Joint Budget Committee [Mar 25, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Sorry, tab two, packet 14 of comebacks. Either way, Madam Chair. I don't know what's easier for the staff in terms of like churning out some of these OSPB comebacks. We can go by department and do that too.

Scott Thompson, Joint Budget Committee staff. We in Comeback Packet 14 the gray packet And on page two I have an analysis of a footnote that Senator Amobley asked me to look into I'm not recommending this footnote at this time, but I think Senator Amobley might have some alternative language for this footnote.

I have to find it, but thank you for indulging me. just a little history in over the course of several pieces of legislation we set up for the first time jail standards in Colorado that apply to all of Colorado's county jails and we set up an oversight mechanism that's operated out of the CSOC out of the Colorado Sheriff's Association and the Department of Law set this up in contracts with the with this body, but they have not, they needed a little bit of legal advice, and the AG wouldn't provide that, and so we want to authorize the Attorney General to provide legal advice to the Department of Public Safety on this contract, and what can and can't be done as a result of that. I don't think it, they told them they would charge them $60 an hour. They just need a couple of things clarified. And so I, let me just find the thing from you, Mr. Thompson. And I'll just add that related to that bill, there's a $112,000 general fund annualization to the patterns and practices line item. And so that's why I targeted that amount in that line item for this footnote. Okay, so I think what I would like for the footnote to say is it's the General Assembly's intent that the 112,247 general fund appropriation to this item and associated with House Bill 1054 shall be used by DPS to get advice, what did I just say here? That advising DPS on the contract is an advisable use of any appropriation.

So moved. I moved that footnote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Emily Pope, JBC staff. So yesterday we dealt with the bill related to the revenue impact of Medicaid funds that are going from RAIS to the mental health transitional living homes, but we have not yet dealt with the actual appropriations for patient revenues in the state hospitals and mental health transitional living homes. To be honest, I feel like we're not totally at the end of the questions that I have related to this issue, but we've sort of come against the timeline for it. So the best place we've come out in working with the department is they believe the most accurate accounting for the amount of Medicaid that they're receiving directly from HICPF will be about $3.9 million in general fund for the budget year They have noted that they expect to receive patient revenues from Medicare and other private insurance that are in excess of million in general fund from their current appropriation and revenue from RAISE that million in excess of their appropriation. They do not think that they need additional spending authority, so they're not requesting additional spending authority related to those revenues. I'm recommending that you do account for that spending authority adjustment, assuming that if they think that's what they're going to receive. They should have the spending authority to spend it. And it's a little odd to me that they think that such a large adjustment isn't necessary. So I'm recommending those two adjustments and then aligning with the amount that they're requesting for directly from HICPUF of the 3.9 million. This is slightly different than what I had assumed, but is basically within the realm of where we were already sitting for general fund balancing so it doesn't affect your position in regards to the general fund appropriation to HICPF. I think I will also note I have an informational update on the total capacity we're looking at for the mental health transitional living homes because that was up in the air during figure setting. The department is assuming that they are going to reduce the number of contracted beds for mental health transitional living homes for a total amount of beds from 164 in the current fiscal year to 125 which is the statutorily required minimum. That's not because you've reduced the appropriation but because the department has been using ARPA funds to support their contracted beds that will expire this fiscal year.

Do we know what it would cost to fund all of the beds that they have?

Okay, so the delta is $5 million. I mean, I'm just going to say that I think it is crazy, I mean that in the nicest possible way, not to fund these mental health transitional living homes that already exist because they're all full. And I would like for this committee to fund them because we need them. And it cascades into all these other problems that we have, including the competency wait list and this competency bill regarding the people who are permanently incompetent to proceed because any bed we have in a mental health transitional living home can be filled by somebody who is currently at the state hospital thereby freeing up space for somebody who needs to go to the state hospital to get of bed and the cost of not having this robust step down is much higher than the cost of having it and while I get we've poured a lot of money into this particular topic this year, it is because we have willfully overlooked it for so many years and we have created this situation that we have right now where we're looking at over a hundred million dollars a the urine fines just from the competency wait list. And we are looking at that being for who knows how long, unless we actually address the things that we really need to get people moving. And just on a hopeful note, people do get better if they get the care they need. So the people who are going to these mental health transitional living homes are getting better. Many of them are working. They're going to school. actually thriving in these placements. So I don't personally want to reduce the number of placements, and I understand maybe even the department, I don't know why they're not asking for us to fill those beds, but I think we should fill those beds. Madam Chair, I should say, fortunately I misspoke.

Senator Amable.

So the Department of Human Services has a $12 million general fund appropriation. Part of that is for staffing the state-operated beds. They're saying that $7.1 million of that is just going to the contracted beds. So we would need additional funding to just support those contracted beds that are currently being supported with ARPA funds.

And we can't get a Medicaid match on the contracted?

Vice Chair Bridges.

Correct. But it also doesn't decrease expenditures per the comeback. So it's sort of like a middle ground between fully funding and what the comeback asked for. I'm not sure what you're referring to as the comeback. My comeback is just trying to right-size the Medicaid side of this issue. And then I think Senator Ramabile is talking about whether or not you should do additional general fund to continue the ARPA-funded beds.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the data that you have here from McBuff was, you say that you continue to work with the department and they just haven't. I guess gotten you the info that you needed. I assume this was part of additional conversations since we declined to move forward on initial figure settings. So I phrase it as a comeback, but essentially you're coming back to us now because we delayed. You tried to get more information. The department is still like, you could actually cut this. And you're like, I think maybe we should not cut it, but also not provide that additional $10 million.

There's no cut really on the table. The department is just saying if they have not requested an increase, and an increase would be necessary to maintain their current capacity.

Rob Taggart.

Ms. Pope.

But if we can't staff these facilities at its present level, I worry about that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. Polk, for this. Can I ask a little bit, like, it seems this is clearly sort of an ongoing operational cost, and yet we were using ARPA funds for that. Did the department give you any sense of why they were doing that? I mean, we knew we were going to fall off a cliff. Like, this is something that they should have seen coming, and we didn't. I don't feel like they really helped us by planning much for this. Maybe they've given you some insight into why we're in this predicament.

We did that? With ARPA funds?

These beds were set up with ARPA funds, so they've sort of been spending down this ARPA appropriation over a few years. but I think to your point, they contracted for more beds than we could afford in the long term and what they were required to do. I do think that that was motivated because, as Senator Ramalde has pointed out, these beds have been really helpful and important in addressing our overall capacity needs, and I think that these have ended up costing more than the department expected. So maybe they were hoping to be able to support this in the long term, but the costs are looking very different than what was assumed to begin with.

Ms. Pope.

Senator Mobley.

that with certainty but maybe you know what the number is I don't have it with me either but I do did get information from the department it varies depending on the individual provider but it's around I think $300 to $500 per person per day, which is much less than the hospitals to your point.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And then also there's this question of the other beds.

We do need to make a decision about how much we're appropriating for patient revenues. I was not trying to force you into making a decision on the overall capacity just letting you know that it's going down so you could choose to make a decision on that or take no action That's on page 3 Page 3 is what you have to decide Page four is where you could take no action or choose to do something differently.

But more because you said there a Medicaid side Vice Chair Bridges What the Medicaid side cost We do not know

Taggart has a question.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Pope.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Move staff rec on page three, JVC staff come back, human services. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Kirk Meier excused. Okay, I think that's all from me. Ms. Bickle.

You're using a very soft voice, like we might lose it.

Thank you Madam Chair Not on this subject for judicial but another one that is critical to the budget We have asked and I know I have asked in a gentlemanly manner

Ms. Bickle.

I must not have been here. Okay.

I'm sorry. I was going to ask a question just in general. So we're on a correctional treatment cash flow?

It's the only action.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Move staff rec, remove empty spending authority.

So then the other items that were in the staff's balancing option, are we talking about those today or not?

memo that Craig sent us. I don't know, was that last night? On the weekend? Balancing option? Yeah, the table. I'm sorry, the table. The email or whatever you sent us. Was it your email?

if we are doing anything about eliminating the professional license appropriation. You said it's about 225,000. Then reducing the, well, we already talked about reducing the number from from the courthouse, reducing or eliminating the general phone appropriations for the family violence justice grant program. I mean, at one point I thought we talked about maybe we can see if KK funds were covering something similar to that and if we still need to do it.

Correct.

Senator Mobley. I got a little bit of feedback that at least some of the agencies would prefer to cut that and then not take other cuts. I don't know. I don't remember specifically which other ones, but I don't think they thought that was a big hardship. I thought the feedback was they were greatly relieved that we didn't do that because they would have come back on it.

my understanding is courts and probation put it forward.

Staff offered it as an option during courts and probation, but the assumption was that it would apply broadly because it wouldn't make sense to only do it in this case. And there were definitely other agencies that were expressing significant enough concern to staff, to JBC staff writ large, that they would have come back had you taken the decision to eliminate the licensure funding and applied it across all of the agencies that have attorneys and staff that are receiving this assistance.

So you would have seen comebacks.

Senator Mobley.

I think if you did all the agencies, you were in sort of the $500,000 to $600,000 range.

