Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development. It is Tuesday, 04/21/2026 at 01:05 in the afternoon. We're beginning our conversations this afternoon and continue them on S three twenty seven, which is our economic development bill. So I think we're at the point where we can have our legislative council over at Sable walk us through the bill. Good afternoon, Rick. Thanks for joining us.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. Rick Segal with the office of the clerk's clerk council. I have a RAT 3.3 S327 to share with you all. I think Jonathan's probably just posted it to

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: the website if you are looking for it.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so I walked through one of the sections earlier this morning. I'll just kind of hit that again because we've been making one or two changes since we last spoke, but otherwise hopefully the chronological link will be built. Okay, so no changes to the first page or any change to section seven which is the business resource growth study by the Department of Economic Development. Any questions or comments about section seven?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So we received some correspondence from the state auditor, but maybe being able to beef that up a little bit. It was over the week, I remember. That was yesterday morning. Yesterday. You had it too. Right? Yep. Why don't I send that that over to the committee? Probably should be posted as well. Jonathan, are you on? Do you get if we if we send it House Commerce, do you get it?

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: It's okay.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So I just sent it to every

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to share my screen? Sure. Let me share that document.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yep. And that document, Jonathan will post as well. Let's switch here. I shared it with Brett Cooper and Brett Bosch. I don't know if you had, if had, if any thoughts that you might have, Jonathan, Dave.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Yeah. One thought I had to escape, but was important to share, was when I was reading the commentary from the auditor, I thought that first blood piece, those seem like things that the state auditor does. And that we welcome that continued effort of that office as opposed to us attempting to include language that Rob does what the office does. And to benefit, I'm referring to a line in email, which the auditors observes. In any case my real concern is the failure of the bill to check their records and report on the efficacy and cost effectiveness of all those programs. And that statement I felt very nearly mirrors what the auditors unit is. That certainly is something you can read to the auditors.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It is, but then I think it's up to us and up to the agency to determine how they do that. And maybe this is a place where we ask them to actually look at that, make sure that they are providing I think if the auditor is saying that we're not getting we're not getting the right information, perhaps we need to ask them to take a look at that. I don't That's what I'm getting.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Yeah, so I get

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it, you say that I think there were two parts. I'm reading it really quickly in the. But there were the issues of why you're not collecting performance here. And that was one issue I think you you talked about. And the other issue I thought you talked about was, hey. And you're not reviewing. On the latter point, I think you're absolutely right, Jonathan. It'd be nice for, we probably don't have the capability to do that in a rigorous analytical path. But on the face of it, it seems fair to talk about performance measures, and whether agencies can or should like them. I don't know the details of that. Well, in their contracts, they also have performance measures. Then the question is, are you looking at those performance measures and are you tracking them? Yeah.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Yeah, if collecting it and no one's looking at it, enacting on it, then no one's actually gonna approve.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: They could improve if it was appropriate or so. Yeah, and I think, you know, we're talking about this, you know, we're I think it's identifying what is out there, who is disseminating the information, and or is the information being disseminated? And that's part of, I think, performance contracts that are out there. And so if we have a room full of businesses that don't raise their hand when you ask a question until they know where to go and anybody telling you, then I think there's an issue.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I think that is a really interesting kind of question of measuring a counterfactual or measuring a lack that is so hard to quantify. You And can get that quick of the crews in the room, who knows, and the hands don't go up and think, well, that's not fantastic. And then assessing that in a quantitative way is to be a little more slippery. That does seem like an interesting puzzle to try to crack. Think go and see if you can find a thing that is, I think a lot of the times we talk about some of our programs, it's sort of the usual suspects. We see a lot of the same applicants. On the one hand, it's good that people become familiar with the resource. And some might say, in this environment, are they likely to tell others about that resource if it means imperiling their access to it? Having said that, part of what got us thinking about the Ready program was that it wasn't all out the door, we see a lot of high levels of attrition to our resources, which implies that perhaps even if there were more demand, supply may not be able to meet it. Like, if you make the lanes bigger on the highway, you get more traffic. And right now, you get an amount of traffic that might be appropriate or scaled to the size of the lanes of the lanes of the budget for the program. Just some thoughts that had been on my mind since yesterday.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Sorry to be so scattered here, because I'm just looking at, I'm always wondering, I mean, I appreciate what Doug's saying, but it's sort of like a different subject matter a bit for what we're trying to do. We're not trying to evaluate the programs here. Right. We're trying to make sure the information about programs are getting there. It's somebody else's job, I mean, ultimately it's our job, but it just seems we're talking about two different subjects.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Me specify who the stakeholders that the agency would work with are. I think in section seven, are to move that to the department to exercise. I wonder if there's a specific specificity there might help ensure a breadth of perspectives on where it's not going or things of that nature, you know, people that that's one idea that it came from to mind. We place in statute some of the entities that we expect working with the agency, we might widen the range of perspectives for that, where is it getting, where is it not getting? Where

