Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Will senate please come to order? For our devotional exercises, we have a real treat, a former colleague, Reverend Debbie Ingram of Williston. Welcome.

[Reverend Debbie Ingram (Former Senator, Williston)]: Thank you very much, Lieutenant Governor. It's great to be back here again in the Senate, where I served with many of you. I see familiar faces like Senator Baruth and Senator Lyons, Senator Hardy, Senator Cummings, yes, Senator Perchlik is somewhere in the building, and many more. But of course, there are also some of my former colleagues, our former colleagues who are either no longer serving or who have sadly passed away. I think of Senator McCormick, Senator Kesha, Senator Starr, and sadly Senator Sears and Senator Massa. But no matter how long you've served in this august body, I'll be willing to bet that you face the same conditions, challenges, and emotions that I know I faced. Everyone who steps up and puts themselves out there to fill a political office has days when they shake their heads and ask themselves, why? Why did I decide to run? Why was I glad when I won? Why am I here for days and days and hours and hours on a pitiful salary? Why have I set myself up for the public to take snipes at me for everything from how much their property taxes are to how long bow hunting season lasts. As I remember it, there are times when the frustration is so great, when the sense that you cannot possibly be making enough impact to offset the criticism you're getting is so strong, when the sheer exhaustion and undiluted busyness are so draining that you struggle to carry on. You doubt yourself, you doubt the contribution you wanted to make, You doubt the vocation itself. One of the better things that's happened to me since I left the Senate, well, actually, the best thing that happened to me is that I got married three months ago and my wife is sitting in the gallery there. But one of the other good things that happened to me is that I was recruited to be the interim associate director of the Prism Center at the University of Vermont. This is the LGBTQ plus center at UVM. And it's an honor and a pleasure to be on campus at that great institution and to be able to take advantage of the many opportunities for stretching and growing that I'm being offered. One of my recent experiences was to attend the Martin Luther King Day keynote speech by Doctor. Rosalind Pellis, who was a survivor of the nineteen seventy nine Greensboro Massacre and is a prominent activist and a staff and faculty member at the Center for Public Theology and Public Policy at Yale University Divinity School. In her remarks, she addressed the need for resilience. Now, the word resilience gets tossed around quite a lot these days. But Doctor. Pellis had something special to say that I'd like to share with you. She made a distinction between movement resilience and personal resilience. And I think her take on personal resilience applies broadly to anyone who is trying to make a difference and might find themselves tiring or burning out. So I paraphrase her slightly. Personal resilience is not just about being tough or pushing through. It is the ongoing ability to stay grounded, effective and fully human in the face of pressure and setbacks. It requires a deep understanding of why you're in your position and what's your purpose. It's not about suppressing anger or grief or fear, but having, always having, ways to process them so they don't consume you. Senators, I wish for you this day that you can stay grounded, whether through faith in the divine, optimism in human nature, or because of the love and support of family and friends. I wish for you that you keep your purpose always in sight. Why did you run-in the first place? What are you trying to accomplish for Vermonters? And I wish for you that you do not suppress any of your negative feelings, but that you find healthy ways to process them so that you can keep carrying on. May you have all this and more as you continue your important work. Thank you. Are

