Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. Good afternoon. The devotional today will be led by representative Ashley Bartley of Fairfax. Good

[Representative Ashley Bartley (Fairfax)]: afternoon. Good afternoon. You won't often hear me quote a Red Sox player, but when I do, it's because the words capture the essence, the romanticism of baseball, America's game. Because at its best, baseball does more than fill a ballpark. It brings people together. It gives us the kind of human connection we're all searching for. A president standing on the pitcher's mound after a national tragedy, throwing a perfect strike, and reminding a shaken nation that we will be okay. A little league coach calling time not for strategy, but to bring food and water to a pitcher observing Ramadan as the sun dips below the horizon, letting them know that they are seen, they are safe. A fantasy league made up of all different members from all different backgrounds who come together each year to celebrate the game. Shout out to you, Erin Boone fan club. The championship is mine this year. What we see on the baseball diamond is yes, anything but a game. It's life. A duel between batter and pitcher, strategy against strategy, fans coming together for the sport and not just their team. Passion on every side, rival rivalries are born, but enemies never made. At the end of the day, it's just baseball. And yet, it's life that gives game the game its meaning. It's a game. It's a sport. It's passion and its tradition. And maybe that's the point. Baseball reflects us, our patience, our failure, our perseverance. As Ted Williams, a 1960 Red Sox retiree, once said, baseball is the only field of endeavor where a man can succeed three out of 10 times and be considered a good performer. Williams, one of the greatest to ever play the game, understood something deeper about success. It's not about perfection. It's about showing up again and again. Think about that. One of the greatest baseball players in history defined greatness not by perfection but by persistence, and he wasn't alone. Whether you love baseball or not, everyone knows the name Jackie Robinson. His number 42 is retired across all Major League Baseball teams. A rare honor that speaks not just to talent, but to courage and perseverance. Robinson fill finished his career with a point three eleven batting average. For those of you who are less familiar with the game, that means he succeeded just over three out of every 10 times he stepped up to the plate, and that's considered great. It's considered elite. Hall of fame worthy even. Not because he was perfect but because he kept showing up just like we do here. And that brings me to this chamber. The work we do here is like stepping up to the plate. We don't get it right every time. We won't pass every bill, win every debate, or solve every problem we try on the we try and fix on the first try. But we are still expected to step up to take the swing. Because it's policy making and in life, success isn't about perfection. It's about perseverance. If we demand perfection in baseball, no one would make it to the hall of fame. And maybe that's something worth remembering. Tonight, the season begins. It's opening day. The first pitch of a new season, a fresh start and a reminder that no matter what happened last season, last game, last inning, you step up, you swing, you give it your best. So please, let's all do the same. Step up to the plate, take the swing, and leave it on the field. Go Yankees.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Alright members we have one senate bill for referral this afternoon, senate bill three twenty six. It's an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles. Introduced by the senate committee on transportation. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: S three twenty six, an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now the bill has been read the first time and is referred to the committee on transportation. We now have a joint senate resolution to take up at this time. JRS46 is joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 03/27/2026. It was offered by Senator Bartholomew and was read and adopted on the part of the Senate. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: GRS 46. Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 03/27/2026, they'd be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 03/31/2026.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution and the question is shall the house adopt the resolution in concurrence? 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 the resolution is adopted in concurrence. Members we've received request to read two house concurrent resolutions that the house and senate adopted pursuant to the consent calendar. The first is HCR twenty twenty one which is an act which is a house concurrent resolution recognizing 03/25/2026 as National Medal of Honor Day in Vermont. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[Assistant Clerk (Resolutions Reader)]: Whereas in 1861, president Abraham Lincoln signed public resolution 82, the original medal of honor legislation. And whereas the first recipients of the medal of honor were soldiers known collectively as Andrews Raiders, who led a daunting mission to cross confederate lines to steal a train, popularly known as the great locomotive chase, and six of these soldiers were honored on 03/25/1863. And whereas 64 medals of honor have been issued to recipients identified as Vermonters having been either born or enlisted in the state, including the civil war, the nineteenth century American Indian wars, the Philippines campaign, interim periods, and World War two. And whereas an unique recipient was William Willie Johnson, an 11 year old resident of the Northeast Kingdom community of Salem, now Derby, who begging to accompany his father to his 1861 military enlistment was accepted as a drummer in the third Vermont Volunteer Infantry Regiment d company. And whereas on 09/16/1863 when Willie Johnson was only 13 years of age, US secretary of war Edwin Stanton bestowed him on him this great honor in recognition of his valor and perseverance during the eighteen sixty two Peninsula Campaign as the sole drummer in his division to retain his instrument through the harrowing ordeal of a forced march from Richmond after Union's troops failure to secure the Confederate capital. And as of 2026, he remains the youngest medal of honor recipient. And whereas of the eight submariner recipients, two are credited to Vermont. The first was torpedo man Henry Row nineteen twenty three in the Panama Canal Zone, the only listed in first submariner to be so honored. The second honoree was commander Lawson Patterson Red Ramage in recognition for World War two bravery. And whereas in accordance with publication l number one zero one to five sixty four, March 25 was the the date the first medals were issued in 1863 has been observed as National Medal of Honor Day. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate the senate and the house of representatives that the general assembly recognizes 03/25/2026 as National Medal of Honor Day in Vermont. And be it further resolved that the secretary state is directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Green Mountain Submarine Veterans and to and mister Robert Burke, director of the Vermont offer office of Veterans Affairs and president of the Vermont National Guard Library and Museum.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Next is h c r two twenty two which is in is a house concurrent resolution honoring the Vermont nonprofit sector and the pivotal leadership and support it receives from Common Good Vermont. Please listen to the reading of the resolution.

[Assistant Clerk (Resolutions Reader)]: Whereas nonprofit organizations build and sustain healthy and vibrant communities and make Vermont a better place to live, work, and play. And whereas Vermonters enhance the well-being of their communities through contributions of volunteer time and financial resources to nonprofit organizations. And whereas day after day, the nonprofit sector expands opportunities for millions of individuals throughout The United States. And whereas nonprofits provide beneficial and essential services in support of arts, education, environmental protection, and food access, assist the homeless, and offer housing, legal services, library facilities, mental health care, youth services, and other community and social services. And whereas according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nonprofits employ one in five Vermont workers and pay over $3,000,000,000 annually in wages. And whereas nonprofits are a major economic driver for the state, generating more than $10,000,000,000 in annual revenue. And whereas nonprofits are accountable through both board governance and governmental oversight, and they serve Vermonters on behalf of the government to deliver programs and services communities value and rely on. And whereas Common Good Vermont is the association that is dedicated to united uniting, strengthening, and advocating for Vermont's nonprofit sector. And whereas this critical organization contributes to the success and effectiveness of Vermont's nonprofits through its delivery of online resources, education and training programs, and informative meetings, and by providing opportunities for connection and advocacy of activities. Whereas today, 03/25/2026, under the auspices of the Common Good Vermont, nonprofit organizations are in the state house to educate legislators concerning the activities of the nonprofit sector. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the senate and house of representatives that the general assembly honors the Vermont nonprofit sector and the pivotal leadership and support it receives from Common Good Vermont. Be it further resolved that the secretary of state be directed to send a copy of this resolution to Common Good Vermont.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, I am sad to announce that we have received a letter of resignation from the member from Milton, representative Taylor. Will the clerk please read the letter?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Dear speaker, Crowinski, please accept this letter as formal notice of my resignation from my seat in the Vermont House of Representatives representing the Milton And Georgia District effective at the end of the day on Friday, 03/27/2026. Serving the people of Milton in Georgia and Montpelier has been a tremendous honor. I'm grateful for the trust residents have placed in me and for the opportunity to work on issues that matter to our communities and our state. During my time in office, I've had the privilege of serving both at the state level and locally in the town of Milton. As Milton continues to move forward with a number of important projects and long term initiatives, I believe the right decision is to focus my full attention on the work happening at the local level. I am proud of the work accomplished during my time in Montpelier and thankful for the opportunity to serve alongside many dedicated colleagues. I wish you all in the ever I I wish you all well in the ever challenging work ahead. Respectfully, representative Chris Taylor, Chittenden Franklin District.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, we thank you for your service. We're deeply gonna miss you, and we wish you all the best. Are there any announcements? Member from Milton.

[Representative Leland Morgan (Milton)]: Madam speaker, greater love has no one than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. These are words from the book of John fifteen thirteen. They were words spoken by Jesus to his disciples to prepare them for his crucifixion, highlighting his willingness to die for humanity. Madam speaker, we just heard the resolution recognizing March 25 as Medal of Honor Day. All recipients of the Medal of Honor understood sacrificing themselves to save others and putting themselves in grave danger doing so. As a result, sadly, many of them received our nation's highest military honor posthumously. Many of us have seen a prime example of this in the movie Lone Survivor. The team leader of that SEAL team, lieutenant Michael Murphy, positioned himself on a rock outcropping in the clear and was killed while making a radio call to save the last remaining member of his team. That is the epitome of selfless service. Lieutenant Lieutenant Murphy's family received his posthumous medal of honor. Three years ago this month, we acknowledged the hundredth anniversary of Henry Breaux of Grand Isle receiving a medal of honor presented to him by our own Calvin Coolidge, president Coolidge. Breaux is the first and only enlisted submariner to receive the medal of honor. We also are bestowed the honor of having Willie Johnston of Vermonter who during the civil war was the youngest person to ever receive the medal of honor. When one realizes that over 40,000,000 men and women have served in the military and just over 3,500 individuals have ever been honored with a medal of honor, the standards in the bar are high. And again, many have given their lives to save their fellow soldier, airman, or sailor. In the gallery today, we have retired chief warrant officer Bill Mattoon, who's the current commander of the Vermont submarine veterans, and Bruce Campbell whose great great grandfather was a medal of honor recipient. They are here today to pay tribute to the 64 medal of honor individuals credited to the state of Vermont. Madam speaker, would you please give a hearty welcome to our guests that are here today recognize this solemn but important day. They are seated over here to my left in the gallery.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest of the member from Milton please rise and be recognized? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, Vermont is fortunate to be home to an extraordinary nonprofit community. These organizations enrich our lives through the arts, protect our environment, care for our most vulnerable neighbors, and ensure people are fed, housed, supported, educated, and connected. Every one of us has benefited from their work. Vermont simply wouldn't be the place we know and love without them. Nonprofits are also a powerful economic force. They generate more than $10,000,000,000 each year, employ one in five Vermont workers, and paid over 3,000,000,000 in wages in 2022. They leverage private funding, volunteerism, and public investment to deliver efficient, responsive services that strengthen every corner of our state. As Vermont faces financial challenges, we must stand with our nonprofits and help sustain the essential work they do to support our communities and grow our economy. When I asked members to sign on to this resolution honoring Vermont's nonprofit sector and the support Common Good Vermont provides, many members shared that they have worked for a nonprofit or served on a nonprofit board. We also have a lot of nonprofit board presidents in this body. That speaks volumes about who we are as Vermonters. Today, I want to recognize Vermont's nonprofit sector and Common Good Vermont for the extraordinary role they play in building strong, vibrant communities. Common Good Vermont serves as a vital backbone for the sector, offering the tools, training, and connections that help nonprofits thrive. From supporting small community based nonprofits to advancing best practices in governance, equity, and impact, their work ensures that those on the front lines of service can focus on what matters most, serving Vermonters. On this nonprofit day, we celebrate not only the missions of individual organizations, but also the infrastructure that makes the success possible. Common Good Vermont has been a quiet force multiplier, amplifying impact, fostering collaboration, and helping build a stronger, more resilient Vermont. Madam speaker, I ask the house to join me in recognizing Vermont's nonprofit sector and Common Good Vermont for its leadership, its partnership, and its enduring commitment to the common good. Today, we have with us some of the many dedicated and hardworking staff and volunteers that make Vermont's nonprofit successful, with many more back home keeping their organizations running. I ask the body to give those that are here a warm welcome.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guests of the member from Burlington please rise and be recognized? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, for over thirty years, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility has been harnessing the power of the business community community to advance a just, thriving, and sustainable economy for all people and the planet. They've advocated for many initiatives over these decades, including the farm to plate initiative, mar marriage equality, ban the box, earn paid sick leave, childcare initiatives, housing for all, and many more. Today, I'm privileged to welcome VBSR members, business leaders from across the state and across sectors, and also to remind you that if you happen to stretch your legs between four and six today, they will be hosting reception in the Cedar Creek Room.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guests of the member from Burlington please rise and be recognized? Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: In addition to all the nonprofits in the building today, we also have some adult education students with us. Many from Burlington and others from around the state. Adult education and literacy provide providers offer a broad range of services across Vermont that truly change people's lives. They help new Americans learn English and enter the workforce. They help young adults obtain their high school diplomas at a pace that works for them. They help older Vermonters learn the skills they need to navigate the world today. Adult education students are often the most vulnerable and underserved of our communities. The adult education learning centers are the first stop for any Vermonter who is looking to build their skills and move up in their education. I've seen firsthand how the needs and goals of each unique student is centered at adult education learning centers because I was also an adult education student at Vermont adult learning in Burlington. Please join me in welcoming our adult basic ed service providers, staff, and students to the people's house.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the guest of the member from South Burlington please rise and be recognized. Are there any further announcements? Member from Waterbury.

[Representative Ashley Bartley (Fairfax)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I hope that you join me and the other members shall as well to wish the member from Milton a happy birthday today.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Happy birthday member. Member from Heartland.

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Madam speaker, there are only a few more Farmers Night performances in this season. The next one is tonight, 07:30. It will be a performance of traditional Mexican music presented by Mariachi Alpazar de Vermont. And please excuse my pronunciation of Spanish. And hopefully, we will be finished debating the bill debating bills in time to hold here. Otherwise, it'll be in the cafeteria.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Cambridge.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Due to the length of today's floor session, the rural caucus listening session has been rescheduled to next Wednesday, April 1 from 05:30 to 7PM in Room 10 and on Zoom.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Brattleboro?

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Tomorrow, the climate caucus will meet at noon in Room 10, and we will be hearing about the state resilience implementation strategy from former representative, former transportation secretary, and former Irene recovery officer Sue Minter. So it should be a very interesting conversation. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Williston.

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: Similar to the rural caucus, due to the extended floor session today, the women's caucus will reschedule our screening of gone guys, and I'll let you know when it's rescheduled for. Thanks.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Milton.

[Representative Leland Morgan (Milton)]: Madam speaker, thank you for indulging me again. I was gonna do what, chair Wood did, so that's already taken care of, but thank you. But I just wanted to follow on a little bit the member who put in their resignation today to say that we will dear I think when I speak on behalf of a lot of us, we will dearly miss him. I think he's a voice of reason. I think both or all sides of all pieces of our aisles here respect him greatly. I call him for regular counsel on weekends a lot, and I can hear his wife in the background. Is that your BFF, Colin? And because he's a dear friend. But I'll miss looking left and seeing my BFF here in the house. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, orders of the day. Members, I have an update on bill order for you. We are going to start with House Bill nine thirty one which is, an act relating to miscellaneous changes in education law. We will then continue down in the order starting with house bill two eleven and down. I do anticipate though that there will be more shuffling of the calendar so I will keep you updated as we go. So again we're going to start with house bill nine thirty one and then we will go down the current order in action calendar. So with that, next is house bill nine thirty one which is an act relating to miscellaneous changes in education law. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page nine thirty one. An act relating to miscellaneous changes in education law.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? 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 passed the bill. Now we'll take up house bill two eleven which is an act relating to data brokers and personal information. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H two eleven, an act relating to data brokers and personal information.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from Bradford.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Madam speaker, I would like to correct a response that I gave yesterday. A lobbyist did provide red lines regarding the driver privacy protection act in early February in response to a request for further information. What was sent, at that time was taken into consideration while crafting exemption language. Additionally, yesterday, Cal privacy released stats that my chair felt would be helpful for the body to be aware of. Of the 567 registered data brokers in the California registry, a 110 data brokers sell precise geolocation, 52 data brokers sell personal information to the federal government, 33 data brokers sell our personal information to foreign actors, 33 data brokers sell our personal information to generative AI developers. All of these categories are ones that this proposal would add to our own data broker registry.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill. Next is House Bill five seventy seven which is an act relating to establishing the Vermont Prescription Drug Discount Card Program. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page five seventy seven. An act relating to establishing the Vermont prescription drug discount card program.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members may remember that I rose yesterday on this bill to reference an earlier bill that had been passed on the same topic of drug discounts and suggested that the healthcare committee might have dug a little deeper and identified that bill for repeal since it had failed to be successful. And in particular to repeal the annual reporting requirement. Madam speaker, I learned afterwards that, to my embarrassment, that in this year's house miscellaneous bill, they repealed that report. And that in fact they did look at that old statute and legislative council informed them that there is new active interest by some other states in picking that up. So, we should keep it on the books. So I stand corrected.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Member from Essex.

[Representative Golrang 'Rey' Garofano (Essex)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Very, very brief in the alleyway, I guess you would call it here, and I think there was a misinterpretation. We did repeal a report that has to do with prescription drugs in a diva housekeeping bill that we did earlier, but it is different than the report that the member from Northfield was referencing yesterday. Although I did check-in with legislative council, and we do get a list on our reports that it just is simply never implemented. However, the state of Florida is interested in possibly bringing this back up. So therefore, we're gonna keep it on the books for a little bit in case another state wants to do that. But there is no report that's being generated because it was never implemented. So, thank you and thank you for allowing me to correct that brief conversation that we had.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? 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 passed the bill. Next is house bill seven eighteen which is an act relating to building energy building energy efficiency. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H seven eighteen, an act relating to building energy efficiency.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Member from Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Wanted to correct some test or some what I presented yesterday regarding the straw poll vote in our committee on the appropriations amendment. I had said it was six three. That was an error. It was actually six two one.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Now we'll turn to House Bill seven forty which is an act relating to the greenhouse gas inventory and registry. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H seven forty, an act relating to the greenhouse gas inventory and registry.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Member from Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam speaker, I would like to correct the record. In yesterday's report, I had reported that our committee had, taken a straw poll on the house appropriations amendment and found it favorable six three zero and in fact it was six two one.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill. Next is house bill seven seventy eight, which is an act relating to dam safety. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page seven seventy eight, an act relating to dam safety.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill pass? 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 passed the bill. Next is House Bill eight sixty one which is an act relating to an Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H eight sixty one, an act relating to establishing an Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? 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 passed the bill. Next is house bill nine fifteen which is an act relating to establishing an extended producer responsibility program for beverage containers. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page nine fifteen, an act relating to establishing an extended producer responsibility program for beverage containers.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill pass? 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 passed the bill. Next is House Bill nine thirty seven which is an act relating to miscellaneous judiciary procedures, member from Burlington.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, we request that, we postpone action on this bill for two legislative days.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Burlington moves that we postpone action on house bill nine thirty seven for two legislative days. 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 postponed action on House Bill nine thirty seven until Friday. Now we'll turn to House Bill 67 which is an act relating to legislative operations and government accountability. The bill was recommitted to the committee on government operations and military affairs which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Charlotte, representative Waters Evans will speak for the committee. Carrying an appropriation, bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Waterbury, representative Stevens, will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page 67. An act relating to legislative operations and government accountability.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Charlotte.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: I'm excited about this one. Madam speaker, government accountability is a phrase that people use all the time, and it can mean many different things. Age 67 is a strike all amendment from your government operations and military affairs committee that establishes a pilot government accountability project. So, it takes practice to hold oneself accountable. As a legislative body, we're often in the mode of being problem solvers. We identify the problem, we come up with a good solution, we convince everyone else that it's a good idea, and then we make it into a law. It is that easy all the time. But once we get to that point, we often move on to the next thing. Sure, there are check backs and check ins and reports and reports repeals and studies and all of those tried into legislative tools. But it's important to make sure that once we do that, we take a really good look at what's important. Age 67 will get us there incrementally, thoughtfully, and with purpose In the legislative process, a look back is important. Circumstances change, more information becomes available, our priorities change, technology advances, our ideologies can shift. So some things that once seemed 100% on the money end up actually using our money in a way that's not how we intended. Maybe the results aren't there, or maybe things aren't working the way that we thought they would. So we all know this. I know that we know this already. We've been grappling with it. But we're spending not only our tax money, but we're spending everyone else's tax money. And Vermonters are worried, they're stretched thin, and they're wondering, are we getting what we paid for? So age 67 is about a government accountability. It's a new look for the important work we've done over the previous years with government accountability. And some of the concepts are similar, but it's not the same. I want to just check-in on what the bill doesn't do. It does not create a whole new committee. There's no new government accountability committee. It doesn't set up a system that would enable politically motivated analysis or investigation. That would not be useful. It doesn't duplicate work that's already useful and diligent that's done by other departments and offices, you know, in state government. What it does do, this bill, is something we should always be aspiring to, which is set ourselves up for success, not only as a legislature, but the rest of state government with these programs that we are asking people to do when creating legislation. So we want to encourage people to be transparent and hold ourselves accountable because this is the legislature checking in on the legislature. We want to do the good work. We want to spend taxpayer money in efficient, effective, and responsible ways. So the bill is on page fourteen eighty seven of today's calendar, if you want to follow along. So the first section, section one, these are some good words that appear in section one. Are you ready? Simple, clear, independent, objective, fact based, consistent, and transparent. It's like music. These are the words that describe our intentions for the process processes and accountability practice that we're establishing in the rest of the bill. Moving on to section two. This section establishes the exciting outcome of years of work, the pilot government accountability project. This project is assigned to the joint fiscal committee and charges them with the following goals, to examine governmental practices, to make recommendations on improving those practices, and to develop effective tools for evaluating government accountability. This section also lays out how issues will be selected for analysis, which during this multi year process of coming up with how we would what members would be on this committee, how people would choose projects to work on. It was really important that it was objective and that nobody felt like they were being targeted or it was a witch hunt or some kind of way to resolve some grudge from one hundred and fifty years ago. It's just objective and really setting out to solve, you know, this problem that we'd have identified, which is there's a gap in our ability to assess ourselves for accountability. So the solution is the chief fiscal officer of the joint fiscal office will select a project to work on. After consulting with the Speaker of the House, the Senate President Pro Tem, leaders of the major political parties in the House and the Senate. So really getting a whole collective of people who have opinions about a good project that they could work on to look into and see if it's doing what we thought it would do. So the first recommendation from the joint the chief fiscal officer of the joint fiscal office will take place before 08/01/2026. This section also sets out exactly what the committee is empowered to do, the Joint Fiscal Committee, in the context of government accountability. So, they'll be directed to examine, investigate, and analyze issues that it's selected in regards to this bigger issue. It will review performance, program performance, and examine state programs and initiatives. It's gonna ask the question, are they advancing the policy goals that we set forth in statute? In other words, are they accomplishing what we wanted? They'll do this by considering outcome data, progress as the program or initiative is implemented, and any operational challenges that might be occurring. They'll also do this by reviewing any research that's available,

