Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Everyone, this is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Friday, 01/23/2026 until five in the morning. So as our tradition is, on Friday mornings, we hear from our Indian intern and our Norwich intern. So are you going to go first or I can't take it straight and assuming Okay. Very good. All right.

[Cabot Sales]: Good morning. For the record, Cabot Sales, UBM intern. Again, I am reporting on the Senate Committee for Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs. I'm going

[Speaker 0]: to go through day by day.

[Cabot Sales]: Tuesday, they heard from Vermont Housing Conservation Board. Some of the notable discussions were on measuring impact. There were questions about the methods of tracking and measuring the impact of investments. The VHCB noted that they do not have a good method for tracking right now, but that's something they are working on to quantify the impact their investments are making. And the committee expressed confidence that they are having an impact, but they would like to see numbers on that. They also discussed wages and housing affordability, specifically discussing the relationship between wage growth and rising home prices. The VHCB highlighted the gap between the adequate wages earned versus or needed to afford a two bedroom apartment versus what's actually earned. And that's $17 versus $29 an hour. So that was a topic of discussion. They also were discussing federal considerations such as interest rate uncertainty, which is at the top of their list right now, and that federal contributions are still having a strong impact on the work that they're doing. So they're keeping a close eye on that. Moving on to the Chamber of Commerce. A couple proposals they have for the HOME Act were for applications to lose points if their municipality had restricted zoning laws relative to other applicants. And the committee was very positive about this proposal. They also discussed Act 181, and there's a concern that came up a few times throughout the week that towns were not opting in to tier 1A because they would have to take on certain administration of Act two fifty permitting requirements. And they discussed changing that from an opt in to an opt out for tier 1A. Then they heard from Let's Build Homes. I won't give too much about that because you've already heard it. They discussed the same concerns about opting out of tier one

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: a

[Cabot Sales]: versus in. And then they also propose let's build homes proposed waiving sales tax on construction materials for residential buildings, removing the cap on downtown and village tax credits, which I'll also discuss more a little bit later that came up, and a one time investment housing acceleration fund. Moving on to Wednesday for outdoor recreation, they reviewed the performance of grants for outdoor recreation, specifically the impact initiatives. They requested committee support for the allocation of $500,000 to the Vermont Outdoor Recreation Economic Collaborative, OREC. That money is already there, but they just were asking the committee to support it. They discussed measuring ROI again. BOBA does have metrics for measuring ROI, though they did not specifically say what those were. They would said get back to the committee with reports because those are not public right now. Moving on to the Public Assets Institute. This was a presentation of data primarily focused on housing and healthcare. We're hearing similar things. Healthcare is the most expensive in Vermont out of all states. Housing prices are rising faster than income is rising. And Vermont has seen more productivity growth than income growth over the period that they were analyzing. Then they heard from the regional development corporation. Legislative priorities from them included VEGI Act 181 again and Brownsfield, specifically requesting state money because it's more flexible for that. And then they discussed the building standards that was of interest to the committee, specifically that state building standards in Vermont are very different than what they are in surrounding regions and figuring out how to create more consistency in building standards, especially in New Hampshire, which has much looser building standards than Vermont. Then they heard from the Vermont Downtown Program. This is where they discussed in more depth the Downtown Village Center Tax Credit Program. They've seen a 25 to one return on investment on those tax credits. And they discussed the cap, which is currently at $3,000,000 on tax credits, because demand always exceeds this cap and they are seeing a good return on it. So they were questioning why does the cap exist? And there was strong support for removing the cap altogether. They also discussed whether the application process poses barriers and the program administrators noted that they consistently update the application process each year. So they're on top of that. Then they heard from the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. This was mostly a general update and overview. The one notable thing from that was health care affordability, and they're noticing that businesses are choosing not to purchase group plans for health care coverage for their employees and leading them to the private marketplace, and that was a bit of a concern. And then Thursday, they were introduced to bills from Senator Andrew Perchlich. The first one was s two thirty, an act relating to flexible working arrangements. This just makes it so unless an employee's request to work from a flexible location impedes on operations for legal or contractual obligations to the business, then they must accept that. And then they also heard from Senator Perch like S two seventy and accolating to the right to charge electric vehicles at home.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. So he submitted that would effectively make it so that the state and any company in the state would have to allow remote work. Is that what that bill does?

[Cabot Sales]: Correct. Yes. So the state is

[Unidentified committee member]: it would the state would be forcing businesses to do that. Are we even allowed to I'm sorry.

[Cabot Sales]: Yeah. So from my understanding and what

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: I Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: I do not stand well

[Speaker 0]: on that. Yeah. Yeah.

[Cabot Sales]: The origin of this bill was the governor's order for state employees to return to office. This would affect both private and public sector employees. And, yeah, the the wording was unless it's crucial to the business' operations or there's something in the employment contract that says they have to show up to work, then the employee has the right to work from home if they want, and the employer must accept that. So that is the wording.

[Speaker 0]: Way to employers. Way to draw new employers in the state home. Yeah. Sorry.

