Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Okay. Good

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: afternoon. This is the Government Operations and Military Affairs Committee back for more discussion on drafting request 20 six-five 50, our emergency management committee bill. And we have legislative counsel here to discuss draft number 3.1, which is a work in progress. And we hope to have a new draft shortly after this session. Welcome, Tucker.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. Tucker Anderson, Legislative Counsel. You should be looking at draft 3.1 of draft Northwest 20 six-five 50, which is the committee's Emergency Management Omnibus bill. Emergency Management, which is a title that is given to the Division of Emergency Management. I changed it to use a division in order to be consistent throughout Title 20. Most of the changes in draft 3.1 are actually sections or subsections that were removed and an example is that, for the local and regional committees for emergency management planning, There was a requirement in previous drafts that non voting members include members who have lived disability experience that represent disability led organizations. That has come out.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: What page are we on? That was

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: in

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: section four. And it was, it's no longer in the bill. It was in the language that followed subsection c on AJ. So if you And I do want

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: to point out that in several other instances, it's spelled out that individuals who belong to disability led organizations will be either required or requested to be part of the planning process. We had heard a concern about adding to the membership of non voting members.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Right. So, will they be considered voting members? I'm trying to find that.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: The ones that are already listed are voting members. So, on page E.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So, again, sections were taken out, so they're no longer in here. They would have been on page nine. And specifically, it would have been under subsection D in a subdivision that had subsequently been removed. The voting members is a fairly limited pool. The non voting members already include representatives from, disability led organizations. The language that's used is organizations that serve vulnerable populations.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So why wouldn't one of them be a voting member?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I think what Tucker's saying is these are the voting members.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. And I think there are

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I see it listed somewhere. Somewhere in here. Under

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: current law, they are already nonvoting members. It's just not required that they be part of that they be nonvoting members of the committee. It's discretionary, specifically that the organizations have to request to be a part of the committee. In previous drafts, it was added as a shall that the committee shall have as nonvoting members, individuals who represent this organization and that has been taken out so that it is still, voluntary on part of the organization. I can point you to the language of the current statute that would be. Helpful. Yeah, because I thought, you know, with trying to to have them

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: on the committee to have at least one be a voting member, a voting member of the committee to be someone with a limp experience.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And that was not in the previous version?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Correct. I was actually asking about trying to get that put

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: To add that to the committee. I would like That to

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: instead of the the nonvoting part of that statute that was removed to actually make someone with lived experience be a voting member.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes. That's what I'm trying.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I was trying to get out of my head.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So, Tucker, do we have the voting members delineated in this, or is it in a statute that's just

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: It's not currently in the draft, but that section of law is the section of law where that's kept. So I can pull it up while you discuss the policy voice.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay. We can discuss that when the chair is back, because I know you have limited time. So voting members And if I remember correctly, the voting members are first responders, town emergency managers, emergency management folks, Tucker can pull up the statute. But that's a good suggestion, so we'll talk about that.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Great. Tucker, you don't need to bother pulling that up right at the moment. If you do not have time