Senator Bergmaier.

There was email.

So, Senator Kirkmeyer, you know, as you know, there was a set of staff recommendations and there were additional options,

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you. And so do you still think there's a possibility of a million dollars, or now after getting the additional information, it might be less?

Senator Kirkmeyer, I still think that's a possibility. You know, it would be a cut of less than 5% total funds, but it would have real impact. So I don't want to pretend that it wouldn't.

Okay. I think, Director Harper, do you want to take care of your emergency reserve memo real quick?

Senator Mobley. Well, thank you for that. And not that I want to promote this idea, but my understanding was the $100 million cash that we take out of the MTCF would go back into, below the line here, a capital asset, we wouldn't have to come up with it from somewhere else. We would simply buy the prison with the $100 million and then put the prison as a capital asset. Is that?

Hypothetically. Is that not how that would work in your opinion?

I think that that is the assumption of the proposal, and it sounds relatively viable to as long as the prison is valued at least the $100 million. I think the complication, I think the potential complication there that we would need to sort out is if there are COPs linked to that prison facility, then whether you can designate it here, we would need some legal advice on that particular question.

Well, I just will say I hope they're not going to buy a thing for $100 million that doesn't have $100 million of value. That would be kind of like what we did with Burnham Yards, I guess.

Oh, goodness. So sorry.

Yeah. So, well, I'm just going to be very frank about it. I don't even know why we're talking about this yet. There's a whole bunch of process that needs to go through before any prison's bought anywhere. Like, they can't just go buy a prison. The governor doesn't have that authority to just go do that.

No, he does not. No, I agree with CDC. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Kirkmeyer, I completely agree. I felt like I needed to flag it because it was a clearer component of the comeback request. I think that's a decision for a later day. and if you run a bill to purchase said prison, then that bill would presumably amend the emergency reserve designation, however the General Assembly sees fit to do it at that point.

Senator Kirkmayer.

Director Harper.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. Senator Krokermeyer.

Director Harper.

So I think we are going to stand in recess until 1.30.

The Joint Budget Committee will come back to order. Let's just pick up where we left off regarding the emergency reserve allocations. Somebody was going to answer a question, and then I put us in recess. Barb. No, there was somebody sitting there. It was Ms. Curry. Ms. Curry.

Okay.

Senator Mobley.

Director Harper.

I don't maybe understand. A COP is a loan against the asset. Is that right?

Okay.

Okay, sorry. So does it mean that nothing that is encumbered in any way can be in the reserve? Or is it just specific to a COP as opposed to a loan, a regular loan?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Amoble, I think, again, my clear understanding is that for capital assets, if there's a COP, which would be the apparently outside of kind of the Burnham Yard scenario, which is a different animal, since it sounds like that was just a straight-up bank loan, I think the capital asset would not be able to go in if the loan was against that capital asset or if the COP was against that capital asset. I'm a little bit nervous about opining on the unencumbered because I think the disaster emergency fund has a lot of money that's encumbered for anticipated costs for disasters that have been. So again, and I do have a little bit of clarification, thank you to Ms. Curry, on the process for the disaster emergency fund, but the amount that the governor moves from generally the SERCF into the disaster emergency fund is the Department of Public Safety's estimates of the state cost net of likely FEMA reimbursements. So it's the amount of state funding necessary to move in to then ideally pull down the federal funding and the federal reimbursement. But my understanding is the disaster emergency fund is pretty heavily encumbered in terms of it was moved in for specific expenses that haven't been incurred yet by the state. So I'm hesitant about saying that you can't have anything in there that's encumbered. But for the capital assets, that's a different conversation. And yes, that appears to be the case.

Thank you. Back to the disaster emergency fund. There actually probably are some funds that should be coming back to the state because sometimes the state goes and helps match the local government requirement to buy that down. So we should be able to maybe get some of that. And I just going to remind you all about the case in point where the governor did not declare a state of emergency which is required to get money out of that fund and basically sent I don know to the state of Florida to help with dogs and cats And they told me we were going to get reimbursed for that So there are things that get spent out of there that do have a reimbursement. So I'm hoping that because when we were looking at this earlier, the lack of transparency and, quite frankly, accountability for how the funds are utilized in this disaster emergency fund, I'm hoping that we are going to get some clarity from all of that because, again, their best guess may mean that they're either low or they're high. And so they may be fun sitting over there that isn't actually going to be used in the disaster emergency based on what they think is going to be spent. And that would be from my experience just dealing with them during the COVID era in this administration.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, I don't think I have anything of value to add other than to say that having watched this process play out over the last several years, I think the degree of collaboration between JBC staff and the Office of State Planning and Budgeting has been high, and it has improved thanks in large part to the work of Ms. Pope put many hours into this. I mean there's been a chain of JBC analysts that have been trying to to peel this onion and actually get to where we have transparency into what's going on here and Ms. Curry is continuing that tradition. I think she's dug in hard in her short time with this assignment so we're making progress there but it's not at the level that you all are looking for yet and I don't have a I don't think I can respond in a way that's going that's likely to satisfy the concerns of the committee about the underlying challenges within this particular fund. Again, for today's purposes, designating the emergency reserve as required by the Constitution, I think this is a pretty straightforward discussion. Once we get into the details of the use of the money, it becomes much less straightforward, and I think that's where we definitely need, and as your staff, we will continue to dig in and continue an iterative process between RFIs, potential legislation, and other efforts to bring transparency. Because we're eager to get our hands around this and for you all to be able to be confident in the numbers that you're seeing.

Yeah.

For now.

You, Madam Chair, I move staff rec. FY2627 Tabor emergency reserve designations.

and we don't have the next packet yet? Director Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe that the next packet is at the printer or hopefully coming up soon.

Senator Kirkmeyer. Thank you, Madam Chair. So do we have comments from our staff about, like, which ones we think maybe are ones that we should true up a little bit differently, I guess? I don't know.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Andrew McLear, JBC staff. In terms of these amounts, they strike me as reasonable in the context of kind of this sort of black box nature of payments to OIT. I did my analysis based on reversions. The departments came back and offered some explanation for why what we were seeing in reversions was not accurate. IT. AND SO THIS IS I DO APPRECIATE THE OFFICE KIND OF MEETING ME IN THE MIDDLE AND HOPING THAT THIS IS AT LEAST A STEP FORWARD FOR US TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL, MORE POTENTIAL TRANSPARENCY IN FUTURE BUDGET CYCLES. PROPER ALIGNMENT. YES. SO JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR THEN, IF WE GO WITH THE OSB If you come back, then instead of $17.3 million of general fund savings, we would realize $8 million of general fund savings. Is that correct? Mr. McClure.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Vice Chair Bruges.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Okay. No, we don't need to do all edits. I made that up. Director Harper, did we make the additional competency placeholder, or is that still outstanding?

Thank you, Madam Chair. There's a lot. I think Ms. Pope's likely on her way.

Senator Amable?

Director Harper. Correct. And that was my understanding. The committee has not taken action on that comeback for the additional $20 million. You haven't acted on it. I mean, you've now acted on the OIT comeback. but there's been no action yet on the $20 million that was in the OSPB comeback packet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So did we get more information other than it's our best guess if we say $20 million, maybe the judge won't come back and say $100 million? Because that's what I heard. Am I off?

We do not have any information on what OSPB intends to submit. THEY TOLD YOU THAT THEY ARE AIMING TO SUBMIT THAT NEXT WEEK AFTER THE LONG BILL IS DUE TO BE INTRODUCED THEY GOING TO SENATOR KIRKMURER THEY WANT US TO DO A PLACEHOLDER WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION CORRECT after the long bill is due to be introduced They going to Senator Kirkman They want us to do a placeholder without any information Correct

Why would we do that?

Senator Kirkmeyer.

And then when did the special master report come out? Senator Mobley. Yep, thanks. So PITP is not really the, it's not exactly right, but it means permanently incompetent to proceed. That's the subject of the bill. ITP is just that you are incompetent to proceed. And so a judge has said you need to get competency restoration services. And oftentimes they require that you get that as an inpatient. So those are people who, well, at least in the beginning, everybody's ITP. And then some people, after they receive services for some length of time, get determined to be PITP. So ITP is like a step along the way. Most people are restored to competency, the vast majority of people.

I got the report last week or maybe the week before. I don't remember exactly.

And you were able to read through it and glean from it that they needed more placements?

Okay. Why can't they give us more information?

Where are the more placements?

Senator Kirkmaier.

Yes.

Well, it's a $20 million placeholder. So then presumably there needs to be some sort of legislative appropriation to be able to spend it.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. THE COMEBACK IMPLIES THAT THEY ARE SUBMITTING A BUDGET REQUEST TO YOU NEXT WEEK. SO IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO INCORPORATE INTO THE LONG BILL AFTER IT INTRODUCED HOW DOES THAT WORK INTO THE LONG BILL YEAH I GUESS TO BE CLEAR WE DON KNOW WHAT THEY WANT that they would want to incorporate into the long bill after it introduced How does that work Into the long bill Yeah I guess to be clear we don know what they will propose but that is what is provided to you in the comeback.

