Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: In.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Or unless Southworth Correct. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Welcome back, everybody. Surprise, witness. Alex, actually, you could update our agenda. Commissioner Gresham was just happened to be wandering in the hallway, and we called him in.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: There was

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: a sign outside saying free money. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: we have two areas of the ADS budget that we wanna understand.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes, ma'am.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: A little bit better. So we are totally clear, I believe, on the $9,000,000 base appropriation. Where we're a little squishy is we have allocation charges going up by 10.8. We have service level agreement going down by 5.8 for a net increase of 5,000,000 and we had a discussion about whether the 5,000,000 was really more or whether it was just moving money around and I thought it was more because ADS now has authority to bill $5,000,000 more from its agencies than it used to be able to bill.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That would be correct, madam Chittenden.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: It it's, I mean, by more, I I I'd like to take out the sinister sound of that word. So yes to the above. I think you nailed it. There there's a new $9,000,000 general fund appropriation that wasn't there before. The allocation amount is going up by a little over $10,000,000 And the service level agreement, SLA amount, is going down by about $5,800,000 So the net, and as I mentioned before, the net is about $14,000,000 additional general fund. And part of that and, you know, I explained that, I think, in two ways. Part of that is that some of the spending that was happening already in this year and last year and the year before, some of that spending authority was not being recovered. So we are in this budget before you proposing to acknowledge them and to fund it. So that's part of the increase that you see in allocation.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it is a real increase. There's 9,000,000 new to ADS, and that's spread across a whole bunch of different agencies. Total, there's 5,000,000 more dollars here, here, here, here, and

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: there that ADS can go for. And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: that's when we get the fourteenth.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: There's yeah. The the so, yeah, there's 10,000,000 more in allocations, but and there's 9,000,000 direct channel funds. There's also down in SFA. And so the the second part of it is of that 14,000,000, you know, really is that, one, we're essentially acknowledging that there is some spending that's happening, wasn't being recovered or funded. But the other thing is there's some components of the SLA. The reason there's a down in SLA is there's some components that we used to bill out to agencies departments separately is now going into the core enterprise services. So that's why, you know, not only why, but part of the reason why that 10,000,000 increase in allocation is, some of that is from formerly built in SLA. Okay. So that it's really a two part thing. There's some services that weren't being built out before we weren't covering the costs. That's in there. But also because you see a 5,800,000 reduction in SLA, what that means is that some stuff that used to be in SLA is now being part of the core enterprise services to being out.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: these expenses that were not billable and not allocatable, but they were getting paid. Right? Like, the checks that ADS was writing to vendors were not bouncing. Where was that cash coming from?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: So which is good question. When I started out, I said there were, you know, two reasons why I was saying it funny. One is because the secretary wanted to reorganize her agency department, and part of my role is I you know, we work with and serve the agencies and departments to allocate their or to represent their budgets. The second reason I said it's in there is because there's been a deterioration in the internal service fund. So, yes, those bills were being paid. Vendors, for example, were paying them. But the what they were doing is drawing on the balance of the internal service fund. And as it grew negative, what you're really doing is drawing on general fund cash. So you may have heard the treasurer say that actually, it's kind of interesting. Back in the day, the daily average state cash balance was 200 to $300,000,000 on a regular basis. Now that buried it generally was lowest at the calendar year end and highest at fiscal year end, May, June. But, generally, we had that much sitting in the bank. During COVID and the federal money came rolling in and the state economy took off, our state cash balance has gone up. So now we're we're carrying about $1,500,000,000 of cash balance as of today, as I sit here. So that balance, among other things, is funding the deficits in the internal service funds. So really, you're drawing on the general fund cash balance. It's I mean, it's not something we like doing. The special funds can unlike the general fund, we can run a deficit in the special funds, but it shows up on our balance sheet. It shows up in our ACPER, which is how

[Unidentified Committee Member]: people Is it fair to say that some of that 1,500,000,000.0 was sort of one time federal COVID funds, and so we've got a reserve that are now being drawn down as we run deficits. Is that fair? Yeah.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: It's fair to say. I mean, some of that is federal money. Some of it's also general fund money. I mean, our economy over the years has ruined its people here. So we paid greater income taxes and bought things for greater sales, you know, the whole thing. I mean, it reverberates to the economy. But Yeah. But but, yeah, the cash balance is wide enough so that it hasn't been a worry in tough times, and there have been times when our cash balance has gotten dangerously low that would it would be more of a The interest on that 1,500,000,000.0 just gets put it in It accrues to the general function. Except in certain funds, it's there's specific statutory language that says interest shall remain with the fund. Anytime that's not the case, it goes to the general fund. So, yeah, I mean, general fund net interest over the past as remember, a bunch of years ago when inflation took off and the Fed started raising rates, our interest earnings skyrocketed. It was a period of time, roughly fifteen to twenty years, where we earned, interestingly enough, less than a million dollars in net interest. And, you know, I think last year, it was up around 70,000,000, and I think it may have peaked around, I don't 85,000,000. Mean, just Did you say a day?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Bram Kleppner)]: So the ask is for $9,000,000 additional appropriation from the fund. That's right. That 5,000,000 is that from the general fund as well, and it's that combined so it becomes a $14,000,000 ask from the general fund.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: So their ads Net. Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Bram Kleppner)]: So they are asking 14,000,000, not just That's correct. Okay.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: And, again, I mean, some of that has already been in the course of being we're already spending some of that, a lot of it. It's just not being recovered. We're just saying, look. This is stuff that we need to do, and so we're essentially daylighting has been a growing deficit, saying, no, actually the cost of running a statewide IT program is more than what we budgeted. So yes, the net is 14,000,000.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Are you gonna ask

