Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome back, everyone, to House General and Housing, and it's Friday, 04/03/2026. All that we're gonna do right now is just have an informal conversation with our counsel over three bills that are before us in terms of sort of what we might think about marking up, and I don't think it'll take very long, so this will So let's start with 03/28. Here's, I'd I like the committee to be aware of some preliminary thinking about what we do with P28. And it could change, I'm not saying it won't change, and I appreciate any thoughts. First of all, there are sections of three twenty eight that clearly belong to this committee, and the bill was assigned, you know, you can only assign a bill to one committee in the House, even if it's about different things, you can only assign it to one committee, it's bill that's assigned to us. And there are things which are clearly, traditionally, fall within the environment committee. So, one thought that's occurred is that the easy, there are various ways of doing that. One is for us to just do whatever we're gonna do, and then it goes over to environment and they take possession, but it has to go to ways of means and approach, and so who knows if it ever Another get option is for them just to do a flyby. Another option, which is where I think we're leaning, is to essentially split the bill up, and the way they would do that is we would just send, they would know that certain sections belong to them, they will take those sections and stick them at three twenty five, which is the Zoning and Planning Act two fifty bill, which they are currently hearing, and we would go ahead with the rest. So, that means that sections 7D, VIII, and IX really are with them. 7D Are we looking at

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: the one that passed out for Senate?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, 7D is the one that makes the change, which is a really big change, planning change, and changes the word allowed to permit it, and that's just so squarely within what they do. I mean, I have thoughts about it, and I will convey my thoughts to the committee, and if any of you have thoughts about it, you should do it. I mean, you may say this is a great idea, I'm a little worried it needs work, just make it happen, it's permitted. You remember I asked counsel, I asked Ellen Chikowsky, is permitted to find anywhere it isn't, and it needs to be. But seven

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Can I ask a clarifying question about that?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I thought we were asking whether by right

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Was defined. The very fact that you have to ask indicates the need for more work on this. What they're trying to do is make housing by right, but by right

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: is get close to that quite with time. Her model still is not any better than by right, it's not any better than allowed?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, yeah, it's better, but it's Most zoning ordinances around The United States, what they'll do is they'll have a chapter for each kind of use. So, there'll be a chapter for, it's usually called R1 single family housing, R2 multi family housing, commercial, they might have a light and a heavy, you know, they just have these categories. And under the single family, just as an example, they'll say, literally, these are the permitted uses. And they may have a different word, but the common word is permitted. Those are the And in a single family district, it's a single family house.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: And then these are uses that are conditional uses, that's the term of ours that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you usually see. Those are the uses that, yeah, they may be allowed, but not without some sort of discretionary permit, can be withheld. So, a typical conditional use in a single family neighborhood would be a convenience store or a halfway house, or things that, yeah, you could see them, but not everywhere. So, you could apply for a conditional use and to be denied by the zoning administrator or planning commission, if there is one, or in Vermont the design review board or whatever, but a permitted use, you walk in and you want to build a single family house in a single family neighborhood, you're going to have to comply with building code or the setbacks, you know, and all that, but you just get a building permit and that's the end of it. Okay? So, but what I'm telling you is just practice. It's common. This word permitted, they're trying to do it, but they ought to define it, but I will mention that, but I think that's not in our area, that's in their planning area over in environment. Sections B of section seven is the one that makes telling local jurisdictions you can't discriminate against manufactured housing, that's ours. Section eight, which is this whole what does it mean when you say served by municipal water and sewer? That's not ours. That's very complex and it belongs in environment. I will convey what Samantha Sheehan said, She's, gee, we'd sure like it to be uniform across the law, you know.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Section ten, ten, I should Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Section eight? That's section eight. Section nine, that's clearly theirs. Okay, so I have asked, have to ahead. Marc?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: My preference would be to split the bill.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, the way I think we'll split the bill, I'm just not sure yet. I'll be back in touch with everybody

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How it's happening, but one way or another, if I were asking counsel to redraft the bill now, I'd say take those sections out, They're not ours. Just take them out. And I've given them the list. Yes. Yes. Oh, you first.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Nine a is the farm worker housing report. Right. That piece can That's ours. Okay, so it's it's the first part of nine and then

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, okay, well, let's talk about nine A in a minute. What fact do you mind

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I didn't know about

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: nine A.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Consider just