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: to request. I do have it up right in front of This is in 20 VSA, section six, section D, and subdivisions 3A and 3B. In 3A, the voting members are the local emergency management director and one representative from each town and city in the region.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And just for purposes of discussion, when we discuss this after Tucker leaves, be thinking about whether you want one of those community members to be somebody as someone who has lived experience, or you want an additional, not just one person from one of those towns, but an additional member to be a voting member that is a person with lived experience. So, we'll be thinking about that. And Tucker, I think you can move on to the next point.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. The next thing to flag for you is actually highlighted in the document. Section six. This is the section dealing with all hazard and weather alert systems for municipal corporations. And if you look at page 12, the committee had added language to this section requiring that any, all hazard or weather alert systems used by municipalities shall include communication channels that are accessible by individuals with disabilities, added a feasibility clause. So if feasible, it shall include communication channels that are accessible by individuals with disabilities.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We had heard that technology isn't always available to everybody. So unless we figured out a way to make that technology available to every single person who needed it, it really shouldn't be a shell. It can't be a shell, because they may not be able to afford it, or it may not be available where they live, they may not have Wi Fi, they may not have cell coverage. So if everybody makes the effort to help these folks, to assist these folks in any way they can, I think that's doing our due diligence? Because there are some things that just aren't always 100% possible. And I think we've heard from the monomercialty management that if it were a shall, that's a big step.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: With the addition of beef.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yes, so if feasible, include communication channels that are accessible by individuals with disabilities. It still has a shall, but it's got a feasibility clause.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: Aye. The,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: next thing that I'll flag for the committee, page 12, I put a reserved section in for now for the town forest fire wardens. In the previous draft, based on the request of the committee, I had, amended the section of law that requires the appointment of town forest fire wardens so that the local fire chief would be ex officio by virtue of their office as the fire chief, town forest fire warden. And it was brought to my attention that actually your diligent, hardworking counterparts in the executive branch had already submitted a report from Forest Parks and Recreation containing more comprehensive language that amends the entire subchapter. So that language will be added in in a subsequent draft for your review. There just wasn't time last night at whatever time I was drafting this 10:00. In the evening. 10:00. Get this together before this morning.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So some of that that we talked about, rep Hooper, is going to be in the next draft of this guidance. There won't be a 100% of it, because there were some other proposals out there. Mr. Chair, do you want to say something about Section seven before Tucker moves on?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, so, Section seven. This is that language of the PLPs, and we were trying to get folks from Superintendent's Association and a couple of other stakeholder groups, they're not available, that's two days. So, in consultation with Chair Conlon and others, I want to remove that language for the time being, because they don't have to vet it properly before we go into the lab.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And I totally concur with that being a school board member that if a student's on an IEP and the schools need to weigh in on these emergency plans for those students. We need to hear from educational professionals on that. So it's something that the Senate can take up

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: for sure. I understand the attention to merit, but we just don't have time to take the diligence.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So, 3.2 will not include that particular statute.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: In section nine to reorient the committee, and we're on page 13. This was the session law provision authorizing, the use of monies that had been appropriated in prior biennia, for purposes of new language reads procuring and implementing a multidisciplinary computer aided dispatch system for public safety communications, slightly different from what was in graph 2.3.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That's going to get expanded in a more comprehensive way. We heard from Deputy Commissioner Batesy, also co chair, and co chair Barbara Neal this morning with a very detailed set of budget languages that Tucker is going to try to decipher for us and put into legal language. And I did flag for house appropriations that you might have a question for them. They're standing by waiting for your inquiry. Excellent.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I hope they have lunch.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yes, I saw them eating lunch. Oh, you didn't eat lunch. Oh.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Let's I got a bag of SourPet Kids. Yes.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Throw in a Mountain Dew, and that's a wild ride. Alright. Section 10, appropriations.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: The

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: last draft of the bill had neglected to include the appropriation for the Ready Response Grant Program. So in Subdivision 5, one Million is appropriated to the Department of Public Safety for the grant program administered by the Division of Emergency Management.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And we have that in our budget support letter. So any quick questions for Tucker on this? He will be back with us at 02:00 ish. With a new draft maybe?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that will include removing section seven. Correcting some issues in the statement of purpose because so many pieces have come and gone, and adding the appropriations language. And then if the committee does have direction about the non voting or voting members of those local and regional committees, please let me know in the interim and I'll make sure that it's in the next draft or not.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Does anybody have a strong opinion on that at this moment? On what? In the next three minutes on the voting member, instead of a non voting member, but a voting member having lived experience as a disabled person, it's not actually in the draft. Thank you. The voting members are already in statute some 20 BSI, Section six.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Run that question again.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: What

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: was in 09/2001 was that a non voting member had lived experience as a person with disabilities. And VL suggested that instead of just removing that, which we had heard might be difficult to have in there, to add membership to the nonvoting folks, to actually have a voting member have lived experience as a disabled individual.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think that makes sense.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And the question before us would be, right now, the voting members are one member from each town in that region. Would we want one of those to be a person with lived experience, or would we want an additional voting member, someone with lived experience?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Waters Evans.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: Yes, I remember the testimony, people saying that sometimes it's difficult for people to participate in those because of various challenges, plus the lack of compensation for it. I worry that requiring it is going to cause a hardship for the makeup of the committee. Is it possible to say, if possible, or something like that? Or to have maybe two options for either an extra voted person or to allow two people from one town or either or something, you know what I mean?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And that could be why it was suggested to begin with to be a non voting member. Is there a feasibility clause for voting members or no?