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: General fund, by the way.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: We can't recover it then because I need to understand that better.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I was just gonna ask just to clarify something on that, which I

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: think will be good. So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the $9,000,000 in increased general fund money is clear. The net $5,000,000 in additional billing authority comes out of the GF indirectly, like ADS bills, ANR, and ANR gets money from the general fund that That's correct.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: Okay. Thank you. So the way the math is working, 9,000,000, that's direct general fund appropriation. Remember, that's new. We've never actually, EDS, I think, got $200,000 in direct general fund for the GIS. Mhmm. So I I don't include that. We've never given them direct general fund, so that's new. But the the so that's 9,000,000. That's up. Then there's increase in $10,000,000 of cost of the allocation, offset by 5,800,000.0 at lower SLA. So the net is that's how you get the 14,000,000. So but the 10,000,000 the 9,000,000 general fund, no. That's just given. The rest is through allocation. So there's an increasing allocation. As ADS has pointed out, if we were not given if we were not directly appropriating 9,000,000 of general fund, would have fallen out in the allocation to the various agencies and departments, it would have been a heavier lens for them. So that 9,000,000 direct general fund is offsetting what would have long been allocated it out. Yeah. And we weren't just doing that because we thought that agencies and departments couldn't shoulder that. Well, they were very happy we did. We did it because some of these are a lot of in that 9,000,000 are services that we didn't think could be built back. I think I used the example of artificial intelligence. Not that these are bad I mean, these are good things to do, but some of our federal partners, for example, think about centers for Medicaid and Medicare services that provide our Medicaid program. You know? They're likely to go back to us saying, no. Medicaid's about health care. It's not about AI. You know, Medicaid's about health care. It's not about data governance. Yeah. You know, some of the project management costs. Well, you know, we're not doing projects. We're providing health care, so we're not paying for that. So these are the things that that's why there was the direct general fund thing. We're doing these things, so they form correct.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then we talked about two broad reasons that cost couldn't be recovered or fully recovered were federal restrictions, which you just talked about. And I thought there was some other broad reason of like, you know, so

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a lot

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: of these costs can't be recovered because the agencies have federal restrictions on their money, how they can spend their money. And then was there another reason or is that the reason? Thought there was a reason about things that couldn't be shared equally or something or can't easily be allocated.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: Yes. Software. Yes. But it's in a sense, it's a similar reason. You know, you think about, say, AOT. Okay? Those are the the roads and bridges guys. You know? What do they need with AI? I don't know. What do they need with data governance? Certain functions just didn't lend themselves to parceling out, I guess I'd say. Okay. So you

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: would ask about how projects are allocated. 50 or $100,000,000 project.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. And then our yes. And then our next our final question was

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's not appropriate. Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just getting to big IT projects, the bespoke or customized stuff. So if there's a big project, then it's gonna cost $45,000,000. That all of that money is allocated in the year that it's approved? So, there's gonna be a five year project to do some big IT upgraded AOT. Does the whole $45,000,000 get set aside in that year's budget?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: So, I mean, that's an interesting question. Think about the tech mod fund. That has had actually I think Chris paid out, say, DMV modernization. Right? I mean, that had the whole swamp of $30,000,000 So in that typically, yes. I think I don't wanna give a blanket answer of yes because sometimes we don't have think about the maybe the most expensive IT project that I think of, the IE and E, you know, integrated eligibility. Mean, a lot of that stuff we just don't have sitting around in our back pocket. I mean, I can find I'm pretty good at finding money, but that amount of money, I'm not that good at finding. So that could be allocated over years. In addition, some of that is actually drawn down from our federal partners when the expenses are made. So what I would say is typically, yes. If we have the money, we set it aside. Know, keep in mind during the COVID era when our general fund balances were going up, we had a lot of time money. Remember that? And and so we that's when we set aside large chunks of money, but oftentimes, we don't have that, so we'll set aside 3,000,000 here, 2,000,000 there.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So I I don't

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: have a a it's not always the case, but typically we have. Yes. So that spending authority has sat there year in, year out. Mhmm. Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So here's what I'm trying to understand. This year, in the budget, how much money for IT projects is being proposed and for which projects? How will we know that? You So

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: would ask your agency at digital services who has either at their fingertips or through their ECMO office will have at their fingertips projects that are currently ongoing or envisioning.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I'm not looking for the cost. I'm not looking for spending authority. I'm looking for this year in the bud. So let me give an example that I really don't wanna start talking about. Like, the CCWIS system. Right? So how do we know which IT projects the governor is proposing in the budget that we have in front of us this year. That what funding he is proposing this year.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: So you would dial up your friends at DCF and say how much?

