Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Will the senate please come to order? We will take a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Seeing none. We have s two fourteen and act relating to the provisions of pre kindergarten education in geographically isolated school districts. Being on the calendar for notice and affecting the revenue of the state under rule 31, it's referred to the committee on finance. We have s three twenty six, an act relating to the list miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles. Being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31, it is referred to the committee on appropriations. Orders of the day. We have on the calendar for action s one seventy nine, an act relating to uniform disclaimer and property interest act introduced on 01/06/2026. It was referred to the committee on judiciary, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page three sixteen of today's calendar, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S one seventy nine, an act relating to the uniform disclaimer of property interests act.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden North District, senator Mattos, for the committee's report.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Thank you, mister president. Senators wanna follow along. It's gonna be on page three sixty one of today's call. And the uniform disclaimer of property interests. Just a little background on what a disclaimer of a property interest is is if you were in a situation where you are set to inherit a piece of property, you have the right to disclaim that. Say I don't want that piece of property. Currently in the law, you have to do that within a nine month time frame and at some instances that time frame might pass because of probate or any other issue that might pop up in the estate process. So this bill that was originally passed here in Vermont in 1986, Some of us were for sure not in this building may not even be a person yet. And that was drafted by the Uniform Laws Commission in 1978 after the aftermath of the Tax Reform Act in 1976, this is all at the federal level, that this was done. So it wasn't until 1986 where Vermont passed another version of this disclaimer of property interest act. Just a overview of how kind of the lay of land is now with this disclaimer. It's, not to be treated as a gift, and it had to

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: be made within nine months after the interest was created. So if somebody passes away today, that person that would

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: be receiving that property has nine months to disclaim an interest in that property. It had to be in writing. It had to be delivered to the person you would normally transfer the interest. So you would have to send the disclaimer to the person or a state that was giving you the interest in the property, and the disclaimer could not take an interest in the property before the disclaimer. So you couldn't have a income producing property that you take in, you're receiving monies from, and then after eight and a half months ago, I don't want that piece of property because you were having an interest in the property prior to that. The Uniform Disclaimer Act that Vermont passed did impose that nine month deadline on disclaimers, and this comes into play with with the gift tax back in, oh, a while ago, the upper limit on 1976, the limit was a 175,000 per person. Now it's up to 15,000,000, and for the state, I think it's 5,000,000 if I remember correctly. So after forty years since the first enactment here in Vermont, the Vermont Bar Association came together, started talking about the 2011 version of this updated Uniform Disclaimer Property Interest Act, And it was the probate and trust law section of the Vermont Bar that set up the committee to review the latest version and recommends its passage based on the federal gift environment that's changed over the past forty years. And there's probably eight or nine sections that want to be changed, and I'll just start with the biggest one is that nine month rule because you can get into a situation where you will have maybe a tax consequence if it is a property that is high value or you are a high value individual, and that money will put you over a threshold that you don't wanna go into and you have talk tax consequences for that. So by eliminating that nine month rule, it allows a person to be able to examine their tax implications of any property that may be received and better prepare themselves for receiving that or disclaiming that property. In addition to that, there are clear rules on this claiming when a person holds the property jointly with another person and the other person passes away and the property passes to a survivor. So that's in a case where you're joint tenants in a property where the property will automatically pass on to the other surviving individual. The second change is gonna be that you can actually disclaim ahead of time. So if you know you have property coming your way, you can let the trust or estate know or the individual know that I actually don't want this property. Please pass it on to somebody else. And also that relates to trustees can disclaim property. Currently, there's no way in statute for a trustee, so somebody within a trust acting as the trustee for trust cannot disclaim that property that might be coming to the trust. And also parents can disclaim for the minor children, providing there's no conflict of interest between the parent and the child. And you'll notice that this bill is actually

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: a

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: strike all amendment, and this is where one of the first changes was made. And in the original bill as introduced, it talked about incapacitated child. We broaden that to just be a minor, a child. It doesn't dictate what the mental status is of that child. So that was one change that we made. And then the the act allows an infirm person to have another person sign for them. So the way I think of that is a power of attorney stepping in to be able to sign on behalf of that person. And then the act also specifically addresses disclaiming part of the property and not all of the property. There might be interest interested parties that want part of the property or be able to take in part of the property, but not all of it. And now this act will allow only partial disclaimer. What else do we have in this? Oh, so another one that is not allowed right now is that if the disclaimer, the person that was gonna be making the disclaimer is an entity, not just a person. So we think about kinda like a museum or a university. They're named to receive whatever property it may be. That entity has the ability now with this bill to disclaim that and say, no, we do not want to receive that property, which cannot be done currently. And then if the disclaimer results in the property going to the legality's estate, the act allows for the property to go to the persons named in the estate without going through the probate administration. So that just makes the pathway direct to the estate versus having to go through through probate. And then it makes clear rules on how we're gonna deliver the disclaimer to the transfer. Current statute only deals with real estate. This act would deal with other types of property. From what we heard, things of retirement accounts are things of that nature, not just real property. And oh. And then the act also makes clear that when a person disclaims there's no property transfer tax due, so it's they never took ownership of it, there's no transfer that's made, therefore, there's no transfer tax due when it would be a normal property transfer under state law. So that's all these sections, and then we have one more change that we made as a committee, and that was to remove section two from the bill, which is the severability clause. We got rid of that because it's redundant. It's already in law. We don't need to have it again in this bill. And then section two of the bill repeals the current law that we have for uniform disclaimers. And then section three is just the effective date, which would be upon passage. And we heard from a list of witnesses that I did write down, which is helpful. We heard from our legislative council, the Vermont Bar Association, which a member from the commission that put together the Uniform Disclaimer Act, and also an attorney who works in this area of law. So on a vote of four zero one, your judiciary committee recommends passage of the bill. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the reporter of the bill?

