Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Good afternoon. Members in this block of time we will be taking up two bills. The two bills we will be taking up are house bill two eleven which is an act relating to data brokers and personal information and house bill nine fifty five which is an act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont's education system. So house bill two eleven and house bill nine fifty five. Member from Pulte, on our notice calendar is the senate proposal of amendment on house bill two eleven which is an act relating to data brokers and personal information. Can you please offer us a motion to suspend rules to take up house bill two eleven off the notice calendar for immediate consideration?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to take up h two eleven for immediate consideration off the notice calendar.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Fulton Eastes moves that we suspend our rules to take up house bill two eleven off the notice calendar for immediate consideration. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have suspended rules to take up house bill two eleven for immediate consideration. House bill two eleven is an act relating to data brokers and personal information. The bill passed the senate in concurrence with the proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Jericho.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: speaker, h two eleven makes several changes to Vermont's laws regulating data brokers and the personal information of Vermonters. It is an update to the first in the nation data broker law that was passed in 2018. Took us a long time to get to it, but the house passed a number of updates earlier this session, and we sent it over to the senate and we received back from them a number of amendments. There are 12 amendments and I will take you through them. The senate is proposing to amend the definition of publicly available information to remove the following from what publicly information does not include. So these are things that are not included in the definition of publicly available information or no longer not included. Information that is collated and combined to create a consumer's profile that is made available to a user of a publicly available website either in exchange for payment or free of charge, information that is made available for sale, an inference that is generated from the information described in these previous two instances, personal data that is created through the combination of personal data with publicly available information, information provided by a consumer on a website or online service made available to all members of the public free or for a fee. The senate did not amend other definitions that were updated in the house version, including the definition of data broker, brokered personal information, by and many other definitions. We talked about those earlier when the bill passed the house. These changes are intended to capture more entities as data brokers and require them to register and be regulated by the state of Vermont. There are a couple of non substantive changes to address grammatical readability, and then the senate did proposing to delete language that would have allowed consumers to delete their brokered personal information. So that was an addition that we had requested that they have asked us. They're they're saying not yet. The senate is proposing to add the definition of consumer in the data broker subchapter to align with the definition of consumer in the data privacy bill s 71 that we just passed recently. The senate is proposing to amend the cybersecurity advisory council to add three members, including the chairs of the two information technology committees in the general assembly and also a member of the judiciary. Couple more. They will ex they are proposing to extend the sunset of the cybersecurity adviser council so that it continues through 06/30/2033. They are also proposing to add a requirement that providers of okay. So here is where they added h six fifty, which is education technology. We passed that bill. It left this body. We passed it as a consumer protection bill. It left our body here and went into senate education, had a wild ride that I'm happy to talk to you about offline and didn't come back. So economic development said, hey, this is a consumer protection bill. It belongs here in this consumer protection bill that we're proposing to update. So we will add an education technology registry at the secretary of state's office. And the senate also proposed to remove the $50,000 appropriation to the secretary of state to pay the consultant to study the feasibility of an accessible deletion mechanism. So one of the things we were hoping to have is a way for Vermonters to go to the secretary of state's office to one page and click on it and be able to delete their data. That's something that you could do in California right now. It is, something that they raised an awful lot of money to do, and we were hoping that we could figure out how much money Vermont would need to be able to do that, but that's not gonna happen this year. So the data broker and education technology sections would take effect January 2027, and the rest of the bill takes effect 07/01/2026. Straw poll from our committee was eleven zero zero in favor, and we ask for your vote to concur with the senate's amendment.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? 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 concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Member from Pultely, can you please offer us a motion to deliver house bill two eleven to the governor forthwith?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to send house bill h two eleven to the governor forthwith.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pulte moves that we deliver house bill two eleven to the governor forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have ordered house bill two eleven to be delivered to the governor forthwith. Members at 12:35 today, the clerk emailed you the committee of conference report on house bill nine fifty five, which is an act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont's education system. The committee of conference report is also posted on the house overview web page and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Pulte, can you please offer us a motion to suspend rules to take up house bill nine fifty five for immediate consideration pending its entry on the notice calendar?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to suspend rules in order to take up for immediate consideration pending its notice on the pending notice on the pending entry on the notice calendar. Apologies. H seven nine five five.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Fulton moves that we suspend our rules to take up house bill nine fifty five for immediate consideration pending its entry on the notice calendar. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have suspended rules to take up house bill nine fifty five for immediate consideration. House bill nine fifty five is an act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont's education system. The bill was referred to a committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two chamber. The media conference met and considered the same and recommends that the house adopt its report. Member from Cornwall.