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Not to lean into that one.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not familiar.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, that's fine.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Typically, it's articulated if there's going to be a qualification for a particular office. It's articulated as either that basis or something else, which is certainly what you have to do. So right now, the members that are appointed from each of the member towns is a first responder or other emergency personnel, you could always add a clause in it that says or an individual with lived experience.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And then that wouldn't be a shall?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: It would be an option for the towns to nominate that individual in lieu of a first responder or emergency personnel.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Rev Coffin.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Could we put it in in the language for the person with lived experience? And then it is there so that when the senate takes this up, they can get further testimony on that and at least have the language there for them to consider.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I wonder that's a good suggestion, and I'm wondering if we should just go back to the nonvoting member because that was not specific that they had to come from a certain town. Jay, you had your hand up a little That's while

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: okay.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV (Member)]: It felt to me like the bulk of their testimony was along these lines. I'm pretty sure I was listening, heard them correctly. They were saying it's frustrating to watch people who don't have lived experience make the wrong decision. And so I think if we're evaluating whether or not we have an opportunity to correct that problem now, it should be sort of on the basis of correction, non reticence. I understand. Well, I guess, what is it that we are concerned with? I think we should probably do the change. Think the old suggestion. But I also understand if it's not.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We could also go back to the bill sponsor's language, which was the non voting thing. And perhaps that member has vetted this well enough to understand.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So to be conscious of time, think we should

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: check-in with the bill sponsor on this,

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: and then we can communicate with counsel as his clock is up. Alright. Counsel. You. Thank

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: minutes before witness

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: let it. Rep. Pinsonault has a question. Just one way we couldn't put preferably. If possible, a person with lived experience. Then,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: feasibility.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: If we can.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So, we'll return to this, I think, because we'll want to hear from you both sponsor about the intent of making the person with lived experience a non voting member. Someone has her. I'll be with you in a minute. Thank you.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: You save your hand? Yeah,

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I shut it down and let it. Silent for about five minutes and turned it back on and it worked. I need to go through that window. Hate technology.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: I

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: don't think I do.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: All right, Ms. Stiegel, if you'd like to have a seat in the witness chair.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: That's a good idea.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Still on the same subject of our emergency management bill, still on the record here. And we have some testimony on this section that we've been talking about, which was part of H901. And I apologize if you did not get the latest version for working off them, which is 3.1 prior to this?

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: I did just get it, and I also was asked to testify yesterday evening. So I apologize if some of the things I also have missed. Was getting That's so good.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: The word late afternoon. We appreciate you coming in. For the record