Well, this is all obviously less than ideal.

They're going to give it to us on April Fool's Day? How appropriate.

Okay. Vice Chair, I just.

Well, $10 million we know.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

So, I mean, they just pulled $20 million out of the air. Like they pulled $100 million out of the air. Like they pull everything out of the air.

I don't like it. Yep. Vice Chair Bridges.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 4 to 1 with Bridges objecting and Taggart excused. You're going to want to be on that bill, though, right?

Okay. What else? What else? Did we take care of comeback number 33 yesterday in any of our staff comebacks? This would be page 79.

I don't, can we have staff input on this? Thank you Ms

Thank you.

All right. Mr. Kim, anything to offer related to come back number 33.

Right. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay. I don't want to have to true this up at supplemental. They're pretty clear that what I think is exceedingly frustrating is that they're giving you tools that aren't real tools. And that is a beyond frustrating waste of your time and wildly disrespectful. So except for that, I also don't want to have to true up $8.6 million next year.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kim.

Senator Bridges, I certainly don't mind writing up an RFI if the committee would like that. I'm not sure that's going to get us what we're looking. this was a tool that came from the state controller. The fact that they're not applying fiscal controls or fiscal monitoring on how departments are entering this data ends up giving us no actual information on actual expenditures. So I think, you know, it's fine. I think we can do an RFI. Maybe we get good information. Maybe a new tool gets developed. Maybe they are more disciplined about applying kind of fiscal procedures, but I'm not sure that that actually gets us there but I think if the committee wants that we can get that going

I have this history in my experience as a JBC analyst in my early years. I had operating common policies in DPA, and one of the things that gets built into that is a reserve, and that's built on the cash fund balance. And the only information that we get in the process that's an official budget document is a Schedule 9. And I was told from the very beginning, you can't trust the Schedule 9 because it's not going to give you the right. We have the information for you. We'll show you what that is. But they didn't actually produce anything that's a public record. I said, no, I'm going to use your Schedule 9, and if that messes you guys up, you've got to work on your Schedule 9. What I would say to the committee is I think we're back in the same place. If they're giving us data that they're saying this is expenditures from this, I think we need to rely on that. and on that basis, if this shorts them, that's the other issue. What I was trying to bring to the committee was this identification that we've known for years that appropriations are a little bit off, it appears, on compensation components. It's only over these last two years that this has become critical. And, I mean, we can continue to just kind of over-appropriate and then have them use that funding flexibly as they currently have authority to do, spend it on other things, and never actually get a handle on it. And I'm concerned that that's the place we end up in regardless. I am not sure that we get to a better place unless we become more disciplined about holding them accountable at this point That would be my recommendation Senator Kirkware

They don't give us that idea. Public safety, they're like, God, it'd be thousands of lines of coding and overly burdensome. So they must have gone through and looked at something and be able to say, you know, for public safety, it's this amount of money. I mean, I don't know what the 5 million or 8 million, whatever it is, is attributed to. 8 million is attributed to because in higher education, they say the department utilizes nearly all of its general budget. What does that mean, nearly all? We don't know. They must have some better numbers to be making up these lines, and they should tell us.

It's referring to an appendix, but... I don't think... Did we get a copy of the appendix? I don't think it sent. I somehow lost my... I don't know.

Was there an appendix attached that said, look, personnel administration's been loose like a full known bus and somehow that's going to be an unsustainable strain on their department? Or are they going to miss out on a couple hundred thousand and somehow they're saying that's an unsustainable strain,

Right.

My sense is that any of the strains experienced by departments for this funding is on the basis that they have other uses for those funds that they will now not be able to use that funding for. They look at these as straight up, in the case of general fund, general fund dollars that are available to them, and they will find a place to spend them. If this gets reduced, that reduces their flexibility across all department lines related to general fund. I don't believe that this is a strain specifically on paying for these particular compensation benefit items.

It's not something that I think both myself and Mr. Brackey feel like if we were on this assignment at supplemental time a year from now, we would be open to doing that in order to try to get better information on how these funds are actually being spent. We won't know until we get there. Until we cut them.

Vice Chair Bridges.

I am at this point, and I am sure that I will get text messages aplenty for this take, but I also would rather come back and have accurate information here on these as opposed to giving them lots of money that they can move around at the end of the day Okay so no takers yet

No, I think we'll just leave it.

I think we'll just leave it. Just leave it. Just leave it. My skin. Yeah.

That's right. But when she's not here. I'm losing my paperwork. I'm trying to stay as far away from you as I can.

Yeah, that's fine. What is it?

Vice Chair Bridges.

It looks like they decided they could have the overlap for less time as they ironed out the bugs and figured out how to move to the new system, but they still think they need some overlap. Mr. Dermody.

Tom Dermody, Joint Budget Committee staff. Mr. Vice Chair, that is correct. Based off of the information they provided in their comeback, they've reduced by half, essentially, that time of parallel running the old payroll system with the new payroll system.

So in a matter of days, you were able to do that?

Mr. Dermody.

Senator Kirkmeyer.

Vice Chair Bridges?

My take on this is that they were like, hey, a year, if we do this for a year, we'll be like really sure that it all works and there are no problems. And then they came back and said, well, for half a year, we can make sure probably like instead of 100% certainty or 99% certainty, they'll be at like 95, 96, 97% certainty. I think that they don't need a full year to like double check every month. They've got, I think, six examples on this should be fine. But maybe the payday shift breaks everything. Who knows?

See, and I think they thought, gosh, let's just go to the JVC with a big request of 12 months and hope we get it. And if we don't, I guess we'll learn to deal with it because we can figure out within a few days, basically, that we can really do it in six months' time. So, see, I think the other way around.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Be that as it may, whatever the process was internally, I think a little bit of overlap here is fine. And I move OSPB request to come back to number 29.

I had a question about number 23.

That would be on page 55.

Mr. Brackey, thoughts on what they are asking for versus what we did? Not a difference of money, just about where it's coming from. I mean, yeah, I have thoughts. Okay. Uh, doesn't, or come back, didn't change my mind.

Sorry, take your time. Senator Bridges is getting candy.

So, yeah, just to recap, part of the way paying for the per diem rate increase that they asked for, They asked for a 3.3% increase. The action you took was to pay for about a 1.5% per DME increase by reallocating money from one line to another, facility payments to the community corrections placements line, and then paying for the rest of it through an increase in subsistence. That's what you did.

and pay for the entire rate increase through subsistence. So don't allocate money between lines or whatever. I could probably give you, like, I know you got a lot on your plate. I could probably give you a five-minute synopsis of this particular issue with the facility payments, knowing that it probably deserves a briefing issue in November. So I can give you just a quick high-level overview where Community Corrections runs their entire funding out of a footnote. That has no corollary in all of state government. The footnote establishes a base per diem rate for all providers everywhere in this footnote that, again, has no comparable anywhere else to state government. Is this the thing that you wanted them to make rules and sets and they said, no, they want us to do it?

Okay. Historically, the DCJ, particularly the Community Corrections, takes a very bureaucratic approach to their job. Don't jump too high, don't run too fast, don't make too many decisions. In part because the General Assembly has not asked them... In part because the General Assembly hasn't given them explicit instruction to do so in statute. So looking at the statute being like, this is our job and we don't want to do stuff that we don't perceive as our job is my interpretation. So, with this footnote, from the mid-2000s to after the Great Recession, it languished because of the provider rate not being stepped up in the common policy enough. And so, in the mid-2010s, there was this issue of, well, smaller providers are struggling and the DM rate is not going up enough with the common policy, so there's a lot of pressure on JBC staff to, like, fix all this stuff. and so they came up with this idea of doing a tiered payment one higher payment for smaller providers and and bigger providers can make do because they have economies of scale and i'll tell you what the dcj said about it at the time which is uh well you might want to exercise caution because doing it this way and this is gets into the facility payments might incentivize medium-sized programs to become smaller and adversely impact overall statewide placements of offenders. And then they recommended at the time, in order to address revenue limitations of community corrections programs, it may be more practical to establish a per-DM increase that is sensitive to program costs and inflationary increases while developing a long-term plan for performance-based contracting. But now I guess they want to keep facility payments. and then in terms of like trying to keep smaller providers open at the time 10 years ago the department said program efficacy and quality are not directly related to program size period so part of this conversation is about like fixing costs and how the state should pay for that and all this other stuff my advice to you is you have a situation with community corrections where the state has no guarantees from local providers about a certain amount of service. What the department is saying in this comeback is, well, this study that we did that the department didn't even ask for says that costs are fixed, so we should fix payments to providers. Well, I don't know that that makes sense in an environment where fixing payments to providers actually creates a disincentive to take on more clients. So I disagree with it entirely. I'm the third. This is the brand child of one particular analyst 10 years ago, and I'm the third consecutive different analyst to try to do a way of facility payments. It's not just me. Three different people looked at this and said, you should do something else with this particular line item, which is kind of where I'm coming from. So, yeah, that's my.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Is this the kind of thing where we can decide on funding and then run a bill after the loan bill?