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Nine A, do you know anything about the farm worker thing?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm taking over the section, so I have the former report for an easy read,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: so come back next to talk about it. But here's what's happening. We had that the Senate has a text. We had testimony here from BHCB saying, gosh, we suggest slightly alternative wording because we can't do, we don't have the resources.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: The contracted evaluation.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, we don't have the resources to redo this whole thing. We can reevaluate how successful our program has been, but we can't go and do a whole real meat assessment. I asked everybody, I asked the chair, David Durfee, of the Agriculture Committee, whether they would like to do a flyby on this and take a look at the language and make a recommendation to us. They agreed they would. They are going to hear from VACB and they may hear from others, and they will make a recommendation to us. That's what a flyby does. In other words, the product will be, they don't have to do a floor amendment, all they have to do is give us the language and we'll see if we're okay with it and then give it to counsel. So, you can just have as a placeholder what's there, but it's going to change. So, that's 9A, that's ours.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: If you

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: have any questions about let me know. I'll take that section.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. So

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I was just curious,

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: because

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: after Samantha's testimony earlier this morning, I mean, that language came in part from us.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The first thing she

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: talked about. Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think we should put that in.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: And so, I don't think we should not put that in and No, give them that

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I agree.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Because I don't trust that they will add the things. And I will say that I am apprehensive. I would feel more comfortable with us defining permitted as we did when we were talking, when we did the previous housing bill and we were talking about what the but fors and we had to define that out and then let it go to the other committees and let them do their portion of it. That feels better to me than just saying we entrust you to do things. Because I feel like the intent of what we would like for permitted will get lost in translation because they focus on the zoning, but without us working on the language and what we're trying to convey in determining the permitted aspect of it. It'll get lost. It'll get lost in translation. So those are the concerns that I have about us just stripping these parts and saying we're going to give those to you to work on and we're going to focus on the other half because it very much so is tied into the rest of the work. And want And I feel like those are two important things that could really impact

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: how the landscape It's getting all favorite, we might as well

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: say it. And it's, yeah. So I just, yeah, I like the testimony was compelling enough that it is within our jurisdiction to discuss the things that we have historically put in before we send it over, as opposed to sending subsections out over separately to them to add the three twenty five.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Got it. Okay, so here's what I think we should do. One, we had testimony this morning from Samantha Sheehan and she had two points. One of the points that's the most is she wanted us to reinsert, wanted us to reinsert tonight in the bill somewhere, and I will look to you, counsel, as to where it should go, but don't stick it in seven or eight. Stick it in its own section or whatever, but she wants us to add back in the requirement that when the permission that when towns are adopting ordinances that are essentially mandated by, you know, 181 of the HOME Act, they don't have to have hearings. We had that in the housing bill, it got removed in the Senate. She's asking will it be put back in and we agree.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: This would be serious.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, yep.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Excellent.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, ma'am, yep.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, then there's two other things that I suggest. Listen carefully and see if this is consistent with the view of the committee. Camera. I think you should ask Ellen to define permitted and let us see that definition. Then what we can do, at the very least, can transmit that to the committee, but we want to see it. Is that look like where we are?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I think Ellen may have questions, but I will let her know

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: if this is your desire and

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: take it from there and work.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Talk to us, yeah. Okay, the second thing is, Samantha had a technical change that she would like to see, which I also agree with. I do feel like given how much $3.25, how deeply the Environment Committee is invested in all the Act two fifty stuff, it is up to them, but I would like to see it and transmit to them the language because otherwise I am a little concerned it'll get lost. What I feel like is there is so much in 03/25 and they've already held a week's worth of hearings and they're not done yet. It could get lost. So, I would like to see

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: The same length

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of If you look at, I wrote it down here, I should have aware if I write it down. If you look at page 11 of three twenty eight, Okay. And then at the same time, you look at her testimony, which starts at the top, 10 BSA section 6,033, what she wants to see is that she did not make the language change, but I'm telling you what she wants. She wants five to state something like you see, that's 10 whereas section eight is 20 She wants them to be the same, So what she wants is that 10 BSA should read something like water supply, wastewater infrastructure as defined in section 24 BSA twenty three zero three, you know, 42 A. She wants a cross reference. See what I'm saying? She doesn't do it in her testimony, but that's what she wants. She that title 10 be consistent with title 24.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, she wants the title 10 to be consistent with B on page 11.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, if you look at page 11 where it says section eight, twenty four BSA 4,303 is amended to read. Yep. She thinks that, I think they think that definition is fine.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: They just want It's in the draft, it's not in as passed by the Senate.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, it's not

