Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Five.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are going to change topics and hear some testimony on the host producer responsibility organization or beverage containers?

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: Thank you for having me. Public speaking, not my forte. I could make you a pizza or recommend a bourbon, but speaking is the only thing. I have something to read here.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: We may take you up on this too.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: Yeah. Yeah. I offer. We can talk about that. Just things.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: And I guess they don't as long as they don't add up to over $15, I think.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: I was gonna bring a pizza, but I didn't know if that was so

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: my

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: name is Shane Switzer. I owned, along with Emily, Lindenville Redemption. And the reason why I'm here today is to talk about the the bill. I spoke with a couple of, members of this committee, the other night, and I'm I'm happy to be here to voice my concerns. So I appreciate the time. Linneville Redemption is one of the top 20 redemption centers in the state of Vermont, and we process high volumes of cans and bottles every day. We know exactly what it takes to operate a full service center. We're a large beverage center. So in the back of our store, we have a bottle redemption. We have approximately 3,000 square feet dedicated to that. And in the front of the store, we're a beverage center, we sell beer, wine, or an eight zero two spirit store, and, we've sold lots of non alcoholic beverages as well. So, several parts of the bill concern us, as far as, the number one concern is the loss of the statutory floor. Right now we get 3 and a half and 4¢, for commingled and non commingled. And, earlier drafts of the bill had that floor in there. And from what I understand, PRO asked to have that removed. The PRO is made up largely of beverage manufacturers and distributors, as we know. It would require redemption centers to negotiate handling fees directly with the entities that benefit financially from lowering those fees. It forces redemption centers into negotiations where the other side's incentive is to drive the rate downward. Lowering the handling fees directly benefits the PRO. They need the rate down so they can operate. And it's important to note that some of the largest this is made up, the PRO is made up of beverage distributors manufacturer. These are, some of the largest, I'm sorry, sorry. Give me a second here.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Your time.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: We are one of the largest customers to a lot of these beverage distributors and manufacturers in the state. We run a large beverage center. So you're gonna this bill would ask us to negotiate directly with some of those companies. Don't know if that's a fair foundation where we need this going forward with the bottle bill. The next concern that we have is the reverse vending machines. The idea is that the PRO is going to install these machines and that's going to make us more efficient and drive our costs down. As we all know in this, in 2026, costs don't go down much. They just do this on a regular basis. And so our insurance, our utilities, it's going to cost a considerable amount of money to run these, you know, the electrical needs and things like that, electrical upgrades. And so it's just a little concerning not knowing where we're gonna be at, not having a floor at all. And all of a sudden, we're up against a PRO that's looking to drive our rate down and not having any idea what that looks like going forward is problematic for redemption centers. I've talked to a few and, you know, we all have the same concerns. Some of the biggest redemption centers in the state, when I explain what the language looks like now, they're like, wait a minute. What can you tell me about that again? Like, what what does this mean? And, you know, it's, I I have a few other centers, and I encourage, you and the next committee that this goes to, to to talk to, you know, all of the stakeholders that are involved. And so with the reverse vending machines, you know, it doesn't eliminate all of the labor and all of the other, you know, the bagging, the staging, the utilities, insurance, all those things go up every day. And so when we when we talk about those, you know, that making it more efficient, there certainly are efficiencies in that process. And we appreciate, like, we want modernization. Just to be clear, we want modern We wanna be more efficient. If you were to sit down with me and say, okay. Tell me what the biggest problems with where we sit right now with the bottle bill is and with the current bill that we have. And I'd say, we haven't had a raise in fifty years. So we're our costs are doing this, especially in the last five years or so. And we haven't had a raise in a long, long time. So facing right now, we're facing possibly our rates going down with talk about efficiency and maybe, you know, less labor. It that's scary, to be honest with you. I mean, it's it's so I had the opportunity yesterday to to talk with somebody that owns some beverage centers in Massachusetts. And I I asked him about redemption, and and he said what happened in Massachusetts around 2020 with their modernization is they were the system evolved into, being dominated by a couple of recycling companies and some machine companies. And the model is you buy a machine for 20,000 or you lease it for a penny a can or bottle that that goes into the machine, and they pay 2¢ for a handling fee. And so he explained that process to me, and I I I said, what about the large redemption centers? How do they operate? He he looked at me and said, is no large redemption centers here. He said they went out of business because they can't survive on on 2¢. And so, you know, nobody's floating 2¢, but this is just a real world example of what happens when the rates are driven down. Some things to note about Massachusetts, their redemption rates. I did some research. I found a report that had all the states for redemption rates, and Massachusetts is around 35% redemption rate, which is low. Vermont is in the sixties and seventies. And so I think how this relates back is starting with their modernization, their redemption rates are just are just plummeting. And and the reason why is because it's a pain to redeem bottles there. What they ended up with was a whole bunch of stores that have the small reverse vending machines. You put one can at a time. There's a few that have bulk. There are some places that have some larger stuff, but for the most part in Massachusetts, you go put one can at a time, including his four stores. And it's it's just a pain to to redeem bottles there. And is that what we want here? Do we want plummeting redemption rates? And do we want, you know, do we want the system to be a hassle? I don't think so. I don't think that's the goal. Vermont has a 70% redemption rate because there's there's some redemption centers have systems figured out, and it's, you know, it's efficient. Could it be better with machinery and things like that technology? Certainly. But but I think the goal isn't to to to do this. It's to, you know, to I I think is it still written in the bill that that their redemption rates have to be at a certain level? Yeah. So So just something to take into consideration. I think that's worthwhile. We took Tomra invoice and said, Okay, if in a particular week, we redeemed 34,388 cans. And, at the current rates, that was that was $1,224.63 I'm using the 2¢ map. That brings it down to 687.76. And, you know, it doesn't take a lot of figuring, to to figure out that, like, it with that much less money in the system, it's it's just not viable. It's just it's, so we've we need to be careful. My point, I guess, is that we need to just be careful on leaving it completely up in the air, to an organization that it's in their very, very, very best interest to make sure that they give me the lowest rate that they possibly can. I just, it's troubling. The other thing that, you know, there's a labor impact. Vulnerable Vermonters are a risk. A lot of redemption centers employ people, high school students and people that are returning to the workforce. The, you know, I think we, we, across the state, that's that's the norm. And and those are jobs that matter. We we can't afford to lose any jobs in the state or anywhere, but but we we just really, really can't can't afford to lose any jobs. And if if if this passes with its current state and the redemption, the re the rates go down and and employees are lost, we're you know, it's it's the most vulnerable for Monarch. So please take that as consideration. The, I think what I'm here to to ask is that, maybe we Maybe some language needs to be figured out. And I'm not sure exactly. I've been trying to keep up with the bill, but it's been changing. I've been trying to watch the testimony and all that good stuff. So I'm not 100% sure where the bill is at as far as maybe we need a study for a year with all of the stakeholders and with redemption centers and with the PRO. What does the PRO look like? Some questions we need to ask ourselves is what does it actually cost to run the PRO? The woman, I can't think of her name, I'm sorry, testified that it costs 0.3 to 0.4¢ per unit to run the PRO. What is that based on? What do we know about how exactly that's going work? In talking to beverage distributors and manufacturers, they have real concerns about that. They're like, Okay, if this thing isn't fully funded, what? We're gonna get a bill, like, as a distributor that you know? So there's there's some questions about all of that and some people that I've been talking to. So how much does it cost to run a PRO? What does it actually cost to put machines in 20 locations? And after those locations, then what? We have $3,500,000 in this bill to fund over four years to put machines in. What does that look like? Are those real costs? I talked to one redemption owner that said that quote for a machine and it was $400,000 Well, 3,500,000.0 doesn't go far if you're spending $400,000 on each lawn. That doesn't cover 20 stores. So, you know, what are the real costs there? You know, at the end of the day, we want to avoid what I learned about Massachusetts and how they modernize and rushing into a structure that risks collapsing the redemption network. Redemption centers are the backbone of this bill. I think that we need to make sure that we hear from some other, other redemption centers. I know this committee is looking to vote on this. It's gonna move along and, or not or whatever. But, but at the end of the day, I think that there needs to be more voices heard in the redemption community because everybody that I've talked to, I've been making phone calls all week to redemption centers saying, are you aware of what's what we're dealing with here? And when I explained the PRO and the and the they that the floor is taken out, every single person still, like, wants to stop me and make sure they heard me right to to, you know, to make sure that that this is what they were actually looking at. And so I think that having more redemption centers involved in the conversation is a isn't a bad idea. We need a system that's predictable, fair, and economically viable for for everybody involved. The PRO doesn't wanna spend any money doing it, and we don't wanna lose money. So, like, what what does that look like? And, and just at the end of the day, I I understand there's been bottle bills and different versions and things for the last three or four years. The idea of this is to, like, we gotta we gotta get something going, we gotta we have to start somewhere. And and I understand that, and I I want that too. And I think that a lot of people that are involved, a lot of the stakeholders that I've been talking to feel the same way that they're like, we we wanna do something, but, you know, is this the right one? I don't know. It scares me with the, with leaving the fee up in the air. It's like taking what I do, what what my livelihood, and putting it up in the air for somebody else to decide over here later is is scary. Yeah. Well Love to take some any questions or

