Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Wednesday, 04/15/2026 at 02:12 in the afternoon. So we're just back from the floor, And we're going to continue discussions on S three twenty seven. One piece that's in there is S one thirty eight, which is C PACE. And so we have Joan Goldstein with us from Vida. Joan, thank you for joining us this afternoon.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Thank you very much for having me. I'm also joined by Sam Buckley, our interim under of Vida. We learned about this legislation when it was in Senator Watson's committee and she had asked us if we wanted to be administrator and we didn't really know anything about it. So the team gathered and we learned a bit more about it and how it's popular in many other states. And we thought from an economic development perspective, we could support this. In fact, when I say support it, meaning we would like to be a lender in this space just because of the environmental resilience measures people, businesses and property owners have had to do, just long term economic vitality of our industrial and commercial buildings and energy performance, of course. So we support the bill. We had commented on it along the way. I see that the most recent version, if I'm looking at the most recent, added the resiliency measures and spelled out quite a few. I thought that was great. We did recommend that. We also wanted to replace assessed value with appraised or as complete or stabilized value, just so that it matched kind of commercial practice. Assessed value wouldn't really result in any projects. And I think the other thing we recommended it had that you had to exceed code requirements and we wanted it to either meet or exceed. And I think that was also changed, but I think now it just says meet requirement. So one nuance there would be if someone's doing something above and beyond code, does that mean that they're not eligible? So that would be one thing that we're thinking about. The other is the express of disallowance, if you will, on if you're a lender, you cannot be administrator. So the way we were approaching this was, well, let's see how much take up there And if Vermont Economic Development Authority ends up being a lender and a municipality asks us to do the administration for them the way it's worded now, we would not be able to do that. And we thought what better way to learn on how to administer by also being a lender. So that was our, yeah, that's really the bulk of our commentary. I don't know, Sam, did I cover everything?

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yes, I believe you did. Mean, just to add on to that administrator role, I mean, it wouldn't just be for VITA. We wouldn't think that being a lender should preclude someone to be an administrator in the absence of not having an administrator because we could see that being a roadblock to it happening if no one, including us at the moment, wants to be an administrator, you know, expressly, you know, on a statewide basis. If there's not able to be an administrator and lenders who ordinarily want to be one, but would be willing to be one in the absence of any other administrator that could prevent uptake from CPs kind of being adopted.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Do you feel that if potential administrators need to be thinking about then like a 30 time horizon for administering, if that's as long as if that's the maximum term of an admission phase It's been a mystery for thirty years. Yeah, mean, it's hard to answer that question,

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: so I'm not coming at this from the bureau of administrative, but So rather a for me, the idea would be for the length of the term of the loan. Currently, we don't go outside the bar, but instead would do an initial term and then possibly could re up. Well, five years fixed, and then we reprice the loan and we can do amortization up to twenty years. And so for some of the state, amortization for longer term, like wastewater, revolving loan fund, those things, but generally not that long.

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Right, that being said, I think again, we're starting to learn more about C PACE. And so if we were gonna make C PACE loans, I think we would probably look to a program that would be in line with industry practices. Not just jumping out of the gate saying we'll do thirty year loans, but if that's the practice, we would evaluate that and possibly do that. We would want to offer terms that were in coordinate with typical the market seat base terms are. So that could possibly be another reason, again, for the ability for the lender to be the administrator, because if they're already in it for the term of the loan as a lender, they're much more likely to be hanging in there as the administrator. I mean, of the to my, again, cursory knowledge of how CPAs works on the administration level, a lot of the administrative role occurs upfront in conjunction with origination, verifying that the C PACE loan package and all the supporting requirements are in compliance with the C PACE legislation and that the role of the administrator is not as in-depth on an ongoing basis.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: If VITA was interested in doing these, is there any changes to your statute that need to be done in order for you to

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: No, not that we're aware. Just from reviewing the statute, it doesn't really limit us except for the legal lending limit right now. 6,000,000 for energy, 5,000,000 for.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: There's also a section, last section in the bill that talks about a study of DFR, and coming back with recommendations of who should be the administrator. I think in testimony that we took yesterday, I guess we're trying to figure out, do we really need to name who an administrator is? Would that be left up to the municipality to figure out who they would hire to be the administrator?

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yeah, that's exactly the approach. Like when we first saw this, we thought, can you enable this legislation without naming a particular administrator? Giving Vermont time to get acclimated to this to understand, is there truly a market? Is there uptake so that we don't have all this upfront work about it with somebody being named. And no one is gonna be putting their hand up to be named if they're not familiar with it. It's kind of awkward. So we think indeed that it could be enabled without naming an administrator if there's unbelievable uptake and it just becomes unbearable and there's so much work for municipalities to do, perhaps. I feel like let's wait and see. Let's see what this demand is like. Let's see what the uptake is.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Maybe, but as you were both talking about, is could the lender also be the administrator, the legislation if it's not.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Oh, that part, yeah, we would want to change that just so that it allows us to be if indeed that is necessary. Keep it open rather than prohibiting it outright.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think that came from DFR.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Oh, they wanted that.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yes. Oh. So I'm just wondering if, Yeah. I I I mean, I just wonder how much of an update there'll be if the lender cannot be the administrator as well. Right. I I think the FR was worried that a municipality, it could look like a municipality is favoring one lender over another.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Well, you're really the lender. Oops, sorry. I was just thinking that the lender would probably be chosen by the borrower, right? So that the property owner is gonna go out to get financing. And then whether the municipality could do this on their own or not is the question. Likely party would be for the lender only because they're in it. So I can't, unless there is somebody who steps up and says, wait, wait, wait, I'll do that. And if DFR is playing that role, I mean, were adamant about it. I didn't get to watch the testimony.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well, I don't think they're adamant, but I think that was their suggestion, which was incorporated by energy technology committee.

