Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Will the house come to order and members kindly take their seats? Members, I have an update on bill order for you. We are going to start with House Bill nine forty four which is the T bill and then after that we'll take up House Bill seven twenty seven. My hope is that we will be ready at that point to take up House Bill nine thirty three miscellaneous tax but it's my understanding another amendment has been submitted. So we'll start with nine forty four, seven twenty seven, hopefully nine thirty three. If nine thirty three miscellaneous tax is not ready, we will move to house bill nine thirty five. So with that, we will start with House Bill nine forty four which is an act relating to the fiscal year twenty twenty seven transportation program and miscellaneous changes to laws related to transportation. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: 34, an act relating to fiscal year twenty twenty seven transportation program and miscellaneous changes to laws related to transportation.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from Fair Haven.

[Rep. William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam speaker, last night, the member from Burlington had a question and I told him I would have an answer for the third reading. So may I read from a FAQ report I received from the agency of transportation last night?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: You may.

[Rep. William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: So the question is, odometer readings capture total miles. And even though I drive a lot out of state, how is that fair to pay for all those miles? So, using odometer readings Pardon me. The process to cost effectively account for mileage while avoiding privacy concerns and the prohibitively high administrative costs from GPS enabled devices or services managed by commercial third parties. Gas vehicles pay gas tax in every state no matter what. And the Vermont gas tax is basically the average paid in The US. Because no states are capable of charging a mileage based user fee to out of state drivers. Vermont drivers are not at risk of paying more than their fair share. Additionally, no electric vehicles are paying the federal road usage charge and so the overall tax burden on battery electric vehicles is less than the average gas vehicle. Thank you.

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

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Madam speaker, as we were discussing this bill last night, late last night, there was a question about the affordability of this m buff. And I appreciated that that we bring that up because we always want to be aware of vulnerable Vermonters and how our legislation may impact them. And I would say that the mBUF is really not going to impact battery electric vehicle users very much. It has been our goal for a long time to start an MBUF, and this is over several years. Once we got to about 15% battery electric vehicles in 2024, new registrations were for battery electric vehicles were about 12% of the total. So we're about where we wanted to implement the mBUF. The mBUF, as I had said before, the rate that we set was to try to be as fair as possible and so it's really right in the middle of what an internal combustion engine would pay for their state gas. And as the representative mentioned, battery electric vehicles at this time do not pay a federal gas tax equivalent. In Vermont, to drive a battery electric vehicle is anywhere between about a dollar to a dollar 60 equivalents in gasoline. So when you charge your car, particularly at home, that's about the equivalent that you're paying to move your vehicle forward. So while there is always some concern about the cost of what we implement here, I certainly have more concern for Vermonters who are dealing with the volatility of fossil fuels right now and how that's impacting the lowest income Vermonters. So I encourage us to to, move forward with this transportation bill and incorporate the MBUF in it. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Now we'll take up House Bill seven twenty seven which is an act relating to sustainable data center deployment. Bill was referred to the committee on energy and digital infrastructure which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. Member from Dover, representative Sebelius will speak for the committee. And then affecting the revenue of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on ways and means which recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure. The member from Burlington, representative Odie will speak for that committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H seven twenty seven, an act relating to sustainable data center deployment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, the house committee on energy and digital infrastructure is reporting favorably on h seven twenty seven, an act relating to sustainable data center deployment. This legislation establishes a proactive regulatory framework for the potential development of large scale data centers in Vermont. The purpose is to ensure that if these facilities locate in Vermont, they do so in a way that protects existing electric ratepayers and aligns with the state's existing ratepayer, environmental, and equity policies. The committee took up this issue, because we are aware that demand for electricity associated with large computing facilities is growing rapidly across our country. In the ISO New England region, they are forecasting regional electricity, use increasing by about 11% over the next decade, and national forecasts project record electricity demand in 2026 and 2027 driven in large part by data center and AI infrastructure growth. Electricity demand from data centers alone is projected to nearly triple by 2030. A single 20 megawatt facility can use electricity roughly equivalent to the power consumption of 15 to 20,000 Vermont homes and is around a 100,000 square foot building, which is close to two football fields in size. A 100 megawatt data center would represent roughly 10% of Vermont's total peak electricity demand and would be equivalent to the power consumption of 75 to 100,000 homes. These facilities can also require significant water resources for cooling, and the committee determined it was appropriate to establish a regulatory framework before facilities of this scale are imposed in Vermont. I will note that because New England has higher electric rates, it is less likely that we were would see a data center in Vermont, but, we know that we have places in Vermont where it would be possible to locate a data center, and so this seemed like a proactive action. The bill would create a new regulatory structure in title 30, which is the public service, title, governing data centers that use or are able to use 20 megawatts or more of power. The legislation establishes the Vermont Sustainable Data Centers Act, defines large data centers, requires a large load service equity contract which has to be approved by the Public Utility Commission. It requires consultation with Vermont's efficiency utility during design and establishes reporting requirements. It will clarify that land use regulation for a data center is going to come under act two fifty. It establishes water use and cooling requirements and directs additional study and recommendations related to energy markets and decommissioning. I'll go through the sections. Section one, as I said, creates 30 VSA chapter five, which will be the data center's chapter. This stated purpose is to establish the this regulatory framework. Within that statute, we will have the definitions. A data center is defined as a facility that uses or is able to use 20 megawatts or more of power and provides data processing, hosting, related services under the NAICS code five one eight two one o. A facility includes building equipment structures and other stationary items located on a single site or on a contiguous or adjacent sites that are owned or operated by the same person or under common control. Also in the statute, we will require a large load service equity contract. A data center must be served by an electric distribution company pursuant to one of these contracts, which will have to be approved by the Public Utility Commission. The contract must include provisions that allocate costs equal or proportional to the cost of providing electric service to the data center. We'll mitigate the risk that other ratepayer classes pay unwarranted costs, including generation, transmission, and distribution costs incurred to meet the data center's load. It will specify the duration of the contract and the anticipated electric service. It will require minimum payment obligations based on projected electricity usage, include reasonable charges for demand in excess of projected demand, include collateral requirements sufficient to mitigate stranded costs, require demand side management measures, and provide for the collection of gross receipts tax, energy efficiency charges, and other applicable fees. Any other terms or conditions required by the Public Utility Commission that are consistent with the purpose of the section and in the public interest. Public Utility Commission may not approve a contract unless it is determined that the contract promotes the general good of the state. They must determine that it does not adversely affect the efficiency, reliability, or resilience of the electric power system, results that it results in an economic benefit to the state and its residents. It must be consistent with the applicable electric distribution company's least cost integrated plan and ensure the data center can be served economically by existing or planned transmission facilities without undue adverse effect on utilities or other retail rate payer classes. And it must be consistent with environmental justice and equity policy, which we have established in state law. The bill also specifies that a data center is not eligible to participate in an energy savings account customer credit program or a self managed energy efficiency program. In addition, early in the design development phase, the owner or operator must consult with the energy efficiency utility appointed by the PUC to ensure compliance with state energy efficiency requirements and best practices. We are also seeking reporting requirements. We've learned, across the country that these are pretty important, to keep track of. Within three months after a data center becomes operational in the state, they must begin submitting quarterly reports to the PUC and the Department of Public Service on water usage, energy usage, peak daily electricity usage, and payments that they are making towards shared infrastructure. Beginning on 01/15/2028, the commissioner of the public utility commission must include in the department's annual report findings and recommendations the energy, environmental, and economic impacts of any data centers constructed and operating in Vermont. We've also included rulemaking authority for the PUC for any necessary rules to implement and enforce the provisions of the chapter. In section two, we are talking about, application. This these provisions will apply to any data center that is not operational on the effective date of the act or any existing smaller data centers that expand and meet the 20 megawatt threshold. Section three amends the act two fifty definitions to specifically add data centers into the definition of development. In section four, we, address water use, cooling systems, and environmental permitting. This was a very big issue for I think virtually everyone in our committee. The section establishes requirements, that must the data center must identify during Act two fifty, and review how the facility will be cooled. All of these, all of this data processing makes things hot. If water is used for cooling, the facility must use a closed loop cooling system unless the district commission determines that such a system is not feasible. A closed loop cooling system uses significantly less water. Closed loop systems circulate the same coolant continuously without withdrawing as much water from municipal systems, groundwater, or surface waters using approximately 70 to 80% less water and without discharging wastewater except for de minimis discharges authorized under permit. If groundwater is used for cooling, the facility must obtain a groundwater withdrawal permit. If surface water is used, the facility must obtain a surface water withdrawal permit. And rules must require cessation of withdrawals during drought conditions. The facility must obtain all applicable permits from the Agency of Natural Resources and if a facility these include stormwater, shoreland protection, stream alteration, direct discharge, surface water withdrawal, groundwater withdrawal, wetlands, and river quarter development, if applicable. If a facility discharges wastewater to surface waters, it must identify any PFAS used in operation and submit a monitoring plan for wastewater discharge. The bill prohibits the addition of PFAS to water discharge from a data center in Vermont. In section five, we have the PUC, reporting on regional renewable energy market conditions. We're asking for that report by 01/15/2027 on the projected regional renewable electric generation market conditions. The report needs to examine the cost and availability of new regional renewable generation resources from 2027 through 2035. This is really important. These data centers across the country are really shifting the energy the energy markets and where our utilities and others are able to purchase energy. And so we we need a understanding about what's happening in the markets. Section six is a recommendation on data center decommissioning, something else that was very important to our committee. Because this is new policy, it was not abundantly clear whose responsibility this would be, and so we've asked the Commissioner of Public Service in consultation with the secretary of natural resources and the chair of the land use review board to recommend a regulatory model for data center decommissioning in the form of draft legislation by 12/15/2026. Section seven is the effective date, which is upon passage. And, in the committee process, we heard from the director of the Department of Environmental Conservation at ANR, water protection advocate from the Lake Champlain Committee, the director of policy and planning at ANR, the land use review board, the public utility commission, Policy and Water Program Director from the Vermont Natural Resources Council, the Commissioner of the Department of Public Service, the Vermont Electric Power Company, which is our transmission utility, a policy specialist from the National Conference of State Legislators, energy and climate program director for VNRC, director of regulatory and government affairs for Green Mountain Power, the office of legislative council, the director of regulated utility planning for the Department of Public Service, an associate professor of computers and electrical engineering from the University of California Riverside, gen general counsel for the Land Use Review Board, general counsel for the Vermont Electric Power Company, general counsel for oh, I've got that one. System planning engineer for Green Mountain Power, managing director of efficiency Vermont, and the climate and energy program director for the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. The committee vote was nine-zero-zero and we also incorporated suggestions from the House Environment Committee. H seven twenty seven does not require or direct the development of data centers in Vermont. It establishes a regulatory framework so that if facilities of this scale are proposed, they are reviewed under clear standards that are designed to protect ratepayers, ensure appropriate oversight, and address environmental and infrastructure impacts. I will summarize and say that, I our committee just chose to do the exercise of if a data center were to locate in Vermont, how do our existing environmental and energy use policies meet that, and are there any gaps? And we think that we've done a decent job of identifying and covering those gaps. So Madam Speaker, with our vote of nine zero zero, we are asking for support of the House.