[Representative Kate Logan]: Thanks for your testimony. You're a great public speaker.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: Well, I

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: either way. Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Representative Pritchard and then North. Oh, so

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: I guess I understand how the machines may increase your efficiency. Yeah. Part I think part of the goal of this is to increase redemption rates.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Do you feel this does that?

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: What steps that are taking this bill increase? I mean, we're looking to get to 90%.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: Yeah.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Eight five or whatever. Yeah.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: It's been steady for years and years and years. Yeah. So what change what change in this bill do you

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: think gets us there, or do you think it doesn't get us there?

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: That's a great question. I haven't put a lot of thought into that, to be totally honest with you. I I'm not just thinking quick about it. I'm not sure that there's anything in here that that does that. What I would ask is I would ask you all, what are your thoughts on how this gets us there? And I don't see anything in there that stands out as a, like, a, like, a this is definitely gonna get us there. If you really, really wanna increase redemption rates, I'm not a complete expert on the matter, but my first thought would be you you have to you'd probably have to raise the the amount that we charge. By the way, I'm not necessarily in favor of that. We we compete directly with New Hampshire where I am, and and we're like, it it really mattered. Somebody came in the other day and they said, they said, how much is a a 30 pack of whatever it is Bud Light? And I said it's $25.99. And they said, they said, okay. And I I could tell they're price shopping. And I said, how does that compare to New Hampshire? And, or how does that compare? I did not say New Hampshire. And he said, well, I buy it in New Hampshire for $20. And, he buys it in New Hampshire for $20 before tax, before deposit. So if we point being, if we add you know, say we make the the redemption 10¢, you know, then we're just that just puts us further away. It puts us at almost $15 after tax and deposit more than New Hampshire. We're fighting that. Every day in this building, we fight till, hopefully, till, like, stay somewhat you know, we're not trying to be New Hampshire, but we need to stay competitive. We need to we need to make sure that we're not driving business there. And so I think that raising the deposit drives business there. That being said, like, we wanna raise, and we want, like, we want, like, you know, we

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: Have you

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: tried to

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: insinuate what we're tactically better?

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: That's a different conversation for a different day. But at the end of the day, I'm not a 100% sure what this bill does to to increase redemption rates. I would ask you that same question. If that's the committee's goal or if that's this bill's goal, you tell me what it's gonna do. I don't I don't have an awesome answer.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Representative North.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: Hopefully that I don't have it.

[Representative Rob North]: Thank you so much, Shane. Great meeting you in the evening as well. Getting the same story from from you as I I do when I speak to the owner of a redemption center in in my district as as well where where I serve. And just just a question for you then. So so if all we did, if we just if all we did was just increase the hand lift fee from about 3 and a half to 4¢ by by another half a cent or a penny, and just did that to give you the raise. Would that provide sufficient incentive for you and income enough for you to be able to invest in machines to improve efficiency and then be able to expand geographically. Because right now, one of the problems we're seeing is redemption deserts. It's getting harder and harder for you guys to stay in business, and so they're contracting. There are areas where it's getting hard to, you know, in Vermont. So if if, handling things went up

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: a little bit, would that help you? And could

[Representative Rob North]: you expand, and could you help us solve some

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: of these problems?

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: Yeah. I mean, so right now, we're I have a little bit of map that I broke out. I didn't fit into it, but I I have some math that I broke out that that shows, like, the last six months and what we received in in income, what we paid out in deposits, what we paid in labor. And, you know, we're in the we're in the, our margins are thin. Some months we lost money. And, you know, other months we made up for it in the busy months and things like that. At the end of the year, we, our margins are very thin. And so any anything helps, as far as as, raising the, you know, the handling fee. It certainly would help us, you know, have more hire more people and and invest in in efficiencies and and things like that. I've over the years, I've thought about, you know, what do we have to do to to put equipment in? My store, the way my store is set up, and anybody ever wants to do a field trip, I'd love to show you my store. We'll take we'll have the whole committee over if you'd like if you'd like. But, it's over in Lindenville, it takes an hour to get there. But, but, we our store is set up for we we could install a machine tomorrow in our store. And and all we would have to do is upgrade the electrical, and there's and there's not a lot. I was talking to some guys that that go to a lot of the stores, some of the beverage distributors, and they were saying that, like, a lot of the stores would need major upgrades to have a the equipment installed. Like like, our store is equipment ready, and we could do it without investing tens of thousands of or 100,000 more dollars besides the equipment. And and so we're we we've thought about that over the years. And one of other things that that is, you know, this doesn't the bill doesn't necessarily address it. It might because the PRO might make sure that it that it's taken care of is Tamara is somebody testified that Tamara does a great job. They've never had Tamara pick up their supplies. I promise you. The Tamara is they long and short of it, a great company, but they they only have three drivers for the whole state. They consistently and they can't hire drivers. And we can get into that if you want, but I there's they can't hire drivers because there's so much labor involved in putting this stuff on trucks that nobody wants to drive a truck and load it like that, and it's not a great job. So they can't hire drivers, and they struggle, struggle, struggle. This week, they were supposed to pick us up three days, and and they they did not. They came on the fourth day, but, it is horribly inefficient, the pickup of the product. So it's kind of another topic that doesn't really relate to this bill per se, but maybe having a PRO would make that a little more efficient and and, having the stuff be able to go in bins because it's machine crushes it or whatever. That sounds like a great idea. Like, that that would save space, and there's a number of things with that that we would love. So to answer your question, yes. We, we we would love to be able to I mean, it would to be able to, and happy to invest in things like that if if we increase the handling fee.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Does that field trip include the pizza?