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: there any announcements? Seeing none, we have several senate bills being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 will be referred to the committee on appropriations, including S 64, S one forty two, S one ninety eight, S two fourteen, and S three twenty three. Now I have house bills for reference. Page three eighty five, an act relating to remedy remedies and protections for victims of coerced debt introduced by representative Benning. It passed the house on 03/18/2026. Please listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H three eighty five, an act relating to remedies and protections for victims of coarse debt.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading, it's referred to the committee on judiciary. We have h five fifty six, an act act relating to exceptions to app applicability of state minimum wage introduced by representative Marquette. It passed the house on 03/18/2026. Listen to the first reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five fifty six, an act relating to exceptions to the applicability of state minimum wage.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs. We have h five fifty nine, an act relating to the patrol board introduced by representative Emmons. It passed the house on 03/18/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five fifty nine an act relating to the parole board.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on institutions. We have H seven twenty three, an act relating to posting of land introduced by representative Estes of Guilford. It passed the house on 03/18/2026. Listen to the reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H seven twenty three, an act relating to posting of land.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading and it's referred to the committee on natural resources and energy. H seven fifty seven, an act relating to manufactured homes and limited equity cooperatives introduced by representative Pesha of Colchester. It passed the house on 03/18/2026. Listen to the first reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H seven fifty seven, an act relating to manufactured homes and limited equity cooperatives.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on economic development. H eight fourteen, an act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services introduced by representative Gina of Burlington. It passed on 03/17/2026. Listen to the first reading.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H eight fourteen, an act relating to neurological rights and the use of artificial intelligence technology in health and human services.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on health and welfare. H eight sixteen, an act relating to the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services introduced by representative Burbaco of Windhamskaya. It passed the house on 03/18/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H eight sixteen, an act relating to regulating the use of artificial intelligence in the provision of mental health services.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on health and welfare. H nine twenty seven, an act relating to technical corrections of the twenty twenty six legislative session introduced by the committee on government operations and military affairs. It passed the house on 03/18/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill. Mhmm.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine twenty seven. An act relating to technical corrections for the twenty twenty six legislative session.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, and it is referred to the committee on government operations. Orders of the day. We have s 26, senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I move that s 26, an act relating to prohibiting certain artificial dyes in foods and beverages served and sold at schools, be ordered to lie.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Chittenden has moved that s 26 be ordered to lie. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and s 26 has been ordered to lie. We have on the calendar for action s 89 introduced on 02/21/2025. It was referred to the committee on government operations, which reports it has considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page eight zero three of today's calendar. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on government operations. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S 89 an act relating to expanding survivor benefits.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Vyhovsky for the report of the committee.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. Currently, our firefighters, both volunteer and professional, if they die in the line of duty or they die because of an illness created by their job, have access to an $80,000 death benefit. It's a one time payment to their survivors recognizing that they die serving the people of Vermont. However, there are many other people who serve the state of Vermont also in dangerous positions that currently do not have access to this benefit, like our law enforcement officers, our corrections officers working in our prisons, our family service division workers doing child protection work in the field, the mental health and clinical staff at our Vermont Psychiatric Hospital, to name a few. What this bill proposes to do is grant them the same benefit if they die in the line of duty or due to an illness caused by their positions providing a public service to the state of Vermont. We to me this is an this is an equity issue. This is an issue of making sure that all of the public servants providing services to Vermont who die because of the work that they're doing have their survivors have access to this one time payment. If this, as suggested, language, were in effect over the last ten years, it would only have applied to three people. Keep in mind, someone has to die to get this benefit. We do. We are asking the house to take some more testimony on the aspects around illnesses created by their job. Firefighters are exposed to so many incredibly toxic things, and I we did hear from the treasurer's office that the last four payments that they have paid out were due to these types of deaths. And so we will be asking the house because the people we're putting forward are, in all likelihood, not exposed to the same types of burning toxins. So, our house counterparts will dig into that piece a little bit more. It came to us at the last minute that the treasurer realized in the underlying language, that would also apply. Although it is my opinion that if you die because of your job, you should have access to the benefit. We heard from the Vermont State Employees Association, the Treasurer's Office, multiple people from the Treasurer's Office and multiple people from the State Employees Association, and of course legislative counsel. I'm also on the witness list, you're hearing from me now so I don't need to name myself again. The Senate Government Operations Committee voted five zero zero in support of making this change, and I'll be up again in a moment making a small technical tweak to the bill as well. But I will sit down and let our appropriations committee talk.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Washington, senator Perchlik, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Your appropriations committee reviewed this bill. We heard from the Ledge Council, the Fellow, the sponsor, and the treasurer's office. And why this does add a considerable number of new possible beneficiaries. The evidence is that it'd be quite small and we hope it is zero, of course. And without being able to really estimate the cost, we felt comfortable recommending

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: that

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: the bill ought to pass on a vote of seven zero zero.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall the Senate amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations. Senator from Chittenden I understand you have an amendment.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Yes there is an amendment in your calendar it is really technical in nature we made a shift in the language to make sure that it was very clear who we meant to capture at the Division of Family Service, the Family Services Division of the Department of Children and Families and the medical employees of the state, operated therapeutic community residents or inpatient psychiatric hospital units. And this change was made to ensure that it was crystal clear. We meant the people actually providing services and not administrative staff. And we made that change in one place and forgot to make it in the other place, so that is what this amendment does. It just aligns the language that in in both spots in the bill. So we would ask that the senate support this small technical change and the underlying bill.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of the Committee on Government Operations be amended as moved by the senator from Chittenden? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the recommendation of amendment of the committee on government operations. The question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations as amended? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I I just wanna rise, in complete support of this bill and thank the senator from Chittenden Central, for bringing this bill forward. She and I have had many discussions about this issue and I see this bill as a way of not only honoring the service of all of these people to public but also as a gender equity bill. A lot of the professions that have traditionally received death benefits are majority male professions and this would add some professions that are majority female professions. Although all the professions are getting more integrated, usually, family service workers, social workers are are more, female related professions. And so I just really appreciate the senator and the committee's work on this bill and see it as a great step forward for gender equity and really acknowledging the work that these people do for our communities and our state. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Is there a criteria for, what would authorize somebody to be eligible for this? Or