So, Mr. Cracky? Sure. Yeah, why not? Well, I mean, you, you. Vice Chair Bridges.

You said something about, like, it deserves a deep dive and you come back in November. Is this a bill we run, like, next year? Is this a bill that we sort of put together right at the end here and we make it a, like, you go do rulemaking and then we review it when it comes back? Like, what's the, what's a good process here on this? Mr. Racky. I think it doesn't require a bill. None of this requires a bill because it's all being done out of footnotes and all this other stuff. But to stop doing it out of a footnote. Okay. You could consider a bill that requires, the tough part about all this is statute requires DCJ to do certain things they not doing already We really mean it this time though Okay Statute requires them to allocate appropriations for community corrections local community corrections boards, community correction providers, in a manner which considers the distribution of offender populations and supports program availability proportionate to such distribution and projected need. That's not happening. There are issues in certain judicial districts that are more related to Tabor than anything else where there's a lot of demand for the allocation, but it's not being allocated, El Paso County being the prime example. So if it's not being allocated according to projected distribution in need, and that's what the law already says, I don't know what bill you would run to make them do it other than to direct them to, you know, develop a process for determining per diem rates in a way that doesn't require the JBC to set it in a footnote. That might be the closest thing that I could come up with, in addition to maybe doing some strategic planning about where we actually need beds and how many and stuff like that, which is not what you're getting right now.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Some kind of strategic planning and setting of a rate that's not in a footnote would be great. As you emphasized, I think maybe four times, might be five now with that last one, that this is the only thing and the only place in government that actually sets all of these things through a footnote. So it seems like we should correct that. It doesn't seem like a best practice.

All evidence to the contrary, but appreciate it.

So do what they're asking now and then change it later or just leave it?

Okay. I guess we'll leave it. But then we're going to do a big guess, though? The gas bill. What is it called? The gas giant. The gas giant bill.

Okay, so we'll just leave it for now. Well, I think I moved to draft for a post-long bill bill, something that moves us out of the footnote and gets us the, requires some planning on where these might go.

All of the things that you do. All the things. Does that feel doable, Mr. Brackey, or does that just make you want to crawl under the desk right now?

Mild intervention. Okay. Vice Chair Bridges.

Okay. Well, then we shall leave it. Great. Okay. Do you have any other comments? Just DOC, I mean. No big deal.

WHO'S ON?

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excused. Okay. Do we have our packet yet, Director Harper?

Okay. Staff comebacks. So wait, on 33, did we do nothing?

We did. We've done that. We've got to come back.

Why did you just do it then?

Okay. Thank you. What? The color. Pumpkin. Is that orange? All right, Mr. McLear. Oh, my God, this thing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

credit are there any objections that passes on a vote of five to zero with taggart excuse did you want me to not vote sorry okay senator kirk mary didn't we put money into this fund last here this is one with all the boxes and all the crap nobody could explain it really mr mcleer um

IT WAS OBNOXIOUS IS WHAT IT WAS. WHY DON'T WE JUST KEEP ROOTING IT?

YES.

I WOULD HAVE TO DIG INTO THE FUND. MY PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE INTEREST IS BEING CALCULATED AS PART OF THAT FUTURE EXPENSIVE. but I can certainly circle back to OSPB and then bring that information back to you.

Okay. Ms. Yule.

Vice Chair Bridges. How did an empty cash fund accrue interest?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that there's nothing more that will happen with this cash fund, can we run in our gas giant eliminating cash funds that, like, no longer exist and somehow still gain interest and shouldn't? Like, can we just eliminate it?

Senator Bridges, it does, like statute did have a provision for July 1st, 2027 to send all the money back and repeal it. But because DPT is supposed to send out these checks in April, they feel that because there is some money sitting there right now that we should sweep it.

Is there any danger if we sweep this money that there's still going to be some interest that has accrued? Like, can we do the math on this first and then sweep all of that?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So, yes, thank you. Move staff rec, transfer from local government, backfill, cash fund. It should have been empty anyway. Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excuse.

Which one?

Because it would have guaranteed Prop 108 would have had no backfill in it. And nobody, I'm the one who found that and told them, and that's how we got that negotiation going. Well, there's $16,000.

I try to get rid of them. Ms. Bickle.

VICE CHAIR BRIDGES.

I DON'T LIKE THIS IF.

If the appropriate path becomes clear, are we just potentially not going to move forward with any kind of fix? I think it's conceivable because one,

Vice Chair Bridges.

I move staff rec bill for technical fix to SB 25315, which is to withdraw the bill that we had previously approved and hold for later if there is some agreement.

then I'll bring it back to you for introduction.

Good afternoon, committee. Tom Dermody, Joint Budget Committee staff. We're on page five of your pumpkin comeback packet.

It was R5 TANF state policy changes. During figure setting for the Department of Human Services, the committee tabled this item pending discussions between staff and OSPB and the department regarding the proposals. We kind of had come at it. We, the collective, we had come at it from two different perspectives. And so the committee had given staff permission to work with the department and OSBB to try to find some through line. The comeback is largely the product of that. There were some other elements in the comeback that sort of fell outside the area of agreement. I have noted that there that that list of seven generally are in agreement by staff, the department and OSBB, be all except for three that tends to be the sticking one of the sticking points. This will require legislation whether or not it runs with the long bill I think is up to the committee's decision. I would recommend at this stage given complexities this could operate as a non-orbital I think we're calling those gas giants again this year. So that's kind of where we are, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have general agreement between staff and the department and OSPB. Ultimately, this is sort of pressing the pause button on a bunch of, on the policy changes driven by House Bill 22-1259 and giving time for the affected parties to deliberate, negotiate and come up with a sustainable solution for TANF in the coming years.

Currently there's a cap for counties. They can't have more than 40%. So what is their minimum or is that essentially the same thing as what's in number five? Excuse me. Mr. Chairman.

There is a floor, a statutory floor of a minimum of 25% for the state LTR, and there is a 15% minimum requirement for the county reserves as an aggregate. Senator Kirkmeyer.

It's tied in with the backfill and the 15%. Yes Mr Germany Thank you Madam Chair Senator Kirkmaier that is correct Yes In order to relieve the general fund of that obligation it makes the most sense to staff in that proposal to remove those minimum requirements so that counties in the state have that flexibility to manage that administratively.

Mr. Dermody.

Senator Mobley, yeah. So moving that management to the state level is not fully fleshed out as a policy decision. There are several complicating factors, including how the counties will calculate their own reserves, as well as how fluctuations in case management would be managed at the state level, where counties are the sort of frontline managers of that application and processing of that caseload. Right now, there is no clear indication of how the state would provide that sort of nimble reaction to mid-year shifts in caseload on that county-by-county level. There's been no detail in that proposition. And from staff's perspective, whether or not that's managed at the state level, the details of how that would be managed have not been fleshed out, have not been answered. And that really is a policy decision that needs buy-in from the county. because they are the ones who are managing that caseload.

Senator Mobley.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Mobley, yes.

Okay. And ultimately it is that discussion of whether the BCA should be managed or could be managed properly at the state level, that's part of that long-term discussion of sustainability for TANF.

What is the mechanism for doing this plan?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Mobley, I don't think that necessarily needs to be part of any formal legislation. That was an indication from the department and OSBB that they would like to work with the information that they're going to gather from that RFI, I work over the next couple of years to come up with a detailed proposal regarding all of their propositions around, that aren't included in this list, around the TANF sustainability discussions.

And the rollback minimum sanction for first infraction?

This comeback does not include that because there was an indication from the committee and various members on the committee that that would not be supported in terms of a committee bill. Really, the underlying motivation behind the discussions between staff and the executive branch was to come to an agreement that for a bill that the committee as a whole could support, given the various feedback that we received from you during that discussion.

It's supposed to be an E there, not a T. Okay.

Okay.

Go to draft. Except for number three, so we don't pull it to the state level. And you don't need four in the draft either. Do you?

So you're not agreeing to the lint item even while we remain open? into discussion. You just don't want it. Senator Kerkmeyer. I don't want number three in the bill either because here's why. There's nothing that they work through to make the determination on what the maintenance of effort level would be and by whom. I mean, I think right now the state could probably cover the maintenance of effort level. Typically the counties have a maintenance of effort level, but that's not there. And if that goes away, they've turned a block into an entitlement type program and that would be extremely costly to us as they're trying to work through this. So I agree with Mr. Dermany about it's just not ready that's not ready for prime time and they need some additional work on determining that because then there is also the determination on what would be the block allocations to each county and what would that be based on and I don't think we want to open up that section of statute because there's a lot in there that's the creation of the works allocation committee and the determination on how those allocations are done. So there I agree with what Mr. Dermody is saying. There is a lot of work to be done on that before I think we could put that into a bill. But this is just saying put a line there and then

Okay. I think I would like a nod to number four in the bill, though, just so we can just say that this is part of what is happening, what we're doing. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is actually a first for me, given the number of bills that I've helped shepherd the committee, shepherd for the committee. Putting something like that in ledge deck might be the best way to avoid one of fiscal impact. And two, the way I was reading that part of the comeback was their intent, they would like approval of the intent to continue working on this idea. and I generally think the ledge deck would be an appropriate place to declare that we anticipate or the General Assembly's intent is that the executive branch do number four.