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: as passed Senate.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, I think it is as passed by the Senate. No. Shit, that's creepy. Section, page 11.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Page nine. Sorry. I

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: was like, wait, which version are we talking think 14? About? Yeah, I kept looking at page nine going I think I know where I am, but okay,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: so thank you. So what she wants is that she wants 10 VSA 6,033 C five to cross reference 24 BSA 4,303 as amended. So that the definition of supplied served by municipal sewer and water is similar, that's what you'd like to see, okay? And we'd like to see that language, We don't necessarily have to have it, but we have to we can transmit it to them.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: At

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: some point, we are going to have to make a major decision, which I don't think is fully made yet, so the workload is up to you. One possibility is that seven seventy five will become the vehicle, and we will add three twenty eight new sections into seven seventy five. The other is that this will stay a vehicle and we're going to have to amend it to put all of seven seventy five into here.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Just keep in mind, you'll need to figure out because there are different versions of some of the language in three twenty eight versus seven seventy five. You all pass language Yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we would use our language, seven seventy five would prevail. In other words, hey, Mary, we

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, was saying that if seven seventy five is your vehicle, then the Senate is the one who would make the determination of that language.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, I know, and so that's what I have to figure out, whether we just In that case, what we would do is we just leave three twenty eight on the wall, and seven seventy five would become the vehicle, but you're right, we don't control it. So we may have to ask you to amend S-three 28 meanwhile, to make sure that we have a vehicle that we believe. And that's all I'm

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: saying is if it's if it's seven seven five, then the senate would make their amendments or proposal of amendments to you that would then come over to the house and you all would agree or make further proposal of amendment, so yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I'm telling you that although it's made me make more busy work for you, we may as early as early next week, If it's at all uncertain what the fate of July is over there, we're gonna put it all in here. Okay?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Let me know if you want where you want it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. When you should Marc. Right away. Now.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yes. Yeah. And also sure. Also

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: oh, you're good, Cameron. Also, just reminding you and and Cameron and the committee that I will be presenting language about the HOA thing that I got from the secretary of state.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. So when That's the that's

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: the least that's the least of this bill, but it's still just another piece. It's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Heather, are you gonna have that?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: She has to connect with me, and we just haven't

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Alright.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: It's been a little busy with

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Cameron's a little busy. This is all pretty imminent because we gotta either get this out of here or

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But I just wanted to remind and be transparent that I forget even the bill number of the resource center, but that will be done after David David Hall. And I connected and yeah. Okay. But that's minimal. And the senators weren't mad about it or anything, so that'll be in there.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Will make sure Ellen is aware of these things. We will get things packaged up and have it ready to go.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, so I'm just thinking, so I will send this to you, but essentially, section one of the bill is on the housing targets. We'll use the language from July. This is if we rewrite this bill. Section two and three are all our treasurer stuff from July. There is one change, actually. I'm I'm glad I'm going through this. We heard testimony that I'd like you to draft too. Okay? And that's really the last section four of the bill as passed, which is on page three and four, particularly page four. Take a look at line two. Senate committee, and this is the one on common interest community report, and it says you provide a written report and it would be not just any legal issues, it would be legal, financial and lending and funding compliance issues.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm happy to add that I will tell you what will happen, since I am not a financing expert, I would put that out or that level of information to come back to me from external parties. And then I will simply include type of information as an addendum. So it would be me reaching out to financing entities and saying, what are the issues you see with this? And it's simply

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Some of it is, you can find out simply from the testimony we receive, usually from witnesses who were testifying about something else that sort of said, Oh, by the way, while I'm here. What it was is that we had Peter Tucker, no. Christelia. Christelia in here, telling us, for example, that if we're not careful and we authorize leasing of residential units, they can't sell them, the So that's as in lending, okay. Then we had our financial and then we had BHCB saying, you have grant criteria that are involved too. Okay, so that's all, it just