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So so every agency. That's I mean, that's what I think is the case is that we would have to go agency by agency, which IT prep there's no place for us to understand what IT projects, what funding. If there is funding for a specific IT project being proposed in a current year's budget. So Rick Southworth was helping us understand, I believe, that we don't go out to RFP unless we have all the money in hand. But that is different than the question I'm asking, is how do we know in any given year what is being proposed to be set aside, you know, or or spent on an IT project.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: If it's a new project, it will be part of the governor's initiative. I mean, you'll see it on the initiative sheet. If it's an ongoing project like CCWISS, for example, that would be within the various department budget. I mean, that would be a current services expenditure, so it wouldn't be called out. But, yeah, you'd to know. And, know, reps, Sibilia, we're working on as part of this moving bespoke out of the spending authority ADS and leaving it solely native, we're working on chartfields that will enable better information, but I am not here to tell you that it will solve that specific problem. Can tell. We would have to identify somehow all of the projects. I mean

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The bespoke. I mean, it's really, I think that's what I'm talking about, the bespoke. And I think it's actually important for both the administration, but and but also for us to have some context Yeah. To understand the administration's priorities, but also to have some context. Like, we may say, oh my god. You didn't fund this, and not understand that you funded this. Right. And keep

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: in mind, it's not just I mean, the tech mod fund is not bespoke. That's a separate, you know, directly appropriated one time appropriations for these projects. So not all of it funnels through that bespoke either, but we've got to figure out how easy it's here. I'm not you know, I'm telling you, I'm acknowledging you're asking a question. Yeah. But we haven't had that facility, and maybe there's a chartfield that we can use that won't just say IT project. So that But

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: we haven't done that before. Either some committee like ours or each committee is I mean, I yeah. How would we unless it's, you know, just each individual oversight committee is is thinking about this, but it seems like we might want to think about this in a bigger, broader context of what are the investments that we're making. Do we agree that those are the that that's the priority because this will be ongoing massive? So so no. That's so my I think my here's what I think I understand. That does not that's not possible right now. That's correct. You are working on better accounting, and you we are hearing you say that we can think about a chartfield that would allow that to be more readily available Yeah. In the future. And so for right now, we would have to go I mean,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: does ADS have this information? Do they understand this?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: They have virtually all keep in mind, you know, what I and that's what I was getting at before when I was thinking about the smoke and how the the spending authority would stay with the departments. They wouldn't have it. ADS manages all these projects. Mhmm. Virtually every single one goes through, as I think, you know, Lisa Gobin, who, you know, is big one, virtually every project goes to the Morrow offices. Mhmm. And, you know, it's hard for me to believe that they don't have most, if not all. It's just hard for me to believe. But, you know, I I can't I don't know their operation as well, but it's difficult for me to believe they don't know where all the projects are because they're hiring the vendors on these projects. Mhmm. They're overseeing they're telling you when to pay or they're paying right now. You know? So, yeah, I think they do know what these things are, but I don't know. There may be some projects that they don't oversee.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And and I'm thinking back

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: to big money days when we had big money not that long ago. And literally sitting with other legislators and members of the administration, like, which project should go first? And literally saying, here are the projects that we think should get funded. Big money days. I don't know if that was I remember. I think four years ago, five years ago.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. You bet sure you would remember that. We need to we've got Ellen hanging in the waiting room. So do folks have other questions for our bonus guest?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Bonus guest. Alright.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you so much for being here, Sibilia.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Really appreciate it. That was very kind. Alright. Is someone still here? Mhmm. Okay.

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: With no humor intended, if we want an extra set of eyes or if you have a wording or paragraph, I'm happy to like, obviously, write it for you, but if you have questions, let me know.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. I respond by Alright. Or by a text. I Or by a phone.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I don't need to text you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Alright. That was timely.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Did you do that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Her knee on the cell phone?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Bram Kleppner)]: Followed him in.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Conjured him. Yeah. Okay. So we'll get JFO in real quick just to tie the bow on that, and then we'll I think we'll be in good shape with our budget letter.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: So I would love to say what we came to at the end. That doesn't exist.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I took note I was taking note. Okay. Ellen, sincere apologies. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Wow. I think that was

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Hi. We're really sorry.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Much, much, much, much regret for keeping you waiting. Alright. We I believe that, representative Campbell has been oh, Scott, do you wanna help us what you've been up to?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Well, based on the testimony we've gotten from the Public Service Department and Division of Fire Safety and OPR, I came up with an amendment that Ellen proposed, and it is I think it's on the website now, is it not? It

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is. Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. So it's okay. It's in today's testimony. It is draft 1.2 of h seven eighteen. And the changes are highlighted in yellow.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Would Ellen walk us through?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Do you wanna walk us through it, Ellen? An upper right color commentary if necessary. Yes,