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Madam speaker, the conference committee report on H nine fifty five is surprisingly brief. This reflects that there were mostly areas of agreement between the House and Senate in our two proposals, and the final version of H nine fifty five looks very similar to the one that left this body in April. In short, h nine fifty five retains the house's framework for creating voluntary resourced community driven merger groups that put Vermonters in the driver's seat of how best they see their districts moving forward in an era of declining enrollment and a new financing system, and in a way that maintains and expands opportunities for students. In addition, H-nine fifty five maintains the recommendations of the redistricting task force to create cooperative education service areas to build scale and achieve savings by regionalizing more of the services that Vermont schools are finding challenging and expensive to provide on their own. Services like specialized supports, transportation, and back office functions. In both parts of the bill, the Senate made mainly helpful additions and changes. Additions that clarify some processes and others that assure career and technical education is part of the conversation and that every effort is made not to leave any district that wants to merge behind. Changes the Senate made that the House conferees appreciated included streamlining of the merger committee reporting process, reporting whether a committee chooses to move forward with merging or not. That reporting requires those districts to clearly explain how merging or not they will meet state education standards, district quality standards, how they will better provide their students with access to career and technical education, and how they will provide specialized services all at a cost parents, voters, and taxpayers value. In addition, the senate added assurances that CTE centers, regardless of how they are governed, will be at the table so access to them will be a factor in merger discussions. And the Senate editions highlight the need to make sure all districts have an opportunity to be part of a merger, providing a pathway for those who may find themselves left out for some reason to still be part of a larger district. For those who want no part of a merger, they will have to show their ability to meet the above mentioned standards and provision of services at a reasonable cost. The conference committee report includes some tweaks to the suggested groupings for merger committees, but largely reflects what left the house. However, due to the renumbering of the list of groupings, those small changes take up a fair portion of the report. The report also includes language on class size minimums that was passed that passed the house in the miscellaneous education bill, but was pulled by the Senate and put in H95. It is not new language to this body. The language in the Conferee's report on classifications and definitions, also takes up a fair amount of space, is also language that was in the House version of H nine fifty five, but has now added clarification that these definitions are in place while rule making is underway. The major change of course from what left the house in H nine fifty five is the proposed timeline for implementation of the foundation formula and the property tax classifications. The conferees agreed to a timeline that maintains the FY 30 implementation that is currently in act 73 rather than the FY 31 date that was in H nine fifty five as it left the house. This does create an ambitious but doable timeline, moving the merger votes up by eight months from November 2028 to March 2028. Madam speaker, the education policy in this amended bill looks very much like what left the house in April because of the thorough work of the committees, our colleagues in the house, and Vermonters who contributed to it. Your house education committee wrestled with a path forward to moving our state to fewer districts, to regionalizing services, and helping school leaders prepare for opportunities prepare for a new funding system while balancing the desire to improve opportunities in education for Vermont students. We listened, debated, and incorporated the work of the study committees that we created who did such important work in the off sessions. Individually and as a committee, we heard from Vermonters all from every corner of the state. Our colleagues in ways and means did much the same as they worked in parallel on important tax reforms and school construction funding. The result was a bill with a strong foundation of thoughtful work that the senate built upon. Madam speaker, I would at this time, I would like to yield to the member from Brattleboro.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Cornwall yields to the member from Brattleboro.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, as the member from Cornwall said, the language that you'll see in this committee of conference report reflects, the senate, most of other body, mostly agreeing with our good work here in the house, the careful work we have been doing for a number of years now to move forward on behalf of the Ways and Means Committee, a strong reforms to our property tax system. This looks like more consistent grand lists across the state. It looks like a much simpler property tax credit system that is both understandable for Vermonters and more affordable. And it looks like continuing to change our tax classifications so that we can tax second homes at a rate different from that of homesteads and commercial properties. In this language, we have, agreed to in our committee of conference report, the date for all of those valuable property tax changes on behalf of Vermonters moves up a single year to be effective in f y thirty. And then, they built on our good work with a few very careful detailed changes. They accepted the bulk of our work on regional assessment districts. However, the tax department asked that we hold off on a small section, regarding appeals language until the Department of Taxes can do some more thoughtful work on that. And so, that work has been moved to next year to a set of recommendations that we'll hear. They added a new section modifying our tax sale laws for small seasonal recreational communities. They took some language regarding, guidance for evaluation of manufactured home communities that I believe we've discussed before in this body, and they are issuing that guidance, quite soon without the need for statutes. And so that was removed from the committee of conference report and from the bill when it left the senate. And then they built on our incredibly careful work on property classifications to close two possible loopholes, one related to lodging establishments and one related to bona fide landlord tenant relationships, and we thank them for that work and accepted those changes. And then, in a number of sections, they built on our careful framework for school construction, which is a necessary part of realizing the dreams and the goals that we have related to improving educational opportunities for our kids and strengthening our communities. And they did that by, strengthening the timelines, the order of operations, ballot warning language, and procedures throughout the language, and we thank them for their we thanked them for their careful work. They changed a few of the ratios that we set up, for how school construction is funded, but still a incredibly generous school construction program that should enable new schools and improved school buildings throughout the state for all of our kids. Between the careful work that was done on education governance, on access to education, on significant improvements to our next steps, for school construction and our next steps for tax. We are grateful for the collaboration that we've had with the other body. And, madam speaker, just like to take this opportunity to, again, thank our staff, thank all of our committees of jurisdiction, and, frankly, all of the many members who have spent so much time talking to their local communities, talking to the folks who work in their schools, to the kids who attend their schools, and to every neighbor who wanted to talk about these issues at the grocery store. It made our work stronger and better, and I am grateful for folks' support on this committee of conference report. Thank you.