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do you see stakeholders?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Right at the beginning. Right at the beginning. Commissioner.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm sorry, flip it back to the I read it fast.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Recommendation is to let's put some things in there?

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I wonder if we have a good spectrum of names, if we'll get a good spectrum of uptake or attention.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sorry, let's get them for where we are.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: This is about adding additional stakeholders into the study?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Well, it's adding the names of the stakeholders. Or adding the names of

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the stakeholders into the study.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: For some of the stakeholders, not all

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: of them. Including I was thinking that that might help us not have people look in the mirror, but rather other perspectives on the thing. I get interested to think that they wouldn't have a good representation, but there's one area where we're silent and perhaps you could specify silent.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So let's start naming some of those up. I think I would develop. I mean, we got we have regional planning commissions, regional economic development commissions. There's two. SBA, RDC, the regional development corporations, regional planning if we're looking at inventory, business groups, chamber, not just remote, chambers. Yeah, local chain. BHCB, they do, well, they

[Unidentified Committee Member]: at least do the farm by utility program, which also does a lot of business planning and stuff.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: BHCB? Yeah. I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: think we also have the office of refugee resettlement.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The capstones with the micro business.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Doing their work? Well,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: don't think we need to name, try to think of every group that's in the state, I think that we give them this. Those are at least the minimum that we want. Just language that encourages them to look even further with it. With UVM, are we

[Unidentified Committee Member]: thinking about the extension program or that

[Unidentified Committee Member]: doesn't matter? Or does that need to be specified since they have so many other, like tons of avenues that probably could relate.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You just have the UVM? Yeah. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: of just naming UBM, you could hit secondary institution, educational institution. Like because you might have Champlain College too available. Right. Business program. Sustainable jobs then. Don't wanna hear from that one.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do we have any of the HCPs ready program?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. The HCPs. Okay. Do you put the employee ownership? ESOP? ESOP. What ESOPs in there, Josh?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's a good list.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great list. Four

[Unidentified Committee Member]: more lines of

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great size. Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's only a 32 page bill, crazy so territory. It's nothing.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Our economic development bills are 50 to 100.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: That's a

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: bill for me. Yeah, is. Okay. Let's keep going with Rick. So Any else from 7 seven? Are we good with charges to Jonathan and Dave, you both looked at that. Are there anything you wanna add to that or change? Or

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: This includes the changes you discussed. Right. K.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Everybody good with this section now? Alright. K.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we'll add a sub second C

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: which looks out to stakeholders.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, exception is the Convention Center task force. Do you change this based on last week's testimony? Okay, I'm on page four. So no change to the membership still adding the president of UVM or testimony. The report, interim report currently is 11/01/2025, which they submitted one already. So I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: think they can give us a final report 11/01/2026 or 12/01/2026 is what I understood from them. But we wanna leave the task force going a little bit longer just in case we have more work for them to do. So I think we can change the final report.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I guess what I leave this just as currently is they already submitted the interim report. So I think I may have must have written that down wrong. So you wanna just

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think we were talking about another interim report.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right. That was my understanding. So I have

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: But it doesn't sound like we really need that. Okay. And so we can say a final report.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Which is still on or before 07/01/2027. Does that sound good or do want to

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: push that back on me? I think so. Let's put it in 12/01/2026. 12/01/2026. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And we want it before the session, and they think they can

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: get it done by then.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay. But we'll leave this task force going. I think we'll be good for another year after that just in case they