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: Absolutely. Yeah. My my we can go to the pizza man at my my restaurant in Louisville if you're ever over there to stop in and have pizza. But we'd love to bring you there to have pizza. It's part of the trip. Mhmm.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: So appreciate that you're following the bill and that you took time to come in and reach out to other redemption centers. I do think the bill does attempt to increase redemption rates by addressing the fact that we do have gaps in coverage of redemptions.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: I do agree with that. Yes.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: It's part of what we're trying to do here. Yeah. Thanks so much for your testimony.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Yeah. Thanks for having me. Thank you. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Actually, did did you have something you want to no. Okay. Great.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: All right. Thanks. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Members, we are going to get back to that budget letter. We keep getting air in here. Worry about opening the windows to

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: air. Oh, yes. Are you going

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: to vote on this now?

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: No, we are not. We took that off our schedule.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: We did. Okay. And are are you gonna continue to talk about PRO today? If you are, are we gonna hang out? Hang out. If you are not, I was not gonna

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Actually, we're all and

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: you may share this. I mean, I think we're trying to get it. We have to do a budget letter today and then get home hopefully safely before this storm. So no. But you'll see it next week on the agenda. So stay tuned. Alright.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: Have a

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: great day. Thanks. Alright, Summers. I know everyone wants to talk about PROs right now, probably, but we were asked to get a budget letter in.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I think I wanna talk about pizza.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: I did check with representative Campbell about wastewater systems and manufactured towels, and chips wouldn't cover maintenance, but if it was a new system, chips won't cover it. They could have bought the chips.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And I was communicating

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: with folks about that also. Alright. The Cooperative Development Institute.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: So CHIP does cover any new No. Because of the incremental tax.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Okay, folks. I appreciate the work of our subcommittee on response to the budget, and welcome discussion on that as well.

[Representative Kate Logan]: And I'll just add that if we need time to answer some questions, it'll be okay.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: It'll be okay. Yeah. Yes. Right. I just wanna get if we can get I'm still there today.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: That would be great. And then if there are I don't wanna have a whole bunch of outstanding rabbit hole questions. Yes.

[Representative Kate Logan]: I also have some information related to the Healthy Homes program. Just checking in with somebody who helps manufactured housing communities do this work

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: said that

[Representative Kate Logan]: because of other programs, million that's dedicated to gap filling grants for nonprofit and cooperative manufactured housing community, infrastructure redevelopment projects would be helpful because these when nonprofits and the park residents themselves purchase the parks from the private owners, Usually, there's a significant amount of deferred maintenance, that doesn't is not reflected in the appraisal value of the property because that's not the national standards for appraisals don't allow deferred maintenance to be reflected in the in the price of, the appraised price of the property. And yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Just for manufactured housing communities or for everyone?

[Representative Kate Logan]: Everyone. So you can negotiate after you you know, a bit on the price purchase price of the home if you know about significant deferred maintenance. But, yeah. So I thought that was interesting. Total different rabbit hole. Like, we've had this conversation last year. It's a little weird. I know. But I feel like it's I don't want go too far into I think high level would Point being, a million of gap filling funds for manufactured housing communities would help a lot because they can't afford to take on significant debt

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: in order to do these projects. So, Jason?

[Speaker 0]: On the Healthy Homes piece, I haven't been thinking about this as something just new in this moment. My reaction is, I'm thinking about the fact that people on appropriations on both Senate and House have told me that we have virtually zero funds above the governor's recommend to be playing with and to be considering how to spend. And that means to me, I prefer to put a letter in that basically has one or two priorities that we'd love for them to consider and not a list of all the requests. Or I'd love to just say, here are all the requests we heard, just so you know. And I can't see taking a program that was I mean, it's great that we had this federal funding to catch up on decades of ill repair and systems that really warrant investment. I wish that that program, while they had all of that federal funding and five staff had brought us a comprehensive needs assessment for the state of where we still have needs, especially for the manufactured home communities, but also for just starting low income homeowner relation that is really important to help Vermont. We know we have an affordability crisis. I feel like having had a report like that would have been really useful. Having the administration not plan to carry this program at all into the future tells me that, well, I would love to think that we really got at a lot of the need that was out there, But I don't think that's true. What we're hearing is they are having immense still continued interest. I wonder in a year like this, wise, whether we could ask the agency while they still have five staff to prepare a need to gather some of that need assessment so that next year we would have something really concrete to think about with state funds. That's just where I got left with that conversation.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Representative Austin?

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Yeah, I did quickly look at H757 that was just voted out of housing. It's a very complicated bill. And don't What? Yeah, okay. Well, I'm I'm in effective housing, so Let's I'm not sure if that helps. Those

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: are yeah.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: That's a whole different thing. It is a different thing.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Okay. Yep.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I know that the ways in or the appropriations committee would appreciate the former suggestion that you just outlined of us asking at most for one or two things that we thought were absolutely the most important from our perspective. They will have also received all the same requests we have, and they're looking to us to help them find their way through it as as they look at the whole picture of what's happening across the state.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Yeah. I think that was alright. Our intent was just put them all on the table, and then this group narrow it down.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yeah. This was format was not what we intended as to be our final letter because that's not what our appropriations has asked for. Right. Narrowing it down is what we need to do. And there are still a lot of outstanding questions here that I feel like are not requests that we need to make. Like, I'm not sure that we need to make carryforward requests on behalf of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And then if there are potential budget savings, it also seems like we have requests that go beyond those budget savings. And we have heard testimony too regarding the ARAP program that part of the reason it was underutilized was because there was another program that those same households could take advantage of, which will no longer be well, we got an email about it. That that program will no longer be available and had served approximately 550 households or something like that in the same period. Well, you're

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: you're talking about the emissions deferrals or whatever the the Right.

[Representative Kate Logan]: The emissions deferrals. So we

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: took testimony in committee on that.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Oh, right.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: And now that program sounds like it's actually ready to be utilized. Yeah. Yeah. I wanna start with also I appreciate the, kind of the opening paragraph summary piece of the letter and personally would ask if the committee can support reiterating that the governor's budget includes full funding for housing and conservation, and I would like us to affirm we agree with that. And that even in this tight times, we would prioritize that.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I have gotten a response back from Charles. I don't know if you want me to read through that on the FTE, but the summary of it basically is FTEs are holding steady. The increases are all just due to cost of living negotiated with the union. I can give you all the categories, insurance and health care, blah blah blah blah, and retirement, etcetera. It's just all going up. The FTEs are holding you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Representative Taskebia.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: The line item regarding h seven forty, that is gone to the senate, but it hasn't passed. Is that correct? Reporting greenhouse gas reporting program?

[Representative Kate Logan]: It'll be on the house floor next week.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: It'll be on the house floor. Okay. And then it's gotta still get through the senate. But here, this is a line item already as an ask in the budget.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: No. Correct? No. The greenhouse gas reporting is not in the budget.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Oh, you mean we are requesting that it be in the budget?