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

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Thank you, manager speaker. I support many of the provisions of h nine fifty five as reflected in the conference committee report, and I especially appreciate the goal of creating regional high schools that bring TechEd to an integrated secondary education program in order to boost the breadth and depth of learning that should be available to all students. However, I will vote no on the report for two basic reasons. First, I don't believe that we are being fair to teachers and administrators trying to educate our children in a cost effective manner if we impose arbitrary caps on school spending without giving them the tools to efficiently manage their resources. I fear that student learning will suffer unless unless we scrutinize spending and revenue exemptions from the Ed Fund with the same determination and detail we use on the general fund, the transportation fund, and the capital budget. We need to ask whether the categories of spending from the Ed fund are necessary, are at reasonable levels, and are properly sourced in terms of revenue. If we cannot reduce spending from the Ed fund, I fear that our property education property taxes will be remain higher than they need to be. The second reason I do not support this bill is its potentially negative impact on well performing and cost effective community elementary schools. I appreciate legislative findings in H nine fifty five. They contain the following words. Research demonstrates that closing small elementary schools often leads limited or inconsistent cost savings once transportation, capital adjustments, and community impacts are considered, and may negatively affect student outcomes and family engagement, especially in rural areas. The committee conference report on top of to H95 and top of the provisions of Act 73 enacted last year have the effect of making it more likely than not that many community elementary schools across the state will be closed over the upcoming years. H nine fifty five disguises these impacts on smaller elementary schools with the language of voluntary mergers, but it is not the race, the real impact of the bill by means of a study committee process that will have varying impacts on school districts, especially those that have been merged into unified unions after act 46, a minimum class size that I feel will disproportionately affect smaller schools, and the criteria incumbent in the school construction program that will incentivize consolidation, even if the impact is to close an elementary school. We could have we could have protected the these wealth appointing elementary schools if we had enacted measures to provide a meaningful voice to those towns before their school is closed. In the absence of those such protections, smaller schools will be in the minority, and a school district will be authorized by law to close an elementary school for any reason or for no reason at all. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Mount Gilead.

