Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Welcome back from our recess on Friday, May 30. It's 03:43. We have two bills to take up during this block of time. The first is senate bill one twenty seven, which is our housing bill, and, we will finish on house bill three twenty one which is the miscellaneous cannabis amendments. With that, member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to take up for immediate consideration pending its entry on the notice calendar, the committee of conference report on senate bill one twenty seven which is an act relating to housing and housing development.

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to take up for immediate consideration pending pending entry on the notice calendar S one twenty seven's committee of conference report.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend rules to take up for immediate consideration pending its entry on the notice calendar Senate Bill one twenty seven. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, The ayes do have it and you have suspended rules to take up senate bill 127 for immediate consideration. Senate bill 127 is an act relating to housing and housing development. The bill was referred to a committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two chambers. The committee of conference has met and considered the same and recommends that the house adopt its report which the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 03:01 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview web page and paper copies are available at the table. Member from CALUS.

[Representative Marc Mihaly]: Madam speaker, so the house passed s one twenty seven, the omnibus housing bill last week and sent it to the senate. And the senate asked for, as you just indicated, a committee of conference. Your house conferees are the representative from Coventry, the representative from Woodstock, and myself. The conference committee met for the last three days this week in discussions I think I would characterize as not boring. The house and senate conferees reached agreement, and it is our pleasure to present the report of the conference committee. Now I will present the portion of the conference report relating to housing issues and then ask your permission, madam speaker, to yield to the representative from Woodstock to present the issues relating to CHIP, the tax increment financing device. I'll be brief on the issues which have not changed focusing only on areas where the compromise consensus report has substantially changed the text. Section one, the Vermont Housing Rental Housing Improvement Program or VHIP is unchanged. Section two, the manufactured home improvement and repair program that gives grants to mobile home parks is unchanged. The section three, the infrastructure sustainability fund run by the Vermont Bond Bank, it provides quick and ease relatively easy infrastructure financing that will benefit smaller projects, it is unchanged. The technical corrections to the rental housing revolving loan fund administered by VHFA are unchanged. The Residential Universal Design Study Committee has been omitted for now pending further clarifications of related efforts and committees. Section six, the Housing and Residential Services Planning Committee concerning housing for individuals with development disabilities remains unchanged. Section seven through nine of the bill improve the rental database. They are unchanged. Section 10 remains unchanged, still requiring a report on approaches to dilapidated or abandoned housing. Sections 11 through 14 add a citizenship and immigration status to the list of protected classes. The concept and most of the language there is unchanged, includes provisions regarding the protected classes, protection of landlords, and documents landlords must accept, the language regarding the nature of the residential rental application has been replaced with language clarifying that landlords may not require a social security number for completion of a residential rental application. Sections 15 through 17 would have limited appeals of municipal housing decisions to those who are truly able to meet the aggrieved person test. At the request of the senate conferees addressing that issue has been deferred to the land use review board review and recommendation which is due to the legislature on November 15. Section 18 is unchanged. It allows towns to approve state required bylaw amendments without hearings. Section 19 advances the due date of that land use review board study I just mentioned from January 26 to November so we can consider it for possible legislation. Sections 22 through 24 relating to brownfields are unchanged. Sections twenty five and twenty six create the new Community and Housing Infrastructure Program known as CHIP, and I'll return to those in a moment. Sections twenty seven and twenty eight, they add technical updates on smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. Section 29 provided for a VHFA study on off-site modular housing. The problem there is that the study was not funded in the conference budget which the governor just signed. The agency has recently indicated to us that it does not now at this time have the staffing to complete the study so it's omitted for now. Omitted but not forgotten. Section 30, the effective dates are the same as approved by the house except for the mention of the universal design study is omitted. So madam speaker, to provide the discussion of chips in the conference report, I would like to yield to the representative from Wood stock.