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Financing, lending

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I would just say grant, grant compliance. Correct. Okay.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Marc? Yes.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: One more thing on that. Yep. Is there anything that we'd like to add that might be interesting more work for Cameron about I I found it interesting today the differences between condominium HOAs and single family home slash rural HOA. Just something to think about, Cameron. I don't know. You know what I mean? Like, just it's interesting.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: There are innumerable types of common interest communities. It's going to depend on how it was created and how the declaration outlines, as you mentioned, more of what you think of as a traditional condo type circumstance? Is it a planned community that is more of what you think of like a subdivision type?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, because when I think of today ADUs, right, like that where I live, I I have, like, a patch of grass behind my house, so it couldn't really work. But, like, where in Jericho or Charlotte, where I grew up, they have diff anyway, just maybe I'll think about it more. But I think that's an interesting distinction of the different types of HOAs that I'd like to learn more about.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that would absolutely need to be as part of the analysis done for sure, yes.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Here's something specific, another thing I'd like you to ask Alan. According to the testimony we received, although the Home Act essentially mandates that we're residential zoning, single family, that duplexes, at least duplexes, if not what, I can't remember. At least duplexes are permitted. Testimony we heard today was, yeah, but what about covenants, codes, restrictions from the HOA, I don't know what we call them here, CCNRs? What is the homeowners association rules called? Are they covenants, codes and restrictions, CC and Rs?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, think it's gonna just depend. I mean, if you're talking about a common interest community, and

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There's a thing that's a governing ordinance, governing contract that is recorded, can be enforced, and some places they're called CC and Rs, I don't know what they're called here.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Starts with a declaration.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, whatever, that they prohibit, they mandate only single family houses. Well, if we wanted to change that so that it followed the Home Act requirements and they were void, if anything to the contrary would be void, what would that language look like?

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, and that's part of what I will look at. This came up in committee discussion in the Senate side because there was discussion about requiring in a common interest community that they authorize an ADU on a specific sized parcel. And there was discussion about the practical implications that that has on the common interest communities because when the declaration is filed, it has to outline the number of units that will exist in that community and then that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so you're looking at that? Yes. Good, okay. And then finally, section five of the bill of 328E, you're already on this, you're looking at the language, but so without the beta to enter the market, apparently they negotiated language that they both parties feel is important to return to, and section six, I'm asking the committee, this is the Service Supported Housing Advisory Council, I'm sorry Elizabeth isn't with us, but I don't have any changes to it. Does anybody else have any We're not voting. This is just like anything you want to tell council now.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I don't

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: think so, but let's just make sure Elizabeth has a chance

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: at The some

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Service Supported Housing Advisory Looks okay to me, but, you know, so if you guys want to read that over the weekend and maybe you have any thoughts, but at the moment, I don't have any thoughts for council.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That's it. Sorry, just a quick question. So does it pretty closely reflect the language that we had? We never did have language on this.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, this committee never had language on

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Never had language on this. This is

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: brand new. This is the housing advisory council. Right, right, right. It's not the coordinator. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Alright. We'll start penciling something out and be prepared to be flexible next week. Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But work towards, I think it's worth working towards a new version of the bill that reflects this much. Oh, absolutely. Yes. Yes. Okay. Draft it

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: up as amendment to this. Yeah. And then just depending on where you decide to go from there, taking it out, putting it in July if that's what the senate directs or keeping it here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And putting in all of July at the year.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And can you remind us this doesn't does this have any appropriation or or ways of need? Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. It didn't as it emerged from the senate. Yeah. Oh, but I'm glad you brought that up.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Because time I just want timing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. As it emerged from the Senate Economic Development, there were two appropriations. One was $5,000,000 for DHCD, just 5,000,000 for Mihaly, our budget has four. I told Alison Clarkson, if you want to push for more money in the Senate, good luck, that's up to you, I'm not going to put that in the bill. The second was 250,000 to the Municipal and Regional Planning and Resilience Fund to increase available municipal planning grants for municipalities to meet the housing targets. I asked Alex Barrel whether that was very important enough for us to try to put it back, and he said no.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll make one last comment, and with your leave, I'm gonna run.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Have appointment I have to go to. Bring Sophie up, yes.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: It will go to ways and means because it does have, if you pass a version of this out of this committee, S-three28 is your vehicle, it has the treasurer's office credit facility.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, absolutely. It's gonna go

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: to them no matter what. Because it had an appropriation in it, even though it was removed, it will go to house appropriations.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, did you catch that everybody? Weird. Isn't that? I think that that is the I thought only Gen Xers or Gen Zs used weird, as in strange. It is a strange rule, but it is the rule that even if something once had an appropriation in it and doesn't anymore, it still goes through appropriations.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I hope you all have a wonderful holiday weekend.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Well, hope do.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You, but yeah, thank you.