[Representative Kate McCann (Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, as a long time public school teacher and a long and a two term legislator, I know that the actions we take here today have a lasting impact in our classrooms, in our communities, and most critically, in how we engage students in a way that ensures all of them are prepared for the futures they want. I want us to reflect on how we got to a compromise on h nine five five. In short, we listened. When the reform fever hit, there was talk of nearly complete Montpelier control of our local public schools. Mandatory mergers, dictated maps, forced school closures, stripping power from elected school boards. For light thankfully, we were smart enough to establish a process wherein we could actually listen to our fellow Vermonters. Our act seventy three redistricting task force heard from thousands of parents, educators, school administrators, business owners, and students, and they told us to slow down. They told us they didn't wanna lose a say in their local schools. They told us how important those schools are to the fabric of this state's small towns. H nine five five reflects that input. It also lays out an orderly process where Vermonters have a say in the future of their schools. I would argue that's a good thing. And while we listen to Vermonters concerns, we also must acknowledge that Vermonters want relief from the onerous, opaque, unpredictable, and ever increasing property tax. And they didn't want us to dismantle their public schools in the process. Though age nine five five has some mechanisms that should over time bend the cost curve, if ever so slightly, it is clear we have more work to do. Madam speaker, I urge this body and whoever is elected to serve in it for the next two years to continue listening to Vermonters. It is they who put us here and it is they whom we serve. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Unidentified Member from South Burlington]: Madam speaker, given the magnitude of this bill, I would like to request that when the vote taken, it be taken by roll.

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

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would it be alright with you, madam speaker, if I sat while I asked the question? Thank you. May I please inquire of the presenter of the tax portion of the bill?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Bridal Burrows interrogated.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I think I heard you say, and I've been reading through the report of the committee of conference, and I can't find it. And I haven't didn't read it before, so I'm just I'm asking you to clarify or or asking the member to clarify what they meant by set asides for recreational communities and something to do with lodging establishments. Thank you.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes. The, other body realized that part of how we had framed some of the definition of second homes, if a lodging establishment was configured and by configured, I actually mean, like, the way the doors and refrigerator might be in the hotel room. If it was configured in a particular way, it could accidentally qualify as a second home property, and that's not how we intended to classify it. And so they closed that loophole. And then, the second piece is, actually something that we clarified in the miscellaneous tax bill and then they carried through to here, which is last biennium, we passed, a change in the property transfer tax and realized, this biennium with the support of the Department of Taxes that we had created an inadvertent loophole where someone could essentially sell their property to a trust and rent it back to themselves for free. And so we made sure to close that loophole in the context of this provision. And then there is a final part where which is somewhat separate from some other provisions of the bill that updates some legislation that we also passed last biennium related to changes to create consistency in tax sales for municipalities that varies, that small scale resident, small scale vacation communities. The easiest way for me to understand this is to imagine, like, one of those sweet lakes with small cottages around it that was, like, maybe built in the early sixties of seasonal homes that those very small properties that are not habitable year round could wind up delinquent on their municipal taxes for decades and never actually get to the tax sale threshold dollar tax sale threshold amount. And so we created a they the senate created a provision to make sure that properties that were not lived in year round, that were not homesteads, could be in a slightly different category for tax sales. And I can find those sections if needed, but it might take me a second.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Madam speaker, does that does what you're describing include ski resorts?

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, it really depends on the exact details of the ski resort. It is they're privately owned plots of land. And so it's possible that a ski resort could have attached to it a very complicated condo situation, but probably not. And I can sort of dig into the details with you, madam speaker, and with legislative council to get the exact details of it, but, likely not. Because a ski resort would likely need to be a place that people could sleep in the winter comfortably, and so that property would be weatherized, in which case it would not fall into this provision.

[Representative Elizabeth Burrows (West Windsor)]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Manchester.

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: Madam speaker, I I rise today in strong support of this bill. Like, like many of us do, I host regular coffee hours back home all, you know, all around my district. And, for the past two years, it has been remarkable. The extent to which all people have wanted to talk about is, education reform and education transformation. And I've said I've said on this floor before that I feel like in some ways, the district that I represent is a very spicy microcosm of all the issues that we talk about when we talk about education transformation. I, represent, a fully public, small, rural pre k through 12 district. I represent a totally non operating, very, very small district that doesn't operate a public school at all. They send all their kids. And then I operate a hybrid district that operates and tuitions. And so we we have it all. And unanimously, almost to a person at these dozens of coffee hours I've held and all the times that I've, you know, stood on a mic in front of a gym full of people at town meeting, the consensus has been no forced mergers. Nobody wanted it. And it is remarkable to me how far this conversation has come from the days when I was showing a forced merger map with five districts to

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: where we

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: are today. A process that really in many ways turns the conversation back to communities. So I'm happy to support this bill, and I hope members will join me in doing the same.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The question is, shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

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

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes. 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. And when the clerk calls your name, please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the house adopt the report of the committee of conference on its part? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Austin of Colchester. Yes. Bailey of High Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. Rebecca of Winooski. Yes. Byrong of Vergens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Yes. Black of Essex.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Bloomley in Burlington.