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: We guess they would die. So

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: mister president, so we're we're talking about and we we all honor and respect the service of our state employees, but are we talking about all all branches and services of the the state government?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: No. It specifically applies to law enforcement, correctional officers, the, frontline classified workers in the family service division, which is our child protection workers, and the clinical staff in our therapeutic residences and Vermont Psychiatric Hospital.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. So is there a is there a criteria established? Is there an agency that's gonna be responsible for, deciding whether this fund is approved or not? Funding is approved?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: The treasurer's office has already established for the existing beneficiaries of the firefighters a fund and a process for distributing this money. We did take testimony from them that there is enough money in the fund to support two claims, and the way over the past many years that this fund has existed that it has worked is when that fund runs low, they come to the General Assembly for an appropriation, which is why in the language there is a, this treasurer's office has one year to make a payout after somebody has died.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. As the is there a fund for this that's that we're gonna draw from? Are the are the employees that are eligible gonna be contributing to that fund?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: No. This is the death benefit, and it comes out of the special fund at the treasurer's office, and it is funded by the general fund.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: So there is a special fund, mister president?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Yes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: And do is that what what is the balance of special fund right now?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: There is enough in the fund to fund two payouts currently.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator for Madison.

[Senator John Benson (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator John Benson (Addison)]: Mister President, first of all, It's a very great bill for Vermont. One question though is why EMT and paramedics don't do they fall under this? I don't really see it in the wording and it worries and I can give a for instance of a EMT person dying on 89 when a car came crossed and killed that individual.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: So the I don't believe EMTs are in the bill and certainly I'm more than happy to put more people in the bill I don't know that everyone would share my happiness to do so, but that would be fine with me.

[Senator John Benson (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. Is that something that the house may be able to do?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I the house is is able to change the bill however they see fit once it is in their possession.

[Senator John Benson (Addison)]: I thank you, mister president and the presenter.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. As stated yesterday, we have no control over

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: the president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanted to rise to that previous point that if you look on page eight zero four of your calendar today, the definition of emergency personnel already includes emergency medical personnel and volunteer personnel as defined. So my understanding was it was already originally in the bill or it was already originally in law without the bill. And I believe I looked over at legislative council and they nodded yes.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I I do have a question for the presenter.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Senators will remember the death of Laura Sobel, and my question, mister president, would be had this been in place, would her family have received a death penalty?