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: I guess the only thing I would just add on to that is perhaps there might be a solution where DFR would just have to approve if the lender and the administrator are one in the same. There would, you know, someone else would just DFR or someone else would be able to, you know, have that passed by them. For some reason, they determined that the lender was a bad actor or they saw some sort of conflict that we can't really foresee or contemplate right now that there, you know, someone else, there would be a party that would, try to sign off. In that way, it wouldn't preclude it from happening, but there would be some sort of guardrail there.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: have a question because you do have so many programs that you lend in. You also administer those programs, right? We service them.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: It's a little bit of a different terminology. So every time we make a loan, we're collecting interest, we're booking the transaction, going back and forth. In some cases, we're monitoring how did the project go, in some cases we're doing disbursements of construction projects. So that's all part of servicing. Administration, the way I think it's anticipated here, at least our recent understanding, would be that we would be doing administration for the actual municipality. Since the municipality is collecting the, they're actually collecting the assessment with property tax, maybe some don't want to do that extra level. So I got the impression that you're really working on behalf of the municipality, even though the borrower would end up paying for whatever fees would be charged by that servicer. I think the original intent was that some of the smaller towns wouldn't be able to handle the administration, similar to what we have in the TIF world that had always been a complaint. And I get that and I understand that, but I think like with any program, first let's see what the activity is and the quantity is and the demand is before we start appointing different people. So it's a little bit different than servicing them alone. It's a little bit more.

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Right, and just to add on to that, some programs that you might be thinking about that we do the servicing on like brownfields and clean water drinking water. Those projects start from the respective agencies, whether it be ACCD or DEC, and they determine eligibility. They pretty much do everything and then they give it to us saying this is an eligible project. Then we do our standard underwriting and do collect the payments as Joan said. But it is those agencies that are, if you were to compare the two doing the administration, if you will, on the front end, which is where we again contemplate most of the administration would be done in C PACE as well, would be on the front end before it becomes a loan.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, maybe that's where the rub is. Administrator has to determine whether or not the project is following the statute. And if you're the if you're also lender, is there a conflict there, I guess?

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Right. But lenders, I mean, not to get too deep into the weeds here, just in lending in general, when you're making a loan, you have to make sure it's, you know, or at least you should be making sure it's in compliance with all rules and laws and permits and things like that. I wouldn't necessarily say it's necessarily a conflict, you know, in that respect.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: But I guess we could make the same argument with Brownfields, right? What you just talked about. It's DEC or PCCD determining whether those projects are

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Right.

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: But in that case, it's their money, right? Their money and we're just helping them administer the loans. This case, it would be the lender's money.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: They wanna make sure.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: It's similar, but it's still quite different. The DEC role is so important on Brownfields because of the certification that they had all their assessments, that the corrective action plan is correct. There's lot of regs around it. This regulation, I mean, for veto, we would be looking at the legislation and making sure that our policy is of importance with that legislation. Yeah, I'm trying to think about an instance.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You wouldn't want to be lending to someone that's breaking law. Right, we couldn't. And

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: it's not unusual, again, given our preliminary assessment of the C PACE, national C PACE market, across the country, can go both ways. It can be, we've seen examples where the lender is the administrator, we've seen examples where the municipality is, we've seen examples where there is a statewide administrator. So it's not like we'd be treading new ground by allowing that provision in this I

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: think that's a bad idea. We'll have a conversation I think with DFR, see if we can have a workaround, but no concerned about being able to find administrators if Right. They're gonna need to know PFR is gonna sure what they'll say is, what's the standard? What do you want us to do? You just want us to approve the administrator or follow them along? I think it's just approving the administrator. Well, then they wanna know what standard we're supposed to Maybe they're gonna have to come up with the standard.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yeah. And then the municipality may not use an administrative, may do

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it themselves. Right, they can become the administrator. Is GFR ruled over the municipality though, whether they have the capacity to do that?

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Again, understanding is when CPAs lenders service the administrator in general, that's not where their main focus is. It's to do it in lieu of there being a designated one.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Right, they do because someone else is.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Right, yeah. The questions for Jonathan?

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Excellent, thanks for

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: your Thank you.

[Sam Buckley (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Thanks.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Peter.

