Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Members, I after conferring with house leadership, I'm gonna share with you the next three bills we are going to take up. We will do these in groups. I appreciate your patience. We will now take up House Bill nine thirty three which is miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to tax laws. After that we will move to house bill nine forty nine which is an accolating to homestead property tax yields and the non homestead property tax rate. And then we will move to house bill nine forty four which is the T bill. So again nine thirty three, nine forty nine and nine forty four. So members now we'll take up House Bill nine thirty three which is an act relating to miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to the tax laws. Members before we postpone action on this bill yesterday, we just heard the report of the committee on ways and means and now we are ready to hear the report from appropriations. Speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Bennington.

[Unidentified member from Bennington (Appropriations)]: Madam speaker, h nine thirty three, impacts the appropriations, of the state and the general fund in a number of ways. The down payment assistance program at $350,000 and the expansion of the downtown village downtown and village center tax credit at $1,000,000, both represent foregone income to the general fund. The ten year tax study will require a $100,000 appropriation. Sections 50 through 53 touch again on the $3,400,000 funds for municipalities grand list maintenance that was discussed in some detail that comes out of pilot in this that was discussed previously in the budget. Altogether, And When considering the federal tax link up and decoupling changes, as well as the adjusted distribution amounts for meals and rooms tax, h nine thirty three will have a net positive impact to the general fund of $9,400,000 over fiscal year 2627. For these changes, the appropriations committee thanks ways and means and the committee supported this bill with a vote of eleven zero zero.

[Speaker 0]: And and now the member from Corinth, representative offers an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Corcoran.

[Unidentified member from Corinth]: Thank you, madam speaker. Before I read the amendment, I just wanted to, do a little recap. We heard nine thirty three written yesterday or read yesterday. We deliberated a lot about the yield bill and we talked a lot about education, cost of education. Today, we talked a lot about the budget the back and forth what would get cut and what would get put in. I bring this amendment because this is going to it has a potential to benefit students in Vermont. Think of when you would drive down the road during school budget season and see the sign, the road sign, support our schools. How about support our students? That's why this amendment today. And I'll read you the amendment. My amendment strikes out sections eighteen and nineteen in H nine thirty three, federal tax credit for SGO contributions in their entireties and inserting it in lieu thereof, new sections eighteen and nineteen to read as follows. Section eighteen, three VSA subsection 24 is added to read. Subsection 24, governor's list of scholarship granting organizations. Annually, on December 1, the governor or designee may elect to provide a list of organizations to the US Secretary of the Treasury for purposes of making the federal qualified elementary and secondary education scholarship tax credit available for Vermont taxpayer contributions to Vermont scholarship granting organizations under 26 USC subsection 25 f. It shall be presumed that an organization listed in the previous year will be listed in the subsequent year unless the governor finds that the organization has failed to meet the requirements of 26 USC subsection 25 f. Sub excuse me, section 19 would be deleted. Excuse me. The reason I present this amendment is for the benefit of the students. This tax credit will be available to Vermont taxpayers, but they will only be able to donate to out of state schools. So there will be no benefit scholarship benefit to the students. My ask is in this tough tax season, in this tough economy for Vermonters, Let's give the students an advantage. Let's give the taxpayer a break. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 0]: And now speaking for the committee on ways and means, member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I would like to thank the the member for the amendment that he offered. This amendment places the authority to opt into the Education Choice for Children Act to the governor, not the legislature. Our voting committee was to retain issues of tax policy within the purview of the legislative branch, not the executive branch. This is consistent with the norms and practices of the Vermont state government. As mentioned before, the rules guiding the allowable uses of funds distributed by scholarship granting organizations are not yet finalized. While we may consider placing limitations on the use of such funds, the federal government may override those limitations preempting what we decide to do here. What is different about this particular program from other scholarship programs is that every dollar donated up to $1,700 is a tax credit, A direct application of the amount against the taxes they owe. This is out of step with the regular treatment of donations to charitable organization where the donation is a reduction of income that is subject to taxation rather than a direct reduction of the amount of taxes you owe. The act authorizes the federal act authorizes $10,000,000,000 in federal credits in 2026 with provisions for 5% annual increases after that. That compares to the two largest federal funding streams in k through 12 education, title one programs at 18,000,000,000 and the Individuals Disabilities Act of 15,000,000,000. This is an enormous tax avoidance program for individuals who least need it. Yet the system is still in pre implementation phase. While guidance has been issued, the rules are not yet finalized and are still in development. This program is not yet fully baked. It's helpful to compare what a five twenty nine plan is as opposed to the education yeah. The ECCA for SGOs. A five twenty nine plan is a tax advantage savings plan account, where an ECCA is a federal tax credit for donations for scholarships. In a five twenty nine, families or anyone saving for a beneficiary contributes to it where an s g o, it's private donors, individual taxpayers. Who benefits? In a five twenty nine, the account beneficiary. And an SGO eligible k through 12 students are an income based priority who can earn up to 300% of the adjusted median income, which is approximately 82,000 for Vermont. So you're talking about $246,000. The tax benefit in a five twenty nine plan is tax free growth and withdrawals for education, whereas in the s g o, it's dollar for dollar federal tax credit. So madam speaker, I say that this program is not just about tax policy, it's all also about education policy, supporting a voucher system that is unregulated and creating a parallel system of financing for education that could subvert public education. Our voting committee was to find it unfavorable by a vote of seven to four.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Corinth? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the member from ways and means?

[Speaker 0]: The member from Woodstock is interrogated.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I I was gonna ask about this section of the bill when we got to debate, but it's brought it up sooner. And I'm just wondering why, particularly hearing that the program isn't really established yet or isn't in final form, why we would be precluding potential future decision to participate. I certainly agree and support sections A and C here, but I'm not understanding the rationale which then relates to why not moving forward on the amendment being offered.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Thank you for the question, member. Really it's a question of who decides to opt in or not. In the Ways and Means Bill, nine thirty three, it is the legislature that reserves for itself the ability to opt into the program. In the amendment, it is the governor or designee. And so we felt strongly that it should be the legislature that is opting in, not the governor.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the members. So it sounds like my question is something to wait for later. Thank you. The

[Speaker 0]: question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Corinth? Member from Corinth.

[Unidentified member from Corinth]: Thank you, madam speaker. With regard to, the language referring to the governor rather than the legislature, just as my current amendment is very short, a simple amendment changing a couple of words here would make the amendment to designate the legislature. And I'm hopeful that should my amendment pass, I would be glad to, on third reading, present an amendment correcting that language. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Corinth? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Now the member from Bradford, representative Priestley and the member from Hartford, representative Cole offer an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Bradford.

[Representative Monique Priestley (Bradford)]: Madam speaker, I was describe describing to someone recently the conversations I have as a representative. I said that this issue taxing the wealthiest Vermonters at a fairer share is the number one request I get from constituents. Then I stopped myself. That word wasn't right. This is the number one demand I receive from constituents, and it doesn't come from one group or one corner of the political spectrum. It comes from Vermonters across all socioeconomic backgrounds. It comes from people who call themselves progressive and people who call themselves conservative. What they share is a sense that something has gone wrong, and that for decades their state and federal government hasn't acknowledged the issue or taken action on it. We have all watched program after program come before our committees with real needs and not enough resources to meet them. Critical programs, Programs affecting children, families, housing, health, education. Too often we make painful choices or defer them because the money is not there. And yet we are sitting on an option. This amendment adds two new tax brackets. It increases taxes on marginal income over $500,000 by 3%. On marginal income over $1,000,000 an additional 2%. It would raise between $100,000,000 and $200,000,000 in state revenue. Here is what I want every member of this body to hold on to about who this affects and what it actually costs them. The top 1% of Vermont taxpayers are receiving an average federal tax tax cut of $57,000 in 2026 due to h r one. In total, Vermont's top 1% will save over $200,000,000 in federal taxes this year. The top 20% will save over 7 and $30,000,000. What we are asking on average is that the affected taxpayers contribute back less than the federal windfall they are already receiving. We are not asking for sacrifice. We are asking for basic fairness. Look at what we know about income in this state. The average income of Vermont's top 1% is 20 times that of the bottom 99%. Vermont's wealthiest currently pay a smaller share of their income in state and local taxes than many middle income Vermonters. Wealth has concentrated at the top for decades. The top levels of our tax structure have not kept pace with that. We talk in this building about fiscal responsibility. I share that value. But fiscal responsibility is not only about what we spend. It means making sure our revenues are sustainable, that they reflect the actual distribution of income and wealth in our state, and that we are not asking the people with the least to carry the heaviest load. Congress and the president have taken the programs that serve working families and directed those resources to tack cuts tax cuts for the wealthiest. We do not have to follow their lead. We have an opportunity to do the opposite, to recapture a portion of those federal tax cuts and redirect them towards investments that serve all Vermonters. I know this is politically complicated. I know some members are uncomfortable with it. I want to ask, who are we nervous about? Because taxing the wealthiest at a fair rate is broadly popular, not just among progressives, but also among low and moderate income Vermonters, working class families and a wide rain, wide majority of the people we represent. The people demanding this are not a fringe. They are our constituents and they sent us here. We handle bills in this chamber every day where policy and politics are intention. In this case, think we are too focused on the politics. We are too cautious about making a move that Vermonters across every income level are urging us to make. We can build a Vermont that works for everyone, but it takes choices that back that up. This is one of those choices. That said, we respect that your that your our committee on ways and means as well as the body as a whole needs more time to thoroughly consider these substantive updates to our state's tax policy. The following was agreed upon between the sponsors of the amendment and house leadership. Two amendments proposed by rep Logan and reps Priestley and Cole will be withdrawn today. Those two tax policies will have action taken as a ways and means committee bill as soon as the other major education bills have passed the floor. Those who agreed that these two policies will be voted on in house ways and means with time on the calendar to make its way through the full general assembly understanding the passage's contingent on a majority vote from the house. We thank house leadership for this discussion. And with that, I yield to the member from Hartford.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Bradford yields to the member

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: from Hartford.