[Cameron Wood (Legislative Counsel)]: I will see you next week.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Great, all right.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Elizabeth is back, did you want Sophie.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We have two builds that I think would be of interest to Sophie. One is two thirty, and, Emilie, you're gonna help me out here.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: So

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's let's talk first about s two thirty.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: K.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So Sophie, the current bill has three sections. Section one is that employers, employee, you know, it's the one that references teachers and the CFR and all of that. I at least have no comment on that at this point, to change it yet. The section two is conforming parental leave the Vermont Fair Employment Practices. I have no comment on that. Emilie? Right?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Sorry, was struggling to unmute.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm I'm okay with that language. Are you okay for the moment? You don't have to promise forever. I have no contrary instructions.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Promise forever? Yeah, no, it's good.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The third is that you can't make college professors retire, writes the language. That's fine, that's consistent with our bill, right?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yep.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. There are two bills I have in my list that we passed that did not make it into here, and I think we are going to end up it is very possible that we are going to end up using s two thirty as the omnibus labor bill. If that's the case, the next draft should have h five fifty six, which is the one that adds municipal employees to the list of those exempt from state minimum wage, remember? Mhmm. And and h five forty eight, which added the mediator position to the Vermont labor relations.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: That,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't even know where five forty eight is in the state.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Sophie can explain as well, but that Do you want to explain Sophie?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's in our budget, but I don't know.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Sophie's a deputy for the office of legislative council. So H556 is currently in Senate Economic Development. H548 is currently in the budget bill, which is in front of, I assume Senate appropriations right now with the statutory language.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. So that would mean that they can consider it even if it doesn't have we don't see that?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Wouldn't think so because it's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: already in Yeah.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Don't think we need I don't think we need it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Wait. It's the teach the teacher thing is in there. Right?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: So I've Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just dropped The teacher is in there.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That I walked through with you before. So can I just quickly refresh recollections on where that's at?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is it the current draft

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of Q30? Yes, it's the strike all from the DISC committee, so it has a couple of changes on it. We've already gone through these, but I just wanted to make sure I'm in. So the first one was you were talking about the second section that deals with Fair Employment Practices Act. Your current version, this version, a stricel amendment from this committee takes out that added language that came over in the original estimate.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And we'd like it out.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, and Senate Economic Development is currently considering your version which is H887 and then this adds in the language about the lodging deduction rates and requesting a report on that. So that is your section 3A, so as to what you have in the Strykel amendment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. So, we would want S230 to reflect our positions on those.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No self agitation. Right.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it has self attestation, it doesn't have the perjury.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, it doesn't have the perjury, right.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then you want to keep the current edition of the report on the lodging allowance?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So that's section three a.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What? That's section three a of what?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Of your current strife or amendment that we're working on for this committee of two thirty.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Of two thirty. I believe so, right?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yes. That's just the looking into the study, not basing. Right.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it contains a list of requests for information.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. And that we're set there. I think we've talked that to death enough that the next it's safe to say the next version should contain that.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay? And then you want to add in May, even though that already passed out of the house and is in front of certain economic development.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Yes. Okay. I think there's a good chance that certain economic development is gonna be just want S-two 30 to be the belt, in which case they'll just let 556 sit on their wall. We haven't worked that out yet. See, sooner or later, we're gonna have to decide which vehicle to use. I mean, we don't want contradictory laws, but it's possible that if they go ahead, they go ahead and then we'll deal with it in conference. Anyway, anything else on 02:30, anybody?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm still stuck on this third point.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Which one?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Line 16 of that report on lodging deduction about whether a separate lodging rate should be established for farm over housing. I guess I'm confused about how so this would be coming in by December 1. There's no there's no

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's no direction on who to talk to necessarily? So this would be the Commissioner of Labour consulting with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Commerce and Community Development. And the goal was because most of the employee lodging is agricultural and this concern came up in the House Agriculture Committee around when they were looking at the lodging allowance and how low it was, whether it should be changed. And so one of the questions was, should there be a separate rate? Because again, there's a concern that if you had that lodging rate be too high and then you're paying somebody say $15 an hour, but the lodging allowance is more reflective of fair market value, they could end up making nothing.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I know you're thinking something.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: What are you thinking?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Well, I'm just thinking that they, I feel like we're gonna bump up to the same problem, which is that when this was heard in ag, it seemed like they just didn't have any data. And so just asking the same agency for information when they don't have data is weird. I wasn't here for your whole discussion because I