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: In our letter. Right.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: We're

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: discussing that now. Yep. Right.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Well, that was gonna be my question. Why put it in there as an ask? It hasn't even made to the senate to see if they're gonna let it sit, pass it, whatever, let it

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: go to the governor. Well,

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: because in fact in fact, I would use Ela the the damp safety bill as a as a kind of example. The same thing if that bill passes, the same thing will happen to it. Oh, with the it'll be come out and the appropriations will have to figure out among all of our bills, what are we going to fund. And so I would also bring it back to that and say, We just had a unanimous vote on the dam safety bill.

[Speaker 0]: We could be putting a line in here that says we'd like to prioritize

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: the So, dam safety we can try that on. Know? Have to

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: get That's the bill we've passed.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yeah. The bill we just passed on a unanimous we would hope that might reflect our care, but I think if we don't put it in the bill, it might draw that into question.

[Representative Kate Logan]: And that's not already included in the Flood Safety Act?

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: No. It's a new thing. Are you you're talking about

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: the 375,000 of which

[Speaker 0]: And I'm not even proposing, but it it it does sort of fall in the same category of but it's our ask.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I think we need to put it in there as a

[Speaker 0]: We didn't hear it from somebody else.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Needs to have that conversation, but we could have it right now. Look, we need to get through. I I think we should start at the top here. I mean, representative Tagliavia, you just brought something up. I don't know if you wanna have the conversation now that you just I'm just trying

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: to figure out what to say we want. Okay. Say we want a cut, thinking, well, this hasn't made it all the way through the process. Maybe it needs to be cut. That's all. We're trying to find money.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yep. Percentive's

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Yeah. I guess I think we're spending a billion dollars, I think, last year on climate change, and anything, for me, anything we can do to get better data and help the Climate Action Plan, I would support, because I think it's a good investment.

[Speaker 0]: That's an achievement.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: I'm looking for what is going to be an investment in terms of, if we invest in this, will it make things better and less expensive for moms?

[Speaker 0]: Yes. I mean, I really like a lot of things on this list. I personally would prioritize the conservation districts because it brings in this money directly brings in, well, they said nine times the amount of money and largely in federal funding. And it goes directly to implementing clean water projects that immediately address climate resiliency as opposed to sort of planning for the future of climate resiliency, which I also really support. But personally, I

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: would

[Speaker 0]: prioritize that 336,000 number just because of the, I think just the sheer return on investment of the dollars, that's where I see the return on investment for Vermont, as opposed to dam safety, which I think is super important. But I also think our dam safety program is moving forward with work right now. And I think the administration sees the importance of the dam safety bill that we're passing. So even if it doesn't happen this year because of funding, I think it's like in the pipeline for moving forward. Whereas NRCS, the USDA agency NRCS, think we lost at least a third of the employees in Vermont, if not more, many of whom are engineers that help the projects move forward like watershed restoration projects. And particularly a lot of their work is work on farms with our agricultural producers to help them implement best management practices that everybody wants to be implementing. But farms are often businesses that have very little room margin and can't always make those investments themselves. So NRCS and the ability to get that USDA money, which at the moment is still flowing, just wiped out a third of their staff. And conservation districts hired an additional engineer that never had before in order to backfill that federal agency conservation districts are set up to do that. I guess I just I think that the ROI on that money makes sense.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: The NRCS line item. Conservation districts. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: NRCD. NRCD? Yes. NRCS is the federal agency. And

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: this is those are the fourteen, fifteen districts across the state. Yeah. Like, Hillary's and. Can we I mean, looking at I'm just go. Can we, in our ask, I don't I don't totally understand this, so I'm asking. I mean, these these monies down at the bottom, can some of those be redirected?

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Let's talk about those. Good point.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Not effective.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: I had

[Speaker 0]: a question about the AERAP.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: That's funny.

[Speaker 0]: Was that originally just regular state general fund dollars? I thought that funding for that Well, came from it's one

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: time thing.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Don't I know where the money came from, but it's one time.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. For some reason, I thought it was potentially from a a special fund that might have some constraints on it.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: It does.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Maybe I'm confusing it with the bus. I think no. We did hear. It came from the Volkswagen money. Didn't it?

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Oh, yeah.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I think that money is

[Speaker 0]: not easily reallocatable because it came from the Volkswagen funds and has to be used specifically for certain types of activities. I'm hopeful that

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: there will be increased demand and doing

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: the waiver programs going on.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Similar enthusiasm from the staff administering it in a year of we got this money to people who needed it and fixed some cars along the way. Although, we did also hear about the warranties. By the way, my light went off. I thought it might be a gas tank thing, and it was.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: Oh, gas cap? Yeah. Did you get the did you get the warranties, like, held a 100% yet?

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: That's not covered. How about the one ninety?

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: To

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: try to redirect.

[Speaker 0]: It wasn't already redirected in the governor's budget. I always think of carryovers or carry forwards as things that are already being redirected, which is not this year's budget money.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I don't really recall where

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: this is.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I think this came to your attention.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: It's in section of Lawrence's presentation, which I printed out since I started to dig up stuff online. So when I found it, I was like, hey. I get it. Send it to the printer home. So it's this one, page 41 of her, page 43.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: The last one, don't know, Carrie's favorite there. Are they both

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: on the ARAP end? No, the ARAP end.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: The ARAP one doesn't exist anyway. I couldn't

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: find it anywhere. Carryover or anything.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: So we asked Trevor, like, president Sprott. Sorry. Listen. We heard testimony on it. There's, like, $870,000 left. Where where is it? Why doesn't it appear as a carryover somewhere? So he said he'd dig into it.

[Speaker 0]: Hopefully, because it's in special fund.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: If it's a special fund thing, that might explain.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: So these are zeroed out, it means they're going to spend it.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Zeroed out means it's either already spent or it's

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: already done.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: If there's still money sitting there, they haven't even marketed it or even planned how they're going spend it, but it's applied. It was originally allocated to that project. I'm a little distracted because I'm still thinking about the ARAP and warranty coverages

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: and whether or not we really expect that demand to go up.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: What was that the 500 people that they served, what kind of time frame is that?

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: There weren't 500 people.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Oh, I'm sorry.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: The Well, you said it's shifted into this program.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Right. The admissions

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Oh, deferral. Yeah.

[Representative Kate Logan]: They mentioned something, and 500 something

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: folks have been Well, I guess it's irrelevant, because we can't

[Representative Kate Logan]: get the time to they've any been implementing this program. But wasn't it?

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: No. I

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: seem to remember when we got into the explanation, it was because of the lights and people not understanding, number one, the warranty that they still had. And once the inspection centers learned how to actually do the inspections, that's when their failure rate dropped way down.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: There was a combo. You're right.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yep. That's true. So, anyway, that money is interesting because then I know this isn't what some of you are gonna want to hear, but since it is climate related money, don't know if it helps with the greenhouse gas inventory, which we did help did hear from our energy committees would help them to get specific data.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: Yeah. But

[Representative Kate Logan]: it is included in a different committee's budget letter. As well. Also included in the House of Energy and Digital Infrastructure budget letter. They requested that it also be here. So to me, I feel like we could include it in our letter, but put it at the bottom knowing that it was prioritized by another committee. So if fund if there are funds available that can be reallocated from another source or whatever we whatever language we would wanna use. I mean, I think we can recommend more than one or two things, but we can we should prioritize things. I I I don't think it's inappropriate to say if there is additional revenue available to us because we still haven't determined the full scale of the revenue that we'll have available to us this year.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: It seems like Ela did a great job framing the case for the conservation districts and why they're important, and they're filling a gap. They also leverage federal dollars that are still currently available, and they do water quality work across the board. Very an impressive array of projects were shared with us. I'm also thinking about prevention of future problems and the chloride bill and other things that we can invest in now that could prevent future costs later? Representative Chapin.