Mr. Germany.

Mr. Vice Chair, I would think we would need at least the interim. In particular, the information from that RFI that the department presumably is, well, the department's requested presumably you may approve, that information would go a long way into that discussion of how to manage the overall allocation of TANF. And, you know, honestly, I think from a very practical standpoint, getting the counties together with the state to talk about what that would look like, how that would be operationalized as a state managed BCA is incredibly important and something that hasn't really been fully fleshed out. And that interim would be sort of that sufficient amount of time to get to that discussion.

Madam Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, we can set that date for that RFI whenever it is most convenient. For me, generally, I would probably have two dates sort of to align with the general TANF RFI that we have already. Sort of a preliminary findings on November 1st and the final report on January 1. That aligns with the work that they do already with the TANF LTR. There's a lot here to figure out.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm comfortable moving forward with this, with those dates, knowing that this is a thing we'll work on next year. And with that, those modifications of the RFI and that plan for next year, I move staff rec R5 TANF state policy changes OSP come back, OSPB come back number 40. But without number three.

That's the RFI.

The staff recommendation is not number three.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Emily Pope, JBC staff. Yesterday we had some conversation about how to handle transfer authority in the Division of Child Welfare and decided I would try again. So I'm coming back to you with a different recommendation based on our conversation yesterday. That recommendation is to continue allowing unlimited transfer authority between the Child Welfare Services line item and the Core Services line item, which are the two capped allocations and don have FTE and then limiting transfer authority from the line items that do have FTE to million The recent historic transfers are provided for you on page 8 of your packet So after realigning those lines that transfer authority is over in excess of the recent transfers that we seen So I think that's an amount that I'm comfortable with. You could choose to designate a different amount if you'd like. But the intent is, again, to limit the department's ability to transfer from their centrally appropriated line items into child welfare, assuming that that has allowed some issues with their structural base budget to go unaddressed in their budget requests.

Senator Krugmeyer.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Kirkmeyer.

Okay.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 5-0 with Taggart excuse. Okay, my next item is just informational. During BHA figure setting, you approved the repeal of a high-risk families cash fund that hasn't been utilized in recent years. We were expecting that repeal to occur in the general transfer bill, but yesterday Legal Services identified that since it's a full repeal, it probably doesn't fit within the transfer bill, but it could fit within your other bill for the BHA that's repealing several programs. You have already approved that draft, so we can bring the updated draft to you for re-approval, or we can just proceed knowing that this will be included as well. Proceed on, I think. Vice Chair Bridges?

Okay.

We approved both, so you can just mesh it. Okay. Next is also informational on page 9. during figure setting for health care policy and financing, you received some, I think, information from advocates about PBT reduction options, and you asked me to look at them and do a comeback with my opinion on them. Since that time, I think the folks involved with those recommendations would no longer like to recommend them. The department, not surprisingly, doesn't agree with those proposals, and I would prefer that the department prioritize establishing and enforcing policies that are directly related to the audit findings for PBT. So the end result is that no one is interested in pursuing those alternatives that were shared with you. So no action for you to take, I suppose, unless you would prefer otherwise.

Okay. Anybody want to ask Ms Pope questions about this Okay Vice Chair Bridges.

Ms. Pope.

Vice Chair Bridges.

Red Brown?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

OIG, yeah.

Well, I think they don't.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm usually not okay moving forward with just trusting that other people are going to solve this besides us. But I do trust you, and I know you're working on it. And please keep us informed because this is outrageous. I know.

Sorry about that. Less than other things were.

I'm not able to give him a little amount.

Thank you, Ms. Pope.

All right. I hear Rep. Taggart is wrapping up with his final comments on his bill, so I'm hoping he will be back soon, at which point we can hopefully finish some of these OSPB comebacks as well as we have more bills to approve.

OK. All right, then I think we'll stand in a brief recess so people can refresh themselves while we wait for Rep. Taggart's return. Thank you.

The Joint Budget Committee will come back to order. We have all six back, so I think the hope is to finish up some of these OSPB comebacks and then look at some more bill drafts. So does everybody have their OSPB packet? So Rep Taggart, we did a number of them. WHILE YOU WERE IN COMMITTEE, BUT WE HOLD OFF ON HICPUF SO THAT EVERYONE COULD BE HERE FOR THESE CONVERSATIONS. SO I THINK COMEBACK NUMBER 43, EVERYONE ELSE IS MUCH FASTER THAN I AM. ON THE PAGE NUMBER. is page... Okay. Okay. Um... Okay. I would accept the department's comeback on this. Is there any discussion on Comeback 43? So it is changing the implementation timeline. They are saying what we approved is not feasible, so going back to what was recommended by Mr. Kurtz as January 2027. Not capping LTSS on legacy recipients because they say that the administrative burden will outweigh potential savings, and then also eliminating ACC enrollment for the entire coverall population because they can't just keep adults and not kids. That's fine.

Well, that is a separate comeback. Okay. Is everyone comfortable on what's presented in 43?

Maybe Mr. Kurtz.

who are currently receiving long-term services and supports to continue receiving those services, their legacy or grandfathered, whatever term you want to use. But in addition, the budget committee said, let's put an annual cap on the dollar cap on the amount of services that they can use. The department's or OSPP's comeback request is to grandfather them in but not put an annual cap on the services that they can use.

So how many individuals will we be grandfathering in?

THE CURRENT NUMBER OF UTILIZERS IS 49. IT WILL FLUCTUATE. IT MAY BE A LITTLE HIGHER OR A LITTLE LOWER AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN THEY ACTUALLY ARE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THE CAP.

HOW MUCH GENERAL FUND? MR. KURTZ? It's a little under 11,000 per person currently, which is significantly lower per capita than what the nonimmigrant population uses. And part of the concern was that over time the number of people using long-term services and supports may increase and the utilization per person may increase but for 49 people it's I don't know how much it's going to break the bank if they increase their utilization the staff recommendation here had been not to grandfather people and sort of rip off the MANPFACTED QUICKLY INSTEAD OF HAVING ATTRITION, HAVE THEM AGE OUT OVER TIME. SO I THINK THOSE ARE YOUR OPTIONS. YOU COULD STICK WITH YOUR ORIGINAL, YOU COULD GO WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, OR YOU COULD GO WITH THIS COMEBACK.

MR. CURTS. SO THE ORIGINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND JVC ACTION WAS TO KEEP THE PREGNANT ADULTS IN THE ACC. THE LOGIC WAS THAT THE ACC IS COORDINATING CARE AND OSTENSIVELY CONTAINING COSTS FOR US BY PROVIDING THAT COORDINATED CARE. AND THE PREGNANT ADULTS ARE A COMPLEX POPULATION WITH COMPLEX NEEDS, LOTS OF CARE NEEDS. AND SO IT MAKES SENSE, AT LEAST TO ME, TO TRY TO TO COORDINATE THE CARE FOR THEM TO CONTAIN THE COSTS. THE DEPARTMENT IS ARGUING THAT THAT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE UNDER THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS THEY HAVE TO DO A SEPARATE CONTRACT JUST FOR THE IMMIGRANTS BECAUSE THEY CAN INCLUDE THE IMMIGRANTS They have to do a separate contract just for the immigrants because they can include the immigrants in a managed care contract with other Medicaid people And they're concerned that when you've got such a small pool that they're going to have trouble negotiating a contract with somebody who's willing to accept that risk. my argument is it's not so much a risk-based contract, it's more of an administrative services contract. It does increase the savings a little bit to include that population.

Yes, to take the pregnant adults out of the ACC. It reduces the projected costs. but it may reduce the savings from the ACC.

THANK YOU.

MR. KURTZ. that there's the possibility that you will have a change in the number of enrollees.

Yes.

That was the intent of the budget committee in your motion,

AND THEY DON'T THINK THEY CAN IMPLEMENT THOSE SYSTEM CHANGES UNTIL JANUARY.

Mr. Gritz. The department's argument is that it's not just 49 people. It's the entire CAC population that any of them could at any time apply for these long-term services and supports. And so.

I appreciate the frustration of the committee. I feel it too, but I do believe that they understand how their system works and that they are trying to come up with proposals that are saving the state money here. But if this is a thing that they are saying is not doable, I'm inclined to believe them.

Senator Kirkmeyer. That's what we were told when the bill was passed. There was only a $14 million fiscal note on this bill when it was first passed, and now it's ballooned to $127 million. So that's what we were told then. I don't understand why they can't just say we're no longer accepting applications from this date forward and then take whatever time they need to make changes in their system.

that is particular to 49 people versus everyone else. Senator Kirkmeyer. So I'm still asking, why can I not say that we aren't accepting any more individuals? We only are grandfathering in who's in as of right now.

LTSS.

And dental benefits.

It's a lot more. Well, that's what's in number one.

That they need another, they need nine months basically from today. Given that they are proposing in the next thing to cap the whole thing, I mean, they have brought us elephants of savings, and I believe that if they felt that they could do it faster, that they would.