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Callis yields to the member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Thank you, madam speaker. Not all roads are straight. Not all roads are smooth. But when you really wanna go somewhere, you take the road that'll get you there. And like any journey, we are glad to have arrived at our destination, and that destination is the creation of a tax increment financing program to encourage the development of new primary residents across rural and urban areas across Vermont. Through the house committee process, we added program details and guardrails to the community and housing infrastructure program, which ensured that it would meet the housing needs of the state without unduly exposing the statewide education fund. In the committee of conference, we worked with our senate counterparts to arrive at a compromise that would satisfy both parties. We started really far apart. The senate accepted the addition of the but for test, though modified to exempt housing developments that have at least 15% of the units dedicated to housing households of low and moderate income. That was a major point of contention, but we maintained our position that public dollars should be used only where necessary. The senate did not want any cap or limits on the chip program. We insisted on a cap. We agreed to a high cap that would support the creation of new housing that would substantially meet the needs of the state equal to $200,000,000. Our senate colleagues were looking to CHIP to fund the infrastructure needs of half of the needed new housing starts as determined by the January report by the Vermont Department of Housing on the regional housing targets. We recognize that the uptake of CHIP may be constrained by workforce needs, permitting, willing communities, and we will have a chance to review the progress through the annual reports from the Vermont Economic Progress Council. While we had proposed increment retention percentages from the Ed Fund of 6080%, we went back and forth and finally agreed to seventy five and eighty five, and I'll get to that in a minute. On two important areas, we agreed to adopt the underlying definition and rules that govern the statewide TIF program on both rules and rulemaking and improvements. We agreed to the senate's proposal of the definition of affordable housing, and I now will get to the specific details that is in the handout that you have on the floor and also emailed to you. It's on section 20 is where it starts, tax increment financing. It doesn't have page numbers. I apologize, madam speaker. I'm not sure which page this is, but section 20, if you will. In the definitions affordable housing, these are definitions the senate proposed and we agreed to. Remember, we had mixed income housing. So this really utilizes more commonly used descriptions of affordable housing, and we said, okay. On number 11, you'll see most everything is the same. In improvements, We really went with what is currently out of TIF state statute, and you'll see on the following page, a, the installation, construction, or reconstruction of infrastructure that will serve a public good and fulfill the purpose, stated in section 19 o seven of this subchapter. So this subchapter is regarding the creation of new primary residences for low and moderate income households in the state of Vermont across all areas. That's very important because TIF is very expansive. So we wanna make sure that those improvements are limited to support those needs. Number 14 is moderate income housing, which the senate had defined as annual income of a household at a 150% of the highest of the following, either the county median income, standard metropolitan statistical area, or the statewide median. So we agreed to their changes there. And in moderate income housing development, is defined as a housing development of which at least 25% of the units. Affordable housing is 15%. Moderate housing, we said, we need a higher increment on that. So it's 25% would qualify for that higher increment. We'll get to a minute. If we go to the next page on the purpose, 19 o seven, you'll see one word missing, and that is the purpose of the community and housing infrastructure program. Gone is the word pilot. Okay. So we agreed to that and we agreed to move on. On that sorry. On the next page, you will find under housing infrastructure agreement number four. Remember we had an a requirement on housing that is a pro bonafide domicile in perpetuity. A lot of folks had problems with the word perpetuity. So what we agreed to and what they had proposed is number four, provide that any housing unit within the housing development be offered exclusively as a primary resident until all indebtedness for the housing infrastructure project of which the housing development is part has been retired, provided that this condition shall be satisfied by biennially providing a landlord certificate or homestead declaration. So we thought that was a fair compromise. It doesn't guarantee perpetuity, but it does guarantee for at least that twenty year period that they are maintained as primary residences or affordable housing. On the following page under housing infrastructure project applications in the but four test, this is a shortened version of what we had proposed to them. Remember, we had three qualifiers underneath the but four test. This is essentially just leaving those out, but the senate asked for and we agreed to exempt under the second line other than those for which the housing development is an affordable housing development because there's such a need for those particular housing developments. That the but for is fairly obvious. We did not agree that that to their request to include in that middle income. In the project criteria down at the bottom of the page, you'll see the Vermont Economic Progress Council shall review a municipalities housing infrastructure project to determine whether. We had a couple of parts on this. One is at least 60%. We had 65%, at least 60% of the floor area of the projected housing development be dedicated to housing. And then the second or, and this is an either or, the projected housing development meaningfully addresses the purpose of section 19 o seven. Remember that's to create housing. And the affordability criterion, that is again regarding to those percentages for affordable housing units, 15%, and moderate income or middle income housing, which is 25% in order to get the higher increment. On the following page on item g halfway down in terms of approval, we had put in our bill that Vepsy had forty five days from which to approve an application from the date it was deemed to be complete. We had testimony in our conference committee from Vepsy who said that they they