[Speaker 0]: I would lean towards I also think the fluoride bill is something we're going to be stuck paying way more bills soon on all the streams and rivers that are rapidly Every time we get testimony about this, we hear about there's more TMDLs. They're somewhat small. We're not talking about Lake Champlain water shed, but we're talking about real streams and rivers that are turning to TMDLs on fluoride. Really care about the greenhouse gas reporting work and all of that. I just feel like focusing on things that are just more bipartisan and just putting a couple of things given that we're really not talking about. We're likely to see none of these things get money in reality. And I do agree also about mentioning fully funding the statutory obligations to the Housing and Conservation Trust Fund. Yeah, that's already been The Conservation Board. So thank you for adding that. I think in all the years past, that's always been such a major act, or the committees ask. Yeah, I don't know. Really lean towards maybe just doing the NRCD and the chloride bill, which we're, I think, about to receive. So those would be my priorities. I love virtually everything else on here also, and I just don't think the timing makes sense with Melanie to even really create a long list of priorities. It's It's not a very long list right now. It isn't. I'm open to that.

[Representative Kate Logan]: I'm sorry. Are you okay with that? In the scope of a $9,000,000,000 budget.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Also, we found a few things to tick off. We may be coming in pretty impressively with a one page letter. So We're our best. Yeah. Representative Logan.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yeah. I would still like to recommend that we include base funding for the Healthy Homes Initiative. We know that the staff will already be working for half of a fiscal year, and it sounds like to scale the staff, sounds like you probably need three FTEs to function in that program with a smaller scale. So that would be $225,000 for the staff for the remainder of the state fiscal year. And they said that they could like, 2,000,000 would make it worthwhile to have to to continue to have the program, and that would help fund approximately 60 residential projects.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I just heard the deputy secretary say 4,000,000.

[Representative Kate Logan]: He said that would be that's what they received before. He said they could make it work with 2,000,000.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: 2,000,000 was like the

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: the in the other curve. Below that, it becomes not worthwhile. They could do it with just 2,000,000 and cut things in half. That's what he was saying when he came over.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Thought he said 4 was the worthwhile number.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Said that would be great. 4 would be super duper. Two, it's like

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: the minimum if you're gonna do it all. Yeah.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: But With two if you're gonna go less than two in a while.

[Representative Kate Logan]: 60 households. And that would only be for the site based program, not the MHCs that wouldn't fund, but that would be 60 households out of the 400 that they have who are eligible. Yeah. We have other sources of funding for, some types of the projects that that program covers. So I'd say that even though there are 400 eligible households for that project or for that program in particular, there are other programs that could help set some of that that are funded already in the general fund. But it doesn't cover all the types

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: of projects that this program does.

[Representative Kate Logan]: So I'd like to mention it since it's not even mentioned in the budget.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: It's like a very large ask this year.

[Representative Kate Logan]: I don't know. It is a $9,000,000,000 budget.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Just grown 63 less than a decade. Well, we're gonna talking about 13 other committees that probably just said the same thing you said.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Right. But we

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: have an appropriate Yep. But we are asking only this little bit. Right.

[Representative Kate Logan]: And it's up to our appropriations committee to decide. And if we say that we think it's worthy because it does good work, then they'll make the decisions that they make.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: It's interesting. Some of the testimony that I've taken from conservation oriented people and from conservation design, believe the guy's name is

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Sam.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: Sam Maine. He was out of Essex. In a CBS office. And he was saying nine to one because leverage they were getting, money they got from us, from other organizations.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: The

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: last network's huge. They were around 658,000 last budget run. Going over this year, they want to increase that to 968,000 hoping to leverage still nine to one. That would be nice. However, who they're leveraging from, be the Feds, one organization or another. And when you look at that, I don't see the defense being very generous in this next bill around. So I think some of the conservation desires and hopes that might have to be stayed for a while. Not that I like it, but practicality of it just doesn't show a lot of good faith on our part to ask for more money.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Chittenden. I totally hear you on that concern that federal money might just go away pretty easily. NRCS's budget is determined through a five year farm bill, which has been, I don't know, we don't actually have an active current farm bill, but the way money flows into NRCS in my experience is it is much longer range, consistent money. So even though we don't have an active current farm bill, that I'm not working in that sector the last five years, I don't actually keep up to speed as much on how that is influencing agencies. What we did hear, the conservation districts did say they did not expect the pile of money for projects to go down. It's just that the staffing has been widely reduced, and so those projects are going a bit slower. So I guess I share your concern, but right now what we've heard is they don't anticipate those pools of funding to go down. And so it's actually not In my mind, it's an opportunity to try and make sure that the products It are still could happen, but also the federal fiscal year is off center from the state fiscal year. So federal impacts for next fiscal year have a delayed impact on

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: our state. I hear

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: you explained to me one of

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: the biggest relationships that happens with the USDA.

[Speaker 0]: Is he expecting the resources to go away or go down?

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: I think that was the biggest reason for this $300,000 increase.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. That's

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I that was not my understanding. They were able to fill some staffing gaps that the NRCS staff had been cut back. They were trying to cover that staff they had backfilled. So just kind of what I'm I'm hearing or gleaning and looking for feedback on is greenhouse gas reporting program may be not something we wanna include in our budget.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Or in a separate we could have two sections with, like, top priorities and, like, these are the things that seem important if

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: if possible, but we imagine they're not. That in a holding bucket for now. Yeah. How are folks feeling about the pitch for now? This is a for now thing. We're gonna have to revisit it on Tuesday. So the request from the conservation districts, leave that in now for priority. Maybe we'll hear from others about it. We haven't talked about serve, learn, earn yet. They're already getting a million. Is that right? No. They're getting 500,

[Representative Kate Logan]: which is less than they got last year.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Then That was a big ask. I'm surprised by it. They got I know.

[Representative Kate Logan]: $2,000,000 to the

[Speaker 0]: year before last. I know.

[Representative Kate Logan]: And so now they're getting

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I know.

[Representative Kate Logan]: A $125,000 less than they got last year.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: But wait a minute. What's it what are they in the budget for this year?

[Speaker 0]: 500.

[Representative Kate Logan]: It's about 25% of what

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: they got to a year ago. Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Discussion on that one? Budget year.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Representative Logan. Yeah. I mean, my preference would be in a tight budget year that we allocate funds to help Vermonters make life more affordable. I think long term, know, investments that will save Vermonters all Vermonters' funds in the long term are are really valuable. But I also think that investing in workforce development for young Vermonters is

[Speaker 0]: just a.

[Representative Kate Logan]: And the fact that this program has had extremely successful results in in providing that workforce development and keeping young people in Vermont in careers, that we we seem to have a hard time staffing at the state level seems really valuable. I mean, I and I feel the same way, obviously, about programs like ARAP and the Healthy Homes Initiative that at a time when income is not keeping pace with inflation, except for those in the top 20% of income earners who are earning at higher rates than the rate of inflation year over year. I feel like we we're not a human services committee, but, like, there are certain things that are in our budget that we have to that we have to make decisions on. And so I would prioritize ensuring that people who are struggling don't continue to struggle even further. So those are that's my priority. But, like, with the serve learn serve earn learn earn serve learn earn, it seems like such a huge return on investment.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yeah. And that's what got us last year. Yeah. Bring in money from private donors to invest in our young workforce.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Tricky business. Representative Tagliavia?