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

[Rep. Carol Ode (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, your committee on ways and means considered the fiscal impact of h seven twenty seven and found that the bill would not appropriate funds or raise new state revenue. The establishment of new regulatory requirements could increase staffing demands on implementing state agencies as well as increase the amount of future permit applications and associated fee revenue paid to the state. However, the extent of these fiscal impacts depends on the number of future data center development proposals in the state and the extent to which the bill would increase the number of future proposals subject to permitting and applicable fees. Joint fiscal office cannot forecast future data center development or associated permit fee revenue. However, in communications with the public service department, the public utilities commission, the agency of natural resources, and the land use review board. These fiscal impacts are expected to be minimal. Your committee heard from fiscal analysts, joint fiscal office, legislative council, office of legislative council, reporter of the bill, house committee on energy and digital infrastructure, and voted ten zero one and recommends passage of the bill when amended.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure, member from Middlebury.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your house environment committee appreciated an opportunity to look at this bill pretty closely, and was able to provide input to the house energy and digital infrastructure committee. And then we look back at the bill when they incorporated all of our changes, which we appreciate. And on a straw poll of nine zero two, we also support this bill.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure? Are you ready for the question? Member from Castleton.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise in opposition to H seven two seven and I want to be clear about what this bill actually does beneath its well intentioned title. Vermont is a state that has spent decades struggling to attract large scale economic investment. We have watched businesses leave. We've watched young people leave. And now at the precise moment when a genuinely transformative industry is looking for places to put down roots, an industry that brings high waste technical jobs, massive capital investment, and significant tax revenue, this bill erects a regulatory framework so uniquely burdensome, so legally novel, and so operationally hostile that no rational developer will choose Vermont over New Hampshire, Maine, or Upstate New York. Let's start with the 20 megawatt threshold. This bill defines a data center subject to its requirements as any facility capable of using 20 megawatts or more. That sounds large but in the modern data center industry, 20 is not a hyperscale campus, it is a mid sized colocation facility. We are talking about the kind of facility that serves regional hospitals, financial institutions, and state government agencies. The bill creates a regulatory cliff. A facility at nineteen point nine megawatts faces no special scrutiny, while one at twenty point one megawatts must navigate a brand new large load service equity contract regime that exists nowhere else in New England and has never been tested before the Public Utility Commission. That contract requirement is the heart of this bill and it is genuinely unprecedented. The PUC must find that a contract promotes, quote, the general good of the state, a standard so vague it invites years of litigation. The contract must include collateral sufficient to, quote, mitigate stranded costs, but the bill provides no methodology for calculating what those costs are or when collateral is adequate. It must ensure economic benefit to the state and its residents. But no analytical framework, no modeling standard, no benchmark is provided. We are asking the PUC to make quasi judicial findings on criteria that have no regulatory precedent in Vermont. And then there's the water provision. Section 6086A mandates closed loop cooling systems unless a district commission decides otherwise during an Act two fifty review. But here's what the bill sponsors have not grappled with. Closed loop cooling actually consumes more water than open loop systems because the recirculating fluid must be periodically purged and replaced to prevent microbial growth and mineral scaling. An open loop system with a proper discharge permit can return treated water to the watershed. A closed loop system removes that water from the hydrological cycle entirely. The provision is written to sound environmentally protective. It may produce the opposite result. Finally, section two eighty four E prohibits data centers from participating in energy savings accounts, customer credit programs, and self managed efficiency programs. These are the very incentive mechanisms Vermont uses to encourage large industrial users to invest in efficiency. We are telling data centers some of the most energy intensive facilities in existence that they are categorically ineligible for the programs designed

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: to

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: make large energy users more efficient. That is not environmental policy. That is punitive policy dressed up as environmental policy. Vermont can have data centers or Vermont can have this bill. I do not believe we can have both. At this point, I'd like to interrogate the presenter of the bill.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from Dover is interrogated.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The bill defines data center by reference to the NAICS code 518210 which covers internet hosting services. That code was last updated in 2022. It includes colocation facilities, managed hosting providers, and cloud service points of presence. A facility that houses networking equipment for a large Vermont employer, say a hospital system or financial cooperative, could easily hit 20 megawatts of capacity without ever having been excuse me, without ever being what anyone in the industry would call a data center. Has the committee received a legal opinion on whether the NAICS 518,210 definition is durable or is there a risk that PUC applies to these facilities the sponsors never intended to capture?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam Speaker, we did not receive a legal opinion on the NAICS codes. However, we did take testimony and consult with our attorney on the size of the existing data centers that are in Vermont that the member is specifically asking about. I believe all of which are under one megawatt and not likely to be caught up in this in any way.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: So Madam Speaker, just to put a fine point on it, you can confidently tell the body and assure us that no hospital system or financial cooperative would be captured in this legislation.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: We currently have data centers that are supporting those institutions in the state of Vermont that are one megawatt or less and they would not be, this would not apply to them.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, member. My next question is in section two eighty four b subsection six, it requires a collateral requirement sufficient to mitigate the risk of stranded costs. In restructured electricity markets, stranded cost calculations are extraordinarily complex. They involve network upgrade cost allocations, interconnection agreements, and capacity market obligation under ISO NE's forward capacity market in transmission cost recovery under the FERC order 1,000. Has the PUC indicated what methodology it would use to calculate adequate collateral? They've not, Madam Speaker. Because without that, this provision gives the PUC essentially unconstrained discretion to set a collateral number which could be used to make any project economically infeasible. My next question is that data centers that contract for firm power service are typically required to participate in capacity market obligations through their serving entity. Under ISO New England's tariff, large industrial loads that signed demand response agreements, which this bill requires under section two eighty four B7, may have their capacity obligations adjusted, but Vermont distribution utilities aren't always the loading serving entity for large industrial customers. Has the committee analyzed whether the demand response and flexible load management requirements in this bill could create conflicts with the data center's obligation under ISO NE's tariff, specifically under the market market rule one provisions governing large consumer demand response assets.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, that was quite a question. I I think I'm gonna need to hear it again. And then I'm probably gonna need to consult with our attorney.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: With pleasure, member. Data centers that contract for firm power service are typically required to participate in capacity market obligations through their load serving entity. Under ISO and East Tariff, large industrial loads that signed demand response agreements, which this bill requires under Section two eighty four(seven) may have their capacity obligations adjusted. But Vermont distribution utilities aren't always the loading serving entity for large industrial customers. Has the committee analyzed whether the demand response and flexible load management requirements in this bill could create conflicts with the data center's obligation under ISO NE's tariff, specifically the market rule one provisions governing large consumer demand response assets. And I think the member wants to consult with counsel.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Well, actually, I like to explain things in plain terms. So I wonder if the member maybe would like to explain this in a little bit plainer terms.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I'm asking the member to explain the question to the body. So if she can't Alright. It's your question member. That's it I'm asking the questions member. If you can't answer them, we can we can happily take a recess or I can move on to the next one.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam Speaker may I have a brief recess?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: You may. I'll stand in recess for a couple minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from Dover, member from Castleton, floor is yours, member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Speaker, Data centers can come in various sizes and be for different various uses. Again, we don't period. We included in the large load service equity contract which will be developed between a an individual data center with individual needs and a specific electric utility, and we have many different types of electric utilities, a contract that will address the needs of the data center and of the district of the distribution utility. It is really important with electricity that we keep balance. And our utilities, our transmission utility, the ISO New England region will explain to us all that that is an imperative. A data center's usage is potentially so high, these things have to be there will be studies that will be done before they're allowed to connect to the grid, and all of this will be included either in the well, will be included in the service actuating contract because the PUC will not sign off until it is done. And so I appreciate the members questions around analytics, but I would say that they are absolutely not possible to be conducted until and if we have a data center that approaches the state, that we understand where it is that they would like to locate and which utility they will be locating with. But I would like to assure the member that that work will happen when and if we have a data center that comes to Vermont.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I I thank the member. So I just wanna go back to during the bill walkthrough and during the previous answer to one of the questions, the member specified that we do have data centers operating in the state of Vermont, but they're sub one megawatt. Is it the member's testimony is it her understanding now that there are larger data centers that are currently operating in the state? State?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, there may be slightly larger than one megawatt systems that are operating in the state.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I I thank the member. And my my next line of questioning is specifically around the groundwater permit threshold override. And so in section six eight six zero eight six a subsection c, it says that even a closed loop cooling system, which the bill just mandated in a previous subsection, is not exempt from the groundwater withdrawal permit under 10 VSA subsection fourteen eighteen subdivision b six, the normal threshold for that permit is 57,600 gallons per day. For a closed loop system that doesn't actually withdraw groundwater in traditional sense but uses it in makeup water, applying that permit threshold effectively requires a permit for de minimis consumption. Has ANR testified that it has the permitting capacity to process these applications?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: ANR has not testified that they have the permitting capacity to process these applications. I think that plural is an unlikely word in terms of data centers, but perhaps.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: And I I thank the member. And as a follow-up, critically, under 10 VSA subsection fourteen eighteen, it was designed for high volume extractive uses like coring and municipal wells. Applying it to closed loop makeup water for a data center seems like a category error. What was the stat statutory rationale to do that make that choice?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, there is the possibility that a data center would not be required to use a closed loop system. That discretion has been provided to the district commission.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, member. Section six in the bill directs the commissioner of public service to recommend a decommissioning regulatory model, but that recommendation isn't due until December 15, and the bill takes effect on passage. So, the period between enactment and December 2026, data centers are subject to the full permitting and contract regime, but there's no decommissioning framework. In the context of the large load service equity contract, which does require a collateral provision for stranded costs, what happens if a data center that has posted collateral wants to decommission before the regulatory model is established?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I just wanna make sure I accurately answer. Could I have just the question again, please?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Yes. Member, in the context of the large load service equity contract which requires a collateral provision for stranded costs, what happens if a data center that has posted collateral wants to decommission before the regulatory model is established?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: If they want to decommission before the 2026? Correct.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: So the

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: So, madam speaker, if I understand the the question correctly, it is what will happen if we have a 20 megawatt data center which does not exist in the state of Vermont, arrive, pass through and achieve all of their permits, get the agreement with the district utility, the distribution utility, get approval from the PUC, operate, and then decide to decommission in the next six months, what will happen? Is that the question?

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Not entirely accurate, member. I think that's one situation that I'm envisioning, but I'm also envisioning some of the data centers that are, according to the member currently operating in the state of Vermont, whether they're one megawatt or say they're 15 and they approach, you know, 20, what if one of these data centers are currently in operation scale up to the 20 megawatt threshold and then look to decommission because of the regulatory framework and they can't comply?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: I think it is highly unlikely, madam speaker, that that is going to happen.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: But not impossible, member. So I'm wondering what happens if that is the case.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam Speaker, may I have a brief recess?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: May the House stand in recess for a couple minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, after consulting with ledge council, we the data centers that exist are several all under combined one megawatt. So we're it's just not going to happen. And the regulation to permit this is not possible in six months.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I I thank the member and I thank her for taking the time with counsel to get that answer. And my very last question is taken together, we have the novel large load service equity contract with no precedent at the PUC. We have the standard less economic benefit finding, the closed loop cooling mandate that may actually increase consumptive water use, the categorical exclusion from efficiency programs and the decommissioning gap. Can the presenter point to a single data center project that has been announced, cited or developed in the regulatory environment with comparable requirements anywhere in The United States?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam Speaker, no I cannot. And this is a highly evolving industry, a rapidly evolving industry which our current administration is working diligently to ensure it remains unregulated, and so it is evolving in a rapid and unregulated pace. We are assured that we are able to use our environmental existing environmental and citing regulations, which we've done here.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: I thank the member for and the interrogation is done. Just have one one last closing remark. I understand that for for the member and for the presenter of the bill and for maybe others in the body, this may seem like a very nascent concept that is just coming to fruition, but having been in my past life being someone who helped operate data centers for some of the largest financial institutions in the country and around the globe, processing trillions of messages on a global basis, I can assure you that it's not a new technology, but it certainly is evolving. And the sorry. Thought I heard some sorry. I heard a point of order. But at the end of the day, madam speaker, the member's last answer to my question of that she can't point to a single example where there is a project under that is being developed in this regulatory environment with comparable requirements, it leads me to believe that because the answer is no, that the committee should consider whether this bill is designed to regulate data centers or designed to ensure Vermont never has a data center period. I urge the body to vote no on the bill. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure, member from Burlington?