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: was at the hospital,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We I'm sorry, just discussed it briefly, but then we referred it to them. They actually know, contrary.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, they've been talking about a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: bill that came talking in. About a large bill.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Minimum wage, housing, and I think what developed out of that conversation was even less favorable perhaps to the workers, which was, we might need to deduct even more from their wages counting their housing, their worker

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: housing, The as

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: discussion we had, so the language came from them. They would like to not have this whole thing, though they didn't have a consensus around what they should do big picture, they at least didn't want to wait till next year to get more information and recommendations on the actual cost of housing. The discussion we had here, and I know from talking to the chair of that committee, it's the same concern, is we're still up against the problem that the amount may be much later, but it means that people earn less. And one of the points that was made here was that we should think of, when it comes back to us, we're gonna wanna look at issues like, what are the tax implications? In other words, it may be, for example, that let's say we decide I'm just pulling numbers out of the way here. Let's say we decide that the real value of the housing and food is $15 an hour. Well, we're not gonna deduct $15 an hour from the salary because they wouldn't earn anything. But maybe we can allow give a tax credit, a tax deduction in that amount to the farmer or something So, like there was a discussion here, Tom was raising these issues, and it was just decided, let's get the report and it's gonna be something that the agriculture committee and this committee is gonna have to look at when we get it. We may not be able to sustain the deduction.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Well, particularly when there's an absence of a discussion on even setting a asking, let alone forcing a statement of unwage for said workers. We're starting from a nebulous wage already that we know not from the Secretary of Labor or agriculture, but from work done by people on the ground who have the trust of the workers and who are there to look at the housing quality that tell us that it just feels like to not include any of those other parameters into the consideration, I feel even less reassurance that we are in any way taking into account the interests of the employees in these situations. So again, I have a hard time

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think that you starting from this should go ahead and leave this draft, but I think that's just going to be part of the bill and we're going to have to talk about it hopefully when everybody's here.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: There was a study committee.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Was a report. Right, there was a study committee. Yeah, this is not a substitute for that study committee. Our vice chair was on the study committee. This is a very narrowly focused one, I agree. Is there anything else on 02:30? Would like to spend just a minute on S89.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: It's not going to have file with me because I was led to believe

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, you followed the agenda, why should you think that? That's not going to stop me, however. It was one thing, I just want to, it's a placeholder for you to think about because Elizabeth isn't here.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Oh,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Elizabeth, are you on Zoom? Elizabeth, can you hear me?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I'm here. Cool. I'm here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I'll I'm gonna take a crack at this, and then would you please correct me? Here's the only drafting issue so far on S89 that was raised. I mean, there are policy issues, we heard lots of testimony, but Elizabeth in questioning one of the witnesses, Elizabeth reads whether Essex, the reality that now in the modern world, law enforcement officers often have other people riding along with it. They might be a social worker, they might be a mental health worker, and those individuals, to make it even more complicated, Sophie, those individuals are sometimes employees of the state, sometimes employees of a local government, and sometimes employees of a nonprofit, and sometimes plain out volunteers just like volunteer firefighters. And I guess, I think the question that was triggered by Elizabeth's cross examination of one of our witnesses, in my mind, was, well, if we wanted to include those people, what would the language look like? I can't help myself, I guess I can't completely lose my past, I never know what I think till I see the language. So, I guess my question is, what would that language look like?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I think it raises a whole lot of questions that the committee is going to have to wrestle with, because you've also got to remember you have a board that oversees the distribution of this land.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They're

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: not there all the time, they only come together when there's actually a death. The harder you make it for them, it's just something to really think about. Mean again, if they've got to determine whether or not somebody, I mean the current categories that you have in S89 that you're looking at adding a pretty clear cut, like who's in and who's out, but that's another full layer of complexity that you're asking folks to dive into in addition to the occupation related illness and how complex that is. If there is a definition currently in state statute for these folks, that would be one way to do it, but I don't believe there is.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Would you double check to see if there is?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Agree, I already did.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, you did, it's not. At the moment, it just says, with respect to covered employees, it says of the Department of Corrections and with respect to classified family service employees in the Family Services Division. You're right, I mean, the other categories are very clear, But I just want to ask, and then I'll go to Elizabeth, this was something you raised, do you want to comment or say anything here?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yep, can you hear me?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, we can hear you. Perfect, yeah,