go on-site visits and they plan to go on-site visits for each one of these chip applications. And they needed time in order to, they are not necessarily take that much time, but they wanted to have the opportunity to take a little more time in case the volume is so high. So they asked for ninety days and we agreed to it. Remember, we had a concept in the bill before where where we had put in forty five days, where there was an approval process from Vepsy and also the chipboard, that was the biggest concern. Two parallel processes duplicate, how much time would it take? So we agreed to the ninety days from the date and application, and Vepsy assures us that they will work to expedite applications. They want to make this work too. Later down on the page, you'll see that applications are submitted on or before 12/31/2035. When the bill came to us, it was with this expiration date. We had shortened it to five years because we wanted to actually review the process to see what was going on. Vepsy asked us and our senate conferees asked us to extend that for ten years to get a full run at this program to see how long it would be rolled out, taken up, and what the performance was, and we agreed to that. The limit, and this is where the limit is $200,000,000 and that's a lot of money. But we had many discussions on what was required to meet the infrastructure needs of the anticipated housing needs. We have the ability to review this as a legislature every year in the coming years and we need to. To determine if the housing is being taken up, if the Vepsis if Chip is working. That doesn't mean we need to decrease the limit, but to see how much is really taken up. It's not infinity, but it's a large number. Then you gotta go a few pages, and it's the top. It says education property increment. I'm sorry, don't have the page number. It is nineteen ten c section, use of tax increment. And this is where we have increment of 75% for those projects that do not qualify as an affordable housing project. And then number two is 85% for those that do qualify as an affordable housing project. And then down in the bottom on item e is the adjustment of percentage. We had that Pepsi would adjust the retention percentage at the end of the fifth year. There's compelling testimony to say, we really don't know enough after the end of five years. Let's make that at the end of ten years to see how that project is performing, what the actual increment is that's being generated, what's being retained, what the repayment is. So they asked for a ten year review, and we agreed to that, and this matches exactly what is in TIFF statute currently. And on the next page, I am on section 19 d information reporting. We went back and forth on a couple of things that we had asked for about actual sales prices as opposed to the asking price, and there was also a question about grand list appreciation for the housing units. That's what the senate proposed within the district, and we heard from both tax and from Pepsi that they don't have the ability to identify housing units within a certain area as opposed to commercial versus housing. So we said, okay, we'll get rid of those things, but we still want an annual report. So we're getting that. So and then on or before January 15, item c on that same page, Vepsy will submit a report to the various committees of jurisdiction. That's at the end of the ten year period as to how things are going. Remember, we're gonna hear from them every year. At the bottom of that page, 1910 f is rulemaking. Remember, we test Vepcie with making rules around some specific things, and that was on was there regional equity? Was there a dedication to those projects for meeting the but for test? Was there also vacancy and dilapidation being addressed? Those are now pushed to guidelines to be developed by Pepsi instead of being rules that they have to adopt. And also, they can adopt the rules that exist in TIF. I said that before, but they can do that in state statute already. Now if we go on alright. So I believe that's almost all the changes of madam speaker until we get to yes. It is section 21, and the Vermont Economic Progress Council is on the second side of the page. It is item number one, but it's on membership. It's item number three. We had added three members to the VEPC board. Remember that one? The executive directors of both Vermont Housing Finance Agency and also the Vermont Housing Conservation Board to weigh in on any kind of chip applications. Those were voting members. We also added another member as a non voting member who is the director or the commissioner of the housing housing and community development within ACCD. They asked if those all be non voting members, and we agreed to that. And then the last one, section 22, is community and housing infrastructure program. We had a discussion with our senate counterparts about whether or not to include contiguous parcels, and they were really insistent on that, and we also pushed back because we know the contiguous parcels that are already developed could then add to the amount of increment being diverted from the education fund that wouldn't necessarily have to be. So we said if there's another contiguous parcel that gets developed at a later time, that's a separate project, a separate deal. So we're not going to include contiguous parcels in this. They said, how about a study? We said, okay, we'll look at that in the following year. So, madam speaker that concludes Oh, the one thing that is not in here because we removed it is we had proposed a sunset to the statewide TIF program or big TIF. We had many discussions on that until even early this afternoon, and they insisted that it be removed and we did agree to remove the sunset on the TIF program. Again, this is one of those financing programs that we can come back and visit at a later time as a legislature. Madam Speaker, we are assured that this has the support of the governor, And we feel like this is a very good compromise on Chip, and we ask for the body's support. I will yield to where are from? The member from Callis.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Woodstock yields to the member from Callis.