[Representative Esme Cole (Hartford)]: Madam speaker, while we will be withdrawing this amendment, I'm grateful that this important legislation will have the opportunity to face full consideration by the house through the committee process. Over the past twenty four hours, constituents have made it clear how much fair taxation means to them. Think I it is important to highlight the urgency and context tied to this particular policy. Though our country has been charting the path of widening wealth inequality since the nineteen seventies, we have now entered new territory. The United States has not seen this level of wealth and income concentration since the late nineteen twenties. My generation is frequently cited as the first in recent history where a majority of us face lower economic mobility and lower purchasing power than our parents or previous generations at the same age. I hope most of us would agree that this trend is not coming to fruition because a historically small fraction of Americans are working exceptionally harder than the rest or even exponentially harder than that same bracket of top earners just a few decades ago. Other systemic forces are at play here. We know that current tax policy in Vermont favors the wealthiest while placing the highest relative burden on middle income earners. The top 1% of earners, those who earn at least $500,000 a year in income alone, currently pay a smaller share of their income in state and local taxes than middle income Vermonters. On top of this, the vast majority of permanent tax benefits in h R one flow to the wealthiest of households. In Vermont, almost 20% of the tax breaks in h R one are going to just the top 1%, and 43 are going to just the top 5%. In Vermont, this amounts to $200,000,000 of new breaks applying only to the top 1% with an average benefit of 50,000 $57,000 per filer. This amendment to h nine three three would have created two new tax brackets as a mechanism to more accurately discern what people can actually afford in order to distribute the weight more fairly. Right now, our tax brackets max out at around $312,000 in income indicating a need for our tax code to modernize, particularly in the face of skyrocketing wealth inequality. This first new bracket proposed would begin for those with incomes over $500,000. The second bracket would begin at incomes of $1,000,000 and above. It would increase the personal income tax rate by three percent for the first bracket, an additional 2% for the higher bracket, those who are earning over $1,000,000 annually. So that those higher earners would finally contribute incrementally more than those who earn less. This step would provide the necessary foundation to steer away from the undue burden we currently place on middle income property owners. I am proud of the work that our Vermont legislature has done has accomplished to insulate the lowest tier of income earners from the regressivity of the property tax burden. But until we apply that gradient of progressive taxation to the rest of the income spectrum, we sustain an increased risk of losing working families. Skeptics of taxing the top tier of income earners more equitably often cite the concern of tax flights. I think this might be a valid concern but not for the demographic indicated. We are more likely to lose middle income Vermonters as a direct result of failing to tax each income tier in alignment with what they can actually afford. The wealthiest will continue to have the greatest degree of financial freedom to make the choice to reside in our beautiful state. And in other states where similar brackets have been implemented, people have stayed. If the two tax brackets proposed in this amendment were to be created, the wealthiest Vermonters would still enjoy disproportionate tax benefits from HR one compared to most of our state's population. Those earning between $500,000 and 1,000,000 would still pocket new breaks. To zoom out, even if we were to pass this amendment, we would still be sustaining policy that contributes to a widening wealth gap. Vermont is contending with federal funding cuts that will drastically impact our state budget for years to come. At the same time, we face the confluence of immense revenue needs ranging from our transportation fund shortfalls to IT updates that would increase our government's efficiency, to health care and housing affordability, to school construction. In my committee, HR one cuts to Medicaid and new state match requirements are having a tremendous impact on our budget and Vermonters health. Increasingly, decisions about federal funding to our state including disaster disaster relief, have been politicized and are therefore unpredictable. Further responsibilities will be pushed onto state budgets in out years. And while we can do our best to minimize costs through policy guardrails and austerity, there is no question that we will also need to generate revenue to fund these huge long term investments. I hope that house members can recognize the urgency necessary to meet this moment. We look forward to the body's discussions on this legislation and I respectfully withdraw our amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Absent objection, leave is granted. Now the member from Woodstock, representative Kimball, and the member from Brattleboro, representative Kornheiser offer an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Thank you, madam speaker. You can find members may find the amendment on page one six one one of today's calendar. And this is to correct two things. One is when we originally had h nine three three coming through our committee and we looked at the small qualified business stock sales, we did not intend to have those capital gains realized from those sales exempt from the exclusion, normal treatment with in the Vermont tax code. The way that we worded the bill is that we did exclude the normal treatment from the Vermont tax code. And so the the language here in the first and second instance of amendment is to apply any income gained from the sale of small business or qualified small business stock to the Vermont Income Tax Code. The third instance of amendment is really to change effective dates on advice of ledge counsel is to make it abundantly clear as to when these effective dates are ironclad so that there's no doubt about when, especially in number seven notwithstanding, as to when they're effective. So it wouldn't create any kind of confusion for tax filers. So it does go back to 01/01/2025 for many of the effective dates, but the effective date of the link up shall take effect retroactively on 01/01/2026. Shall apply to taxable years beginning on and after 01/01/20025. We had it at September 31, and we said, let's be really clear about this and making it January 1. So those are the three instances of amendment, And our committee voted seven to four to zero, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Woodstock and 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 question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? Member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, may I inquire of the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker 0]: The member from Woodstock is interrogated.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I am looking at the fiscal note, which is really helpful, for this bill, And I want to ask about sections 50 through 53 and the property valuation review. These are paid for through pilot funds. Correct?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: So thank you, Madam Speaker. That section of the bill, I was going get the bill out of myself, but I think I can remember it off the top of my head. It does clarify as to where the funds are coming from to pay for three different things that are through the property valuation review. However, there's first is the $100,000 that's paid for Lister and Assessor Education, and that is currently coming out of the general fund I believe. The eight point eight dollars and fifty cents per parcel is that is paid to the towns and municipalities to help with their grand list maintenance and also the cost of reappraisal. That is currently coming out of the education fund and is unclear in the bill, and this clarifies as to where the remaining part of that section is coming from. $1 per parcel for assistance with the equalization study, which is done every year, where the municipality has to coordinate with the Department of Taxes to figure out what this, common level of appraisal is.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, where is that third piece coming out of currently?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: It is not clear in statutes, so we're making very clear as to where it is coming from now.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: And where did it come from in the last three years?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: I would have to take a brief recess to confer with the joint fiscal office.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: I'd appreciate that. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 0]: The house will stand in recess for a moment. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Madam speaker, thank you after conferring with the joint fiscal office because I wanted to make sure I didn't say the wrong thing. That, $1 per parcel has been coming out of the general fund. And so this clarifies as to where it's coming from. It's not in statute language, but that's practically where it's been coming from.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Was did the committee take any testimony or have any justification for the rationale of moving from, the general fund, to the pilot fund?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Thank you for that question. No. In the budgetary process with the Budget Adjustment Act, that was where the monies were first taken out of the pilot fund for the Budget Adjustment Act, we all voted on and passed. And this language is really to make it explicitly permissible in order for those funds to come out of the pilot fund.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I wanna make sure that I understand this language would make, this cost shift

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: permanent. As permanent as anything in this chamber is, madam speaker, yes.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: So it is not a one time shift. This is a perm change to statute. Is that right?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: That is true. It's it is in statute. Yes.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Okay. Madam speaker, one last question. Did, the committee take any testimony from any of the towns that collect the local option tax, or from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns about this section of H 933?

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: You know,

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: thank you for that question. We took we didn't take testimony from those individuals. We did take testimony from the joint fiscal office on the sufficiency of the pilot fund and trying to determine what the balance was. Are the payments going out to those municipalities that have state owned office buildings, are they being compensated at the rate that is in statute? And the current and the answer was yes. And there were sufficient funds to fund those payments going into the future. We did not talk to the municipalities themselves. No.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I'll make this brief. I think that this is a problem going forward. I'll be bringing an amendment on third reading, about putting this language, permanently in statute. And I think it's imperative that we talk to the people that we're taxing, that are that had to go to their towns and get permission, convince their voters that this was the right thing to do. And when we make a shift in policy, which is a shift in the promise about how this is all going to work, I think it's imperative that we talk to those towns or talk to their towns, their towns entity, Vermont League of Cities and Towns. And so I I hope that, I know we have more and more towns that are raising these local option taxes. It does not appear that we are moving fast enough to to reduce this surplus. And I encourage all those committees that are working on this to engage with the towns and the LCT on this. Thanks Madam Speaker.

[Speaker 0]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Just briefly supplement them by a bit of a reference to our process. We just heard some discussion in the last half hour about the importance of vetting, of understanding issues. I think the norm, the standard we usually use is that we want to hear from all those affected when we make policy changes. And it's very disappointing. I know it's disappointing to my town and others involved that this decision would have been made without seeking out their input on it. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Swanton.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to reference to section sixty two and sixty three, in specifically the, maybe a preview of the t bill that's coming forward, that we have spent as your house transportation committee spent a significant amount of time working throughout the body to understand the, challenges facing, the transportation revenue, declining revenues, and the challenge that you'll hear much more about. But I wanna thank the, Ways and Means Committee and the Appropriations Committee for the work that's in section two sixty two and sixty three to recognize that we have a structural problem in in transportation funding and that we have taken steps last year, the year before last year, and again this year in this section to provide additional long term funding for transportation. It may not it is probably not the full answer yet, and it's not gonna solve all of our problems going forward. But incremental progress is important, and I wanna recognize the work, on that particular piece. And, as we continue to solve the transportation funding, sections sixty two and sixty three are critical. And the last piece is there are two, items on the front on the table to get you ready for h 09:44 if you can get them in the break without holding us up too long. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Woodstock.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanna clarify a couple things about the pilot fund. So this is a payment in lieu of taxes. It was established even before the local options taxes were made available. And in that agreement, the share with the local towns has changed over time. At one point, it was 40% being retained by the state and 60% going to the participating municipalities. Last year, this body voted to change that share from 30% going back to with being retained by the state down to 25%, increasing the amount of the share going back to the municipalities collecting the tax. That is not changing in this bill. There is nothing changing that's going to change the amount of revenue that is going to those participating municipalities. And so it is the use of the state's portion of that which is changing. So I just wanna make sure that the body is not confused about that. This is not depriving those communities of the money that is owed them through the current agreement.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from West Windsor.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Clarifying question for the member from Woodstock.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Woodstock is interrogated.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Last year when the share was reduced from 30% to 25%, was there a surplus?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Yes. Thank you for that question. There was a surplus at that point in time, and there was also a commitment from the legislature to take a million dollars from the fund at that point in time to fund the municipal grand list stabilization fund for those communities that were flooded. So there was a surplus at that time. There still remains a surplus.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: And what was the surplus last year?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: I believe it was estimated thank you, member. I believe it was estimated anywhere from 10,000,000 to $12,000,000. So I I don't have the exact figures on on hand.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, member. And I wonder whether whether you have any knowledge of why towns tend to vote in favor of of the local option tax.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Well, this could get quite philosophical. Thank you, madam speaker. So there's a few things at work. The 1% local options tax provides municipalities when it was first enacted with an opportunity to try to defray increased property taxes caused by act 67. We've made several changes to the local options tax since then, even requiring towns without a charter to be able to vote and embrace a local options tax. Some of the towns are using that local options tax for different things in different municipalities. My own established a local options tax to pay for an economic development fund to try to diversify the economy and increase the population. Other towns are using it specifically for infrastructure. I believe Stoward, for a time, had dedicated money to pay for their new hockey arena, but also to defray some of their infrastructure costs. Manchester was applying it a 100% to defray their property taxes. So every town has a different motive for adopting a local options tax, and more towns are seeking them as another source of revenue to pay for the things that they deem are necessary.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, member. Just to clarify, I would say that many of the towns that have having spoken to a few of the town slackboards and my own town being one of the towns that that adopted struggled to and then successfully did adopt one of the local option two of the local option tax possibilities. I would say that for many towns this year, the the reason that was presented to voters, and I believe to be true, was that the towns could not afford their local property taxes, and they it was an effort to buy down the local property tax rate. It is for this reason specifically that I I find use of the the surplus to I'm I'm sorry, member. You you