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: so

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: we want this to be fact based data driven, as well as independent evaluations, audits, performance measures, and any other information that comes out of other departments in state government that might be working on these things right now. You know, they'll do this by reviewing any research that's available as well as any independent evaluations. And the goal is to use as much reliable data as possible. Because this isn't a gotcha situation or an opportunity to try to spike any particular program, the committee is directed to highlight positive outcomes as well and see how a program got there. It's not just looking for faults and problems. It's identifying where we've had successes as well because that information is really useful too for other programs and initiatives. Also, they're going to identify barriers that might be preventing people from effectiveness and point out any opportunities to improve. They'll also provide the general assembly with recommendations to line up appropriations, intentions, and results so that they're all moving in the same direction. So, as I mentioned earlier, the committee is going to coordinate with other people who contribute to this area of government accountability and transparency because it does kind of exist in a bunch of different places. So they're going to coordinate with the legislative committees of jurisdiction. So if they're looking into a program that comes from a certain committee, that committee would certainly be involved or those committees would certainly be involved. In the accountability measures, the state auditor, the chief performance officer in those offices, and any others who might have insider information. We don't want to double up on time and effort. We don't want to duplicate work that somebody else has done. It's really important that it's streamlined and that everyone's moving in the same direction because, you know, the last thing we want to do in a bill that is attempting to not waste time and money is to waste time and money. So as part of their work, the committee is also given the direction to monitor follow-up actions, including how and when program and outcomes are communicated. They'll also check-in and make sure that when programs and initiatives communicate their outcomes, that they're doing it in a way that's clear, timely, useful, and supportive of the goals that we've set forth here of transparency, public understanding, and quality fact based informed decision making. Doesn't this sound fun? If the committee has recommendations for outcome assessment tools or methods that support the government accountability goals, then they can consider them. The final piece of this section is a report. It's due on or before December 15 year, and then another one is due in November 2027. We do want to walk the walk here, so we're gonna be checking in on ourselves at those points in time and to see how this program's doing. Moving on to section three, this gives the Joint Fullest Fiscal Office the opportunity to hire someone to do this work. I believe there's an amendment coming that will a little, that will address this situation, but it appropriates 150,000 in fiscal year 'twenty seven. And since it's a two year pilot and we're all about transparency, please note, it's also going to require the same for fiscal year 'twenty eight. And section four, the act takes effect on passage. So we heard from a lot of people, and that piece of paper

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: is Here it is.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: All right. We heard from a former representative who was on the summer government accountability committee. We heard from a current senator who's the co chair of the summer GAC. We heard from the program principal for the center of legislative strengthening from the national conference of state legislatures. We heard from the director of the New Mexico legislative finance committee. We heard from legislative council from the office of legislative council. We heard from the chief fiscal officer from the joint fiscal office. We heard from the chair of the joint fiscal committee. We heard from the chief performance officer at the agency administration and the director of performance improvement at the agency administration. We heard from the deputy state auditor in the state auditor's office. The executive director in the office of racial equity, we heard from the research and data director at building bright futures, and we heard from the three bill sponsors. Your house government operations and military affairs committee found this strike call amendment favorable with a vote of eleven zero zero, and we respectfully ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Waterbury.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the member from Charlotte and the joint fiscal office committee members who testified including the head of the joint fiscal office on this bill to let us know. This is the appropriations committee was glad to hear that we're going to focus a committee on an accountability project. It's something that I think we've all been asking for or hoping that we'd be able to find the time to do in our limited schedules and very happy that this bill came forward with the joint fiscal office in charge. The appropriations committee is offering an amendment in the by striking out section three legislative joint fiscal office consultant appropriation in its entirety And inserting in lieu thereof a new section three to read as follows. And section three will be the legislative joint fiscal office consultant. And the committee personnel will be the legislative joint fiscal office made to conduct research and analysis to provide other support as necessary for the pilot government accountability project either one, a contract to contract with a consultant for a two year term or to create a new exempt limited service position for a two year term. And in section b, the appropriation, there is appropriated to the legislative joint fiscal office from the general fund in fiscal year twenty seven. The sum of 300,000 to be used for the pilot account government accountability project personnel over two year period. As the member from Charlotte explained, the one year cost was going to be $150,000 and the appropriations committee felt that fully funding this position for the two years was appropriate, and, the committee vote on that was eleven zero zero. And we're we're happy to support the goals of this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the report shall the report of and now speaking for the committee on general nope. Member from Charlotte.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: That's me. House committee on government operations and military affairs is quite grateful to the appropriations committee for taking the time to consider this. And on a vote of a straw poll of eleven zero zero, we found their amendment favorable and we ask you all to do the same.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations, member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I have a question on section two. Is that where we are? I think it's not, but just double checking.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member, and I'm keeping up here, would be in the gov ops report which would be the next question.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is shall the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have amended the report of the committee on government operations and military affairs. Now the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended? Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I'm just seeing this language and apologize for not having brought this to the committee's attention before. In section two, b, when we are talking about selection of project issues before the committee, my ears perked up when I heard the composition of the committee, chief fiscal officer, in consultation with the speaker and the pro tem, and the leaders of the major political parties in both the house and the senate, to select the issues for the committee's consideration. So, madam speaker, did the committee consider how, unaffiliated and third party elected members would be represented on that committee? And if so, can we hear that explanation?

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Speaker, the committee that's going to be the actual committee is the joint fiscal committee. The selection of the issues is going to be left to the chief fiscal officer in the joint fiscal office, and that person will be consulting with committees and political parties and the leadership of both chambers. And I believe the assumption was that that would include everybody's opinion in the body. Just because because having, you know, a voice and it's mean, I guess there are lot of assumptions here, but the assumption is that, you know, that the speaker and the president pro tem would consult with their chairs, who would consult with their committees, and that there are people of all different, political affiliations or non affiliations on those committees.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I don't wanna be argumentative, but my question was if the committee considered how unaffiliated members and third party members would be considered in those discussions. And no is an okay answer. I just would like to think about that before third reading if that is the answer.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: What do you mean by considered?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Was there any discussion in the committee when talking about how these projects would be selected about how unaffiliated and third party members voices would be included?

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: I madam speaker, I do not remember.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations and military affairs as amended? 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 amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And third reading is ordered. Members, I believe that the house ways and means are wrapping up or so we are gonna give them a little space, because all all of the next bills include members from that committee. So we are going to skip ahead and we'll come back to those. So the next bill that we will take up is House Bill seven seventy two and then we will check-in to see if we can go back to the order depending on how committees are doing. So with that up next is House Bill seven seventy two which is an act relating to residential rental agreements, eviction procedures and the creation of the positive rental payment credit reporting pilot program. The bill was referred to the committee on general and housing which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from South Burlington, representative Krasno will speak for the committee and then carrying an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the report of the committee on general and housing be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Burlington, representative Bluemle will speak for that committee. Please listen to the third second reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H seven seven two, an act relating to residential rental agreements, eviction procedures, and the creation of the positive rental payment credit reporting pilot program.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I rise today to present house bill seven seven two, an act relating to residential rental agreements, the rules that govern the places many people call home. At its core, this bill is about something simple and fundamental. Stability, dignity, and fairness. The ability for a tenant to know when they will lose their home without reason and for a landlord to know they can responsibly manage and protect their property. For years, this body has wrestled with questions. We have heard the same stories again and again. Tenants facing sudden displacement with little time and few resources. Landlords navigating long costly processes that make it difficult to address nonpayment or dangerous behavior. And across all perspectives, one truth has remained constant. The status quo is not working. This bill is the result of a sustained effort to move beyond that impasse. Your general and housing committee listened carefully to a wide range of voices, tenant advocates, landlords from both the nonprofit and private sectors, legal experts, members of the judiciary, people with lived experience on both sides of the rental relationship. These were not easy conversations, but they were necessary ones. What emerged is a bill grounded in balance, not perfect agreement, but meaningful progress. House Bill seven seven two seeks to do four things. First, it improves on a system that all parties agree is falling short. Second, it strengthens protections and resources for responsible tenants. People who pay their rent, follow rules, and simply want a fair chance to remain in their homes. Third, it provides clearer and more effective tools to address the small small number of situations where behavior becomes dangerous or deeply disruptive to others. This is an important protection for tenants threatened by those around them. And fourth, it offers landlords a more workable path through an eviction process that has become too long and too complex, discouraging investment availability and stability in our housing stock. Madam speaker, this bill reflects those goals in concrete ways. It ensures that tenants receive meaningful notice before losing housing, including ninety days in many circumstances. It returns a portion of a tenant security deposit before they move out, giving them the resources they need to secure their next home, more time and cash in hand. It establishes for the first time that serious and unresolved health and safety violations can serve as a defense in an eviction for nonpayment of rent. That is a statement of basic fairness. A home must meet fundamental standards if rent is to be required. It creates reasonable guardrails such as limiting rent increases to once per year and providing a clear grace period before rent late rent can trigger eviction proceedings. At the same time, it recognizes the realities faced by landlords. It creates a more defined and timely court process including a requirement that hearings must be scheduled within a certain time frame. It establishes an expedited path to address truly dangerous situations where the health and safety of other tenants is at risk. It also invests in prevention by supporting rental arrears assistance. This bill helps keep people housed before a crisis becomes an eviction. Because preventing homelessness is not only more humane, it is about also more effective and less costly. The bill also promotes a pilot program housed in the Trevor's treasurer's office for positive rental credit reporting. Rent is likely the largest bill people pay each month, and this program enables landlords to report those on time payments to credit agencies to help tenants establish or improve their credit. Madam Speaker, no single bill will solve the challenges of our housing system, but this bill represents something important. It represents a good faith effort to listen to fine middle ground and to act. It reflects the understanding that tenants and landlords need not to be adversaries by design. They are participants in a shared system that works best when it is fair, predictable, and humane. This legislation does not choose one side over the other. It chooses progress over paralysis. It chooses clarity over confusion. It chooses action over a status quo that has served no one well. I want to acknowledge the many individuals and organizations who contributed to this effort as well as the house judiciary committee for its thoughtful engagement and proposed refinements. Their work has greatly strengthened this bill. Madam speaker, the question before us is not whether this bill solves every problem. It does not. The question is whether it moves us forward in a meaningful and responsible way. I believe that it does, and I respectfully ask for your support. Madam speaker, I will now walk you through the body of the bill. Section one of the bill makes changes to the code sections dealing with residential rental agreements. Specifically, it amends section four four five one to update the notice sections to include more options and provides that notice is presumed effective after five days rather than three to take into account increasing mail delivery times. Section four four five five is a meant to limit rent increases to once per twelve months. A new purchaser can increase rent after the purchase and therefore, the twelve month limit applies. In section four four five six a, application fees remain prohibited but the section is clarified to allow a landlord to charge for their cost for a credit and background check. The tenant may provide the credit check if performed in the last ninety days in which case no charge is permitted. The landlord must provide a copy of the credit check and background check to the prospective tenant. The bill makes noncompliance with the section an unfair practice in commerce under state law. Section four four six one is amended to provide that security deposits are limited to two months rent. Pet deposits are permitted permitted in addition and a landlord must return one half of the security deposit forty five days prior to termination of the lease subject to any damage deductions which might be itemized. Failure to comply with this section causes forfeiture of the entire deposit to the senate. The bill amends section four four six five concerning prohibition of retaliatory conduct is amended to cover any action authorized by law against landlord. Section four four six seven concerns termination of tenancy by the landlord and notice. Note that this is in subsequent sections only deal with action of a landlord. If a landlord terminates the lease and the tenant does not leave, the landlord must then go through the legal eviction process before the tenant can actually be evicted. This section is amended in several ways that are keyed to the bill. Understanding existing law. Landlords may terminate for any late payment of rent theoretically, even one day late. Subsection b one would now provide termination if rent payments are more than ten days late, three times in a twelve month period. Subsection b two addresses conduct that threatens the health or safety of other tenants, the landlord, or their agent. It provides for termination, excuse me, of five days notice. The landlord must provide an affidavit, affidavit explaining the basis for the eviction and may not use this section based on tenant or other person seeking assistance for a drug overdose. Subsection C rephrases but does not materially change existing law. Subsections D and E would now provide that a landlord must give a tenant ninety days notice for termination based on expiration of the lease sale of the building. Use for the landlord's immediate family, withdrawal of the unit from the rental market, or demolition of major remodel for the unit. For the latter, tenants have a right of first refusal. Subdivisions F through K restate existing law. The bill adds an important new subdivision l which provides that failure to correct a serious health and safety code violation issued prior to the eviction action will provoke judgement for the tenant in an eviction action for failure to pay rent. The section lists the major code deficiencies in detail and provides an exemption where the deficiency is caused by the tenant. Sections two, the bill addresses the eviction process also known as ejectment. It provides that an order concerning the type of notice used stays in effect through the proceeding. Note, oh, section three makes other changes to the ejectment process. Section four eight five three and following addresses an existing rent escrow process to allow tenants to pay rent into court during the proceeding. The section is amended to require that the rent be the actual rent contracted for in the rental agreement. Section four eight five four a clarifies existing practice that if judgment is for the landlord and a writ of possession is issued by the court and fourteen days after the sheriff serves the writ of possession on the tenant, a landlord is entitled to dispose of the tenant's personal property. Section four eight six one and four eight six two restate existing law, including the tenant or landlord's right to trial by jury. Sections four eight six three is amended to require that a cure occur by the answer date. This is also where the bill requires that a court set a hearing within sixty days absent good cause. The bill addresses the dangerous tenants in the context of the Jackman action in sections four eight six five, which sets up an accelerated process. Section four eight six six and four eight six seven restate existing law. Section four eight six eight, this section would authorize the plaintiff landlord to issue an order against trespass to defendant after the landlord is legally restored to possession of the property. Sections four and five of the bill as well as the restated section four eight six eight expand trespass provisions. They deal with the situation where the dangerous person, for example, has been evicted and returns to the premises in the hallway or in a unit either with the voluntary or involuntary agreement of an existing tenant who's been intimidated. Section six of the bill creates a process by which eviction proceedings are kept confidential unless and until judgment is issued for the landlord. As you can we'll see this section will be removed by a later amendment. Section seven of the bill contains a positive rental payment credit reporting pilot to be administered by the treasurer's office. This pilot allows participating tenants to build a credit record based on their rent payments which are otherwise not reported to credit agencies. Section eight provides that landlords may retain security deposits that exceed two months rent if the rental agreement preceded the effective date of this legislation. Section nine provides for a course for tenants and landlords on the rights and responsibilities and remedies of each party to be created and administered by the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity. Section 10 of the bill contains the appropriations. Section 11 provides an effective date for the legislation of 07/01/2026. Madam speaker, in addition to many, many written communications, your general and housing committee heard from the following witnesses. The sponsor of the various bills we had before us, the office of legislative council, the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunities, CVOEO, independent landlord, independent tenant, the state housing authority. Excuse me. The chief superior judge of the Vermont judiciary, the state court administrator of the Vermont judiciary, the Champlain Housing Trust, the Vermont Sheriff's Association, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, Vermont Legal Aid, Nadine L. Seabeck Law, and Homelessness Vermont, Housing and Homeless Alliance of Vermont, Vermont Association of Realtors, the Vermont Landlord Association, your general and housing committee passed h seven seven two by a vote of eight three zero and request the body support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Burlington.

[Representative Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. House appropriations thanks house general, for h seven seven two and proposes the following amendments, which can be found on page fifteen ninety two of today's calendar. In the first and second instances of amendment, the appropriations committee recommends inserting standard contingency language to clarify that implementing those sections is contingent upon an appropriation in f y twenty seven. Specifically, the first instance would add a new subsection g into section seven related to the positive rental payment credit reporting pilot program. The second instance would insert the same language into section nine related to the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity. In the third instance of amendment, the appropriations committee is proposing to strike section 10 and the reader related to appropriations. The the the reader headline, the reader assist headline, whatever that's called. One one appropriation in section ten, $1,000,000 for rental arrears assistance was included in the f y twenty seven budget as a one time appropriation to the Vermont State Housing Authority. The final vote of the bill as amended by house general and housing further amended by the appropriations committee was nine two zero, and we urge the body support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the general and housing committee thanks the work of the appropriations committee. We found the amendment favorable by a vote of nine two zero.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on general and housing be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations. Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. If I may interrogate the member from Burlington.

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

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, question I raised on some bills yesterday. The appropriations contingencies, we now know what's been recommended. And the member did say that the, $1,000,000, for the, rent arrears, is included. Can we clarify, does that mean that the other, proposed amounts in the bill, are not, included in the appropriations recommendations?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: That is true.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank the member for the clarification.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Question is, shall the report of the committee on general and housing be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from South