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: Okay, for the record, I'm Brenda Siegel, the executive director of End Homelessness Vermont. And last time I was here, was here on just a personal reason. And so this time, I'm just going to give you a little bit of information about our organization so you know where we're coming from. END Homeless of Vermont is a lived experience led organization that works toward the goal of ending poverty and disability discrimination and homelessness in Vermont. We provide data driven safety net to the safety net that is trauma informed and rooted in compassion, empathy, and housing first principles. We are effective in working closely with teams of providers, helping people remain sheltered when possible and have the support that they need, as well as addressing systemic barriers to accessing and remaining sheltered and ultimately becoming housed and remaining housed. We work closely with providers, economic services, department for children and families, hotel owners, and most importantly, experiencing homelessness and living with disabilities. Our point of contact is generally the moment of an emergency in troubleshooting a complex case. Our primary are people our primary clients are people living with disabilities, health conditions, or complex needs, or in a complex situation. And we also work in an ongoing capacity with over 500 households who need additional support due to highly being at the highest level of need. And we help nearly over 300 people with their renewals or remaining sheltered or housed. And we also have, we answer about 3,000 calls a year to our hotline, which is going to be important in a minute. With the severity of people's disabilities, health conditions, and trauma, everyone on our staff lives with a disability, and most folks on our staff have experienced homelessness as well. We have two departments, the Office of Housing Advocate and the Office of Research and Advocacy. And I'm kind of regretting not bringing my slides from our most recent report for research, but I will send it in so that you have it. But it talks about how many people who are experiencing homelessness are living with a disability, a health condition. And in fact, nine percent of the people we interviewed in our latest research could not read or write. And so I think that's really important when you're doing emergency planning to understand that there's a huge need to make sure that things are accessible not only if have a language barrier, but also if you cannot read or write. And to be clear, those were people who were in Vermont and educated in Vermont. And so that was kind of alarming to us, to be totally honest. So that's a little bit about us. Before I go on to some of the bill, I don't know if anyone has any questions about that. Okay, before I talk about the bill, I want to talk a little bit about how I come into the emergency planning aspect of this. In 2023, during the flood, Vermont Center for Independent Living asked me to sit on the FEMA committee that met every day, and that was about shelter and food access. And so I did meet every day with the FEMA committee, And it was really challenging to address both the disability aspect of it. But I want to say really clearly that FEMA was a good partner, actually, in this. It was just that our systems in our state were not really set up to meet disability need, which is why I think this bill is great, because it starts to create that make it more inclusive. Three weeks later ish, there was a flood in Rutland. We were still meeting daily with FEMA. During the flood in Rutland, the mayor and emergency management planner were away. And something happened with the two eleven lines, and so the calls weren't going through. The next hotline call that people made after they couldn't get ahold of 211 and were flooding out of their house was in homelessness Vermont. I answered calls for four days all night long, myself answering them, and was begging, I would say, just quite honestly, the last day crying to FEMA, asking for someone to please find the right person to address this management need. I was coordinating with the Red Cross when the showers wouldn't work at the school that they were at. I was making sure that people had somewhere to go if it was an emergency shelter, somewhere else to go. And we were meeting with people in their houses that they were going have to leave because there had been too much damage as well. That was not our job or role, but we were the only people there. And I add one more thing. Our staff was again, regret not leaving some pictures for you guys. Our staff was wading through waist deep water to find encampments because those had not been cleared at Rutland. So that was not thought of. And we knew that there were a lot of people with strong medical vulnerability. So I come into this really wanting to make sure I love the parts of the bill that have been added that include people, organizations working with people with disabilities. And just a note from what you just talked about, I would make the person who's with lived experience a voting member. I think it can be, as someone who's been added as a lived experience committee member for other things before, I think it can be kind of insulting to be asked to be part of it, but not be able to say, not have a say in the outcome. And so if you make it a voting member, then usually what we do, like on the GA Emergency Housing Task Force, when we're recommending someone or when Beruth was the one who appointed the person that we knew of, we made sure that that person was going to be able to attend, that that was going to be possible for them, and asked a lot of questions about the normal, there was any cost, if there was cost that needed to be dealt with, and was there anybody that could help with that, if so. So I just think that that might be how to handle it, but I would definitely make sure it's a voting member. I think that there has to be someone. I apologize if this is in here and I didn't see it. I think there has to be a backup person you call, because I will say I called the state emergency planning people during that time in Rutland, and they told me that that wasn't their job. It was a local municipality. And I was like, But please, can you please help me? And even FEMA was calling as well to say that too, like, Please help this person. It's not an emergency. That's not what we do. So I just want to make sure that in the event it makes sense, we have a hotline. If you can't get a hold of 211, it's not the only time in the last five years that we've been the call, even though it didn't exactly fit in our role. But there has to be somewhere for that, for wherever it lands, for that person to turn to. And so I don't know if it's in this bill already, and someone told me if it isn't, it is, and I didn't see it. But I want to make sure that the answer you get if you have to call the state emergency planner because you can't get a hold of a local person isn't that's not our job. That's in there.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It's not exactly addressed in the bill. It's Vermont Emergency Management or the Division of Emergency Management in conjunction with each town's emergency manager. And those towns should have those on the website listed very clearly, who that person is and contact info, so we can talk about that, because we do have another bill that we have to shift to in a very short while when council comes in, So if you want to go through the other points that you wanted to make about the bill that you read, the version you read, that would be great.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: So I actually support the majority of the things that I'm seeing in the bill. So I don't have a lot to add. But the only thing is there is a piece and I think I wrote section and then didn't write the number. I apologize. But it says the municipality shall work with disability organizations. And I know that there's financial constraints. I just want to make sure that the expectation isn't that they work with or pass off responsibility on the disability organizations, but don't fund them. Because you don't get anything back when you do that. And that can drain your resources. So that's one of my main points. Then don't know if there's also is there also a state level committee that I missed?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: No? There's the Vermont Emergency Management, which is the division of emergency within the Department of Public Safety. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. No, no, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: If it's possible to include consulting with disability organizations on that level Yes.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: That is there. Okay. Okay. Good. Okay. So those

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: were my main things. But I did want to make sure that you all knew that the I know you've heard from other disability organizations as well that they end up picking up a lot of the burden. But this thing that happened was very local, hyper local in Rutland for us in 2023. And I still can sort of feel in my body how panicked I felt because I felt like I was responsible for all these people flooding without the expertise to be responsible for that and without anyone who I could actually reach out to, except this one FEMA coordinator, who also it wasn't their job because it hadn't been designated for FEMA. So just want to make sure that as you're flying through the bill that

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: keep that Yeah, I really appreciate that. And having worked on several emergency management bills now since that time period I think we've had one in this committee every year I know that the support systems are much better organized and have more meat to them than 2023. That was kind of like the beginning of that horrible flood cycle. And I feel like we've come a long way. I mean, there's still a long way to go. But I would say that we're in better shape now than we were than three years ago. I'm sure.