[Unknown Burlington Representative]: I thank the member from Castleton for his remarks because they point out a number of areas of confusion on his part, may well be shared by other members, and, therefore, some clarification might be helpful. There was concern that the contract with the PUC requires the PUC to determine the general good of Vermont. This is not at all a novel or unusual requirement. Most things that come before the PUC require a certificate of public good, which is exactly that, a determination that the project is in the general public good of Vermont. So nothing unusual or out of the ordinary there. The decommissioning fund. Again, all electrical generation and natural gas plants in Vermont and natural gas projects in Vermont require a decommissioning fund. This is to protect Vermonters from the communities in which these are developed from bearing the cost if someone builds a big thing and then walks away from it and strands the community with the cost of taking these things apart. So, again, an absolutely normal business practice to require a decommissioning fund. Finally, on the subject of water use. Data centers of average size can use 300,000 gallons of water a day if they are an open system, an open cooling system. That is more water than any source in Vermont can produce except Lake Champlain or the Connecticut River. It's why Vermont Yankee was cited by the Connecticut River. The member did tell us that he worked in a previous life in data centers, and it sounds like that was a long life because the water technology has evolved. The assertion that closed loop systems can use as much or more water as open loop systems is no longer even remotely true. 300,000 gallons is an average. Some of them use up to 5,000,000 gallons a day. The closed loop system technology of today was specifically developed for data centers going into places with very little water, Arizona, Nevada, and so forth. So I think on those points, the chamber can rest assured that the framework we've put in place to protect Vermont's water, to protect Vermont's land, to protect Vermonters from any of the potential negative consequences of having a data center are not extraordinary or unusual in any way. And to the final point, that no data centers have been built under a similar regulatory regime. Yes, that is true. As the member from Dover pointed out, the large tech companies in this country, in cooperation with the federal government, are doing their very best to ensure that data centers do not get regulated and have discouraged regulation of this sort. We are getting out ahead of the problem. We don't have big data centers yet here. We are putting in place a regulatory framework to protect Vermonters, Vermont's economy, Vermont's water, and Vermont's air from potential negative consequences before they arrive.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure? Are you ready for the question? Member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam Speaker, just briefly, to speak to the economic benefits to provide some well roundedness to what a data center might bring to Vermont. We did hear about and do some research on three potential economic benefits that such a system could provide to Vermont. When it comes to jobs, they are minimal, very small amount of jobs coming even with a very large data center. However, a very small amount of jobs may come, there would be construction jobs. There is the potential, well there would be property tax revenue. And the last last potential benefit is in infrastructure investment. We know that there was a potential data center that was looking to locate in the state it's been reported on. And the infrastructure investment that would have been needed was multi millions for the transmission infrastructure, and that was prohibitive. So we appreciate your support and look forward to working with our senate colleagues on further evolution of this bill.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. Ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And third reading is ordered. Members in terms of bill order, we're going to take up House Bill nine thirty five and then we will see if nine thirty three is ready. If not, we will then go to house bill 67. So nine thirty five, maybe nine thirty three then 67. With that, now we'll take up house bill nine thirty five which is an act relating to emergency management. The bill was introduced by the committee on government operations and military affairs. Member from Berkshire, representative Hango will speak for the committee and then carrying an appropriation, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations which recommends that the bill be amended as printed in today's calendar. The member from Linden, representative Feltus, will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H nine thirty five, an act relating to emergency management.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from Berkshire.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: Thank you, madam speaker. July 2023, July 2025, severe flooding flashed through Vermont. 07/24/2025, a wildland fire on Scotch Hill Road in Fairhaven. 10/05/2025, the Brownell Mountain Fire in Williston. In response to these and other all hazard events across the state, your government operations and military affairs committee brings you h nine thirty five, an act relating to emergency management. Since it was printed in the calendar several days ago, I'll remind the body that the bill came out of committee draft 4.2. A section by section summary and a fiscal note can be found in one place on our committee webpage on the day it was voted out March 13. In recent memory, Vermont communities have experienced annual devastating flooding and wildland fire events. The universal Vermont response is to reach out to our neighbors, pick up the pieces, learn on the fly, and that's what we did. H nine thirty five is a committee bill that addresses key issues we experienced in real time and recognizes that the needs are bigger than the communities can handle alone. We heard from agencies, nonprofits, and individuals that shared the lessons they learned from these events and offered thoughtful solutions. We are grateful for all first responders and volunteers who answer the call to all hazards events and for the work that's been done to ensure that everyone has food, water, reliable communication, and a way to get to safety. Section one establishes the Ready Response Grant Program. The Division of Emergency Management within the Department of Public Safety will award grants to qualifying nonprofits to source, store, and distribute shelf stable, ready to eat foods and bottled water per written MOU with the division. This appropriation is addressed in section 13 and again in the appropriations amendment to follow. Section two establishes the technical rescue grant program. As you will learn in the amendment to follow, as funds allow, not more than five grants for up to $5,000 each will be awarded to Vermont fire departments, EMS agencies, and technical rescue agencies to be used for the purchase of specialized equipment, personal protective gear, and or training. We heard that several of these small departments and agencies often have to choose between purchasing their own personal protective gear and the gear that is necessary to carry out a rescue. A five member working group would be created to review and recommend awards provided this grant program is funded. Applicant applicants shall demonstrate use, planned use, or need for technical rescue operations in their service area. Onto sections four and five, they add a disability led organization appointed by the Vermont Council of Independent Living in an advisory capacity to local and regional emergency management organizations. These committees, divisions, agencies have jurisdiction over emergency planning to include how to write plans, develop training materials, and conduct exercises, keeping individuals who live with disabilities in mind. This section also adds an individual with lived experience as an additional voting member of regional emergency management committees, which are currently composed of one member from each municipality in that region. Section six requires all hazard or weather alert systems used by municipal corporations, if feasible, to include communication channels to be accessible by individuals with disabilities. Madam speaker, I will now yield to the senior member from Randolph.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from Berkshire yields to the member from Randolph.

[Rep. Philip Jay Hooper (Randolph)]: Last year, there were 84 wildland fires with drought leading to the most summer fire activity in the past twenty five years. That's a hundred eighty four days of elevated fire danger. In 2023, 13,000,000 acres burned in Quebec. In 2024, 4,600 acres burned in Massachusetts, and the 112 acre Hawthorne Fire in Connecticut cost millions to suppress with two firefighter fatalities. The existing forest fire and fire prevention statutes reflect its genesis one hundred and twenty five years ago when there were very few rural fire departments. These statue no longer align with how communities prevent and fight fires today. The suggested language was developed in concert with fire chiefs and town forest fire wardens to address these these deficiencies by consensus. So I will be reporting sections seven through 11, which amend various sections within titles ten and twenty to modernize the statutes related to the state forest fire warden, town forest fire wardens, and special forest fire wardens. Section seven amends 10 VSA subsection 2,603 to authorize the Commissioner Forest Parks and Recreation as the state forest fire warden to exercise town forest fire warden duties, appoint special forest fire wardens, and delegate duty delegate duties to those wardens, Take command over forest fire response in any municipality unorganized town or gore. Delegate authority to act as incident commander of a forest fire to another person. Serve on the Northeast Forest Fire Protection Commission. Enter into mutual aid compacts pursuant to 10 VSA subsection 2,642, and issue a ban on kindling fire permits on lands owned by ANR. Section eight amends 10 VSA chapter 83 sub chapter four, forest fire prevention, in its entirety to update the statutes related to town forest fire wardens within this subchapter, subsection twenty six forty one, is amended to state that the chief of the fire department, fire district, or private fire department with the jurisdictional responsibility to respond to a municipality, unorganized town, or Gore, is designated as the town forest fire warden. This section is also amended to allow the town forest fire warden to appoint deputies to clarify that a municipality does not receive services from any fire department may contract to have a neighboring municipality's fire chief serve as the town forest fire warden. Subsection twenty six forty two is amended to repeal the specific $30 annual pay and $30 training per diem that town forest fire wardens received from the commissioner of FPR. Subsection 2,643 is amended to clarify that municipalities may be reimbursed for the cost of fire suppression services when funds are appropriated or otherwise available for that purpose. This section is also amended to express reporting criteria that must be met by a municipality in order to qualify 100 for reimbursement of fire suppression costs. Subsection 2,044 is amended to establish reporting requirements for the forest fire for town forest fire wardens and to require the issuance of a written permit to kindle fire whenever the town forest fire warden authorizes the kindling of a fire under the section authorizing open burns. Subsection 2,645 is amended to clarify that a town forest fire warden may impose conditions on the issuance of a permit to kindle fire. This section is also amended to state that a special forest fire warden has the authority to issue permits to kindle category three fires on lands owned by ANR. Subsection 2,645 is further amended to state that the commissioner's discretionary authority concerning permits to kindle fire includes the power to prohibit or restrict category one, two, or three fires. This section defines the following. Category one, fire to mean fires 36 inches in diameter or less that are built in stone arches, outdoor fireplaces, or existing fire rings, or 36 inches in diameter or less built in a location that is 200 feet or more from any forest land or field containing dry grass or other flammable plant materials contiguous to forest land. Category two fire to mean natural wood fires in piles larger than 36 inches in diameter or 36 inches in diameter or less not built in stone arches, outdoor fireplaces, or existing fire rings at state recreational areas or other public recreational areas on private property or on private property. Category three fire means fires applied to existing vegetation in a predetermined land area in a manner to meet specific or prescribed objectives including fuels management slash abatement, firefighter training, agricultural field burning, forest management, wildlife habitat management, or introduced species management. Subsection 2,645 is also amended to clarify that quote natural wood does not mean wood, brush, weeds, or grass if they have been altered in any way by surface applications or injections of paints, stains, preservatives, oils, glues, or pesticides. Subsection twenty six forty six contains technical corrections. Subsection twenty six forty seven is amended to remove the time specific prohibition of kindling fires on the forest land of another person without permission. This section now generally prohibits kindling fires on another person's forest land without permission of the owner. Subsection twenty six forty eight is amended to define slash for purposes of the provisions governing slash removal. Slash means branches, tree tops, and other woody debris left on the forest floor after logging. Section nine repeals the subchapter governing the Uniform Fire Prevention ticket. This subchapter allowed the superior court to establish the uniform the uniform form to be used for a ticket issued by the fire warden for a fire prevention offense. Tickets are issued by the fire warden for a violation of the subchapters governing forest fire prevention. Section 10 amends 20 VSA subsection twenty six seventy three to conform that section to that section to the updates of the town forest fire warden amendments. Section 11 amends 20 VSA subsection twenty nine ninety two to eliminate references to the uniform fire prevention ticket subchapter that is repealed by section nine of this bill. I hereby yield to the member from the mighty city of Regens, I think. Is that right, or do I go back to Berkshire?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from Randolph Yields to the member from Berkshire.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: you, madam speaker. I'll continue on starting with section 12, public safety communications. This section authorizes the ongoing expenditure of previously appropriated funds for public safety communications. It does not call for appropriating any new funds. Act one eighty five of 2022 appropriated funds to the Department of Public Safety for regional public communications, call taking and dispatch. Act 78 of 2023 amended act one eighty five to say that a portion of those funds were held in reserve until requested and approved for release contingent on certain benchmarks being met, including assessing inventory and developing a public safety communications plan going forward. Act one eighty five required that the public safety communications task force submit a request to the general assembly for the release of the remaining funds held in reserve to implement the proposed plan. The Public Safety Communications Task Force reported to the house government operations and military affairs committee in January 2026, and those reports can be found on our committee web page under reports and resources. The comprehensive technical plan for ongoing system improvements can also be found on the committee web page. This bill authorizes funds to be incrementally released over the next three years for the following. To complete projects that will establish a multidisciplinary computer aided dispatch system and to secure five years of associated software licensing fees, to immediately make funds available for the expanded use of rapid SOS technology and geographic information systems, and to implement and expand the land mobile radio network to include a statewide conceptual design, detailed designs for one or more proof of concept projects, initial implementation of pilot projects, and to build out 10 or more sites including equipment and antenna deployment at existing chosen sites. The public safety communications task force will continue to exist until 02/15/2027 to advise the Department of Public Safety on the implementation of this plan. The Department of Public Safety shall submit written reports to the house committees on appropriations and on government operations and military affairs and the senate committees on appropriations and government operations concerning the expenditure of monies on or before 05/01/2027, 01/15/2028, and 01/15/2029. At the end of that three year period, the Department of Public Safety may submit a request to the general assembly to authorize the use of any remaining monies appropriated or held in reserve. Madam speaker, your government operations and military affairs committee recognizes that this has been a monumental undertaking over the past several years. The task force has been diligent with returning reports and completing tasks on time according to benchmarks requested by your house appropriations committee. We will be asking for your support for this section to continue the work in coordination with other infrastructure improvements occurring simultaneously that will make Vermont public safety communications more reliable, interoperable, resilient, and multidisciplinary. Please remember that the aforementioned monies were previously appropriated. Section 13, new appropriations. While the following appropriations for the Vermont Language Justice Project, Urban Search and Rescue, the test technical rescue grant program, from on access network and community radio and the ready response grant program are specifically called out here because your committee felt so strongly about their importance to all hazards response. We also requested them in our budget memo to house appropriations, and they will be amended in a few minutes. We hope that funding can be found for this important work as amended in the h a c amendment, and we'll be asking for your support for the amendment to better enable local and regional emergency planning committees to address the needs of all Vermonters regardless of ability and to support the agency of natural resources with updated wildland fire statutes to better manage those events. In this section, the following appropriations are made, which as I mentioned previously, will later be amended by the house appropriations committee amendment. $70,163 to the agency of administration to create state emergency and all hazards response and preparedness materials in '15 languages including ASL and English through the Vermont Language Justice Project. $720,000 to the Department of Public Safety for supporting urban search and rescue. $25,000 to the Department of Public Safety for awarding grants for the technical rescue grant program. $450,000 to the secretary of state's office to support Vermont Access Network, current operations, and programming to include community radio which we heard in testimony was essential during flooding situations when power was out. $1,000,000 to the Department of Public Safety for Ready Response Grant Program administered by the Division of Emergency Management. Section 14 is the effective date, 07/01/2026. We heard from the following witnesses, legislative council, office of legislative council, commissioner of the department of public safety, deputy commissioner, department of public safety, director of finance and administration, department of public safety, director of Vermont Emergency Management, department of public safety, cochair Vermont Public Safety Communications Task Force, Westminster Barracks Station Commander, Vermont State Police, chief of the Rutland Fire Department, chief of Rescue Inc, executive director, Vermont Association of Broadcasters, interim coordinator, Vermont Joe Journalism Coalition, executive director, Vermont Center for Independent Living, deaf independence program coordinator, Vermont Center for Independent Living, senior investigator and compliance officer, disability rights Vermont, president Vermont Association of the Deaf, CEO Vermont Food Bank, senior government affairs manager Vermont Food Bank, and executive director and homelessness Vermont. The vote out of committee was nine zero one, and we ask for your support of this bill.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: And now speaking for the committee on appropriations, member from Linden.