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: I hear you.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: I'm not I'm not asking a question. I'm telling you what what I think. It's for this reason that I I think that it's unfortunate that that you didn't take testimony from towns about use of the surplus that they raised and ask them whether they think it's okay to be used for other purposes. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question, member from Berry City? Thank

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: you, madam speaker. So I was a city councilor for fourteen years, and as part of that time frame, I went through the process of trying to work with my community to get us to pass local options tax three times. We were finally able to get it, and it's it's been a it was a process. And the the one thing that I remember during that whole process was the 30% going to the state to help pay for the the pilot, and help pay for the administration of these funds. And I had no idea at the time, and I had no idea until, like, today, that there was this accumulation of funds happening that I spent a lot of time working to get passed in our community. And based on the last town meeting day, a lot of our communities are gonna feel that as well. I believe that these funds should be going back to our communities and should not be set up in statute like this. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, it's been hard for our committee assistant particularly, but, also for the reporters of bills this session. We taken a lot of testimony all session and put a lot of that testimony into a few select bills. And so the witness lists get a little confused sometimes or narrowed, I would say. But I will say that the League of Cities and Towns has spent quite a bit of time in our committee today, and they have given testimony as have the Listers Association and other municipal officials on these exact payments that we're discussing, the need for them, the appropriate cost for them, and how that money is spent by towns. We had planned a subsequent hearing on Tuesday, but we were too long on this lovely floor and needed to reschedule it. It is tomorrow afternoon for anyone who wants to tune in.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Newberry.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. May I inquire the presenter, please?

[Speaker 0]: The member from Woodstock is interrogated.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Can you just clarify for me, what this pilot money is used for that we're talking about?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Yes. Thank you, member. So payment in lieu of taxes is to compensate communities for the property taxes they cannot collect on state owned buildings and lands. And so the pilot fund, when it started out, was to try to provide that source of revenue to municipalities because they could not get the revenue from those buildings. It was not fully funded until I think 2024, and before that it was always a portion of the money that would be owed to municipality based on a couple of things. One is the replacement cost of the buildings that the state owned, and the other is the value of the state lands. So that is really the purpose of the pilot fund itself or the pilot program, the payment in lieu of taxes as to provide municipalities with that revenue.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Thank you. So the money that we're talking about in this being collected through the local options tax, that goes for all state owned land as well. I was under the belief that the land portion came separately. And this was for buildings.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Yes. Thank you. There is a payment that is also payments are made out of the pilot fund for both of those, both lands and for buildings. The Agency of Natural Resources involved and I'd I'd have to confer as to say how they are involved. Can't answer that exactly right yet.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Okay. I guess my concern that I think I spoke about last year maybe. I know we say that the towns are getting the full amount of money that they're supposed to be receiving. The pilot money is being fulfilled properly. My concern is just the we're fulfilling the amount for the buildings that we're supposed to be paying to these towns, but that's based on our own equation. I'm curious, Have you heard anything about towns feeling like they are not being fully compensated for those state owned buildings as we assess them?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Thank you, member. We did not take testimony in this particular set session so far about that issue. There have been some cases that we are familiar with where the calculation of the payment to the municipality varies with what the CLA is doing, is varying with what the grand list is doing. And so in some cases, and where another whether state college campuses, the payment actually declined from one year to the next. So we know that the calculation of that payment was not meeting the needs of that community. But until we rejigger that particular calculation, the funds are sufficient to pay for the allocation of payments to the pilot fund to the those communities. I have a spreadsheet that's enormously huge of the amount every community that receives a payment. And I was surprised member to find that my own community was on there, and that was because there was a state owned garage for land for sand and salt located in the in the community. So Woodstock is receiving a payment as well.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Okay. Thank you, member. Madam speaker, that is one of my biggest concerns with this is that our equation that we're using, whether it's for state owned buildings, beautiful places like the Groton State Forest, that we're not we're not fulfilling the hole that we're creating by untaxable land in these towns. There's concern that if if we were, like, for instance, the current use program, that makes the town whole when people put their land in that. I have concerns that the pilot program does not, which is why there is possibly a surplus. However, I could be completely wrong because we've haven't done that look, apparently. So I can't support this, unfortunately. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Member from panel.

[Unidentified member from Pownal (Bennington County)]: The member from Woodstock can relax and stay seated. In any bill of over 60 sections, we'll find things that draw our attention. As an economic development planner for the last decade, I am thoroughly thrilled to see section 58, the research and development tax credit expansion in which state of Vermont goes from eligibility let me just pull this up here. From its current 27% of the federal credit allowed for eligible research development expenses to 75%, an extraordinary leap and one that can help our rural economies further insulate themselves from economic shocks and add resilience to regional economies by bringing in innovation that is sorely needed, innovation that we have a home for, one that lets our businesses that are operating with innovation to really rev the engine. It's something that I didn't think I'd be able to talk much about in this work, and I am profoundly grateful to the committee for giving me that opportunity when I go back to Bennington County. I'll be voting yes on September. I urge others to do the same.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Stowe.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I just feel it's probably important for me to be transparent and communicate, to not to the member from Woodstock, but others that have asked questions what communities do with these local option taxes. And when I say transparent, I'm working with ledge council and sponsoring a bill to for to seek approval for two additional local option taxes of 1% in my community of Stowe. And and we currently have a 1% rooms, meals, and alcohol tax, and we also have a 1% local option sales tax. At our town meeting, we voted for an additional 1% in each of those categories. So the answer is why? And to the member from West Windsor who asked the question, and I I'm gonna compliment the member from Woodstock in his astute knowledge of how we originally, in the room and meals tax, justified it, and that was to try to upgrade some of our community infrastructure. We you know, we're a a robust tourist community. And we use a lot of those funds to pay for a twenty year bond for municipally owned hockey arena. We also use those funds to a portion of those funds to bury overhead power lines on three blocks of Main Street, because it's probably the most photographed tourist, particular of the community church steeple. And we continue to be with, all of this consolidation of ski areas with Epic and Alterra. Our community is gets thousands of visitors a day, and our community infrastructure like culverts, roads, bridges that as the the member from Swanton pointed out, our t bill is underwater, and so are municipal highway budgets and infrastructure that is failing and is beyond capacity. Some of these funds for these new ones may go to support public water and public sewer projects that exist that are in dire need of upgrade and maintenance. So, this is very important in this time with reduced federal funding and an inability to get the kind of bridge repair, and culvert repair in the t bill, madam speaker, that a number of municipalities recently jumped on this source of revenue. My neighboring community of Morristown has been struggling with, its degraded road, bridge, and culvert system. So this is a way for communities, particularly, to have to accommodate thousands of visitors in a given day, both in foliage season, winter season, and even summer to help maintain a base level of of our community infrastructure. So thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Stowe. I'm sorry. Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I wanted to clarify or ask for a clarification on something that was said a few moments ago. If I could interrogate the chair of the Ways and Means Committee.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Brattleboro is interrogated.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I heard correctly, the League of Cities and Towns was present, today, and this issue was discussed and is going to be there tomorrow for dialogue on it. Was that correct?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Oh, no. I'm sorry. We had plan we have had them in committee quite a bit this year on the issue of the costs of listing and assessing and how much an appropriate payment was. We planned hearing for Tuesday for the full afternoon on this issue inviting towns and the league and the Lake Champlain chamber and a number of other other folks that was planned for Tuesday afternoon and was canceled because we were on the floor for so long. We have that rescheduled for tomorrow afternoon if folks want to tune into that. So

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: perhaps I misunderstood. In other words, that this is not testimony or discussion of the, uses of the op of the local options tax. Is that right?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: No. That is not what I was referencing. The testimony scheduled for Tuesday and for tomorrow is about the local option tax and the pilot fund. The testimony we took from the league was about the need for listing and assessing and the appropriate amount of money needed to be spent there.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: So the so the testimony that's coming up that's being scheduled, you're saying that is about the local options tech and the assessment needs? I'm I'm still a little lost. Sorry.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: I'm sorry if I'm being confusing. We had testimony scheduled for Tuesday, the Tuesday that passed. It was a block of testimony. We've rescheduled that exact block of testimony for tomorrow afternoon. If today is Thursday and tomorrow is Friday, which I think is true, that testimony is about local option taxes and the pilot fund, both topics. And we have invited communities who have local option taxes, and we have invited the League of Cities and Towns, the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce, and staff is gonna begin that hearing with an overview of the pilot special fund and how local option taxes work. We took that testimony from staff much earlier this session and last session when we made the adjustment to increase the share to towns of the local option tax revenue.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: I thank the member. That that is what I thought I heard, and and, it's sort of hard to figure out because the decision of the committee is already in a bill before this house, but there's going to be testimony that wasn't taken previously on the exact topics of the options tax and the pilot fund, which seems to me to be very integral to the decision already made in this bill. Thank you, madam.