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll do the walk through. Ellen Shankowski, Office of Legislative Counsel. As Representative Campbell just said, I'm here on H718, extract 1.2. The changes are highlighted in yellow. Representative Campbell, didn't know if you wanted to talk You can talk about the first change if you like or if you wanted to mention what these changes are based on.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, alright. The first change is is a is a finding. I as as I was reading over the whole thing again, it seemed to me that it would be worthwhile trying to put energy codes in context so as it says, we're flooding the streets with money to build housing, and we don't really have either construction standards or a uniform application of energy efficiency standard. To find these, it's just calling that out.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry. And just to take a step back, I have a very sore throat. Please let me know if you cannot hear me. I don't normally testify and hear over Zoom, so I wasn't sure if you wanted me to put it on the screen or if you all have it in front of you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I have it up. Do folks have it up? I think we all have it up and we can see you unless you'd rather I know you're sick.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I got it from you I said.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't you? That seems unlikely. All right, so on page one in the findings section, there's a new first finding added. Public policy for several years has implemented strategies to stimulate construction to relieve Vermont's severe housing shortage. These actions are gaining momentum without appropriate construction standards for one and two unit dwellings and with uneven application of energy efficiency standards. The next change is on page two in the third finding. It now reads, Vermont has adopted a residential building construction code applicable to one and two unit dwellings, which means that for these buildings, there is no administrative infrastructure or enforcement mechanism for implementing energy codes consistently and effectively. Lack of a residential building code also means Vermont lacks a standard of care reference for the public, builders, designers, insurance companies, or the courts, and such lack may also limit the state's ability to access certain federal funding.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I'll just say that that change was prompted by testimony from Director Mike Garroshier at Division of Fire and Safety. He wanted that clarification in there because they do have a fire, what do you call them, a fire and building safety code that they apply to three units and others. Three unit residential building. He also asked about so I sent him this draft and asked him if he had any further comments. And he did comment that even if this bill goes through, they still would not have any infrastructure or enforcement mechanism for implementing energy codes. So I thought that perhaps we should add phrase, there are no administrative infrastructure or enforcement mechanism, and then add, that could form the basis And then for implementing energy codes consistently and effectively. But I can send that to you, Ellen, and see if you wanna change that wording. K.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next changes on page three. What was previously section two and section three have been replaced. In and in the bill is introduced, there was language directing the Division of Fire Safety to adopt a residential building code and giving them an employee position to do this, as well as directing them to seek grant funding. That has been replaced with the session law provision. So on page two, section two adoption of residential building code on or before 01/15/2027, the director of fire safety shall complete an assessment on whether and how the state should adopt a residential building code. The director shall submit the report with the recommendations to the house committees on Energy and Digital Infrastructure and on General and Housing and the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So this is on the topic of a residential building code writ large. So, okay. Can I just Yeah? We've never had any such report in the past?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No, because they they just started holding a a sort of a stakeholder process to talk about what would be necessary to adopt a residential building code. I think they've only had two meetings. So this is just giving them a timeline to finish up that process. And this was recommended by Deputy Commissioner Wilson at Public Service and Director Dara Torre also said that this would be acceptable for them. So this is spirit of compromise.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So fire safety and DPS are both okay with this and it dovetails with work that's already underway. Yes. Okay.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. There are some changes in section three, which is the task force. So first, just a small sort of typo was corrected. It's the Residential Contractor Registry Task Force. You will recall that this is a task force to improve the existing residential contractor registry and expedite the creation of voluntary certifications. And they're an advisory task force to the Office of Professional Regulation. On page four, the membership of the task force has changed slightly. In the prior draft, it had 11 members under this draft. It has 15. The new members are highlighted in yellow. So on page four being added is one member from the Office of Economic Opportunities Weatherization Assistance Program. Number eleven, one member from the Vermont Attorney General's Office, one member from the Associated Builders and Contractors of New Hampshire and Vermont, one member from the Associated General Contractors of Vermont, one residential contractor not affiliated with Associated Builders and Contractors of New Hampshire and Vermont, or Associated General Contractors of Vermont appointed by the governor. And on page five, one member of the public appointed by the governor. So, a couple members were removed. It was the one member appointed by the Vermont Works for Women, one member appointed by Resource. I think those were the two that were replaced with these other ones.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I think ANR also.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh yes, sorry. ANR was also replaced. It's no longer on that list. There are some additional changes to the task force task force on page five. The task force shall advise OPR on ways to address shortcomings in the existing residential contractor registry, including improving public facing web presence, identifying cost effective outreach strategy to the public and residential contractors. And then jumping down, there's some additional tasks that are added. Assess how to improve the energy education modules required in the three BSA section 138, and whether they should be administered by the Department of Public Service. Assess whether the type of regulation for residential contractors should be changed from registration to certification or licensure. Onto page six, assess whether and how the regulating entity for residential building contractors should be transferred from OPR to the Division of Fire Safety, and consider any other strategies to improve and streamline the regulation of the residential construction industry.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Back on page five, number three, about the energy modules. This was requested by OPR. They don't think they should be in charge of designing the energy education modules for the professions under their jurisdiction. So they were suggesting they be handled by Department of Public Service. So we decided to try to compromise with them and put that into the one of the roles, one of the duties of the task force to determine. And then number four was also at the request of OPR that was moved from letter in the bill to something that again the task force will assess rather than just telling if we are to do it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: I had a question on the top So, setting up a task force with members and they're going to advise OPR on this list of things to do.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: my question was yeah, at the top of page five, line two, powers and duties, the task force shall advise OPR on ways to I was just curious what's new. What's different? Yeah, what's different.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just add those words. Shall advise OPR on ways to instead of It used to