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: Good afternoon, Chair and committee. For the record, Walk, I'm the Managing Director of Efficiency Vermont. We have a little bit of history with the residential PACE program which was put into place ten or fifteen years ago. Now it is much different than the way C PACE is contemplated in that all of the work was done upfront to enable the potential for the market to emerge. And I appreciate that this is really flipping that around and saying, let's let the market emerge and allow for municipalities to take advantage of it when that market emerges. Because there was a lot of work done at that point to pass activities through each of the municipalities to enable it to occur. And then we saw very little actual uptake of the residential PACE program. And so the way this is currently contemplated to my mind is a much better setup. Efficiency Vermont was the administrator of the residential PACE program because it made there was more alignment with what the requirements were. And we were talking about scales that were much smaller in nature, right? And very much alignment with the programs that we were already offering for folks in the residential sector. On the C PACE side, efficiency Vermont has been added to the working group, the DFR working group in legislation. We don't think we're the appropriate administrator for this because you really do need that lending expertise and that ability to evaluate whether the lender is appropriate for a community to work with. And that's not where our expertise lies. We're gonna be involved on the project side for sure, because anything that comes in for a C PACE loan is likely going to want to pursue efficiency Vermont incentives at the same time. And so I don't see an issue there, but in terms of actual administration, I would not contemplate that that would be something that we would want to do because we don't have the expertise to do it well. And so I think what Joan reflected to you was the idea of striking that language of the DFR working group. I am of the perspective that I think an entity like Vida, as I just mentioned, would be great in both roles as needed. But I also think that if there is a sufficient market for the use of these loan programs, then administrators will emerge to be able to work on that on behalf of community. And at that point, DFR could look at it. But to do it now when we don't know what the market looks like, it seems a little inappropriate. If you want to keep the working group as part of the legislation, would ask for efficiency Vermont to be removed. Because again, we don't see ourselves as the experts in financial matters, such that we'd be a good fit for the administrator. And so helping to craft who the administrator should be should not be something that we'd add a whole lot of value to. That's helpful.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: then the last thing I mentioned is Joan reflected upon language that suggests you would only be able to meet standards to get loans. I would agree with her that being able to exceed those standards is generally what our programs are used to support. So if the loan was only able to cover the component of meeting code, then going beyond code, which is really where you get the most energy efficiency value not be allowable under the loan. So I think making sure that to meet or exceed should be added to the language.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you know exactly where that is on the dock? Yeah,

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: I do not, but I'm happy to find it and send your committee assistant a note if that would be helpful.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Sure, we'll

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: I find wasn't aware that that was in there until Joan brought it up. So I was just reiterating her comment.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay, we'll find it.

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: So I think our primary interest is just to make clear that there are potential administrators out there. Is not the most appropriate for that role. And we encourage you to think about it as a let the market emerge, allow for either DFR approval or for a lender and they to be the administrator as well because I think an entity like Vita or some of the other lending institutions in Vermont that have public interest would be very good in that regard too.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Question?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you for your testimony. Can you talk about how currently the Efficiency Vermont programs work and how they're similar and different from what could be done through this program?

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: So I think where we see it is primarily in scale. Efficiency Vermont does work with East Rise Credit Union on a business energy loan program, But those loans are capped at $50,000 And so they're much smaller in scale that may be contemplated here. And those have worked well over the course of time to address needs. But I will say that most folks in the business community like to work with the lending institution they have comfort with, or use a program like VITA's existing programs. And so we only see about 20 of those loans or so a year. So it's a relatively small scale program. But then alongside those loans are the incentives for both updating existing facilities and building new facilities for businesses around the state. So those are direct incentive payments grants rather than loans.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It's not for the full improvement, right?

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: It is not. We typically are aiming to support a portion of the cost above the sort of baseline model or of a piece of technology that's out there or sort of work, which is often set at code, which again, it's a reason to go to have it in the language to be able to meet or exceed.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. Other questions for Peter?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you see those programs working with this so that it would give multiple streams of money to folks who wanted to build or update their land, update their property?

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: Yes, very much so. I think this brings another tool to the toolbox if that's what folks are interested in using. We see this across the board with projects that have, you know, lots of different funding sources, we end up being a part of that funding and financing stack that helps make projects possible and think about things like the Putnam Block in Bennington and the like, where big complex thorny projects that have to bring in lots of different sources to build them.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Other questions from Peter? Peter, on on our pace, is there is there something that we can do to make changes so that that becomes more helpful for residential property owner?

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: I don't think so. I think our pace sort of died on the vine because it puts a lot of risk on the homeowners. It creates another lien on their property that a traditional loan might not. And so what that's been replaced with is originally a program called the Heat Saver Loan Program that the Public Service Department launched, and then asked us to take on the management. It's the home energy loan program that we work through with local lenders to help folks be able to access the financing they need to take what are our rebates and bring them up to full project costs. And that is working very well. And so that was reflected as we reflected upon what happened with residential PACE, that's what came out of it and it is working and it's working very well.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. So there's nothing, there's no need to try to improve it then?

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: I don't think so. Was something that was tried and it turned out to not be a great fit, I think partly because of what was required at the local level to make it possible for a relatively small market was challenging. I think the other piece I would just leave you with, and it's more of a factoid than a relevant answer to your question. But one of the things that we discovered during the twenty twenty three flooding was in an environment where we work primarily in rebates, right? So you have to do the work and then get reimbursed. It was very complicated for folks to take on, especially during flood recovery when they needed as much access to cash as possible. We actually had a great partnership with the Vermont Community Foundation and East Rise whereby Vermont Community Foundation took some of the money that they had fundraised for flood relief, parked it in East Rise, and we were able to pay off people's incentives upfront and then pay it back once the project was complete, paid back into that fund with the rebate to make sure that it was easier for folks to access. That was very helpful for things like a weatherization project where we're funding a large component of it was a really great model. And so we actually look to continue that using our existing regulated funds by just kind of keeping that flow of dollars going to give people another tool to make projects easier to do.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. Maybe we should be thinking about what can we repeal under our pace, keeping a c pace. I don't know if we but that's conversation we'll have down our road, I guess.

