Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: All right, relax.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right, everyone. Welcome back. Government Operations Military Affairs, the May 22, a little after 3PM. And we are going to hear about the instances of amendment on page six and six, lobbying disclosures. Counsel, how are you, sir?

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Doing well. Thank you very much for having me, committee members. For the record, my name is Tim Dublin, licensed counsel. You let's see. I don't think there's official has passed by. That's ready, still in drafting operations. But it was passed by. This amendment was passed by the Senate this morning and entails three changes really to what the House passed. Sure. And I'll get too long a little bit, but they will add some detail in the reporting requirements for advertisements or advertising campaigns instead of modifying the definitions of advertisement campaigns. It keeps it as is, current law and maintain that is, and then it'll change the effective date to upon passages in July. So looking at these a little more closely, we'll see, Orient ourselves in section two, which will amend two BSA section two sixty four c. That is the identification in and the of certain lobbying advertisements. The committee will remember that the part of the bill is found in subsection A for identifying advertisements. And that was changing the proposed change in this bill is to make it an all year round, not just limited to advertisements which could be identified during session, essentially. So A is identifying reports or identification in advertisement. And B, Subsection B of 2C2Rc, has to do with the subsequent reporting that happens after the advertisements are released to the public. So we have here some unaltered requirements in B1, and then we go to B2, and B3 is actually completely new, but I'll get to that in a bit. So just to orient ourselves further, one requires that details the conditions in which a report is required. That's essentially for any advertising or advertising campaign that totals in cost of $1,000 or more. Two, subdivision two, that is, entails what needs to be contained in that report. And so we have existing language, things like lobbyists. Those should all identify the lobbyists, the lobbying firm, the lobbyist's employer who made the expenditure, the amount and date. And then in existing law, it said a brief description of the advertisement advertising campaign. And here's where we have the new language introduced, including so let's see. Permission c from that one, any enacted or introduced bill for any issue featured in the advertisement or advertising campaign. Two, any specific person featured in the advertisement or advertising campaign. And three, whether the intent or content in the advertisement advertising campaign offers an opinion of support, opposition or neutrality on a bill issue or person. So any questions about the additional reporting requirements as well?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: You're sounding

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: like you have a question.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: This is a lot. This is a lot of stuff in one bill that was pretty neutral, in my opinion, going to the Senate. So now there's all these things lobbyists are going to have to be aware of and declaring in a refurk. Yeah, I think I need time to look at this. So,

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then we have a new subdivision 3 added here, and just read it and then provide context. So notwithstanding subdivision one, that is the reporting threshold of $1,000 a month, with a subsection, an advertisement report may not be filed if the lobbyist lobbying firm or lobbying lobbyist employer has already filed the necessary reports and disclosures required under 17 BSA Chapter 61 Subchapter four for the same advertisement or advertisement campaign. 17 BSA Chapter 64 Subchapter four, that's part of campaign finance law, in particular, reporting for electioneering. And the Senate Gov Ops Committee took testimony and deliberated on the idea of, okay, now that these advertisements need to be reported year round, and not only just part of the legislative session, will that inevitably cover some period of time during campaign season as well? Yes, by definition, because it's all there. And so then they were considering, Okay, well, is it possible for an electioneering communication to be also considered an advertisement under this law? And to the degree where that may or may not be possible, whether it's possible purple on that Venn diagram, if you will, the issuer of the electioning, the advertisement that could be potentially considered either will only have to report according to the campaign finance laws and not here. They can also, if they want to, file under the lobbyist provisions, but they need only file under the campaign finance. And I can't really speak to how frequently that may occur, but their reading of the law, a set of ops considered a possibility, so account for it here. And then we move to subsection C definitions embedded in this section have to do with what was the definition of advertisement, advertisement campaign. This committee, this committee will remember that we'll recall that there were changes slotted to these definitions over the government operations committee took out those changes. So they opted to just have those definitions. Those two terms be maintained in current law. Then the last thing is the effective date in section three of the bill. It was to take effect on 07/01/2026, and they opted to change that to bond passage.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: A little bit more than I was expecting.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: Please. My comment is just that we are in the election cycle. And this is going to affect plans that firms may have. I don't really know what the impact would be at this time of year to enact something like this. So I would need a lot more information. I'm having a hard time digesting this. So I'm just going to keep reading it over and over again. Thanks.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: Okay. Yeah. No. I'm fine if you want to

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: digest on listening. This is more substantive than I anticipated. Can

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: we have someone come in and explain why? From Seneca Vance?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But they left already.

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe the reporter is senator, but I'm scared to guess.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, I believe the senate is gone.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: They're long gone. Are we expected to take some kind of action on this today?