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I hear what you're saying. I like the whole idea. What about putting it as our number two with a high priority as our ask for more money for it. So the 500,000 with an ask for 500 more in our be our number one ask if possible. Follow what I'm saying?

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: Mhmm.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Don't. Make it number two on our on our priorities Okay. With the 500,000. And on our ask list, make it number one for the additional funds.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: That's what I'm saying. Second Does that make sense?

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: The second list? Second list. Yeah. Second list. The one on our second list. On our ask list.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, oh, right. On the back on the backup list.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: On the backup list.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Yeah. I would support that. I think there's a lot of programs that are doing this. That's why I asked about BSAC and just talking to the community this morning, here are the programs that they are doing. I'm curious about how many programs there are that are doing this, and hopefully successfully.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Your CPEs are doing

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: it. Right.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yeah, it'd be interesting to explore the overlap.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Listening it that way will help if there's extra money. I think it's

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: a great program, but I think it's duplicative. You have the CTEs for the younger high school students, you have the options at the community colleges. These folks get that option. I was trying to understand if the private donations that they get, and I know they get a lot of, are they based on the numbers that they're funded? Are they based on their funding or are they I don't think they're based on their funding, correct? Right.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: So Right. They made the case that it did it and they said it again this year. They didn't say match. They said it was really important that the state was investing in their work.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: Yeah. I guess that they felt that their their investors thought that it had backing from that standpoint.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Yeah. There was eventually that it was leveraged.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Representative Chittenden Logan. And I but, Michael, are you joining us for any kind of official conversation now?

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: No. I'm just checking in to see if you need anything on July or a file, though.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Just a clean copy on July. Yeah. I emailed you.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Okay.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Just had a little highlighting remaining, we voted it out all in favor.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: Okay. I figured you were coming in because you heard we might get free pizza.

[Speaker 0]: That's why I missed

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Thank you. Thank you for sharing You

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: too. Bye.

[Speaker 0]: Representing Chief. So I know some of these organizations pretty well that work that collaborate on serve, learn, earn, or well, I should say pretty well. I really love this work. I advocated it for it to be in our budget letter last year. I love the in sort of industry conservation industry dedication of this workforce development project. There's lots of great workforce programs in our state. We need even more than we

[Representative Kate Logan]: have now. And I think

[Speaker 0]: we know that, and it has been, I think, on this administration's priority to sort of support workforce I know that these are organisations and this programme is not gonna go away if we leave it at the lower funding level and that because a lot of their funding comes from the private foundation world, this is a less of a priority for me because I know that this programme will survive even if it has to do a lot less work. And I'm also really differentiating as I start to look at this more fine tuned, especially with some of bills we're passing out, for administration run programs versus a program like this that is nonprofit run and there's quite a bit of private money in this and yet it's such a public good. I think that's why it's important for the state to invest, and we will still be investing with the federal government. And so maybe putting it on a Just so appropriations knows our wish list, if there was a different budget environment, putting that as one of the first ones would make sense because of the importance of workforce development in this sector specifically, but I have a hard time prioritizing this.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: So I thank you. I think that was helpful. I would say also that kinda like the VHCb thing, we should say we support the governor's recommended 500 for this. And then I understand we're representing Title IV, and the other five would be at the top of the backup list. And I believe that's in

[Speaker 0]: the text, isn't

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: it, that

[Representative Kate Logan]: we support?

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Was like HCP.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Oh, no. I mean, in the CERP learn item.

[Speaker 0]: But highlighting it above and what we do definitely

[Representative Kate Logan]: support. Yeah. Please

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: don't go low. They're going to be looking money. So I just want to make sure we're kind of things we really want to protect are

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: clear. Right. That's like a third category of things. It's not really asked to protect. Back off. We're very happy.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Well, I

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: think they go with the top paragraph. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Like, we support full funding. Okay. Well, I mean because that's for me, that's the sentence of here's

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: the here's

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: what we like about the governor's budget. Sure.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yeah. I mean, we we've said we've said that we agree with the Governor's recommend for the Agency of Natural Resources. So, I mean, I

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: could go on and on and on and on on.

[Representative Kate Logan]: But I don't know things that I don't agree with.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I just added you had asked to add some words here. So right in the middle of that paragraph, which supports necessary conservation aid housing. That's pretty high level.

[Representative Kate Logan]: And then I added a sentence right at the end there in that paragraph to or in that section to explicitly talk about the decision to fund the BHCB at its full statutory amount. We did that in the past

[Speaker 0]: year's statement letter as well. Because it's statutory, I think it's expressed directly. Yeah.

[Representative Kate Logan]: We still are now in DEC. Yeah. So I have a suggestion. Do you think is it helpful to divide things into critical? Like we must do this, for example, funding the $200,000 to implement the chloride contamination reduction program, dollars 375,000 for H-seven 78 implementation, because these are new programs that yeah, don't know, thinking about critical needs for the state versus pretty critical. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I think that one rises. I don't feel the same way. Dam safety.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Because well and I would say yeah. Especially because this is a new program that they're standing up, the reduction program and dam safety. There's already a dam safety team.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I actually think the pilot project and having the division of emergency management start getting involved in this feels also similarly new, but just don't think it rises the same way that's the chloride contamination. Really? What? Yeah.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: What do we have from TBC?

[Speaker 0]: We also tried to do this chloride last year, so it's also, like, all year later than I wanted to do it. So Yes.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: We have some TBC, for statistics, on stream loading chloride.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, we've heard a lot about it last year.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: We heard a lot about it,

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: but did we see any figures on particular

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: that I'm very familiar with, the Meadowood River that follows Route 30, is already maintained and serviced by the standards we wanna put in place by the state, has been sixty six years for six years, and it's risen 13%. So I I just don't buy into this whole thing. We either use salt or we don't use salt. You wanna reduce it? Just stop using salt. Just stop it.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: So I'd like to see what if there's testing

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: I don't wanna spend money on stuff that I don't use salt.

[Speaker 0]: Well, this is a controversial bill, which I I remembered it being not that controversial in the end when

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: we passed it out,

[Speaker 0]: but my memory can be terrible.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Well, I haven't had a

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: chance to read it as many of the things because it came out. There was only one vote against it out of the Senate, right?

[Speaker 0]: It has changed very little from Senator.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: How much the bill we have?

[Speaker 0]: It's only the judicial aspect of it that I think really got worked on in the Senate. I

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: have to read it.

[Speaker 0]: But anyway, I don't feel strongly tied. Personally, I think that the ones that are state programs, if they weren't in the governor's record, I think in my mind, the administration can do the dam safety work and the chloride contamination reduction program, if we don't fund it this year explicitly in the statute, because they have the authority to move resources around if they think it's a priority.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: So you're saying that about the flooding? I just see

[Speaker 0]: them differently as in our appropriations. Sorry, Sarita. You see that in

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: the flooding because that the flooding is the funding for the flooding for the implementation, yeah, is my second

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: program. The flood safety, yeah,

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: 01/2021.