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

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Bosland in Westminster. Bosch of Clarendon. Yes. Gluten of Berry City. Yes. Boyden of Cambridge. Yes. Brady of Williston. Renegade of Georgia. Yes. Burgum of Saint Almistown. Brown of Richmond. Yes. Burditt at West Rutland. Yes. Burkhardt South Burlington. Yes. Burrows of West Windsor. No. Burditt Cabot. Campbell, St. Johnsbury?

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Canfield of Fair Haven? Yes. Carris Duncan of Whitingham? No. Casey of Montpelier?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Casey Hubbardton? Yes. Chief in East Montpelier? Charlton of Chester? Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Yes.

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

[Unidentified Member from Colchester]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Cole of Hartford. Yes. Conlon of Cornwall.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Cooper Pownall.

[Unidentified Member from Colchester]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Corcoran of Bennington. Critchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Ennisburg? Yes. Dickinson of Saint Albans Town? Yes. Deborah Debbie Dolan Willamstown? Dodge of Essex? Yes. Dolan of Essex Junction? Yes. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury? Dolgin at St. Johnsbury. Donahue of Northfield. Yes. Duke of Burlington. Yes. Durfee of Chefsbury. Eastes of Guilford. Yes. Emmons of Springfield.

[Representative Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Feltus of Linden. Yes. Galfetti, Berrytown. Yes. Garifano of Essex. Yes. Gulman of Rockingham.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Good now, Brattleboro. Yes. Ghostland of Northfield. Yes. Granny of Jericho. Greer Bennington. Raguar Fairfield. Hangover. Harpaul Glover. Yes. Harvey of Castleton.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Hadrick of Burlington.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Higley of Lowell? Yes. Holcomb of Norwich? Yes. Cooper Randolph? Potent of Essex Junction? Yes. Howard of Rutland City? Howland of Rutland Town? Point Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester? Yes. James of Manchester? Yes. Kasinski of Burke? Yes. Keyser of Rutland City? Yes. Kimball Woodstock? Yes. Putner of Burlington? Kornheiser, Brattleboro? Yes. Cresnau, South Burlington? Yes. Labour, Morgan? Yes. Lally Shelburne? Yes. Malone to South Burlington?

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Lamont of Morristown? No. Larusha Franklin? Lipsky of Stowe. Logan of Burlington. Yes. Long and Uffin. Yes. Long and Milton. Yes. Leaders of Lincoln. Yes. Ludo of Saint Albans City. No. Maguire of Bretlin City. Malay of Pittsburgh.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Marcon of Coventry. Yes. Madison of Thetford. No. McCann of Montpelier. Yes. McCoy of Pulteney. Yes. McGillibr Report. Nicholas of Milton.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Mollie of Callis. Meniere of South Burlington.

[Representative Peter Conlon (Cornwall)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Morgan Allen, Milton. Yes. Morgan Emma, Milton.

[Unidentified Member from Colchester]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Morris of Springfield. Yes. Morris of Bennington. Borrow Weston. Yes. Roecky Putney. Yes. Nelson at Derby. Yes. Nielsen at Brandon. Yes. Niagara Bennington. North of Fairisburg. Yes. Moise of Volkert. Yes. Nugent of South Burlington? Yes. O'Brien of Humbridge? OD Burlington? Oliver Sheldon? Yeah. Olsen of Starksboro? No. Page in Newport City? Arsenault in Newbury. Pez of Colchester. Yes. Pinson Aldo Dorsett. Yes. House of Hinesburg. Yes. Powers of Waterford. Yes. Priestly Bradford. Yes. Bridget Burditt. Burditt. Bridget Yes. Rachel's in Burlington. Yes. Cyclace Randolph? Yes. Shyam Middlebury? Yes. Scully of Burlington? Sheldon of Middlebury? Yes. Sibilia of Dover? Yes. Susie of Barrytown? Yes. Southworth of Walden? Yes. Squirrel of Underhill? Yes. Steady Milton. Yes. Stevens of Waterbury.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Stone of Burlington. Yes. Sweeney of Shelburne. Yes. Tyler V. Crimp. Yes. Taylor Mendon. Thomas Tomlunowski. Torrey Mortown. Walker Swanton. Watches at the Barre City. Yes. Waters Evans of Charlotte. Yes. Wells of Brownington. Yes. White at Wakesfield. Yes. White at Bethel. Winter Of Ludlow? Wood Of Waterbury? Yes. Yakavoni, Morristown?