[Speaker 0]: Question is shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Saint Albans Town.

[Representative Eileen Dickinson (St. Albans Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I represent St. Albans. I've lived there over fifty years and we have a correctional center and a large parcel of land. We have a state garage. We had at one point a large park on the lake that belonged to the state that's now the town park. But we have been getting pilot money as long as probably the legislature created pilot. I'm not sure how much we got. I'm sorry my colleague here from the district is not here because he was a selectman through much of that time. He would probably be able to tell you exactly how much we got. However, we also did a local option tax a few years ago. I brought in the charter. We created a charter for the town. We're not a big destination. We have a little bit of tourism. We're not rich. We don't have all the skiers and all of the, you know, wood stock and all the people like that. I can say that because he grew up in St. Albans. However, we are not a wealthy community. We are a farming area. So it was important to get this local option tax because we have a lot of needs. If you recall, we had the clean water issue. You know, we were all in on trying to clean up the water. St. Albans Bay is in my district. We have impaired waterways that go into the lake. You know, we have public safety issues. We don't have a police force. We keep going back between the sheriff and maybe working with someone else. But we have a lot of infrastructure. We don't have water and sewer in a lot of the most of the town. So in fact, in all of the town we use the stuff from the city. So the local option tax was designed not to lower property taxes per se, but to give us some money so that we could do the things we knew we had to do. Build infrastructure, create public safety environment for our community, clean up the lake, deal with impaired waters. It would take some of the pressure off the taxpayers, and we had just enough, you know, retail to be able to to make some money on it. Now I realize that as soon as you have something like the pilot money coming in for these local option taxes from all over these communities in the state, you're gonna grow the pilot fund and that may be good because that means that we can go and maybe pay what we really are supposed to pay for these communities that are hosting these these state properties. But I think that this is not just something for skiers or wealthy towns. This is something that a lot of smaller towns can use to do the things we need to do for our public safety, our infrastructure, cleaning up the water, other things that are just really bread and butter items that our communities need. So I would like to say, I'd like to see that pilot list that that the representative from Woodstock has because I'd like to see what and I'd like to check with my my my partner here in the district because he would know. But I think we have to think about the pilot as something that has a real purpose and that is valuable.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question, member from Woodstock?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: I just madam speaker, I'd offer to members, I will circulate a spreadsheet with a list for every so everyone can see how much their municipality may be saving. It may take me a day or two in order to get the other list, which is who's also contributing. So I think those two things two things may be interesting. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Member Prince Juan.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Madam speaker, as a representative of the town whose mailing address is the prison that was referred to by the Saint Albans town representative and whose view from the front porch includes the lights of that particular prison. The pilot in lieu payment of taxes amount is $40,000 was established in 1997 and has not changed 1p. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Barrie City.

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. We had a conversation about what municipalities do with them, the the these funds, specifically the local options taxes. And I think of Barrie City, which is four square miles, which is getting smaller due to legislation for wetlands and due to our FEMA buyouts, that money goes away. And you know, we we have to pay for a full police force, a fire department, public works. The local option taxes in Barrie City is used for roads, for for infrastructure, the stuff that we drive on, the things that is tangible that everybody touches and really supports. And I just reiterate when I went through those three votes, the twenty, thirty percent, for some reason I was always thinking it was 25. That's my memory. That money was going to the pilot, which comes back to the communities, and the the money to administer the actual program. And I look forward to the amendment that the representative from Dover has mentioned.

[Speaker 0]: 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 third reading is ordered. Members now we'll turn to House Bill nine forty nine which is an act relating to homestead property tax yields and the non homestead property tax rate and technical changes to education finance. Prior to third reading, the member from Burlington, representative Logan and others offer an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Burlington.

[Representative Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I rise today regarding the amendment to h nine forty nine submitted by the House Progressive Caucus. At its core, this amendment is fairness, about ensuring that income derived from wealth is increasingly treated with the same seriousness as income derived from work, and about strengthening the long term sustainability of our education fund. This amendment would have asked that high income Vermonters pay a wealth proceeds tax of 4% on the passive income that they receive from their investments. The wealth proceeds tax would piggyback on an already existing federal tax, the net investment income tax, and would simply adopt that federal form for state purposes. The wealth proceeds tax of this type has already been implemented in Minnesota. The wealth proceeds tax amendment is grounded in a simple principle. If we're asking working Vermonters to carry the weight of funding for our public public education system, then those who derive the greatest benefit from wealth, particularly passive income from their wealth, should also contribute their fair share. It's estimated that the wealth proceeds tax that we propose would generate approximately $75,000,000 annually as an additional source of revenue for the education fund. This additional investment into Vermont's education fund would lower property taxes for working Vermonters and help to rebalance one of our most regressive taxes. This week, we've heard from Vermonters across the state who are asking us to take up fair, balanced tax policy. Vermonters who are feeling the strain of rising costs and want to see a system that asks everyone to contribute their fair share. I wanna thank those Vermonters for organizing, speaking up, and engaging in this process. Your voices matter, and they're being heard in this building. I also wanna thank house leadership for working with my colleagues and me to find a constructive path forward. We've reached an agreement that this proposal, as well as my colleagues related amendment to h nine thirty three, will be taken up by the House Ways and Means Committee for testimony and a vote this year. That's an important commitment. It means this idea will receive thoughtful, thorough consideration that it deserves with the benefit of public input and committee deliberation. Madam speaker, I look forward to continuing this work and to potentially advancing fair sustainable tax policy in the weeks ahead. And so with that understanding and with appreciation for the good faith effort to move this conversation forward, I ask leave of the house to withdraw the amendment at this time.

[Speaker 0]: Absent objection, leave is granted. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: H nine forty nine, an act relating to homestead property tax yields, the nonhomestead property tax rate, and technical changes to education finance.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: aye. Aye.

[Speaker 0]: All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill. Members, now we will turn to 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. The bill was introduced by the committee on transportation. The member from Swanton, representative Walker will speak for the committee and affecting the revenue of the state. The bill was then referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Fair Haven, representative Canfield 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 when amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means. The member from Burke, representative will speak for that committee. Please listen to the third reading of the bill. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: H nine forty four, an act relating to the fiscal year 2027 transportation program and miscellaneous changes to laws related to transportation.

[Speaker 0]: Members I'm going to take with the house sanities since we have members in the will of the house, I just want to make sure that the member has the full attention of members on the floor. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I'd like to remind members that the documents that were on the table are also available in your email. With that, member from Swanton, will the house please come to order?

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I guess everybody that wanted it got their budget on a page or appropriations overview from the well. I apologize for the cold and for exciting distracting news that I received today. Anyway, so today is sugar season for most, but being on the transportation committee, it's a little tough because it's potholes and frost heaves. So this is the time we hear the most from our constituents out there. But in some ways, it's good and bad, brings a lot of attention. I would like to start out by reminding everybody in the body that back February, winter storm Hernando hit our neighbors in Massachusetts and Rhode Island significantly. And they, both the governor of Massachusetts and the governor of Rhode Island, using the emergency management assistant compact called on help from Vermont. And within twenty four hours, the agency of transportation rolled out 32 people, 12 of the large plow trucks, trailers, multiple full size loaders, pickups, plows, and mechanics vans, and spent a week digging out our neighbors in Rhode Island and Massachusetts. And in one situation in Massachusetts, the state police contacted the agency of transportation payloader that was there. And he the loader driver had to plow out and hammer out through the snow to a neighborhood where there was a nine eleven. There was a medical emergency, a 911 call, and the services were able to get there. So it was pretty significant and pretty major, and I wanna start there as an incredible positive. We will, as a state, receive about $1,000,000 in reimbursement for the work that we did in Rhode Island and Massachusetts back to the t funds. Now, on the sad or the difficult side of that, to bring you what most of my presentation will be about, one of the people that participated in that in their time in Rhode Island, when they got back in their mailbox was their reduction in force letter. The agency of transportation, as you all know, has been facing, and transportation fund has been facing significant financial challenge for several years. And we have been warned in this body of a hole that we're going to be digging out as a whole state next year that might be 30 or $4,000,000. When the agency of transportation went to put their budget together this year, they were already in a $33,000,000 hole that they had to to deal with. So last fall, September, during the fiscal meeting and during the re presentation because the drop in revenue had had triggered an event that had the meeting of the financial portion of the state, there was a reduction in force in the fall. And that was 31 positions, 16 of which were filled and 15 were vacant. And then when this budget was presented as revenues continue to be flat, an additional 31 positions, 19 of which were filled and 12 were vacant, leaves us in the less than six months or about six months, 62 positions, 35 of which were filled and 27 which were vacant. There are 35 Vermonters that are no longer working at the agency transportation for an estimated annual savings of over $8,000,000. I would strongly urge you to understand that just one agency faced a $33,000,000 hole. I hope we can make it up in the state's $30,000,000 hole for next year without having to go as difficult decisions that the agency has made. That $8,000,000 savings is part of the 33,000,000 to hold it was that needs to be addressed. The rest of that piece was made up in delays of over $6,000,000 in projects that we're bidding, will be put out to a later time. Another $12,000,000 will be using something called an indirect cost rate, which is a accounting measure that is used only in the most difficult of financial times that is allowed by the Federal Highway Administration, where you're basically taking t fund monies that should otherwise be spent on construction projects, and will allow the agency through a significant accounting manipulation to use money to pay overhead costs that are not directly related to a project. So you have supervisors and engineers that are working on multiple projects that are indirect costs that will be able to be paid with federal dollars. And it'll take significant work, but it'll save $12,000,000 this year, and they're estimating to have to use it again in next year's budget, the year after, for another $12,000,000. So you add up some additional savings in there in terms of overtime cuts, and you'll see a $1,900,000 change at the DMV where the plan will be to start charging Vermonters for the use of credit cards on their now myDMV account, whereas currently we absorbed $2,000,000 in credit card charges. You will see a reduction in the activities of mowing and of tree removal. You will see a reduction in maintenance activity. You'll see a combination of work around overtime. All of those combinations of the six and the 12 and the eight and the piece will get you to that $33,000,000 hole. $33,000,000 in one agency. We're facing $33,000,000 as a state next year. So the next thing I'd like to point out is that on your budget on a page, when I ask people what they wanna know about the transportation budget, the entire amount is 934,000,000. That is about 10% of the entire state budget. 332,000,000 of that is t funds. How do we spend that $332,000,000 of t funds? One third of it is in maintenance. That is your snow plowing. That is your ditching. That is your road mowing. That is your vehicles that you see. That is the most visible piece of what you see out on every vehicle and activity out with the orange trucks everywhere all year round. And that's you can see is about a this year is proposed. That's 33% of the total, a 112, almost a $113,000,000 for that piece. The next largest piece is or one of the next largest piece is the money it takes to run the Department of Motor Vehicles. And then the next piece, 15% of the money, which totals out in t funds at just shy of about $50,000,000 goes to the sport town highway aid, town structures, and class two roads. The reason I wanted to point on that, if you look at the budget by fund and you look at town highways, which is down in B 914, 911, 913, 917, etcetera, You will see the spot. I wanna highlight just a couple of them. Under town highway structures, you will see that 7.4 millions is going to the towns for town highway structures. The requested amount in applications from the town for this fiscal year was 19,400,000.0, and we are funding them at 7,400,000.0. Under class two roads as an example, the request from the towns is $32,000,000, and we are funding them at 8,800,000.0. Just as a FYI for that piece of how the budget works in t funds, those are formula funds. That's the maximum amount that the the that's the law says. That's how much the agency has to pass to them, and that's how much they get, and then it's distributed by formula or grant depending on the particular program. I spent the the committee spent a significant amount of time sobering this legislature on the financial needs of the transportation fund, and there has been significant work done over the last several years. We have quite a bit further to go, but I appreciate your understanding. And I think that the 11 o vote of the committee that'll be referenced already referenced, but we referenced again, works us towards continued steps in that direction. So Section one of the t bill of h nine forty four is this. Every member of the committee's got a little white book and it's also on the inner on the website of the agency website. You can track every existing project both in planning and in production and in construction or in right of way and where it's at. It's not a prop, I already checked. This is the actual law. When you go to section one, you will see that that is what they're referring when they say they're going to adopt what's called the white book and all of the programs that are under planning and activity and construction in the agency. With that, madam speaker, I would yield to the member from Brownington for the next section two through six.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Swanton yields to the member from Brownington.