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you very much.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Franklin. Thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: May I inquire of the presenter of the bill?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Mr. President as the presenter well knows, I'm fully supportive of this bill. My question is, in fact, one year period seems to be quite a length of time to wait for any survivors who have suffered a loss within the family. They have bills and so on and so forth and just put food on the table to add up to. I was wondering if anybody should be amenable to if the presenter would be amenable to a six month amendment being introduced or the reason for the one year I guess. Absolutely.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: The one year was at the request of the treasurer's office and they have up to a year. And that was, the request was really because they do have to, in some instances, they do have to come to us. In instances of illness, they may have to do some investigatory work to determine, did, was the illness caused by the job or some other aspect. And so that was a request from them. They certainly can make the payout sooner if the determination is made and they have the money available. But it was an allowance for circumstances where perhaps we are out of session and they can't get in to ask for that appropriation if it is needed. So that that is why it is one year.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: I understand the treasurer's concern. However, my concern once again is a long period of time for these families to be waiting for any financial support that they could be receiving through this program. So I will contemplate whether or to, put an amendment before a third reading. Alright. Thank you, presenter. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, president. I'll just make the comment. In discussions with the treasurer's office, they said they have made the payment out as soon as they could when the money's in there. And even there was one or two times where they didn't have money in the fund, but they worked with the commissioner of finance and management to pay the fund out and recoup that when the legislature was in session or they could ask for a budget adjustment act. So their full intent is to pay it as quick as possible. And they think that they can usually work with the commissioner of finance management to make money available, but they didn't want to be obligated to in case for some reason they're not able to do that.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from, Grand Isle.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Grand Isle-Chittenden)]: Senator. Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Grand Isle-Chittenden)]: Just to clear up in full just right up front, I'm fully supportive of this bill and, voted for in committee. But I do have a question on when you mentioned the, the, as president mentioned the three, instances in the last few years, if that would grow with the ability for, that was in the line of duty, I guess, from what I understand, correct?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: That is my understanding, yes.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Grand Isle-Chittenden)]: So are we opening this up a little larger so that we may have a larger group qualifying?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: That is one of the things because it that we've we are asking our house counterparts to dig more into. As I said, it was right at the last minute when the bill had actually already left committee that the underlying language as it applies to firefighters was examined. The treasurer did testify that they think it's fairly unlikely that that number would be much larger. As I said, firefighters are sort of uniquely exposed to burning toxins that tend to act that a lot of these other professions are not. It doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Know, one example that I used in committee might be a nurse at the psychiatric facility who suffers an accidental needle stick, ends up with hepatitis, ends up dying. But we didn't as the bill had already left, we really didn't have the ability to take that that really deep dive. So we are asking our house counterparts to do so, though it is unlikely that it would suddenly balloon to a much larger number. And it is difficult to predict. We can really only look retro retrospectively, as we can't really predict who's going to die because of their job.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Grand Isle-Chittenden)]: Thank you. And one one further question, mister president. A few years back, I recall including firefighters and benefits, death benefits from, let's use smoking inhalation as an example. So they already qualify for certain benefits, state benefits already. Is that correct? And I'm wondering if this would be in addition, this 80,000 would be in addition to that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Well, firefighters already qualify for this. This does nothing to change the benefits that firefighters already qualify for. This is adding law enforcement correction officers, family service division, frontline workers, and and mental health. It does not change the underlying language for firefighters.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Grand Isle-Chittenden)]: Okay thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Orange.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: Mr. President I support the bill but having served as a firefighter for thirty five years I can tell you that the Vermont State firefighters when this was first introduced actually put this forward because most firefighters are volunteers. And so they have no recourse through their employer or any other insurance policy through their employee. And so this was a way to actually cover the volunteers who are exposed to some pretty horrific chemicals when they're fighting fires and so I'm not opposed to this bill but there was a reason why this was put forward by the Vermont State Firefighters originally. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on government operations as amended? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations as amended. 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 89. We have s three twenty six for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S three twenty six, an act relating to miscellaneous amendments to laws relating to motor vehicles.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Now you've heard the third reading of the bill, 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. Ayes have it. We passed s three twenty six. We're passing over three twenty seven because the reporter is not here, which brings us to s one fifty four. We have on the calendar for action s one fifty four introduced 05/09/2025. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in the calendar starting on page eight fourteen. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports it has considered the bill and recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on health and welfare. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S one fifty four, an act relating to health insurance coverage for biomarker testing.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Washington, senator Cummings, for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. This bill is a simple bill and a complex bill. The bill that came to us, and it came fairly late in the session, required that health insurance be cover biomarker testing. And if you wanna know what biomarkers are and all the information on them, or you just wanna practice crossing your eyes, all the definitions are in this. Senator Lyons understands them, but the rest of us probably don't. In layman's terms, biomarkers are indicators, basically, in your genes or proteins or somewhere in your body that indicates a proclivity for a certain disease or may indicate a certain variety of disease that you have. Not all cancers are the same, not all leukemia, you know. And if you test those biomarkers, one of the newest ones is for Alzheimer's. And we never kind of looked at that because there was no cure and you couldn't do anything. Now there are, I believe, three

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: drugs that have been approved