[Speaker 22]: Or are we

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: We're on the We're

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: on the amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Great. The question is, shall the report of the committee on general and housing be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? 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 amended the report of the committee on general and housing. Now the member from Brattleboro, representative Goodnow and others offer One moment members. Correcting my order here. So now the member from South Burlington, Representative Malone and the member from West Rutland, Representative Burditt offer a further amendment to the report of the committee on general and housing that is printed in today's calendar. Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the house judiciary committee was asked to review h seven seven two. The committee focused on the court processes related to, to ejectment. Testimony showed that the new court processes in h seven seven two as it passed the committee on general and housing would have a serious impact on the courts. The proposed procedures and expedited timelines would stress the court's resources. Without a significant addition of judges, staff and funding following the timelines and processes proposed in eight seventy seven two would mean that other cases in the court's civil docket would likely take longer to resolve. This would be counter to our ongoing efforts to reduce the court backlog of cases. We also learned from testimony that some of the procedures could cause confusion for litigants, reduce the discretion of the courts to resolve ejectment cases, and would be difficult for the courts to implement. After taking extensive testimony and considering several amendment versions, the judiciary committee on an eight zero three straw poll arrived at what is before the body today. The committee is confident that with this amendment, the courts will be able to fulfill their role with existing resources. In addition, the bill will accomplish the goals of eight seven seven two sought by the committee on general and housing. Turning to the language of the amendment which can be found on page fifteen forty two of today's calendar. The first instance of amendment will strike out section two of the underlying report in its entirety and insert a new section two in lieu thereof. This section involves alternate service of process. Usually, a party serving a complaint or other documents in a civil proceeding on an opposing party has to follow the rules of civil procedure on how to affect service. However, courts can allow different ways for documents to be served on another party in a civil proceeding. For example, a plaintiff could post the service on the door of the dwelling unit of a tenant. Parties can file a motion to be able to use these alternate forms of service. The report from the committee on general and housing would add a new section six sixty three entitled 12 governing court procedure. The section would require that when the court orders an alternate service or process in a civil proceeding, the order shall remain in effect and apply to all subsequent service in that proceeding. The report would also require the court to rule on a motion for alternative service within three days after the motion is filed. This amendment will remove the language that requires alternate service of process throughout the proceeding if it was ordered once by the court. Over the course of a case, changing circumstances may require different forms of service of process. In addition, the amendment removes the requirement for the court to rule on the motion within three days. Requiring a ruling in a set of period of time would impinge on a core function of the court and would raise serious separation of powers issues. In its place, the new section two would require the court to rule on a motion for alternate service of pros process promptly. The second instance of amendment will strike section three of the underlying report in its entirety and replace it with a new section three in lieu thereof. As a reminder, section three of the underlying report amends 12 VSA chapter one six nine governing ejectment actions. The underlying report made amendments to the process of paying rent into court and retaining property after an eviction. It also created a new subchapter to govern ejectment actions that are brought when a rental agreement terminates because rent was not paid or the rental agreement was breached. The proposed amendment removes the changes to 12 VSA section forty eight fifty three in the underlying report. Because the first instance of amendment removes the alternate service of process throughout the proceeding, the technical change in section forty eight fifty three is no longer appropriate. Next, in section forty eight fifty three a governing the payment of rent into court in an ejectment action, the proposed amendment would keep the change proposed in subsection d in the underlying report of general and housing but recommends keeping subsection g instead of striking it. What this means is that a court would be required to order full payment of rent into court as proposed by the general and housing committee, but the amendment would keep the language to authorize a defendant tenant to make a motion to have the amount reduced and would give the court the discretion to approve that motion. This retains the discretion of the court to order partial payment in appropriate circumstances. Lastly, in this section, the proposed amendment would add a new subsection I that would authorize the parties in an ejectment proceeding to come to agreement for a reduced amount to be paid into court and to file a motion for the court to reduce the amount accordingly. Next, the proposed amendment keeps the recommendations of the house general committee in 12 v s a section forty eight fifty four a regarding property remaining on the premises after eviction. Turning to subchapter four for ejectment on page fifteen forty five of today's calendar. This is a new subchapter to govern ejectment actions brought due to termination of a rental agreement for nonpayment of rent or for the tenant's breach of the rental agreement. The amendment does not change section forty eight sixty one in the underlying report of general and housing. The first change is in the new section forty eight sixty two. It was not clear in the underlying report of the committee on general and housing whether the affidavit accompanying the termination notice was required to be provided to the court. This is the affidavit outlining the facts with sufficient detail to provide the tenant with the reasoning behind the termination. The amendment clarifies that the complaint filed in court shall also include the affidavit. Next, the amendment to section forty eight sixty three would remove the requirement that the defendant tenant provide an answer to a complaint within fourteen days after service of the complaint. By removing the fourteen day period under the amendment, the defendant tenant would have the standard twenty one days to answer provided for in the Vermont rules of civil procedure. This change would remove potential confusion of litigants who may be accustomed to following the rules of civil procedure for filing answers. We generally should not make an exception to a well established rule. The amendment also would remove the language limiting the defendant tenants right to cure the ejectment due to non payment by the date of the answer. The change in the underlying report of general and housing would be inconsistent with another well established statutory provision that allows a defendant to cure up to the time of the execution of a writ of possession. In addition, it would discourage settlements by taking away an avenue to resolve such cases. Finally, in this section, the amendment proposes to alter the timeline for the required hearing. The committee on general and housing report would have required the hearing to take place within sixty days after filing of the complaint absent good cause. The amendment changes that to ninety days after filing of the complaint. Extending this time frame reduces the impact of the courts though it still provides for a faster resolution than under current practice. The amendment also proposes to add language that the timeline for the required hearing shall not apply when the plaintiff landlord is already in possession of the property or has already received a writ of possession from the court. This also reduces the impact on the courts. In section forty eight sixty four regarding default, the amendment proposes to align the language with the current Vermont rules of civil procedure and requires the court to rule on a motion for default for a default judgment promptly as opposed to within five days under the report under the from the committee on general and housing. Now, moving to the new section forty eight sixty five found on page fifteen forty six. In the report of the committee on general and housing, this was a show cause hearing. There would be an initial hearing based on written affidavit evidence within ten days after the answer was filed and if live testimony was needed, there would be a final hearing within twenty one days after the first hearing. The chief superior judge and other witnesses testified that this new type of procedure had multiple problems. This proposed amendment would replace this procedure with an expedited hearing based off of language currently in statute that provides for expedited hearings when there is an unlawful occupant on a property. The timing of this process is equivalent to that of the show cause hearing proposed by general and housing, but has the benefit of following an established procedure. The language proposed in the new section forty eight sixty five would allow a plaintiff landlord to file a motion for immediate possession of the premises if the continued occupation of the unit by the defendant tenant threatens the health or safety of other residents. The court must hold a hearing not later than twenty one days after that motion is filed unless there's good cause to delay the hearing. The section would allow a defendant tenant to oppose the motion by filing an affidavit, a signed written statement, or a legal memorandum in opposition. If the court finds that the tenant's continued occupation is threatening other residents, the landlord or the landlord's agent or neighbors, then the court may issue a judgment in favor of the landlord for immediate possession. If the defendant fails to appear for the expedited hearing, fails to oppose plaintiff's motion, or has not answered the underlying complaint, the court may issue a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. If a writ is issued, the sheriff must serve the writ and not later than five days after the writ is served, put the landlord into possession. The third instance of amendment would strike the appeal language in the section amending the criminal trespass statute. The report of general and housing would allow a tenant to appeal to the small claims court, but that court is not an appropriate venue for such an appeal. Someone subject to a trespass order under this section would be able to challenge it in superior court instead if they are charged with violating that order. The last instance of amendment would strike the sections that provide for confidentiality of ejectment records. The judiciary committee heard testimony that the process for maintaining confidentiality of ejectment records during an ongoing proceeding would be logistically very difficult and would require significant additional resources for the courts. Striking this provision was key to addressing the resource concerns of the courts. The committee heard from the following witnesses. A representative from the house committee on general housing, legislative council, state court administrator of the Vermont judiciary, chief superior judge of the Vermont judiciary, the director of community relations for the Champlain Housing Trust, senior housing attorney for Vermont Legal Aid, the executive director of End Homelessness Vermont, and the director of the Vermont Landlord Association. The judiciary committee on a straw poll of eight zero three supported this amendment and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And a member from South Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the general and housing committee greatly appreciates the work of the committee on judiciary in creating this amendment. We found the amendment favorable by a vote of eight zero three.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the report of the committee on general and housing as amended be further amended as offered by the member from South Burlington and the member from West Rutland. 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 further amended the report of the committee on general and housing. And now the member from Brattleboro, representative Goodnow and others offer a further amendment to the report of the committee on general and housing that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 02:51PM today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table, member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Thank you madam speaker. Overall, the amendment before the body aims to ensure that tenants can report incidents of violence or request help without creating additional risk of losing their housing. Vermonters who have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking encounter specific issues in the rental housing context. This amendment points to existing state and federal housing protections and adds definitions related to acts of violence, outlines available protections for tenants who experience abuse within a rental unit, and establishes a process for lease bifurcation when both a survivor and the person responsible for the violence are parties to the same lease. The amendment is intended to clarify that a tenant's housing status should not be altered solely on the basis of there being the target of violence. Moving on to the amendment itself, madam speaker, the first instance of amendment will will add three new definitions into the rental agreement chapter in section nine VSA forty four fifty one. The amendment will add a definition of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and stalking as those terms are currently defined in Vermont law. The amendment will also add a definition for actual and imminent threat to mean physical danger that is real would occur within an immediate time frame and could result in death or serious bodily injury. These terms will be used later in the third and fourth instances of amendment to provide tenant protections to individuals who are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. The second instance of amendment will strike subsection a of nine VSA forty four sixty five and replace it with a new subsection a. As a reminder to the body, section forty four sixty five prohibits certain retaliatory conduct against a tenant. The underlying report of the committee on general housing general and housing will add a Subdivision 4 to the list of protected conduct to protect a tenant who takes any legal action authorized by law against a landlord. This amendment will keep Subdivision 4 and add a new subdivision 5, to add that a landlord cannot retaliate against a tenant who has contacted law enforcement to respond to an instance of domestic abuse. The third instance of amendment will strike subsection b from nine VSA forty four sixty seven and replace it with a new subsection b. As a reminder, again, to the body, section forty four sixty seven governs the notice periods that must be provided to a tenant when a landlord terminates a rental agreement. The amendment keeps the changes proposed by the report of the committee on general and housing except that the amendment makes a technical change by renumbering what was a Subdivision B 2 B as, into a Subdivision B 3 to ensure proper alignment for the other changes. The instance of amendment proposes to add language in the new Subdivision B 5. This language will would prohibit a landlord from terminating a rental agreement under Subdivision B because the because the tenant is the victim of an incident or a pattern of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. To be clear, subdivision b under this section is is reasons to terminate a rental agreement because of the tenant's breach of a material term of the rental agreement or because of acts that threaten the health and safety of others. This addition would prohibit a landlord from terminating the rental agreement of a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking by arguing the activity of the abuse, assault, or stalking was a breach of the agreement or was somehow threatening the health and safety of others. The amendment goes on to require that a landlord shall allow the bifurcation of the rental agreement in accordance with section nine VSA forty four seventy two a, which is added in the fourth instance of amendment. The landlord may terminate the rental agreement of a tenant who has committed an act of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking against another tenant if the act poses an actual and imminent threat to the remaining tenants, other residents, the landlord, or the landlord's agent or neighbors, and there is no action to be taken that would reduce or eliminate the threat. The final and fourth instance of amendment would add a new section nine VSA forty four seventy two a in the residential rental agreement chapter. This section will require that a landlord authorize a protected tenant to bifurcate a rental agreement in order to reject, remove, or terminate a rental agreement of a tenant or lawful occupant who engages in abuse, sexual assault, or stalking against the protected tenant. Lastly, in the event a landlord bifurcates a rental agreement under this section, the landlord shall provide the protected tenant with a reasonable opportunity to locate additional tenants or to otherwise find new housing. And reasonable and a reasonable opportunity of time is defined as no less than ninety days. Madam speaker, this amendment will protect our most vulnerable and ensure that an individual's housing status will not be impacted because they are a victim of violence, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I thank the member from Brattleboro and the general and housing committee. We found the amendment favorable on a vote of ten one zero.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is shall the report of the committee on general and housing as amended be further amended as offered by the member from Brattleboro and others. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have further amended the report of the committee on general and housing. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so oh, member from Burlington.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

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

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Madam speaker, h seven seventy two seems to expand eviction grounds beyond current law by allowing eviction for repeated late payment without a written agreement and by introducing a new broader category of other activity that threatens health or safety including impacts on neighbors, which is not limited to criminal or illegal conduct. Does h seven seventy two create broader and less defined grounds for eviction that expand landlord discretion beyond current statutory limits?

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: No. The bill only accelerates termination notice for cause. Things like nonpayment of rent or threatening behavior. It actually increases notice time for no cause evictions to ninety days. The court process may happen quicker especially when other tenants are subject to persistent threats to their safety. The inclusion of $1,000,000 in the budget should the body agreed to it will prevent more evictions from happening.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: I don't believe this answered my direct question. My question was whether or not h seven seventy two creates broader and less defined grounds for eviction, that expands landlord discretion beyond current statutory limits.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, for example, it adds,

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: repeated late payments.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Oh, members sorry.

[Speaker 25]: Oh, sure.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: You go ahead

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: if you wanna continue. Okay.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington?

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Madam speaker. For example, language like repeated late payment and threat to health or safety categories.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I'm going to yield to the member from Callis.

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

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I guess there are a number of questions embedded in this. The first is does it expand does it expand the the tenants the the risk to the tenant because of requiring that late payment occur within defined time and three times before grounds for eviction. No. It does not expand. It narrows. Currently, a landlord could file immediately, not within ten days, immediately upon failure to pay rent. The landlord also could file each time that rent is due is late. Now it has to it's defined. The bill defines it to prevent that. As to I think you also had a madam speaker, there was also a question concerning another item.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Yes, madam speaker. Threat to health or safety that is determined by the landlord without any method for verifying the the landlord's opinion that there was a threat to health or safety.

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, this is probably the most serious testimony we received. We received a great deal of testimony from housing providers, particularly nonprofit housing providers that they were finding it very difficult to evict tenants who were causing health and safety danger to other tenants, particularly, for example, drug dealers. And that it's not that they couldn't evict them, but it was a very lengthy process. What we did here was to create we didn't change the law. What we did is create a more rapid process. In that case, it is limited to situations where the activity of a tenant indicates a endangers on a on an ongoing basis in the future as amended by the by the judiciary committee on an ongoing basis endangers the health and safety of other tenants. And in that case, there is a faster judicial process. In the end, the the decider as to whether that that is justified is the judge, the same person individual who is currently the decider.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Thank you madam speaker. My next question is that h seven seventy two does not seem to cap rent increases and only limits the frequency while allowing a new owner to increase rent even if it was already raised that year. Does h seven seventy two provide meaningful protection to tenants against rent increases given that it does not limit the amount and allows exceptions for new ownership?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Yes.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Madam speaker, how so?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: I believe, madam speaker, the question is asking whether this bill contains provisions that would cap rent or contain rent control or whether it contains other provisions such as giving a renter the right to stay in a unit indefinitely regardless of the length of the lease. And my answer is it is correct. I think you asked whether it didn't contain it and it doesn't. No, it does not. Instead, it elects to give tenants three months or ninety days notice and to give them half of the security deposit back forty five days before their lease is over in order to make it easier to find new

[Representative Golrang 'Rey' Garofano (Essex)]: lodging. Thank you.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: H, seven seventy two also shortens termination notice periods and reduces the time that tenants have to respond to eviction complaints. And while, the Lalonde Burditt amendment modifies these timelines, the process remains faster than current law, potentially limiting tenants' ability to secure housing access assistance or obtain counsel. So even with that amendment, do the revised timelines still reduce tenants' ability to avoid eviction or access assistance? And what impact will this have on due process and court volume?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: It is uncertain. We don't know what impact it will have.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Did the committee oh, sorry.

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: The question, madam speaker, involve I'll tell you what. I think it would be best if the question was repeated, if I might ask.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: And, thank you, madam speaker. The question was complex. I'll focus on one particular aspect of the question. What impact will the change in the shortened termination notice periods have on, due process and in particular court volume?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: The bill will not have any impact on due process rights of tenants. In terms of court volume, that is uncertain. There are we're really faced with nothing more than assertions in that sense. Some people assert that taking what the committee believed was an overly complex and lengthy system and trying to make it a bit shorter could increase eviction filings. Many argued that it would not increase eviction filings, and in fact, there is literature on that subject. The courts testified and and worked with the judiciary committee at first being concerned that the bill would As it came out of general and housing, would have an impact on the courts because of It would stress the courts because of increased activity and the shortened time frames. Those have been altered, and now the court believes they do not need additional resources.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Are there any accessibility protections outlined in h seven seventy two? For example, for those whose disabilities may prevent a timely response to these new timelines.

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: The The committee heard testimony about concerns with short timeframes, for example, answer timeframe. Originally, the bill had a requirement that one had to file an answer within ten days. The committee had before it other bills which would have had much shorter time frames, but the original bill had ten days. We heard testimony that for many many tenants, including tenants who were had a disability, that that was too short. It was changed to fourteen days in the bill, and then in the judiciary committee amendment, which we supported, it's changed back to the same twenty one days that apply to any civil proceeding.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: H seven seventy two establishes a statewide cap allowing landlords to collect up to two months rent as a security deposit, which exceeds existing protections in some municipalities like Burlington and may increase upfront costs for tenants. Could h seven seventy two unintentionally increase moving costs in municipalities that currently have stronger tenant protections?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Originally, it it's the understanding of the committee, madam speaker, that current in current law, there are no limits at all to the amount of security deposit that can be required. We are a testimony of landlords requiring six months security deposits. There were bills which we knew of which limited security deposits to three months. We decided on two months. As to whether or not, it's my impression, I cannot comment on the legal effect of this on, towns or cities which have charter amendments that have been approved to the contrary.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Thank you. H seven seventy two allows landlords to charge applicants for background and credit checks and does not require providing the report unless the applicant pays, shifting both cost and access burdens onto renters. Madam speaker, does h seven seventy two create new financial and informational barriers for applicants seeking housing?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Thank you for the question, madam speaker. We spent a lot of time on the question of payment. Who should pay for credit checks? Who should pay for background checks? And right now, the law as it stands now prohibits application fees. A landlord can't just say, oh, you want to apply, pay us a $100 for the privilege. So that's clear. What isn't clear, madam speaker, is whether or not that prohibition includes or excludes fees for credit checks and background checks. And so, we decided that this was and in fact, we took evidence that showed some landlords charged for those and some did not. So, we felt that it was important to clarify what the standard would be. So we adopted what we that we heard evidence both ways. Some people felt the tenants should pay for all of it. Some people felt the landlord should pay for all of it. We adopted what we believe is a middle ground. The landlord can charge for background checks, for the actual cost of a background check, which can be like 40 or $50 sort of in that range. They can't it has to be their actual cost. They can't say, oh, it cost me a $100 in time to do it. It has to be their actual cost for the background check. The tenant if the tenant provides a credit check, the landlord has to accept the credit check. And if that credit check has been made in the last ninety days, they have to accept it. So the credit check the credit report lasts ninety days, and every Vermonter can get a free credit check, once.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: K. Thank you. H 772 allows landlords to issue trespass notices to tenants, guests, and recently evicted tenants despite tenants being the legal possessors of the premises under current law and without a clearly defined process for applying those powers. Does h seven seventy two undermine tenant control over leased premises by expanding landlord authority to exclude guests?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, under current circumstances, if a tenant is engaging engaging in illegal or dangerous activity, a landlord can issue a trespass order against the tenant. The problem we faced was brought to us by many housing providers, including nonprofit housing providers. This is the problem. The tenant is not, in these cases, the tenant is not the issue. In these cases, someone comes into the facility. Say, I'm just going to use a drug dealer as an example. It could be something else, but unfortunately it often is. And they either, with the tenant's collaboration, which is either willing or unwilling, perhaps through intimidation or because the tenant is addicted to drugs, they use the tenant's facility to continue the illegal activity. A prior court decision interpreted our law, it's not based on constitution, it's based on our statute, to read that in that case, a trespass order would not lie. So we felt that it was important to clarify that where the tenant where where the invitee, if you will, I put that in quotations, madam speaker, because they're really often the tenant is willing. Where the tenant indicates they're unwilling or the invitee, so called invitee, the drug dealer is engaging in illegal activity or dangerous dangerous to other tenants, the trespass order will lie.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, h seven seventy two retains no cause eviction but standardizes it at ninety days notice, continuing to allow termination without any stated reason? Does maintaining no cause eviction even with longer notice continue to undermine housing stability for tenants?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Under the status quo, madam speaker, landlord a landlord may terminate an agreement upon the expiration of the lease. In other words, if I, for example, negotiate with a landlord a twelve month lease, that's a contract. It's a contract for twelve months. The landlord has the freedom at the end of twelve months to let the lease run out. Under this bill, this bill allows that to continue to occur but with greater notice, ninety days notice. To my knowledge, there are about four states in The United States that would allow a tenant to stay under those circumstances, and those laws have major exceptions. For example, New York has such a law, but it exempts all of rural New York. It only applies to urban New York.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, research shows that eviction filings regardless of outcome significantly increase housing instability and homelessness, and h seven seventy two may increase filings by streamlining eviction processes. If eviction filings increase under h seven seventy two, how will the state mitigate resulting increases in homelessness particularly given our shelter capacity limits?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, first of all, we are aware we've been made aware of research to the contrary. That is research that indicates that improving eviction process does not increase homelessness. But one way or the other, I mean, that's one piece of research. I think it would be safe to say the research may be divided on the subject. It is the opinion of the committee that the best way to address homelessness is directly. And it is for that reason that the committee included the million dollars for the Rental Arriers Assistance Fund, which we think is an excellent approach to reducing homelessness. And to my knowledge, well, actually I understand that has made it into the budget. And we're delighted that that's the case. And we think that the human services approach in the homelessness response continuum bill in September, which we will be hearing, is also such an excellent way to do it. We do not believe that continuing the status quo with an overly lengthy eviction process that is very difficult for and discouraging for small landlords

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: who are

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: the group that house tenants in rural Vermont is the way to do it. But rather, we think, actually may hurt tenants by decreasing housing supply because many landlords are discouraged, are leaving the business, or choosing to go with short term rentals.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, h seven seventy two narrows tenant defenses by requiring documented serious violations and allowing landlords to defeat claims through quote reasonable attempts unquote at repair even if conditions remain unsolved. Does h seven seventy two weaken tenants' ability to assert habitability defenses and withhold rent compared to current law?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, with respect, no. It does not weaken them. It strengthens them. There is under current law a process by which tenants may affirmatively decide that they're going to make a habitability claim. That is they're going to claim that their unit is not habitable, madam speaker. And to then they may withhold rent under certain conditions. The limitation on this approach, of course, is that it's up to the tenant to take the action to start it. We added to that. That that remains the law. We added to that. What we added was something, an idea actually that came to us from legal aid, which is and it's the law in other states. If a landlord files an action for eviction based on nonpayment of rent and there is a citation against them for a serious defect in the in the unit, that is grounds for immediate dismissal of the complaint.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: Okay. Thank you. And finally, madam speaker, h seven seventy two imposes stricter affidavit requirements on tenants as compared to landlords, potentially allowing courts to enter judgment against tenants who fail to meet heightened procedural requirements. Does h seven seventy two create an imbalance in evidentiary standards that increases the risk of default judgments against tenants?

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, with respect, I believe the answer is no. What seven seventy two does, perhaps what the question is referring to, is it requires a landlord who is asserting that somebody's that a tenant a tenant's activity is endangering actually endangering on a continuing basis going forward the health and safety of other tenants, they can't just assert that. They actually have to file a sworn affidavit setting forth the actual facts that would justify that position. And then tenants can respond either by a counter affidavit or if they don't want to by appearing in court and there's a hearing.

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: K. Thank you, madam speaker, and I thank the reporter of the bill. Madam speaker, what we've just heard is concerning. This bill, may expand eviction grounds beyond clear, well defined standards, may shorten timelines in ways that limit tenants' ability to respond or seek help even with the proposed amendment. It allows new costs to be shifted onto renters, weakens long standing defenses around habitability, and creates procedural imbalances that make it easier to remove someone from their home. At no point have we heard clear assurances that tenants are protected from rent increases, from arbitrary displacement, or from a process that moves faster than fairness allows. In a state facing a housing crisis, we should be strengthening stability, not making it easier to evict, harder to defend, and more expensive to secure housing. Instead, we could have addressed the reasonable concerns in a more targeted manner. We could have given the courts more resources to address the backlog and then keep pace with eviction proceedings and crafted policy that address property owners' concerns without tilting the balance of power in their favor. Further, as a representative for Burlington, our city has been told for years now that we could not have just cause eviction as our residents have requested more than once until landlords got the support that they need for faster evictions. This bill doesn't seem to deliver either. Rather, h seven seventy two seems to tilt the balance of power decisively in one direction, and the consequences will not be theoretical. They will show up in our courts, in our shelters, and in our communities. For those reasons, I cannot support h seven seventy two.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended member from Essex?

[Speaker 28]: Madam speaker, I rise today to support eight seven seven two. This bill is a comprehensive compromise that brings together several landlord tenant proposals. It aims to create a fairer and more functional rental system for both tenants and landlords. The bill strengthens tenant protections, and it provides landlords with clearer tools and more predictable timelines and eviction proceedings, including faster processes when safety is at risk. It also invests in prevention through rental assistance, education, and an ombudsman purse ombudsperson services to help resolve disputes before eviction occurs. This bill represents a careful compromise in a challenging housing market, and I urge the body to support it.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended member from Burlington.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam Speaker, I had a longer spiel to say, but, my colleague from Burlington, has already covered so much of what I was going to say and she did it incredibly well. I do wanna punctuate one point that she makes, and I'm gonna punctuate this with a cut and paste from a floor speech I gave in 2024 because here we are again. Not the first time we've been here in the midst of a expansive housing bill that completely ignores the votes of charter changes from various municipalities. And at the close of the last biennium, I stood on this floor and spoke about the results of those local votes pertaining to moratoriums on no cause evictions. In Burlington, on 03/02/2021, voters approved a charter change with 64% support across all eight wards. My predecessor, along with the current, my my fellow representative from '15, began the work of moving that charter change through this body, well before I arrived here. Then, Winooski voters in 2022 showed a similarly strong support for tenant protections, just cause evictions. And then in Essex, in 2023, voters again took similar action. And when I spoke on this previously in twenty two twenty twenty four, Montpelier had just joined the list. Communities across from Vermont over multiple years have been taking up this issue and asking us to act. They passed charter changes overwhelmingly, and then this body repeatedly stonewalls the final passage. Here is another opportunity in an expansive housing bill to pay attention to those voters, and once again, we're ignoring it. And for that reason, I cannot support this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington? Burlington? Yep.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, may I quote the Pulitzer Prize winning book Evicted by sociologist Matthew Desmond?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Eviction is a cause, not just a condition of poverty. Madam Speaker, what are the causes of the problems that we are attempting to solve with h July? No money for rent, substance use challenges, mental illness, all of these conditions are worsened by violence. All of these conditions are worsened by homelessness, and all of these conditions are worsened by poverty. Age seven seventy two would increase the use of state violence through eviction, therefore increasing homelessness and increasing poverty. H seven seventy two abandons the long standing balance of Vermont's landlord tenant law by weakening tenant protections under the guise of reform. The bill's supposed safeguards are largely redundant or unenforceable, while its core changes, faster eviction timelines, expanded eviction grounds, and streamlined procedures tilt power decisively towards landlords and erode due process for tenants. The bill risks accelerating displacement and homelessness in an already constrained housing market. Without more supportive measures, such as well funded rental assistance, financial education, and restorative justice practices for conflict resolution, H seven seventy two is a policy framework that reduces landlord costs without evidence. It will increase housing supply or stability, and that may instead deepen existing inequities and perpetuate the problems that we are attempting to solve while creating greater strain on our systems of justice, health, and human services. Madam speaker, due to the significant impact on human rights, when the vote is taken, I request that it be taken by role.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Burlington request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by role. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by role. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended? Member from Barrie City.