[Rep. Martha Feltus (Lyndon)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The appropriations committee certainly appreciates the work from the house government operations committee and their very thoughtful consideration of how we, as a state and as various communities, can handle natural disasters and various hazards and public communications. We heard the bill from the from the committee and we have an amendment that is can be found on page sixteen ninety and following sixteen ninety one of today's calendar. Our purpose in this amendment was simply to clarify much of what was in section 12 regarding to the public communications safety the public safety communication system and to clarify some of the appropriations. The reporter of the bill has already basically incorporated much of what we changed into her general report, which is to say that in section a of sec section 12 sub a, we confirmed that this money was originally appropriated in 2022, a total of $11,000,000. And then certain monies were approved where they were authorized to be spent over a period of time, and then monies were put on hold until we received as a body the some further, more definitive plans for how the money could be deployed. And this legislation then requests the release of that money. So in subsection, there is one, we are looking at $2,250,000 the same as it was in the original bill, another 190,000 for cybersecurity and rapid SOS, and then the third item was $4,500,000 to be spent over two years in their original bill. However, our amendment is saying over three years. And we simply in the House Appropriations Amendment have expanded the description of how that 4,500,000.0 should be used. It is to implement and expand the land mobile radio network to detail designs for one or more proof of concept projects and to actually build out and improve 10 or fifteen ten to fifteen ten or more land mobile radio sites. Section b, if the amendment is the same as what the original committee had regarding the task force. In subsection three c, we have, as the House Appropriations Committee, we have asked for reports to come back at three different intervals regarding how they are spending that $4,500,000. And then in section d, we have indicated that after that three years or if they get the work completed in less than that, they may come back to the legislature and ask for release of additional funds in that appropriation. There should be approximately 2 and a half million dollars left at that point, and we understand that the whole public safety communication system is more costly than what they will have done by then, and I'm sure they will have some ideas and some good plans for how to reserve that, but or how to use that. But in the meantime, that will be reserved until we get that request. Then continuing on in section 13, we made some changes to the other appropriations as was indicated the request for money for the language for the All Hazards Response and Preparedness Media in various languages was authorized indicating that the agency of administration should support that. However, we did not appropriate specific monies for that. Similarly, in Section 13A, we also indicated that the Technical Rescue Grant Program could proceed. However, there were no specific monies appropriated for that. In 13B, we did appropriate $500,000 for the Ready Response Grant program. The committee had originally requested $1,000,000 We appropriated $500,000 and that is also indicated in our budget that passed. It's part of the budget. You may question a couple of the items that we did not authorize appropriations. And one was for $720,000 for the urban search and rescue. We will note that there is $450,000 in the base budget for this particular effort. And we also did not specifically, and we did specifically in our budget, appropriate $540,000 for the van television network along with the community radio. So there's a those are covered in our regular budget amendment. The House Appropriations Committee appreciates the work of the government operations committee, and we ask your support for this amendment. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Now member from Berkshire.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: Madam speaker, thank you to the appropriations committee for their consideration and offering their amendment, and we thank the member for her attention to detail and guidance on appropriations language. We also wanna thank JFO for their support on the section spelling out the previous previously appropriated funds. Your house government operations and military affairs committee found this amendment favorable on a straw poll of nine zero one, and we ask for your support.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Member from Derby.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: My apologies, madam speaker. Could I interrogate the member from Berkshire just a little bit?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member, is this on the appropriations amendment or on

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: the bill? You're on the appropriations? Okay. I'll wait till after. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have amended the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Member from Derby.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Again, my apologies, madam speaker. Long day today. I just have a little question if I could interrogate the member from Berkshire.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: The member for Berkshire is interrogated.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, I would be remiss if with my volunteer fire department up in the great town of Derby, and they're very adamant about their dispatch services. This does nothing to change dispatch services, I hope.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Berkshire)]: Madam speaker, thank you for that question. That is absolutely correct. Nothing will change. There is a long period of time, up to three years, where communications infrastructure needs to be improved on before any plan comes forward for the actual dispatching of calls statewide.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, member, and, thank you to our committee for their hard work they did on this bill. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill be read a third time? 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 third reading is ordered. Members, I have an update for you on bill order. We will take up next House Bill nine thirty three, which is the miscellaneous tax bill. Following that bill, we will go back up to the top of the action calendar and take up H67, H567, H650 and H772. So just to remind you, it's ninethirty three, 67, five sixty seven, six fifty and seven seventy two. So now we'll take up House Bill nine thirty three which is an act relating to miscellaneous and policy changes to the tax laws. Prior to third reading, the member from Dover, representatives member from Brattleboro.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Madam speaker, may I take

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: a brief recess?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The house will stand in brief

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: till Like, really just one minute.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The house will stand in recess. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Just a reminder for members, we are on house bill nine thirty three and prior to third reading, the member from Dover representative and others offer an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Our amendment is a simple amendment. It strikes sections 50 through 53 in h nine thirty three, and the effect of that is to remove, the ongoing use of pilot funds for this use in future years. It does not alter what was passed in the budget or other items. And I thank the Ways and Means Committee for hearing our amendment and their collaboration.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from Woodstock. Speaker, I

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: first wanna apologize to the body for being out of the chamber when this bill came up. Today has given me plenty of time to exercise going down to the lounge printer when I'm picking up printers of the amendments that have been presented to this bill. So I thank you for that opportunity to get in my steps. So we thank the member from Dover and her cosigners on the bill. And we heard the testimony about the interest in really making sure that this treatment of pilot funds in h nine thirty three, the miscellaneous tax bill, were not permanent. And that even though they those funds are being used both in the budget adjustment act and in the budget for f y twenty seven that that wouldn't be an ongoing commitment unless we made it every year. So the committee did vote by a vote of ten one zero ten zero one. Thank you. Ten zero one And to find the motion favorable. To find the amendment favorable. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Dover and others? 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 prior to third reading, the member from Corinth, representative offers an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 10:20 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Corcoran.

[Unknown Representative from Corinth]: Thank you madam speaker. This is my second try. Changed a little bit of wording after hearing a vote and speaking with people yesterday. I decided to make some changes and see how well I could do. So very quickly, my bill will start by it strikes out section 19 federal tax credit for SGO contributions in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof a new section 19 to read as follows. Section nineteen two VSA subsection 24 is added to read, scholarship granting organizations, sub a, annually. The general assembly may elect to participate in the federal tax credit program under 26 USC 25 f in the following year by enactment of an act. Sub b, a legislative enactment made under this section shall identify all qualifying scholarship granting organizations to be listed pursuant to 26 USC 25 F for the following year. The enactment made pursuant to this section shall specify for the individual or entity responsible for providing the list of organizations to the U. S. Secretary of Treasury pursuant to 26 U. C. 25 F. C. Any election made under 26 U. S. C. 25 F by another state official or entity is void and shall have no effect. I made these changes because it was made clear to me that the Ways and Means Committee wanted to make sure that the legislature was involved in the dealing with taxes in the state. My goal here is to give as many advantages to our students here in Vermont as we can. Secondly, to to offer tax credits when possible, but mostly for the students to be able to find ways to give them money through scholarships. So this is why I made the corrections, and this is why I bring my amendment. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Now a member from Woodstock.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Madam speaker, we thank the member from Corinth for presenting an amendment to the Ways and Means Committee on September and is specifically section 19 of the bill. Section 18 still stands and it is a intent language or findings to make sure we understand what we're talking about in this particular area. So the committee heard the member and really appreciate the fact that he was trying to narrowly focus the amendment on what the objections to it were. And this really is changing the bill from an opt out from the legislative perspective to an opt in at the discretion of the legislature itself. And then the legislature will have that responsibility of taking a look at the rules published by the internal revenue in the Internal Revenue Code to guide how scholarship granting organizations are managed, who's eligible, and that kind of stuff in January 2027, and then we can deliberate once those regulations have been promulgated. So on a vote of eight two to one, we found the amendment friendly, from the member from Corcoran.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: So 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 ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have amended the bill. Now prior to the third reading, the member from Ferrisburg, representative North, offers an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 01:46 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Ferrisburg.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Thank you, madam speaker, for the opportunity to present this bill in honor of my, previous mentor here in the chamber who, was the previous member from Chittenden. And he offered a bill at the beginning of last year, h 74, and it is section section section seven out of that bill that I have proposed here as an amendment to our miscellaneous tax bill this year. Last year, we took the step the first step in that h 74 of bumping up the tax state income tax exemptions one notch for the Social Security benefits received by Vermonters. What I have proposed in this amendment is to take that to its logical conclusion, which was section seven out of the h 74, which resulted in a a a final state of the Social Security tax exemptions for state income tax purposes of the federally taxable benefits for Social Security. And it it essentially raises them by our current levels by about double. So it increases these single filer, the a person filing with status as single or are married, filing separately, head of household or surviving spouse, to a point of at a $127,000 a year, trails off to zero exemption at a $137,000 a year. For married filing jointly, it bumps up the exemption levels to a 100 starting at a 137,000, it starts to trail off so that there is no more exemption from their federally taxable Social Security benefits by the time a household is making a $152,000. I'm sorry, starts at 142,000 trailing off to 152,000. So it about doubles the exempt quantities of our social security, federally taxable social security benefits. And it proposed to start that in calendar year '27. So taxable calendar year '27 is when that would go into place. This would bring Vermont closer to the status of the rest of The United States. There are only eight remaining states. Vermont is one of which that taxes social security benefits at all. There were nine last year, one dropped off the list last year, there's only eight of us left. Even California doesn't tax social security benefits. We also got, or I received feedback from the GFO asking them to analyze this, and it does provide a, or impact our revenue negatively by about $32,500,000 in fiscal year twenty eight, our fiscal year twenty eight of our state. And what I'm hoping is that some of the good legislation that we have put in place, even some of the things we talked about earlier today, will result in tax savings and budget savings that will enable us to accommodate that reduction in tax, providing a significant tax relief to the middle class Vermonters. So thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to present this amendment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: And now member from Woodstock.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Madam speaker, representative North brought his amendment to us today, and at this late juncture in the presentation of this bill, we did not have sufficient time to consult with JFO and get a real impact analysis, fiscal impact analysis on what this proposes. Before going into that, I was lucky enough, madam speaker, to find my floor report from s 51 last year in which this body and the senate agreed to grant 13 and a half million dollars in new tax credits for individuals. If I may, I just wanna remind people of what we did last year. So first, we increased the refundable earned income tax credit last year for tax filers without children to a 100% of the federal level. Second, as we increased the child tax credit by increasing the age of qualified children from five to six, approximately 27,000 children from 21,000 households benefited from this. We also raised the income threshold to exempt social security benefits and federal retirement income. So it is 55 to 65,000 for those filing single and 70 to 80,000 for those filing jointly. We also expanded the tax exemption for military retirement pay and survivors benefits. So madam speaker, it is not that this body has not heard the plights of Vermonters. We have. And we've taken a lot of measures to try to provide them with tax relief and tax credits. We also extended the veterans tax credit last year to those that weren't receiving military retirement benefits and under a certain income limit. So while I we appreciate the intent of the representative, the committee found his motion, his amendment to be unfavorable by a vote of ten one zero and we ask for this body to vote no and find it unfavorable as well.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: So the question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Ferrisburg? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Now prior to third reading the member from Barrytown, representative Galfetti offers an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 01:58 today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Barrytown.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I would like to thank the committee for taking the time to hear my amendment and my apologies to the member from Brattleboro for continuing to be a thorn in her side throughout this session on this particular issue. But what my amendment does is propose a three a two year education property tax freeze. And what this freeze would do was it would freeze tax bills at the fiscal year 2026 rates, so there'd be no increase in 2026 or 2020 or 2027 or 2028 fiscal years. And it has a carve out so that if a parcel was improved and there's new construction on it, they could evaluate that and figure out what an appropriate tax rate would be for that property. Just as if a property were to decrease in value in the the old tax would would decrease, there's a there's a provision in there to accommodate for that. And that's pretty much it. It's pretty simple. You know, they I was asked where the the money would come from to support such a a lofty idea as we know we have a lot of budgetary pressure. And I thought about that and I think that the best way to handle it would be to have a cut to the general fund because whatever overages there are that the property tax, can't pay for would have to come from the general fund and to just cut the general fund proportionately all the way across in every line item so there's no winners and losers, and that's the amendment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: And now a member from Woodstock.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: Madam speaker, we heard the amendment presented by representative Galfetti from, Barry Town.