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: recently that do have significant ability to delay the onset or to slow the onset. And so there is something you can do if you test early. We had testimony from a person who has a very rare blood disease. And this was a number of years ago, and these biomarkers were $2,500 a test. We don't know how many tests were required, but her parents were able to pay for it because it wasn't covered in insurance. She was a college student. And because of that, they she was spared going through months probably of different testing to find out what was causing her symptoms. But because they could zero in, they got fixed really quickly, and she's been able to go on and live a very productive life. And the system was spared the cost of doing all the other testing. When it comes to cancer, you could be on chemotherapy and three months later it hasn't had any effect. And so you can go back and you have to go through another whole round of another mix of chemotherapy. So it sounded like this was a no brainer. We should do it. And health and welfare was looking at that. And at that point, we were all set to vote this bill out. And I'm saying, with my other finance hat on, these costs per test have come down significantly. But they will have an impact on the cost of health insurance. We have over time added many grains of sand to that, but health insurance is required to cover. But eventually, all those grains of sand become a beach. And this year, when we've seen at last count, I saw about 2,000 fewer people sign up for health insurance on the exchange, which is where we regulate that insurance market. Where the cost has become so prohibitive that people are going uninsured, there's some reservation about adding additional costs. And we were working under the assumption that this bill would go to finance because we regulate health insurance, and then we would told, no. Under rule 31, it doesn't affect the revenue of the state, so it's not getting sent to finance. And because this testing is not included in the federal list of tests that are covered by exchange, if the state put this on the list, the state of Vermont would be responsible for the full cost. So what we did is in health and welfare is probably what the finance committee would do, and that is to ask both the agency of health and human services and the department of financial regulation to do an analysis to so that they can come back by next session and tell us what it would cost to put to include biomarker testing in the cost of insurance and what it you know, the estimated cost for adding it to the Medicaid list. And that, mister president, is the bill. It is on page six fourteen. I believe the vote was five zero zero, and we ask this body to concur. Concur.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: I recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Lyons, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Appropriations feels that the bill is recommended by health and welfare ought to pass. We have reached out to joint fiscal for an estimate and to DFR for an estimate of the cost of the actuarial analysis. Haven't yet received DFR's estimate, but as the budget goes forward, we will look at, whether or not it is cost effective and make decisions from there. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: The vote in appropriations was six zero one. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you've amended the bill as recommended by the Committee on Health and Welfare. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: If

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: senator from Windsor.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: I want to rise in support of this

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: bill, and just note a story of a constituent. We represent John Bongartz who is one of the leads for the Alzheimer's Association and when we had a recent meeting in Windsor, he described the value of having this type of information before his now late wife had started to show signs and the desire to be able to respond to that knowledge in a preventative way rather than a reactive way. So I'm really grateful for the work of the committees and it has such a direct impact on people in our community. So thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of s one fifty four. We have on the calendar for action S two twenty introduced on 01/08/2026. It was referred to the committee on finance, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in the calendar starting on page eight sixteen, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on finance. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: S two twenty, an act relating to addressing education spending in fiscal years 2028 and 2029.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Chittenden for the committee on finance.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. May I speak to both the amendment and the underlying bill?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: You may.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: In the world of Tom Chittenden floor reports, this is what I call