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: It was on the White Mix, and I

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: have a list of them. We got a

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: list for today. It's fine to

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: carry it over the next week.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I just kind of don't

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: get it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: If that's really on the draft, We're gonna look at this that I got. Yeah. Okay. I'm fine with that. Alright. Yes, Rutland.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: You maybe if next week we could hear from Sarah, you know, skiing and maybe

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You're in my head, member. We're having a go.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: I was gonna ask to hear from some lobby person, because I like a real world example of what this is.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: If only

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: you had been looking for one of them yesterday, the room was full.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. So hold off on this until next week. I guess, Zach and Mr. Murray or not? Phil Coffin, still conversation. So why don't we go offline until we can get those? Or actually, do you wanna walk us through the changes? Sure, sure. Yeah, I'm sorry, I

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: got like Friday brain going right now. Pardon me.

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not sure if it's available yet. I just shared it with the community assistant there. The House Ways and Means amendment that they passed, I think it was unanimously, unanimously, just maybe an hour or so ago. And committee may recall that there was really just one substantive change to the town of Stowe's charter, and that's to introduce a new section nine zero four regarding local option taxes. And general there provisions for all municipalities in Title 24 already. I think it's 138 off the top of my head. I have to double check that. But that enables all municipalities to assess 1% local option taxes of the three varieties. This would, and has still passed it, allow them to assess at a 2% rate for those three categories, the local option tax. The house ways and means, inserted a new section b here on page one, and I'll just read that aloud because, you know, that fingertips notwithstanding any contrary provision of title 24 VSA one thirty eight or title 32 VSA section thirty seven zero nine. I'll get back to what those are meant. Any local sorry. Notwithstanding those provisions of any there's an extra time. Any local option tax collected in excess of 1%, 50% shall be paid to the local option municipal transportation special fund established pursuant to 19 BSA three zero six b, and 50% shall be paid to the town. So a few things to unpack here. It's a pretty rich sentence as far as hidden detail. 24 BSA 138, that's the standard local option tax and statute that enables all municipalities to collect. And it breaks down, or so you could say, proportions. The money is received from that, the way that 25% goes to the state, 75% is then returned to the town. So that provision needs to be not listed because we're introducing a fifty-fifty split versus the twenty-seventy five. The second one is 32.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: Yes. Sorry to interrupt you, but that fiftyfifty is just for the second 1%, right? Yes, that's correct. Thank you.

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 32 VSA, section 3,709, that has to do with the receiving fund, that's the pilot fund. That's where local option taxes go to. And so we're changing the destination there, so that has to be now listed as well. One other note is the local option municipal transportation special fund is not established quite yet. I believe that's in the budget bill and up for conversation right now. It's committee, but committee conference there discussing the budget. Yes, essentially the takeaway here is that that first 1% will be treated like how all towns treat it. 25 states, 75% returned. The second 1% is going to be fifty-fifty going to this local option municipal transportation special fund, then half being returned to the town.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We're gonna go with a hand.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: No, thanks. I think I just digested that. So that 50% that Ways and Means is proposing to give to the state probably can go to this new local option, Municipal Transportation Special Fund.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Ben, if I read this correctly, none of it goes to pilot. 25% on the first one? And then on the second point, it's a fifty-fifty town to transportation. Yes. So no pilot on the second point. Rep. Not Identify yourself for the record, please.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: Everybody wants a fairy city outside some means. I think we're saying the same thing, just Not letting you the transportation fund as a transportation fund, but this local options act municipal.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I was being pedestrian with my word. Thank you. Yeah,

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: somebody's gonna have to remind me what this newly created, that isn't created yet, local option municipal transportation special fund is for, who can access it, and what does it do?

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would defer to my colleagues in JFO. Thank you. They'll go on top of head. Chris Rutland, JFO. The Local Option Municipal Transportation Special Fund, just kind of follow the fund,

[Chris (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: is proposed to be the senate added it to their big bill construct. It is currently pending. It came out of senate transportation. But the thinking behind that is it creates a special fund where revenues would go into it and then be appropriated out through the annual budget process to VTrans through some existing programs that support municipalities. And there's some verbiage in the E-nine 15 secondtions of H-nine 51 that came out of the Senate that spells all this out. But most of the money would be appropriated through town highway aid, which is distributed on a formula basis to all towns based on mileage. And if there's enough money in there to make sense, that money could also be appropriated to the existing grant programs for town highway structures and class II roadways. So this is envisioned to be another pot of money that the legislature would draw upon each year through the budget to appropriate funds through existing programs that benefit municipalities. And the reason why it's a separate special fund and not just in the T fund is because these existing programs have statutory inflators in them. And this was sort of the icing on the cake that would be not included in the base for those statutory inflators.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So it's a way of sort of keeping those funds separate from the rest.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: Does anybody know if this special fund, I'm gonna call it the special fund to differentiate it from the T fund, if the special fund is one of the items of disagreement in the committee of conference for the budget?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It is technically an item of disagreement. I expect once some other outstanding issues and other bills are resolved, it will quickly no longer become an item of disagreement.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: So now I have a follow-up question because I'm trying to look at the big picture here. So if Stowe, if we approve this, if Stowe is the only municipality at this moment that Assuming the Stowe Charter passes, right? We've gotta go back to that. The Stowe Charter change passes both bodies and gets approved by the governor, there would be a 1% coming from the town of Stowe, an extra 1%, 50% of that 1% could go to this special fund. It would go to this