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: This, your report and the bill, mentioned in a number of cases tax and potential tax implications. And I'm wondering if you heard any if the committee heard any testimony, about potential tax implications and if this could, one, make it easier to essentially, does this create tax loopholes and make it easier to avoid taxes and therefore have a revenue impact on the state?

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: So thank you, senator. I did pose that question. The answer was a bit of an unknown no. I did ask about finance, taking a look at it. And we heard from attorneys about how it works in the real world with the exclusion of gifts over your lifetime of up to that $15,000,000 federal 5,000,000 to $10,000,000 depending if it's spouses. It wouldn't have that impact and it gives the opportunity for for monitors to really look at what any of these disclaimers would mean to them in the event that this nine months goes by and not have the opportunity to see the impact of those tax implications.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. I guess I'm surprised this didn't go to finance because it seems like it could potentially have a revenue impact. And it sounds to me, if I understood your answer correctly, that you never got a clear that the committee never got a clear answer to the question of whether there would be a tax or revenue implication to the state.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Well, I don't I don't think we would ever get a clear answer on if there would be a future tax implication because we don't know the assets of individuals and if it would be disclaimed or not disclaimed and if this nine month period would come into effect, I I don't think we can presume what would happen in the future to the individuals in the state of Vermont.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. That's fair. Where in the bill, mister president, is the nine months changing, and what is it specifically changing to?

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: So currently it's nine months and it will be changing to let me look through to find that exact page number, but it'll change to an indefinite period of time. You no longer have a nine month deadline. You can take the time you need to review that. And what that also leans into is if you have a property that is revenue generating, you might end up actually having an interest in the property if it goes on for too long and you do receive revenue or anything like that. So it does it doesn't just allow you to hold on to a piece of property assuming it's revenue generating or anything like that. I'm still trying to flip around to the nine month portion of it, but I could also come back at third reading just to get you the exact page number.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. So if it it comes in indefinite amount of time, someone could hold excuse me, a beneficiary or potential beneficiary of property could hold an entire state in limbo indefinitely while they try to determine whether they want to claim or disclaim the property.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Can the senator repeat the question of holding the state in limbo?

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: The estate. The estate. So if somebody is getting property in a will then somebody's been left property in a will and now they have nine months to say they want that property or not. If it becomes an indefinite period of time, would that hold the estate, the sort of reconciliation of that estate in limbo kind of indefinitely while the person decides whether or not they want to take that property?

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: No, I don't believe it would hold that estate in limbo, and I believe it would give the time for the individual to figure out the best course of action and not wanna hold on to that piece of property whether disclaimer or not disclaim it in that time. So I think it just gives more allowable time to the individual to be able to make those, decisions.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I well, I understand how nine months may be too short of a time, but indefinite means they have kind of forever to decide whether they're gonna take the property or not.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: I would imagine it would run into issues where if you were holding a piece of property up then you would have bills and property taxes lining up that would then kind of force the hand. And if the state runs out of money, then you would lose the interest in that property, then it ended up going to a tax sale or judicial sale.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: But it wouldn't but I I I believe the reporter said that this is more than just physical property or land. This could also be other types of assets like insurance policies and securities and pensions and things like that. So those wouldn't those would just sit and hold up the sort of closure of an estate.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: It would and they would be the beneficiary of those so they'd really be only holding up themselves unless they disclaim it and it goes on to the next person in line in that estate.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. I guess I'm not quite understanding the implications of this indefinite and and I feel uncomfortable voting on it without understanding the implications of this sort of indefinite time period. And I'm not even sure what to ask you ask the reporter to to provide me with information for the third reading because it seems to me like the implications of this are potentially that somebody could wait forever to decide whether they want to claim or disclaim a property and and that property can be a bunch of different things and then that that could hold up the the sort of settling in of a state it could hold up the transfer of a business it could hold up the paying of property taxes on property it could hold up a lot of things if it's just indefinite so I'm I'm why is it that the committee didn't decide to put some kind of time limit? If not if nine months is too little, maybe two years or some kind of time limit where they would have to decide.