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont)]: And one other thing that I forgot about that as you were talking, remembered, was we did have a complicated situation with the Red Cross shelters, multiple complicated situations where people who were experiencing homelessness living with a disability and had been flooded out of their encampment, now they had nothing. They needed the showers to get the flood water off of them, everything, were not really being welcomed there. We had to try several times to get them back in. And then we also had a few folks who, a few times, there were people with children, and the children lived with disabilities or had autism or something. And we were told as soon as we brought the family there that if the child made noise, they would not be allowed to stay. And so those people, they were leaving their house, but they just left because they knew their kid had autism. And they ended up sleeping in their cars. So I do think that I appreciate that it's working with these disability communities about those shelters. But I also think it might be helpful to have in statute that there can't be discrimination against people based on their disability when one they're of

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: these emergency shelters. Appreciate that one aspect. So thank you very much. Thank you. We do have counsel for our next bill, but are there any quick questions for Ms. Siegel from the table? Hey, thank you so much for having in on short notice. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Counsel, how are you, sir?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. Good. Thank you. Please. So, our next order of business is reviewing a proposal of amendment on H841.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: It's an amendment to the amendment.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But, like, we're not concurring with any other proposals. Not yet to see why it's been soldier.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: How are you, sir? Everybody. Thank you very much. Doing well. Nice to see everybody again. When I'm supposed to be here, actually. I mentioned this to the chair. I know if anybody noticed this yesterday afternoon, but I wandered in here around 01:30 thinking that I was supposed to testify. And I was like, what are these guys talking about? And, more close, I'm like, oh, I'm supposed to be in ways of means. So I always come

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: in the right place. Can get these to the advice. Yeah. Right. Getting your steps in.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: Yeah. That was a good way to look at it. Thank you. I appreciate that. But today, committee is looking at an amendment that Ways and Means did vote out. It's an amendment to age eight forty one, an act of making misalynia standable welfare procedures. I'm sure the committee remembers it well, having spent quite a bit of time on it. And that bill involved a number of different things related to animal welfare procedures. It gave, the division of animal welfare some authority over things like creating a rabies vaccinator program, for example. That actually had been in the language of the bill at one point, but then now it's rulemaking authority by the Division of Animal Welfare to create that. You may recall also that there's a provision for the Division of Animal Welfare that allows them to require registration of pets from other states that are brought in to Vermont for transfer, say, and all of that sort of thing. And there's also and this will sort of segue us into the amendment. There was a provision added

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: to the bill. The thing

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: that I can just point it out, I can't remember if this was something that you necessarily still have in front of you or not. But the bill I got a copy. I just wanna make sure you have a copy.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: We have the

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You're good. We're good.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: Yep. Yep. Perfect. Oh, that's the amendment. Right? I missed the one that you Oh, gotcha. Well, I'll just describe it