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I I was thinking 07/01/2027 just because that forces us to make a decision during Well,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: then they can come back and say we need yeah. We need to keep going, but it keeps them going. Yeah. So July 1 sounds good. July. Yeah. You wanna bring the tots on too? Yeah.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. It's striking out the subdivision that says the task force shall be now voted six times. Right. But also keeping in the increased 14 meetings for per DM. Yeah. Bring personal. So no more than 14.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Instead of six. Everybody good with that? Okay. All right.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Now, what are the changes to the task force? No change to the veggie.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You're feeling the sunset. Yes.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, then we move on to section 10a, is what I walked through this morning. This is not new, let me remove that. The new language, so again the Department of Labor just wants to run this study, so it's the Office of Workforce Strategy and Development. In collaboration is the board of choice and not enough. You have a labor representative here if that verbiage is appropriate or not. I believe it is, but they are here to give board collaboration.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good with that, Roland? Okay. Alright. Did we want some sort of looking. Some sort of catchall in any other recommendations kinda thing? I mean, we've got a list and we've got the opportunities currently available. Do we want them to be Yeah, you draw the thing with the other. Yeah. Maybe it's covered in the lead in, but

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I I let me skip to that. I think maybe there's a place that you wanna clarify what that is. There's something that should do that.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Usually at the end, we'll put something in there and any other There's a little bit of that in the lean in to be that Okay. Happy. Happy to notice it.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So adding the phrase or operate that's added this morning is still there. Excuse. On page seven. Subdivision six has been kind of reworked a little bit, cataloging opportunities currently available for pulmonary and hospitality training and certification. Case 78 is new. Determining whether there are gaps in the availability of culinary and hospitality training and certification programs. So number eight, it's supposed to

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: be kept all but maybe you

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can expand it. Conducting any traditional research or outreach that would promote the development of programs. I think that gives sense

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: for that. Did you get that section in there too where the chamber was paying for everything? Yes.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right in the middle of the night.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: We're just channeling you that way.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great stakeholders, this one has enlisted. No changes since the morning walks through. I didn't hear any requests for additions, but I'm still are you happy with this institutional food or beverage provider? It just bugs me. That's the only reason.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Do you

[Unidentified Committee Member]: want us to be more specific?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, no. I just want to add a little more of

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: the highlighting of that case.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right, so no change to the report due 12/01/2026. Okay, section 10b is the culinary apprenticeship pilot program, only this section that Jay Ramsey walked through this morning, only one change which is what he recommended I think it

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: was tourism. Briefly tourism, yeah, think he came up with that. I'm at the bottom of it.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The pilot and the hospitality basement. Were there any other changes to that section? I didn't catch the whole testimony.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Prentissible is not a Oh, is. Is it? Word is Like I mentioned, underlying Well,

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: legal language is not always very much is, that's a Dictionary.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That's a legal term.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's used a lot in that chapter, and I think it actually might even be defined in that chapter. So if you say it's a word,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it's a word. Okay. It's in the BSA. Oh, did you say it's a word? I

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: didn't say it's a word. The statute is telling you it's a word.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'm not willing to give up my grammatical preferences or spelling to word, you know, to the word program. Well, that's why I was asking questions because I was underlining read that. I know it's it's trying to manipulate you into a certain way of spelling things. And and this way, we know representative Olson will not be manipulated. Yes. Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So no other changes to this pilot program. Are there any questions about the language that you heard from Jay earlier today?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think we are good with that. The alignment department's good with both of those. Thank you.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they I'll bring up one thing. Those two sections currently do not cross collaborate. There's discussion to me and Rowan about that. I didn't think it was necessary to reference each other. They can be independent, but unless you all think that they should somehow reference each other. I think they will, I don't think they Okay, section 11 is that Route 20 two day study that was removed last time. So the rural industry development grant program no changes to that language that is section 4A and 4B. Are there any questions about that program?

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Jonathan? Something that came up towards, and I think I was looking at, towards the end of the program's description, section F, where we're talking about the awards and the amount subsection three, is that the one will look at? The agency showed its grant funds upon determining that the applicant has mettle application conditions and requirements. I think we had a testimony about the existence of I think three or four current grantees and with language and adjustment here enable them to have the same treatment as being positive shifting to peer.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this current sentence is in the session law as well that we're striking. So this is already part of the program, this language. So putting this back does not change what a current recipient could do. I I fully understand the practical implications

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: of that.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Because I was thinking of that same thing that it says, determining the applicant has met a lot of patient conditions and requirements. If we change what an award can be, are we retroactively changing then how this agency shall view the activities of the existing recipients?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think I understand. So the awards, there's been what, four awards that have been, those are done, Those awards have been awarded. So are you saying that there's money left that has not?