[Representative Ken Wells (Brownington)]: Thank you, chair Walker and madam speaker. This is a bare bones, only the facts summary of section two through six, and I kept in only the exciting parts. Section two repeals obsolete rules for municipal heavy equipment loan fund, which has been superseded by the statutes governing the municipal equipment and vehicle loan fund. Section three makes

[Speaker 0]: technical amendments to clarify provisions relating to Vermont standards for roadway design, and the application

[Representative Ken Wells (Brownington)]: Vehicle of certain federal signage requirements to roadways with lower design speeds. Section four, three increases the contract amount below with the Secretary of Transportation. He may waive bonding requirements from $100,000 to $250,000 Also, permits Secretary of Transportation to waive bonding requirements for temporary stabilization work during an emergency. Section five, brings state into compliance with national bridge inspection standards regarding inspection, posting, and closures of bridges. Also establishes a new penalty of up to a thousand dollars for a person who violates the posting or closure of a bridge. Section six makes technical amendments for consistency and makes violation of a bridge posting or closure a traffic violation. I will now yield to representative Tomlinson of Winooski. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Brownington yields to the member from Winooski.

[Representative Chloe Tomlinson (Winooski)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'll be taking you through sections seven through nine of the bill, and that starts on page 10 of the bill. Section seven amends the membership of the public transit advisory council. For context, the council advises the agency on matters related to public transportation, ensuring that policy funding and operational plans meet state needs. This section replaces the community of Vermont elders member with a member from AARP Vermont because Cove has dissolved. It eliminates the taxi service member because that position has not been filled for several years and it combines representation of private bus operators and intercity bus operators into a single member. This is all by request of the agency. Section eight amends Green Mountain Transit Authority's charter charter to clarify that they can raise revenue outside of their formula for municipal assessment. So that means they can negotiate directly with private entities and if appropriate, directly with individual municipalities. To be clear, this will not replace their formula for assessment for member municipalities, but it would provide them far greater flexibility to find revenue sources other than from member municipalities. Examples of these additional revenue sources could include voluntary member contributions, grants, donations, and other non assessment revenue. Section nine amends the sunset of the agency's public private partnership authority extending it from July 2026 to July 2029. This is this authority was first implemented as a pilot and has already been extended once back in 2023. The agency requested this extension as there has been long been an interest in building a travel service center just south of the Canadian border on Interstate 89, and they are currently in the scoping phase for this project and expect that should funding be identified to advance it to construction, it would be structured as a public private partnership engagement. Now I will yield to the member from Shelburne.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Winooski yields to the member from Shelburne.

[Representative Kate Lalley (Shelburne)]: Madam speaker, I will be reporting on sections 10 through 13. These sections propose a technical change to appeals of agency eleven eleven permits, improve the process for grant cancellations, provide flexibility to use federal funds for infrastructure construction, and facilitate the ability of communities to set lower traffic speeds. Section 10 amends the powers and duties of the transportation board when it hears appellate review of eleven eleven permits. An eleven eleven permit is required for any work in a state right of way, for example, a driveway. This change limits the ability to appeal to the applicant or permittee of the eleven eleven permit. Section 11 amends the transportation alternatives program. This section proposes to increase the maximum amount of money that can be awarded through the transportation alternatives grant program from 300,000 to 600,000. The threshold is rising from 300 to 600,000 due to significantly higher costs for construction. Since 2020, 20 agency projects have required multiple funding awards to be completed, complicating progress and length of time to complete local projects. This section also removes the limitations stating that 50% of the grant program funds must be given to environmental mitigation projects related to storm water and highways and instead lets grants be issued for any eligible activity. Water quality projects, unlike transportation infrastructure projects like sidewalks, are eligible for other sources of money. This change keeps eligibility for environmental mitigation projects but adds safe routes for non drivers to the roster of eligible projects. Section 12, fiscal year twenty twenty seven transportation alternative grant program changes. This section proposes that in fiscal year twenty twenty seven, grants up to a maximum of 1,200,000.0 may be issued from the transportation alternatives grant program. This authority would only be granted in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. In future years, the maximum grant award amount would revert to 600,000. The need for the one time increase is an urgency to obligate 2,100,000.0 in federal funds to eligible projects in f y twenty seven or risk loss of these funds. The money in this program requires a 20% local match. The agency testified that 2,100,000.0 in federal funds are left to obligate due to the project cancellations primarily for salt sheds, a result of inadequacy of funding relative to increasing project construction costs. At the same time, there are growing unmet needs for sidewalks and bike lanes and other infrastructure to support pedestrians. We propose giving the agency discretion to fund eligible projects up to 1,200,000.0 for f y twenty seven to ensure these federal funds can be obligated and will be used to meet local needs local needs in our towns. Eligible activities continue to include environmental mitigation, and we added infrastructure for safe routes for non drivers. Section 13 addresses municipal transportation programs. Their ongoing evaluation and identification of improvements. This section directs the agency of transportation to continue work in consultation with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies on studies from the 2025 t bill related to cancellation of locally managed projects and to identify potential efficiencies related to town highway aid and municipal grant programs. Regional planning commissions testified to us that many towns are struggling to maintain their road and bridge infrastructure. Madam speaker, transportation is the backbone of economic activity in Vermont. Increasing aid to maintain town infrastructure and creating easier pathways to making the centers of our communities walkable and bikeable increases Vermonters' access to more opportunities, encourages local business, and reduces our emissions, Making Vermont downtowns and village roads slower and more walkable prepares these communities for housing that can be built on smaller properties and closer to the street, a pattern of development more cost effective to build and serve with infrastructure. Dense walkable settings make transit services more cost effective to provide. Transit gets people to jobs and health care services and helps older Vermonters live independently. Roads designed for slower, steady traffic are safe for all users and meet all needs. Traffic speeds impacts actual and perceived safety for people walking and biking. Traffic moving at consistent speeds even when they are lower reduces frustration for drivers. Section 13 directs the agency in consultation with the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, Vermont Association of Planning and Development to examine laws related to setting speeds and to identify opportunities to simplify and clarify those statutes to meet local needs related to safety and context sensitivity and requires recommendations for legislative action to be submitted in January 2027. Aligning transportation and land use policy will make it easier, faster, and less costly to retrofit roads to meet local needs in our communities and complements the very promising multimodal guidance under development at V Trans. Madam