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: real quick.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: In in the in the version that that this committee voted out in section 15 of that bill, you created a checkoff in the Vermont income tax form that would allow somebody voluntarily to check a box if they wanted to make donate a portion of their tax returns to the, animal welfare fund. So that was in the bill when it came out of this committee. And in addition to this so that statutory language had to be in title 13, the Vermont tax code. In addition to that, in section, the first section of the bill, and this will be what you see on the amendment that you're looking at, sec the first section of amendment. There was a provision in the bill as it came out of this committee, that related to the animal welfare fund, which is a preexisting fund that was created, think, two years ago, for the, use of, money that came into the fund to deal with animal welfare issues, in the state. And one of the, well, the provision that was proposed to be added to the fund that is amended here was revenue from the animal welfare fund checkoff that I just described. So bill that came out of this committee had these two things related to the animal welfare fund checkoff. One section that created it, and another section that said, okay, money that people want to put people aside to make that checkoff and donate some of their tax return, it goes directly into the animal welfare. So, that's the big picture. What happened in Ways and Means was that, my understanding is that they are, moving away from tax checkoffs, generally, and are, trying to create any more. So that led to removal of the tax checkoff from this bill. So when you look at the amendment, so everyone does have that copy, the the two pager. You look at section or the first instance of amendment starts on line six. It's doing what what I'm talking about, the animal welfare fund. And sort of the change is what you don't see. But in the version that came out of this committee, there was a proposed new number four. See, it goes by line 17 of your amendment. Any donations, grants, or gifts made to the fund, was that in the bill as it came out of this committee. So you you, put that language in yourselves. But then there was a number four, and number four said revenue from the animal welfare fund check off. Well, the animal welfare fund check off is what's proposed to be struck by ways of means. So there's no reason to have that language tuning market, there wouldn't be any revenue coming in from that. So that's the change. You'll see there's a technical change on line 16 too. That's on the basis of input from the Joint Fiscal Office. Apparently, this is not my area of expertise, but when money, is moved from one fund to the other by the general assembly, it's not an appropriation, it's a transfer. So JFO is going is anytime they see something like that come up in language that even in existing law, they sort of take the opportunity to say, hey. Change appropriations to transfer because from an accounting perspective, that's the right word. So that's why you see that change on line 16. So lastly, bottom of page one, line twenty, second instance of amendment, you see that striking out section 15 in its entirety? That's the section I was referring to, that the tax write off, or the tax check off section. So you strike the section and then strike the reference tool in the fund, and make one technical correction. Those are the three basic proposals made by the amendment from House Ways and Means. That's it in a nutshell.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Question to counsel on that.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Members had time to review the language. It's for several hours now.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So yeah. Lots of questions? Comments?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, ma'am. Senator Muth?

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I'm just about it, but we have to just do a straw poll on this. Right? Correct. So I register my discontent in removing the tax check off box.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. They did.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Was I was gonna say the same thing. It you know, it's unfortunate with the tax check check off thing because it would have assisted. But if we're getting away from that as a state, then we got something else.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Seems to be just a consistency with practice. Yeah. So

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: that was all I was gonna get to.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: Don't blame the tractor. That's right, on the conduit.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I've been using that word a lot.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I'm very stupid asked if they would make an exception for us, and that cat is met with a big fat mouse.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: It's not sad.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: I didn't notice any red prop, and I really did try.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I believe you. So I guess my introduction for the video is, this is on the floor tomorrow. Yep. We're a little short on body mass. Do you wanna wait for the others to take a struggle or just do it now? I think we should just do it now. Any objections? No? Okay. So I will call for favorable thumbs to accept the weighties and beans amendment.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: The grudging thumb.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The thumb's a thumb. Alright. So the point is seven four. Seven zero four.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Seven Seven zero zero four. Yeah. That's an important distinction.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: am writing the floor report when counsel walked in. Yes.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: Thank you, counsel. You bet. Thank you. Happy to help. Happy to help.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And now I'm following you out, because I have

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: a shoot for you about it.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Sure. Oh,

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: No, sir. You are are awesome.

[Rep. Kate Nugent (Member)]: Follow him and ask him a question.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: Alright. Thanks, Jose. Awesome. Thank you.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So one of the other sections that was, adjusted in our, emergency response bill was removing the h six nine seven language after speaking with chair Lamoille yesterday, and the crossover clock moving. He was gonna have to take a very, very deep look at that, and we do not have the clock for it. So at least in this moment in time for the bill to get it out the door by date certain tomorrow and time certain that that language is gonna be pulled out. Yes, Robert.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I just wanna make it clear that I'm seriously disappointed that that's being pulled. Just with what's going on. That is not just to protect our emergency responders, our first responders, that would protect citizens. I will support the bill going out of here, but that piece right there protects citizens as well as first responders.

[Legislative Counsel (H.841 Amendment)]: I

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: we're failing people to keep them safe, to help them, to protect the citizens. Every one of us should are responsible for anything that happens at this point forward. If that leaves this building without being able to protect our citizens as well, we're failing them. Us as a body are failing them. And I'm disappointed that's going out. I don't generally get out this vocal, but we are putting citizens at risk. The rest of this bill, it's important. It needs to go out of here. I will support it, but I want my objections to own.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Clearly stated, sir. And understood. And we included that language for serious consideration, and we can keep the conversation going. We got lot of days on the calendar before we get to the end of this arc. Clearly understood, sir. So that was that piece. He understood the conversation. But we're just not Friday tie over. Yeah. Our next order of business is counsel again at two.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And he may need

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Some extra time. Correct.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So I will take us offline until we have mister Anderson arrive, and those have plenty of

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: things.