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: say just shall. This is what they shall do.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Okay. So again, OPR asked for that clarification. OPR isn't really in charge of the registry at point.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, and then OPR is providing admin support and DFS and DPS are providing kind of technical support. Right. K. And they're both on it. Right?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next change is further down on page six on line 12, as far as the reports, and now it says beginning in 2026, they shall submit annual reports on or before November 1. And so this was just flipped, it previously said on or before 11/01/2026. This is mostly just for grammar.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next, I just wanted to flag very small grammar on At the bottom of page six, the meetings. So in the prior version, I'm sorry, this isn't highlighted, I've missed it. But on line 19, it says the member appointed by the secretary of state. In the prior version, it said the secretary of state or designee shall call the meeting. In the list, it currently says a member appointed by the secretary of state, not the secretary themselves. And so she could designate herself as the member here, but it's more proper to reference that it's the member appointed by. And then the next change is changing the word bimonthly to every other month to be clear, the top page seven. And then I did just wanna flag, there is this still the appropriation here in Subdivision H on page seven. And I want to flag at the end of the bill, there is also an appropriation for the task force. This appropriation is the approximate amount that the per diems would cost. And I didn't know if this should just be combined with the appropriation at the end.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I thought about that as well. Can we do that?

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Why don't

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: we do that? Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So you'll explain that when we get there to the appropriation at the end? Sure. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So you're gonna delete section H?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: Yeah.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the next few sections are about the education requirement. So first, the reader assistance headings have been inserted to so that you can know which profession each section applies to. So at the bottom of page seven to page eight, architects, engineers, and property inspectors. That's for the first section, section four on page eight. I wanted to flag quickly on page eight line nine. This hasn't changed. The other professions, the language regarding no more than two hours has been unstruck, but this one is still Representative Campbell, I wasn't sure if you wanted this one unstruck or not.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, it seemed to me that these professions were more involved in the overall design and function of buildings. Putting a limit of two hours on their education was I was hoping to get away with removing that.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: What are we doing? Page 18, line nine, shall be not more than two hours is struck out, which is how I proposed it in the the bill as introduced. Director of director reacted against that. That's right. In the case of the trades. But in the case of new professions, it seemed to be appropriate that we should not limit it to two hours. Okay. By statute, any mic.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, so the next Okay,

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: sorry. So it's unlimited on page eight, but for HVAC technicians, it's

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Got it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Not more than two hours. Okay, because people were worried about that. That was the testimony we took right about them having to drive up and

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, was just a matter of again, director to director saying he didn't want to be adding more time to the requirements. Remember that?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So that's throughout all the pages. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: On page 10, you didn't add highlighting, Ellen, but page 10, starting on line four for commission of boiler inspectors. Again, Dara Torre asked if we could remove them or delete this section of statute because he said boiler inspectors really have no role in energy efficiency stuff, in energy cool matters. So we asked for the trade to be, or role anyway, be deleted. Made sense to me, so again, spirit of compromise, I just deleted it.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And then we have electricians and plumbers, page eleven and twelve. And then on page 13, you wanna say, hello, do you want me to keep Do you wanna say, or do you want me to keep going?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's up to you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We're through, we're in the sick meeting the sick here. So on page 13, Energy Professionals Regulation report. This is asking the Office of Professional Regulation to conduct a sunrise process to assess whether home energy rating systems raters, which are currently regulated by Department of Public Service and energy professionals, which are not regulated and not even defined, should be regulated in professions. So this is a typical process that OPR goes through when asked to consider whether some role or trade or profession should be a regulated profession. And they asked that they'd be willing to do that, but they wanted more time. I think the original deadline was 2027.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And then at the bottom of page 13 on line 18, This is about municipal enforcement. And this is seeking to clarify the issue of whether municipalities have the authority to enforce energy codes. We're going to hear from VLCT attorney tomorrow. Certainly, Sheehan, who has been in testifying on this bill, believes that municipalities currently have authority over regulation of buildings because it says that in Title 24, which is the title about municipal law. But it's not really clear what that means, and to refresh your memory, we had heard from the Public Service Department Attorney, Ben Sibilia, that he felt it was unclear whether municipalities had them. Some municipalities have placed that authority into charter changes, and so if they do explicitly have authority, since those charter changes were approved by the legislature, that that at least is Burlington and and might be could stop Burlington as well. So so this week we'll just make it explicit that municipalities could, sorry, could If they want to. If they want to. It's not a requirement that they do.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. And we're hearing from the league tomorrow on that.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So I'll add that