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: a three

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: pager. So I hope to not take more than fifteen minutes, but I think there's a lot of important things to lay out regarding this relatively short though. A handout is being passed out to you that I plan to speak to as well.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: Thank you for that.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: The challenge with our current education funding system is that since Act 60, we have centralized the funding of public education dollars in Vermont, but decentralized the decision making over those dollars. Through federal and state mandates, we have effectively set a floor for spending to ensure important education standards are met in Vermont schools, and with our current system determining an annual yield amount, districts don't have an incentive to lower spending below that supported by the yield because they would not benefit by any meaningful decrease in their homestead property tax rate. So in many ways, our current system, and that's what this is all about, our current education system, not future states, nothing that we're contemplating Act 73, but our current system has a floor for which districts can spend on kids. However, we have left the ceiling to local voters each year on town meeting day. But since we have centralized the funding of our education dollars in the end ed fund, voters are looking to us, the legislature, to also provide guidance on school spending levels because the locally decided spending level decisions are spread across the entire grand list of the state. Because of that, it is prudent to enact degrees of centralized guidance for all of our districts to consider as they form their school budgets each year. S220 is a bill to do just that, and it builds on current law in ways that adjust to the modern day realities we are facing. To be crystal clear, this bill would apply changes to the spending formula next year, fiscal year twenty eight, not this year, fiscal year twenty seven. I'm gonna confuse that a little in a little bit. One of the realities I know that everybody in this senate is aware of is illustrated with the graph on the handout that just got passed out. This shows the graph, the growth in our aggregate education payment and the total uses of the education fund here in Vermont, not inflation adjusted, with the number of children enrolled in our schools, also not inflation adjusted. That was an attempt to humor. I even put in my thing, insert cheesy chuckle here.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: line graph is on the secondary axis to the right. So that shows the kids in our schools. We are spending more and more to educate fewer and fewer kids. Vermont is looking for us to rationalize our system to this reality. To be clear, we have been down this road before, many times really, if you look back over the last couple of centuries, but even more recently since the passage of Act 60. Previous legislatures have wrestled with this very topic. In 2016, before my time, Act 46 passed as an allowable growth limit construct that was then quickly revamped in many ways repealed early the next legislative session. They then implemented the excess spending threshold penalty, then based on equalized pupils, which we changed in the pupil act of three, four years ago. That was that excess spending threshold, which I'm gonna be talking more about momentarily, okay, was reinstituted in 2024 using the new long term weighted average daily membership, LTWADM, pupil weights methodology. So we had it in law, we suspended it during the pandemic partly because we were switching the formula away from equalized pupils to this LTADM that I know many of you are familiar with. And when we reinstituted it, we also changed this percentage amount that I'm gonna talk about momentarily. We brought that back in 2024. So it is in current law today. Your Senate Finance Committee built on these previous efforts with this bill and has brought forward an expansion of proven policy currently in law, familiar to our districts, adjusted and calibrated to match the pressures on our education fund and our constituents. The underlying bill introduced a contemplated hard cap, which has surfaced in previous years. It would effectively have capped an amount a school district could spend, cap, hard cap, based on a calibrated sliding scale relative to their prior year education spending. That bill did a lot to guide this discussion and inspire the amendment you all see before you, which instead uses a soft cap, a soft cap familiar to our districts and with proven efficacy. This soft cap employed today with our existing excess spending threshold penalty effectively allows districts to spend what they want, but for every dollar over this threshold, that district, their district gets double taxed on those dollars. These penalty dollars, if they choose to spend above the existing threshold are fed back into the education fund, improving the yield for all other districts. That's current law. Districts have the choice today to either spend less than the excess spending threshold or pay a double tax on dollars above that amount. From my conversations with school boards and education leaders, this very much does drive budgeting decisions to stay under this threshold. I recall a recent budget or capital bond that passed with conditional language on whether or not it would be considered in the excess spending threshold. So this is active current policy used in guiding decisions at the local level in our school boards, in our school districts. The amendment before you today proposes to lower this threshold and elaborate a little more on in a minute, from the current law of a 118% of prior year average per pupil spending to a 112%, both inflation adjusted. I'm not gonna go over the backside of the handout I just gave out, but just in case anybody wants a primer on the excess spending threshold penalty, this is from state's current statute. And I also attempted to do a little mathematical proof, so with a contemplated scenario so you could get a better idea of how this actually plays out. So the backside, which I'm not gonna walk through, but would further elaborate on how the excess spending threshold is calculated. Again, three pager. I think I'm halfway through. We're almost there. Alright. So not to elaborate too much on the underlying bill, but to offer a structural reason why your senate Committee on Finance pivoted from this hard cap approach in the underlying bill because it was proposed, it was constructed and would rely heavily on a specific district, each district's education spending from the prior year. Testimony from many informed individuals highlighted how that fluctuates a tremendous amount year to year because of factors outside of the district's control due to the variability of what's called offsetting revenues. Offsetting revenues are things like special education block grants, federal grants, impact fees, legal settlements, and other things. So rather than define a spending guideline on district specific behavior using a relatively volatile hard number, your committee on finance realized the merit of our current law, which uses the excess spending threshold penalty, which is calculated comparing a district's per pupil spending relative to the aggregate education spending for the whole state, and again, adjusting for inflation. Your Senate Finance Committee in this amendment to s two twenty is proposing to lower the current law excess spending threshold penalty from a 118% of inflation adjusted LTW ABM per pupil spending to a 112% starting in fiscal year twenty eight with with some very important additional sensible exceptions to this lower threshold. I'm gonna go through those additional exceptions, and then I'm gonna pass out a spreadsheet. I'm gonna lose your attention. Senator, a former senator I greatly respect said, don't pass the spreadsheet out until you're ready to lose the audience.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: So I'm