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: we can hear you.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Okay, there were two pieces to it. One was the evolving nature of mental health professionals accompanying law enforcement officers to emergency scenarios. And you said, Marc, it currently takes all kinds of forms and it has evolved to a tremendous degree in the last six years. And I believe will continue to evolve, particularly considering whether or not we can fund it at whatever level. But also, so there's that, the evolving nature of those people and who ride along with police officers to emergency mental health scenarios, but also honoring their goodwill and honoring their willingness to kind of run towards danger. I guess part of it is to me that this cares for people who care for others and willingly place themselves in danger in the caring for others, and should we not make an attempt to honor that?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I do wonder whether, oops, Maybe you wanna mute yourself again. Mute yourself again. I I do wonder whether there's a definition of licensed mental health professional such that we could say licensed mental health professionals or licensed social worker that is injured is killed in the line of duty while accompanying law enforcement personnel. And I'm willing to admit that that might be a problem, but I just would like you to look at problem, but I just would like it.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Do in this do we make a distinction between, like, the the line of duty versus the long term effects of having been exposed. I know that part of the reason that the firefighters were originally maybe an easier category was because of this long term exposure thing, was that there was a lot of medical There are clear definitions of the types of cancers and all of that. In the bill, are we making a distinction between something that happens in the action versus the long term for all of these categories.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: So there's a definition of in the line of duty for each category and then there's, and then so you can either be death in the line of duty or death from an occupation related illness.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There's a distinction. So the death

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: from an occupational illness, where does that start?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, it's not in the middle, it's in the underlying.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Right, it's not in this, what I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: can do is I can

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: show you, if people don't mind, can show you the draft.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, and Sophie, don't hesitate to say I want to do

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: this once it's for the children. I know,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: spent a lot of

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: time on it, I have a whole ton of stuff in

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: my office. Maybe that could just be among the list of questions that that will come up once we do have more time.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Mean, we

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But I'm just wondering whether we need to really pay attention to, like Right. In the line of or, you know, as a clear direct result of having you know, because if somebody gets out of the car and then goes, gets dropped off and then somebody comes over and immediately, you know, that's pretty clearly a result of having put yourself out there. But I'm-

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Marc? Oh. So this this is a draft that is posted on the website for today. Draft 1.2, this would be a strike or a comment. This adds in section two. So this is where the language is, which isn't in the original draft that came over from the Senate. What this does, first of all, is it breaks up currently in section three thousand one seventy two, it's a very long paragraph with lots of stuff in it. So what this does is break it up a little bit. So that's what these subdivisions are. And so again, this provides what happens.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is the language you're thinking about, survivors of emergency personnel employed by or who volunteer for the state of Vermont, a county or municipality of the state or non profit, blah blah blah, who die in the line of duty or of an occupation related illness. And then the proposed additional language, this is from the treasurer's office, is highlighted here, is given the complications of them of determining occupation related, this now provides to assist the board with applications involving deaths from occupation related illness. The board may pay reasonable fees from the emergency personnel survivors benefit special fund for a medical expert and other services as necessary to review applications and make recommendations to the board. And then in addition to renumbering the sections, it just adds in this final section relating to the fund. It just again just provides that out of the fund expenses incurred pursuant to that subdivision we just reviewed to be paid from the fund. It's just the mechanism whereby the treasurer's office can recoup some of your costs of evaluating some of these claims.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So, is part of what you're saying, sorry, if I could just finish, Emilie, sorry, do you mind? No. Or if would rather we just No, no, go ahead.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If you were

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: going to make a comment about maybe we table this, I don't want to start in on a new

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: It wasn't.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, so

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I guess my I'm just trying to understand what you opened and said the occupational related illnesses, that that opens a can of worms because of, because we're, is that, you're saying that because it's going

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: beyond firefighters, has the established long term occupational illness? I gave you a chart yesterday that had, there are certain presumptions and workers compensation. So for example, if you have a firefighter that's diagnosed with certain kinds of cancer within five years, it's just presumed that's in the course of employment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But that's just firefighter protection.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: And then for firefighters, if they've got cancer within ten years, sort of other cancers, that's covered. You don't have that same presumption for other employees. So what I was just saying in terms of this ride along provision, if you add ride alongs to this, so one, there's the issue around defining them. I was just saying that for the treasurer's office supporting the board that makes the determination, right now, even adding these additional categories that's in the S89 that came over from the Senate, it's pretty clear cut. That's not gonna be a particularly hard decision. Because we know who they are. We know who's in it.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Are you certified or are you not? Well, if you're not, then you're not