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: Yes. Thank you, senator. If it would be okay with Senator, I'd like to do some more thinking about that over the evening and be able to come back at third reading and provide more information about that, if that would be okay with the Senator.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: That would be great. Maybe we could have a conversation with legislative council about it as well. But for now, I feel a little uncomfortable with the bill, but I I thank the reporter. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Mister president, we'll take a brief recess.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: We'll take a brief recess. Will senate please come to order? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you. Mister president, just to preface any further explanation, you know, about a month ago, I said to our committee, after we had wrapped up two controversial confirmations and a few controversial bills that, will take up the least controversial

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: bill on our wall and my

[Senator Nader Hashim]: mind went to s 179. I'll avoid thinking like that in the future. So the concerns that were raised by the senator from Addison were concerns that were expressed in senate judiciary. Speaking personally, the last thing that I want to do is create tax loopholes or or anything like that. And the what what what I'll say is that this process would not impede the closing of an estate, but also individuals who are, receiving if their interest has vested in a piece of property, you can't then disclaim it and avoid the taxes on the interest or the revenue that you're getting if it's a revenue generating property because once you claim that interest and it vests, you can't then disclaim it afterwards. And once you disclaim something, there's there's no, back and forth. You can't then claim it later. And that's, I'll I'll just I'll just leave it there for now. That's that's as as best as I can, to explain it, the best that I can do to explain it. I'll I'll say that the, the explanations that we received from the Vermont Bar Association, at least for me, 12 any concerns regarding unintentionally creating tax loopholes, for folks who are already, very affluent or anything like that. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator David Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator David Weeks]: Mister president, a question. Would, would a timeshare in another state be listed considered that property also?

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: A timeshare? I would have to come back at their greeting for that because I'm not sure if that would be the same as a real property or a property that would be outlined in the the law proposed. I'd be happy to come back if they're agreeing now.