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: Yeah, we haven't heard anybody come back around looking for a renewal of our pace And at they're all the very few sort of continuing loans still on the books at this point. So it's, I don't see a huge market for it. I think the existing programs are working as well as possible. I would, so I don't see a huge need there.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Peter Walke (Managing Director, Efficiency Vermont)]: All right, thank you. Appreciate the opportunity to come in and testify and I wish you

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: all the best of luck with the rest of the session.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you. Joe, thanks for coming in. We have some more questions.

[Joe Valenti (Director of Policy, Department of Financial Regulation)]: Joe Valenti, director of policy, VFR.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So in talking with Vida, I guess we're trying to really understand reasoning why a lender shouldn't be the administrator. Maybe you can articulate that to us again. Sure. So I

[Joe Valenti (Director of Policy, Department of Financial Regulation)]: think it's a hypothetical concern. I know it's something that we've batted back and forth. I think the idea is that if you have multiple lenders, but one of those is acting as the administrator for a given account, that could involve conflicts of interest or steering customers to that particular lender. So it is a hypothetical concern. I think it may be mitigated if it's the case of a public entity, for example, where you may not think of that conflict in the same way. It could also be mitigated. There was the example that was given at the end of testimony yesterday of a situation where you could have multiple lenders and they could all be administrators. I think that could get complicated for the municipality, but it would still address that potential conflict. I did not hear the specific testimony around from earlier today about whether there was a conflict or not, so I couldn't directly respond to it.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Trying to get the idea of steering here. I mean, doesn't sound like it's gonna be a gangbusters program. So, who knows how many lenders are gonna people that say that score lenders resting. And the property, the developer is looking for a loan, right, to this program, then they contact one of those four. And they also say, and are you interested in being administered to the sport? They wouldn't do that. So I'm trying to understand how the steering would be if the developer is seeking a relationship, lending relationship with a particular lender.

[Joe Valenti (Director of Policy, Department of Financial Regulation)]: If in that case, if the developer contacts one of the four and likes the arrangement that's presented or contacts all of the four and sees what their offers are, then I don't think there's an issue. I think it's an issue to the extent that the administrator might be called upon to also take on a marketing role for the program. You have someone let's say you have someone who calls the municipality and says, hey, I heard about this program. I am interested. They're put in touch with a program administrator. If he happens to be one of those four lenders, then what is there to prevent that lender from either making certain representations or acting as though they are preferred relative to the three. It's true. The developer could call all four and see what all four have to offer as to whether that one who is acting as administrator has some type of implicit endorsement or blessing for the municipality and the others don't.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Just seems like the primary relationship is gonna be between blender and Right. The

[Joe Valenti (Director of Policy, Department of Financial Regulation)]: Thank you. And I think if you were in a situation, it sounds like there's a question of who wants to be the administrator, will an administrator step forward? It's not clear that if you're really having trouble finding a administrator that this prohibition is necessary. I think it's just a hypothetical to prevent the types of conflicts that could arise.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: The more I think about it, I think we're trying to set something up to see. And so in that setup, if we put too many roadblocks in, it's not going to go anywhere. That's right. And so if we kind of leave the doors open a little bit to see if there's really interest in this. And then if we see that there is there could be there are conflicts that happen that we can make those changes. And I I don't I don't I guess if we wanna see this happen to see if it's gonna work, the less roadblocks we put in front Right. We'll know that it's it may be worthwhile. So my thought is that we really remove that prohibition, allow for a lender to be also the administrator, see if this thing can get off the ground. And I don't think we need to worry about having DFR do a study to find out who the administrators are at this point because people don't even

[Joe Valenti (Director of Policy, Department of Financial Regulation)]: know how this program is gonna run. So we don't even know who could be administrators. And I think to distinguish this from the ARPACE program, I think we are a little bit typically, with small business lending, you're a little bit less concerned about borrower protections. We still have, as I mentioned yesterday, if the loan is under $1,000,000 the lender still has to be licensed by DFR. So we would have oversight in that capacity. And you still have the there is a mortgage holder or an existing small business loan, you need the permission from that lender for this to go forward. So I think if your concern is that we don't need to unnecessarily layer on top of this, I think we have no objection

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to approval.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: If a situation where a municipality had a or lender or actor in the space, can imagine some other entities in that space saying this isn't fair. I mean that's usually something that might would immediately be problematic to other players in the field and that seems also like something we would just actually avoid.