[Rep. William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Yep. Good thing.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Woodstock)]: And we wanna thank, and we share her sentiments for trying to hold property taxes low. And this body has been working for the last couple years at education transformation and trying to both improve the quality of education and also reduce the impact on property tax payers. We did take a vote and found it unfavorable nine to two and to zero, but there's a few elements as to this. One is the time. We are in the midst of an education transformation. We don't yet know what that looks like on the other side. And we don't yet know what the fiscal impact is going to be with us really. The second is the room in the general fund. Do we have that type of capacity to absorb the kind of freeze? We've heard from the chair of the appropriations committee that we really don't have the room to absorb that. Even in the past two years, we committed a $118,000,000 from the general fund to reduce the amount to be raised by property taxes, and the property taxes still went up by 1.1% on average. This year another 105,000,000 has been appropriate from the general fund into the education fund to reduce the amount to be raised by property taxes. So that gap already is is there and it's growing over the years. We have to remember that the education fund is funded 37% from non property tax revenues and 63% from property tax revenues. And those non property tax revenues are not growing as fast as the expenses or and and the balance is made up by property taxes at this point. It's unfortunate and we wanna bend that curve and that is really what we've been trying to do in this body this session and last session. The other point is we we're not sure about unintended consequences. And and that may be that by saying, alright, we're gonna freeze property taxes so the local property taxes are held harmless, but in funded from the general fund, that may create some intent unintended consequences at the school board level. That if they do not have to actually hold tight on their budgets and their expenses, then that may not be a positive consequence. I think I'll leave it there, madam speaker, that we did find the amendment unfavorable by a vote of nine two zero and we ask this body to vote it down. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Barrytown, member from Barrytown.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I just wanna take a minute to reach out to every member in the body right now and and tell you a little story. My great grandfather came to Berry in the early twenties as a stonecutter, and he brought my great grandmother with him. And my grandfather was born in Berlin, Vermont. He got silicosis. He went back to Italy, and he died there. He left my great grandmother with my grandfather, a widow, and my great uncle. My grandfather dropped out of school in eighth grade and started working to feed his family. And he had my father, my uncle, and my aunt with my grandmother. And my father spent time taking apart old granite crates and straightening out nails on a railroad tie to build the house in the North end that my grandparents lived in. And my father became a truck driver and maybe a conundrum sometimes in this body as to why I support union labor, but he was a teamster, and I will always support labor. I think it's our duty to take care of and support labor. And then in, 2023, that house that he helped build in the North End flooded. Flooded for the first time ever. And it flooded because folks had decided that the river corridor in Barrie needed to be protected. So the infrastructure wasn't maintained, the river wasn't dredged, and for the first time in over a hundred years, a property that had never flooded, flooded. The idea to not maintain that river corridor came out of this body. And I'd like to remind the body that there are a lot of ideas that we are coming up with that seem like lofty, ambitious policy but we're forgetting who has to pay and what the unintended consequences are over and over and over again. And it's a fact that the majority has had twenty years to work on education funding reform, and we're not there. And I think we owe it to Vermonters that are struggling, that are struggling like myself, that have no health insurance, that thank god for income tax or property tax sensitivity or I'd be giving the bank the key to my house. We need to stop and look at what we can afford And would a drastic cut to the general fund to continue to pay for an unreformed education system be difficult to swallow in every department and across the state? It sure would. But let's not have any more students dropping out when they're in eighth grade like my grandfather did so he can work to pay the taxes so the family isn't outdoors. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Barrytown? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: nay. Aye.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H nine thirty three, an act relating to miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to the tax laws.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Just a reminder on bill order members, we will now take up House Bill 67. Following that it'll be House Bill five sixty seven and then H650. So House Bill six fifty nope, House Bill 67 is an act relating to legislative operations and government accountability. Prior to third reading, the member from Dover, representative Sebilia and others offer an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And thank you to the government operations committee. We have proposed striking, we will remember that this was about, selecting government accountability projects, and, we have proposed that the group that would select those that we remove, from that group and the leaders of the major political parties in both the house and senate, that would leave the speaker and the pro tem, who are elected by everyone in the body and who, would conduct their own process. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: And now member from Charlotte.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: Madam speaker, your house government operations and military affairs committee is grateful to the members who offered this amendment to age 67. And with a straw poll of eight zero two, we found it favorable and asked the body to vote yes.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Dover and others? 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. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Age 67, an act relating to legislative operations and government accountability.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Next we'll take up house bill five sixty seven which is an act relating to unclaimed property, statement retirement systems and capital debt. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Age five sixty seven, an act relating to unclaimed property, state retirement systems, and capital debt.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have passed the bill. Up next is House Bill six fifty which is an act relating to educational technology products. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

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

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: The

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill. Members, now we'll turn to 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. Prior to third reading, the member from Waterbury, representative Stevens, and others offer an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Waterbury.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. This body passed h seven seventy two on a wide vote. It includes over 15 substantial elements that I listed off during second reading that favor landlords in ways that disabled many of the reasonable avenues that exist for proper landlord tenant communication. They increase the ultimate penalties by lessening time frames for responses to an eviction action, enforce a tenant almost always without a lawyer, an understanding of the law, and without the time to figure it out by themselves, and then to likely give up their rights. This bill makes substantial changes to existing law and judicial process, and it makes those changes radical by having them take effect on July 1, long before of this year, long before they will show up online or in print in our law books or in any educational materials that have yet to be created. I object to these changes made in the bill. That's no secret. They go against all previous perception of balance and tilt the legal and judicial scales in the favor of the property owner. But to have these significant changes to go into effect so quickly, it sends the signal that this legislature is taking aside by rushing this legislation into the books. There is no crisis that demands that this language take effect so soon. This amendment proposes to move the effective date for these significant changes as significant for their stakeholders as act a one eighty one has been for theirs out one year to July 2027. Under circumstances in the past, this body has consistently postponed bills with so many significant changes for at least one year so that the stakeholders could prepare for the changes and inform those stakeholders far enough in advance so the fully expected disruptions for tenants, the courts, and the landlords are minimized. Not only for the non payment of rent section, but for the questionable sections with respect to trespass. The first instance of amendment strikes the year in the security deposit transition period moving it forward to 2027 to match the new effective date. Further, now this bill neglects the successful pilot tenant representation program that was put into law in 2023 and funded in 2024. This program was designed upon the same platform that worked during the initial response to the COVID pandemic when we were able to offer a back rent program free of the many strings that got attached with later funding. This pilot program allows qualified tenants to voluntarily receive legal services in order to negotiate with property owners at the very beginning of an eviction process, what we call upstream representation. This is a program that has precedents in other states and works hand in hand with our existing eviction diversion program. Washington State was the first to legislate a right to counsel in eviction courts. Maryland joined in 2021 as did Connecticut and Minnesota in 2023. And in Pennsylvania, they instigate they instated this program and included $2,500,000 in the state budget for a statewide right to counsel program. And until recently, there were some additional support mechanisms including eviction protection grants from HUD until about 2025 when some of them expired because they were COVID related funds. At that time, up until that time, HUD had provided funding to legal service providers 16 states, including ours. Many states use mediation and rental assistance. We have those programs as well to help tenants avoid eviction court entirely. These programs in Vermont have been met with mixed success due to the lack of uptake from both property owners and tenants at times. Why? Because preventing why would we do this? Because preventing evictions upstream prevents evictions and the costs and it costs landlords, tenants, and states far less than the cost of extended litigation. Landlords get paid, tenants keep their home, and the state avoids social service costs related to homelessness. Tenants having representation levels the field. 80% of property owners use legal representation, and only about 20% of tenants are able to find representation. All of the existing programs across the country show, again, that landlords get paid back rent faster, have lower legal fees, and tenants re remain in their home, and the state avoids the expenses of coping with increased costs for services related to homelessness. The Vermont pilot program has succeeded in nearly 50% of the cases taken up by the program due to nonpayment of rent. This is substantial considering that 70% of all eviction proceedings are for nonpayment. The second instance of amendment proposes to change this program from pilot status to statewide status. Currently available in only two counties as a pilot, and the funds that remain available cannot be used in other communities. Vermont Legal Aid, which houses the program, would like to expand it. They have enough remaining state funding from their original appropriation to fund the program through 10/31/2026, and they are not requesting further funding at this time. This program will also issue reports this fall and to next year with the data that we requested in the original program. So this amendment asks that we remove the language specifying the counties and allow the service to be offered statewide. There is also language that allows AHS and VLA to update existing grant agreements to implement the amendment. The third instance of amendment establishes that the act will take effect on 07/01/2027 except that the tenant representation program and the needed grant update requirement would take effect on passage. And the effective dates of section seven, which is a positive rental payment credit reporting pilot, and section nine, the landlord and tenant education and technical assistance program shall take effect on 07/01/2026 contingent on funding. Madam speaker, I ask the body for their support for these reasonable changes which will not restore balance to the bill but will provide the stakeholders an opportunity to take a needed breath before implementing these significant changes and will allow a successful existing program to service qualified tenants statewide.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: And now member from Calix.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, the your committee on general and housing thanks representative Stevens and others for bringing this bill to us and representative Stevens for appearing before us. We voted to find the amendment unfavorable by a vote of eight a straw poll of eight to three.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Waterbury and others? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: Aye. All