[Representative Herb Olson (Starksboro)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Bartholomew of Hartland? Boswell Westminster? Christie Hartford, Dobrovich Williamstown, Maguire Fairfield, Huber Randolph, Howard of Rutland City, Maguire of Rutland City, Niagara Of Bennington, O'Brien of Tonbridge, Parsons of Newbury, Scully of Burlington, Tory Mortown, and Winter Of Ludlow.

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

[Unidentified Member from Colchester]: A devotional earlier this year shared a message from a Jewish text that you are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it. For me, this speaks broadly to what motivates me to return to this chamber, but specifically to the difficult work of education transformation that remains. I voted yes with the recognition that our work, difficult work is not done.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from South Burlington.

[Unidentified Member from South Burlington]: This bill goes some distance toward fixing some of the problems that prevented me from supporting act 73. I still have serious concerns about this bill. I voted yes to continue the conversation if I am lucky enough to be trusted by my constituents to serve in the next biennium.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Jericho.

[Representative Edye Graning (Jericho)]: I voted yes to honor the countless hours that this body, the commission on the future of public education, and the school district redistricting task force spent studying this issue and listening to Vermonters. I urge all of us involved in this transformation to continue to listen.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Stowe.

[Representative Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I voted no because the property tax burden for my community was their number one concern. This bill's timeline does not move fast enough to reduce the cost to stowage homesteaders and other taxpayers because of our excessive grand list.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Shelburne.

[Representative Kate Lalley (Shelburne)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[House Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: You may. When

[Representative Kate Lalley (Shelburne)]: I read the redistricting task force report in December twice, I knew there was a viable plan in it. I wanna thank the people who worked on that plan and then took a lot of heat for not including the maps. In the end, their overall plan is at the core of September, and I applaud all of them for that creative work.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Derby.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Madam speaker, may I explain my vote?

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Richard Nelson (Derby)]: The promise of state aid for school school construction has been needed for years. This is the incentive that will drive consolidation for efficiencies in education.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Norwich.

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

[Representative Kathleen James (Manchester)]: You may.

[Representative Rebecca Holcombe (Norwich)]: Thank you. Passage of this bill was certain, but I hope we approach quality of implementation and due diligence on the funding formula with the same fervor. I wanna sincerely thank the education committee. I'm impressed by your careful and your principled work. I voted no as a caution. I voted no because our tax policy and now our yield bill, which we're about to vote on, undermined the very careful intent of this bill by punishing districts before the supports, the cost containment, and the opportunity to approach governance change outlined in this bill can even take effect. I vote no because I don't know how districts can stay within the foundation plan when the governor undermines every attempt at cost containment, including vetoing reference based pricing on teacher health care.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Member from Essex Junction.

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

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: You may.

[Representative Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: We have listened to Vermonters. H nine fifty five delivers a transformation plan focused on a strong public education system that expands opportunities for our kids, keeps decisions local, and will save money. There will continue to be work to do. I appreciate the work of your committees and our staff and I'm proud to vote yes.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 125. Those voting no, 10. The ayes have it and the report of the committee of conference is adopted. Member from Pultely, can you please offer us a motion to deliver house bill nine fifty five to the governor forthwith?

[Representative Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion to deliver h nine fifty five to the governor forthwith.

[Speaker Jill Krowinski]: The member from Pulte Knee moves that we deliver house bill nine fifty five to the governor forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have ordered house bill nine fifty five to be delivered to the governor forthwith. Members at this time, we are gonna take a brief recess and my goal is for us to come back and address hopefully the remainder of the bills. We're still waiting from one from the senate. So with that, the house will stand in recess till the fall. The