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at the bottom of page 13, the language that's highlighted, and then as well as in section 11, as introduced, it said the municipality may administer and enforce. I don't think it is clear what administer in this context would mean given that the Department of Public Service retains their authority over adopting and providing some training on the codes. And so the authority here, and there's some additional language in section 12, is to clarify that the municipalities may adopt the standards exactly, not their own, and then they may enforce them through their building inspection process.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yes, thank you. That's an important clarification. All right, well then on the next page 14, just to go in page order, this section and the section on page 15 are identical but one relates to RVs and the other relates to CDs, so residential and commercial. This is language that Public Service Department have requested and the builders and architects have requested. It's what we call a safe harbor provision that allows or protects builders who have filed or architects who have filed energy certificates based on twenty twenty RVs or CVs and based on the governor's executive order of September, I think it was seventeenth. So the purpose is just to give them legal protection in case they relied on that executive order to file a twenty twenty certificate instead of a twenty twenty four certificate. There wasn't one change that I thought of though on line seven on page 14, on page 15 as well, the well, let's see. The the sentence begins I guess the whole thing is seven. One sentence is

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would would you like me to walk through it?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Oh, sure. That'd be great. Okay. And

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll point out that it is not identical. It is nearly identical between the RBs and CBs. And I will point out that there is a bit of a distinction in the CBs one. On page 14, new subdivision K, transitional safe harbor compliance. This subsection applies to any residential building for which a certificate of compliance with the Arby's was filed pursuant to this section using the 2020 Arby's compliance path during the period beginning on 09/17/2025, the effective date of the executive order number 06/25, and until such time as amendments to the R. B. Rules are adopted.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: A

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: building described in Subdivision 1 shall be deemed to be in compliance with this section. The use of the twenty twenty RV's compliance path during that period shall not by itself constitute a violation of this section or of any rule adopted under this section. The state shall not bring an enforcement action under this section based solely on the use of the '20 20 RV's compliance path for a building described in subdivision one, and no damages, penalties, or other relief shall awarded in an action brought under subsection G of this section based solely on such use.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: So the one memo that I thought of was in that subdivision one, where it says, for the period beginning 09/17/2025, and until such time as amendments to Arby's are adopted, amendments to Arby's rules are adopted. But what if they aren't adopted?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Should we say what I thought of is, or public service department issues the next R. B. Update, something like that. Or something else that you might think of it would be, it would cover that eventuality in case LCAR, for example, says, no, we're not going to approve those rules or do not. Whatever might happen in the process of adopting the rules.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is what the phrase on line six into seven isn't intended to capture. Are you suggesting that there would never be an update to the RVs again?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. Okay, so maybe it captures it the way it is, is what you're saying.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do agree that there is some risk when you make something have a contingent effective date. It's not always advisable, so you could pick a date certain. I do think specifically this situation is very unusual.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: See what you say. The So amendment would be adopted to the rules whenever an update would happen, right?

[Adam Greshin (Commissioner of Finance & Management)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That makes I have questions about this. This is all new, right?

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think you have received any testimony about, or have you received any testimony about the executive order?

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: No. Okay. Not really, but we are hearing from Andrew Brewer tomorrow about, he would have comments about this session since it probably came from the builders and architects who he represents.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's what I wanted to ask. I wanted to just remind myself, We've we haven't taken much testimony about the executive order, but somebody in testimony requested that we make this safe harbor change, and I can't remember who it was.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I just think it was Department. The department. Yeah. Yeah. It was the department. Yeah. Brittany. It

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: was Brittany. And I can't remember, honestly, don't remember where this stands. So, Governor Scott issued an executive order in September saying that builders could comply

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: either 2020 or 2024.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: 2020 or 2024. So presumably some builders went ahead or are going ahead, compliance with 2020, which are probably less stringent, or there'd be a reason you'd wanna do the 2020. But what is this in court now? Or I'm also concerned about creating some sort of open ended thing.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It's in role making right now. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: It's in role making right now. So they

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: had a they had a hearing on February 2. They took comments until February 9. And whatever the next step is, guess, moved to ICAR.

[Unidentified Staff/Witness (possibly Department of Public Service)]: Into ICAR. It's been Now it goes to ICAR.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Now it goes to ICAR. Yeah. So

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: okay. So that's right. Okay. That is right. So it's not being contested in the courts. The

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: The attorney general. May I?

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, please. I also can weigh in.

[Unidentified Staff/Witness (possibly Department of Public Service)]: I will let go first. Yeah. Thank you.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Go ahead, Ellen.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm not aware of a litigation being brought against the executive order but I was wrong. Yeah. I the attorney general's office issued an opinion as well as I believe that the executive order exceeds the governor's authority, specifically in regards to the RVs and CBs. And so it does create this legal ambiguity around builders who choose to follow the executive order. And that is because both the RBs and the CBs have private rights of action in them. People have the authority under those statutes to bring complaints against the builder or the certifier that they have complied with the law. And if one of the builders or certifiers complied with the governor's directive, which has exceeded the law and his authority to do so, it would create legal ambiguity around whether there would be the ability for those building owners who have been harmed by that. So this would create a safe harbor provision for those builders who followed the governor's directive.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, now that I'm reoriented, and so until such time as that's the it's already been to ICAR, now it's at LCAR process that we're talking about?