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: those opposed, please say nay. The nays appear to have it, the nays do have it and you have declined to amend the bill. And now prior to third reading, the member from Burlington, representative Logan offers an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Burlington.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, thank you. This amendment to h seven seventy two makes five key changes. First, it clarifies that municipalities may adopt ordinances providing greater protections around security deposits. Second, third, and fourth, it approves charter changes already passed by voters in Burlington, Winooski, and Essex to allow those communities to adopt just cause eviction protections. And fifth, it creates a statewide framework allowing any municipality if approved by its voters to adopt similar protections, just cause eviction protections locally. Taken together, this amendment is about one thing, trusting Vermonters to make decisions about housing in their own communities. We're in the midst of a housing crisis, and in moments like this, local flexibility matters. Regarding the first instance of amendment, this is a direct response to floor debate on h seven seventy two. I asked whether or not the security deposit policy in h seven seventy two, setting a statewide standard that landlords can't charge more than two months rent for a security deposit, would interfere with enforcement of current ordinance in municipalities like Burlington and Brattleboro, which don't allow landlords to charge more than one month of rent for a security deposit. Under current law, municipalities have the authority to set policy on security deposits. Age seven seventy two would change that a bit. After consulting with legislative council, it appears that h seven seventy two as drafted would undermine current current ordinance in Burlington and other municipalities that have security deposit ordinances that restrict security deposits further than in age seven seventy two. As such, I offer the first instance of amendment to correct what must have been an oversight by the committee. In the second, third, and fourth instances of amendment, I addressed the charter changes that have already been passed more than once in the case of Burlington and Winooski that would allow us to enact a just cause eviction policy in our municipalities. Again, this is not top down policy making. This is democracy. In Burlington, in Winooski, in Essex, voters have already spoken. They've said clearly that they want stronger tenant protections. This amendment honors those voters and ensures that we respect local decision making in this body. It also strikes a careful balance protecting both tenants' and landlords' rights. Landlords retain the ability to evict for legitimate reasons under just cause eviction. They can evict for nonpayment of rent, lease violations, refusal of reasonable lease terms, and there are other clear exemptions for owner occupied homes, for properties being taken off the market, and for necessary renovations. This isn't about punishing landlords. Just cause eviction prevents arbitrary displacement. Without just cause protections, tenants can be forced out even when they followed the rules simply because a lease ends. A just cause policy says if someone is paying rent and complying with the lease, they shouldn't lose their home without a legitimate reason. It's not radical. It's a baseline expectation of fairness. Main Just Cause eviction maintains landlord rights. Just Cause doesn't prevent eviction. It allows landlords to evict for cause, such as nonpayment of rent, lease violations, etcetera. So the policy targets arbitrary or pretextual evictions, not legitimate ones. Just cause eviction reduces homelessness and decreases public costs. Evictions are one of the leading drivers of homelessness. Preventing evictions is nearly always far less costly to the public than addressing homelessness. Anyone who is concerned about the cost of providing homelessness response services should support Just Cause Eviction. Just Cause Eviction promotes community stability. Stable housing leads to better outcomes for kids, more consistent employment, stronger neighborhoods. Frequent displacement weakens communities and increases turnover costs for everyone. And finally, just cause eviction aligns with due process values. If the state requires cause to take away someone's liberty or property, it's reasonable to require cause before someone loses their home, one of a handful of places where all of our other rights are exercised. We've been discussing just cause eviction in this building for several years now, and I have been told repeatedly that tenants will get statewide just cause eviction when landlords got speedier for cause eviction process. We need things to be uniform across the state, I've been told. H seven seventy two was the opportunity to balance statewide expansion of landlord protections with a statewide expansion of eviction protection for tenants who are following all of the rules. If the body will not grant these rights to all renters in Vermont, then the general assembly and governor should affirm our local authority to enact those protections ourselves. No cause evictions are destabilizing for towns with high rental density like Burlington, and we need the freedom to regulate our rental markets as we see fit. The fifth instance of amendment extends authority to enact a just cause eviction policy in other municipalities. This amendment does not impose a mandate. It doesn't create a one size fits all policy. It simply gives municipalities the option to act and only if their voters approve. Again, if someone is paying their rent and following the rules, they shouldn't lose their home without a reason. Just cause eviction is based on cause, not on convenience. So we have a simple question to answer. Do we trust Vermonters to decide for ourselves how to regulate housing in our communities? Do we trust local communities facing different housing pressures to craft solutions that reflect their needs, or will we override them? Madam speaker, this amendment respects local control, strengthens housing stability, and honors the will of voters. I urge the body to support it.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: And now member from Callis.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, your committee on general housing, first of all, thanks very much representative Logan for her work on this issue and for appearing before us. We only address the first instance of amendment, believing that the all issues regarding charters and, charters really belongs with government operations, which as I understand also heard the amendment. As to the first instance, which regarded security deposits, we found the amendment unfavorable by a vote of seven three one. I can explain why pretty easily. I think it would be an understatement to say that finding a path, an acceptable path between the opinions of the landlord community and the opinions of the tenant community was not an easy task. Seven seventy two reflected our best attempt to find that path. I sometimes felt as if we were literally on a knife's edge in trying to do that. Security deposits is one of the many issues involved. We can ask the question, what would be the right size for a security deposit? And should it be one month? Should it be three months? Five months? We picked two months. That was our balance. The effect of this amendment would be to say that that a community could decide that it's not two months, the maximum security deposit would be one month. I'm not saying that's unreasonable, but it is not the balance we picked. So we felt this was an essential element of our package, our our one of the important sticks in our bundle of sticks, and that's what we did. So we found it unfavorable, madam chair madam speaker. And

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: And now a member from Burgens.

[Unknown Representative from Vergennes]: Madam speaker, your committee on government operations and military affairs heard from the presenter of the bill this morning along with counsel. Conversations in and around these charter provisions are not foreign to that committee over the course of several biennium. It has been a long standing belief that the just cause provisions need to be a statewide policy conversation and not be fragmented and inconsistent by municipality. It is my understanding that the committee on general and housing took testimony on these provisions in a statewide bill h seven seven two and decided not to include those in there. Now, the opportunity still exists to have these conversations as this is just the first stop in this body. This bill will be moving on to the senate, and there are weeks of calendar in front of us for those conversations to continue, for those debates to continue. Now, the inclusion of these charter provisions in this bill would bypass the committee process jurisdictionally speaking of the committee on government operations and military affairs. So with all of that, your committee on government operations and military affairs found this proposal of amendment unfavorable by a vote of nine one zero and we ask that the body also find this amendment unfavorable. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington, member from Winooski.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Madam speaker, I request that we divide the question.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: House file member.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: The first instance of amendment, and then the second through fourth instance of amendment, and finally the fifth instance of amendment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Let me just make sure I have this correct. The first instance of amendment is section one and then the second instance of amendment would be sections two, three and four.

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: Yes.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: One moment, member. Member from Winooski. So the first instance of amendment would be section one. The second instance of amendment would be two, three, and four, and then the third instance of amendment would be section five. Is that correct,

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: That is correct.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: It is divisible in that manner. So members that means that the in that order, member. So that means that the question now is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the first instance of amendment which is section one. Are you ready for that question? Member from Callis.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Madam speaker, just to clarify, this is the section that I just spoke to. This is the section which we found unfavorable by a vote of nine of nine seven three one. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall it be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the first instance of amendment member from Burlington.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I, was going to speak to the amendment before it was getting divided, and I can wait until the appropriate instance, I guess, to speak to that. Thanks. Sorry.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: As a reminder, we are on the first instance of amendment section one, member from South Burlington.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I thank the member from Burlington for for bringing this to our committee. Well, I found it unfavorable. I do hope that these conversations will continue, when it crosses to the other body. I think they're important conversations to have, and I look forward to the testimony that they will receive. But I I did find it unfavorable. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Brattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, just want to offer a point of clarification. The member who introduced this amendment spoke to Brattleboro's local ordinances, and I just wanted to mention that the other of the other members from Brattleboro and I looked into whether this bill would preempt our local ordinances, and we feel comfortable that it will not. So we have no need for this amendment to protect Brattleboro ordinances specifically. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it, and you have declined to amend the bill in the first instance of amendment which is section section one. Now the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the second instance of amendment which is sections two through four? Are you ready for the question? Member from.

[Unknown Representative from Vergennes]: Madam speaker, I would just like to remind the body that these sections that were divided and we are voting on now are the ones to are germane to the jurisdiction of government operations and military affairs, and a reminder that this was found unfavorable by a vote of nine one zero. We ask that the body finds this unfavorable.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Burlington.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, this is the section that I was hoping to speak to. And I rise for a unique reason which is the journey on this, sorry, the journey on this particular, charter change has been extremely long, and I just want to I know a lot of the body was not here when this started. But back in December 2020, Burlington City Council by a bipartisan, vote of 10 to two approved this going on the ballot. In March 2021 by a two to one margin, 63.9% of Burlington voters voted for this charter change. At that point, I was asked to help, support the Charter change in this body. And what happened was in 2022 H seven zero eight was introduced and passed by the house. The chamber advanced this bill by a ninety eight forty nine vote. And it went on to pass the senate with a voice vote. Before it hit the floor, there was extensive testimony taken from many people. I have the list. I will in the interest of time, I will not share it. And then, the the bill was vetoed by the governor. And, the house tried to overturn that veto in 2022 and it lost by one vote. Since then, the bill has been introduced in the twenty three, twenty four biennium where it got a walk through and nothing else. It got reintroduced in the this biennium, and I know there was action on it in February. When I talk to constituents and when we meet with our elected officials in local Burlington government, people keep saying, what is going on? Like, why why did we have to follow very stringent rules to get it here and then our charter change went into the ether. And so constituents are very frustrated, and I hear that really regularly, which is why I'm standing up. It feels to constituents that they're not their will is not being respected. It's an important issue. I'm not gonna go into why. I think the, my colleagues before me have done a good job with that. But I I we need to have a path forward with this. And it's been really hard to do that. I understand it's not the committee of jurisdiction. But I don't see a path forward. And local control is really important to everybody in this room. And I don't know what to keep saying to my constituents. And many of my constituents are very vulnerable renters who are frustrated. So I ask the body, if not with this amendment, to please help us find a path forward. The people of Burlington count too.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the second instance of amendment in which are sections two through four, member from Burlington.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I'm gonna try and be brief. I have already spoken about the charter changes adopted by our voters in various municipalities to just cause evictions and I won't repeat all of that today but I do want to return to a a key central point. Across this body, we all represent communities that have at one time or another relied on this legislature, this body to give final approval to charter changes adopted by their voters. Each one of us. And historically, we have treated that role with care. We review we review those changes. We ensure they do not conflict with state law. And absent a clear concern about harm to the state, we have treated that final step for what it is, a validation of the will of the voters in our cities and towns. As my colleague from Burlington just reminded us, the Burlington voters have done that twice. The vote passed with strong support through all eight wards of the city. That's not always common. This body actually acted on the on on the charter as, again, presented by my colleague from Burlington, passed, passed the senate, then vetoed, and then the override fell short by one vote. None of that changes my obligation. I follow in the footsteps of the the my predecessor who held the seat before me, my colleague who who shares the seat with me now, the mayor of Burlington. None of this changes our obligations. It does not change the fact that the voters I represent made a clear decision. It does not change the role that we are being asked, to play here today. This amendment gives us an opportunity, and it seems the only opportunity. Because when we are assured that this will be taken up within a state law, repeatedly it is not. That's happening again right now. This amendment gives us the opportunity to finally complete that process. Not to create new policy in this moment but to respect and to validate decisions that have already been made by voters in multiple communities, sometimes more than once. I would ask the members to consider. How would we want this body to respond if their own constituents had spoken only to have this body continually deny that voice? Because that is what is happening. Clear votes, clear intent, and then years of waiting. And, madam speaker, transparency matters on this one to me, so I am requesting that when we vote on this instance, on this amendment, that would the vote be taken by roll call.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from Burlington request that when the vote is taken, it'd be taken by rolls. The member sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the second instance of amendment which are sections two through four? Are you ready for the question? Member from Starksboro.

[Rep. Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I support the amendment offered by the member from Burlington in in the second instance of amendment, and I do so because I believe in democracy. I passionately believe in the democracy, and I believe in democracy because I trust voters. I trust voters whether they reside in a big city or whether they reside in a small rural community. Voters don't always get it right. I understand that. And I'm not sure that I would vote for the particular ordinance, but does the voters deserve to be heard and respected. I'd also point out that this is simply granting authority to a city through their own procedures to consider, propose, and adopt an an ordinance. It it isn't the final ordinance. So it's the authority to adopt the ordinance. And I respect the voters who have approved the charter change, and I would ask that others do so as well. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Arsenault, Williston.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call. When the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the second division of the amendment, which is the second through fourth instances of amendment? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

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

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: By wrong River Gens. No. Bishop of Colchester.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: No. Black of Essex. Yes. Bloomley of Burlington. Yes. Boslyn of Westminster. Bosch at Clarendon. Boone Berry City.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Boyden of Cambridge.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: No. Brady of Williston. Renegade of Georgia. No. Brigham of Saint Albans Town. No. Brown of Richmond. Yes. Burditt, a West Rutland. No. Burkhardt Brattleboro. Yes. Burkhardt of South Burlington.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Burrows of West Windsor. Yes. Burditt Cabot. Campbell Saint Johnsbury. No. Canfield of Fair Haven. Carris Duncan at Whitingham. Casey at Montpelier.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Yes,

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: sir. Casey Hubbardton. Chief in East Montpelier. Charlton Chester.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Christie of Hartford.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Gina Burlington, Coffin and Cavendish?