All right.

Vice Chair Bridges

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 4-2 With Kirkmeyer and Taggart objecting So Mr. Gertz

Okay. So yes, please make the changes. Okay. Senator Kirkmeyer.

Mr. Kurtz.

Okay. I would like to take up number 46 on page 112, IRSS. We did that yesterday. Yeah, we did NEMT yesterday. We did 45 yesterday. It was on another document. Yeah. Yeah. The 10-state average in the district for us. Yes. Okay. I don't know if we have more discussion on this. I would like to take OSPB's comeback. I think, you know, they have presented compelling information, especially around how they found it not allowable to treat family members and their payments differently. if we don't approve this, I still am in the dark about how they would move forward given their legal concerns around the way it is happening now. Senator Mabley.

Okay. Vice Chair Bridges. Madam Chair.

Senator Mobley.

So we're still not taking the cut?

You cannot?

So actually my understanding is from folks that it's not applied to all the other waivers. It's not applied to the elderly, blind, and disabled waiver, and it's not applied to the brain injury waiver like they are suggesting to do it in the DD waiver. The EBD and the brain injury, so the elderly, blind, and disabled folks and the brain injury do not have to pay into petty if they live in an apartment or their own homes with family. So it's not the same. So, I mean, if you approve this, you're saying it's the same across and it's not. There's already two other waivers that do not have to pay into the petty. And yet the department is trying to tell us that it's applied across for everybody, and it's not.

I'll just say that I don't think that's what the department is writing. It says this methodology is already used in multiple long-term services and supports programs, not all of them. all of which serve individuals who meet institutional levels of care. So these are institutional levels of care waivers. So I think what Chair Sirota is saying is that the department applies this methodology to waivers for people who meet institutional levels of care, except for this one. That's the current state of play. Senator Kirkmayer. But it's not applied to those who are living in an apartment or in their own homes. And that what going on with the family caregivers They living in their own homes So they not in an institutional setting They not in a host home They in their own home So it wouldn be fair to apply it to those family caregivers if you not applying it to those who have the elderly blind and disabled waiver or the brain injury waiver who happen to live in their apartment or their own home So I'm saying we should be consistent.

Thank you. I just wonder, and you and I have talked about this one, I understand why we need to do this. I would also like to figure out how we do it consistently in other cases. worry, and I think you heard me on this, is that I know they've been doing it in other areas, so I hope they have this down pat, but this isn't one of those situations that one-size-fits-all because every home service, home and community service individual within in the DD waiver is going to be a little bit different. So my worry is, do they have the horsepower to make this work? I don't like it, but I understand that we need to do it. But I also understand the Senator's comments. And I didn't realize that there are other programs where we should be doing the same thing. I think we should look at those. I just was not aware of that. But I understand why we have to do this.

That was the one you told me is all worked out.

Tom Dermody, Joint Budget Committee staff. Yes, in conversations on the 18th as we were reviewing the comeback packet, the department and I were discussing that technical comeback, and there was just a miscommunication and misunderstanding of staff's recommendation. We were effectively talking past each other, saying the same thing, just in different words. Okay. So number 48 is not necessary, and if I remember correctly, that was also stated online by Director Ferrandino.

First I want to go back to Senator Kirkmeyer's question about the out year costs of the changes in the OSBB comeback for the coverall Coloradans. For 27-28 and ongoing, the projected savings is 31.6 million total funds, 26.8 million general fund. For Comeback number 49 Um Um There's really three options that OSBB provided for you. One is to do a claim-by-claim audit that is manually, literally looking at every single claim and making a determination, was it an improper payment or not, should it be denied, should there be a collection and recovery here. The second option is to, and these are all audits of the pediatric behavioral therapy or PBT services The second option is to do what's called an extrapolation audit This one uses a statistically significant sample of claims and then based on that extrapolates to estimate the number of improper payments. It is more cost effective than a claim by claim audit because you don't have to go through every single one. You only have to sample a statistically significant size. And using that methodology, the department could look at or extrapolate to determine the amount of improper payments for all of the claims. That is the methodology that was used by the federal government for their audit, and it is the most efficient way for the department to respond and collect the money that the federal government says that we owe back to the federal government for that audit. This is looking at two years of services. And then the third option, which is what the department would prefer that you approve, is that you do both a claim by claim audit and an extrapolation audit. This one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you do the claim by claim audit, or if you do the extrapolation audit, you just don't need as much money as you need for the claim by claim audit. So you're going to have some money that is left over that you could be using more efficiently than doing claim by claim audit. The department is saying, well, we would look at how we're using the money and how much we need and how many appeals there are and then we would come back to you with a supplemental proposal and maybe we would reallocate some of that money to do extrapolation audits for NEMT services. From my perspective, if they want to do that, why should the General Assembly prepay for that? They can just come back for a supplemental request midyear. So to me, really the choice, the logical choices are, do you want to do the claim by claim audit or do you want to do the extrapolation audit? The extrapolation audit is much more efficient, results in more recoveries and generates more savings for you but it requires a bill. And extrapolation audits, some providers are not, don't look favorably on that methodology. So it's a bill that may have some opposition. But from a policy perspective, it makes a lot of sense to me. It just requires legislation because the legislation currently prohibits the use of extrapolation audits In their proposal what they suggesting is that it would be a limited authority that would apply to the PBT services the NEMT services and then a third category which is any time the federal government uses extrapolation audits to try to recover money from the state then the department wants to be able to use an extrapolation audit to go and find that money. The other option, the claim-by-claim audit, you could do that just through a change in the long bill. So in the tables that are on page two, the numbers that are in the OSPB request, again, are not, they're hard to interpret where they were coming from and how they came up with those numbers. These are my estimates of what the savings are. These tables on page two. If you go with the claim-by-claim audit you would need to spend $13 million up front $6.5 million general fund for the contractor to do the work and then the department is estimating they would get recoveries of 5.5 million in 26-27 and another 6.4 million, these are the general fund numbers, in 27-28. So you have a small net cost increase in general fund costs in fiscal year 26-27, but overall you get more recoveries over the two years and it saves you money. If you go with the legislation to allow them to do the extrapolation audits, then you get a net savings of $5.6 million general fund in fiscal year 26-27 and you continue to get savings as the recoveries come in over the years. The department is projecting another $11 million in 27-28, another $2.8 million in 28-29. So total general fund relief of $22 million over the three years. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kurtz. I'm probably going beyond the scope of my role in this process. I didn't want the committee to step on a landmine without knowing that you were stepping on a landmine. But that political calculus, that's not my expertise. That's something you guys need to understand. To me, the extrapolation method is a sound method. It's a proven method. It's scientifically based, statistically based. It's used by the federal government. I don't see a reason not to do the extrapolation method. But there are people who are financially harmed by it, and those people will likely bring up objections. and so you just need to be aware of that.

Mr. Hertz. I think that the department understands the committee's concerns about the RAC process. and they are with this proposal trying to clarify that they are not trying to allow extrapolation in RAC audits where the contractor has a financial incentive to find as much savings as possible. So to the extent the committee is concerned about abuse of the RAC audit, this proposed bill would not increase the ability of the RAC auditor to recover more savings by using extrapolation. THE BILL WOULD SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT EXTRAPOLATION IN RAC AUDITS. THIS WOULD ONLY BE NON AUDITS AND IT WOULD ONLY BE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS USING EXTRAPOLATION AND IT WOULD HELP THE DEPARTMENT It would only be in these circumstances where the federal government is using extrapolation and it would help the department respond to those federal findings Because if the federal government goes in and reviews, you know, 20,000 claims, and based on that they make a finding that there's savings associated with 100,000 claims, we would have to spend a lot more money to go through claim by claim to look at 100,000 claims. So the department is saying this amount of funding would only let us look at 17% of the claims that the federal government has said we've got improper payments. But if you allow them to extrapolate, they can look at roughly the same number of claims that the federal government looked at, verify the results of the federal government, then they have the findings to go after the individual providers and try to recover the funds so that the general fund is made whole and the federal government is made whole. So this request is partly about trying to give the department the tools TO RESPOND IN A COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO THE FINDINGS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

MR. KURTZ. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT, BUT I CAN ASK THE DEPARTMENT TO RESPOND TO THAT.

I appreciate the department providing some more numbers and after Rep Tigard's questions about this. You know, I will express interest in the ability to give them the extrapolation tool. I don't see any unanimity here, so I think we'll... Move along for the day. Oh, is it a bill? Yeah. Yeah. To do extrapolation. Rep Brown.

Senator Amable. Well, I'll just say I have very low confidence in this department in this current moment in time. And I think... So I'm, I don't know, I'm reluctant to spend a bunch of money to maybe get some money back without being more confident in what they're telling us and what the results might be because it just seems like we've had a lot of fails.

Mr. Kurtz? So if you look at the middle table, if you do just the extrapolation audit and not the claim-by-claim audit, you still have to do audits of a statistically significant sample and that estimated cost is 5.4 million total funds, 2.7 million general fund. You could contract that out. You don't necessarily need to have state FTE, but you do need to spend that money and then based on that you get all these recoveries. Maybe.