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, I was listening to the back and forth here, and I just wanted to do a point of clarification. For those that are living in Burlington, if it's through Charter, Charter Trump statute. We're a Dillon's rule state, so we actually approve it here. So it if there's a cap on if there's a cap on wow. That was that's deposits. That cap will still remain. And any other type of or charter changes that have been done by municipality, that also would still be in in force because, again, charter trumps statute. With that, I do want to interrogate the presenter of the bill.

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

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Under current law, if a landlord wants to do a no trespass, let's say there's 50 units, I was told that they have to get permission from all the members or all the rental the tenants. Is that correct? Under current law?

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, is your question if they if a landlord wants to issue a no trespassing for the building, they have to get permission from the entire building?

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Correct.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: That and you're asking about what's current law?

[Speaker 32]: Correct.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Can I ask for a brief recess?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The house will stand in recess for a couple minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from South Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the answer is no. Under current law, you do not have to ask for permission.

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Okay. Thank you, madam speaker. I was misinformed on that. I I do want to confirm because I did double check. Charter does trump statute. A couple people asked me about that. I support this bill. I'm super thankful to the committees that took this up. I think it's good. And and I would encourage the body to support it as well.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended member from Bennington.

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, in the floor report for H 772, I heard a word I wish to focus on, balance. To be perfectly honest, I wrote that line before the floor report, but I really thought it was gonna be in there. So, when people ask me about how I approach my work in this building, what my principles are that guide me, balance is a word I often answer with. I've often felt that balance is a missing component in our discussions about landlord and tenant laws. I should disclose that I am a landlord. I own three apartments. Two of those apartments are in a building that had been uninhabited for years. My wife and I are proud to have renovated those apartments into attractive comfortable homes and we have long term tenants. Our rentals mostly break even each year. We do hope as we build equity and property values increase that we realize some benefit from our investment, but we recognize there's no guarantee of that. The first rental property I purchased in my twenties was sold for a loss fifteen years later. Of course, I believe it's incredibly important that there are strong protections for Vermont's renters. I'm happy to support the additional safeguards for tenants in this bill. Most tenants are good tenants, that has been my experience as a landlord. But there's another protection for tenants that I've been thinking about in the context of this bill. In my district, I've spoken to some tenants who have concerns about their landlords. But I've spoken with four far more constituents with concerns about tenants in neighboring apartments or buildings. Why they ask me? Why is my landlord or neighbor struggling to evict a tenant who feels like a menace to our neighborhood? As for who our landlords are, my community does have a few large landlords, but the vast majority are small landlords like myself. The neighbors to the left and right of my home are both small landlords. The home across the street from my home is owned by a friend who is also a small landlord. These small landlords fill an urgent need in our community. They help maintain our aging rental stock and they bring apartments, new apartments onto the market. Two weekends ago, I ran into a constituent who asked me about our work in the house this year. After discussing the budget, I told him about H 772. He reminded me that he had two apartments on his property and shared a story about a challenging eviction that took over six months. He mentioned that he might be better off putting the apartments on Airbnb or not filling them. Without this bill, more small landlords will make that choice and fewer will consider creating new apartments. I strongly support the balanced work in this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended member from Burlington?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I just wanna thank the member for Barrie City, for reminding this body about the power of a charter, and that would be great if we could get our charters to pass. I will again reiterate as I've done before Burlington passed their charter on just cause eviction in 2021 and it has stayed on the wall. Winooski, 2022, on the wall. Essex, 2023, on the wall. Montpelier, 2024, on the wall. Each time the response has been consistent. Wait. Wait for a statewide solution. Here we are again with an opportunity for a statewide solution, and we're being stonewalled again. And I get it. Statewide policy is complex. It requires care. It requires balance. But we just keep fool me once, fool me twice. How many times are how many times do I have to go back to Burlington and say again, no. We had the opportunity, but we didn't do it. So I would love a charter change to Trump's state law. The residents of Burlington would love a charter change just to to to Trump's state law and pass just cause eviction. To do that, we need to stop stonewalling these charter changes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended? Member from Waterbury.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, first in just full disclosure and transparency, I am not a landlord nor am I a tenant. I served on the housing committee for sixteen years, and we did a lot of this business during my time. And the one thing I learned early on is that a landlord tenant bill that makes it to the floor of the house should have balance in it. Balance is a tricky word. It's in the eye of the beholder. If you're a landowner, chances are you think tenants who are who are troublesome have more power. And if you're a tenant, you think that the property owner is the one who has all the power because they have the home they have the property, they have the ability to interpret the laws in their favor a lot easier than tenants do. The other thing I wanna put forward before I start the meat of my comments is the difference between nonprofit housing and for profit housing. The nonprofit housing organizations that are in the state are doing work that the private non the private property owners do, but don't have it as a mission. There are people who say housing is a human right, and there are people who say housing is a business. And there's the difference in your balance right there. If you believe that housing is a human right, you're going to believe that tenants should have the right to inhabit these apartments at many costs to the landowner. And if you're the landowner and the property owner and you think that that that housing is a business, then you simply know you have to make your ends meet. Nonprofit housing agencies, I served on the board of Central Vermont Housing Agency for eight years, and we know that the main mission of that organization or any nonprofit housing organization is to provide housing to people who need it at an income level that is far below the market rate and what people are able to expend. What they do have along with the ability to do that is they do not have the right for no cause evictions, nor do they have the right to raise rents above inflation. So those are two tools which are somewhat addressed here to the negative overall that private property owners have as part of their toolbox to evict people. In 2019, Vermont Legal Aid and the Vermont Landlords Association teamed up on a report called Eviction in Vermont. That was prior to COVID. So it was prior to the eviction moratorium that was put in place during the pandemic, and that was before the backlash to that eviction moratorium with the incredible rise in no cause evictions that happened in this state as well as the incredible increase in rents. To be balanced, rents increased because property taxes were increasing. The ability to convert units to long term rentals was expensive. And tenants, when faced with especially tenants with mental health issues, with poverty issues, with and anger issues, if you will, destroyed more property that belonged to those landlords than they had in the past. Again, here's balance. It gets too expensive to live there. People get angry and they destroy the property. Neither one of those is correct. All of the legislation we have passed has dealt with trying to find that balance between what's been called today as paralysis. It is a form of paralysis. There's no question. But this bill, when I read the list of what it, quote, unquote, gives landlords, will show that this bill has fallen out of balance. There is no equivalent negotiation that went on between the the property owners and the tenant rights. And I find that unfortunate because there are elements of this bill that are necessary to address, and I believe that this bill was rushed to the finish line in order to get what we have in front of us. Made worse by the fact that all of these changes, which are I should I would consider significant and substantial, are due to go into effect 07/01/2026, which means that all of these changes would not be written into our statutes or nor would they be available to tenants or landlords for months after that. And where that's important to me is that it becomes an even deeper and more complex legal issue for both landlords and tenants. But I'm focus I'm gonna focus for a minute on the tenants. This bill, for instance, does not include a tenant representation program that is in a pilot form in two counties. There's a bill on their wall that could have addressed this by deleting three words, and then there would have been a problem with finding funding for it. But a tile a tenant representation program was put into effect three years ago and funded two years ago. The money will run out the September. And over 80 cases have been settled in in in the favor of the landlords and tenants, which means why it's important to have tenant representation is that 80% of all eviction cases that go to court, 80%, the landlords have an attorney, and only 20% of tenants have an attorney. That is an imbalance. You cannot expect this to be called balanced if a tenant who is not schooled in the language of the courts cannot be represented equally as those who can afford an attorney. The 2019 report showed that 70% of all tenancies are fine. Business as usual. Landlords, tenants get along. Tenants pay their pay their rent. Landlords fix the toilets. That's substantial. Of the remaining 30 of the cases that that were studied in this report, 50% of those were due to back rent or 70% of the cases were back rent only, and most of them were able to be settled. Of the 30% that was left, back rent and personality, to be kind, was the reason for the eviction proceeding. And of the other 15%, it was all about what we hear about in when we when we wanna create negative pictures of property owners and tenants. The most difficult cases in the world in this in this state. And finally, before I read this list, just want to make clear, comparing our time frames to other states is comparing apples and oranges to be cliche. Other states have the things that we don't have in different places, whether it's no whether it's a a ban on no cause evictions, whether it's a lower security deposit. So a lot of different a lot of differences between the time frame. But the time frames that are in our statutes today are there for a reason. They've been there for over forty years and whenever we've tried to balance out our conversations between landlords and tenants, people gave or they understood, whether it was shortening some of the time frames which this bill proposes to shorten even further or whether it's a way to go through court. It's my opinion that the this bill does give landlords an unfair advantage and much more power in the instant. And it gives tenants in this instance no recourse, no representation, which we know, based on the actions that have happened since COVID, when people have taken advantage of no cause evictions over four cause evictions. Because it's easier to empty out the apartment that way. I think we're gonna see a growth in that without, you know so the list. This bill gives landlords the right to charge fees to applicants that has been argued for years, and it's clear that asking applicants to pay for criminal checks and credit checks is part of an application. It gives landlords a shorter termination notice time. Give somebody who who's in the middle of a crisis with no representation a shorter termination time, and they will be evicted. Takes time away from the tenant right to cure nonpayment termination by paying, which means that if the tenant said, I'll get that to you next Thursday, just hold off. The tenant doesn't the property owner doesn't have to do that. Gives the landlord right to file eviction without giving actual notice to tenants. It could be done through an email. It could be done through sources that are different than what has been done in the past. We don't really consider certified mail anymore. Isn't that really pretty retro? But that's the only way that you can you can guarantee that a delivery has been made. It gives the landlords additional grounds to evict, some of them that are brow browder and undefined. It gives the landlord shorter court process time by taking away the time a tenant has to answer the complaint. Again, how will a tenant answer a complaint if they don't have representation under these new time frames? Gives landlords a faster court scheduling for non payment or breach or lease of law. It increases the landlord opportunity to get possession with it without live testimony. And somehow due process is still in place here on affidavit. It's an affidavit that could be based on hearsay and not and not evidence. This gives a landlord's greater right to evict even if the tenant can cure the non payment before the the execution of a writ. This bill gives a landlord the right to take away court discretion and the right of a tenant to request modification regarding amount of that rent escrow order. It gives a landlord the right to bring criminal charges of trespass against a tenant's guests. There is already a no trespass law, and this bill is overriding a Supreme Court decision from 1999 that says that people have the right to invite whoever they want into their homes. I get why they want to do this. I get why you know, when when you have issues with tenants who are being taken advantage of by criminals, by drug dealers, we've heard a lot of what's going on in Burlington in particular, and my heart goes out to the tenants who live next door. It doesn't happen just in Burlington. It happens in Waterbury. It happens in Montpelier. It happens across the state. But is this the right tool to do that? This gives the landlords the right to dispose of tenants property immediately after the execution of a seven day writ. If that's all a person owns, if that's their property. We've seen this in the in the in the homeless encampments, in Burlington in particular, where people's belongings are picked up and thrown away, not stored. They're thrown away. They're papers. They're collections. They're things. And this gives the right under these conditions for a landlord to take someone's property and throw it away immediately. There's no rent cap like the nonprofits have. Tenants have no security that rent will not be raised. Once a year, it says. And the interesting thing here is that rents can be rents leases most rentals, you sign a lease for your first year, and then it becomes month to month handshakes. So all of these days, all of these processes are no longer written down. It's just as long as I pay rent every month, I can be here. And the security deposit, the landlord's demand for a two month security deposit with an additional deposit for pets would be the standard. If I want to rent a one bedroom apartment and it costs $2,000, I need $6,000. If I'm being evicted and I can't pay the rent for the building I'm getting evicted from, where will I find $6,000? And no cause eviction is still allowed. Landlord can also file an eviction notice in two different ways. How does a tenant protect themselves legally from two different cases being showing up on their door? An attendant's right to affirmative defense of termination for nonpayment is very narrow and could affect current law on the right to habitable premises and claim of diminished value. There's a piece in here talking about how tenants are protected against retaliation. You're not protected against retaliation as long as there is no cause eviction. That is not addressed in this bill. This bill tilts the balance. They won't deny that there are some good things in it if we can fund them. But this legalese masks the humanity of what the relationship is between a landlord and a tenant. And if it only makes it about property, then we lose. And if it makes it only about humanity, we lose. I'm a hard no on this bill, madam speaker.

[Representative Leland Morgan (Milton)]: And

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: it's hard for me to watch after being on this committee for sixteen years. All of the things that we've been trying to do, which is to avoid evictions, to prevent upstream the evictions that clog our court, that hurt the families, that that hurt the society. And this is tossing it all away.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the bill be amended? I'm sorry. Will the house please come to order? There's no clapping. The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended. Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Arsenault of Williston. Austin of Colchester. Yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? 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 an electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call and when the clerk calls your name, answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on general and housing as amended? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Bailey of Hyde Park, Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca of Winooski. No. Birong of Vergens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester.

[Speaker 34]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Bosch at Clarendon. Yes. Boutin Berry City. Yes. Boyden of Cambridge. Yes. Bridget Burditt of Georgia. Burgum of Saint Albans Town. Yes. Burditt of West Rutland. Yes. Burkhardt of South Burlington. Burrows of West Windsor? No. Burtick Abbott? Yes. Campbell of St. Johnsbury?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Canfield of Brehaven? Yes. Carris Duncan and Whiteingham? Casey Montpelier. No. Casey Hubbardton. Yes. Chapin at East Montpelier. Yes. Charlton at Chester.

[Representative Tom Charlton (Chester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. Coffin of Cavendish.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Cole of Hartford. No. Conlon Cornwall. Yes. Cooper Conor. Yes. Corcoran of Bennington. Yes. Critchlow of Colchester. Demar of Ennisburg. Yes. Dickinson of Saint Almittstown.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Dobrovich of Williamstown. Yes. Dodge of Essex. Dolan of Essex Junction. Yes. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury. Donahue of Northfield? Yes. Duke of Burlington? Yes. Durfee of Shaftsbury? Yes. Eastes of Guildford? Emmons of Springfield? Yes. Feltus of Linden.

[Representative Alicia Malay (Pittsford–Mendon)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Galfetti of Barrytown. Yes. Gary Fano of Essex. Yes. Goldman of Rockingham. Yes. Good now. Brattleboro.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Ghostin on Northfield. Yes. Granting of Jericho. Greer Bennington. Yes. Greg Yes. Michael B. Harvey of Castleton. Yes. Hedrick of Burlington. Higley of Lowell?

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Holcomb Norwich? Yes. Cooper Randolph? Yes. Potenavessic Junction? Yes. Howard or Rutland City?

[Representative Robin Scheu (Middlebury)]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Holland or Rutland Town? Hunter Manchester.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: James Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Kasinski of Burke. Keyser of Rutland City. Kimball Woodstock.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Klepner, Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Kornheiser, Brattleboro.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Krasno, South Burlington. Leber, Morgan. Yes. Mallory Shelburne. Yes. Alona, South Burlington. Yes. Lamont of Morristown. No. Lerusha Franklin. Yes. Lipsky of Stowe. Yes. Logan of Burlington. Long and Newfane, leaders of Lincoln, Luno of St. Albans City, Maguire of Rutland City, Malay of Pittsburgh, Marcotte of Coventry, Madison at the third. Yes. McKenna Montpelier. Yes. McCoy Pontney. Yes. McFondaberry Town. McGillibrary Port. No. Nicholas of Milton. Mollie of Callis? Yes. Meniere of South Burlington? Yes. Morgan Ela Milton? Yes. Morgan Emma Milton?

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Morris Springfield?

[Speaker 41]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Morris Evendington? Mora of Weston?

[Representative Ian Goodnow (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Rowicki of Putney? Yes. Nelson of Derby? Yes. Nielsen of Brandon? Yes. Nigro of Bennington? Yes. North Of Ferrisburg? Neus of Volkick. Yes. New Jersey of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Temperidge. No. OD Burlington. Oliver of Sheldon. Yes. Olson of Starksboro. Agent. Port City?

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Parsons in Newbury? Yes. Feltus of Feltus?

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Hortonsburg? Yes. Powers of Waterford? Priestly Bradford? No. Bridget of Pollock?

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Quinby of Linden? Yes. Rachelson of Burlington? No. Seckwitz Randolph? Yes. Shy of Middlebury? Yes. Sheldon of Middlebury? Tibilia of Dover? Yes. Southworth Of Walden? Yes. Squirrel of Underhill? Yes. Steady Milton? Yes. Stevens of Waterbury? No. Stone of Burlington?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Sweeney of Shelburne?

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Tigua Bia, Carrith?

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Taylor Milton? Yes. Taylor Mendon? Yes. Thomas Tomlinson? Torrey Mortown? Yes. Walker or Swanton? Yes. Watches at Zacaberry City? No. Waters Evans at Charlotte? Yes. Wells Of Bradenton? Yes. White of Wadsfield? Yes. White Of Bethel? Yes. Winter at Ludlow? Yes. Wood Of Waterbury? Jacoboni at Morristown. Arsenault. Bailey of High Park. Christie of Hartford. Donahue Visicks, East Of Eastes of Guildford, McFonneberry Town, Nicholas of Milton, Woodward Berry.

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

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: I support h seven seventy two as a compromise that reflects reality that no single bill can fully address the ills of Vermont's housing challenges. I find the bill to be a pragmatic step forward.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Saint Johnsbury.

[Representative Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: I was going to vote no on h seven seven two, but after hearing the discussion on the floor, they sold me on a yes vote.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: This bill makes meaningful progress to improve support and protections for both tenants and property owners and improve the system, but there is still much more to do.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Weston.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: This is a good bill that manages to address the overlapping complex problems in our rental market. While the mechanics of the bill are about easing the dynamics between landlords and tenants, I view this as a bill which promotes affordable housing availability across the state.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Tiffany Bluemle (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I cannot in good conscience vote yes on this bill despite the dire need to reform our housing laws and the housing crisis we have in our state. Burlington has a rental vacancy rate of only 2.2% and Vermont's rental vacancy rate is only 3.2%. I appreciate the efforts for a balanced bill but cannot support a bill that legal aid, the ACLU, and CVOEO are strongly opposed to, especially given that over 60% of the people in Burlington are renters. 33% of them pay more than half their income for rent.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And member from Winooski.

[Representative Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, to avoid further escalating our housing crisis, Vermont should be taking action to increase protection for tenants, not decrease them. Communities across our state have passed just cause eviction charter changes, which would support housing stability and prevent displacement. This bill fails the more than 70,000 Vermonters who live in these communities who have been waiting for years for action on the state level.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 120. Those voting no, 21. The ayes have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? 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 third reading is ordered. Members,

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: have

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: an update on bill order. The next three bills will be house bill five sixty seven followed by House Bill six fifty and then House Bill nine forty nine. Again that's five sixty seven, six fifty, nine forty nine. So we will take up House Bill five sixty seven which is an act relating to unclaimed property, state retirement systems and capital debt. The bill was referred to the committee on government operations and military affairs which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Virgins, representative Birong will speak for the committee and affecting the revenue of the state the bill was referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from South Burlington, representative Burkhardt will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means and when further amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from St. Albans Town, representative Dickinson will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H five six h five six seven. An act relating to unclaimed property, state retirement systems, and capital debt.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Virgins.