[Unknown Burlington Representative]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Cole of Hartford?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Conlon of Cornwall? No. Cooper or Ponnel? Nope. Corcoran of Bennington? No. Critchlow of Colchester?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Demar of Eniesburg? Dickinson of St. Albans Town?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Deborah Debbie Dolan Essex? Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction? No. Dolgin

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: of St. Johnsbury? Donahue of Northfield? No. Duke of Burlington?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Durfee of Shaftsbury? No. Eastes of Guilford? Emmons of Springfield? No. Feltus of Linden? No. Galfetti at Barrytown? No. Garifano of Essex? Yes. Goldman of Rockingham? No. Goodnight, Brattleboro? No. Ghostland on Northfield? No. Granting at Jericho? No. Greer Bennington? No. Greg Burkhardt, Hangover. Boutin? No. No. Harper of Glover. Yes. Harvey of Cassatton. Yes. Hedrick of Burlington.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Higley of Lowell. No. Holcomb and Norwich. Cooper Randolph. No. Houghton of Essex Junction. Yep. Howard Rutland City. Yes. Holland Rutland Town. No. Hoyda Hartford. Hunter Manchester. No. James Manchester. Kasenska Burke. No. Keyser of Rutland City. No. Kimball Woodstock. Kupner, Burlington? Yes. Kornheiser, Brattleboro? No. Krasno, South Burlington?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Labor, Morgan? No. Mollie at Shelburne? Malone of South Burlington?

[Unknown Representative from Vergennes]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Lamon of Morristown? No. The Russia Franklin? No. Lipsky of Stowe? No. Logan of Burlington? Yes. Long and Uffin? No. Leaders of Lincoln? Bruno of St. Albans

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: City? No.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Maguire of Rutland City? No. Malay of Pittsford? Mark out of Coventry? No. Maslin of Thetford? No. McCain of Abbey? Yes. McCoy Pultney? McFauna, Barrytown? No. McGill Edward Port? Yes. Nicholas of Milton? Mollie of Callis? No. Meniere of South Burlington? Yes. Morgan Ela Milton? Morgan Emma Milton? Morrissey Springfield? No. Morrissey Bennington? Moro Weston? No. Roeke or Putney? No. Nelson and Derby? No. Nielsen and Brandon? Nigro Bennington. No. North Of Ferrisburg. Moise of Volkick. No. Nugent of South Burlington. No. O'Brien of Tunbridge. O'Dea Burlington. I'm sorry. O'Dea Burlington. Say it again. Yes. Thank you. Oliver

[Rep. Daisy Berbeco (Winooski)]: of Sheldon.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Olson of Starksboro. Yes. Page of Newport City. Parsons of Newbury. Pezzo of Colchester?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Pinson, I'll endorse it. Pouch of Heinzburg?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Powers of Waterford? No. Priestly Bradford? Yes. Bridget of Pollock? Quinby of Linden? No. Rachel's in Burlington? No. Sackwitz of Randolph? No. Shyam Middlebury? Sheldon of Middlebury? No. Sebeli of Dover? Yes. Southworth of Walden? No. Squirrel of Underhill? Study Milton?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Stevens of Waterbury?

[Unknown Representative from Vergennes]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Stone of Burlington? Sweeney of Shelburn? Tegma Via Carrith? No. Taylor Milton? No. Taylor Mendon? Tomlinson and Winooski? Yes. Torrey Mortown? Yes. Walker Swanton? Walls of Zaccha Berry City.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Yes.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Waters Evans to Charlotte.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Charlotte)]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Wells Of Brownington. White Oatesfield.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: No.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: White Bethel. Winter Of Ludlow. Wood Of Waterbury. Yacoboni, Morristown, Bailey Pye Park, Bosland and Westminster, Canfield Fairhaven, Carris Duncan and Whitingham, Casey Hubbardton, Christy of Hartford. Oh, sorry. Miss Chapin East Mollie McCoyer, Christy of Hartford, Gina Gurlington, Demar of Ennisburg, Dickinson of St. Albans Town, Eastes Of Guilford, Gregoire Fairfield, Way to Hartford, James of Manchester, Lamonta Morristown, Mollie Pittsford, Melissa Milton, Morgan Emma Milton, O'Brien of Tunbridge, Pinsonault of Dorset, Shine Middlebury, Squirrel of Underhill, Walker Swan, Ela Brown, Haven, Water Bethel, Winter Ludlow, Yacoboni, Morristown.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: For purpose of explanation, member from Winooski.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I voted yes because this is the will of Winooski voters who are more than 70% renters, myself included. Sometimes the outcome is more important than the process.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from Barrie City.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Waterbury)]: Madam speaker, charter changes have their place. If before this body, this charter change comes, I will support it, but not as an amendment on a housing bill.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: A member from Burlington.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Cities and towns can pass reforms with overwhelming support, but nothing changes unless the legislature acts. I hear regularly from constituents who are very frustrated and cannot understand why our charter changes go into the ether when they reach Montpelier. It's time to allow the will of our Burlington voters to prevail.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 33. Those voting no, 89. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Now the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the third division of amendment which is oh. Sorry. No. I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. Okay. She's okay. She's okay. Okay. She's okay. She's okay. The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the third division of amendment, which is the fifth instance of amendment. Are you ready for the question? Member from Essex Junction.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Report of the madam speaker, may I get the report of the, committee on this?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from CALUS.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: I'm sorry Madam Speaker. I didn't hear the statement that was just made.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: I was just looking for what the vote was from the committee on this amendment.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: There was no, we did not take a vote on the fifth instance of amendment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Will the house please stand in recess and can I see the chair up here please? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? This instance of amendment was taken up by the military affairs committee, so I will turn to the member from for gents.

[Unknown Representative from Vergennes]: Madam speaker, here we go. Yes. Your committee on on government operations and military affairs did review this section on municipal regulation of evictions, and we found this to be one of the more, like, sweeping components that gave a lot of broad authority to municipalities with a lot of unrefined language. We found that the use of the words unreasonable, reasonable were used throughout the language without any clear definitions of what those could entail as it pertains to rental rate increases, de facto evictions, and things of that nature. So with that, the committee found that section of the bill also to be unfavorable by a straw poll of nine one zero, again, unfavorable, And we ask that the body find this amendment to be unfavorable. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: So the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Burlington in the third division of the amendment which is the fifth instance of amendment. Are you ready for the question? Yes. If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. Aye. The nays appear to have it. Nays do have it and you have declined to amend the bill. Members it is my understanding that the member from Burlington will not be offering an amendment on this bill. So please listen to the third reading of the bill.

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

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, member from Burlington.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam Speaker may I inquire of the presenter of the bill?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from South Burlington is interrogated.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the h seven seventy two expands eviction grounds for evictions by using language like violence or other activity. I inquired about this during interrogation the other day. I was told that it just accelerates existing processes. So respectfully, my question was about scope, not speed. Does adding new grounds like other activity expand the legal basis for eviction? Yes or no? Can you repeat the question? Does adding new grounds like undefined other activity expand the legal basis for eviction? Yes or no?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, may I take a brief recess?

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

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam Speaker. Check check check. Oh, yeah. We're good. I felt like I was okay. Madam Speaker, in theory, it could be expanding the acts reasons a landlord may terminate the rental agreement. However, the act would have to threaten the health or safety of another tenant, which is in current statute?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Okay. Thank you. So it doesn't seem exactly like a clear standard for renters. But regardless, I would I suppose a judge would weigh in. Is there anything in the bill that limits what other activity includes besides judgments on threatening health and safety?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: No. Thank you.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: The other day we discussed that courts must set hearings within ten days based upon a landlord affidavit which removes the judicial discretion that exists in current law. I believe probably the response to that would be that this is for serious cases, but where in the bill does a court have the ability to decline an expedited hearing if the case is actually not urgent?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I'd like to yield to the member from South Burlington.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from South Burlington yields to the other member from South Burlington.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Could you point to where you're is this in the expedited hearing that you're speaking of? Yes. Madam speaker?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Yes. It is. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So, what has to happen is there's there's a motion filed for judgment, that the plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession, and it has to be based on the fact that the continued occupation of the lands or tenements, threatens health or safety of other residents. You know? So that is filed and the, there's a hearing on the motion that has to be held promptly. That's correct. After ten days notice to the parties, and not later than twenty one days after the motion. And at that point, the, defendant would have the opportunity, to oppose that motion by, arguing that their continued occupation does not threaten the health or safety of other residents.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Thank you. That doesn't quite answer my question. My question was why, the court no longer has the ability to decline, the hearing if if they deem that the case is not actually urgent?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: So they won't be able well, they can look at the affidavit itself, but frankly, the court is more likely to wait until they have seen, the response, by the defendant. So it's they they do have the opportunity but just practically speaking, they would be waiting for a response and they would be waiting for the twenty one days.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Okay. Thank you. So, overall, H seven seventy two will shorten timelines and compress processes related to a final eviction hearing. I'm concerned about tenant's ability to prepare a defense. I'm sure the response as it was in a to a similar question the other day was that the deadlines are now the same for civil cases. But I guess my more direct question then for the presenter of the bill, I believe, would be that would be taken together. Just a simple yes or no answer. Do tenants have more or less or the same total time compared to current law to respond to notices?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from South Burlington is interrogated.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, the bill only accelerates termination notices for cause. Things like nonpayment of rent or threatening behavior. It actually increases notice time for no cause evictions to ninety days. The court process may happen quicker especially when other tenants are subject to persistent threats to their safety. And the inclusion of $1,000,000 in the budget will actually prevent evictions from happening. So I don't believe that this bill will accelerate evictions.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: It will accelerate for cause evictions.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Yes. Madam speaker, I believe I answered the question.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Okay. I I don't believe it does I mean, our it is an accelerated timeline for for for cause evictions that, again, I'm concerned that might not leave tenants to prepare a defense. But I won't ask the question again because I got an answer. I would like to inquire as well as to whether or not the committee took testimony or considered the possibility that setting a statewide ceiling for rental deposits might function as a market signal to charge that amount. I work with homeless youth across the state who are seeking out apartments in every county, almost every county of the state. And we currently don't have a law in place since fairly typical for landlords to only ask for one month rent as a security deposit in addition to the first month's rent. Did you consider whether or not this might serve as

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: a market signal to charge up to three months of rent to move in. Madam Speaker, we took extensive testimony on this part of the bill and the question around that period. I appreciate the members work. I don't recall if I if the question, excuse

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Hinesburg)]: me,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: if the question was asked specifically of how that would relate to what you're asking.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Okay. Thank you. So we've talked about trespass expansion of trespass to landlords being able to file a trespass order under against a guest of a tenant. The response was, oh, this is likely only to be used in extreme cases, and I'm I'm curious about where in H 772 are limits set upon landlords, about, when they can seek a trespass order against a guess of a tenant.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam Speaker, for this question, I would like to yield to the member from Callis.

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

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: I think I I can partly answer the question, but I might I might have to yield the question to the chair of the judiciary committee, but I'd I wanna start off by saying that the trespass sections and the special proceeding that is an accelerated proceeding when a tenant is endangering the health or safety of other tenants or the landlord. These provisions were the result of testimony where we received just as much testimony from tenants as we did from landlords. This is not a landlord issue. This is a landlord and a tenant issue. So many tenants sent us correspondence or testified that they were terrified or terrorized, and why couldn't landlords do anything about it? And that's what these sections were aimed at. The trespass section is the change to the trespass provision is aimed at the problem of someone coming in who either has already been evicted or is a stranger to the and comes in and occupies the hallway or occupies a residence of an existing tenant without or with their, permission, often without, and proceeds to engage in dangerous activity. That is new in the sense that it was very difficult under existing law to do anything about that. And the trespass sections change was aimed at that problem. If you want more detail, I would have to yield to the chair of the judiciary committee.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: No. Thank you, madam speaker. I just have one brief follow-up. So it sounds to me like this does not apply to guests of tenants.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Would not apply to a it would not apply to a guest of a tenant unless the tenant did not invite the guest in, one. Or two, the guest was engaging in activity which was endangering the health or safety of other tenants or the landlord or violating the law. It's specified in the in the in the text of seven seventy two.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Okay. Thank you. Common law for hundreds of years codified in statute is that the tenant, not the landlord, has possession of the rented property. Deprivation of a tenant right to exclusive use and possession of their dwelling without due process is a violation of the due process guaranteed in the constitution. H seven seventy two doesn't require a process for the landlord to make notice against trespass to tenant guests and call the police. They're just allowed to do it. So is this component of h seven seventy two unconstitutional?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from South Burlington is interrogated.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I believe the question was around due process.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: On trespass, orders by landlords. Yeah. This does not

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: violate due process rights. The basic procedure for eviction remains unchanged. There are only two material changes to that process and then involve shortened time frames. Due process rights are retained and the bill addresses issues such as people who are engaging in dangerous behavior or endanger the health or safety of others and that is the reason for the shortened time frame but it is it does not jeopardize due process.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: My thank you, madam speaker. My question was more specifically about how a landlord goes about making getting the trespass order in place and it doesn't seem that h seven seventy two establishes a process that would be appropriate for the due process guaranteed to a tenant to make notice against stressors Point of order. Tenant guests.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from Brattleboro? Member from Brattleboro, what is your point of order?