Senator Imobley. But, like, looking at this, we spend $2,680,000, and then we get recoveries. Do we have to spend that every year, or do we just get recoveries in 28, 29 that are just slightly above this $2.6 million? or is every year you spend $2.6 million?

Rep. Rob. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, I will just say that I think it's giving the department additional tools to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. I mean, we've talked about that extensively. WE'VE OFTEN BLAMED THE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR ABILITY TO ACTUALLY HOLD PROVIDERS WHO ARE FLEECING THE SYSTEM ACCOUNTABLE. I THINK GIVING THEM THE TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO POLICE THAT IS IMPORTANT, AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US IF WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT WE WANT TO FIGHT WASTE FRAUD AND ABUSE THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT SO YOU KNOW AGAIN I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE PROPOSAL AND ONE THAT COULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT that we want to fight waste fraud and abuse that we need to do that So again I think this is a reasonable proposal and one that could really help

Senator Kirkmeyer. I just have a question because I'm not opposed to audits, and I would agree. It's a tool to cut waste, fraud, and other things. but who's going to audit the department and tell us where they screwed up? I mean, it's real candy to say, look, we're going to go audit all these providers and recover funds because we didn't do our job. So who's going to audit them? Because that's what happened. They didn't do their monitoring. They weren't watching things. They didn't get the reports that they were supposed to be getting. They have contractors that they weren't following through on, things of that nature. I mean, I read through that audit. Granted, it was like four weeks ago now or whenever it was. But who's going to audit them instead of everything's to blame on the providers here? Because it's not just. But that's what I'm asking. Where's that audit occur? Mr. Kurtz. Because that's when we did the audit on the RAC process. Yeah. And they came back with those 18 recommendations. Maybe Mr. Kurtz knows. So if that's the current concern about the extrapolation audit methodology, I mean you're writing a bill, so you could write something into the bill to have, for example, the state auditor review the process that the department uses for the extrapolation audit to make sure that it's sound. You could just write that into the bill.

I'm willing to go drafting on it and look at it. I'm not willing to say to go with the extrapolation until we see what's, until I see what's going to happen with the department and who audits them and how we do that. But I'm willing to at least take a look at it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to go to drafting regarding OSPB, just that part, the extrapolation audit.

I also have real concerns about it, so I'm okay to go to drafting also, but no guarantee that I will agree to the bill.

I just want to be clear. We're not just talking about auditing the providers. there has to be something about the practice of the department and their failures that were identified in the OIG audit.

I can make sure that is part of the draft that legal services prepares for you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, it's number two under the OSB Comeback 49, the extrapolation audit and everything contained therein, plus Senator Kirkmeyer's request for something to do with the department itself.

No, you go ahead. I'll go after. I was just going to ask a question of the committee, and I understand the concern about extrapolation and audits, but are we in agreement that we have to do something on the subject of waste abuse and fraud And even though we may not yet agree on the methodology I not comfortable not going someplace on this subject because we got a huge federal exposure And I know I've raised this and I think other people, when you look at the curve of expenses having to do with PBT, it doesn't match up to our demographics at all. It's moving exponentially. It really is. And I know the discussion has been around private equity firms, and that may be part of it. I don't know. But I'm just hoping we're in agreement. We've got to do something here.

I agree we have to do something also. Thank you, Madam Chair. But I don't think we should take the claim-by-claim audit off the table in this bill because I'm getting all this feedback that this extrapolation audit is problematic for some of the providers, and I completely agree with Senator Kirkmeyer that there has to be something in there that says we are going to look at what HICPOC is doing and where they maybe have fallen down on the job and not done what they needed to do to make sure. I mean, we have all this evidence that they're telling providers to use the wrong codes to bill for services, And, you know, it's not just the provider. So I think for it to be really useful, it has to be pretty broad.

Thanks. I mean, I don't understand how the both option doesn't include both numbers, but I'm... I don't know about the numbers either, but I... But I guess if it's possible to draft the bill in such a way that it could be any of these three options, I mean, maybe we have to narrow it once we get it from you, and we'll get more information. I mean...

So if you decide to pick the both option, what I would do is put the amounts that are in the first table in the claim by claim audit into the long bill. And then I would put the difference between that and the both option table as the additional savings that would occur in that bill to authorize extrapolation audits. And the reason that the savings are not just adding the first two tables together is that the claim audit reduces the pool of audits that you're extrapolating to, so the savings then are a little bit smaller. So that's why the two tables don't just add to the third table.

I just think, I mean, I'm not sure that really the providers were the issue here, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't check on them. But there needs to be an audit because the findings were that documentation requirements not met. That's not on the provider necessarily. That is on the department for not ensuring that documentation was there, that services were not fully described in that documentation, that there were potential unallowable activities of care. They were not reviewing the documentation appropriately. It wasn't necessarily that the provider was billing incorrectly. They weren getting information back from the department to say you need to have more documentation or required documentation No appropriate credentials I mean things of that nature that on the department So that's why I'm insisting that maybe we have to look at the practices that are going on at this department. Because if it's happening here, it's probably happening someplace else or more places.

Yes. You did. Thank you. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be supportive of the OSPB comeback if you would allow me to make adjustments for your common policies for FTE, like removing centrally appropriated line items. I don't disagree with the department that they need additional FTE to do this. We were just trying to reduce the costs.

Madam Chair, I owe Ms. Pope an apology because she reminded me this morning to ask for a kind of a blanket motion for any OSPB comeback that you approve with new FTE. If we can just have a blanket permission to apply the committee's common policies.

HOW MANY FTE DO THEY NEED TO DO THE PLANNING?

So we're not going to four FTE?

Thank you, Madam Chair. was the question how many or whether they got FTE for the planning grant originally two years ago. I'm trying to see if I can pull that together. I don't believe that that bill had an appropriation, but I don't, it might take me a minute to remember the bill number.

Any FTE for the planning grant two years ago. So these would be the first FTE they're getting to implement CCBHC, and they're expected to be term limited.

Or we could look at that the other way. They were able to figure out how to put together the planning grant, which is the basis for the demonstration grant, without requiring more FTE. I just don't know why they think they need four more FTE. I mean, growing by close to 84% isn't enough. I mean, all the FTE that have gone into this department over the last seven years, and then they just keep asking for more? I don't understand that at all. I mean, I guess I'm inclined to, if we cared about them being put into the position of being able to apply for this demonstration grant, and we want them to be able to get it, and they're telling us, and our analyst is agreeing that they need the staff to do it, then I want us to get it. And so I'm willing to give them the FTE. I don't know if anybody else is. I don't remember how I voted the first time. We voted for one.

Yeah, I'm willing to give them the FTE. I think the savings here are important. And I also think that the program will be a real benefit. So given that we have scrutinized this again and Ms. Pope is comfortable with it, I'm comfortable with it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move OSBB come back 50 with the relevant staff modifications for FTE. Which we don't need to say anymore. I know, but I just wanted to, you know.

Can I give him more FTE? All I have to do is move people around. Okay. How many FTE do they need over there? Bills.

Yeah. We're getting more FTE for the planning portion. We're just adding on. No, I understand. I understand.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Bickle, JBC staff. So this bill is the one that makes some small changes to allow some existing school nutrition programs in the Department of Education to use healthy school meals for all money. And it includes an appropriation clause that shifts $3 million to healthy school meals for all from other funding sources. There's a little bit of a shift from general fund under $300,000. Most of this is from the state public school fund where there was an existing required appropriation and that source of funding is no longer available. Anyway I originally thought that we would be eliminating some of these older programs but based on further communication with the department we continuing to use them just at a very very low level So there's a few different components I can walk through with you. So one is there's about $2.5 million a year that goes to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act matching fund. So the state's required to provide a match for federal funds. Historically, this money has been used, distributed to school food authorities to help with their administrative expenses. We've also got the state's two programs related to school breakfast and school lunch, which specifically assist a student who is not in a school that is opting into healthy school meals for all, to if they are a low-income student who qualifies for a reduced-price breakfast or lunch, they would get that free, entirely free. So those were like two of your major legacy programs. And then the final component is paying for the summer electronic benefit for children administration, which is another small piece that is in this department's nutrition section. And that's the one that provides just a little bit of general fund savings.