[Speaker 0]: speaker,

[Representative Kate Lalley (Shelburne)]: I now yield to the member from Rutland City.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Shelburne yields to the member from Rutland City.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I have the dubious pleasure of introducing sections fourteen and fifteen, and the reason I say dubious is because it is about the pilot. It seems as if most of what I was going to say has been said, so I'll spare you that. But before my remarks, I would like to thank the body for the understanding of the dire need in which the transportation fund is in need of its funds. And you can tell that that by by eliminating some 60 odd positions that they are serious about making their budget. I wish I could hear the same from other agencies within the state government. So basically, what we're trying to do in sections fourteen and fifteen is to do the same thing with town highways that we have done with the payment of taxes payment in lieu of taxes to the various towns and cities. In the past, the pilot program had been a capricious type of general fund allocation. And the same way we found with the high town highways. It was unpredictable. They could not plan for such such work. To give you an idea of scale, the agency of agency of transportation is in charge of about 3,200 miles of road. There are 14,000 miles of roads in our towns and cities. So what this sections these sections do was to take half of the excess, the yearly excess that is found in the pilot fund and dedicate it to town roads, and that would be one half. And it's something that we were thinking that would be way to institutionalize a a continued support of something that's very important that you've heard about here. And that concludes my remarks, and I now yield to the member from Brattleboro.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Rutland City yields to the member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke (Brattleboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I will be reporting on section sixteen, seventeen, and 18. Section section 16 appropriates a $192,000 to continue the agency's partnership with Drive Electric Vermont, Including their programs of education and outreach, incentive programs, charging infrastructure development, and stakeholder collaboration with dealers. Section 17 deletes the requirement that the agency ensure that the airport continue to be identified as a public use airport in the national plan of integrated airport systems until 2015. The agency is waiting for approval of the FAA to remove the airport from the national plan because of the potential buyer who will upgrade the airport in actually sooner and better than they would under the federal funding. Section 18 extends the sunset of authority to sell the airport from 05/01/2026 to 11/01/2027 because of waiting for the federal approval. And that's all for sections those sections, and I would like to yield to the member from Hinesburg.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Brattleboro, Houston, the member from Hinesburg.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Madam speaker, I'll be speaking about the mileage based user fee, which is a new program. It's a little complicated. I'll try to keep it succinct, because I know we all have a dinner to go to or family to see. Some may even have a hockey game they're trying to get to. So I'll get started and and go as quick as I can. So these sections, sections 19 through 22, bring to fruition several years of preparation by the agency of transportation, the legislature, and the administration to adopt a mileage based user fee or an MBUF. The MBUF will capture a road user fee or you might prefer to say a mileage tax, which is presently paid by all internal combustion engine vehicles known as the gas tax. So, yes, this fee is a new tax and was included in the administration's proposed t bill. The House Transportation Committee worked extremely hard to ensure this new tax on battery electric vehicles is as fair as possible, meaning battery electric vehicles will pay an equivalent road user tax that's presently paid by internal combustion engine vehicles. I will review the bill as passed unanimously out of the Transportation Committee knowing that the House will consider an amendment offered by the Ways and Means Committee, which, if passed, will impact some of the specifics within the bill sections. Section 19 of this bill covers changes to 23 VSA Chapter 43. So subsection four thousand three hundred one and four thousand three hundred two define the purposes and update some definitions. Subsection 4,303 outlines that the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles will institute and assess the mileage based user fee based on the mileage traveled in a reporting period, which is typically twelve months. There are instances where the reporting period may be a little shorter, for example, if you sell your vehicle. The owner or lessee of a vehicle may pay their assessment in full or choose a pay as you go option. Pay as you go could be monthly or quarterly. This allows the fee to be paid over time just like how you pay your gas tax. So you may pay the assessment upfront, pay portions over the year, or pay up at the end of the reporting period. Subsection small e defines the most critical step in the mileage based user fee bill. It defines the rate per mile. So the committee set a rate of 1.4¢ per mile. This was calculated as the overall average mileage rate for Vermont pleasure cars. So if you take all the pleasure cars, what they're paying for gas tax, that's the average. Internal combustion vehicles whose mileage per gallon is less than 23, they pay a little more, and those vehicles whose mileage per gallon is greater than 23 would pay now pay a little less. So again, our committee wanted the rate to be as fair as possible and decided to set this rate right in the middle. Subsection 4.304 requires submission of mileage reports, which are typically between yearly inspections when vehicle mileage reported in your yearly inspection data. At the end of the reporting period, the commissioner will assess the difference in actual miles driven to the amount paid over the reporting period. If there were less miles, the owner will be credited toward their next mileage based user fee. If there were more miles, that amount will be assessed as an added fee. This section also provides processes to appeal an MBUF assessment and a process for a refund during a terminating event, such as if you sell your battery electric vehicle and you've overpaid your mileage based user fee, you can get a check. Section 4,305 provides for penalties for failure to pay an MBUF. Overdue balances can be assessed in interest of 1.5% a month, not to exceed a maximum of 18%. Subsection 4,306 establishes a penalty if a battery electric vehicle owner fails to file a mileage report, for example, failed to get their vehicle inspected, they will be charged a default mileage equivalent to the ninety eighth percentage of miles traveled by all registered pleasure vehicles. So this is greater than two times what the average battery electric vehicle mileage would be. Section 4,307 permits the commissioner to suspend or refuse to renew registrations if fees are not paid or mileage reports are not filed. Section 4,308 defines the powers of the commissioner allowing them to implement this MBUF program. Additionally, it defines the processes for the DMV to take additional legal actions necessary to collect owed fees. 4,309 permits and provides the process for an individual to appeal decisions of the commissioner. So that was Section 19. Section 20 of this bill defines changes from the existing infrastructure fee which is paid by battery electric and plug in hybrid vehicles. The infrastructure fee for battery electric vehicles will go away since those vehicles will now pay an MBUF. The infrastructure fee for plug in hybrid vehicles will remain. Collected infrastructure fees now will go directly to the transportation fund. It had previously been used to support electrical vehicle supply equipment or car charging grants administered by the Agency of Commerce and Community Development. Section 21 defines how we transition vehicles presently registered from the infrastructure fee to the MBUF. Some existing battery electric vehicles will have paid their infrastructure fee with their registration before the MBUF kicks in. This section provides for the MBUF assessment to start at the first annual state inspection where the vehicle owner will be credited the $89 they had paid for the infrastructure fee. Section 22 takes any MBUF revenues generated in 2027, which won't be very much at all, maybe half $1,000,000, during the transition time and applies these funds to the general state aid for town highways. After this transition year, the MBUF revenue will go directly to the T Fund. I will now yield back to the representative from Swanton.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Hinesburg yields to the member from Swanton.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'd like to thank the committee members, for their shared commitment to solving a long term transportation funding and their commitments to their town and municipality, highway struggles, which is a unanimous support amongst the committee. And also, individual has a particularly focused policy area that they are dogged towards. So thank you to that. Madam speaker, the vote of the committee was eleven zero. Oops. We heard from witnesses. My bad. Witnesses over two and a dozen plus background witnesses before that. We heard over 30 plus witnesses in our overall three month building of the anonymous bill, including multiple fiscal analysts from the joint fiscal office, multiple councils from the legislative council or office of legislative council, at least 20 people from the agency of transportation, including the director of policy planning intermodal, director of policy, the public transit program manager, the state policy director, excuse me, deputy director of finance administration, the chief engineer of the highway division, the director of maintenance. We heard from the director of central garage, we heard fiscal it goes on forever as well as program manager at Local Motion, the general manager at Green Mountain Transit, director of planning at Green Mountain Transit, director of finance at Green Mountain Transit, Peckham Industries, Vermont Pavers, and continue through AARP, and manager of environmental policy and sustainability agents transportation. Everybody can read all of that big list. Madam speaker, your committee on transportation voted eleven zero, and we ask for the body's support.

[Speaker 0]: And now speaking for the Committee on Ways and Means, member from Fairhaven.

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam speaker, the Ways and Means Committee would like to thank the Transportation Committee for their hard work and dedicated energy they put into this bill. So a full a full fiscal note history is available on the fiscal tab of the bill page on the General Assembly website and can be pulled up through a bill number search on the JFO page as well as the Ways and Means webpage. The first instance of amendment strikes sections fourteen and fifteen which would have allocated revenues from local option taxes in excess amounts necessary for recurring payments from the pilot fund to the general state aid for town highways. The second instance of amendment strikes section 19, which would have created the mileage based user fee and replaces it with a revised subchapter relating to road usage charges. Changes to the chapter include, it changes the chapter title from mileage based user fee to road usage charges and creates two sub chapters related to the mileage based user fee and a road usage charge for EV rental cars. It simplifies the mileage based user fee program by eliminating provisions related to a pay as you go program which has not been designed yet and a different payment structure for newly registered EVs. As previously mentioned, the $89 fee paid when registering your EV is eliminated as this program it supported has been removed. All EVs will be assessed MBUF, mileage based user fee in the same way under the amended language. It adds exemptions from the mileage based user fee for state government vehicles as

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: well

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: as for EV rental cars that are subject to road use road usage charge. It provides forty five days to appeal the amount of your mileage based user fee instead of fifteen days. It permits individuals to request a waiver of past due amounts or interest that has accrued on past due amounts for good cause or because of economic hardship. It eliminates language that duplicates provisions in other parts of Title 23 that will apply to the mileage based user fee. It provides a right to an administrative appeal for the mileage based user fee related to decisions or orders. It creates a road usage charge for EV rental cars equal to 1% of the rental charge. The third instance of amendment, it updates the transition provisions for EVs currently registered in Vermont to reflect the changes made to the mileage based user fee in the second instance of amendment. The fourth instance of amendment requires the agency of transportation to submit a plan by 02/15/2027 to create the pay as you go mileage based user fee option for EV owners and lessees. It transfers $2,200,000 from the Transportation Infrastructure Bond or TIB fund to the Transportation Fund. It allocates 1,700,000.0 of the transferred amount to general state aid for town highways, which provides formula funding to all towns in the state based on the highway classes and the mileage within each town. This money is specified as being in addition to the current fiscal year twenty twenty seven allocation from state aid to town highways. The remaining $500,000 stays in the transportation fund and is to support any special money not collected in 2027 from EVs. The first odometer reading will be when the EVs receive their annual safety inspection in 2027. The next odometer meeting reading will be upon their 2028 safety inspection. The agency of transportation will use these mileage readings to calculate miles traveled and assess the mileage based user fee. Ways and means heard from legislative council from the office of legislative council, the fiscal analyst from the joint fiscal office, a special fiscal officer at the joint fiscal office, associate fiscal officer, joint fiscal office, state policy director, agency of transportation, the chair of the house committee on transportation, the director of policy planning and intermodal development division, agency of transportation. On a favorable a favorable vote of nine one one, your committee on ways and means approve this amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Now a member from Swanton.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Madam speaker, your house transportation committee heard, the Ways and Means amendment, and recognizing that Ways and Means has a significant more, experience in taxes and fees, and having heard from legislative council, with one with a concern about the mileage based user fee not perhaps arriving into the transportation fund as soon under the new program. That was, listened to and pee and put together. But given the, experience with the Ways and Means Committee and their tie work with fees and taxes, your committee voted seven four to support the Ways and Means Amendment.

[Speaker 0]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Burke.

[Representative John Kascenska (Burke)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Members of the appropriations committee received, testimony from legislative council regarding H nine forty four that specifies a series of recommendations and changes as presented in today's calendar. And we also heard from the chair of the Transportation Committee. The Appropriations Committee also received testimony from the Joint Fiscal Office outlining the fiscal impact within specific sections of the bill also as presented here today. With a vote of eleven zero zero, your appropriate your committee and appropriations recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means.

[Unidentified member from Burlington (EV mileage question)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means? Are you ready for the question? Member from Barrie City.