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The member's questions have moved to argument.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Can can you say that again, members?

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: The members' questions have moved to argument.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Can I see members at the podium, please? The house will stand in recess. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Brattleboro, I find your point of order well taken, and I would remind the member, that for the debate is for questions and after you get your answers, then it is appropriate to make your opinion known. Thank you, member. The floor is back to you, I believe, member from Burlington. So

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: we've talked about, research that evictions, especially faster evictions are likely to increase displacement risk. There was a claim made that the research is mixed but the I believe that the literature suggests that it is the case that evictions might increase displacement risk. Point of order, madam speaker. Include

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from Brattleboro, what is your point of order?

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: The member's question is moved to argument.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Will the house please come to order? Member from Brattleboro, I find your important order not well taken. I think it seems that the member was teeing up a question but I do want to remind the member that get you can take time for your opinion and then interrogate to get the answer or wait and do it after. Thank you. Thank you, member. Member from Burlington.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Thank you. Does the bill include any mechanism to slow evictions down for tenants who need additional time? For example, someone who's going through an eligibility determination process for various rental arrears programs that are available to them locally or for tenants with disabilities who are unable to respond on the timeline here. Madam speaker,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: two two answers. The first, well, I'll I'll go with the second. I believe this question was asked now it feels like a year ago but on second reading, there was the believe that question was asked about disabilities and on the first, we, as mentioned, there are the rental rears program and we have added money from in the budget that will go to supporting that program to support those tenants.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: I don't feel like my question was answered regarding whether or not somebody who's going through the process to enroll in a program like that but who hasn't completed that process, prior to the eviction hearing would be granted additional time prior to the hearing to complete that enrollment process.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Would you mind restating your question, please?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Would someone who is going through the process of enrolling into a rental arrears program but who hasn't completed that enrollment process by the time the eviction hearing is scheduled, would they be granted the time that they need to enroll in that program prior to the hearing?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, may I yield to the member from Callis for this question?

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

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: The rental arrears assistance program is a program that's administratively defined. That is when the legislature funded it and enacted it was very brief. The regulations that govern that program were created by the housing authority, and they administered it. We did not receive evidence on the exact point you raise. It is my opinion, and I'm just expressing an opinion, that it is very unlikely that a decision would not be made within the ninety days that is allowed in this bill between the time that a complaint is filed and the hearing.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Okay. I'll comment on that later. Finally, the affidavit requirement here does might seem to place a higher burden on tenants. It seems like there are unequal standards. Am I correct about that?

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from CALUS, you are still the one being interrogated unless you choose to yield back.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Calais)]: Thank you. It is not unequal. The option of an affidavit affidavit is simply an additional evidentiary device that is available to the landlord and is available to the tenant. The tenant has exactly the same rights that the tenant would already have. The right to appear, the right to speak, the right to be a witness. This gives them the additional right to submit an affidavit instead.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Okay. Thank you. Madam I thank the member. Madam speaker, what we just heard every time a direct question was asked was a similar pattern, an abstract evasion, but Vermonters don't live in abstraction.

[Rep. Carol Ode (Burlington)]: Point of order, madam speaker.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from Burlington, what is your point of order?

[Rep. Carol Ode (Burlington)]: The member is impugning the motive of the member who is being questioned.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Can I see the members at the podium? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? Member from Burlington, I find your point of order well taken and I would ask the member from Burlington to restate her statement in a different manner.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: First, I'd like to apologize to the member from South Burlington. I certainly did not mean to impugn your intentions. I'm not satisfied with the answers that I received in the interrogation today. I don't think that they will satisfy renters who find themselves in the in between spaces where landlord tenant law does not provide them protections even though they are complying with the law. I think this bill will make it easier to evict people. I think it will make it faster to evict people. 'll make I think it'll make it more expensive just to try to find housing by paying fees. Seems to add new grounds for eviction. Seems to use vague language that expands landlord power. Raises upfront costs potentially, still allows for no cause eviction, and one provision may be unconstitutional. This doesn't seem like fairness. It seems to be nudging our landlord system, our landlord tenant system into telling working Vermonters that even if they do everything right, they could still lose their home faster if they come across the wrong landlord. They'll have fewer protections and potentially higher costs. In order to address challenges with a small number of tenants and their guests or visitors to the premises, we're putting renters at higher risk for housing instability. And when we ask you know, when I asked what happened next, I heard that there was some uncertainty. We don't know what to predict in terms of whether or not this is going to have an impact on courts and how long it takes to have an eviction case handled. So I'd just like to end by saying that we I would like us to recall that tenants and landlords are equal in the law, and this relationship ought to be mutually beneficial. We need to put clear limits on landlords' treatment of their tenants in in order to ensure an appropriate power dynamic, providing tenants full rights to their home, to the full due process that is guaranteed to them in our constitution. Let's remember that tenants are paying landlords mortgage interest, house payments, property taxes, and property maintenance costs. Tenants are building wealth for landlords without any returns to themselves, but a need for safe, healthy, and stable housing. Vermont has a housing crisis, but we won't solve it by making it easier to lose housing. We solve it by building stability and not tearing it down. I urge a no vote. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? Member from South Burlington.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I just wanna make a couple quick points of clarification, I believe. So, the house judiciary committee did look at whether there were any due process issues, in the bill. And specifically looking at the trespass component, I specifically asked legislative council if there was a constitutional issue related to guests who are violating otherwise violating the rental agreement or breaking the law and being able to have a trespass order against them. And there is not an obvious constitutional issue there. Although legislative council always does a very good job of hedging and saying that our arguments are very good, but ultimately the court decides those questions. The second is as far as if there's a disability or some other reason such as taking time to get assistance on on arrears. The court has specifically put into the bill specifically that the court can extend deadlines for good cause. It would be up to the court and the individual factual situation, but there is that ability to give more time in those kind of situations. Thank you.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill. Members, we have two more bills left. One we will be postponing and that one is we will take up first house bill nine forty one and then we will finish with house bill nine thirty seven. House bill nine forty one is an act relating to municipal regulation of agriculture. Member from Shaftsbury.

[Unknown Burlington Representative]: Madam speaker, I move we postpone action on h nine forty one for one legislative day.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from Shasbury 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. Up next is House Bill nine thirty seven which is an act relating to miscellaneous judiciary procedures. Prior to third reading, the member from Barrytown, Representative Galfetti offers an amendment to the bill that is printed in today's calendar, member from Barrytown.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you madam speaker. Madam speaker, I thank the committee for giving me the time to come in and and talk about this amendment. The underlying bill that this amendment is drawn from was crafted in a collaborative process with a large group of constituents of mine that had real concerns about the bail process and wanted to highlight certain things that they should be felt should be taken into consideration when granting bail. Clearly, at this point in time, the amendment that I'm proposing is indeed in unconstitutional, but my hope is that it will get a conversation started about a potential constitutional amendment so that public safety can be considered when bail is being pondered. And at this point, I would like to ask leave of the house to withdraw my amendment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Absent objection, leave is granted. And now prior to third reading, the member from Rutland City, representative McGuire, and the member from South Burlington, representative alone offers an amendment to the bill that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 03:03PM today. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Rutland City.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: Madam speaker, this amendment is built around one straightforward principle. When Beaumont creates a coordinated, rapid response, strong fidelity structure within our justice system, our communities become safer, courts function more efficiently, and individual complex needs are connected to treatment and stability rather than cycling endlessly through our system. We're not speculating about whether this model works. We have already proven that it does. The Chittenden County Burlington pilot demonstrated exceptional performance, achieving a 300% clearance rate, resolving cases far more quickly than traditional dockets, and significantly improving court appearance rates. The pilot succeeded because it held repeat offenders accountable while ensuring they had timely access to housing supports, treatment, and mental health services. This amendment simply takes what work and creates a structured stake statewide path way to replicate that success. This matters because Vermont continues to struggle with a high frequency group of repeat offenders who present with overlapping needs, unstable housing, substance use disorder, and untreated mental health conditions. Traditional court calendars are not built to manage these complex cases effectively or efficiently. The rapid accountability docket directly addresses this gap. It establishes a framework with dedicated judges, prosecutors, defenders, and HHS staff. With timely hearings, with immediate responses and follow-up, and with service connections that actually reduce recidivism. This

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: is

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Rutland City)]: a nationally recognized best practice, and it strengthens public safety while reducing strain on law enforcement and on our courts. Importantly, this amendment does not impose a one size fits all mandate. Instead, it recognizes that each county has unique circumstances, resources, and operational realities. The rollout requires counties to assess their needs and capacity before launching a docket, ensuring stronger outcomes for both large and small counties while avoiding unfunded and unrealistic expectations. The amendment also connects one of the long standing structural weaknesses in Vermont's justice system, fragment fragmented responsibility. Success in this space depends on collaboration, and this proposal formalizes it. It brings the judiciary, state's attorneys, and defender general, AHS, along with DPS, DMV, and local law enforcement all to the same table. It requires name liaisons, assigned staff, and coordinated action. That level of collaboration was the backbone of the Burlington pilot, and this amendment makes that structure consistent across the state. Another strength of this amendment is its focus on data. It requires detailed tracking of outcomes, case resolution types, service connections, court appearance rates, and recidivism at both six and twelve months. That ensures the legislation receives clear evidence based feedback, not anecdotes, so that we can assess what is working, what needs adjustment, and whether a broader statewide expansion is warranted. Finally, the amendment includes responsible guardrails. Implementation is contingent on available appropriations. The sunset clause ensures that the legislation reassess the program after two years of statewide data. That protects both our budget and our responsibility to the public. At its core, this amendment strengthens public safety while recognizing that accountability and rehabilitation are not competing values. They're complementary ones. The rapid accountability model delivers timely, consistent responses for repeat offenders while simultaneously embedding service pathways into the process. It moves cases quickly, reduces community harm, and stabilizes individuals who would otherwise continue cycling through a system without intervention. Madam speaker, this is a balanced evidence driven amendment. It builds on the documented successes out of Chittenden County and out of the Burlington Court, responds to the real pressures our courts and communities are facing and does through does so through collaboration, data, and fiscal responsibility. I now yield to the member from South Burlington.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The member from Rutland City yields to the member from South Burlington.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (South Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I have very little to add to that. When you have an amendment coming very late, you are unable to coordinate, what you're gonna say on the floor. And I agree with everything that the representative just said. I will just say, thank you to to representative McGuire for bringing this amendment to us, and I thank the witnesses that we did hear from as well as legislative counsel over the last two to three days that we've worked on this to really make it. Think a very good amendment. A very good way for going forward and expanding the rapid accountability docket throughout the state. Just for everybody's information, we did hear from legal counsel for the governor, the chief superior judge, the court administrator, defender general, and the Department of State's attorneys. And I ask for the body's support of this amendment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Member from Burlington.

[Rep. Mary-Katherine Stone (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, we thank the member for bringing us this amendment, and the, our committee found it favorable with a vote of nine zero two, We ask for the body support.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: The question is shall the bill be amended as offered by the member from Rutland City and the member from South Burlington. 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. Please listen to the third reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Page nine thirty seven, an act relating to miscellaneous judiciary procedures. The

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have passed the bill. Members, that completes the orders of the day. Members, we have a bill for introduction. House Bill nine fifty two is an act relating to capital construction and state bonding budget adjustment introduced by the committee on corrections and institutions. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[House Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H nine fifty two, an act relating to capital construction and state bonding budget adjustment.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: Now the bill has been read the first time and as a committee bill that affects the revenue of the state, the bill is referred to the committee on ways and means pursuant to house rule 35 a. Are there any announcements? There are any announcements? I know I have one more that I am supposed to share with you. One moment.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: We go. There we go.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: From our IT department, the expense portal, that we use will be down for maintenance between 04:30PM and 06:30PM tonight. ADS is conducting some server patching during this time frame, and will be back online after 06:30. Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, member from Poldeny, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Tuesday, March 31 at 10AM?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand in adjournment until Tuesday, 03/31/2026 at 10AM.

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: this

[Unknown Burlington Representative]: body

[Rep. Jill Krowinski, Speaker of the House]: stands in adjournment until