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Madam speaker, I will be presenting h five six seven, an act relating to unclaimed property, state retirement systems, and a capital debt. Members can follow along in today's calendar on page fourteen ninety. This bill proposes to make changes in the state's unclaimed property statutes to move the administrative and fiduciary oversight responsibilities of the state employees and state teachers, post employment retirement benefit funds from the state treasurer to the pension investment commission and to make amendments to the state capital debt advisory committee's annual estimate of net state tax supported debt. First five sections of the bill, now now on to the section by section. The first five sections of the bill will amend statutory sections governing the unclaimed property division within the state treasurer's office. Section one twenty seven VSA fourteen ninety two. This amendment will authorize the state treasurer to require that entities providing unclaimed property to the state include an explanation of the amounts provided as unclaimed property and will authorize the treasurer to receive amounts held as unclaimed property under a medical insurance policy. Section two. Currently, the treasurer is required to keep enough unclaimed property on hand to pay out anticipated benefits on an annual basis. The treasurer may also deduct certain expenses and costs from the maintained unclaimed property funds. Certain amounts of the unclaimed property are transferred to the general fund annually. Prior to transferring to the general fund, the treasury deducts property valued at $100 less. That is more than this provision is more than ten years old. Those funds are instead transferred to the Vermont Higher Education Trust Fund. This amendment will raise the threshold of property that is held that is withheld from the general fund from 100 to $150 This amendment will also divert funds from the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund to the Vermont Retirement Security Fund. Which is used to cover the expenses for the Vermont Saves Program. There's a proposal of amendment from the House Ways and Means Committee to further amend this section to accomplish the intent of the legislation which is to divert some of these monies to the Vermont Saves Administrative Fund but to also give the state treasurer the discretion to continue to invest some of these monies in the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund as the Vermont Saves Fund becomes solvent. Section three. This amendment is a sunset of the previous amendment diverting funds from the higher Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund on 01/01/2040. The language in this section will revert back, and all funds that are under a $150 and more than ten years old would be required to be deposited into the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund. Sections four and five, this amends, sections four and five will raise statutory thresholds to authorize the treasurer to provide faster processing of certain unclaimed property funds. For example, section four, the treasurer may waive certain requirements for receiving unclaimed property such as required notarized documentation if the property is valued at less than $250. This amendment raises the threshold to a thousand dollars. Similarly, in section five, the threshold is being raised from 5,000 to $10,000 to authorize the treasurer to deliver property for a deceased individual in accordance with a decree of distribution for a closed estate and to the surviving spouse or next of kin when there is no open estate or decree of distribution. Lastly, the threshold is being raised in sub sec subsection b under section five to allow for faster distribution to unclaimed property with multiple claimants. Moving on to the Vermont State Retirement System, section six. This amendment will authorize the treasurer to assess a penalty against a municipal employer participating in the state retirement system if the employer does not contribute employer contributions in a timely manner and authorizes the treasurer to recover those funds through legal action. Section seven, pension benefits and funding task force report. This section will create the pension and benefits funding task force to review and report on the funding methodologies of the Vermont State Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System. The task force is made up of seven members found in subsection B. The task force shall review funding schedules and methodologies and make recommendations about those methodologies for the retirement and post employment benefits trust funds consistent with actuarial and governing accounting standards. Excuse me. The task force shall not make recommendations on member benefits, contribution levels, or assumed rates of return. A report is required by 12/01/2026, and the bill will appropriate $75,000 to the treasurer to conduct this work. Sections eight through 20 will transfer the administrative and fiduciary oversight of state employees and state teachers post retirement benefits trust funds Other than minor technical amendments, there is no new language proposed in these sections, and there is no language that is being deleted in these sections. These amendments are moving language from their current statutory homes and moving them under the chapter governing the Vermont Pension Investment Commission which is three VSA chapter 17. Section 18 removes the language around the safekeeping of retirement system securities for funds of the system and authorizes the loans of its securities. This language is being added to the VPIC chapter in section 13 subdivisions I and J. Section nine removes language making the state treasurer the custodian of assets of the state employees retirement funds and removes references of the commission related to conflicts of interest and standards of collect conduct. This language is being added back into the VPIC chapter in section 13 sub subsections d one. Section 10 removes the language requiring the state treasurer to administrate, administer the post employment benefits fund for the state employees retirement system. The requirement that VPIC be the custodians of the fund can be found in section 13 subsection a. Section 11 begins the amendments to the VPIC chapter. Section 11 adds the state employees and state teachers post employment benefits funds into the definitions of plans. Section 12. This is a technical amendment to now refer to the plans as amended in the previous section. This section allows VPIC to collect proportionally from the different funds that VPIC administers to cover costs associated with carrying out its duties. Section 13, as has as been mentioned in the amendments to sections eight through 12, section 13 is adding corresponding language that has been removed from prior sections. Subsection A makes VPIC the custodian of the plans that now include post employment trust funds that also this also removes reference to the state treasurer being the custodian. Subsection b makes technical corrections to refer to the plans. Subsection d adds the language removed from section nine. Subsection f is a technical amendment. Subsection h includes report requirements removed in section 10. Subsection I and j adds the language removed in section eight. On to section 14, technical amendments to refer to the plans and clarify that the fund in this section is the VPIC special fund to pay expenses and not one of the retirement funds. Section 15 adds a definition into teachers' retirement system. Chapter four VPIC section 16 removes the same language that was removed from section eight that was added into the VPIC chapter in section 13 subsection I and j. Section 17 removes the same language that was removed in section nine about the state treasurer being the custodian of the assets of the system and removes the same reference to VPIC commissioners as this language will be added back into the VPIC chapter in section 13 subdivision d

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: one.

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Section 18 removes similar language as found in section 10 regarding the treasurer being the administrator of the state teachers post employment benefits fund and accompanying reporting requirements. This was added back in section 13. Sections nineteen and twenty are related to the municipal retirement system. These sections remove these these sections remove the same language that is being removed in section eight and sixteen related to safekeeping of securities and the same language being removed in section nine and section 17 related to the code of conduct. All of the information being removed in sections nineteen and twenty were added into the VPIC chapter in section 13, subdivisions D, I, and J. Now on to pension credits. These are sections twenty and twenty one. They relate to elective retirement credits. Elective credits will allow an employee to receive serviceable credit towards retirement for certain activities such as military deployment. These two sections would allow an employee in the state retirement system or the municipal retirement system to receive serviceable credit for full time full time served if elected as a president of an employee organization designated as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees in the system such as the Vermont E and EA, for example. The language in both instances requires that the employee organization cover the necessary pension contributions for the time served and being credited. Next, State Capital Debt Advisory Committee. Section 23 is related to the State's Capital Debt Advisory Committee. The committee is required to report annually the committee's estimate of net state tax supported debt that prudently may be authorized for the next fiscal year. This section will make minor language changes to the requirements of what the committee must consider in developing the report. These amendments were recommendations of the committee issued in its recommendations of the committee issued in its 2024 report. And finally, positions in effective date. Section 24 includes three positions requested by the state treasurer for unclaimed property and retirement divisions. These positions have no impact on the general fund. Section 25, effective date, 07/01/2026. Except that the pension tax task force is effective upon passage. And the sunset of the diversion of unclean property funds is effective 01/01/2024. Adam speaker, your committee on government operations and military affair affairs have took testimony from the correspond the following witnesses, legislative council, office of legislative council, Vermont state treasurer, office of state treasurer, deputy treasurer, office of state treasurer, director of economic impairment, office of the state treasurer, chief investment officer, Vermont Pension Investment Commission, director of intergovernmental affairs, League of Cities and Towns, executive director, Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs, president, Vermont Sheriff's Association, director, Vermont State Troopers Association, president Vermont State Troopers Association, the executive director of Vermont State Employees Association, political director, Vermont National Education Association, director of Vermont Retirement Systems, office of the state treasurer, and chief operating officer agency of administration. Madam speaker, the committee on host government operations and military affairs voted favorably on this by a vote of eleven zero zero, and we ask for the body's support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from South Burlington.

[Representative Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your committee on ways and means reviewed h five six seven because it will have an impact on the revenues of the state. The joint fiscal office prepared a fiscal note regarding h five six seven dated February 18, which can be found on the ways and means committee page or on the JFO website by searching for the bill number. The largest fiscal impact outlined in sections two and three relates to the allocation of funds available from unclaimed property managed by the treasurer's office. Before I talk about changes to the treatment of unclaimed property, I need to provide a little bit of background on two different funds managed by the treasurer's office. First, the Vermont Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund, which I will call the trust fund, was established twenty six years ago. The fund makes annual allocations to the University of Vermont, the Vermont State University, and the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation. And those funds are in turn used to provide scholarships to Vermont students attending Vermont institutions of higher learning. Each year, if there are sufficient assets in the trust fund, additional allocations are made to UVM and Vermont State University to increase their endowments. The trust fund is funded in three ways. One, by allocations of unclaimed property that is less than $100 and more than ten years old. Two, by any estate tax revenue that is greater than 125% of the estate tax revenue projection adopted by the emergency board each July. And three, any other appropriations the general assembly chooses to make to it. Allocations from unclaimed property are a small but steady part of the funding for the trust fund. In fiscal twenty twenty five, the amount received was roughly a $147,000. Estate tax revenue is a potentially larger source of funding, but it is very unpredictable. There's only been enough estate tax revenue to make an allocation to the trust fund a few times in the last time the last ten years. In fiscal twenty twenty five, however, there was a $26,400,000 allocation that increased the size of the fund by more than 78% to 59,900,000.0 in assets. The other relevant fund is the Vermont Retirement Security Fund, which supports the cost of administer administering the Vermont Saves Program. The Vermont Saves Program initiated with a one time allocation of $750,000 from the general fund in 2023 provides access to retirement savings accounts to Vermont employees whose employers do not offer retirement savings programs. It is an opt out program which has led to rapid take up. After one year of operations, the program has about 5,500 members and over 5,000,000 in assets under management. The program is expected to reach a scale by 2033 where it can cover its own administrative costs through program fees paid by participants. In the meantime, the initial allocation of $750,000 will have been used up by the end of fiscal twenty twenty six, and the program needs support to cover its administrative costs for the next several years. With that background on these two funds, one that helps make college more affordable for Vermont students and one that helps Vermonters save for retirement, we can talk about how the bill proposes to temporary temporarily reallocate unclaimed property funds between them. The bill raises the threshold of unclaimed property from $100 to $150 that can be allocated to the trust fund. This makes up to $2,900,000 available for distribution in the first year after the threshold is increased. However, the bill as amended sets an annual limit of $300,000 that can be allocated out of the unclaimed property fund to these two funds. Each year, up until the Vermont Saves program is self sufficient or 2040, whichever comes first, the treasurer will allocate $300,000 to the retirement security fund. At the treasurer's sole discretion, some of that $300,000 may instead be allocated to the trust fund. We understand that the treasurer intends to allocate to the retirement security fund only the funds necessary to make up the difference between the funds program revenues and its administrative expenses. Any remaining funds under the $300,000 cap will be allocated to the trust fund. Initially, the changes in the bill would likely be lower funding for the trust fund, but the projection is that by fiscal twenty twenty nine as Vermont saves becomes more self sufficient and the needs of and needs less of the $300,000 allocation, the trust fund would be receiving more than the 100 to 150,000 it receives from unclaimed property on an annual basis currently. Eventually, it is projected that the trust fund would receive the full $300,000 per year. Once the sunset date of 01/01/2040 is reached, all unclaimed property of less than $150 and older than ten years will be allocated to the trust fund without a cap each year. Section seven of the bill creates the pension benefits funding task force to review and make recommendations about how the state is funding the Vermont State Employees Retirement System and the Vermont Teachers Retirement System including post retirement health care and other benefits. The task force would do its work between June and December of this year, make its report to the general assembly and retirement boards by December 15, and would dissolve on 12/31/2026. The original bill included an appropriation of $75,000 to the treasurer's office to administer the task force, though I understand we may hear an amendment shortly that removes that appropriation. Sections eight to 20 of the bill, transition fiduciary oversight of the state employees and and teachers other post employment benefits funds, otherwise known as OPEB, from the treasurer's office to the Vermont Pension Investment Corporation or VPIC. VPIC has identified that it would need one additional position at a total cost of $125,000 and additional annual costs of roughly $145,000 in order to take on responsibility for these funds. VPIC is funded by the retirement systems whose funds it invests, not the general fund. The bill contains no appropriation for these costs. Sections 21 to 22 allow members of the Vermont State Employees Retirement System or Vermont Municipal Employees Retirement System who spend time serving as president of their employee organizations to purchase retirement service credit for the time they spend released from their regular responsibilities and not earning service credits. Because employees or their employee organizations pay for these optional credits, there should be no fiscal impact from these provisions of the bill. Finally, section 24 would provide for three new permanent positions at the state treasurer's office beginning in fiscal twenty twenty seven. Two positions in the unclaimed property division and one policy and research manager in the retirement division. The unclaimed property positions would be funded by the unclaimed property special fund and the retirement position proportionally from the three retirement systems managed by the treasurer's office. We heard from the following witnesses, the director of Vermont Retirement Systems, office of the state treasurer, director of unclaimed property, office of the state treasurer, associate fiscal officer, joint fiscal office, deputy treasurer, office of the state treasurer, legislative council, office of legislative council. Your committee on ways and means found the bill favorable as amended with a vote of eleven zero zero, and we recommend that the bill ought to pass.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Virgins.

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Madam speaker, we heard the ways and means amendment, and your committee on government operations and military affairs found it favorable by a straw poll of nine zero one, And we ask for the body support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from St. Albanstown.

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The House Appropriations Committee reviewed H567. This bill is the treasurer's omnibus bill. The Appropriations Committee thanks the Government Operations Committee and the House Appropriations amended the bill, which can be seen on page fourteen ninety two. The first and second instance of amendment is to the Ways and Means amendment. It is in section two in subdivision five a and in section three in five a. It is a technical correction to the number 300,000 to correct a typo of the number. You can see that on page fourteen ninety one. The third instance of amendment is is to section seven to strike out subsection h in its entirety. The funding of 75,000 for the pension and benefits funding task force was already included in the big bill for appropriations. The fourth instance of amendment was to strike section 24 in its entirety and include one position for unclaimed property in the big bill for appropriations for the treasurer's office. The appropriations committee heard from the joint fiscal office, ledge counsel, and a representative from the treasurer's office. The committee voted eleven zero zero, and we urge the body's support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And member from regents.

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Madam speaker, your committee on government operations and military affairs heard the amendment from house appropriations and by Strovich Hall found it favorable by a vote of eight zero two, and we ask for the body support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? 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 amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? 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 further amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? 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 third reading is ordered. Now we'll turn to House Bill six fifty which is an act relating to educational technology products. The bill was referred to the committee on commerce and economic development which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. Member from Jericho, representative granting will speak for that committee and then affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee in commerce and economic development. The member from Burlington, representative Odie, will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H six fifty, an act relating to educational technology products.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Jericho.

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: Madam speaker, h six fifty is a student consumer protection bill that starts the process of documenting and examining which educational technology products are being used in Vermont and which products could be used as safe, effective tools in our schools. This is a multibillion dollar industry with very little oversight today. Currently, each school uses its own criteria to decide which educational technology products should be used in their classrooms. We learned that many of our districts and supervisory unions are members of a multistate consortium to ensure the privacy of their students' data. However, about one quarter of the districts across the state are not members. This approach leads to inconsistent and unequal vetting of these products, which may be leaving many students without appropriate safeguards on the technology that they use every day in the classroom. What we have now is a system similar to our vitamin and supplement industry. Product makers can make virtually any claim about what their product does. There is little to no independent vetting of these products and often the only research on their effectiveness is being done by the product makers themselves. What often ends up happening is that our kids are their guinea pigs. Based on the testimony that we heard, I truly believe that everyone in decision making positions about which educational technology products to use in classrooms is doing their absolute best and has only good intentions. The issue is that there isn't enough time, deep knowledge, and people power across this state to keep up with the marketing and the many new products to ensure the safety of all of our kids. H six fifty can be found on page fourteen ninety two of today's calendar, and I will now take you through bill. Section one amends nine BSA chapter 62 section two four four three f to explicitly give enforcement rulemaking authority to the attorney general. It states that a violation of this chapter is committing an unfair and deceptive act in commerce. Section two forty four a sets the registration requirements for educational technology providers. First, the bill defines what an educational technology product is. It's a very clear definition. It's any student facing software, application, or platform that may collect, process, or transmit student data and that is used for teaching and learning purposes in a school in Vermont. Next, when the educational technology provider files with the secretary of state as all businesses that operate in Vermont must do, They submit a link to their privacy policy, the name of each school in which they are operating, a name and brief description of each educational technology product they offer, and an attestation that each product meets privacy standards set forth in federal and state law, including the age appropriate design code act that was passed last year. Section two of the bill requires the agency of education to report back to the general assembly with recommendations as to how the state should certify educational technology providers and their associated products. In their study, the agency will review which criteria should be considered in a certification process. This criterion must be in must include the product's compliance with curriculum standards, advantages of using the product compared with non digital methods, and design features of the product. The study must also review the timeline and approximate cost for the certification process. The report would be due on or before 11/15/2027. And I want to be clear here, we are only asking the agency of education to tell us what it would take for them to be able to set this criteria up and what it would cost for them to be able to certify these products. The effective date of the act is 07/01/2026. The committee heard from the co sponsors of the bill, legislative council, office of legislative council, an educator and founder of Mindful Tech Lessons, founder of the screen time consultant, director of instructional technology, Rutland City Public Schools, IT director, Mount Mansfield Unified Union School District, director of curriculum, Central Vermont Supervisory Union, secretary, agency of education, education technology program manager, agency of education, neuroscientist and author of the digital delusion, director of policy and legislative affairs, attorney general's office, founder and director, Real Safety AI Foundation, director of business services, secretary of state's office, deputy secretary of state, secretary of state's office, executive director, Internet Safety Labs, principal attorney, EdTech Law Center. The committee vote was favorable, eleven zero zero, and I ask for the body's support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from Burlington.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Madam speaker, your committee on ways and means considered h six fifty. The bill as introduced contained a fee. The bill as amended does not contain a fee. There is no fiscal impact. Your committee heard from reporter of the bill, House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development, principal fiscal analyst, joint fiscal office, legislative council, office of legislative council, and voted ten zero one to support the bill when amended as recommended.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Commerce and Economic Development? Are you ready for the question? Member from Williston.

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: Madam speaker, I rise to support this bill. No surprise. I am a cosponsor, but also to thank the, committee on commerce and economic development. Thank your committee on commerce and economic development and, and really offer that, I believe they are a group of people who are at this point, some of the most educated in the country on these topics as various state legislatures seek to pass regulation related to education technology. And I just wanted to say that we heard just a few hours ago, news broke that there was a a verdict in the bellwether case in California, related to Meta and YouTube. Meta and YouTube have now been found liable for depression and anxiety of a young woman who compulsively used their social media products as a child. Yesterday, a New Mexico jury found Meta guilty of violating state law by failing to properly protect young people from child predators. And these are companies that have very intentionally pushed their way into our schools. We're very aware of how, prevalent and sort of ubiquitous these products are in our children's lives and in our own lives, but we don't always think about how, present they are in schools. And the discovery documents that were produced as part of that bellwether case really showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that, their push into schools is intentional. It's part of their their growth strategy, and the design of their products that are pushed into schools is no different than the design of the products, that are now being found to cause great harm to children. So it is imperative that we, slow the process of adoption down in any way possible and really allow through state standards for all children in in Vermont to be, equally protected. And it's almost hilarious because it's also just incredibly sad, but, I was looking some facts up to speak about these two cases and another new story popped up just today. If I may, I I asked to quote briefly from a Reuters article.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: So today, earlier today, a humanoid robot walked side by side down a red carpet with first our first lady into an event at the White House called fostering the future together. And the rope the humanoid robot was introduced as figure zero three, and the first lady said used the humanoid robot's appearance to promote the need for governments I'm quoting now from the article, to promote the need for governments and major technology companies to work together to use AI for student instruction. This is a quote. Very soon, artificial intelligence will move from our mobile phones to humanoids that deliver utility, she said. The first lady described how in the near future, a hypothetical humanoid teacher could quickly access classical studies, mathematics, and other subjects to deliver personalized education to students based on their learning speed and, quote, emotional state. So the thought of a humanoid robot responding to a child's emotional state is really difficult for me to get comfortable with, and I hope that it, illustrates clearly the types of eventualities that we really need to protect against now. And there is a bit of a runway in this bill. We won't get the report back from the AOE until, late next year, but it at least takes the steps to put in place a process, that removes the burden from schools, which is where it rests currently, and takes it into the hands of the state so that, again, all children in Vermont, can enjoy the same types of thoughtful, intentional protections from, sadly, companies with no care for our children's well-being.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on commerce and economic development? 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 amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? 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 third reading is ordered. Now we'll turn to house bill nine forty nine which is an act relating to homestead property tax yields, the non homestead property tax rate and technical changes to education finance. The bill was introduced by the committee on ways and means. The member from Brattleboro, representative Cornhiser will speak for the committee. Then carrying an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Bennington, representative will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Age nine forty nine, an act relating to homestead property tax yields, the nonhomestead property tax rate, and technical changes to education finance.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, h nine forty nine, our annual yield bill, is, quite a short bill. And so if you are looking for more details on the impact and underlying information in it, I encourage you to seek out the website for h nine forty nine, either through the Ways and Means Committee page or just by putting nine forty nine into your browser and pulling up the fiscal note, the education fund outlook. And if you really wanna go deep, there's an annotated outlook that you can find on the joint fiscal website or on our committee page that helps you go through the education fund outlook. Our education fund. Spending on our schools and kids is one of the best ways we can use our resources. It's an investment in our kids' well-being, our democracy, and our economy. The majority of our education dollars get spent locally on good union jobs. Our statewide education fund means we're all in this together. Districts decide their budgets and then we all chip in to pay for our schools in one big fund. Every year, our school boards and school administrators spend their summer and fall developing budgets based on their previous year's spending and the current needs of student and staff. When the projections of next year's tax rates are released on December 1, Most boards are far along in their deliberations. Indeed, the letter is based in part on those deliberations. When the legislature convenes in January, your Ways and Means Committee begins our work to move from the projections of the tax letter to a numbers to set in statute or yield bill. We started the session hearing about anticipated spending because the yield bill needs to raise enough money to cover the sum of all school budgets all over the state. Then on January 16, we hear from our economists on how much we anticipate in revenues from nonproperty tax sources. Sales tax, meals and rooms tax, lottery proceeds, and other sources. Our job is to make up the difference with property taxes. We heard this year that anticipated revenue growth is slowing, exacerbating risk across all three funds and placing even more pressure on our property taxes. This year, our other revenue sources into the education fund told total $816,000,000 for FY '27 spending. This means that we needed to find a path forward to raise $1,702,000,000 in property taxes. We updated this number with weekly updates from the field and the agency of education and multiple alternate strategies to raise those funds and spend the one point $104,900,000 transfer from the general fund and the $22,330,000 on the bottom line of the education fund. We did these deliberations every Tuesday afternoon and many other days, and if members would like to look back at our testimony, it is easy to find an in a regular cadence. Your committee doesn't see a perfect solution in the short term to meet the revenue needs of our schools. We are balancing the immediate needs of taxpayers, the unstable future ahead of us, and the pressing needs of our children, and we ask for your support. H nine forty nine use fifty uses $52,550,000 in one time general funds and $22,330,000 in unallocated education funds to reduce property taxes uniformly in fiscal year twenty twenty seven and reserves $52,550,000 in a tax rate offset reserve to offset property taxes next year. Despite the best and sometimes drastic efforts of our school districts, education spending is growing faster than non property tax revenues such as sales tax, and so property taxes need to increase to make up the difference. The spending growth cannot be attributed to any one cost, but as a mix of special education, health care costs, mental health costs, inflation, and infrastructure needs. By making a general fund transfer, we are able to offset tax increases for Vermonters at a time when many are struggling to pay their bills. But fiscal responsibility means that stable, fair, and affordable taxes are the bedrock of good tax policy. And the current scale of property tax changes are none of those things. While a single single year general fund transfer is not ideal as it leaves a steeper increase for next year, it is better than passing on the cost to Vermonters property tax bills. Ideally, madam speaker, we would put permanent revenue in you into the education fund to support the increased spending. However, that isn't possible in this current environment. And so the bill before you sets a property dollar equivalent yield of 9,170, an income dollar equivalent yield of 12,576, and sets a non homestead rate of 1.698. We anticipate that next year's general fund revenues to be even tighter than this year and want to make sure we can keep Vermonters tax bill stabilized next year as well. So we set aside 15,000,000 $52,000,000 in a tax rate offset reserve to offset property taxes next year. There are also a few technical changes in the yield bill. There's a technical correction to the legislative language that directs the math in the statewide adjustments. There is the addition of an inflator to the special education block grant because in Act one seventy three of 2018, which was an act relating to enhancing the effectiveness, availability, and equity of services provided to students, could require additional support. It changed the way we fund special education in Vermont. And that block grant had an inflation mechanism for the first few years of the transition, but, frankly, it seems to magically disappear for 2028, and so we restore the necessary inflator in this language. We also include a fix for an overpayment by the city of Barrie resulting from a software error. Madam speaker, your committee vote on the yield bill was six five zero, and we heard from the following witnesses. Principal fiscal analyst from the joint fiscal office, an associate fiscal officer from the joint fiscal office, legislative council from the office of legislative council, deputy secretary from the agency of education, the executive director from the Vermont School Boards Association, senior fiscal analyst from the Department of Taxes, an education finance manager from the agency of education, senior fiscal analyst from the Agency of Education, president of the Vermont Association of School Business Officials, the executive director of finance of Burlington School District, the director of education finance at the Agency of Education, the executive director of Vermont Superintendent Association, the chief financial officer for the Rutland City School District, the director of finance for Slate Valley Unified School District, the director of finance for the Hartford School District, and the chair of the Burlington School District. We also heard from many other work witnesses in the course of our work on state revenues, the state budget, and education transformation this session that informed our work on the yield bill. Madam speaker, your can be on ways and means carefully balanced the needs of our property taxpayers, your state obligation to each of our school districts, and our ability to create a stable environment for our schools, our children, and Vermonters going forward, and we ask for your support on this bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Bennington.