[Representative Marc Mihaly]: Thank you, madam speaker. We think this is a good compromise. We think it works. There are things that we let go of that we wished we hadn't let go of, madam speaker, but that always happens. And we think this is really an excellent way to get all of this started now. I really thank the members of the conference committee which approved this version of s one twenty seven by a unanimous vote. The house delegation and the senate delegation voted in support unanimously and so I ask the support of the house for the conference report. And I also ask that when the vote is taken, that it be taken by roll call.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from CALUS requests that when the vote is taken, it be taken by rolls. The member sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Are you ready for the question? Member from Georgia.

[Representative Rob North]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I interrogate the member from formerly St. Albans. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Woodstock is interrogated.

[Representative Rob North]: Madam speaker, yes, I can see that a lot of compromises were made and I honestly do appreciate the time and effort the negotiating group from both sides have put into this project. My first question, the the new cap has changed. Can you tell me, member, to what?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes. The cap, as we had proposed to the senate, was for an annual approval of aggregate projects not to exceed $40,000,000 in lifetime tax increment retention. The senate pushed for no cap, and we had many discussions about a cap versus no cap. And when we asked them for what they would propose as a cap, they came back to us after conferring with various members and calculating what the infrastructure needs were to support housing starts of approximately 3,750 new units per year of $200,000,000. So it's from 40 to 200,000,000.

[Representative Rob North]: You know, to construct that number of houses and believe me this is not my field, but that doesn't seem to me to be too outrageous. It's a lot of money but we're talking a lot of living units.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: You're absolutely right, madam speaker. It is a lot. It's ambitious. Right now, the current rate of new housing construction is about 2,500 units. Last year, there are 2,700 permitted. To have an increase of that amount is ambitious and we hope that it happens. And this tool can definitely help accelerate that construction provided all of the other things fall into place. You're absolutely right.

[Representative Rob North]: Certainly much needed. Have you I I couldn't find a fiscal report in our materials. Have have have you an estimate on how much money on an annual basis and also overall is going to come out of the Ed Fund?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Thank you for that question, madam speaker. It's it is incredibly difficult to estimate with any confidence. And so in meeting with the joint fiscal office earlier today and discussing how do you really predict, and there are so many variables as to how many get up taken up. So there's really no exact estimate as to what the fiscal impact would be. The only is in coming up with a cap is how much additional monies would be generated to go into the Ed fund versus how much would be retained. And so in looking at that spreadsheet and that estimate is a substantial amount of money. And so that the 200,000,000 is over twenty years in the first year of approvals, and that is the limit on the particular bill that we have in front of us.

[Representative Rob North]: I I don't wanna ruin your day member. I I know that you've worked really hard for the last three days and this is a difficult issue to settle. You had a a rough negotiation, so I only have two more questions. Actually, don't have any more questions. I'll leave it

[Representative Marc Mihaly]: right there.

[Representative Rob North]: I'm being nice, member.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Thank thank you, member. You're nice.