[Unidentified Staff/Witness (possibly Department of Public Service)]: Yes. We were thinking, assuming LCAR approved the new rules up until that minute, so there's no gap, but Ellen astutely brought up, wait a minute. What if LCAR does not approve the rules? Then we'd be in the same situation we're in right now. With legal ambiguity. Yeah, with legal ambiguity. I don't want to speak for Ellen, but I think she's talking about it being certain.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: That we're not creating this indefinitely forward moving safe harbor?

[Unidentified Staff/Witness (possibly Department of Public Service)]: That's correct. I'll make that more clear tomorrow, but yeah, we're not trying to be a sneaky way to codify twenty twenty RVs. Correct.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So we'll talk to you tomorrow. Okay. Thanks, Ellen.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and it is an unusual situation. So you do have the option if you want to pick a date certain or attempt to wait for when these new rules may be adopted and use this language?

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, if we pick to date certain

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: the date certain may happen between now and the end of the session.

[Unidentified Staff/Witness (possibly Department of Public Service)]: Should do both.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Works. Rules are dotted. Or,

[Unidentified Staff/Witness (possibly Department of Public Service)]: sorry.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Because I would assume that, and I know this is a tomorrow question, but however many builders hustled along to build, to try to be like, oh gosh, we can do 2020, would have I I would think that then the attorney general's opinion and the fact that it's now in rulemaking would have given them pause. So, I'm not I'm not imagining a floodgates thing, but we'll talk to you tomorrow about that. Okay. Alright. So, I I just want to flag this section as it's new. I feel like we haven't fully taken a dive into this area. Okay. I'm done. And I

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would also just add the executive order also doesn't have an end date in mind. And so I do think that is why you are kind of contemplating if the RBs and CBs update would be that because under the executive order, it is an indefinite period. Okay. I did also just want to flag that the language here on page 14 is nearly identical to the page to the language on page 15 for the CVs. However, there is a difference that I wanted to point out because I'm not entirely sure if it's significant. On page 14 at the end of subdivision three, so the private rights of action for the RVs and CVs are slightly different. They do have different language for the requirements of them. And so this language on page 14 has the last clause that is no damages, penalties, or other relief shall be awarded in an action brought under subsection G based solely on such use. And that language is not in the CV's provision. I haven't, I don't at the moment have an opinion on if it is a significant difference. I'm going to think about it a little bit more.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. That'd be great. Are you able to be here tomorrow afternoon at one right away when the lawyer or the attorney from the LCT will be here?

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know off the top of my head. I can look at my schedule.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I'll do that.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I guess I'll just respond to that quickly. I think as we have discussed it, there is language in Title 24, some of it is here in section 12 at the bottom of page 15 into 16. Municipalities do have authority to adopt building codes and regulations within the municipality. However, there are very specific references to the types of codes that they can adopt. Some of that language is on page 16 in regards to chapter fifty nine and twenty VSA chapter 73. And so I agree with the department that there isn't clear authority, including energy building, building energy codes. Those are not addressed at all in here, and that is why Montpelier and Burlington both sought charter changes in order to adopt authority around building energy. I think that has been the opinion for years now that they don't have clear authority, and so they needed to ask the legislature for specific permission. But adding this language on page 16 would do that for other municipalities. So it's being added in the title 30 secondtions, section fifty three and fifty one regarding RVs and CVs, but then also it's being added here in section 12, which is the municipal building code section. So on page 16, the language that's being added is the adopted codes and regulations may incorporate by reference the RBs and the CDs established in 30 BSA chapter two. So again, this is incorporation by reference. It doesn't give them the authority to adopt their own energy codes, just that they can directly import the existing ones as part of their building code administration. And then further down, subsection G is being added that incorporation of the RVs and CVs pursuant to subsection A shall allow the municipality to enforce those standards.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Excellent, thank you. Okay.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the last changes are on page 17. There's a couple of changes to the appropriation section. Notwithstanding languages added at the bottom of page 16, because in both of these appropriations, you are using fuel efficiency fund dollars and the fund does currently say how those dollars are supposed to be spent, but you're seeking to spend them on other things. And so on page 17, it's in 2027, the sum of $200,000 is appropriated from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative revenues in the fuel efficiency fund to the Department of Public Service for funding the consultation and technical support for municipalities who want to adopt the RVs and the CD. So, Rep Campbell had just asked, was interested in being very specific about which pot of money this is coming out of.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Bram Kleppner)]: Ellen, is the use of that money statutorily allowing these funds to be used for this purpose? I I guess is the statute written so that those funds can be used for this?