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Their award has, the amount of money that they are due to receive has been determined and now it's a matter of, they have to reach the 80% to get that amount. They have to spend a larger amount to receive that funding that's been allocated to them. They could get that fully drawn down under the shifts we're looking to make. They would have to have spent less to be eligible to receive Right,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: now that's what Adam was bringing to it.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: And that's what you heard from an awardee. So that's one of the So

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I was addressing that. I was having a hard time on that, so I think you explained it very well.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The award has been, it's based on 80%, right? So that's to me and we can clarify it here that that is done, that that award has been, the application has been awarded and they

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: have to meet those specifications or can we not withstand that and then they can receive, they can then get 50% and still maintain the award, right? I think that's what was being asked of us. Are we comfortable doing It's not changing the amount of money they're receiving, the amount of money that they now have to go out and try to get in order to get that money. Right.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: And my question is, is the way three is written, would the way it's written allow the agency to do that? To say, okay, previous current recipients, you've met all application conditions and requirements cause we just shifted the application conditions and requirements to make it easier to draw down the award. That's because if that's the case, you don't have to change the language. It would just be applied, they would be treated the same as perspective happens. But if that's not enough for me to specify or not the same name or something, just, if the committee likes that idea, I just wanna make sure that we find the way to say that.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: There may be dollars that are outstanding that haven't been drawn down yet because they haven't met the 80%.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep, 80.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So if we're changing this to 50%, they may be able to draw those dollars down now.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is that

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what we want? Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'm fine with allowing it to happen if that means a project can get going quicker.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So different if it's the other way around on the federal. Make it harder? Make it harder. Now here's what he has to do.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Six more boots to Jonathan Cooper, here. I think that's a good fallout to understand that that's what the language does now.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: New language, yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The way it's written now allows current programs that have gotten some money to get more if they

[Unidentified Committee Member]: or it doesn't come out. This would be new

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I think this would be new new any any new applications that come in fall under the 50%. You have to you get a 50%, the cost, and you put in

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: 50%.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And it's a grant. So we are changing this everything to a grant, even the fundings that have been expended. The other question is, should we allow for anything that's outstanding that they haven't drawn dollars down yet because they haven't met the 80% threshold? If they meet the 50%, can they draw that down there?

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: I was wondering what the sentence would If

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the committee wants to go, I would clarify that. Yeah. Because I don't think it's

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: natural to assume

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's the default. Okay.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: Yeah. Alright.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I'm fine with that. I think it makes sense. We can get projects going quicker, and that's what the money is meant for. And then if you're already saying that we're gonna grant it, you don't have to pay it back. I mean, Truly, it was a grant unless they sold the property. We're still following, I think, legislative intent at the time. And I can tell you I was there, so our intent was make sure the RDCs were able to do things. But if they did sell it, then the money should come back. But this was just taking it a step further and just allowing that money to be granted out.

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: There's a suspicion, you know,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: funding to make that change. Could it would probably There won't be any so that money has been awarded? Yes. It's been encumbered, but it may not have been paid out because the project, they may not have gotten to the 80% level. So what we're saying is Yes. We'll drop it to the 50%. They may be able to draw those funds, and it may help them actually attract more funds because they have that 20. But granting authority was assuming they contribute 80, but I Right. We have right? They have enough yeah. The money so there's about 2 and a half million that's encumbered out of the 5,000,000. So it's encumbered, maybe not all of it's been paid out yet, but the money is there. And we're not increasing the amount that those awards can get. We're saying those awards are at 20%, but they're going to be grant awards and not have to be paid back. On top of that, now it's at 50%. So if you're at the 50% level, then you can it'll help might help them draw more dollars. Yeah. Okay. That's it. Everyone good with that concept? K. K.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So I think a lot of language allows that it happened and further clarifies that just because we're doing the switch from session law office statutes does not mean that those previous authorities have to reapply or have

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: to get out

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you know give you some authorization

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: that would be helpful

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for instance, and just to build an answer somewhere. So subsection G is going be here, which is we already kind of have language in here, that previous current law says the deed restriction, where you sell it, the profit would go to the state. They have one feature saying that if you need restriction that requires a program award recipient to return to the state, the principal amount of the grant is void. So that would apply

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: to

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: others that have been

[Unidentified Committee Member]: awarded this program. So it'll look something like that. Just to clarify, so for folks that are currently in pipeline that are in the process of raising their 80, but they may not have gotten to 80.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So there's four grant awards. They've been awarded the grant. But

[Unidentified Committee Member]: some of them may not have drawn down because they haven't done the 80%. Correct. So we are allowing them to drop