[Joe Valenti (Director of Policy, Department of Financial Regulation)]: Right, I think if it's a competitive market then and the developers and the property owners are aware of the other options that are available. But I think that addresses the situation. Think one of the other ideas that popped into my headshot site was what if you had if a program administrator is also a lender, and they were going to recommend a loan product, could there be a cooling off period or a notice that, hey, there may be other options available? Again, I think that may be too heavy handed for what you're looking to achieve here for commercial loans.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great. Joe, thank you. Sure. Thank you. Appreciate it. And, Rick, like to run us run through what we have so far. Committee, are you are we good with removing the study that's in there and and then removing the issue of lender not being able to be an administrator at this point.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: A 100%. Love it.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think so. Generally, I think that commercial developer probably sophisticated. Gonna be just commercial developers, though, because it could be, you know, it can be someone that owns more than five units in a building that wants to do energy efficiency upgrades or more clients

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: It could a small condition. So it

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: could be a smaller too. But in those cases, as Joe has pointed out, if it's under a million dollars, they have to be a licensed lender. So DFR has has They have jurisdiction. They have jurisdiction. Yeah.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Yeah. I think it's great because it kinda solves two problems because if they can be the administrator, there's a vested interest in them wanting to learn how to do that, which then opens up the market. And it's not like the lending market. I mean, we've got plenty of competition in the lending market, so I'm I'm really not that concerned about somebody playing favorites. I love it. I think it's

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good. Okay. And I'll touch base with Joan just to see ask her to identify the spot where she wants to see the word exceeds. So I looked I went through and and and new and new construction, I saw it says meets or exceeds. I don't know if there's another spot that she was referring to, but I did a search and I found something on page 14 on eight. You don't have a 14. It goes up to 13. I don't know. You're on you're on x one thirty eight? No. I'm not. Okay. Okay. Because because it's not in it's on it's not in 327 yet. Okay. Alright. My bad. K. So deal with that and then Rick will get some language. How are you? It's fine afternoon.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. I'm well. How are you all, man? Looks great. Alright, Rick Siegel with the Office of Libtenden Council. So we have a new draft 2.1 of 03/27. If it's not included S-one 138, I will work with Ellen to get that language and I understand

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: there's a few changes you'll want so I'll have to coordinate that.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are any of these members working on that bill or is it kind of

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: like No.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No? Okay.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Kieran, can you send an email to Ellen and see if she's available? Sometimes we'll wait for this afternoon. It's probably going to be me anyway that's going to

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have to figure out, but it might help. If she has the background, however, we've talked to her and I've talked informally, but

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And maybe she was we went through some things with her. Yeah. But there's a couple more pieces that we wanted. Maybe we can work with you and if you could talk to her about Sure. Sure. Okay.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: So back to 03/27, again, draft 2.1

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is the economic development bill, document senate changes are in yellow. So section one was the purpose statement, which is outdated at this point. So for now I had deleted the purpose statement. You all are welcome to add back a purpose statement, but it was based on what came from the Senate and a lot of those initiatives didn't survive appropriations. So I figured for now, let's not confuse people when they rebuild. So again, happy to put back on purpose, but I don't think it makes sense to keep it for now. Section seven is the business resources and growth section. Very, very two small changes to this section that I'll discuss. This is the, if you recall, the economic development department will consult with stakeholders to determine how business is going to grow and access capital in their duties. Number three, they will create the inventory resources that are poised to serve businesses for each state of development. The previous language was that they would serve businesses and I think the recommendation was that these should be resources ready to help businesses grow. This first change. Subdivision five determined how to better communicate succession planning options for businesses. The previous language was determined how to improve succession planning for mature businesses. And the so a couple members met with Michael and Nick from the department and there was some kind of agreement to not limit it to just mature businesses, but sometimes they're relatively young business and they want to sell or they want to for some reason offload the business, so maybe don't limit it to just mature businesses, instead of improved succession planning, that kind of implies more of a personal help to each business. Like here's how we're going to help your specific situation. The recommendation was to make it a how it communicates to you ways to improve your success. Kind of more of an abstract take on it as opposed to a direct help, if that makes

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Makes sense. Sense. I don't love it, but it makes sense.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I feel like it's less support to businesses than the way it was written. Before it said how to help businesses mature through their succession plan.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the concern was that it's a direct.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Why I like Yeah,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yeah. I

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: thought it did make sense to expand to move the notion of mature businesses In that area, we should be thinking about this, not too late, but it's never a bad team of succession planning. It did seem like determining how to improve it was a little bit It isn't that when it's happening, it's happening badly. The idea is that it's not happening enough. And that I think was behind some of the adjustments to the language that it's not as if we're seeing incompetent succession planning, we're trying to have more of it happening throughout all stages of businesses. I think that's sort of what we were hoping, that's I think in conversation with the agency representatives, that's what most of their clients will, which I felt persuaded by. We're gonna get a report and that's what we'll be getting as opposed to some recommendations for what we can do as opposed to now the agency understands how to do this, that that's something there's already partners doing work in this space and how to get more in the door for them.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will continue. Let's hold not to. Those are the two changes in the business growth study section. Okay, by the way, I've also, I didn't highlight it, but I've added these are called reader assistant edit, Dan and Herb Olson in my office. That's what we call these because this bill is going to grow as you may have heard. So that's to help when you all are looking to bill either in committee or on the floor. So you're kind of kicking through it, those asterisks, the three asterisks on each side, it's not part of the law, it's just for readers to understand what's coming up next. So if go to the next, we have a new edition which was in the version that was passed by the Senate Economic Development Committee. It was taken out by appropriations. This is the Invention Center task force that was passed into law last year, so the task force already in existence, the amendment that made it out

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: of the

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Senate Committee was adding a member to the task force, and that's the president of University of Vermont or designee, So that'd be an eighth person to the task force. So previously or under current law, they were able to meet up to six times. I'm not sure how many times they've met. I think Mr. Cherry, you Yeah. Might