[Representative Rob North]: Thank you for your work.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Madam speaker, may I pose the two questions that the former speaker chose not to pose to the Woodstock based presenter of sections 20 through 23?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Woodstock is interrogated.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Madam speaker, I recall an earlier version of this bill, there was a list of the types of infrastructure that qualified for being paid, through the chip program. And I apologize if I missed it on reading the bill we received, thirty some minutes ago. Is there still a list, or is it simply in the definitions, infrastructure projects that will further the public good?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Thank you for the question, member. I'm trying to find that section of the bill. I do have it circled on my page. Yes. It is in section 19 o six and definitions at the bottom of that page is number 11, and it is item a. So that's improvements. It there was there's two different things here. When the bill came to us from the senate, it said these improvements including so it was a nonexhaustive list of improvements even though it listed several things that were on there. And those that list was extracted from the current TIF rules, rule number seven zero four, that you could use to pay for improvements in a TIF project, the big TIF. Those list is also not exhaustive. And so what we agreed to was to make sure the improvements were limited to the project as its purpose to increase the primary residences. So there is not an exhaustive list and there is also not a reference list. It is actually quite elegant we think in terms of saying improvements for the installation, construction, or reconstruction of infrastructure that will serve a public good and fulfill the purpose stated section 19 o seven of this chapter, and that is really extracting that first part of it from TIF itself.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Thank you. I do appreciate the elegance. One last question to fulfill let's see. That will serve a public good. Will whether something serves a public good or not be determined by Pepsi?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: That is to be determined by Pepsi if it serves a public good. I I cannot comment, madam speaker, if it is actually public good defined in statute. I I'm not familiar with that. It could be, but I just don't know.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Thank you, member. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Are you ready for the question? Member from Berkshire.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, the house conferees for listening to the concerns of this body and hearing what was important to those of us who represent more rural areas that will benefit from this CHIP program.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Bradford.

[Representative Monique Priestley]: I rise in support of the conference report. I want to recognize the conferees for their hard work and commitment to finding a path forward. I also want to acknowledge the voices from across Vermont who pushed for this bill to better reflect the needs of small towns and rural communities. After all, that is why we are here, to speak up, hold firm, and stay focused on the people we serve. There's still much more work ahead if we are serious about solving our housing shortage. We must stay focused on removing the barriers that stand in the way of building more homes. This is an exciting step forward for Vermont.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Arsenault of Williston. Yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes in conversation during a roll call And when the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Austin of Colchester. Yes. Bailey of Hyde Park. Yes. Bartholomew of Heartland.

[Representative Monique Priestley]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca Winooski. Byron of Regens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington. Yes. Oslo Westminster. Yes. Putnamary City? Yes. Boyden of Cambridge? Brady of Williston? Yes. Renegade Of Georgia? No. Brown of Richmond? Burditt, West Rutland. Yes. Berger Battleboro.

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Burkhardt of South Burlington. Yes. Burrows of West Windsor. Yes. Burditt Cabot. Campbell Saint Johnsbury. Canfield For Haven. Yes. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Yes. Casey Montpelier. Yes. Casey Hobarton. Yes. Chapin East Montpelier. Yes. Charlton Chester. Christie Hartford.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Gina at Burlington. Coffin and Cavendish. Yes. Colbert Burditt. Yes. Conlon and Cornwall.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Cooper Pownall.

[Representative Marc Mihaly]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Corcoran of Bennington? Yes. Courtesy Bristol? Yes. Critchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Petersburg? Yes. Dickinson of St. Owenstown?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Dobrovich of Williamstown? Dodge of Essex? Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction? Yes. Dolgin of St. Johnsbury? Yes. Donahue of Northfield? Duke of Burlington?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Durfee of Shaftsbury? Eastes of Guildford? Yes. And missus Springfield?

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Feltus of Linden? Galfetti of Berrytown? Yes. Garifano of Essex? Yes. Woman of Rockingham? Good now, Brattleboro. Yes. Ghostland on Northfield. Yes. Granting a Jericho. Yes. Greer Bennington. Yes. Greg Burditt Fairfield. Yes. Pango Brickshear. Purple Glover. Yes. Harrison. Yes. Harvey Castleton. Yes. Hendrick of Burlington. Yes. Higley of Lowell. Holcomb and Norwich.

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Uber Randolph. Yes. Cooper Burlington. Houghton of Essex Junction? Yes.

[Representative Rob North]: How how

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: are the Rutland City? Yes. Holland or Rutland Town? Yes. Hunter Manchester? Yes. James of Manchester?

[Representative Edye Graning]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Kasenska Burke? Rutland City. Yes. Kimball Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Klepner, Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Corcoranizer, Brattleboro. Yes. Krasnow, South Burlington. Yes. Labour Morgan. Lally Shelburn. Malone of South Burlington. Yes. Lomono Morristown. Yes. Larussia Franklin. Yes. Lipsky of Stowe. Yes. Logan of Burlington. Longanu Fain? Yes. Bruno of St. Albans City? Yes. Maguire of Rutland City?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Malay of Pittsburgh? Yes. Markot of Coventry? Maslin at Thutford. Yes. McKenna Mopilier.