[Senator David Weeks]: Thank you, Mr. President.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you. I realize this is my second time, but I just want to add something that I learned during our recess to the the comments of the senator from Windham, which was one of my concerns was would this whole thing hold up the settling of an estate, because somebody could have an indefinite amount of time to claim or disclaim property. And just to be entirely clear, what I said to legislative counsel is that the closing of the state becomes the deadline, essentially. Once an estate closes, then there there's no longer an opportunity to disclaim the property because the state has closed. So that helped me to feel a little bit more solid about somebody can't just hold open an estate forever while they waffle back and forth about claimer disclaiming property. So just wanted to make sure people understood that. Thank you, mister president.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on judiciary? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and you have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s one seven nine. We have s one seventy three for third reading, an act relating to workers compensation and the Vermont Labor Relations Board. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S one seventy three, an act relating to workers compensation and the Vermont Labor Relations Board.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it and we have passed s one seventy three. We now have s one eighty three for third reading, an act relating to home improvements and land improvement fraud. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S one eighty three, an act relating to home improvement and land improvement fraud.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have passed s one eighty three. We now have s two thirteen for third reading and act relating to the use of smart meters by public water systems. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none listen to the third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S two thirteen, an act relating to the use of smart meters by public water systems.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we have passed s two thirteen. We now have s two twenty three, an act relating to water quality of the waters of Vermont. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Listen to the third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S two twenty three, an act relating to the water quality of the waters of Vermont.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the third reading and the question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we have passed s two twenty three. We now have s two thirty, an act relating to flexible working arrangements. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S two thirty, an act relating to flexible working arrangements.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the third reading and the question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have passed s two thirty. We have on the calendar for action s two twelve introduced on 01/07/2026. It was referred to the committee on natural resources and energy, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in the calendar on page starting on page three seventy, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass affecting the revenues of the state. The bill was then referred to the committee on finance, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S two twelve, an act relating to potable water supply and wastewater system connections.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: I recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson, for the report of the committee on natural resources.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I realize the title of s two twelve is an act relating to potable water water supply and wastewater system connections, but I really think of this as a housing bill This is a bill that aims to make the process for receiving state water and wastewater permits easier, faster, and cheaper. In order for this bill to make sense, I'm going to go into a brief history on this topic so that you can hopefully have a bit of context in which this bill sits. For many years, a variety of stakeholders in the water and wastewater permitting world have recognized that the current structure for permitting for water and wastewater is at least in some instances duplicative. If a developer wishes to connect their new construction to a municipal water and sewer lines, they must get both a municipal and a state permit. Particularly for municipal permits, those may already involve technical review that's fairly robust. So the question has been can we reduce the need for the state level permit? This isn't the only problem but this is one that has received some attention over the past twenty years. In fact there have been at least two previous attempts to address this problem. First, there was an attempt specifically for downtowns in which ANR had to defer to a licensed engineer of these types of systems if the town also submitted a letter saying they had the capacity for the connection. Unfortunately, no town ever took advantage of that provision. Then there was legislation to allow municipalities to be delegated the authority to administer what was, effectively a state permit. There were two municipalities that sought and received that delegation, Charlotte and Colchester. But it turned out that through that delegation, these municipalities were responsible for the administration of all the water and wastewater permits, which included some indirect discharge permits, like for a septic system. And all of that ended up being too much for those communities, so eventually, both Charlotte and Colchester gave up their delegated authority and gave that authority back to the state. But the question remained, how can we make water and wastewater permitting process simpler and easier? Then in 2024, there was a bill that created a study. It's Act 47 of 2024. And the group of stakeholders that put together this study came to the conclusion that we, the legislature, ought to allow partial delegation of water and wastewater permits to municipalities. But, unfortunately, the chair of the senate natural resources and energy did not pay attention to this report at the beginning of the biennium, and so sadly, no action was taken on the recommendation in 2025. In the meanwhile, over that year, while the senate natural resources committee was paying attention to other things, the drinking water division came up with their own plan to make the process simpler and easier. Their plan had two parts. First, they worked on developing a general permit for water and sewer connections, which I'll explain in a minute. And the second part was that they wanted to develop a manual to provide illustrations for the guidelines for the general permit. If you're not familiar with the idea of a general permit, a general permit is a permit that's issued for multiple types of activities that are similar in nature. Instead of issuing individual permits for each of these activities, they just need to comply with the terms and conditions of the general permit. And it's sort of like an umbrella that covers usually low impact, low risk or common activities. So it is a process where you have to certify that given your site conditions, you have met a checklist of requirements and then you're issued coverage under the general permit. This is where having a manual would be very valuable. Right now, the water and wastewater connection rules are spelled out in just words. You can imagine how much clearer this work would be if developers and engineers are able to simply reference a manual that can also have pictures. More specifically, if a picture is worth a thousand words, then having a picture of proper water and sewer connections will be approximately a thousand times clearer than the rule as it currently stands. The only trouble with this plan, to have a general permit for water and wastewater permits together with a manual, is that according to our own legislative council, the drinking water division, did not have the specific authority to create a general permit for water or wastewater. So that's where this bill comes in. There are five main things this bill does. First, it deletes the now unnecessary or not helpful language that allowed for full delegation of authority to water, for water and sewer permits to municipalities and the language about deferring to licensed engineers in just downtowns. Some sophisticated towns, as I mentioned before, they tried this full delegation and it didn't work. Second, it requires that ANR create a general permit for water and wastewater connections, which requires that ANR defer to engineers or licensed designers of these kinds of systems. Third, it