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, you just heard about the use of a $104,900,000 in general funds for the purpose of reducing property taxes over two years. That transfer occurs in the budget. As a reminder, this total of 104,900,000.0 came from two sources, 30,000,000 that had been reserved in the 2026 budget for several specified purposes, one of which was property tax relief, and 74,900,000.0 on the bottom line of the f y twenty six six budget adjustment act. The bill also transfers a 150,000 from the education fund to compensate the city of Barrie for an overpayment of property taxes. As indicated in the fiscal note, this will have a de minimis impact on the education fund. The appropriations committee supported h nine forty nine with a vote of nine two zero. We thank the committee for ways and means on their work and ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And now, the member from Brattleboro, Representative Kornheiser offers an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, you might have noted noticed that, there was a great, debate this year amongst legislative council and the joint fiscal office on whether to use the word transferred or appropriated and in what context that word should be used or is most appropriate. In our, original bill as introduced, the city of Barrie correction used the word transferred, but apparently the word appropriated was more appropriate and so our technical correction does just that. Our committee vote on the technical amendment was ten zero one and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Brattleboro? 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 amended the bill. Now the member from Pulton East, Representative McCoy offers an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members today at 09:42. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Pultney.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, my amendment is very simple. Vermonters need more property tax relief now. They simply cannot afford an average 7% increase. After Vermonters property tax bills have increased over 40% on average over the last five years. Vermonters told us loud and clear last November and still do today. They cannot afford their property taxes. Instead of raising property taxes 7%, the conversation in this building should be about how to drive that percentage down as low as possible. This amendment applies the full governor recommended $105,000,000 for property tax relief this year and lowers property taxes compared to the underlying bill this year by more than $50,000,000. Nobody likes using one time money to float a broken education system, but this amendment should be viewed as a bridge to the new, more sustainable system we're trying to build if the legislature follows through on act 73. Too many Vermonters are struggling to get by. They are on the edge and don't have time to wait for education transformation to take place. And this amendment takes a step towards providing more relief now as we continue to work on creating a better system. Now the amendment is amends section one by substituting the figures that the member from Brattleboro spoke of in section one. This yield, the property dollar equivalent yield shall be instead of 9,170 replaced with 9,442 and the income dollar equivalent yield shall be $13,027 instead of 12,576, and it deletes section two from the the amend from the bill. And additionally, the homestead property tax rate will be set at 1.648 with this amendment as opposed to 1.698. And when the vote is taken, I request it be taken by roll.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pulte new request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Madam

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: speaker, your Ways and Means Committee is doing everything we can to drive that percentage down. And the education transformation work that we have done in this building over the last few years, including this year, is on a timeline that is not in even the fastest scenario going to deliver relief in f y twenty eight. We see using this money over a two year period as an important bridge towards that transformation and an important promise to communities about the bridge of that transformation in a time of remarkable instability in our communities and in our schools and for all of our bills. We debated all of the options on the table at length in our committee and came to this two year fifty fifty split that you see in the underlying bill. And so on a vote of seven four zero, your committee on ways and means asks you to say no to this bill and vote to this amendment, excuse me, and votes against it. Thank you. So We ask you to support us in saying no to this amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Pulteney? Are you ready for the question? Member from Norwich.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Thank you, madam speaker. We pride ourselves as a body on not using one time money for ongoing costs because when we do that, we create structural deficits that just get harder and harder to close, especially as these federal funds drive up dry up. And yet last year, we used about a 120,000,000 in one time funds to buy down tax rates. Districts began this year with about a 7% hole in the budget. All of my districts have asked me to please not do them again this to them again. They have told me they are putting off investments that would permanently reduce tax rates because they don't know what we're going to do. Vermonters need relief now, but they also need it next year and they need it the year after. And if we support this amendment, we are committing them to another year where they start their budget cycle. Even if they budget flat, they're gonna have a 7% increase. To their credit, as peep as our speaker chair from Brattleboro said, districts did held spending increases to an overall average of 4.15%, higher than any of us wants, but certainly lower than the increases in their health care costs and below many parts of state government. At the same time, we are still passing bills with small fiscal notes that are starting to add up. We have to take this seriously, but we can't make it worse. I understand the need to cushion taxpayers. We need to help them through the gap we created, and I I I understand that. But if we spend all of this surplus, one 104,000,000 on one year of relief plus the balance that's in the Ed Fund, we are just repeating the problem, rinse and repeat. And Vermonters and my area can't afford that either, and they deserve better. They deserve real affordability. In some regions, communities, no change is needed. Enrollment is down, cost per people are up, but they can't make structural changes, especially to facilities without help, and we have not provided construction aid for years. Take a county to the west of us. It has five high schools all within a half hour drive. Enrollment has fallen off so much that you could fit two of those high schools into the third high school with their current enrollment and their current capacity. But their buildings are among some of the most worn out and depreciated in the state. So the question I hope we can keep in our mind as we consider this amendment is instead of using all that variable surplus to just buy down last year's tax rate again and set ourselves up for another huge double digit spike next year, what if we invested in permanent affordability? What if we brought down those costs permanently, not just this year, but every year? Just enough to help regions like the one I mentioned, right size its facilities, just enough to support local plans that expand opportunity and long term cost reduction. Not just next year, but every year moving forward. And that's gonna take some construction aid. That kind of investment would create lasting savings for our education fund and it would reduce cost for everybody in our shared system. It would also reduce the instability that we are asking our school boards to manage. Without it and without construction aid, it will be very hard to make the changes we know we all need to make. Please reject this amendment as a form of very short term thinking that sets our communities up for another tax shot next year by diverting resources that could be spent to protecting people and providing permanent affordability and better opportunities. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Pultely? Are you ready for the question? Member from Saint Albans City.

[Representative Casey Toof (St. Albans City)]: Madam speaker, I thank the member for this amendment. For monitors who made it clear that they have reached their breaking point, and a partial break buy down here is insufficient. Putting the full buy down back in this bill sends a clear message to struggling of honors that we're here for them. With their ongoing inflationary activity for fundamental needs and looming uncertainty in The US economy, we we owe it to them.

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

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In the debate in our committee, we looked at a few options. A one year use of the money and to reduce property taxes to about 5.3% And then 3.8%. And then to also look at spreading it out over three years. And we also talked about a two year program. We also had the joint fiscal office give us an analysis of what tax rates would do if we used it all in one year and then couldn't come up with the money in the second year. And that's where it's most interesting because we have been lucky and fortunate to in the past two years dedicate a considerable amount of general fund revenue to reduce the amount to be raised by property taxes in the education fund. The question is can we continue to rely on that? I'm assured by my colleagues in the House Appropriations Committee that that's not really looking too rosy in the future years. So it is prudent that we actually put money aside for the future years. Because if we did not have that revenue in the next year, our property taxes would go up by 15%. Not 7%, not 8%, but by 15%. And that is just looking at the trajectory of education costs and looking at the other fund revenue. So that is why our committee really decided not to use it all in one year, and not in three years, but in two years. So I also urge the body to reject this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Pultely? Are you ready for the question? Member from Fairfax.

[Representative Ashley Bartley (Fairfax)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanna thank the presenter of the amendment. This money has been already paid by taxpayers. In essence, this is already taxpayers' money. And they are currently thinking about, how am I going to pay for gas? How am I going to pay for eggs? For for the medication? Do I choose between medication and food for my family? They need relief now and not in two years. We've said for the last four years that we cannot bind future legislators, and that's what we're doing with the underlying bill. I'm concerned we will not have the additional $50,000,000 in two years. I wholeheartedly support this amendment, and I urge the body to support it as well. Because, like I said, this money is the taxpayers' money, and it should go back into their pockets.

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

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm gonna be voting against this amendment, and I wanted to briefly explain why. For me, the underlying bill illustrates the balance that we try to strike as thoughtful legislators. In the coffee hours that I hold back home with constituents, I've said many times that using one time money to buy down property tax rates is not a great strategy. It doesn't solve the underlying problem and it sets up a cliff for the following year. I get lots of nodding heads around the table, people get it. Then I go on to explain that despite my reservations, I have voted to buy down property tax rates several times. Why? Well, because I hear from the same constituents and I see in my own household budget that rising property taxes are unsustainable and they're unaffordable. People do need tax relief now and so we do our best to deliver in the most responsible way possible. Our goal should be to strike a balance between these two competing equally important interests. We provide some property tax relief this year and to be clear, we're bringing the property tax rate down, not raising it. And we set aside some dollars to stabilize tax rates again next year. The alternatives don't make a whole lot of sense to me. I can't justify providing no relief. People are struggling to pay their bills. But I also cannot support a policy that sets up a far bigger hole for next year, a hole that we will have a very hard time asking folks to cover, and a year in which we believe budgets are gonna be even tighter than this year. In this body, we need to make investments that take into account both the short and the long term, both the now and the later. The underlying bill offers a responsible solution. To repeat, a solution that brings down property tax rates. And it's one I know my constituents will understand. Think about now. Think about later. So I will be voting no on this amendment.

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

[Representative Sandy Pinsonault (Dorset)]: Madam speaker, some may have argued that a partial buy down is in order so that we can save money for another buy down next year. But the bottom line is, if we do the job we were sent here by Vermonters to do and overhaul the education system, we will not need money to buy it down in the future. The time to deliver both tax relief and education reform is now. It cannot wait another cycle election cycle and for that reason, I urge you to vote yes on this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Pultely? Are you ready for the question? Member from Brattleboro.

[Assistant Clerk (Resolutions Reader)]: Madam speaker, I'd like to offer a little

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: bit of additional clarification. The 55 approximately $55,000,000 being reserved for next year is in a tax rate offset reserve in the education fund clearly designated for that purpose next year. And I'll tell you, madam speaker, I actually regularly talk in committee, perhaps inappropriately, about how I don't trust future legislatures and really most of us shouldn't. But in this particular case, I do and I'll tell you why. We've placed money in a very similar tax rate offset reserve in the past many times, and it's always directed entirely to tax reductions similar to how the money left on the bottom line of the education fund is also always rolled up into tax red reductions. The statute governing the education fund contains a measure intended to deter the general assembly from taking money out of the education fund for non authorized uses and we don't have this in our other funds. It's known as the poison pill but yesterday I referred to as the exploding thing. And it can be found at 16 VSA four zero two five d and it states that upon withdrawal of funds from the education fund for any purpose other than those authorized by this section 32 VSA chapter one thirty five, the education property tax is repealed. The statute works by enumerating an exhaustive list of permissible uses of dollars of the education fund. It prohibits the use of education dollars for purposes not listed in statute, and it penalizes the violation of statute with automatic repeal of Vermont's education property tax system. As you can imagine, this would generate significant practical problems for funding and providing public education to Vermonters as well as significant legal problems from denying Vermonters their constitutional right to education. So, madam speaker, I think in this particular instance, and really this particular instance, I think it's safe to trust future legislatures that this $55,000,000 is safe and will be spent on tax rate offsets next year. Thank you. I encourage you to vote no on this amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Fairfield.

[Speaker 34]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 41]: I actually have a lot to say on this, but I will keep it brief. It's unfortunate that we're in a position where we need to continuously buy down the tax rate. But in action of the legislature to pass meaningful education reform for the past decade should not be a mistake that struggling Vermonters have to pay for. We shouldn't be in this position to begin with. Let's do the right thing and support this amendment while remaining committed to true education reform this year. Vermont taxpayers and our children cannot wait.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have not even decided myself where I'm going with this, but I wanna respond to an earlier comment about not being concerned about future legislature because there's this statute that would create major negative ramifications. And just a reminder that any statute can also be repealed. So that actually isn't a barrier to what a future legislature might do.

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

[Representative Robin Scheu (Middlebury)]: Madam speaker, a previous member talked a little bit about FY '28 and I'd like to add a little bit more information to FY '28. We are anticipating starting off the next year somewhere between 40 to $60,000,000 in the whole if we're lucky. Provider taxes are going to be reduced by $18,500,000 and then they're going to continue to go down in preview in future years. The FMAP rates are going to be down. We have had to hire more staff because of federal funds changes to snap and Medicaid redeterminations. So that's increasing our costs. They also the other federal funds changes have caused us to increase the state share for many federal programs, so we are now paying for that out of federal funds. I mean out of general funds because there aren't federal funds. And it's impossible to tell all of the direct and indirect costs, somebody asked me that earlier, but it's many millions of dollars that are that are it's going to cost us now that hasn't cost us in the past due to federal actions. So and and on top of that, what we are seeing with the economic revenue forecast is that revenues are growth is slowing. We haven't had the July 1 yet, obviously, and we'll have another one in January, but we have seen over time that revenue growth is slowing and that's what's being projected. Education reform will not be complete in one year. So if we're starting off tens of millions of dollars in the hole, what are you going to cut? What are we not gonna do? How are we not gonna serve our monitors because we're going to choose to buy down all property taxes in one fell swoop this year? I cannot support this, and I will be voting no.

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

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Just

[Speaker 25]: a few points in response to the debate that is currently ongoing on the floor. It is clear to many of us in this body that Vermonters cannot wait for next year. They need our help right now. I believe that reserving the 50,000,000 for next year could have the opposite results. If we tell districts now before they even start their budgeting for next year that they have a $50,000,000 cushion, much of that money will end up being spent and not returned to taxpayers as relief. Thank you.

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

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: Thank you, madam speaker. A mentor an older mentor of mine said a number of time a number of number of decades ago that Americans are always hungry for the quick solution, but we implement things incrementally. We should think about that. We're hungry for the quick solution, but we implement things incrementally. And as we all know here, those who participated in the dates debates over the last few days, education, property tax reform is gonna take us some while. It's a challenge. It's very difficult, and we're all of us in this chamber struggling with that. With regards to this specific amendment, it's abundantly clear that we need to save whatever we can to cushion the blow that we're having we're gonna face next January. You might be interested in knowing, madam speaker, that the the committee on ways and means has actually spent a fair amount of time looking at corporate income taxes and how changes on the federal level will affect what we're doing here. And it and I hope the members would be pleased to know that in every instance where we look at changes in the federal corporate tax, we're trying to find ways to increase even by bits and pieces revenue that comes to this state that goes to the general fund that we'll have available in future years. And we think we've been fairly successful with that, but I'd have to admit, madam speaker, that this is incrementally. And if we, to back up a bit, last year, we used whatever the the the governor recommended, and we put it into property tax re relief, and now we're facing the consequences of the hole that we created created last year. Let's not do that again. Ways and means and through what the work that in the yield bill, we'll use half of what we have available and save half of it for next year. That's an incremental improvement on where we are and where we need to go. So I would ask the members, madam speaker, please to turn down the amendment, vote the bill, and let's go forward on the work that we need to do. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Representative Greg Burtt (Cabot)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have said it before and I'll say it now. This body must put all its energy into elevating the prosperity of the working class. Increasing property taxes at a tilt of 7% is unacceptable. Find a way to reduce health care costs and education spending. Otherwise, the downward spiral of losing our best people will only be exacerbated. I thank the member for bringing forward the amendment, and I will vote yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Reserve, are you ready for the question? Member from Essex Junction?

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, this amendment will do harm to our kids and our taxpayers next year. We have headwinds coming at us that we don't even know about yet. I ask the members to vote no.

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

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, I support this amendment. I was concerned that we were not using all the funds that the governor proposed to buy down the tax rate. For some information, the BUUSD, the district that I come from, the chair of that district at the time, we failed our budget. Rep it represented only a modest increase of just over 3%. Yet, in Barrytown, that translated into 19% increase in tax rate. I speak of Barrytown because in Barry City, we didn't know due to the reappraisal. We had no idea what the increase would have been. That is because the education funding formula is so convoluted that a reappraisal throws a wrench right into the gears and makes an already confusing system even harder to understand Based on the information that I I had and currently have, I believe the increase in Barrie City could be around a 150 200 per $100,000 of assessed value. That means an average home in Barrie will see probably $500 per per year increase, which they can't afford. Barrie City needs relief, and it needs it now, not tomorrow. Just an example of why Vermont also needs education reform now, not tomorrow. I urge this body to support this amendment. Double digit increase will not cause will only cause another failure in Barry City.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? If so, member from Pulton East.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, to help address next year's challenges, we should also be considering proposals like senator Bartholomew's s two twenty to cap spending, which I understand passed the senate. The prudent thing to do is to follow through on act 73. And, again, I'll reiterate that this should be viewed as a bridge to more sustainable funding systems, which we passed last year if we follow through on it. The bottom line is our constituents need property tax relief now. That's what my amendment helps to do. The 7% is an average as the member from Barrie City was stating, which means some towns will see upwards of 15 to 17% increase in taxes for their next property tax bill, and some might be lower. I cannot support a double digit increase in property taxes for any town in this state. Thank you.

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

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Arsenault of Williston. No.

[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 and conversation during the roll call. 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 bill be amended as offered by the member from. Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Austin of Colchester. No. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. No. Bartley of Fairfax.

[Speaker 28]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Rebecca of Winooski. No. Byrong of Regents. No. Bishop of Colchester. Black of Essex? No. Bloomley in Burlington? No. Boston of Westminster? No. Bosch of Clarendon? Yes. Boonton of Cambridge? Brady of Williston? No. Branagan of Georgia? Yes. Brigham of Saint Albans Town? Yes. Brown in Richmond? No. Burditt at West Rutland? Yes. Burkhardt of South Burlington? Burrows of West Windsor? No. Burt of Cabot? Yes. Campbell of Saint Johnsbury? No. Canfield of Fairhaven? Yes. Carris Duncan or Lightningham? Casey Montpelier? No. Casey Hobarton? Yes. Chapin at East Montpelier? No. Charlton Chester? Yes. Of Hartford? Gina Burlington?

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: No with explanation.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Coffin and Cavendish.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Cole of Hartford. No. Conlon Cornwall. No. Cooper Conor Bennington. No. Critchlow of Colchester. Demar of Ennisburg. Yes. Dickinson of Saint Ones Town.

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Deborah Debbie Dolan of Essex Junction. Dolgin of St. Johnsbury? Yes. Donahue of Northfield? No. Duke of Burlington? No. Durfee of Shaftsbury? No. Eastes of Guildford? Emmons of Springfield? No. Feltus of Linden? Yes. Galfetti, Berrytown?

[Assistant Clerk (Resolutions Reader)]: Yes. Galfetti,

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Garrifano of Essex?

[Representative Lucy Boyden (Cambridge)]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Goldman of Rockingham? Good now, Brattleboro? No. Ghostland on Northfield?

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Branagan Jericho? No. Greer Bennington? Greg Burkhardt? Henry Birxier? Yes. Buffalo Glover? Yes. Harvey Castleton? Yes. Hedrick Burlington? No. Higley Abel? Yes. Holcomb Norwich? No. Cooper Randolph? Poten of Esme Suncheon?

[Assistant Clerk (Resolutions Reader)]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Howard or Rutland City? No. Holland or Rutland Town?

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Hoeder Hartford? No. Hunter Manchester? James Manchester? No. Kacenska? Burke? Yes. Keyser, Rutland City? Kimball Woodstock? No. Kupner, Burlington?

[Representative Leland Morgan (Milton)]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Courthuisier, Butterborough? South Burlington. No. Lebar and Morgan. Yes. Lally Schauburn. No. Malone to South Burlington. No. Lama Morristown. Russia Franklin. Lipsky of Stowe. Logan of Burlington? Long and Uffin? No. Leaders of Lincoln? Yes. Uno of Saint Albany

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: City? Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Maguire of Rutland City? Olay Pittsford? Yes. Mark Conor Coventry? Maslin at the third? No. McKenna Montpelier? No. McCoy Pulteney? Yes. McFawn of Berrytown? McGillibrarytown. McGillibraryport. No. Melissa Milton.

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Of

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Callis. Meniere of South Burlington. No. Morganella Milton. Yes. Morgan Emma Milton. Yes. Morrissey, Morrissey, Bennington. Bennington? Yes. Laura Weston? No. Roeke, Putney? No. Nelson, Derby? Yes. Nielsen, a Brandon?