[Speaker 0]: Because it's implementation. I guess I just

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Hiring three I know I sound like a broken record, but to say, well, we can put this off or postpone this, we don't know when this is gonna happen. And I think probably should have been implemented like four or five years ago, this program. Dam safety? Yeah. Oh, gosh.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: No, no, flood safety.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, flood safety. I

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: mean, it

[Representative Kate Logan]: has been It is being implemented. They have 11 staff.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: I mean, a billion dollars of that $9,000,000,000 is paying for reclamation for the damages of the flooding. We're not getting the last legislative session. FEMA money. So I don't know where that money is going to help. I to help for launderers who lose their homes or their roads are blown out or bridges are blown out. I mean, I feel like it's gonna fall back on the state, and that concerns everybody. Budget. Almost like that they should be

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: raising cash.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Those who just got us a 400,000,000 tax break from the federal government.

[Speaker 0]: They do wish to one shared priority,

[Representative Kate Logan]: which is

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: the conversation

[Speaker 0]: between the NRCD, conservation districts.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Maybe.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Changing in real time as I'm seeing.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: Yeah.

[Representative Kate Logan]: I've been moving things around.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I thought I was so sick. I blinked. I was like, wait a minute. Don't you see

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: that shared edited job? I'm actually about

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: to change make another change. You locked a section.

[Representative Kate Logan]: I am moving it. Because

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: you missed the character terms. Should be doing bullets there. Alright. It's Friday after. We have to just

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: refresh it. You're it's

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: it's happening in real time.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Kristi, did you wanna add anything to this conversation? No. Look. Raise your hand. Representative Morris.

[Representative Kristi Morris]: Thank you, madam chair. I really appreciate the way the conversation has developed from where we started with the letter and talking about necessary expenses and unnecessary, maybe perhaps new employees. And I really appreciate where we are kind of landing on. And I just want to say I concur. I think the natural resource conservation districts is a good place, especially if we can get matching funds from feds. And I'm not a fan of hiring a lot of new employees this year simply because of the loss of the federal funds from the COVID era. And they are extremely important tasks that we're asking them to do, but I think we need to, I think we ought to stop or pause a little bit to see where we're gonna land on our feet for the next year. But I do appreciate the conversation and where it sounds like we're landing on. So I just wanted to to mention that. That make sense?

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yes. Thank you. Just thinking about it. Representative Tagliavia.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I I agree with representative Lawrence simply because of the cuts that Nancy has already been paid in the past.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: We could save a lot at AOT without

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: SALT. Mhmm.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: As you remember, I'm foreboding it, so I'm Where are

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: you on where are you on that topic, representative Pritchard?

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I'm getting rid of that. I don't have it. Really sick. Matter of fact, I've I've I've heard a lot of comments from people this year when they when this last storm Mhmm. Was actually easier to drive on the roads.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: So it absolutely was. I couldn't agree more. Yes.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: I can't agree.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I need to

[Speaker 0]: I actually still agree.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: The big thing is is is the liability and how we've allowed

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: ability to Salt on the walkways, because that's where people are really getting hurt.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: The question I have is, what will that do not using salt on federal rule? Let's make this a nice set of phrases.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: The representative Austin would like to keep us on topic.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: They keep going down a rabbit.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Alright, members. I actually feel like this was a really great start. I would love to hear from anyone that hasn't commented on the on this letter. Representative Hoyt, if you have any thoughts.

[Representative Michael Hoyt]: I'm not putting No. This No. Is still new to me, but it sounds like the conservation

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: districts makes a lot of sense to maybe

[Representative Michael Hoyt]: emphasize that. It's something we'd

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: like to see. So I I agree with that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: K. Great. Well, so what I Well, I was going to say we should sit with what we talked about and make sure that we feel okay about it. But if folks are feeling already okay about it, we could give our budget letter writers that direction to Well, that's it. Maybe, Can you prioritize over the weekend what we've said? And then, without deleting too much, just put it at the bottom and then I've tried to do that.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Great. Yeah. So we have one section here at the top that says critical need. So I think it sounds like need.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Mine's maybe not changing.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I was supposed to update, Kate.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: It just saying did you change it? You have to you have to sign in.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Hold down. Oh, you

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: have to

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I'm signing in right now. Gotta sign me in. If you're in

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: the word application on your Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: And now I'm in the shared If you're gonna

[Speaker 0]: You can see

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: where everybody is. Everybody's little initials there on their cursor. Yeah.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: Everybody's Now if you got

[Speaker 0]: it from the website, then you won't Welcome to

[Representative Kate Logan]: welcome to cloud computing. Top priorities for additional funding. Yeah.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Is that it? When is the letter be touching on screen.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: No. Sure. Is the letter

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Today. Oh, yeah.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Ideally. But if it's Tuesday, they won't have processed all of the letters by Tuesday. So So have,

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I think, top priorities for additional funding, I would reprioritize. Yeah. So strongly.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yeah, I'm not entirely sure after our conversation how we would prioritize this top priorities for additional funding section.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: I would appreciate votes. You know, whatever. Know how sometimes deem it that way. Just you have five stickies and you can

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yeah. Mean, ideally, would do ranked choice voting or something like that with this, but that's too much.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: That's a Burlington.

[Representative Kate Logan]: And I know what

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: it It all

[Speaker 0]: is good. Takes I know it takes to program

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: that. We

[Representative Kate Logan]: could do an OPA vote. I could put that together.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Kristi, I I I just can't help myself. Yeah. I gotta say this. I'm looking at your shirt. Were you were you out posting property just like

[Speaker 0]: That's funny.

[Representative Kristi Morris]: Uh-huh. You caught on to my sarcasm, didn't you?

[Representative Kate Logan]: I feel like we should be getting out of here really soon, by the way. Me too. Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: That's why I'm trying to Yeah. Come up with a plan for her. Is she gonna have something to support on Tuesday morning brightener?

[Representative Kate Logan]: Could we just do, like, a lightning round where everybody gives their priorities, like, top two priorities in this list or something like that? Yes. You can record votes? We don't need

[Speaker 0]: I don't I don't think we need

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: to record votes. Just use Sort of that's even Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Reprioritize your list. Yeah. No. I'll just put a star

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: of our vote.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I can Yeah. Yeah. Two stars.

[Representative Kate Logan]: I see. I was just gonna put a star at the beginning of the sentence. That's how we

[Speaker 0]: do it in the end.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: The in the in

[Representative Kate Logan]: Actually, the consensus decision making agenda world. Okay. I just wanna mention the last section that considers potential savings.

[Speaker 0]: I just think I think we talked about both of them, and I'm pretty convinced that neither of them really are are, like, available.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yes. It's strike them.

[Speaker 0]: I I would love to remove that section. I was glad to look at it and talk through them. And what do you think representative Not afraid. First.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: No. No. No. About deleting the bottom paragraph?

[Representative Kate Logan]: Representative Chapin is talking would like to delete the The whole bottom paragraph?

[Speaker 0]: Whole bottom paragraph. I just I don't really think the top one is available for hardly anything else. And the lower one, I think, is actively being implemented by the administration, and I don't want to be We Yeah. Can delete

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: Okay. You're talking, Ela, from further potential down. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: And I was really glad to have that list and talk through it. I wish there was more stuff on that list. Yeah. IT. Honestly. And I'm we're all started the age and for us to

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: keep these cameras where we thought we based on what we had heard. Okey

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: dokey. Alright. That's gone.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: So I guess I guess

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Can I have vote for us?