requires that ANR develop a manual for these connections. Fourth, it does create a pathway for partial delegation of authority to municipalities should they want to pursue it and we did hear from one municipality that they were interested in pursuing partial delegation. And finally, fifth, this bill adjusts the fees the state can charge for these permits, all of which are lower than the current fee structure. So now that I've given you the backstory and a brief rundown, I'll turn to the bill itself. And just for clarity, the bill uses the term potable water. I am just going to use the term water to mean potable water. So section one adjusts the purpose of this chapter to reflect that we're about to delete the full delegation authority municipalities and replaces that purpose with the purpose regarding creating a general permit structure. Section two clarifies that a potable water connection can be of any size and then corrects an out of date term, sewerage, the more technically correct term of sanitary sewer collection system. Section three deletes the first attempt at simplifying the process for downtowns and then it adds the language that requires ANR to create a general permit for water and wastewater connections. This general permit says that ANR may give deference, to the engineer of these types of systems, also known as a licensed designer. The may here is important because we heard, in testimony from ANR and we agreed that for especially complicated projects, it is still useful for ANR to do a more thorough review. This section is also where we see that ANR shall publish a manual to provide guidance to licensed engineers for implementing the general permit. Additionally, this section allows ANR to create general permits for other water and wastewater related activities that require a permit and are for low risk, low impact and low complexity projects. This example would, or an example of this would be, like subdivisions of a property where the developer is looking to add on to an existing system. Section four, starts by removing, the language that created the full delegation of authority for water and wastewater permits to a municipality. This is the authority that only two municipalities requested and then after some time gave that authority back to the state. And then instead, this section adds language that allows for a municipality to receive a partial delegation of this authority, specifically if it meets certain requirements. But the main two that I want to highlight are that the municipality is qualified to carry out the technical review of the connection as determined by the Secretary of ANR And then the municipalities still must submit documentation of the state permit. One of the points that came out of the Act 47 study that I mentioned earlier was that both the state and municipalities had their strengths when it came to water and wastewater permitting. One of the strengths of the state was their ability to provide a statewide database of permits that was easy for developers and municipalities to access to look up permits. So even when a municipality requests this partial delegation of authority, they'll still file a permit with the state. This is relevant for the next section which is about fees. Section five allows municipality that has received this partial delegation of authority to charge a developer for the technical review, but it also requires that the municipality pay the State $100 to file the completed permit with the State. This is because that permit will continue to be in the State's database of water and wastewater permits. Section five also creates a fee structure under the general permit that this bill creates. There are three levels of fees based on the flow rates of the system. For systems below 2,000 gallons per day, it's $250 between two thousand and six thousand five hundred gallons per day it's $2,500 and over 6,500 gallons per day it's $5,000 It's noteworthy that this structure is simpler in that it has fewer tiers or levels than the current structure and for every flow rate it is cheaper in this structure than in the current status quo for comparable flow rates. Section six outlines the process for how the general permit will be implemented starting with publishing the general permit and the manual by the 2027. Then by the start of '28, ANR must start accepting general permit applications. This will mean that the full municipal delegation of water and wastewater permits that I mentioned earlier that didn't work will be obsolete. So it's at that point that both the statute and the rules related to the full municipal delegation are repealed. We could have struck out all of that language in this bill, but then this would have been a much longer bill. So this was a shorter and cleaner way to describe the repeal of the statutes and the related rules. So finally the bill goes into effect July '26 and the list of witnesses that we had were from Department of Housing and Community Development, DEC, from Vermont Natural Resource Council, from Vermont League of Cities and Towns. We heard from Karen Horn and Megan Moore who is with Burlington Public Works Department. We heard from our own legislative counsel, Michael Grady, and then Brian Redmond from the drinking water division. We also heard from Harry Shepherd who's the vice president of the Green Mountain Water Environment Association. He's also the Public Works Director of the town of Stowe and we also heard from Thomas Weiss, civil engineer. The vote in committee was five zero zero, and we ask for the support of the senate. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: I'd now like to recognize the senator from Caledonia, senator Beck, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Scott Beck]: Thank you, Mr. President. Your finance committee reviewed the amendment being offered by the Natural Resources and Energy Committee. We received testimony from a director from the Agency of Natural Resources and a senior analyst joint fiscal office and by a vote of seven zero zero we met recommend that the amendment be adopted and we appreciate the senate support. Thank you, President.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: So the question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on natural resources? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and you have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on natural resources. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s two twelve. We have on the calendar for action s two twenty seven was introduced on 01/09/2026. It was referred to the committee on education, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page three seventy seven of today's calendar, and that when so amended the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: S two twenty seven, an act relating to creating immigration protocols in Vermont schools.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden Southeast, senator Ram Hinsdale, for the report of the committee on education.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, mister president. S two twenty seven is an act relating to creating immigration protocols in Vermont schools. If passed into law, s two twenty seven would require schools in Vermont to adopt a policy or use a model policy developed by the state that reflects the immigration protocol set forth in this bill. The immigration protocols would require schools to provide immigration resources to students, staff and their families. Refrain from collecting the immigration status of students and to require law enforcement appearing on-site on an immigration related matter to provide a judicial warrant before entering a non public area of the school. Mr. President, I will now read the purpose statement of the, bill, which is section one, and then take a moment to pause, recognize that, this purpose statement was passed unanimously by our committee and discuss a situation that I believe none of us imagined would occur the day in between us passing the bill and the day it was being reported on the floor. The purpose of this act is to secure the right of every child to equal access to a free public education and to a school that is safe from intimidation and fear regardless of immigration status. In order to ensure the right to educational equality, schools must take steps to protect the integrity of school learning environments for all children, so that no parent is discouraged from sending a child to and no child is discouraged from attending school, including due to the threat of immigration enforcement on a school campus. Mr. President, I believe there are many in this chamber who would like us to spend some time on the floor today speaking to a horrific, egregious, and hopefully not to be repeated incident that occurred in South Burlington yesterday for the entirety of the day, but particularly