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: special

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: It

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: would go to fund. It'd be up to

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: you all to appropriate that money through the Town Highway 8 program in the budget. And that's part of the transportation bill,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: the T bill? It's in the transportation appropriations, yeah, and

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: that's the bill. Okay, and that would go to any municipality? It goes to all municipalities based on Okay. The Based on formula. Important to know. Is

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: it correct that there's an excess of pilot funds Currently, the intent behind creating this special fund is to spread the wealth

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: related to transportation. Sure. Are both two. I wouldn't say they're apples and oranges. They're like apples and pears kind There's of two related conversations around local option taxes and money going back to pounds. This 2% is separate from the pilot fund issue, but you're right, the pilot fund does have a positive fund balance and a positive operating

[Speaker 0]: So like oranges and blood oranges maybe?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Wondering if this changes maybe what the voters thought they were voting for.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's true. It does.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Rutland, do you have a comment on that? No, you don't. Do you want to talk to it? Do you mind speaking to it?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: Yeah, thank you for the record, Jedlitsky, Rev. Lamoille won. So that's a thoughtful question. Clearly, we know that 19% of Stowe voters weighed in on this subject, and they probably assumed if they were following the Nugent typically, municipality received 75% and the state received 25%. So that one could assume. But they also realized it was a new type of ask. And so I'm not speaking for the voters, and I'm not speaking for the select board, but as the sponsor of the bill, I can speak to that. And first of all, I was a little surprised that I just got lucky and I ran into someone in the hall and they said, Hey, there's a new amendment on your bill and we voted out, sorry we didn't let you know. Discussing. Was not in this committee, I was slightly forewarned about it. But that's decorum and I bear no grudges on that. I come in the spirit of maybe you call it egalitarian, less oblique, is a little too inappropriate, but sharing the crisis of the transportation bill fund needs statewide. I feel that all citizens on deck, we are to get 50%. I will say in my discussions in February, March, and April, with leadership in our community, I allowed that rumblings in the building. I felt that the percentages may change and there was a serious need in between the operating rent transportation fund. Speaking for myself, I think that the town is so leadership will not be shocked and I think that given the needs of all of our non personally think this is Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: That it is reasonable? What's that? For a sec.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: You know, we are fortunate to have assayed, a few towns have, and raising these two sectors for additional travel options and benefits. We know that we're not the only town struggling with it.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: That's my opinion as Bill's sponsor. And that took overstep here, but I would also remind the committee and body at large that with this amendment, should it pass into law, still will get an additional 50% of this. If this does not pass, they will receive zero.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I guess that's just my concern because the vote was so close on it in the first place that maybe but also, it's Charter. They can always come back and change it there. If they're like, we want all of our money or we don't wanna share the money or whatever it is, it's always an option to change it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. Regent Bennington?

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: No, was just wondering if you took testimony in ways and means from. Did not. Ways and means reviewed this about Trump at that scale.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: It doesn't. Was no. That all feeds into my question of, I think somebody mentioned that the vote was unanimous. And I'm also just curious about the conversation that you all having meetings.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: There was a robust conversation. Placement of amendment was ten ten. And once that passed, the underlying bill was 1,100. Yes, we had conversation about the town of Stowe and their comments,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: hey, you want to hear from

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: them, represented those in the program at that time as well. You could talk about the intense needs that are being passed on in the transportation fund and that this is a way to get more money to towns such as Stowe that have significant state roads within municipality. A conversation about decree should be another special fund, but it is a special fund that will allow more flexibility and more money to flow back to towns.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Hooper of Randolph. Want a no

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: vote? Only Ways and

[Speaker 0]: Kids family, yes. Who is that?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: Representative from the gallery. Thank you again, Jed Lipsky, Lamoille once felt just reflecting back on my long life of learning. I remember in my 20s, I felt I learned the notion that a half a loaf better than no Okay, I still have a question.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I kinda have questions. Representative

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Winsky, would you like to get a seat at the table perhaps?