[Representative Rob North]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: McCoy Boutin. Yes. McFawn of Barrytown. Yes. MacGillop Report. Yes. Nicholas of Milton. Yes. Mollie of Callis? Yes. Meniere of South Burlington? Yes. Morganella Milton? Yes. Morgan Emma Milton? Yes. Morris Springfield?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Morris Eve Ennington? Laura Weston? Yes. Rokey Putney?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Nelson of Derby? Yes. Nielsen of Brandon? Yes. Niagara Bennington?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: North Of Fairfaxburg? Yes. Liza Volkert? Yes. Nugent of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Tunbridge. O'Dee Burlington. Yes. Oliver Sheldon. Yes. Olsen of Starksboro. Page, Newport City. Yes. Parsons in Newbury. Yes. Head of Colchester. Yes. Pinson. Aldo Dorset. Yes. Patra Heinzburg.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Powers Waterford. Yes. Priestly Bradford. Yes. Bridget Burtred Pollack. Yes. Quinby of London.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Richardson of Burlington. Zachwitz of Randolph.

[Representative Bram Kleppner]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Shy Middlebury. Yes. Sheldon Middlebury? Yes. Subway of Dover?

[Representative Monique Priestley]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Southworth Of Walden? No. Squirrel Of Underhill? Yes. Steady Milton?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Steven Waterbury? Yes. Stone Of Burlington? Bernardo Barnard? Yes. Sweeney Shelburne?

[Representative Marc Mihaly]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Pegla Via Carris? Yes. Taylor Milton? Yes. Tomlinson Winooski? Yes. 256 in Elvinstown?

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Yes.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Torrey Mortown? Walker Swanton? Yes. Was this like a very city? Yes. Waters Evans in Charlotte? Wells Of Brownington? Yes. What do Weitzfield? Yes. What about the Winter of Ludlow? Yes. Wood Of Waterbury?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes with explanation.

[BetsyAnn Wrask (Clerk of the House)]: Yacavoni, Morristown? Yes. Wooden Of Cambridge? Campbell St. Johnsbury, Cina of Burlington, Donahue of Northfield, Feltus, Linden, Pigley of Lowell, O'Brien of Tunbridge, Parsons of Newbury, Waters Evans in Charlotte. White of Bethel.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: For purpose of explanation, member from Fairfax.

[Representative Rob North]: Madam speaker, without infrastructure, there can be no more housing. Today, I'm voting yes in support of our municipalities, yes for housing, and yes for Vermont.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Whitingham.

[Representative Emily Carris Duncan]: Thank you, madam speaker. S 127 gives us the chance to create the transformative housing that we need. This bill supports existing programs and establishes new ones that will create the critical infrastructure that we need all over the state. It sets us on a path for grand list growth and puts roof overheads in a timely manner.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex.

[Representative Golrang "Rey" Garofano]: Thank you, madam speaker. It would have felt pointless to make investments and ease permitting without also protecting all Vermonters' rights to fair housing. This is a historic bill that brings together the efforts and the voices of all Vermonters. The builders, the investors, the young vibrant families, and small business owners who are struggling to live in this state will all benefit. Gracias. Merci. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Jericho.

[Representative Edye Graning]: With the passage of s one twenty seven, we have added two new consequential consequential programs that will support and enable the development of significant primary housing for Vermonters.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt]: Madam speaker, among the most consequential efforts this year is s one twenty seven, a comprehensive housing bill aimed at addressing Vermont's housing crisis. I've had a front row seat to the complexity of the issue and the collaboration it has taken to bring forward a bill that meets the moment. S one twenty seven is structured around a simple but powerful goal. Getting more Vermonters into safe, stable housing, and ensuring they can stay there. Madam Speaker, S one twenty seven is an investment in Vermont's future. It strengthens our communities and provides lasting solutions to our housing crisis.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Shelburne.

[Representative Kate Lalley]: Madam speaker, converting outmoded properties in our communities will incentivize building new income and age diverse housing. It will help Vermont build starter homes for young families, affordable homes for working Vermonters, and age friendly housing for older Vermonters. It will attract investment and create new grand list value in our state.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Pulteney.