escalating in the evening. Myself, my colleague from Chittenden, Southeast, Senator Chittenden, and my colleague from Chittenden Central, Senator Vyhovsky, were all witness to a part of the event that occurred yesterday. I will try, Mr. President, to stick to what remains verified fact about this case. And I'm happy to be. Corrected if at any time I say something. Has not been determined to have a factual basis. I think, especially those of us who witnessed some of what occurred yesterday, and many of the parents and children in South Burlington wish we didn't have such a clear illustration of why this bill is so needed. Many of us began getting reports yesterday morning that a parent dropping their child off at school had ice lying in wait to detain them. That person then fled the scene in their vehicle, was involved in a multi car collision on Dorset Street, our main thoroughfare in South Burlington, many would say, right in front of our high school and middle school, just down the street from our elementary school in that area where my seatmates children were in school that day, and then fled from the scene on foot. I did not personally witness those incidents, but many of the legislators who came to the site got there toward the end of the day to witness what was, I believe, the most chaotic and violent scene I have witnessed to date in the state of Vermont. It was occurring right outside of our middle and high school in South Burlington. And, the earlier parts of that unfolding situation resulted in the lockdown of many of the campuses in the South Burlington School District. What I saw when I saw people identified by a small decal on a cheap tactical vest as ice, what I saw shook me to my core. I saw men wearing hoodies and flannels with a non uniform tactical vest over their plain clothes with a small ice decal, many of them holding automatic weapons. I can think of nothing scarier as a mother of two small children than seeing someone like that outside of my child's school. Around the time many of us arrived is the time that ICE was joined by state and local law enforcement officials. And my understanding, Mr. President, is that they were there to protect public safety and protect the safety of ICE agents as they sought to execute a warrant that they had received in the afternoon from a federal judge to apprehend the man involved in the collision earlier that day. And that is important, Mr. President, because as I surveyed the scene and thought about what I recognize to be best practice for our schools, for our law enforcement, and what we have set forth in statute over and over again in our fair and impartial policing policies. I scanned the area for an attorney, particularly an immigration attorney. And I scan the area for someone operating as an official language interpreter in the Spanish language that could help a family that was inside of this residence completely under siege, surrounded by hundreds of protesters with whistles and yelling, and then surrounded by tens of law enforcement officers who were breaking down their door. And at all times, anyone who did speak Spanish in that situation who was doing informal interpretation was saying there are children in this house and there was no one here with that name in this house. If you ask our state and local law enforcement agents, I believe they will tell you that they only got involved in aiding ICE, in executing their warrant, because this became a criminal matter involving a car collision, and they got a judicial warrant for that reason. And they were looking for a specific person who they were told repeatedly was not at the site of this home. There was a toddler in the home. There was a baby in the home. And I will pause now to say that from all accounts that I've heard, the school district acted in the most admirable and professional manner that they could be asked to act in, and that South Burlington School District probably embodies the spirit of what we are trying to do here today with this bill. They were aware and had tried to work with those children on standby guardianship plans. They formed a human wall around the children so that they could be shielded from as much of the trauma of what was occurring as possible. Throughout our entire discussion of this bill, the experts that came in to talk to us were talking about trauma. They were talking about schools we hope being the safest place a child can be. This entire violent chaotic episode took place right outside of our middle and high school. I cannot begin to imagine what that family was experiencing inside that home. I cannot begin to imagine what those children are going through right now, and I cannot imagine what is happening in this school district today as they try to piece together what happened in South Burlington, in our community, in our state yesterday. I don't want to continue imagining this happening to the rest of our children in the state. Immigration enforcement and ICE should be nowhere near our schools. We have said that before in various bills that have passed with strong majorities in this chamber, and we say that again with s two twenty seven. Section two begins by defining law enforcement, which in this bill includes state and federal law enforcement, but excludes school safety and resource officers. A non public area of a school is a part of the school that normally requires authorization to enter. And a school in this bill is a public or independent school approved under section 166 of Title XVI. The bill then sets forth the immigration protocols required of schools. Superintendents must distribute immigration resources to students and staff that are supplied by the Attorney General or by a group that has had its resources reviewed and approved by the Attorney General. Superintendents must also designate one individual at each school who will serve as a resource for immigration related matters. Finally, superintendents must foster a relationship with a legal or immigration advocacy institution that will provide immigration assistance to a student to the greatest extent possible. Schools are prohibited from collecting or requesting citizenship or immigration status of students or their family members unless required by law. Schools also cannot designate a student's immigration status, citizenship, place of birth, nationality, or national origin in a database that the school maintains or as directory information. Nor can schools voluntarily share sensitive information about a student with a third party. If law enforcement appears at a school site on an immigration related matter, a superintendent or their designee must ask to see a judicial warrant naming a specific person under arrest or subject to a search. But the superintendent or designee must not obstruct law enforcement ignoring their request. In this bill, an immigration related matter means an administrative warrant, civil warrant, immigration detainer, or any other document or request that pertains to an individual's immigration or citizenship status. The Agency of Education will develop model procedures on or before 01/01/2027 to help schools implement this law enforcement protocol. The agency of education must also develop a model policy by that same time that meets the requirements set forth in this bill. If schools don't adopt their own policy meeting the bill's requirements by the twenty seven-twenty eight school year, they will have been deemed to have adopted the model policy. Finally, because that is far into the future, section three of the bill requires the Attorney General to develop an immigration resource guide to deliver to superintendents on or before 08/01/2026. Mr. President, your Senate Committee on Education heard from the two lead sponsors of the bill, two senators from Chittenden Southeast, Senators Gulick and Vyhovsky. We heard Central, sorry that's us. Our committee heard from Legislative Council, the Director of the Civil Rights Unit of the Office of Attorney General, the General Counsel of the Agency of Education, the Interim Safe and Healthy Schools Director for the Agency of Education, the Director of Policy and Communications for the Agency of Education, the Executive Director of the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project, the Executive Director of the Vermont Superintendent's Association, the Director of Policy Services and Legislative Affairs for the Vermont School Boards Association, the Superintendent of the Windham School District, the Board President of the Windham School District, and a Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Vermont. Mister President, the vote out of your Senate Education Committee was six zero zero, and we ask for the chamber support. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on education. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you Mr. President. Name, file as a reporter