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think they've met more than six. But can we draft the language so the talks won't be reimbursed for more than so we're adding eight more so that they won't be reimbursed for more than eight more, but they can still meet if they choose. They just won't have the reimbursement.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I think you can see how you can say they're up for now. They can be reimbursed for not more than so right now it's six. You can keep it at six or you can put eight.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's what I would do.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then they can decide if they

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: need more. I because I think there are task force that have met more than Arab Yes. Allotment and just legislative members haven't been paid. They that's their choice. And I think that we wanna make sure if the task force needs to do more than that, that they can. They all choose to do that. They're not worried about their per diem. Yeah, so there's two provisions where you bump it up. One is the reimbursement, but the other one is the number of times, just increase the You're only gonna be reimbursed for eight, whatever. But you can mean it as long as many times as you want.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Knock yourself out. We'd be willing to have to change line 11, that the language and the numbers that I'm specified in line 16 is adequate, but line 11 would need to change to the task for Shelby.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Oh, just strike it for just strike.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Yeah. Oh, yeah. There's no line.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I'm thinking because you're allowing the these task force can get reimbursed. You let me make this or ask this is the recommendation to keep 14 on line 11. They meet not more than 14.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: To strike line 11.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's no limit.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Strike, there's no limit on how many times they meet. Okay. But they can only be members can only be reimbursed. I think you have it there 14. Yep. So they've already had six. Right. Or does that mean they can meet they can be paid for 14 more meetings?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. So this would be 14 total, including the previous

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So I think if we strike line five, then if they decide they want to meet more than that they can, right? Because right now they really couldn't meet more than six. Right.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, if you strike line 11 and then leave g alone basically by just leaving it at six reimbursed. I think that's fine. Yeah, think that's probably the thing that's gonna do it.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We'll just leave the fourteen there. Yeah. Strike line strike line 11. Okay. Everybody good with that? When you

[Unidentified Committee Member]: say leave the 14 there, you're talking about the end of line 16.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Correct.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But you want to strike all of line 11.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. The way this is going to look is all you're going to see is that this has been amended by adding the president of UBM and this will be F5 will be struck through. You're not going to CG. Oh, so I can leave it.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: This should be a 14 argument added. Oh, sorry.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You wanna keep the 14? Yes. Wanna keep the 14.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. We want the

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: legislators to be able to recoup. My understanding is they none of neither one of them put in for their six times that they met.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Got it. So 5 will be Subdivision 5 will be struck through. Right. Let me make this this will be struck through. Yes. And then we're going to keep G1 and G2 as it's currently on the Yes.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. All right. Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so they'll be able to meet 125 times if they want.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yep, but they're only gonna get eight for eight Yeah,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you want to, I believe in this, you know what, I believe they are set to expire in December. I'm looking at that So you may want to think about. So they will cease to exist on 12/01/2026. So this is not in the image, right? So I would add this if you wanna I would put a I would put some type of expiration date.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We'll ask the question. I'm just I think we should go past this under warrant. Think you want it you want it sometime where you can if they need to continue on, you'll need time to make the change. So if you even if you have it during the next session, to be able to make the change and have it go through here, go through the senate, get to the governor.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: 07/01/2027.

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Safe.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Yeah. So 12/01/2027 would not be safe because it's too like you would Well, it it could be, but

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We might not notice.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Right. This July 1. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Next year, you can you'll hear from the task force. Hopefully, you bring them in, find out how it's going and see if they need more time to continue with discussion.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So then do you wanna push back the report date of 11/01/2026?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Why don't you yeah. Why don't you make that like a preliminary report?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So currently, it's 11/01/2025 for their interim, which you perceived?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yes. So let's let's now put an interim report of we want 12/01/2026, and the final report final report 07/01/2027.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would give some I would have the group expire after the final report. It takes in maybe December 2027. The charter report with the expiration.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then report July.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Any other I think that's it. I don't think there's another effect here of making any changes.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think I mentioned it to the committee, but just to reiterate, I had spoken with chair of appropriations about this back in and she was okay with that. I think I mentioned that, but just in case you're wondering, you don't remember why this showed up now. It's my ass ripped with that ends. All right, moving on

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: back to 03/27. So you have the veggie, which I now have titled so I don't strip on it every time, the repeal of the veggie perspective appeal.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay, and as we're going, people of Committee good with repealing veggie? No. Well,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so we're leaving that and then section 10 is the so this is the culinary institute study this is not the apprenticeship thing this is the institute so no changes yet. Am awaiting further guidance on committee. Maybe I should read the apprenticeship language.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah, I think that so Abbey and Kirk can work on the studies.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yeah, he sent us some stuff and I haven't read it.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, you're to see it.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Access for the So we're gonna have two. My understanding is that the Senate would like to keep the Culinary Institute study, and also is supportive of the pilot program that's being contemplated as well.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, we're going come on that, so we're going to scroll down to there's no changes here. So culinary apprenticeship pilot program, this is new section 10A. The whole thing is new, but

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I just highlighted the title because otherwise the

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: whole thing's gonna be open.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you have the creation and purpose and coordination. I will warn this is not edited, so I've all got there's some typo. I'll get the edited version by tomorrow morning, but I just don't think you can go up the language. So DOL, through the Vermont Registered Apprenticeship Program, which they manage, shall establish and maintain a two year hospitality and culinary apprenticeship pilot that develops and evaluates a new registered apprenticeship training program specific to accommodation and food services. The pilot shall be structured as a regional multi employer model, The goal of the program to strengthen workforce pathways and improve job quality in the hospitality and pulmonary services, have been identified as priority sectors by the state workforce. The department shall coordinate its work on a pilot with the Department of Tourism and Marketing, Department of Economic Development, the Office of Workforce Strategy and Development, and Vermont Chamber of Commerce.