[Representative Michael Boutin (Barre City)]: I hate to belabor this, but I'm going to. So regarding the the removal of section fourteen and fifteen, I I do need to to note that Vermont Leagues of Cities and Towns is vehemently opposed to this. This is money that can go to fix our roads. The ones that we drive on, this is the money that should go to our municipalities to fix them or to the to the roads to be fixed. Again, I drive through Barrie and there's potholes. I drive through Montpelier, there's potholes. That is the reason why we should have that section fourteen and fifteen in there, And I I strongly urge the body to consider that as we're voting for this.

[Speaker 0]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means, member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, may I inquire of the presenter of the ways and means amendment?

[Speaker 0]: The member from Fairhaven is interrogated.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, this amendment strikes out a new appropriation to municipalities from the pilot fund, which is different than, in the miscellaneous tax bill, which was just changing who was paying for an appropriation existing appropriation to municipalities. Can you explain to me the rationale behind those two decisions with regard to the pilot fund?

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: We were advised, by, joint fiscal office to be cautious with the, pilot fund in this case.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Okay. It's late. I don't wanna belabor, but I just wanna make sure that I understand. So this, what was included by the transportation committee was a new appropriation from the pilot fund to communities as opposed to in the a miscellaneous tax bill, which was just shifting an existing cost from the general fund and the education fund to the pilot fund. And so this amendment was opposed. I'm just trying to understand what the difference is.

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Well, I think that, even though this money from the transportations approach, it was still gonna go through the municipal highway program. Correct? It wasn't sent appropriately to them.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, the hour's late. My question remains, but I think it can wait until tomorrow. Thank you. The

[Speaker 0]: question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified member from Burlington (EV mileage question)]: May I ask the member from Fairhaven a question or two?

[Speaker 0]: The member from Fairhaven is interrogated. I

[Unidentified member from Burlington (EV mileage question)]: have heard from electric vehicle owners across Vermont, actually. And most of them agree that a mileage charge in lieu of a gas tax makes absolute sense, and most are completely willing to pay for their use of the roads. However, there is concern about the fact that, like many Vermonters, some EV owners spend the winter in Florida, and they drive from here to Florida in their electric vehicles, and they drive around Florida all winter, and then they drive back to Vermont. And there are some states which charge transportation tax on the electricity used to charge at public charging stations, and these include Pennsylvania and Georgia, states through which a Vermonter might pass on their way to Florida. So those Vermonters will be getting double taxed on the miles they travel in those states. And I wonder if either the committee of Ways and Means or the Transportation Committee considered any ways to avoid that sort of double taxation and avoid having EV drivers pay for mile mileage tax on miles they travel outside of the state?

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Thank you for the question. We didn't actually address the long distance travel. We talked about going from state to state. Let's say you're going to go someplace in New York, and it was explained that when you get your gas with a gas vehicle, you get your gas here. You just happen to drive it in New York. But I don't know about that long distance, and I will try to have something for you before thirty.

[Unidentified member from Burlington (EV mileage question)]: Thank you, member.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means? Are you ready for the question? Member from Newberry.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Kinda on the fly here. Is the amendment divisible?

[Speaker 0]: Member, could you let us know what parts you're speaking to?

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: I'm just thinking of the voting on the first instance with section fourteen and fifteen as one and then the rest of the amendment as another.

[Speaker 0]: It is divisible.

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Perfect. I'd like to do that.

[Speaker 0]: Member, do you have a preference in order?

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: I do not.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So members, the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means in the first instance of amendment, which is fourteen and fifteen, and then we will take the others. Are you ready for the question?

[Representative Esme Cole (Hartford)]: Member from Bradford

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, can we take a brief recess?

[Speaker 0]: The house will stand in recess for a moment. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. Will the house please come to order? Members, the question at hand is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means in the first instance of amendment which is section four sections fourteen and fifteen, member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, when your committee on ways and means amended the language from the transportation committee regarding, with sections fourteen and fifteen, we very much wanted to continue to meet the needs of the transportation committee and more importantly than the transportation committee, all of our towns and our town highway funds. And so in consultation with the chair of the committee and our incredible staff team, we found another, source of transportation revenue from within the world of transportation funds and were able to put significantly more money towards our town highway funds than the bill had as it came to us. And so our towns will be better off as a result of our and we'll have more money for the roads than the bill had before your Ways and Means Committee amended it. And so I encourage you, madam speaker, to and the body to please vote yes on each section of your ways and means committee amendment. Thank you. Including this section fourteen and fifteen, please vote yes.

[Speaker 0]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means in the first instance of amendment which is sections fourteen and fifteen. Member from Swan.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Madam speaker, I know there was still quite a bit of in the noise in the chamber. Before we vote, I would ask you to explain the vote again what a yes and a no is for. Also, as a house transportation committee did hear the ways and mean amendment, and I would say that I would remind that we did vote in favor of the amendment seven to four.

[Speaker 0]: Members, the amendment has been divided. We are taking up sections fourteen and fifteen up first for votes and then I will ask another the second question will be on all other remaining parts of the amendment. So the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee, ways and means in the first instance of amendment which is sections fourteen and fifteen. Are you ready for the question, member from Georgia?

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: And I am I'm also confused, madam speaker. So is this correct that we are voting on the amendment, the the section fourteen and fifteen as it's printed, by us? The I thought the question was to delete as printed by us.

[Speaker 0]: It's as delete as recommended by your committee.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: I'm sorry.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: What is it?

[Speaker 0]: Right. So member it is to delete sections fourteen and fifteen as recommended by the committee on ways and means. Are you ready for the question?

[Representative Esme Cole (Hartford)]: Welcome on, madam speaker.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Fairfax requests that when the vote is taken by roll, is members 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. Will the house please come to order? Members, the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means in the first instance of amendment which is sections fourteen and fifteen. Are you ready for the question? If so, member from Dover.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: This is a tricky question for me, madam speaker, because this is a growing fund, and I certainly do want to see these funds go back to our communities. So I'm really thinking hard about how I'm going to vote here. I'd like to really think about the development of this idea and the overall use. Tough, tough question.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question, member from Swanton?

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Madam speaker, I'd like to see if I can help clarify to some of the people out there. The committee on the original t bill in sections fourteen and fifteen was looking for 50% of the annual surplus, not any current surplus or amount, but any 50% of any annual surplus after all payments including the payments that were recommended in h nine thirty three. It was for 50% after all payments to the pilot fund including everything else which we had heard from the JFO could be somewhere between 200,000 and or $400,000 in the next coming year. So 50% of that would have been about $200,000. It would have been, moving forward, there's no there's no clear number yet as exactly what that might be, but it would be about $200,000. The Ways and Means Amendment for the town highway aid is about $1,700,000. So I do wanna clarify that under the current ways and means amendment, it would be more immediate relief to the town highway aid, which is the aid that is least restrictive in nature to the towns and municipalities that they can use it with the most flexibility in their town highway budget.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Dover, do you wish to speak a third time?

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: If I may, madam speaker.

[Speaker 0]: Absent objection, the member may go forward.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: I just wanna clarify, madam speaker. I'm gonna be voting no, but I think that the Ways and Means Committee and others need to work with the towns and VL Coffin on how to deal with this surplus. It is not the state's money, and this actually seems like a proposal that has some merit. It would return new money to our towns. Thank you for letting me speak a third time.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

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

[Speaker 0]: Yes. One minute. 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 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 amended as recommended by the committee on ways and means in the first instance of amendments, is sections fourteen and fifteen. Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Austin of Colchester.

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

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. No. Rebecca of Winooski. Yes. Birong of Vergens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington.

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

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Boutin Berry City. No. I'm okay. Sorry. Sorry. I'm I skipped ahead. I'm so sorry. Can I start over? I'm going too fast. I'm gonna do it over. Bosch

[Speaker 0]: of Clarendon.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Boonton Berry City. No. Thank you. Sorry about that. Boyden of Cambridge. Brady of Williston. Yes. Branagan of Georgia. Yes. Bring him a Saint Albans Town. Brown of Richmond. Yes. Burditt at West Rutland. No. Burkhardt of South Burlington. Yes. Burrows of West Windsor. No. Burditt Cabot. Campbell Saint Johnsbury. Yes. Canfield of Fairhaven. No. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Carris Duncan of Whitingham. Is that a no? Thank you. Casey Montpelier? Yes. Casey Hubbardton? No. Chapin East Montpelier? Charlton of Chester? No. Christie of Hartford? Gina Burlington.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Coffin and Cavendish. No. Cole of Hartford. Yes. Conlon and Cornwall. Yes. Cooper Panel. Yes. Corcoran and Bennington. Critchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Venusburg? No. Dickinson of Saint Albans Town?

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

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Dobrovich of Williamstown? Dodge of Essex. Dolan of Essex Junction. Yes. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury. No. Donahue of Northfield.

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

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Duke of Burlington.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Durfee of Shaftesbury? Yes. Estes of Guildford? Yes. Emmons of Springfield? Yes. Feltus of Linden? Yes. Galfetti Berrytown? No. Garifano of Essex? Roman of Rockingham. Yes. Goodnobrovich. Yes. Ghostland on Northfield. No. Granny of Jericho. Yes. Greer Bennington. Yes. Greg Burkhardt. Hango Birkshire. No. Harper of Glover. Yes. Harvey of Castleton.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: No.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Hedrick of Burlington. Yes. Higley of Lowell. No. Holcomer Norwich. Cooper Randolph? No. Houghton Avesex Junction?

[Representative Esme Cole (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Howard of Rutland

[Speaker 0]: City? Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Howland of Rutland Town? Yes. Point Of Hartford?

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Hunter Manchester. Yes. James in Manchester. Yes. Kasenska of Burke. No. Keyser of Rutland City. Aye. Kimball of Woodstock. Yes. Klepner of Burlington. Yes. Kornheiser Battleboro. Yes. Krasnall South Burlington. Labour Morgan. No. Lalia Shelburn. Malone of South Burlington.

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Lamont of Morristown. Larusha Franklin. Lipsky of Stowe. No. Logan of Burlington. Yes. Long and Uffin. Yes. Leaders of Lincoln. No. Luno of Saint Albans City. Maguire of Rutland City. Malay of Pittsburgh. Mark out of Coventry. McCann Mount Pelier. McCoy Pultney. McFaunaberry Town. McGillard Report. Yes. Miclissa Milton. Mollie Callis.