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you Mr. President. I'm curious if you had any or if the committee had any testimony on the issue of a law enforcement officer who presents themselves at a school, providing ID, to show that they're actually a law enforcement officer and I, asked this question because one of the schools in my district, last month had a law someone who claimed to be a law enforcement officer show up at the high school and asked to be admitted to the high school. He the person was dressed as a law enforcement officer. The school didn't the the person at the door didn't recognize this law enforcement officer, and the principal came out and and had a conversation and it turns out that this person who was dressed as a law enforcement officer was was pretending to be a law enforcement officer, and couldn't provide ID and and then ended up running away. It was a scary situation, and then real law enforcement was called to the scene, but I'm just wondering if you had any testimony about requiring law enforcement to provide ID. I do understand that you were acquiring the the judicial warrant but, given the fact that so many law enforcement officers are concealing their identity when it comes to immigration enforcement, I'm curious if that issue came up for the committee.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mr. President, we went through a lot of what ifs. Much of the language around barring a supposed or alleged law enforcement officer from entering any nonpublic area of the school was around presenting a judicial warrant. We discussed a lot of what could and should go into the model policy language that the agency of education provides to our superintendents and school districts. I see that as a very concerning and helpful inquiry. And so Mr. President, I would offer that

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: we could work on something by third reading or we could talk to the agency of education and school officials to make sure that is part of the model policy. Okay thank you. And it may be helpful to work on something for third reading. My other question is about the model policy and the presumption of adoption. And if a school district or independent school does not adopt a policy and it's presumed that they adopt the model policy, is there any is there any enforcement that they're actually following the policy if they have not acted to adopt the policy, how do we know that they're following the policy? Is there any way to check on that? Did this come up into the conversation at all, Mr. President? Mr. President,