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: going Right, so that's going to be relatively easy. And then the next question will be, is the death either in the line of duty or is it occupation related? Which again has some complexity to it. So what I was trying to say was that with this sort of ride along piece, in addition to how many people does that include, I mean, like it's just a very nebulous group, And maybe there's a way to define it to be very concrete. But that's gonna be an added question that the treasurer's office and the board is gonna have to consider is, step one, does this person fall into one of these groups that are eligible for this award? And then two, is it a definite alignment I'm with your occupational avid

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: just raising the issue because I think without knowing, and we can discuss it when we come back, I think Elizabeth made a fair point in that, that's very dangerous work. And ride along social workers and ride along mental health workers, I think it wouldn't be hard to say, A, they have to be licensed and B, they have to have died when they were riding along with a police officer. So not volunteers. Not just generally. I'm just raising that issue to talk about, and I don't think it would be that hard. I mean, they're there or they're not.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: It wouldn't be occupation related, you wouldn't have to get into that issue. Would simply be, were they killed?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Were they killed when they were riding with a police officer? I don't know. No, I'm sorry. You're in danger.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No, real quickly, it's not related to this, but I just wanna raise awareness that all other committees have finished for the day. And so I just want to raise awareness that some folks need to drive home, and it is Good Friday. And so just to be conscious of the time timing

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: of See, that's what you were saying. That's why I was like, should I go or should I No. No. I didn't want you to have

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: to table. I just wanted to I just wanted to let folks know that Right. That we had made that commitment for this afternoon that we would not keep folks too long. So I just wanna you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Well, I I am in that spirit hoping that the next five minutes will wind up. Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Thanks. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I just have a brief comment, and that is that I think this is what you were getting to, which is that we don't necessarily as those positions are evolving and and their attachment to law enforcement is evolving, maybe we could actually backwards engineer it and change the way that we refer to them rather than trying to categorize the position. In other words, maybe we could say, and any other, like, have them, if they are riding along with a law enforcement officer, any position that is riding along with a law enforcement officer, with the purpose of, you know, I don't know how you would say it legally, but with the purpose of addressing an emergent situation would be considered an emergency worker for the period of blah, and and therefore would be covered. In other words, rather than having to go through and try to categorize something that's really nebulous, find what is not nebulous and and address it. Does that make sense?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You're what you said makes sense. I'm not sure what you said. Makes sense. I'm not sure what we should do. I think that Sophie knows enough to sort of work back to it. Any other questions?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I have one more thing to add even though I'm the one that said we should hurry up. Just for staff and other people. Right? Is Sophie, I have asked her to draft the language that was requested for the language for the treasurer's office change that they had remember?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's in here.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's in there.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: That's what that's what we just went through.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's in section it's in page 1.2.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: We have today we have a four three. We have an April 3 draft

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh my god.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Of the 1.2 that has that.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Happy Easter.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I I did have one other flag for you that was brought to my attention, which was I think there's an understanding that this would be prospective but it doesn't explicitly say that. So a concern has been raised with me regarding what happens if somebody's spouse died three years ago and they now would fall into this, can they bring So that that was something I think the committee might want to think about whether it should be clear that this is a moving forward. Mary? I believe that the treasurer has been in contact with the VSEA in that regard, and so if you want to hear from Tom Avanour, he can maybe speak to that. Tom, you want to identify yourself?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: For the record time out, Leonora, coordinator of external legislative affairs for the SCA. Just to be extremely clear with regard to what specific question, Chairman? Did you have a conversation or any opinion on whether the whole bill should be

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Retroactive.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Retroactive or moving forward? Have been in contact with the treasurer's office. This was not a concern that they raised, but in response to the question, they and we are in complete agreement that there would be no issue whatsoever with simple language saying simply that will, that the bill will only apply with regard to the new population, that would be considered the deaths occurring after the effective date. Why don't you draft that up and then we'll look at it?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It would not be retroactive?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, wouldn't be retroactive, it'd be prospective.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yeah, think that was just a general concern as to why potentially that could

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: be And less complicated. Anything else for Sophie? Great. At this point, we don't have an agenda for next week or do we?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: We have half of Tuesday.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We'll have a Tuesday, but the floor is at 10:00 on Tuesday. At this point, we do not have anything scheduled at 09:00, so you will be here by the floor, and then we'll meet in the afternoon, Yeah,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: that makes sense.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Anything else before we adjourn? We are adjourned. Thank you everybody. Happy Easter, Happy Passover.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: And

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: before you sign off,