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Niagara, Bennington? North of Ayersburg? Yes. Mollie S. Wilkhardt? No. Newton of South Burlington? No. O'Brien of Tunbridge? No. OD Burlington? Oliver Sheldon? Yes. Olson of Starksboro? Page of Newport City. Yes. Parsons Newberry. Yes. Haso of Colchester. Yes. Pinson Aldor. Yes. Hauterhinesburg. No. Powers Waterford. Priestley Radford? No. Richard of Pollock? Yes. Wendy of Linden? Yes. Rachel's in Burlington? No. Secwitz Randolph? Shia Middlebury? No. Sheldon in Middlebury? No. Sebeli of Dover? No. Southworth Of Walden? Yes. Squirrel Of Underhill? No. Steady Mill Ten? Stevens Waterbury. Stone Of Burlington. No. Sweeney Of Shelburn.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Tygovia Crimp.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Taylor Milton. Yes. Taylor Mendon. Yes. Tomlinson? Torrey Mortown? No. Walker Smaughton? Yes. Wasses Zaccha Berry City? Yes. Waters Evans or Charlotte? No. Wells Of Brownington? White Oatesfield? No. White Bethel? No. Winter Bloodlow? Yes. Woodwater Berry? No. Nicaragua or Horsetown? Bailey Of Hyde Park. Chris mhmm. Christie Hartford. Eastes Of Gilbert. Butler City, McWanna Barrytown, Miclissa Milton, and Wells Of Brownington. For

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

[Representative Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: I voted no on this amendment because devoting the entire surplus to the continued use of one time funds to buy down tax rates with no plan for the following year is a political form of magical thinking. It's bad policy and fiscally irresponsible.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I vote no on this amendment because it is fiscally irresponsible to spend too much at once when facing financial uncertainty even if it wins more votes in an in an election year.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, I do not support this amendment or the underlying bill because I do not support any buy down. It removes it deceives the voters and leads to removing the pressure on us to move this to serious reform as demonstrated by last year's buy down.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And member from Barrytown.

[Representative Francis McFaun (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, the time for tax relief is now. The time for education reform is now. The majority has had ten plus years to fix this broken system. It would appear that the majority is interest at and is interested in representing wealthy elites and not Vermonters.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Williamstown.

[Representative Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: Speaker, I'd like to explain my vote.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: These are our pack taxpayers' dollars. Whether for this or any reason other reason we find to give it back, it is their money, not ours. We should make it a habit of always giving back whatever surplus is left every year. It is their money, not ours.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex Junction.

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, I vote no on this amendment for our students and our taxpayers. We have 181 elected officials working on changing our education system. I look forward to the work finishing.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 56. Those voting no, 85. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? Member from Sheldon.

[Representative Thomas Oliver (Sheldon)]: Madam speaker, I respectfully disagree with the notion that Vermonters can absorb additional tax increases this year. Our responsibility is clear to address the challenges in our education system and to provide tax relief. I am concerned that we are not meeting those expectations.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Polkney? The member from Polkney 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 bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam speaker,

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: given the structure of our education finance system currently, it is our obligation to fully fund school budgets. The yield bill before you lowers our expected property taxes, our expected property tax increases, it puts money towards into Vermonters pockets, it spends all of the money on the bottom line returning it to property tax payers and it sets us up on a stable path towards the education reform work that we're doing every year. Madam speaker, there is we have to have a yield bill, speaker. And I'm happy, if it's ever helpful to explain the consequences of not having a yield bill. But what I will say is for now, this is our obligation as legislators. This is our obligation under the law and this is our obligation to our school and our taxpayers and our children. I encourage everyone to join me in voting yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? If so oh, member from Milton.

[Representative Leland Morgan (Milton)]: Madam speaker, this unamended yield bill represents the continued resistance to compromise. We have a problem listening to dissenting voices in this building. If Vermonters are seeing it every day and they're not happy. Act one eighty one was forced through at the expense of rural landowners. The clean heat standard set the stage for implementing a regressive tax on home heating fuel. This kind of lawmaking is not responsive to the very real struggles that everyday Vermonters are grappling with. This is an affordability issue. Multiple constituents have contacted me and feel that we need to get back to the basics, and I agree with them.

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

[Speaker 34]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just want to say I stand with the member from Northfield on this bill. We talk a lot about property tax and what Vermonters can and cannot afford and has anybody filled up their gas tank lately or their oil tank at home? Maybe we could use a surplus for those people, those Vermonters. My sister-in-law just had to quit her job because her health care was going to go from 24¢ a month for her family to 35,000 a month. Maybe we could use the surplus for those people. And I mentioned earlier this week that in committee, a woman slipped me a note that said my husband has Parkinson's. He's now in a nursing home. His pension will be gone in four months. Maybe we should spend the surplus. For those for honors, I will be voting no on this.

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

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, as the member from Fairfax said, these tax dollars belong to our constituency. Is their money. The quickest way we could give it back to them would be on the yield bill. I've served on a school board for sixteen years.

[Representative Thomas Oliver (Sheldon)]: I

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: have debated my members of the board when we've had a surplus and they've gone spending like drunken sailors instead of saving for the rainy day fund. I fear that our school boards will be like sharks in the ocean when they smell the blood in the water and realize that there's $50,000,000 out there floating around when they make their next year's budgets. I cannot support this yield bill without the amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Representative Brian Cina (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, we've built a way on life of Earth that is unsustainable and unaffordable, but here we are yet again attacking public education. What future is there for our democracy if we take away public education, its very foundation?

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

[Representative John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Madam speaker, the yield bill has one major purpose, to allow tax rates to be set so Vermont can fund its public education system. With so much under discussion in our k 12 education system in our state, I hope that setting tax rates for the budgets that have passed and will pass is something we settle with clarity of support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Cavendish.

[Representative Thomas Oliver (Sheldon)]: Madam speaker, if the members in this body or school boards are like mine, I commend my school boards. They have done everything they can this year to cut their budgets as narrowly as they can, to keep our property taxes low in my hometown and the towns around me. If we pass this without doing everything we can to lower the property taxes and work just as hard as they did for us, we should be doing that for them. If we ignore their efforts by saying we'll just let the property taxes stay higher than we can allow, we are failing them. Let's make our efforts just as well as the efforts of the individuals on our school boards. We're debating this. I trust my school boards. I have faith in them. They've done good work this year. Let's support that work by buying down these taxes. With without this amendment in the bill, we're failing them.

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

[Representative Sandy Pinsonault (Dorset)]: Madam speaker, as a town that has done more than its fair share in contributing to tax dollars since act 60 and for education. I cannot vote in favor of this bill. My constituents are tired of paying more.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Weitzfield.

[Speaker 22]: Madam speaker, I am in support of the yield bill, and I appreciate the work the ways and means committee did to consider various uses of surplus funds to buy down our property taxes. I don't think any of us need to be reminded of the property tax revolt in 2024. Towns in my district saw increases over 20%. Vermonters clearly stated to all of us, they could not afford such increases. Yet, property taxes continue to increase and will do so until we change how we are funding public education. And I see the foundation formula as the transition point, but that's not for several years. Until that time, we will need to mitigate property tax increases for Vermonters. And buying down annual property taxes seems to be the one way we can do this. The governor proposed applying all a $105,000,000 to a one time buy down this year. I appreciate his willingness to address affordability. But the governor's proposal is short term, and I feel that way the Ways and Means Committee's proposal to split the $105,000,000 between fiscal year twenty seven and fiscal year twenty eight is more cautious and more long term while still offering substantial relief to Vermonters. I think this strikes the right balance.

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

[Representative Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: Madam speaker, what Vermonters need and have asked for clearly is real property tax relief, and it is up to this legislature to deliver it to them. This bill does not do that. I will be voting no because working Vermonters and their families deserve better than the property tax increase that this bill offers.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I have been I communicate with my constituents regularly, weekly, and keep them apprised of the conversations around education reform, which they are acutely interested in. We have had school closures. We are contemplating what will happen with governance changes, with school choice issues. We have declining enrollments. And we've got property tax issues in our district as well. I was on my school board for twenty two years, just got off last year. And education, our education system is so fragile and the work is so massive that needs to happen to get our system to be both sustainable and delivering results for all of our students. It's really difficult to explain to Vermonters about the system and about the work that we're doing, but I also think it's really, really important because these are personal decisions about schools and our property tax rates. I appreciate the work that has been happening in Ways and Means and the documents. It was very clear for me to be able to help my constituents follow along through the session till we got to this point. Here's what the committee is deliberating. On a regular basis, weekly, they're looking at these choices. And there were no great choices there. The fact of the matter is we don't have enough money for the scale of reform that is necessary to support our communities. We don't have enough money for the, is it twenty years now that we've had no state aid? Maybe twenty five for school buildings. And so, I think there are no easy decisions. I agree, we when we overtax our monitors, we do need to return those funds. I also know that what we are seeing in terms of federal policy impacting our state is dramatic. And, I appreciate the work of all of our money committees to try to anticipate the effect that that is going to have on our communities. I think I would rather that we had the ability to use all of these funds now. I'm not sure that that's the prudent, I'm not sure what's happening next year. I hope it's as rosy as the picture that we're getting from the Appropriations Committee, which isn't good. And so, you know, I think these are just difficult decisions and I would just urge us to all hang in there as we are continuing to try and deliver really big change in our state. And, madam speaker, I want to

[Speaker 32]: thank

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: you for really leading on that and trying to hold us together. It's very important to all of our communities. So tough votes here. I'm going to be voting yes on this. I know we're going to see this again. I know the work will continue. I know the negotiations between the bodies and with the administration will continue. And, I look forward to that work.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Barrytown.

[Representative Francis McFaun (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, where we sit today is a cautionary tale. I came into this body during the time of the supermajority when federal money was coming down like no one could believe. And the governor's budgets, year after year during the super majority, advised for caution, is advised for saving for a rainy day. And here we are. Those rainy days have come. We have no reserves, and now we are putting it back to Vermonters, and that is unacceptable.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I have listened carefully to this conversation, and there are those who say we should spend the whole 100,000,000 this year. There are those who say we should spread it over two years, and there was a plan to spread it over three years. What I have not heard is a plan for what we do if we spend it all this year. What do we do in a year? What do we do in two years? What do we do in three years? We does anyone believe that we can cut a $100,000,000 out of the school budget in a year? I don't believe that. I don't think we can do it in two years, but two years will get us closer. It will give us that much more time to reform the education system to avoid if we spend it all this year, I don't know what the estimate is, but next year, we will be looking at a property tax increase of say 18%, and we won't have 1p left to buy that down to smooth the transition to a reformed educational system. I will be voting yes on this yield bill.

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

[Speaker 25]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in opposition to h nine four nine and I wanna be honest with my colleagues about what this moment feels like. Vermonters are leaving their home. Not because they want to, but because they've been priced out of the state that they love. I hear it constantly in my district. From retirees on fixed incomes who have lived in their homes for decades and can no longer afford to stay, From young families who wanna put down roots here but cannot make the math work. From working people who are doing everything right and are still falling behind. They are not asking for much. They are asking us to stop making it harder. And yet, here we are again. H nine forty nine raises property taxes on Vermonters again, on top of what they paid last year and the year before that. We have turned the property tax into an annual ritual of extraction, and we act surprised every time another family decides Vermont is no longer a place they can afford to call home. I sometimes wonder if my colleagues and I are looking at the same Vermont. Because the Vermont I see is one where people are stretched to the breaking point, where I can't afford to live here anymore is not a talking point. It is a reality. I hear it at the grocery store, at town meetings, and in my inbox every single week. When our constituents ask for relief, what is the answer from this body? More taxes. When they say the cost of living is crushing them, what is our response? More taxes. When they tell us they are one bill away from having to sell the home that they've owned for thirty years, what do we do? More taxes, and it has to stop somewhere. I believe it can stop here today with a no vote on this bill. I will not stand here and pretend that funding education is not important. It is one of the most important things that we will do, but we cannot keep going back to the same well demanding more from people who have nothing left to give. We over monitors better a better answer than this. I vote no.

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

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: I sit on a school board that had an incredibly difficult decision to make this year. How many teachers, physicians do we need to cut to put a budget together that our taxpayers can afford? We cut about six and a half positions, which doesn't sound like a lot, but it is. It's six and a half people who live and work in our community that no longer will have a jobs for next school year. Our school districts are doing their job. They're holding down costs. School budgets went up less than than the costs went up. We're cutting, cutting, cutting. It's our job now as a legislature to fund the school budgets that passed. These are really difficult budgets. It's a really difficult time. We all have incredibly difficult decisions to make, and funding our schools is an easy decision to make.

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

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam Speaker, in the interest of clarity and good understanding in the body, I think we have lots of opportunities to learn about our complex system. One of the things that I think it's important for us to understand is, as we heard from the chair of ways and means, the yield bill is not an option. Our local districts vote their budgets and it is up to us to then provide a tax rate to raise the funds for those budgets. What the Ways and Means Committee has done, negotiating is look at excess revenue and ways to lower taxes. So, I think the terminology that we use here reflects our understanding of how the system works. And, I think I am disappointed that we are not able to lower taxes more than the budgets that Vermonters sent to us, but we are not in fact increasing taxes in this bill. Thanks, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member member from Chester.

[Representative Tom Charlton (Chester)]: Two years ago, one of the smallest towns in my district voted voluntarily to close their elementary school. It was a painful, painful process for the community. 400 people in the town. They did it because of the burden it was placing on taxes. They were reappraised, and the following year, their taxes went up 38%. And out of respect for that community and the questions they keep raising, I cannot vote for any yield bill until we reform the funding system. I have another town that was all very happy that our average tax rate was going to go up 1% last year, and it went up 14.8 in that town anyways. I don't care what number we set in this room. I have no confidence to go back to any of my constituents and have anything useful to tell them about what their taxes will be. And it doesn't sound to me that by splitting the money available to buy down this year's taxes, that we have a whole lot of confidence in fixing the problem by next year either. So I think we need to solve the education problem, and with that, the health care problem, and get something done about the property taxes, and that is the government accountability that my constituents are waiting for. I will be voting no.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are you ready for the question? Are you ready for the question, member from Essex Junction?

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, I'd like to remind members that there was a supermajority for exactly one biennium, yet we have a 181 elected members elected for decades. The pressures Vermonters face today have been decades in the making. Age nine forty nine provides a balance tax relief for property owners over two years that also acknowledges that our school districts are doing the work to lower budgets and educating our children. We must do our work too, and we are. We also must fund our schools. I encourage members to vote yes.

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

[Representative Alicia Malay (Pittsford–Mendon)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Please excuse me while I stutter my way through this. I'm new. I think most of you know that. And since I've been here, I've been relying on all of you, your expertise, your experience. I don't have any numbers to spew. I I'm on the health care committee, if you don't know, and what I've learned, bottom line, I'm just gonna speak from my heart. I'm not in favor of this bill because I can't I think right now, we're probably all hungry. Probably every single one of us. And we probably have a plan for dinner. There's a lot of people in Vermont that do not have a plan for dinner because they can't afford it and they know they know they don't have a choice or your kids quitting school to help their parents pay for food. Just let that sink in just for a moment. There are kids quitting school to help their families eat. People can't pay for their health care. They can't pay for it, and they're relying. Look at the budget. Look at how much money we put aside just to help people go to the doctor. Please think about what I'm saying just for a moment. People need to eat. This is desperate. This is bottom line desperate. And as this year unfolds, you're right. I see both sides. But as the year unfolds, for Vermont, I'm gonna roll the dice and trust and have faith in all of you that we could figure it out next year. So let's put some food on the table.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Arsenault. 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 passing of notes and 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 bill be read a third time? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of High Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. No. Rebecca Winooski. Yes. Byron of Vergens.

[Speaker 41]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Bishop of Colchester.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Black of Essex. Yes. Lynn Lee Burlington. Yes. Bosch McLaren. Boonton Bay City. No. Boyden of Cambridge. No. Brady of Williston. Yes. Branagan of Georgia. No. Branham of St. Owenstown. No. Brown of Richmond. Yes. Burditt West Rutland. Burkhardt of South Burlington? Yes. Burrows in West Windsor? Yes. Burditt Kavitt? Campbell of Saint Johnsbury? Yeah. Canfield of Fairhaven? Duncan at Wendingham? Yes. Casey Montpelier?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Casey Hubbardton? No. Chapin at East Montpelier? Charleston at Chester?

[Speaker 34]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Christie of Hartford? Yes. Gina Galfetti? Yes. Coffin and Cavendish. No. Cole of Hartford.

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Conlon and Cornwall. Yes. Cooper Conor Bennington. Yes. Critchlow of Colchester. Tamar of Unisburg? No. Dickinson of Saint Owenstown? No. Doberfish and Williamstown? No. Dodge of Essex? Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction? Yes. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury? No. Donahue of Northfield?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Duke of Burlington?

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Durfee of Shaftesbury? Yes. Eastes Of Guilford? And missus Springfield? Yes. Feltus Linden? No. Gaffetti, Beartown? No. Garifano of Essex? Yes. Goldman of Rockingham? Yes. Goodnight, Bradborough? Yes. Ghostland of Northfield? Granny of Jericho?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Greer Bennington? Greg Burditt? No. Hengo Berkshire? No. Harper of Glover? Yes. Harvey of Castleton? Patrick of Burlington?

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Higley Abloh? No. Hong Kong of Norwich? Hoover Randolph? No. Houghton of Essex Junction?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Howard City? Yeah. Holland or Rutland Town? No. Hoyte Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester? Yes. James in Manchester?

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Yes. Berg?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Keyser, Rutland City? Kimball of Woodstock?

[Speaker 34]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Kleppner, Burlington?

[Representative Bram Kleppner (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Corn Riser, Battleboro? Yes. Creswell, South Burlington? Yes. Leber Morgan? No. Ali Schauburn. Malone to South Burlington. Yes. Amon Orestown. No. Barretia Franklin. No. Lipsky Stow. No. Logan of Burlington.

[Representative Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: No.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: L. O. N. U. F. A. N. O. Of St. Albans City? McGuire of Rutland City? No. Malay of Pittsburgh? No. Marquette of Coventry? No. Madeline of Thetford? Yes. McCann of Montpelier? Yes. McCoy Pultney? McFauna Barrytown? MacGillibrand Port? Nicholas of Milton? Mollie of Callis? Minnie of South Burlington? Yes. Morgan Ela Milton? Morgan Emma Milton. Morris of Springfield.

[Representative Thomas Oliver (Sheldon)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Morrissey Bennington. Morris of Weston. Roe Wickie Putney. Nelson of Derby. No. Nielsen of Brandon. No. Iger of Bennington.

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Martha Fairsburg. No. No. Newton of South Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: O'Brien of Tonbridge. No. O'Brien of Burlington. No. Oliver Sheldon? No. Olson of Starksboro? Yes. Page in Newport City? No. Parsons of Newberry? No. Has of Colchester? Yes. Pinson Aldorsett? No. Hutchinsburg? Yes. Harris of Waterford? Pritchard of Pollock? No. Quinby of London? No. Richardson of Burlington? Yes. Randolph? Yes. Shia Middlebury? Yes. Sheldon of Middlebury? Yes. Seville of Dover? Steven Waterbury. Yes. Stone of Burlington. Yes. Sweeney Shelburne.

[Speaker 34]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Taylor Milton? No. Taylor Mendon? Tomlinson? Yes. Walker Smonton? Was it Zacobary City? Waters Evans of Charlotte? Yes. Wells of Brownington? Yes. About Bethel? Yes. Winter Of Ludlow? Waterbury. Yes. Jacoboni, Morristown.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Yeah.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Bailey, Mount Pelier. Christie of Hartford. Eastes of Galford. Keyser of Rutland City, McFawn of Berrytown, Nicholas of Milton, Priestley Bradford, Steady Milton, and Wells of Brownington.

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

[Representative Leslie Goldman (Rockingham)]: Madam speaker, Vermont school districts rely on the yield bill because it sets the basis of the state's education funding system each year. Without it, my district can't cannot accurately plan budgets or know what our local tax rates will be. Given the uncertainty at the federal level, paying down the tax rate over two years is prudent and responsible, and it gives us time to address our education funding crisis. I voted yes to support my community's ability to educate our children and address affordability over time.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Jericho.

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: I voted yes because we have to fund our schools. However, I have deep concerns about this plan. We can't fix a problem that was created over decades with a buy down spread over two years. What happens then? We need a longer off ramp.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Fairfield.

[Speaker 34]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 41]: For almost three decades, we've taken the easy route on so many issues from IT, pensions, capital expenses, and education. Where has it got us? Nowhere good for Vermonters. We owe it to Vermonters to deliver real results, not half results. They deserve far better. They have little left to give.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Castleton.

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Thank you, madam

[Speaker 25]: speaker. Vermonters are begging us for help. They can't afford to live here any longer, and they certainly can't afford a single cent in new taxes. I vote no to show my constituents and Vermonters that I am listening to them and will continue to fight for them.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Pultely.

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I cannot support an average 7% increase to Vermonters property taxes. Vermonters need help right now. We cannot wait.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Putney.

[Speaker 32]: Madam speaker, sound financial practices often entail difficult decisions. Keeping an eye on today, but also looking ahead to what's coming. I vote yes for the difficult decisions to present the yield bill that looks at the big picture. I thank your ways and means committee for digging in, doing the hard work, and making sound finance decisions for our children in school and the taxpayers footing the bill.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: I voted yes because failing to pass this bill would create chaos for our tax rates and our school budgets. However, I call on my colleagues and the administration to stop treating this as a yearly emergency and instead focus on the hard uncomfortable work of systemic structural reform like school construction to make our education education system sustain sustainable. Yes. We need tax relief, but we also need more than Band Aids.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: And member from Barrie City.

[Representative James Masland (Thetford)]: I voted yes because my city desperately needs the money included in this bill. I agree that we need strong and immediate reforms, and I hope the senate can get us closer to the relief that my constituents are crying out for.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Bradford.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Madam speaker, may I record my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Priestley of Bradford. No.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Bradford.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: My constituents saw a massive tax increase due to an AOE error. By the time the AOE finally listened and acknowledged their miscalculation, my schools had already made major staff cuts. My constituents are tired of Band Aids, tired of rush solutions, and tired of instability.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Norwich.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Thank you. This bill passed, so my vote is a protest if we are going to provide tax relief targeted at those who need it most or invest in permanent affordability every year moving forward.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Ennisburg.