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: We're all gonna vote, I mean, I I I would put a star on Two. I'm only gonna do one. Okay. Mhmm. The FTEs for the act one eighty one. What's it?

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: You're voting for that. Yeah.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Hey. Amy. So excited.

[Speaker 0]: I'll put my star there too. You can have two stars. I know. Another star next to chloride. Even if we decide that we're going to pass a different

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I'm going to put mine by Blood Safety Act as well, basically. And then I would put my second one in chloride also.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Larry? Those are my Those are my as well. I like the idea of us giving the bodies that they need to do their footwork, and I would love to have that conversation around salt on our roads in a big way at some point, but I sort of suspect that we're not gonna be banning salt anytime soon. So talking about how we can It's affordability. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And I also really did appreciate that those times when recently when we weren't putting himself down and didn't seem like it was all that bad.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Lots of states don't do it.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Larry. Well, we already talked about sand last time. We did. So if you're going use less salt, which is expensive, because we're sharing it with more states and seem to be getting adverse winter weather that's made it short supply. Why would we be increasing the funding by 200,000 to use less? In this case, less would be more money available. So I'll put a star on Corey.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Ken, do you get another star?

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yeah, get one more star.

[Speaker 0]: If you're not

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: ready, we can't prioritize.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: I

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I like the training. Education. Part of the bill while we're funding. K. Learn.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Service. Certainly. I

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: know. I know that's duplicative between other sources, but it seems to be very popular.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Latest news, not to deputy railis, but the ways and means vote is 32 out. And so the miscellaneous bill, nine two zero, and Kimball's reporting. So that means it'll be up. Correct? Yeah. That's good. We'll we'll follow we'll see if it goes to approves. Yeah.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: I thought Michael would agree. He said it might go to appropriations too.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Okay. Who wants to vote next?

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Representative Austin? Yes. I would vote again for the flood safety act first and then the conservation of the district senate.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: We're voting on them. We all agreed they were already on the

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Christmas list.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Okay. Top priorities for additional funding list.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Oh, for additional funding. Can you go to someone else? Much puts

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: a bridge or

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: two minutes.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Spend any money.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: Flood for me and just just flood.

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: I'd go with flood. You could put florac too You want to.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: You don't really have to.

[Speaker 0]: It's totally up to you. You're both Okay,

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: did you do both?

[Shane Switzer, Owner, Lyndonville Redemption]: We need I do float.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: We need more caucus meetings.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Who hasn't spoken up?

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Just float sake.

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: Olivia. Just gonna

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: start one. I think it's the serve learning.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: You're getting nervous to serve learning, and then Yeah.

[Representative Kate Logan]: And consistent with what I said before, it would be healthy homes and serve learning for me.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: Our

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: graph is locked by Kate Logan. No one can, like, game the system.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Oh, everybody has oh, yeah. I sent it with review status instead of edit status. Are probably

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: good. That should

[Representative Kate Logan]: be. No. I tried

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: to But every once

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: in a while, you put them off on

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: the screen.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Oh, I think it's when I'm typing.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Okay. Maybe that's what

[Representative Kate Logan]: it is. Yeah. I think it's so Just when I'm typing.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: That was very helpful out. Then maybe use the stars to prioritize that list.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yeah. That seems true. And then there are things that got no votes. So what do we do with those?

[Speaker 0]: We take

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: them off.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Take them off. Oh, wow. That was helpful. And then it's pretty easy to reorder the list.

[Speaker 0]: I like putting the FLTZPY at the top of the list. I propose we see if we can place a reporting requirement for healthy homes, somewhere in a bill like the one that's coming They out of that

[Representative Kate Logan]: could put it in the budget.

[Speaker 0]: They could put the report.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: They could propose an amendment. To

[Speaker 0]: what? To the manufactured homes bill that's coming out of Tulsa.

[Representative Larry Labor, Vice Chair]: I don't know.

[Representative Kate Logan]: I think they just put it in the budget. If they're going to put this in the budget, it would be an amendment. No.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Don't put it in the budget. Just

[Speaker 0]: make a report back so that we can get information Gotcha. Real need is in the state for water and for manufactured homes and for low income homeowners.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Think what was interesting about that program, though, I think we might have just gotten the report because what revealed the need was the program. I personally

[Speaker 0]: would need to see a lot more data about how dire those projects are compared to the ones that they've funded over the last five years. I'd want to see really what income they're remaining. And I'm personally most interested-

[Representative Kate Logan]: Well, they're all households under 65,000 a year. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: And I'd love to personally be really interested in more of a statewide actual assessment of the manufacturing home communities because what I heard is they're really just whoever's got support to get applications into us is who's getting the money. There's other counties that this didn't get out. So I don't think they have a good assessment of that part of the need at all. That if you fix order them in.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: You should put some of that language together, either create the language or it's

[Speaker 0]: other to help. Yeah, think we should create the language.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Because the bill already passed out of housing, right? I think so.

[Speaker 0]: But it's going to go through several other committees and a whole other body.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: I don't think we shouldn't get involved in that bill. That's new. We've actually just we could make some links

[Speaker 0]: and suggest it to her. Yes.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Yes. We agree. So including a comprehensive needs assessment for She's saying, like, separate, not from a

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: 2,000,000 ask.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Oh. And or.

[Speaker 0]: I mean I like to put it as a How about LEU? Oh.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Report. Non non very critical need.

[Representative Kate Logan]: Oh, I like that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Yes.

[Representative Kate Logan]: That's a great idea.

[Speaker 0]: That we can get this report back this year, and we can reinstitute the program.

[Representative Kate Logan]: So, Jeff, I mean, I would imagine that's way beyond the scope of the capability of the staff who run the program. They're not data analysts. They're program

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Boots on

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: the ground.

[Representative Kate Logan]: They're boots on the ground.

[Speaker 0]: With all these folks over the last four years, and they they have the pipeline and then Well,

[Representative Kate Logan]: they gave us the information that they have today, and they are gonna be implementing projects through December.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Yeah. That's true.

[Speaker 0]: And I suggest if we're not jobs. We get them to write it down in a report so that the future legislature next year has a reason to relook at this program. That's after

[Representative Kate Logan]: we admire all the staff.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: It's self audit.

[Speaker 0]: Maybe it'll help the administration think about whether they wanna put it in the budget for next year and lose only half their staff. I really don't know. I just know that that's what I would want

[Representative Kate Logan]: to say. They'll already have lost their staff.

[Speaker 0]: One time federal funding opportunity that had a huge impact.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Lose what they've learned, that staff who's been on it for years now. We don't wanna lose what they've learned. Get that written down. That's your point. Get that on paper, what they've learned. The data

[Speaker 0]: And what the real need is, as opposed to just people who are happy to be interested in it, who have That's totally financial money.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: Alright, folks. This was good work. Thank you, both. At least kind of discussion.

[Speaker 0]: It's great.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin, Clerk]: Have a nice weekend, everybody. Everybody, have

[Representative Chris Pritchard]: a great weekend. Take your phones. Yes. Warm.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia]: Especially if you're traveling South.

[Representative Amy Sheldon, Chair]: New York. And we missed you first. Yeah.

[Representative Kate Logan]: I wanna just make a public service in this