like there was a cash fund in here for the school breakfast program. So we're getting rid of that and transferring the balance to the general fund, which should be about $400,000. And again, the fund source is the biggest fund source that's being replaced is from state public school fund. There's also some money that's being replaced that was state ed fund, and there's some money being replaced that was general fund. But this is all, in total, pretty small dollars within the context of school food at this point and the scale of the Healthy School Meals for All program.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to introduce MLS. 5-2-0.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Emily Pope-JVC staff back again. This bill draft is for the PARs on outpatient psychotherapy I have a memo for you on page 12 During figure setting you approved to set PARS after 52 sessions You also asked for quite a bit of follow information We have some of that but not I think all of the information that the committee might want before you act on this draft. But I felt like we were at a point where we had to consider it and see where we are. So when you made that decision we didn't know how much general fund savings you would recognize from 52 sessions. The department estimates that that will be about 1.6 million general fund. And then we provided additional information if you would like to decide to set it at different amounts. You also asked for updated utilization data. That's on page 13. I do feel like the updated data provides a little bit of a different picture, meaning a more gradual growth trend than I had presented during figure setting. So you can see previously they were showing growth from sessions over 56 that went from 447 to 886. Now the data they're providing is from 2,000 to 4,000, so it's pretty different numbers. The outstanding questions are around compliance with federal parity laws, which Rep. Brown has been digging into fairly thoroughly, and the Department is working on a response to that, but we don't have it yet.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And first of all, I just want to thank Ms. Pope for her work on this, and I also want to apologize to the committee for being a little bit of a stick in the mud when it comes to federal parity laws. I think it's very important that we adopt policies that are consistent with federal law and what are required of our Medicaid department. And while I would very much like to be able to take these savings and recognize that there are some challenges with the growth of utilization here, I am not comfortable yet with how we would design this benefit and this restriction on benefits in a way that would be consistent with federal parity. In short, some of the answers that the department has provided previously in their hearing documents said that they were using PT and an OT soft limit as their direct comparison. And that isn't necessarily an apples to apples comparison under a strict parity analysis. You need to use the same type of benefit, sort of a primary benefit versus a specialized benefit. And then the way that PT and OT are billed are in these sort of 15-minute increments, whereas this benefit is billed in this sort of session benefit, which doesn't necessarily translate into these 15-minute increments. So I'll save you all of the analysis that sort of we've done on this, but I just want to say that I think I'm still open to the idea, but I think I'm not comfortable with introducing a bill at this time.

Well thank you Madam Chair That was sort of a caveat because we don know when you going to hear any given packet So the most recent update you received from Director Harper last Friday did not include savings for this I started assuming them on Friday so if you have received any informal updates in the meantime it would include these savings But my assumption is that you're not any worse off from not introducing this bill since it wasn't assumed in the overview last week. So should we, if we're going to take a pause on the bill, we should probably not assume those savings, and you need some formal action for that?

So I just, I guess I want to ask about this most recent utilization data versus what they presented previously. And just to take the opportunity to say, once again, that I don't feel like the data we get is reliable over and over and over again. And we just are, you know, making major changes to the way people are receiving health care based on information that over and over again turns out to be wrong, inaccurate, not reflective of what we are told it is reflective of, and that's very frustrating. And so I don't know. Going back to earlier today, like this is a problem for this department, and it isn't really fair to us to ask us to do this incredibly difficult work and then find out, oh, well, actually, we didn't understand the law, we didn't understand the numbers, we gave you bad information. And so I don't really know exactly what this says about this particular bill, but I am very, very frustrated today about this, and I'm fine with waiting on the bill.

Okay. So it sounds like everybody wants to delay. Do you need a motion on that? Okay. Okay, wait. So I think based on the committee's discussion, we will remove those savings assumptions from any considerations we'll have in the future. Okay. Hi, Ms. Kanagaraja.

I'm sorry, what page are we on? Page 16 of the packet.

I skipped the head. I skipped this, Phil. It's short. That's short. Okay. Okay.

That passes on a vote of 6-0. This bill will start in the House and run with the long bill. House sponsors will be Brown and Taggart, and Senate Bridges and Kirchmeyer, and co-sponsors Sirota and Amabile. Mr. McLear. Thank you, Madam Chair.

THE TRANSFERS WILL REMAIN IN THAT OMNIBUS BILL. OKAY. SO NO MORE NEEDED TO BE DONE.

AND THE TRANSFERS ARE TAKEN IN THE OMNIBUS, AND THE BILL IS THE BILL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE MORE BILLS, DIRECTOR HARPER? ARE THERE? YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES. I HAVE TO GO IN TEN. I HAVE TO LEAVE IN SEVEN. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Are there any objections? That passes on a vote of 6 This bill will start in the House and run with the long bill House sponsors will be Gerota and Brown and in the Senate Kirkmeyer and Bridges. Bridges. Sure. Co-sponsors Amable and Taggart. Okay, our next bill is on page five of this packet.

Mr. Sabetsky. This is a tight title.

It's about the bill language itself that changed, not the title.

I'm sorry, could you tell us, like, what exactly changed? I think if we could pull up Mr. Lively, but yes, it's the double underline on page two.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Pierce Lively, Office of Legislative Legal Services. Senator Kirkmeyer, Chief Spetsky, and Dr. Ramey identified that potentially the previous draft of this bill could be read as an overcorrection, and rather than preventing double counting, could have been read as preventing or as leading to no counting of state revenue. to resolve any potential ambiguity. We rewrote the language to come up with something. Chief Spatsky and Dr. Ramey agree this prevents that reading. The effect is still the same as was intended with the previous draft. Hopefully no one believes there's any ambiguity out there.

I prefer the previous draft. I don't. Move to accept the changes made to LLS 0931 per Chief Sebecki's recommendations, which are just always present.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Wait, are we going to vote on who's...

Comeback 39, the CDHS member initiated reduction where we took money from their admin line, $340,000, because they wouldn't tell us what they were doing with the fund. They seem to have told us pretty thoroughly in here.

What page are we on?

Comeback number 39. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am fine with the committee approving the comeback request.

She didn't make the wreck in the first place. We did it. To clarify, the department was under utilizing, in my opinion, the cash fund that you just approved updating. That's how we came about this bill draft. They are saying that they spent down other federal funds instead of these funds. Your argument was that they were out of compliance with the footnote because you have specified that a certain amount of this cash fund be used for a certain purpose and they were not doing that. they're saying they're in compliance with the footnote because they're using a different fund source to comply with the footnote. Vice Chair Bridges Thank you Madam Chair As long as they doing what the footnote said even if they not using it out of this fund we fixing the problems and all is good even if it not the way that we had directed them to do it Is that roughly accurate? I don't know if I would say everything is good.

I think it is fine to approve the comeback request.

Why would we do that if they aren't following the footnote?

So they get to just disregard it? It sounds like, it sounds to me that they are doing what the footnote told them to do just out of a different fund. Is there a reason that we think they should be using this fund and not paying for it some other way and that their violation of that fund source is somehow, is something that we should like be very upset with them about?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this fund has gone underutilized. I think it has a cash fund balance over $3 million, which is why the committee has previously made an effort to put on a footnote to say you should be using this money for a specific purpose. And the cash fund continues to go underutilized. The cash fund is intended to support post-permanency services for vulnerable kids. That's a high need. So I don't disagree with the department that they're probably doing the best that they can to provide those types of services for kids potentially from other resources. That doesn't address the fact that this cash fund remains underutilized.

No. We added them to. These cash funds specifically have to be in addition to any resources that can be provided through adoption assistance. So they are separate.

Correct. So these funds could be used to supplant, that could be used to provide services like the services that you are removing from adoption assistance.

Ms. Pope.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IT'S LESS ABOUT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT THEY'RE USING FOR THAT PARTICULAR PIECE, BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING THEY CAN USE SOME OF THESE FUNDS TO HELP SOFTEN THE IMPACT OF OTHER CUTS THAT WE'VE MADE, I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO USE THIS $3 MILLION, AND NOW THAT WE'VE BROUGHT A LOT MORE ATTENTION TO IT, I EXPECT THAT THEY WILL. IS THERE SOME FOOTNOTE WE CAN MAKE ALONG THE LINES OF THAT? IT'S JUST, IT'S FRUSTRATING THAT THERE'S $3 MILLION THERE when we're trying to figure out every possible savings we can in this budget.

We could take more of it and move it over to case management services and child welfare.

That way it gets used. Yes, we can.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that's part of where this bill about the cash fund came from, is that the department claims that it has to be used for a very specific and narrow set of circumstances. So I do not think that we can use it generally for the child welfare block. it sort of all meant to be kept separate Yeah it just been sitting there for a very long time Even after we told them to spend it

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move staff come back 39 and OSPB, sorry, OSPB come back 39 to restore 340,000. If they do this again next year, then no. we'll keep it.

We're going to give them another year after we've given them two.

with Taggart and Kirkmeyer objecting.

Believe it or not, Madam Chair, I believe that there are comebacks that are a couple of comebacks that are available that have materialized in the last little bit. If you'd like one more packet.

I need to leave my tent after

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tom Dermody, Joint Budget Committee Staff. We are addressing one element in the slate comeback package that'd be comeback packet 19 for JBC staff. This is related to statewide operating common policies. This is for the core operations common policy which was tabled pending effectively the decision you made earlier today on the department of personnel's comeback number 29, the R1 state payroll system common policy. The core common policy is the combination of the accounting and the payroll system. You've made your decision on the payroll system. I've incorporated that into the common policy. So this is effectively implementing your decision to implement the common policy, and I just need a formal vote on that tabled item.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It looks marvelous. I move Staff Rec BA for unfunded parity liability shortfall. No. No. Oh, I mean the revised. Oh, wait, where am I? Yes. Sorry. No. Yeah, I was looking. Yes. The statewide operating common policies per Tom Dermody's March 25th memo on page five of the slate packet.

Thank you.