour. It's ridiculous.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My assumption is if we move staff rec and we don't get four. So nine bucks an hour is less than the statewide minimum wage.

Vice Chair Bridges.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? THAT MOTION FAILS ON A VOTE OF 3 TO 3 WITH TAGGERT, KIRKMAYER, AND IMMOBLY OBJECTING. It'll be great to have the department in here. Mr. Dermody.

Excuse me.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Next is we're on page 63 SR 6.30 HCBS hours soft cap.

your recommendation was to approve the request except to make a decision about the FTE when we got to figure setting. Was that correct or am I remembering other items?

But this is sort of trying to account for administrative actions taken by the department.

Senator Kirkhner.

supplementals that we asked for to understand how the various caps were interacting. I don't have any of that with me.

Mr. Dermody.

Was that a unanimous vote?

I record these things.

So now we're recommending 1.5 FTE after they already went and hired them all. If they already hired them all and think they can afford them, then I don't think they need any more FTE, especially after we denied it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The FTE that was eventually approved for supplementals was one FTE for this request. Staff's recommendation is to continue funding that FTE that was approved and then provide half funding for the second FTE that is being requested because they've already hired the person.

Did they hire two people or three people? Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't care. I'm not willing to support giving them more FTE. They already went and hired them, and we denied the FTE, and then they went and hired? I think we must have, did we approve the cap?

And they hired three. And I will once again say we can express frustration about what the department did in terms of their hiring timeline, but if we want them to be able to have an ability to, you know, hear any requests, as these are to be soft caps, they need to have people to do that evaluation work. And so I... They hired him. Well, we funded one. So we're really only... We approve funding for one. So what you're recommending is only funding another half. Thank you, Madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, so the needle I was trying to thread is instead of recommending a half FTE and funding a half FTE, it saying acknowledging the fact that there is a whole person behind that FTE They hired that person Only funding it at a half level But we only going to fund that FTE at a half level And yes to Madam Chair recollection you did approve the cap denied the FTE There was a comeback, and then the committee eventually approved one FTE through the supplementals. So that's why that bifurcation and one of the FTE staff is recommending at full because the committee approved that through the supplemental process and then the half as a compromise.

Vice Chair Bergeson.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5 to 1 with Kirk Meyer objecting.

Rep Taggart.

I share the sentiment.

Mr. Dermody.

I appreciate, Mr. Dermody, what you're saying. I think I'm a little bit off of the line of discussion that you took. I'm more asking, and maybe I should take a step back, One of the things I've always said to my teams leading them is, I'm fine with making mistakes. I'm fine with correcting mistakes. Where I'm not fine is when you throw a surprise at me and you continue to throw surprises. Because you can't manage around surprises. and they're going to happen from time to time. But my statement here is in many cases in these programs, we're having, it's almost a surprise to us or to me anyway, that the statement here that these services are not currently limited. How in heaven's name does that happen? happened. And so, and how many more are really the question I'm posing? Is this it, or are we just getting to the tip of the iceberg? And it's rhetorical, because you don't know the answer. And I wish I did, but I don't. I'm sorry, sir. All right. Mr. Dermody.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff rec SR6.32.

I might as well just stay consistent. That passes on a vote of 5 to 1 with clear clear objectives. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO GANDER, FOLKS? AND MR. VICE CHAIR, WHEN YOU'RE READY FOR A MOTION.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? I pass this on a vote of six to zero.

Line items or the transfers?

No, where are we again? Transfers piece?

Are there any objections?

That passes on a vote of 5, sorry, 6 to 0.

We can always reapprove it. Just to make sure that you don't have to come back and ask us.

If you come in and ask me.

And we'll just, yeah. All right, Vice Chair Burgess.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of six to zero.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dermody. Anything else? Okay. We do have staff comebacks left. I don't know, Director Harper, how long you think that will take if we could dispense with those in like 10 minutes or so.

Let's see how we do that. Thank you, Mr. Dermody.

Ms. Curry.

Rep Taggart.

Well, what would you, are you making a particular suggestion for the legislation that we approved, Rep. Taggart?

Okay. Vice Chair Bridges.

THANK YOU, BANATER, AND THANK YOU, SENATOR BRIDGES. I WOULD SAY I THINK GENERALLY POLICY-WISE, FINES DON'T NECESSARILY PAY FOR THE FUNCILS. of enforcement just as like, you know, not wanting to encourage things like that. However, when I was looking in the issue with this type of fine and with any of the fines that are happening on the highways is that all of that just gets pulled together to the Department of Revenue and shows up as this large amount. It's about $9 million that goes into the HUTF annually for different fines all binded together. The other thing that I had thought of, and again, this is like very much a policy decision, is the potential to do a transfer from the HUTF. That would be an amount that would be in addition to their normal 6% annual allowable appropriation. Since it's not identified as an appropriation, it wouldn't remove the allowable appropriation from the Department of Public Safety. But there is the possibility of transferring from one cash fund to a different cash fund that then could fund some of this work as well. Sure. Did you have your hand up, Senator Kirkland?

Do that? Sure. Which cash fund?

Thank you, Senator.

Does that work for State Patrol? Does that work for them?

Let's see. Okay. Okay. So the motion was to do that.

I don't know all the things. Could you give me a shorter motion so that we can describe it?

I'm just going to say so moved. I'm going to amend the draft. Let us know how it goes. To amend the draft. All right. The question is how much.