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: had already been made aware that the agency of education had issued legal guidance, the best legal guidance they had available to them, to our schools after the various extrajudicial killings in Minneapolis that heightened people's fear, and the agency of education began trying to issue, standard communications to all school districts about what their rights and responsibilities were to children and families. We did not get into the specifics of what if a school did not adopt their own policy that is vastly preferred Mr. President, because then they are making themselves aware of their chain of command in such a situation and making sure that, they have connections to those immigration resources before they need them. This was an active conversation about coordination between the Attorney General's office, the Agency of Education, and the Human Rights Commission to make sure they are in touch with school districts, and are helping them, achieve their own policy guidance and take any model policy language or requirements and ensure that it fits their own needs. We don't have anything in statute per this bill if passed that would require additional enforcement if a school district did not follow this model policy or did not engage with the model policy that they were presumed to have, adopted by virtue of not providing one of their own.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Okay. I thank the reporter. And and, Mr. President just to be clear, school districts are doing incredible work in this area and have been long before the situation in Minneapolis when the agency of education started trying to provide them information. I know school districts for this year and last year have been providing immense support to families to students. I've heard of teachers and principals riding on school buses with kids picking up kids at home because their parents fear for their ability to get to school or their parents can't leave their house. School districts have been providing food they've been providing places to sleep for kids who come to school so tired because they can't sleep because they're scared in their home because they're afraid their parents may be taken by immigration enforcement agents. The stories I've heard in my district where there are a lot of immigrant families who live in very rural and isolated and therefore vulnerable places. The stories I've heard that schools have gone, the depths that schools have gone to to help these families and these kids have been incredible and based on all the information that I've heard from friends and family in Minnesota some of the most important resources for people in the situation in Minnesota have been schools and so I really appreciate the education committee and their work on this bill and bringing it to the floor and this really sad day for Vermont and I especially thank the two lead sponsors, Senators Vyhovsky and Gulick for bringing this bill. Schools have a lot on their plate right now and I worry about how much we are burdening them, but it's very clear that this unfortunate burden is really really really important right now and so I appreciate the work on this bill and I hope the whole Senate will vote on this. Thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Thank you Mr. President. I want to thank Education Committee. I know generally speaking we do not act to mandate schools do things unilaterally and and I appreciate the committee's recognition of the moment in time we're in and the importance of acting a little bit outside of how we would usually act. Nearly two years ago the Windham School District unrolled their policies around protecting immigration students from immigration actions and unfortunately they have had to deploy that plan to board school buses, to walk kids to school, to make sure that children were not afraid of being kidnapped by masked men in cars following them down the street. And what I know from Windham District is that because they had a plan, burden on Windham District was actually much less than had they had to respond without a plan. Because they had a chain of command and a group of volunteers through the community ready to board the school buses, to walk those kids to school, those kids made it to and from school safely and so I want to thank from every portion of my being the Education Committee for stepping outside of how we would normally conduct things and working so diligently to pass this bill.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: Thank you Mr. President. If I could just ask a question or two of the presenter.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: So Mr. President, I'm looking on page three seventy nine and there there is a sequence there, under the heading law enforcement on-site and requests for information and I I think I understand part of the what what is the seeming contradiction but I'll walk through it. So in section A it says the superintendent shall be the sole authority to admit a law enforcement officer into a non public area of the school then there's a provision for a designee if they are not there but still only one person permits and then in subsection two superintendent or designee shall not allow a law enforcement officer into a non public area unless they have a warrant. Then you get to three and it says in the event a law enforcement officer enters a non public area of the school without approval a school should shall not obstruct the officer from entering the non public area of a school. And I'm wondering, mister president, if the reporter sees the at least apparent contradiction and if she might tell us about the committee's thinking.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mister president, I think this is, one of those those matters that that gets deep into what each word means and what we are asking our school officials to do or not to do to potentially engender more harm or trauma in a chaotic situation. Mr. President, sections, well, section one and section two are relying a lot on the words shall not allow a law enforcement officer into a non public area. And section three is leaning quite a bit on the notion of what it means to obstruct them from entering that area. Mister President. Personally, I can see the perceived contradiction. I I believe this was an exercise in ensuring that we are not in statute encouraging our educational leaders and officials to physically get in the way of federal or local law enforcement that's engaged in immigration action should those law enforcement agents take it upon themselves without allowance or permission to enter those nonpublic areas.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: And mister president, that was my my probable understanding of the issue involved I can certainly understand that you don't want the law to be mandating that superintendents engage physically to prevent officers. I I do find myself wondering about the language in subsection two. So I'm thinking if I'm a superintendent of a school and the law says I shall not allow someone into a nonpublic area, the the offices or or something like that without a warrant it seems pretty clear that I'm to prevent them from entering but then in subjection three it says if they enter anyway I shall not obstruct them so I I I feel that there's perhaps a tweak that could be done there to clarify and I understand the committee was walking a delicate line there and to be clear I wouldn't propose a change to this if the committee sees fit to propose a change I I think that would be fine. But I offer it in, and and I thank the reporter. I offer that in the spirit of trying to perfect a bill that I think has shown absolutely remarkable timing. So this bill had to be drafted and moved through the process and reached the floor at the moment it did when I believe the state needs it more than ever. So, I give my thanks to the people who drafted, to the committee who worked over it diligently and its chair, and, I would hope we would all give this a strong vote of support. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Roll call, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I if I could inquire of the presenter of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I am very grateful for this plan to support it. I just want to, clarify that, the definition of a law enforcement officer, as as a person acting on behalf of the local state and federal law enforcement agency that, I I believing that I understand that it is someone who is acting in, in that capacity. I'm just thinking about our law enforcement, like our local law enforcement folks who are parents, and who might have like a parent teacher conference meeting or, you know, who are showing up but they're not showing up on behalf of the the local state or federal law enforcement and that that in those capacities that those folks are not, otherwise prohibited from participating.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes, Mr. President, we we talked in among the many scenarios we did talk through, you know, it, it did come up that, there are, there were very valuable and valid reasons for, law enforcement to be present on school campuses with the permission of a superintendent or designee to be in certain non public areas. And that generally speaking, they are not by definition, a law enforcement officer at that time acting in their official capacity, and also carrying out immigration in, enforcement of some kind. So Mr. President, we could either contemplate for third reading or discuss in a recess, the question of what might happen if a parent who happens to be immigration related law enforcement were on school related to their children, not on duty, and should somehow end up acting in, in some immigration enforcement related capacity. Given that this is model policy, it's more trying to contemplate, law enforcement at any level acting to engage in an immigration enforcement matter, while they are on duty and what that school should do to allow them access to non public areas of the school. So, as I said, our committee went through a lot of scenarios, none of which were even contemplated in what happened, yesterday throughout the day in our schools. We may be likely to have this entire policy and all of its procedures tested, and school districts may bring up a lot of these individual cases for review. So with frankly, many of the fair and valuable questions that have been asked, our committee could either look at something we want to do to amend the bill by third reading, get you those answers, or largely recognize that this sets in motion a process. And we just want to be clear about what must be included in that model policy and that guidance. But I'm very open to anything, and I don't wanna speak on behalf of the committee, but certainly this could engender discussion about ways senators feel this bill could be stronger.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you. I I think the reporter.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: It's been requested that when the vote is taken, it's taken by roll. Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary. Okay. I can say it again. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on education? Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Hashim? Yes. Senator Heffernan? Yay. Senator Ingalls? No. Senator Lyons? Yes. Senator Major?

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Matos? Yes. Senator Morley? Yes. Senator Dorris?

[Senator Robert Norris]: No. Senator Kesha? Yes. Senator Plunkett? Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Ron Hinsdale?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Behovsky? Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Weeks?

[Senator David Weeks]: Yes. Senator Westman? Yes. Senator White?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Those

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: voting yes, 26. Those voting no, two. And the senate has amended the bill as recommended by the committee. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of s two twenty seven. That completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Was waiting for

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: this time.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: He's having a nap.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: No. Not who just

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: I had hoped if anyone had, remarks they wanted to make to avoid moving my motion, but I will take silence as, as an indication to end.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden]: With that said, mister president, I would move that pending announcements senate stand in adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, March, thirteenth twenty twenty six.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any further announcements? Senator for Washington.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Thank you, Mr. President. I now have an announcement. Senate Finance will meet at 02:30.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator for Washington. Thank you, Mr.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: President. Senator appropriations will also meet

[Senator Christopher Mattos]: at 02:30.

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: Senator for Rutland.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Thank you, mister president. Government operations will meet five minutes after the fall of the gap. Are

[Senator Philip Baruth, President Pro Tempore (Presiding Officer)]: there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand on adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, 03/13/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 11:30AM, Friday, 03/13/2026.