[Unidentified committee member]: Thank you for that. That's very interesting. Do we have a likewise bill here? We don't have any notes like that.

[Speaker 0]: It probably would probably go to general, wouldn't it? Probably. It could come here, but probably would go to general. I don't know if there's companion bill.

[Unidentified committee member]: My guess is Scott will know all that. And

[Cabot Sales]: that's all I have for this week. Thank you. Any other questions?

[Speaker 0]: I'm

[Unidentified committee member]: curious about that specific thing. Was there any testimony taken and was was it there only the union that showed up and saying this

[Cabot Sales]: is a great deal? It was just the introduction from Senator Kirk. Like, that's it. I could pull it up and

[Speaker 0]: No. No. That's fine. Yeah. That's fine. Anything else? A nice nice conversation with your dad the other day. Glad to hear that. I tuned in,

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: but I had to watch it.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Thanks, Kevin. Thank you. Yeah. Julie. Morning.

[Bailey Davis]: Morning, everybody. For the record, my name is Bailey Davis. I'm the Norwich intern. So for this week, I'm just gonna be wrapping up some loose ends, from last week in regards to the CT educators. I know everyone here had a few questions. Of course, I wanted to get them some answers on that. So the first question, the first, loosen, I wanna wrap up is in regards to licensure timelines. So I'm gonna cover basically how we do it here in Vermont first, and then later on, there's another question generally surrounding the requirements in other states and how they're addressing particularly the shortages in CT educators. So first and foremost, in terms of the licensure timeline, obviously, like I said last week, there's that work requirement. You have to have six years. If you have a high school diploma or a GED, you have to have six years in the actual working field, the technical field that you wanna enter. With the associate's degree. That's a minimum of four years. So that's right off the bat. That's, you know, a time line that's set, to to even enter, write a barrier to entry, in regards to just work experience. So and then there's the multiple pathways. So like I talked about last week too is the apprenticeship program. There's the apprenticeship license where it's, you know, license you get if you can secure a job offer at one of the CTE centers in Vermont. So as I said last week, there's 17 CTE centers, each specializing in different fields. So a holder of that license would have to first secure a job offer from those particular centers, then go through follow on training. And I think there's a question too about who these teachers work under, these apprentice license holders work under. So, typically, they're working under mentors like, mentor teachers, so not just any teachers, specifically experienced teachers who have, you know, a wealth of knowledge and are sort of trained to to really, you know, help these teachers get the qualifications they need. Some, there's also a structure called the CTTEP, Career and Technical Teacher Education Program. That structures the the training once they achieve these this license into a four year program. And license holders must you know, if if you're going through the apprenticeship, the apprentice license process, if that's, like, the pathway you wanna take, you must complete that program in order to obtain a permanent level one educator license. And that's done through, places like, you know, the, Vermont State University. They have programs for that. And then there's also, a a special, program, which I'll get into next. It's called the accelerated alternative pathway. So that allows individuals that have an undergraduate degree to become a certified educator, and then they can get that industry experience after. So it's just kind of a different pathway that prioritizes the education aspect first and then the technical experience after. So that timeline typically takes eight months to two years. And like I said before, that just it just switches up the actual requirements as opposed to having industry experience first and going into education going in education then going into industry. And so this the third pathway is actually an interesting one. So this timeline usually takes six months to a year. It's called the peer review pathway, and that's particularly for individuals with, certain industry experience, particularly a lot of industry experience, but no traditional training, in regards to, you know, teaching. So that requirement, they must demonstrate proficiency proficiency in Vermont's core teaching standards, and then pass the Praxis Core and then, pass a test in the specific, CT endorsement, which is a practice practice core two, which makes sure, you know, they know actually what they're teaching. So these are this is more geared towards people who have a lot of experience, and it it allows them a pathway into being a CTE educator. It doesn't necessarily mean they have to go through a program. It just means they can demonstrate the actual skills they need. And so another question that you guys had was in regards to what other states have been doing to address the shortages in CTE educators. So for financial incentives is what I looked into. First, in Maine, actually, in 2021, passed a law that includes CTE educators in the qualification of teachers when it comes to minimum salaries. So what it allows it for is it allows for those CTE educators who otherwise weren't included in the classification of teacher to be included in in in, you know, salary increases that goes along with the minimum of 40,000 currently in Maine. Then another interesting incentive is in Idaho. In Idaho, they implemented a career ladder system. So what this allows them to do is take people who have a lot of industry experience. And instead of starting them out as a, you know, a a beginning teacher salary wise, it allows them to be placed in an upper ladder when it comes to when it comes to salary. So it places them in people, maybe educators who've been around for, you know, five, ten years, given that they also have experience. They also have, you know, that that work experience. And I don't know if you guys have the handout or the my report, but it actually has the the graph. But the whole idea behind this is people can transfer from their particular industry into being a CTE educator without taking a massive pay cut, which, you know, is a good incentive, for, you know, particularly skilled people, to go and teach the next generation. Another interesting, proposal and, actually, well, it's, now enacted, is in Kentucky. They use something called an adjunct certificate, which allows, there to be part time CTE educators, which means, like I said, for a lot of these, right, experienced industry professionals can teach part time. They don't have to be full time, and it also allows them to not necessarily obtain all the certifications, which, of course, addresses a shortage because they can go right into teaching. The requirements for this, however, they must hold either a postsecondary degree, associates or bachelor's, or have a significant amount of work experience. So, I mean, the whole, real benefit of this is that people can, particularly with a lot of experience, can go immediately and teach part time without giving up maybe their full career. They can work up to, I think, 69% of the days of the year, maximum. And so, you know, they can have both their career and also teach at the same time without having all those certifications, all that, barrier to entry that otherwise they would have to go through. And I'm gonna open up to any questions if anyone has any.