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: I keep thinking about, because the food's also food related, it's somehow a little bit farm related too, and I'm wondering if farm to page should also be in there.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: You mean the specific organization?

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: Either the organization or something that is related to farming. The The thing that I keep thinking about is part of the culinary purposes world is also value added products that are created on farms.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Is there a place within that?

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Hospitality in Vermont today is informed by bringing into the full those sorts of products that you're describing as sort of a part of the that's what it is to have.

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: That's part of it for sure. Yeah. But also a lot of our farms and various ingredients that are bringing it to our farms or wherever, when you're creating a value added product like a jam or something like that, that's a different

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: thing. And that's also an exportable good. It's a food based product. It could easily be used in all the rest of our hospitality landscape. In time, it's a bit The

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: apprenticeship program, employers, is that getting into an employer of such products, or is the idea that

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: That was my

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: thought. Was it something that's a procurement

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: of them? No, I was thinking about

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: the manufacturer of these products.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: So it may be lead sense of stakeholder, it could be the Specialty Foods Association. I just

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: thought Or would that actually fit above in the culinary institute study. That might be a good fix for it. It's hard to study how you incorporate value added foods in the agricultural sector.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yeah, so I'm

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: thinking, think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: part and of

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: the issue is that a lot of these programs exist within various organizations. So NOFA has some of it. Farm to Plate has some of it. Even VHCB has some of it because they do the farm viability program. And through that, they work on value added. So I'm not exactly sure who should have it, but I do think we should be in there.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Why don't you touch base with J. Okay. And see if there's a place in in the partnership piece that could include that language. Okay. But short, because we're just talking about teaching people how to cook, right? It's a different, it's not an apprenticeship for the agricultural sector. Yeah. But it may, maybe work with Kirk and Abbey and see if we can fit that into a culinary institute study. Maybe we can expand that study a little bit, so it's not just a culinary institute, but how do we incorporate more value

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: added food

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: process. In Vermont's restaurants, or food business.

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: Yeah, I guess food based businesses.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Alright, any other questions about the coordination?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe once you see the details of the pilot you'll consider other. So subsection B, pilot details, the departments of labor shall A, implement the pilot in a tourism based regional economy, and by the way, most of this language is from labor, so if there's a question about what this means, I may

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: not be.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In with the pilot, a tourism based, like I don't know what that tourism based regional economy and include multiple employers, including at least one large employer located within the same regional economy.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It was probably probably something similar to Killington, JP, Sugarbush, some where there's a large yes, a lot of food, restaurants, and and they're doing a lot of reception. Yes. That

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: makes sense.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Not bad news. Is

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: it crucial that it's tourism based or just a regional economy?

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: Well, going to say, in our our land use stuff, they are identified as resort areas.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Maybe it's not a resort. In the resort area based region of the economy. Well, let's go through the language. Mark spots where they have questions and we'll ask the department to come in.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: B, incorporate an intermediary or coordinated entity. Include structured work based learning across more than one employer. Align with education and training providers including secondary and adult career technical education programs. Be structured to rely on existing resources including the physical assets of schools, technical centers and restaurants. It's the Oxford comma there. It's been unedited. F, be built around not more than two of principal occupations as defined in the apprenticeship chapter. G and G establish specific numeric targets and track outcomes including completion, retention, and wage progression. The pilot shall be designed to achieve a minimum participation of multiple employers, enrollment of at least one parentage cohort, and measurable completion outcomes. So that's kind of the crux of the pilot. Moving on to the funding. That should be the C, that should be C, another mistake. Okay, the funding, the department shall implement the pilot using existing state and federal funds, so no appropriation to the extent practical, and may seek additional grants for funding as such funds may be available. That language might need a little bit of work, but I think the intent here is that they will use what they have and if there is some kind of federal grant available for this type of work, they would apply for that.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And also if it's an apprenticeship program that they're building, it could be that an employer would possibly pay for some of the schooling.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think the language limits, yeah, it's not limited, it doesn't limit that option, I would say. But if you want to call that out, it may not hurt.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I don't think we have to call it out with me. Right now, the electrician and plumber apprenticeship program, For the schooling, generally, they're working with the business and the business pays for the school part of it. Maybe, of course, they're working for it too. So that could be something, the same thing that they may be contemplating, I don't know.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Is that likely to be? If we're looking at the F from the previous section C, define it as a whole bunch of patients

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: as that term is defined between '21. Oh

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: my god statute, he just summed it up about the number of hours

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's an occupation approved by the federal office of apprenticeship or by the department as an occupation that is specified, identified, and commonly recognized throughout industry. It involves skills that are customarily learned in practical ways creates a structured systematic program upon the jobs provided the army. So I think yes, it'll be limited to what this definition says you're looking into. The

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: idea of having just limited to not more than two occupations that you could have visible to talk to them about this, one chef, one hotel here, Yeah,