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: it to 50. Correct. Allow them to draw Draw the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the money again.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Which could help them actually draw down funds from that Yeah.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Any other questions about that

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: section? We're good with that.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 13A and B is the Nickel Rounding Bill, Cambridge Bill eight thirty seven. I have not, he just came in here to whisper that there's changes, I don't have the changes yet, so I've not had access to my email. What you see here is what the camera walked through this morning, which think there were a few changes that you wanted to make. So I'm not made yet.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yep, we don't need to go through with that. We'll wait until it's done.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Skipping ahead to section 14a through 14 gs which the C PACE program. This is a copy and paste of S138 that Ellen Chittenden walked you all through. I understand there were a couple of changes which I want to highlight those here.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay,

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: twenty one and twenty two and twenty three, no changes. Page 24 subsection c. It's the written agreement, The yellow language and highlighted improvements. Yes. The as passed by the senate language that word let's see here sorry it's not my bill so I'm still learning.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: It was project.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Yes, every instance of improvement was project and I've seen you had a good reason

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: for that change. Don't know what that is. A project, you could finish a project within a couple years. Yeah. And then you'd have to pay it back. This is for the life of the improvement. Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, next change to suitcase on page one six. The phrase subject to in subsection H was shall be determined by the private agreement so instead of shall be determined by

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: that's probably subject to the private agreement for the clients and improvements

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I assume you all recommended that

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: change? Yeah.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right, the next change is on page 27. Ellen kind of restructured the subsection A.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: No, this is how she has it before. Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection A, the C PACE administrators. Oh yeah, she did break, sorry she

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: just corrected us a little bit.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: She had the 138

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: has passed on some of.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So previously, the language in subsection A, There was a sentence that she removed. The sentence was however at the end of subject matter however a capital provider or lender shall not serve as a program administrator in a municipality where it is also the money. Okay.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: That was removed.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Scrolling down to subsection D, I believe, yeah, there was a subsection totally removed. Yes. Which was the reporting subsection DFR would consult under the stakeholders that was in need. So no language removed indeed just the entire subsection of the previous D. Correct.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right page 28, highlighted because the section of this bill nothing changed in the section and to my understanding this is to ensure that because you currently have an R case program, right, and this is to make

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: sure the crossroads are correct.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 14C, there's a change there in section 3,264, adding the phrase relating to resiliency improvements as defined in section three thousand two seventy five. So this was just added into the sentence. I assume again this is cross referencing the R page program,

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: but I can double check.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you all have a recollection of that phrase? Yes. Section 14b liability municipality no change. Section 14b: Pleasance of Lien, no change. Section 14f: BQ of assessments and liens, no change. And finally, section 14 gs, the exceptions, no change. Okay, the effective dates are a little bit confusing, not too bad. There are two sections that take effect on passage, including the effective exceptions of the task force section because they're currently in existence, you want them to be able to meet and get paid for additional meetings on passage and the dictal rounding is currently set to take effect on passage. Assume you want that to also things here. Then everything else, the studies, the veggie repeal, rural program, RIDDIP program.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: The RIDDIP program should be on passage. On passage? Okay.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What about the CPAs program?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It could all be on passage, wouldn't it?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: I don't see any reason why make everything. I have a pen.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can find it.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: By by fire so we could do.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I see no

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: And it makes your job easier.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And the reporter's job easier? Yeah. I

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: don't see anything here that could be as a drop to the veggie repeal, sunset repeal. Sorry.

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That can can be on passive too, right? Yes. So everything on passage okay Any other comments or questions about 03/27?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I've been incorporating so many different people's stuff. Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: So Rick, how much time would you need reprocess this, get it back to us?

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Cameron said the nickel rounding is done, so I'll get that and put it in. Adding the stakeholders to the study, the business study shouldn't be more than

[Jonathan Cooper (Member)]: thirty minutes. Okay, good answer.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Forty five. If we say we'll meet again at 02:30. That'll work for you? That's fine. Okay. So make sure everyone's good. Anything else that anything we've missed? Anything more that should go in? Stakeholders? Can't remember, did we put in the Vermont Law School Business

[Rick Segal (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Assistance? That's a really good Oh, the Vermont Law School. Is that the SPTC or is that? No. They

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: have a program that they run to help businesses. Small business. Small business. Yeah. Okay. So let RIF draft, take a break, and we'll come back at 02:30 if there's nothing else, and we'll go through the language again. If that's if that's good with everyone, we'll we'll just go. Okay. Let's