[Speaker 0]: Questions? Great. That's thank you for that research. That's very helpful. We don't have it yet. There's an issue with with the system right now, but it'll be posted as soon as

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: it It is now.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, is it now? Okay, great. So we do have it. That's great. Thank you, Bailey. Thank you. Andy, any reports from committees you're chatting?

[Andy (unidentified)]: I had a good conversation with Michael on digital infrastructure. Right now, it looks like Consolidated's wanting to get rid of their copper

[Speaker 0]: all the way out.

[Andy (unidentified)]: There's a little concern about some people that may be left behind, that maybe don't have any other means of phone system.

[Speaker 0]: So they're provider of last resort. So how do they get away from that?

[Andy (unidentified)]: Well, guess it's going to be a phased situation where first they're gonna, remove the the copper from places that have other means. It's gonna be Does that

[Speaker 0]: mean that they're replacing the copper with fiber? Or are they just dropping custom?

[Andy (unidentified)]: That's that was one of the things I was wondering about. That's that's part of what's going on is how exactly are you going to bring this forward. Right now they were just, what he was saying is consolidated has a phased approach and they maybe, I don't know, I think that's part of what everything's going on in there is how are we going to make sure these people that have no other means of communication, you know, what are you gonna do with them?

[Speaker 0]: Well, they're regulated by the PUC. So Right. They would have to get authority from the PUC in order to do this. And they are, by law, required to be the provider of last resort. So that means that they have to go to the last mile. So how they do that, I think, up to them, but I don't think that they can leave people stranded. No, don't think so. You know, they've already started, is from what I'm if they're working with the CUDs as well. So the CUDs have all this money for fiber, and they're the ones that are going to light it. I don't know. I know there's some other outfits. I'm working with the CUD in The Kingdom, CUD in Memorial County, there's, what the heck is it, it's not Xfinity, it's another one, but they're the ones that are Oh, Phytium? Phytium. Yeah, Phytium. Fine. Yeah.

[Andy (unidentified)]: Phytium. That was one of the things they mentioned is, of course, when if you go fiber, happens? Power goes out.

[Speaker 0]: You got nothing? Yeah. We I mean, years ago when we were dealing with, when we had jurisdiction over that subject, that's one of the things we always talked about as fiber started coming out, how do you keep it wet? You know, I think Comcast has some generators out there that would help keep some of their stuff going, but Comcast is a blend. They have fiber in, they have CockerStill. Right,

[Andy (unidentified)]: And the only other thing was the cloud computing and stuff like that. There may be some data privacy intersectionality there. That's all about.

[Speaker 0]: Is there any other answer?

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: The healthcare committee has been taking a pretty interesting bill, age five eighty three, having to do with financial transactions and how hospitals are organized as a corporation or whatever, And some of the, which would be very familiar with, in terms of some of the stuff we deal with, but it's strictly healthcare entities. Part of it has to do with the concern about private equity, and their acquisition of some of the smaller practices, that kind of thing. So really interesting stuff, obviously, just focused on the healthcare entities themselves, but just thought I'd bring that to your attention. And then second bill I'm following is a terrific private care access bill. It has a real strong piece in there about workforce in terms of how to replace some of the older practitioners, primary care docs, a little before their time, kind of fed up with everything,

[Speaker 0]: and how do you

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: incentivize newer folks to come in, go to medical school here, stay here, do residency, especially in rural areas.

[Speaker 0]: We're gonna reschedule the floor. I know Emily has something also. So when we come back, we're gonna hear about the remote training program. I don't think it's gonna take all that time. So then we'll we'll come back to everyone so they can get their reports. Great. So Sounds good. On the floor, are you reporting today? No. You don't notice yet? No. It got pushed approach. They went to

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: approach maybe because they were confused about something.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Oh, that's good. We had a lot of practice. So it's been cracking down yesterday. Yeah.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Upshot is I got a good night's sleep last night.

[Speaker 0]: You know, I'm a whole weekend out of breath. Exactly.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Yeah. Right. The whole thing.

[Speaker 0]: It's gonna be more than spectacular.

[Monique Priestley (Clerk)]: Now now I can I just need to figure out how to condense it a little bit? Okay. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Good. Okay. So let's go on wide. So we'll be back here ten minutes up.