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it's a pilot, so they're trying to, I think they'll pick probably of the areas that are most needed in hospitality.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I guess, nitpicking could be what we need, what we expect at least one to be a culinary position. Think that's my question is, are all culinary physicians in hospitality? And that's what we're trying to understand.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Write your question down, We'll we'll bring we'll bring the department in next Yeah. Great. Added that. Okay. Yeah. So things that have to do with the language we'll we can answer it. We have questions that you're not quite sure of what they're talking about and Rick can't, certainly can't answer that, then we'll bring in the department on Tuesday and see you get and maybe we can send those questions ahead of time so that Jay can take a look at it and respond quickly.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so you have funding, then you have the report. So a report, interim report would come to this committee, and he sent an economic development committee on or before December 15 that would describe progress on the pilot including design, participation, and preliminary results of the pilot. And then a final report on 12/15/2028 that includes outcomes, evaluations, effectiveness, and recommendations for future legislative action. Any other questions about the pilot language?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay,

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: section 11 was the route 22A highway study that removed the main house transportation get some testimony. I

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: don't have much about it. Don't if Mr. Carey you want to. Yeah, but they took testimony their recommendation to us is to read a little bit.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I believe there are no other changes to the approval and just trying to rank the development grant program on each side.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Right. Walk through the last time you made that change.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah the change, I'll show you what it was, it's

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: not yellow anymore.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The award, so 1a didn't change, 1b changed, it may exceed a million, but won't exceed 2,000,000 as long as it's classified as a federally backed property and the secretary certifies it's located in a downtown, designated downtown development district and then one of the two other categories either a REAP zone or a federally declared natural disaster area not more than five years the application paid. So I think it was two years previously.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Right now? Okay. So we will make some changes to the CPASE recommendation, I think, from the committee, and we'll insert that in here. We'll hear from Department of Labor on Tuesday. We'll try to get them on Tuesday and see where we are if the committee is comfortable. Try to pull this thing out. Great. And you'll work with you. Yeah. Can work on the culinary, work with Emily as well to see how we can incorporate that in. Okay. Any other questions? Jonathan?

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I still want to perhaps maybe change the just detailed performance on page 16. The transition we've had there. I'm interested in struggling with some of the adjustments of propane at large. What did you do to section B again?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this, let me be clear, the last walk throughs already have that change. That's why I

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: didn't look new.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's okay. Yeah, it

[Joe Valenti (Director of Policy, Department of Financial Regulation)]: would say it's not.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It was news and draft 1.3. So 2.1 since that didn't change, it's not yellow, but draft 1.3. The previous I don't have the direct sorry I don't have direct 1.1 the draft 1.1 had room at three, it was two years from the application date, so five years that's one change, and B, it was may exceed 1,000,000, no it was, could be, shall be 100% of the total project cost. And the concern was what if the total project cost is like $10,000,000 and there's only 2 and a half million left, right, in program, so that would not work. So now it says, well, you can exceed 1,000,000, but you can exceed 2,000,000 as long as that's I can send you what it was before and

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: you can kind of compare what I Yeah.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: It does feel risky to me or I'm surprised to feel as if it's in pain.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It was fun.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: And I'm trying to think of ways to adjust it, but it feels like something. I imagine legal last resources in this

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: specific op for a long time. Maybe, maybe not.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Well, it's a magic. I

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: mean, I think you need to look at you know, eligible activities, what they have what project sponsors will have to provide to ACCD in order for ACCD to make a determination whether they grant or not.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Do you need more testimony on this one? On this particular project portion of the bill?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Who do you want to hear from? I know that

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: the Commissioner Bergeron's Bell had mentioned a couple other programs, a couple other projects in the pipeline are the original auspices of the language and the brand, And I'd like to know more about who those are, where they are.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think there's interest in changes. There's those interests. I don't think there's much interest in 20%.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I didn't think it was challenge, I think the way it was, it's better. Think we had heard from some recipients of the older sort of mindset. But then there are others that I think were either were some copies that are even submitted or something. And it's just the whole time.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Hearing. I I do know that there's interest. There's projects out there that are interested in at the 50% of it. Yes. But I haven't, I don't remember hearing anything that they had projects at the twentieth. Well, really thought Maybe reach out to Lyle.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Yeah, if you're in the RDCs, or you're with who it was, the RDCs have a Yeah. Here's what we're looking at. And maybe, like, John, relax. We wanna see this 50% thing. Then I'm like, cool. You know? And I'd be glad to I feel better to hear that, I guess.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. Check with Lyle. I know I've heard from from RDCs that there are projects out there that that are ready at the 50% level, but there's not an interest at

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: 20%. Yeah. I'm on the same page. Okay. But if you've been hearing from them, that might that

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Go ahead and double check. Okay. Doesn't hurt. Anything else? Okay. I think we're done for today. We're back tomorrow at 09:00. We're in Room 10. We have Room 10.

[Joan Goldstein (Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yep. That's correct.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. You'll be running the show. Britta, don't leave, I'll show you around 01:39 or 01:38, wherever. And then we're back in here, we're going to hear Beth St. James on

[Rep. Abbey Duke (Member)]: on

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: three one three, the CTE bill, and we're also we'll hear from CTE directors and others where they are with where we're going, and we'll hear from secretary sponsors as well at 11:30. So any questions? And then we're on the floor if you rest in. Mhmm. Okay. If there's no questions, we can go off live, and we'll be back on at nine tomorrow.