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This I don't I don't think so. So those funds are currently supposed to be used for thermal and process fuel initiatives. And so the statute doesn't spell out what is included in those, but that's why I did include the language at the bottom of page 16 that says notwithstanding. So it's common in some of the funding bills, like in the budget, you have not withstood requirements of sections before to move around different pots of money. So while there is generally stated types of uses these funds are supposed to go to, do have the option to amend that and not withstand it for the purpose of a single appropriation.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the fuel efficiency fund, where do those revenues currently flow? Who gets that money now?

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's for thermal and process fuel efficiency programs. And so I think you have heard some testimony about that now from other witnesses about Bramant Gas Systems does some thermal and process fuel initiatives. Burlington Electric does as well. So it's a different pot of money than the electric efficiency funding, which is from the electric rates. And this is a different pot for different types of efficiency.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Efficiency is wrong as well.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Gets some. Yeah, yeah. Under that expanded.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Right. They use it, well, we heard from Burlington Electric about what they use their money for, and they wanted to be able to use it for weatherization stuff and all that. We'll learn more about that. Efficiency Vermont uses it for basically for weatherization, for low and moderate weatherization incentives. So it's one of the funding sources, I guess it is actually the funding source for the services EBT provides to multi family low income housing through treatment thermal. And they may use some of it for LEO's weatherization program as well. Basically it goes for weatherization.

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then finally, there's a couple of changes in the subdivision two. So again, referencing it's the RGGI revenues, and this is to support the residential contractor registry task force established in Section three with a goal of launching on or before 12/31/2027, a consumer oriented website and a comprehensive outreach plan to raise public and contractor awareness of the residential contractor registry and support the development of voluntary certifications. And so I mentioned earlier in the section three in the task force, there is a specific $5,000 appropriation to fund the per diems for the members of the task force. And I think you decided that you're actually just gonna roll it into this and it can come out of there. The

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: $5,500

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for appropriations is based on the Joint Fiscal Office has a formula for how much it costs approximately to pay the per diems for a task force. And so that's where that number came from. It might be more or less depending on how many people actually participate and seek the per diem.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So can you add the per diem for the task force members to this?

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. You want it to be $205,000 or did you just want to keep it at the $200,000

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Just keep it at 200,000 fine. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. Okay. Then so just to state the obvious, the alternative to trying, you know, trying to dip into the regimen would be to go for a general physician. Right. Okay. So, Next steps. Let's talk about next steps. All right. So this is sort of heavy duty committee discussion week. So tomorrow morning, we're gonna walk through a committee bill that I requested that I'll send to everybody. Or Ellen, did you already I know you sent it to me. Yes, I did. Okay. I need to deal with that. So what's in there right now, and Ellen, actually it's good that you're here, is we had that request from Burlington Electric to extend EMA and then we had the Department of Public Service saying we totally disagree and we asked them to go talk and work out a compromise and then come back with a compromise And so they sent some suggested language and Ellen turned it into sort of acceptable and clear that's in there. And then I think I'd also put in the request from the Department of Public Service to change the cadence of the ten year telecom plan for three to five years, but we don't need that anymore. That's it, right?

[Ellen Shankowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, there are four sections, two from me and two from Maria. Other one from Maria was repealing the tea cab. That's right. And then the other section I did was about the enhanced energy planning that regional planning commissions and municipalities do. They wanted some language about syncing up enhanced So energy they did not provide any language on that. So I drafted something. I'm not sure if it exactly meets their request, but that is a matter. Okay.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: So these are, this is like a request bill. So it's Burlington Electric request as of vet and approved by the department, and then three of the other sort of random housekeeping requests that we had from DPS. And I dumped them into a bill for testimony and discussion. So we'll see that tomorrow. Then we're we have some big committee discussions coming. So we've taken a lot of testimony on net metering, h seven sixteen. We've taken a lot of testimony on disconnections and repair protections, h seven five three. And we tomorrow, we'll have taken kind of some, you know, additional testimony on h 17 h seven eighteen, Scott's bill, and we've just walked through it too. So tomorrow, we have scheduled three committee discussions on these three bills. And the point is for everybody to be really candid about what they're thinking about the bills, how they how they feel they would vote, whether they support, what we think next steps might be so that we can really decide whether we're going be scheduling additional testimony, taking a vote, pivoting. Be thinking about these three bills Tomorrow is going to be the day when we are really going to need to hear from folks on these three bills. Then, we are going to do more data center testimony. And we had the Department of Public Service who sent us a number of suggestions on the data center bill and I think we would then be trying to get to a point with that bill deciding okay what are we doing. So those are the next couple days. Yeah, right, pal?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I was only counting the number of weeks.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right.

[Rep. R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I would no, okay, I just count to three weeks.

[Rep. Kathleen James (Chair)]: Really after this week too? So we have Well, counted this week. Oh yeah, so we have this week, which is why I scheduled a lot of time for committee discussion this week. Okay. And then we have two weeks left. One before town meeting break and one when when we get back to get our bills out. And then, our budget letter, but I feel like that's getting really close now. Okay. So that's the plan. Ellen, please feel better. I'm sorry we kept you waiting. Yeah.