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Meniere South Burlington. Yes. Morgan Ela Milton. No. Morgan Emma Milton. Morris of Springfield. Yes. Morrissey Bennington. Mora of Weston.

[Representative Matt Walker (Swanton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Roecky of Putney. Yes. Nelson of Derby. Nielsen of Brandon. Nigro Bennington.

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

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: North Of Harrisburg. Moise of Volkitt. Yes. Newton South Burlington. O'Brien of Tunbridge. O'Dea Burlington. Oliver of Sheldon. Olson of Starksboro. Page in Newport City. Parsons in Newbury. Pezzo of Colchester? Yes. Pinsonault of Dorset? No. Patra Hinesburg?

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Powers of Waterford? No. Priestly of Radford? Bridget of Pollock? No. Wendy of London? No. Rachelston of Burlington? Yes. Secklitz Randolph? Yes. Shia Middlebury?

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Sheldon of Middlebury? Sebeli of Dover? Yes. South Bartholomew. Squirrel of Underhill? Yes. Steady Milton? Stevens of Waterbury? Yes. Stone of Arlington? Sweeney of Shelburne?

[Representative Joseph Parsons (Newbury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Taglavia Carrith? No. Taylor Milton? Taylor Munden? Thomas Tomlinson Winooski? Yes. Torrey Mortown?

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Walker Swanton?

[Representative Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Watts of Zacobarie City?

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

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Waters Evans of Charlotte? Yes. Wells Of Brownington?

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: White O'Hatesville? Gas of explanation. Water Bethel? Winter Of Ludlow? Wood Of Waterbury? Yes. Yakavonia Morristown? Yes. Bailey of High Park? Bos-Lun at Westminster, Birmingham at Saint Albans Town, Burt Cabot, Chapin East Montpelier, Christie of Hartford, Dodge of Essex, Lamont of Morristown, Luno of Saint Albans City, Malay of Pittsford, McCann of Montpelier, Nicholas of Milton, O'Brien of Tunbridge, Sheldon of Middlebury, Salvador Lawden, Steady of Milton, Taylor of Milton, and Winter of Ludlow.

[Speaker 0]: For purpose of explanation, member from Weightfield.

[Representative Esme Cole (Hartford)]: I vote in support of

[Representative Chloe Tomlinson (Winooski)]: the ways and means amendment deleting the transfer of half the pilot surplus funds to town highway aid. However, towns across Vermont need assistance maintaining their roads and structures now and in the coming years. As a body, we need to address this growing problem.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Fairhaven.

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam speaker, may I change my vote?

[Speaker 0]: You may.

[House Clerk (BetsyAnn Wrask)]: Canfield of Fairhaven.

[Speaker 0]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 84. Those voting no, 46. And you have amended the bill in sections fourteen and fifteen. Now the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee in ways and means in the second instance of amendment which is all the remaining sections. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and you have amended the bill in the second instance of amendment which is all the remaining sections. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? Member from Cavendish.

[Unidentified member from Cavendish]: Thank you, madam speaker. If I could, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill, sections, I believe it's 18?

[Speaker 0]: The member from Brattleboro is interrogated. From Brattleboro.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Okay.

[Representative Mollie S. Burke (Brattleboro)]: Sorry, madam speaker. Yes.

[Unidentified member from Cavendish]: I believe it's section 18 starting the, mileage use tax for the EVs.

[Speaker 0]: My apologies, member. It's not the member from Brattleboro. It's the member from Heinzburg. The member from Heinzburg is interrogated.

[Unidentified member from Cavendish]: Thank you, madam speaker. I was wondering if the members took testimony from battery electric vehicle owners, especially lower income ones that were encouraged to purchase these in the first place?

[Representative Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: I don't remember specific testimony from low income battery electric vehicle owners.

[Unidentified member from Cavendish]: Thank you, member. Madam speaker, this body encouraged people to go green, to buy electric vehicles. We entice them to. We we subsidize. We help them we help people put in chargers. We help towns put in chargers. Lower encourage lower leases on these. I'm reminded of when we did this, people looking to get help putting chargers in because they couldn't charge them at their apartments. A single mother with her child sitting in a cold car because the charging station wasn't was so far away from the house. Struggling. Did this because the car was affordable. If we're gonna put a mileage use tax on, it should have come in the beginning and not as a slap in the face to people who are trying their best to get by. And now we're gonna charge them for road use tax on miles they don't even drive on our roads if they go over to New Hampshire, which many do because they can't even afford to buy groceries in this state. I know we're desperate for money, but did we even consider we talk about the most vulnerable, those on fixed incomes, those that we encourage to buy an electric vehicle because it was cheaper. And now we're gonna say, hey. I know you're not rich, but you're gonna pay your fair share. It's ridiculous to me. Having this section in there is a slap in face to the people that bought EVs. And let me be clear, I don't own an EV. I'll never own an EV. I think they're worthless. But people did it because they could afford them to have reliable transportation. And now we're gonna slap them with a fee. It's ridiculous. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 0]: Member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, in ways and means when we took testimony on this portion of the bill, I was quite concerned about the income on the low income folks who recently purchased EVs. And while we did not take testimony from them, I knew this was a proposal from the administration. And so I asked the I believe it was the commissioner, but it might have been the deputy commissioner. I'm sorry. About the governor's proposal to what I considered a new fee. And that's something we discuss quite a bit in Ways and Means. And so I wanted to understand better from the administration's perspective how this new fee fit into their plans. And I was told that it was considered adopting an existing revenue source, the gas tax, towards a modern technology, the electric vehicle. And so your committee on ways and means and your committee on transportation accepted this new fee so that we can pay for our roads, and we ask for your support.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Putney.

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Not sure if I could claim to be a low income Vermonter, but I I live on a legislator's salary. And I own an EV. And I can tell you,

[Unidentified member from Corinth]: and I'm not not sure

[Representative Michael Mrowicki (Putney)]: how many low income EV owners the previous speaker talked to, but I know a couple. I know myself. The savings we make using electric is about 40% compared to what I did on on when I owned a Ford Escape. And I'm fine paying my share for for using the roads. I know we're falling short on what we need, and I do believe anyone that's gonna drive a vehicle has a responsibility to pay that. The idea that we can make accommodations at some point would be a good thing, but as an EV owner, a driver, I can tell you the savings make up for more than what we might pay in a registration fee or road use fee. And I know living on the New Hampshire border, whatever we're paying is a lot less than they're paying in New Hampshire. Your registration costs are two to three times in New Hampshire what they are in Vermont. As someone who used to have a business in New Hampshire and left says, it's death by a thousand paper cuts there. They may say the taxes are lower, but overall they're not. So anyway, I appreciate. I'll be voting for this. And as an EV owner, I'm fine with paying, my fair share.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Unidentified member from Burlington (EV mileage question)]: Madam speaker, I thank the member from Cavendish for bringing up the, regressive nature of a tax like this on EV mileage. I will take issue with his assertion that electric vehicles are worthless, but but the same is also true of the gas tax. It is regressive, and I agree that we, as a body, should commit ourselves to finding a way to protect lower income Vermonters from the regressive nature of taxing miles or taxing gallons.

[Speaker 0]: 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 third reading is ordered. Members at this time we are going to postpone the remaining bills on the calendar today. Will be will the house please come to order? I will be starting at the very top of the action calendar for today at 09:41 and then go down the calendar. So bill reporters, please be ready. We will start with house bill nine forty one which is an act relating to the municipal regulation of agriculture member from Shaftsbury.

[Representative David Durfee (Shaftsbury)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone action on h nine forty one for one legislative day.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Shaftesbury moves that we postpone action on house bill nine forty one 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 one for one legislative day. Next is House Bill six fifty seven which is an act relating to enabling unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain certain services without parental consent. Member from Northfield.

[Representative Anne B. Donahue (Northfield)]: Madam Speaker, I move that we postpone action on H657, one legislative day.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Northfield moves that 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 an act relating to sustainable data center deployment. Member from Dover.

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

[Speaker 0]: 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 for one legislative day. Up next is House Bill nine thirty five which is an act relating to emergency management. Member from Berkshire.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone action on H nine thirty five, one legislative day.

[Speaker 0]: 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. Up next is house bill nine thirty eight which is an act relating to establishing the Vermont homelessness response continuum. Member from Rutland City.

[Representative William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam speaker, I move

[Unidentified member from Bennington (Appropriations)]: that we postpone action on nine thirty eight for one legislative day.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Rutland City request 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. Next is House Bill 67 which is an act relating to legislative operations and government accountability. Member from Charlotte. Madam Speaker, I move that we postpone action on age 67 for one legislative day. The member from Charlotte moves that we postpone action on House Bill 67 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 67 for one legislative day. Next is house bill five sixty seven which is an act relating to unclaimed property, state retirement systems, and capital debt. Member from Bergens.

[Representative Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone action on h 05/06/1971 legislative day.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Regens moves that we postpone action on house bill five sixty seven for one legislative day. Are you ready for the 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 you have postponed action on house bill five sixty seven for one legislative day. Next is House Bill six fifty which is an act relating to educational technology products member from Jericho.

[Representative Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam Speaker, I move that we postpone action on H650 for one legislative day.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Jericho moves that we postpone action on House Bill six fifty 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 for one legislative day. 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. Member from Callis.

[Representative Mary E. Howard (Rutland City)]: Madam speaker, I move that we postpone consideration and action on seven seventy two for one legislative day.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Callis moves that we postpone action on House Bill seven seventy two 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 seventy two for one legislative day. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Will the house please come to order? Are there any announcements? Member from Essex Junction. No. Essex.

[Unidentified member from Essex]: Madam speaker, I move that the remarks from the member from Waterbury from earlier today honoring the member from Barrytown the journalize.

[Speaker 0]: The member from Essex moves that we journalize the remarks of the member from Waterbury. 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 journalized the remarks of the member from Waterbury. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none. Member from Pulte. Member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Friday, March 27 at 09:30AM.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand in adjournment until Friday, 03/27/2026 at 09:30AM.

[Speaker 0]: 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 09:30AM.