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Madam speaker, we can accomplish good things when we are willing to listen and compromise. Many thanks to the conferees for getting to yes. A job well done for all Vermonters.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Waterbury.

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: Madam speaker, I voted yes. But let's be clear. This bill will do too little to improve the housing status of people who are homeless or a very low income.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Georgia.

[Representative Rob North]: Madam speaker, somewhere, some group of taxpayers will have to pay this money, which comes right out of the ad fund. Estimates that I've just, done here at my desk show at least 5¢ on the tax rate to do so. That's already 50¢ increase in the school tax rate before we even review the program.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please listen. Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Laura Sibilia]: Madam speaker, I vote yes for this important tool. Yes. To build more housing, to grow the grand list, to grow our population, and to grow the education fund. We do need to add more tools next year that are designed for rural Vermont. I thank the conferees for their work.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 137. Those voting no, two. The ayes have it, and you have adopted the report of the committee of conference. With that, member from Pulte Knee, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to message our action on senate bill one twenty seven to the senate forthwith?

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to message our actions on s one twenty seven to the senate forthwith.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pulte moves that we suspend our rules on rules suspend our rules to message our action on senate bill one twenty seven to the senate forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have suspended rules to message our action on senate bill one twenty seven to the senate forthwith. Next is house bill three twenty one which is an act relating to miscellaneous cannabis amendments. Members earlier today the house concurred in the senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment thereto on house bill three twenty one. And we will now consider a motion to suspend rules to to immediately reconsider that vote member from Virgin's.

[Representative Matthew Birong]: Thank you, madam speaker. Assuring the chair that I voted on the prevailing side of the motion to concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment there too. On House Bill three twenty one, which is an act relating to miscellaneous cannabis amendments. I move to suspend rules to permit immediate reconsideration of that motion.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Virgin's moves that we suspend our rules to immediately reconsider our vote to concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment thereto on house bill three twenty one. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have suspended rules to immediately reconsider our vote on House Bill three twenty one. House Bill three twenty one is an act relating to miscellaneous cannabis amendments. The bill passed the senate with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar and the member from Virgin's has offered the further amendment there too that is printed in today's calendar. And now the member from Chittenden, representative Harrison offers an amendment to the proposal of amendment offered by the member from Virgin's. The first assistant clerk emailed this amendment to members at 03:16 today. It also appears on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Chittenden.

[Representative Jim Harrison]: Thank you, madam speaker, and thank you for the consideration, from the member from for this further amendment. Essentially, this amendment does is it takes the amendment that the member from Virgins offered earlier today and further amends it in a fifth instance by deleting section 15A and B in the Senate proposal of amendment. 15A and B is the section that we had a little conversation about earlier today. The Senate had added a cannabis showcase event permit pilot, and I had raised some questions in terms of the potential guardrails and options of how many retailers, how many licensees, etcetera, and thought it might be best to remove that provision that the Senate put in for now If the Cannabis Control Board wanted to come back and make a recommendation next year with more guardrails onto what that might look like, we could certainly consider it at that time. So again, the amendment's very simple. I appreciate the chair of House Cub ops for working with me on this, and I ask for your support. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Virgins.

[Representative Matthew Birong]: Thank you, madam speaker. The committee heard the amendment and deliberated briefly over it and did come to a straw poll vote of seven zero four to vote favorably to the member from Clarendon's amendment. We ask for the body support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the proposal of amendment offered by the member from Virgin's be amended as offered by the member from Chittenden? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay.

[Representative Charles Kimbell]: Aye.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the proposal of amendment offered by the member from Virgin's. Now the question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment thereto as offered by the member from virgins as amended. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment thereto. Member from Pultely, can you please offer us a motion to suspend our rules to message our action on house bill three twenty one to the senate forthwith?

[Representative Patricia McCoy]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to message our actions on s three twenty one to the senate forthwith.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have suspended rules to message our action on house bill three twenty one to the senate forthwith. Members at this time, we will take a recess for about an hour, to see if there's any business to take up at 05:30. At 05:30, we'll come back. If there is no work, we will let members know, and we will have a dinner break for about two hours. So with that, the house will stand in recess until the fall of the gavel at 05:30.