[Representative Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: I was a no vote because Vermonters can't afford their health care. Vermonters can't afford their heating fuel. Vermonters can't afford their grocery bill. Vermonters can't afford gas for their vehicles. Can't afford a home or their rent. We should be ashamed.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 78. Those voting no, 61. The ayes have it. And third reading is ordered. Members, here's an update on our plan for the rest of the evening. We're going to take up one more bill and that bill will be House Bill nine thirty three, miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to tax laws. After we finish and complete that bill, we will go through and postpone action on the remaining bills on the calendar. With that, will the house please come to order? We will move to house bill nine thirty three which is an act relating to miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to the tax laws. The bill was introduced by the committee on ways and means. The member from Woodstock, representative Kimball will speak for that committee. And then carrying an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Bennington representative will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Assistant Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H nine thirty three. An act relating to miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to the tax laws.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Woodstock.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This one should be really easy after the last one. Nothing like the end of an evening to talk about miscellaneous tax bills. I am presenting Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to report nine thirty three, the miscellaneous tax bill to the house on behalf of the Committee of Ways and Means. This bill and its sixty four secondtions includes technical corrections to existing statutes, changes to the appropriation of existing revenue streams to address budgetary needs, and important changes to the link up of Vermont tax policy to the changes in federal tax policy. Bless you. The US Internal Revenue Code as a result of HR one that was passed in August 2025. This bill is revenue neutral in the end. A spoiler alert, this bill passed the committee by a vote of eleven zero zero. I know. In today's house calendar, this committee bill is referenced only by name and number. Members can find the full contents of the bill of the on the house ways and means committee page of the legislative website. Also on the site under the fiscal information tab for the bill, members will find the 10 page fiscal note that has a section by section description of the bill, and an illustrative tables and graphs that explain the financial condition, as well as an entry today from under the name of Patrick Titterton that gives the latest financial update that's on an amendment later. Madam speaker, because the bill covers so many areas of tax policy, I'll dive right into a section by section description of what the bill does. Section one repeals the denial of tax credits paid in another state for s corporations. This provides equity with the tax treatment of other types of pass through entities like partnerships and LLCs. The denial of the credits dates back thirty years to a legal case in which a Vermont taxpayer was denied credit for taxes paid to Massachusetts. Though the Vermont Supreme Court found for the taxpayer the underlying statute remains in place and this section removes that denial. Section two, property transfer tax classification. This is brought to us by the Department of Taxes. This section allows this section aims to close a loophole in the property transfer tax that is charged second homes. In 2024, the property transfer taxes increased to 3.4% for second homes. But properties that were to be considered long term rentals received the lower rate of 1.25%. Many buyers put in place lease agreements to relatives or other friendly parties to avoid the higher tax. This section gives the commissioner of taxes the authority to impose a higher rate for non principal residences if the buyer files a landlord certificate to avoid tax, but does not have a bonafide landlord tenant relationship. The key factors to consider are these, are parties related? Is it a fair market rent? Is the buyer intending to have a business purpose? The tax department is gonna rely on the professional standard of the real estate attorneys who close these real estate deals to ensure clients are not misrepresenting the use of the property. Section three deals with the land use change tax. The land use change tax applies to properties that are withdrawn from the current use program for development. The bill does not alter the amount of the tax that would be collected, which is usually 10% of the market value, but changes the process for determining the value of the land being withdrawn. Many towns in Vermont struggle to keep up with a grand list and things such as withdrawal of lands from current use. And estimating the value of a portion of a parcel being withdrawn can be complicated. Here's how it works. A property owner contacts a division of property valuation review with the intent to withdraw a portion of the land from current use. PVR then contacts the town to let them know that they have to determine the value of the land being withdrawn. The town gets to keep 50% of whatever the land use change tax is up to $2,000 for doing the evaluation. In this bill, if a town cannot provide evaluation within thirty days, PVR will step in and do the work. Over the past four years, 70% of the land use change tax evaluations were handled on time. 90% within sixty days. So they're about one to 15 beyond sixty days. The appeal period is also extended from fourteen to thirty days. Fourteen is just not enough, which is a lot more reasonable. Section four, the appeal of determination of market value for land use change tax. An owner may appeal to either the municipality or the director of PVR within thirty days. Going too fast, anyone? Okay, we keep going. Section five, change for the municipal grand list stabilization program, also brought to us by tax. This program was created last year in 2025 to help communities deal with a decline in their grand list because of properties lost due to flooding. The bill clarifies that when calculating the grand list stabilization payment that the prior year's municipal rate is used. This aligns the methodology with calculation of pilot payments, discussed later, made and is much easier to administer. Section six, the appraisal of communication property inventories also brought to us by tax. The division of property valuation review was tasked with determining the market value of communication properties in 2023, effective 2026. Those properties include the wires, cables, conduit, pipes, antennas, poles, and wireless towers that are part of a local, state, national, or international communications network. And they can be complex to evaluate. This section gives PVR the same compliance tools for collecting property inventories as municipalities, imposing a penalty of a $100 for each inventory that is not filed on time. Section seven, the equalization study, is to treat housing development sites created by the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program, CHIP, you remember that. The same as tax increment financing, which is to say that the use To use the market value and not the original taxable value of properties when conducting the equalization study. Okay, section eight. Notice of fair market value and coefficient of dispersion. One of my favorite topics. This section sets the common level of appraisal at a 100% for properties or for towns who would have completed a town wide reappraisal in the previous year. The current system which uses a three year look back on property sales within a town can often result with a CLA that is above 100%. Which can make subsequent market adjustments drastic and painful. I've talked to a few representatives about this very thing. Sections nine through 10 are the Health IT Fund Sunset Extension. It extends the sunset on this fund for five years. The Health IT Fund has had an annual sunset every year since 2017 and in some years the legislature has required studies and reports to justify the extension. Well to recognize the practice of this legislature and the continued support and necessity of the fund, we are recommending extension of the sunset for five years. There's an issue brief from the joint fiscal office dated 01/21/2026 on our website regarding the healthcare claims tax and the portion of it that goes to the health IT fund estimated to be 6,000,000 in FY twenty six. Sections 11 through 14 are really exciting and scintillating about the inflation index updates. These sections replace in title 16, all of the references to an inflation index that is no longer published or available. The New England Economic Project or NEEP, cumulative price index is no longer available, so we are replacing it with a national income and product accounts, NIPA, implicit price deflator. This is recognizing the current state of things. The intent of the legislature is expressed in act 73 last year, section 45 is to have the joint fiscal office complete an analysis of NIPA and alternative inflation indexes to use in statute. That analysis is not yet complete, but that's why we're recognizing the current state. Second section 15 is a homestead declaration of property tax credit brought to us by the taxpayer advocate. Section addresses cases in which a homestead property is owned by a married couple that is legally separated or in the middle of a divorce proceeding. And the person remaining in the house is responsible for paying the taxes and the mortgage, but when applying for the property tax credit is penalized by our calculation of total household income. Because it includes the income of the non resident spouse and only gives the resident 50% of the available credit. This section changes that situation and gives the resident 100% of the property tax credit. Section 16, estate taxes. It changed the filing requirements for states. The estate tax exemption in Vermont was previously $2,750,000 until legislation was passed in 2019, which had a two year phase in to the $5,000,000 mark where it is now. The filing requirement has remained at $2,750,000 with the hopes that it would provide some additional data analysis for predictability purposes. That data analysis has not occurred and the requirement is deemed to not be necessary. Section 17, down payment assistance program. It is brought to us by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. This section renews the tax credit program that funds the Downtown Payment Assistance Program at the Vermont Housing and Finance Agency or VHFA. This new commitment increases the amount of tax credits to $350,000 per year from the soon to expire $250,000 per year program and extends that program to 2,031. The down payment assistance program was established in 2014 and has been critical to getting Vermonters into homes by providing interest free loans for down payments and closing costs that are repaid when the seller sells or the owner sells or refinances their home. This has been a tremendous program for individuals to achieve the American dream and to build equity or wealth. The amount of the maximum down payment assistance grant has varied starting at 5,000 to 7,500 increased to 10,000 and then a 15,000 because of the higher price houses is now at $10,000 The program is running out of money. The people are holding onto their homes longer, they're not repaying the down payment assistance program loan and not that doesn't replenish the fund and requires and the DAP grants are bigger. The tax credits for this program are expiring, leading to a cessation of new funds into the program. That's why we're recommending that it gets renewed. Sections 18 through 19 is the federal tax credit for SGO contributions. These two sections address the Education Choice for Children Act that was included in HR one. That created a federal non refundable tax credit of up to $1,700 per year for individuals making donations to scholarship granting organizations for scholarships for k through 12 educational expenses, such as private school tuition or after school programs at public schools. Vermont residents can make donations to SGOs in other states, but to do so in Vermont requires that the state opt in. Section 18 has the findings that states may voluntarily elect to participate either by the governor or by another entity as designated under state law. Section 19 designates the general assembly as that sole entity that can opt in. Why? A couple reasons. One, the IRS rulemaking will not be effective until January 2027. They are in they're called they're in process of determining those rules. So a lot of things are not clear about this program. If Vermont wanted to place limitations on the program, the IRS rules could specify that only the IRS could issue limitations and states could not. Section 20, the definition of parcel. Again, is brought to us by both the tax department and the Vermont Center for Geographic Information, which we heard from last year about this very thing. Section changes the definition of parcel only as it applies to mapping. Preserving the per parcel payments for grand list maintenance and the equalization study. So towns often combine parcels with common ownership for property tax billing purposes. This clarifies that for mapping of parcels which may have disparate characteristics that the parcels are maintained separately for mapping purposes. Sections 21 to 23 are about the Department of Fish and Wildlife fee setting. In section 21, the general duties of the commissioner, it amends commissioner's authority to set fees retaining them for long term leases of fish and wildlife lands for research, academic study, commercial use, or use by regulated utilities, and to set fees for use of Green Mountain conservation camps, but prohibits creation of a license or fee to access Fish and Wildlife lands. Section 22 repeals rules for setting fees for the use of Fish and Wildlife Department lands and facilities effective 07/01/2027. This gives time for the department to come back to the legislature with a new fee schedule. Section 27, the fish and wildlife rules on fees require submission of those recommended fees that can be adopted by the legislature. Sections 24 through 48 are really fast. It's the grand list assessment dates also brought to us by tax. These twenty four secondtions are true technical corrections, changing sections of statutes in title twenty four and thirty two to change the deadlines from April to January to give more time to hear appeals and set the grand list in time. All also changes, changing town to municipal for clerks to reflect cities, towns, and villages, or his or her to persons, and other such drafting conventions effective 07/01/2031. Municipal tax collection state oversight of section 49 brought to us by tax. This removes the director of property valuation review from having oversight of municipal tax collectors. The director has not filled this role in recent memory and this clarifies it in statute. Sections 51 through 53 regard the PVR expenses for the pilot special fund. It changes the source of funding for the division of property valuation review reflecting what has been done in the budget adjustment act and what is being proposed in the f y twenty seven budget. It moves funding of the education of listers and assessors of a $100,000 from the education fund to the pilot special fund. Section 51 amends the uses of the pilot special fund to include education of listers, grand list maintenance, and equalization study. Section 52 is reappraisal, changes the funding for the $8.50 per parcel fee that is paid to municipalities for grand list maintenance and reappraisal from the general fund to the pilot fund. And the equalization study in section 53 clarifies the $1 per parcel fee that is paid to municipalities for assistance completing the equalization study is paid out of the pilot fund. Section 54 is the Vermont 10 tax study. Within a $100,000 appropriations included in the budget. This is the fourth such decennial study that's been commissioned for the joint fiscal office to manage. Due 01/15/2027. This is a comprehensive study to analyze historical trends comparing Vermont to the tax systems of other states. Including a comparison of the percent of Vermont revenue from each state level source to the percent of revenue from each state level source in other states. It analyzes Vermont's taxation levels and tax responsibilities per capita, per income level, and by incidents on typical Vermont families of varying incomes, and on typical Vermont business enterprises of various sizes and types, and analyzes trends and the taxpayer revenue basis for various tax types. And also to analyze and identify any issues or trends relating to tax flight, tax avoidance, and gaps in enforcement. Also to recommend areas for further research and analysis including ways to further research the topic of wealth and income in Vermont's aging demographic. JFO, the Joint Fiscal Office shall as part of the study or separately review income eligibility criteria for various tax provisions and benefit programs, or potential gaps in eligibility or benefit cliffs may exist under Vermont's existing laws. Section 55 is perhaps the most complex and mind boggling, but very important is the link up and decoupling from federal income tax laws. In 2018, Vermont decoupled from personal income tax calculations of the federal internal revenue code adopting adjusted gross income instead of taxable income as a starting point to calculate income taxes. This gives the state a lot more control over what is taxed and what isn't. For business income, Vermont has linked to the internal revenue code calculation of taxable income, which is line 28 on form eleven twenty for all those tax aware members. Which means that any changes in allowable deductions will have a direct impact on Vermont income tax for corporations and businesses. Vermont does not link up to every tax position provision in the internal revenue code. However, it means we have to select selectively decouple from those tax provisions that could adversely affect the revenues of the state. HR one passed in August 2025, sometimes called the big beautiful bill, made many changes to the treatment of business income. If we did nothing but change the date of the internal revenue code to which we were linking, Vermont would lose $21,000,000 in revenue in FY '26 and $34,000,000 in FY '27. In a very collaborative and iterative process with a joint fiscal office, the Department of Taxes, Legislative Council, and various interested parties, we were able to identify areas where we could decouple where it benefits Vermont businesses and gives us the ability to make changes to other taxes and keep things revenue neutral. In section 55, the link up and decoupling from federal income tax laws decouples from accelerated cost recovery or bonus depreciation. It decouples from new research and experimentation deductions for businesses with more than $31,000,000 in revenue. It decouples from federal deductions from foreign sourced income, section two fifty. Those deductions with different rates for income earned in different countries lower the income subject to taxation in The US. Our intent is to let the single sales factor apportionment, everybody with me? Okay. To determine the amount of taxes owed based on the net income of the company. It decouples from the federal treatment of capital gains realized from the sale of qualified small business stock, in which up to $15,000,000 in gains can be excluded for companies with less than $75,000,000 in assets. According to a three, four and five year schedule. In the case of a corporate taxpayer, individual estate or trust, all these things are true. And it provides for how to treat a taxpayer when they are eligible, less than $31,000,000 in revenue, and when they aren't eligible and when they're over $31,000,000 in revenue. Sections fifty six and fifty seven also is the income tax apportionment. It clarifies the Vermont apportionment for income taxes for individuals, trusts and estates. Uses the same modifiers when taxpayers owe taxes in multiple states, and when a taxpayer only owes taxes in Vermont. Section 58 is the research and development tax credit. This increases the tax credit for eligible research and development expenses incurred for businesses, for taxpayers in Vermont, and for those persons expenses incurred in Vermont. This increases that deduction or the tax credit from 27% of the federal tax credit to 75%. The highest in the country. It makes it so that any unused credits from one year can be carried forward for up to ten years. In 2025, a 184 companies in Vermont filed a claim for the research and development credit. The list, is annually published on the Department of Tax website, includes large and small companies. Ones that you would easily recognize like Beta Technology, and others that you wouldn't like Vermont Photonics. I apologize to anybody who's Vermont Photonics as a constituent. Section 59 is the Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit. It increases the annual credits to be awarded through this program by $1,000,000 to $4,000,000. The Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit Program was created in 1998. Since 2022, a 168 projects have been funded in 72 communities with 17,200,000 in credits, leveraging over $240,000,000 in private investment. There are several different categories of credits, historic, facade, code, flood mitigation, and the tax credits can be carried up to nine years, Can be sold to banks or insurance companies for cash, debt reduction, or favorable loan terms. Non profits are eligible, but not municipalities or single family homes. The Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit is one of the most effective tools we have for leveraging investment in our communities. Section six sixty, we're getting near it. The adoption of the federal income tax laws. This links up selectively except for selectively decoupled, it links Vermont income tax to the federal income tax rules in effect on 12/31/2025. You'll see an amendment in a little bit that might change that. Section 61 clarifies that the laws of The United States in the subdivision mean the same thing as the Internal Revenue Code. Section 62, the education fund contributions from other tax collections. Again, this is math but it's important. This shifts the allocation of revenues in section sixty two and sixty three to make it possible for us to return more funds to the transportation fund to match federal monies while keeping the education fund whole. The meals and rooms tax changes it from the education fund from 25% to 29%. The purchase and use tax in the education fund has decreased from 33.3% to 27%, and it moves to the transportation fund, which is getting an increase of that purchase and use tax from 66.7 to 73%. That's about $10,000,000 both ways. In the meals and rooms tax allocation to the general fund, the general fund goes from 69 to 65%. So that leaves a hole of $10,000,000, which is made up for by the additional revenues which you saw on the joint fiscal, the fiscal note from the joint fiscal office from those decoupling provisions. The effective dates. On section one, the credit for taxes paid in another state. And sections 55 to 57 and decoupling from select provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. And sections 60 to 61 is the annual link up are effective retroactively to 01/01/2025. Sections three to four, current use land use change tax effective 10/01/2026. Section 20, grand list definition of parcel is 04/01/2027. Section 22, the Department of Fish and Wildlife rule on fees effective 07/01/2027. Sections 24 to 48, the grand list assessment dates effective 07/01/2031. And section 56, the Vermont R and D tax credit is 01/01/2027. As I said, the vote in our committee was eleven zero. We heard from a gaggle of witnesses. They included the senior fiscal analyst from joint fiscal analysts, associate fiscal officer from the joint fiscal office, a fiscal analyst from the joint fiscal office, the principal fiscal analyst of the Joint Fiscal Office, legislative counsel, office of legislative counsel, deputy chief's counsel, office of legislative counsel, legislative counsel, office of legislative counsel. We had a lot of folks from legislative counsel and joint fiscal office, if you get that word. The commissioner of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the executive director of Vermont Housing Finance Agency, tax credit and grants coordinator of the Department of Housing and Community Development. The Department of Taxes had the program manager, taxpayer advocate, director of property evaluation review, the deputy commissioner and general counsel, the Executive Director of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, the President of the Preservation Trust of Vermont, the Vermont Chapter Director of The Sierra Club, the Litigation Director of the Education Law Center, the Vice President and General Counsel of the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation, the General Counsel of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Vermont Chamber President of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, Program Specialist for the Fiscal Affairs of the National Conference of State Legislators, a partner Gallagher, Flynn and Company, the counsel to the Multistate Tax Commission, the commissioner of the Department of Housing and Community Development, executive director of Springfield Regional Development Corporation, the executive director of Vermont Economic Progress Council, the executive chair chairperson of Let's Build Homes, research director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, and the senior adviser for state policy of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Again, the vote was eleven zero, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: At this time, can I please see house leadership up at the podium along with the, member from Brattleboro and Woodstock? The house will stand in recess for a moment. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Members, we received a request for a caucus and due to the time in the evening, I think it's best that we, postpone action on this bill and the other bills and regroup tomorrow. Again, be be due to the hour. So with that member from Woodstock.

[Representative R. Scott Campbell (St. Johnsbury)]: Madam speaker, I would move that we postpone action on age nine thirty three until tomorrow, March 26.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Woodstocks move remove moves that we postpone action on House Bill nine thirty three for one legislative day. 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 postponed action on House Bill nine thirty three for one legislative day. Up next is House Bill six fifty seven which is an act enabling unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain certain services. Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam Speaker, I move that we postpone H six five seven one legislative day.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Northfield moves. We postpone action on house bill six fifty seven for one legislative day. 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 postponed action on House Bill six fifty seven for one legislative day. Next is house bill seven twenty seven which is act relating to sustainable data center deployment. Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone action on h seven twenty seven one legislative day.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Dover moves that we postpone action on House Bill seven twenty seven for one legislative day. 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 postponed action on House Bill seven twenty seven. Next is House Bill nine thirty five, an act relating to emergency management, member from Berkshire.

[Representative Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone action on H935 one legislative day.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Berkshire moves that we postpone action on House Bill nine thirty five for one legislative day. 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 postponed action on House Bill nine thirty five for one legislative day. Next is house bill nine forty four which is an act relating to the fiscal year 2027 transportation program and miscellaneous changes to laws related to transportation member from Swanton.

[Representative Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Madam speaker, I, move for postponement of h nine forty four for one legislative day.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Swanton moves that we postpone action on house bill nine forty four for one legislative day. 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 postponed action on house bill nine forty four for one legislative day. Next up is house bill nine thirty eight which is an act relating to establishing the Vermont homelessness response continuum. Member from Rutland City.

[Representative William 'Will' Greer (Bennington)]: Madam speaker, I move we postpone action on bill h. Man, I don't even know my own bill. Nine thirty eight for one legislative day. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Rutland City moves that we postpone action on house bill nine thirty eight for one legislative day. 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 postponed action on house bill nine thirty eight for one legislative day. Will members stand at ease? With that members that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Member from Middlebury.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Middlebury)]: This will be brief madam speaker. Assuming there's nothing else happening in the morning that I don't know about at this point, this is a reminder that our previously postponed office hours for the budget will be held on in the Well Of the House tomorrow morning from 08:30 to 09:30. Come with your budget questions, and JFO staff will be here as well to help answer your questions. So 08:30 in the well of the house. Thank you.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Dover?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, last call for sponsors for the junior Iron Chef resolution. I sent you all an email on Friday.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Weedsfield.

[Speaker 22]: Madam speaker, the education reform meeting that was postponed last week is rescheduled for tomorrow from five to six in Room 11. I don't feel particularly optimistic about that happening given our schedule, but if for some reason it does, everyone is welcome.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Burlington?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Farmers night is happening. If you want to boogie down to some mariachi to, you know, get over the stress of the stay, go to the cafeteria.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Member from Essex Junction?

[Representative Lori Houghton (Essex Junction)]: Madam speaker, democrats will caucus tomorrow at 12:30 in Room 11.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Are there any further announcements? Members, farmers night will be held in the chamber, since we are wrapping up. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, member from Pulte Knee, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Thursday, March 26 at 1PM?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand and adjournment until Thursday, 03/26/2026 at 1PM.

[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 this body stands in adjournment until tomorrow at 1PM.