What do you want to do? Yeah, I mean, we'll just be back here next year anyway. So let's just do a year. And go have a talk with them. $500,000. All right. Yeah. So a million dollars. No? $500,000. $500,000.

Yes? That'll work. You don't have to do a whole memo. Just let us know. Tell what you think in the bill, and then we'll see what happens. Yeah, that's true. Go for it. Yeah, go ahead. Go talk with them. Madam Chair.

Director Harper. No, I'll just, thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair. I'll just phrase it as motion to authorize adding a provision to the draft based on an uncertain transfer from the HUTF to the motor carrier safety plan.

And staff will return with a bill draft with that amount.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So the next piece I have for you is an absolute mistake on my part that the department identified in my calculations for how much total funding it would cost to be able to use the general fund to backfill the federal funding for the current, the employees that were existing. were existing in the Division of Homeland Security Emergency Management prior to the request being put out. And so this R1 backfill is recommending increasing the appropriation that you all approved in 2627 by $370,397. And then in year two, the annualization would be an additional $914,679. Those increases are due to me incorrectly not including costs associated with FICA and PARA for ongoing staffing, and then not including indirect costs for the out year, which would be going up into the administration. So this makes the number more accurate to what my recommendation had meant to be.

So bottom line, how many FTE are we backfilling? and how many of those are considered new? Because, I mean, we had provisions in there, and I don't know. It looks like maybe they're trying to figure out how to get more FTE.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Kirkmeyer. This will continue the recommendation that I had made during the figure setting, which is, if I remember correctly, it was a total of 39 continuing FTE. This is not including any funding for folks who were vacant at the time of the request or who the department has requested in addition. This is just correcting the recommended appropriation to continue the staffing levels to backfill the requested employees that were already employed by federal. So there would not be any new hiring incorporated in this recommendation. I also note that I forgot to add that this is general fund amounts that updated online I just missed the GF and URLs document Also Senator Kirk the next piece is just an informational comeback You had asked about what their staffing levels had, how their staffing levels had changed over the last seven years in that division. And so that's a table that just shows the FTE levels at DHSEM and then the notes about how and why those increases have been happening. So it's consistent with the recommendation, and I'm okay with it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff recommendation R1 backfill federal funding for DHSEM. Are there any objections?

And then, thank you Madam Chair. The last piece, you all had laid over the decision on the recommended new line item to capture costs associated with the DHSEM administrative overhead. You all had wanted more information about what the $1.3 million in total funds that the department had identified was going towards this work. what it was actually paying for. And so that's including there. It does include salaries for 10 total FTE, including division director, deputy director, strategic communications director, and then other support staff that work with each office in the division, as well as the four functions listed below, which essentially are coordination of the statewide plan for emergency management that would touch each office.

Senator Kirkmaier.

Ms. Gray. Thank you, Madam Chair. So the list of all the employees in that and the FTE in that table, that is multiple grants. That's the entirety of the FTE for the division. So if you look at the federal funded employees, some of that is the EMPG grant, but it's also all of the other grant monies that have been flowing through the department. This second piece that I've just been talking about, administrative overhead, that's separate from that. This is all funding that had always been either general fund or reappropriated funds from the Public Communications Trust and Revolving Fund. It had just been kind of hidden within the Office of Emergency Management, And so the request for that Staff Initiative 5 is to move it into its own line item just to identify that as the amount of money that is going towards the administrative overhead for that division in itself.

Thanks. So are these 10 FTE part of the 71.6 FTE? Or wait, total in, they have more. How many FTE do they have? Where's their FTE? Are these part of the, I mean, we're not adding more people, are we?

Sorry, it's a little bit confusing because there's some different things happening. This Staff Initiative 5 is not adding anybody additional. It's just moving those numbers out from just regular program costs so that specifically it's clear how much is being spent on the administrative overhead in that division. The table above does it just shows exactly what has been happening just so you have that information of how many are there currently But this 10 FTE they exist they have traditionally been being paid for in a larger program line for the division And my recommendation is to move it into its own line. It's obvious that that's for division overhead and not for other kind of programming.

So if I were to add to the 1.3, I would add that to the 3.2. To get a 4.3 approximate that we are doing out of general fund, additional out of general fund?

Thanks, Senator. This is not an additional amount. This 1.3 million is budget neutral relocating it into a new line. This is an amount that had been being paid ongoing for a consular amount of time.

Yeah, so no, this is not an additional amount. It's not additional.

I thought I read that.

Rep Taggart?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it does make sense to move it into its own line on it. But did they do an offset and reduce the program line item as a, so that it ends up being neutral? Or did we just put $1.3 million out there and the program remained the same?

I've just heard it. And thank you, Representative Tigard. No, this is a staff-initiated. I had, in the line item that you looked at, I had already moved that out. It is a budget-neutral movement, just reallocation to a different line.

Okay. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6-0. Anything else for Ms. Curry? That's all I have. Thank you. Anything else for us, Director Harper?

Don't you guys normally do thirds on Friday? Yeah, I presume we'll have thirds and seconds. So I don't know what time we'll get here. and we may very well have bills on the second, so I haven't seen what the calendar is. So, you don't? No, no, no, on second reading. On the floor. I don't know. Seems like your leadership schedules a lot of thirds on Friday. The Joint Budget Committee will stand in recess until sometime tomorrow. Does anybody really know what time it is? Does anybody really care? Yep. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.