[Speaker 0]: He's the one most likely to be able to speak to the perspective of town staff, right? I

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: cannot speak to the boarder on that subject. I can share that I have spoken with town manager, who you've heard me and other select board and allowed that. There have been rumblings that the percentages may change due to other needs in the state. I have openly shared that with them. No one ever said, well, it's 70 fivetwenty 5 and nothing. Never

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: heard that. Recording?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Well, I'm wondering, based off of that conversation, if they think that the 2% might change to, say, 1.5%, or if they understand that it's now being split with the special In

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: my conversations with some leadership in the town, particularly the town manager, when there was a question whether it would even come off the wall or would they ever move to cheer, I said, My understanding is around the body, not just our body, but the general assembly, that there are murmurings that they may want to change the formula share from 75.25 to a lesser number to the municipality and target the what's now referred to as a local option, not a special transportation fund. Does that answer your question? Committee?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh. I was taking this up as a straw poll, as the desire to clean off the note of this calendar and put it on the floor later.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Lamoille-1)]: Right, Mango?

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: I guess it puts me in an odd position, because I voted against the Stowe Charter Change. So how can I really vote for this amendment if I think it's a good idea, if I were to think it's a good idea when I voted against Charter Change? Or are we voting on the charter change as amended?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We'd be taking a straw poll on the Ways and Means Amendment Act.

[Speaker 0]: Mean, they'll get amended, then people find

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: them favorable and unfavorable all the time.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: Well, see, the thing is, the dilemma is whether I want to allow the extra 1% or not, regardless of where it goes. So I'm not really sure to do this.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Roughly, and then so.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: My thought process, and we all have different thoughts and processes, is letting them improve the underlying bill. And I think in a way it does. We all have different things.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: And then we get a chance to vote on the underlying bill on the floor. Correct. Yep. I

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: just wanted to remind you that UNBL proposed amendments to the cannabis bill. And then after we made those changes, you voted no on the underlying bill. So I think that shows. That was in the committee process. That was in the committee process, but I feel the same that you're saying yes to the question.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: We don't have the bill here.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: If you're saying yes to the question that's in front of you, just this. You're not being asked about the underlying bill. It's not voting on the bill as amended, you're voting on the amendment, which is a

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: pretty standard question. Right, but we did vote on the bill as amended with the cannabis bill.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: You do what you want

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: to do then, but I'm just saying, I think it's on the amendment, correct?

[Tim Dublin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You had a comment or thoughts? Yes, Brett Hooper.

[Speaker 0]: This morning, had a hard time voting no, because I don't like to disagree with the will of voters on charters. But I did kind of foresee some stuff like this coming. Is the reason why I voted no? So I'm curious, is it inappropriate for me to ask why she would like this and not the bill? Is that the vice chair?

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I'm just curious. Don't

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: know how to vote on it. So I have not made up my mind, contrary to what other people might think. Me. On the amended language. Because I just saw it, I did not know it was coming from ways and means. I was not in that mood.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, no, we all put eyes on it at the same time for the first time. Okay. I could be wrong, Kate. So I don't know if

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: this is helpful clarifying, but I feel that this changes the bill. Obviously, it's amendment. And what's

[Speaker 0]: in here is kind of the new bill. So if that makes sense, it's a completely different thing now.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh, there's completely JT and his higher philosophical right energy. It's like a rip stone and mango.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Mason's rules also said that you can abstain from a vote. Oh, sure. Throwing that out there as a reminder if people are grappling with if they don't know whether to vote yes or no, you can always abstain.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: was just going to say it just changes the entire intent of what the voters in Stowe voted on, and there was a small majority, if it was even a majority, it wasn't even a majority of the voters in Stowe voting, which we had that conversation already this morning.

[Speaker 0]: Just to make more clear, what I'm trying to say is like, when I voted no this morning, felt kind of conflicted about that. I was like, is that even appropriate for me to do that? Not really, but like now I'm pretty happy that I did.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, folks. So rep Coffin? Alright. So 19%

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: of the voters voted up for this. There were 19% of the voters total voted on this charter change. There's less than 25% of the town. They voted on a certain thing. When they were voting, they didn't say, well, there could be a change, but we are going to vote for this anyway. The testimony we heard said it will give Stowe this much. It will give the state this much. This essentially changes what they asked for. I was was a no this morning because of the extra 1%. Because it would make still an outlier and then could possibly lead to the entire state ending up at 8%, making us a higher tax state again. So regardless of what's being done with the 1% and how it's split up, how it's divvied, whose pocket it goes into, it's still that same 1% that I was against raising to begin with. So I there's no philosophical problem for me on voting for the voting no on this amendment because I didn't like the premise of adding the 1% to begin with.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, committee. So I'm being text, sent text messages that we need to break our committee conversation and head back up to the floor for a bill. So we're going to hit the pause button here. And then that'll also give us some time to stew on this new language. But I'd like to come back and take a position on this later today. So as soon, just keep an eye on the phone. So we're going to hit hold right now and come back once we can vacate the floor with other business.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Are we gonna leave the floor?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh yeah. Oh yeah.