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: gonna pass the spreadsheet out in just a minute, okay? Current law has exempted all voter approved debt issued prior to 2024 from the current law 118% excess spending threshold. For that same rationale, that exception that that exception is existing in current law, your Senate Finance Committee amendment proposes to exclude all voter approved debt from the excess spending threshold district by district determination, both debt since 2024 and any future voter approved debt incursions. To be clear though, those districts will still have to pay that pay off that debt. That debt just won't be included in the determination of any excess spending threshold penalty. Additionally, your Senate Finance Committee added an exception to the excess spending threshold penalty for any district that does not increase their education spending from prior year or that doesn't increase their LTW ABM per pupil spending from prior year. And lastly, recognizing that there are many circumstances that might not be contemplated by this legislature, this language includes an appeal process similar to other past policies allowing districts to seek relief from the excess spending threshold penalty by submitting to an evaluation of any extenuating circumstances. Circumstances. At this point, I'd like to pass out a large table overlaying this construct, including exception including the exceptions contemplated in this amendment. To be clear, I just wanna highlight this while it's being passed out. This bill does not apply this lower excess spending threshold for fiscal year twenty seven, but this spreadsheet does just for demonstrative purposes. So you'll see in a moment, two columns near the end, it's alphabetized by County and then within each County by school district. So you could find your county and then look for your school districts. But I wanna highlight that if you're gonna see four columns at the end, one with current law, a 118%, what amount would have exceeded this year over the excess spending threshold penalty, incurring the penalty. And then if this wasn't law for this year, the last column had a 112%, how much would have been affected or motivated or guided would have hit this soft cap? I wanna stress again, this is not for this year. This is just for demonstrative purposes. So you could get an idea if this were in place this year, what impacts it would have on your district. I just wanna make sure that's clear as I start to lose my audience as we look through all of the different lines. I will also just like I plan to have a little joke here at this time, and I would love in in the world, in the time ahead, if we had a big screen with digital projection of the spreadsheet to orient you all, but I'm seeing secretary of Bloomberg shake his head no, so that's that's not gonna happen. So I will let you look at these columns. While you're looking at the columns, I'll just say a couple of things. Again, A and B are the County and then the District. Column C through I are really just the numbers that go into this determination. I won't elaborate on column j, but just know column j is effectively the logical test on those two conditions. And if they met that logical test, then they would not have fit that excess spending threshold penalty. Again, elaboration than you need. The numbers I think you're most gonna be interested in is gonna be column l and column n. So column l is in current law, the 118% excess spending threshold penalty and how much how many dollars those districts in current law are looking at getting this double tax. And then you'll see in column n, if this were in effect for this year, if this bill does not do that, this bill contemplates for next year, how much would in fact incur that excess spending threshold penalty. So that can help orient you to, current state. The the last thing I wanna point out on the spreadsheet before I finish, I've got like two more paragraphs, think. Above column l and above column n, I think those are relevant summarization numbers. So you'll see that current law, I would interpret this $4,694,404 as how much is incurring the double tax as being above the excess spending threshold penalty. And you can look through the spreadsheet to see which school districts are contemplating if it's a past budget and actually going to incur that. If it were to be applied this year, it would have put a soft cap on $20,930,137 where the districts as they let me get some of my next part of the speech. They would have a choice. Choice is important. I think we can all agree on choice. They would have a choice to either cut their spending, draw from their reserves,

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: okay, or

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: otherwise get below that threshold through other mechanisms that are available to our very talented school district staff, or they could put forward to the voters an amount of spending that would exceed this excess spending threshold and effectively pay a double tax on the dollars above that amount. Alright. So back to hopefully, I've got the audience back. That was my segue while the spreadsheets were being oriented, and now we're gonna wrap up. As you look at the districts and the amount, and the amount of any spending that would be identified as above the excess spending threshold, I wanna highlight two things. And I think I already said this. Again, it's just school districts next year would know this threshold during their budgeting process informed by the December 1 letter as they do now. And they would factor that threshold into their budgetary discussions resulting in, but not mandating spending reductions. So if the total amount of spending above the excess spending threshold is estimated, as I mentioned, to be approximately $21,000,000 of downward spending pressure, which are real dollars. I'd like to put that $21,000,000 in context, and then I might skip the witnesses because this is going on a little long, but I'm happy to refer to them if you'd like. But the last thing I want to do is just put that $21,000,000 in some context. The original underlying bill S220 was presented during the first week of the session with JFO estimates of about $67,000,000 in reduced spending with a hard cap. Applying similar exceptions to what is shown in amendment, rationalistic section seems to make a lot of sense to a lot of people. That brought that estimate down to approximately $57,000,000 But very importantly, those early numbers were based on the December 1 initial budget estimates, which were and always are very preliminary. Our school boards did the hard work and between the December 1 letter and when they finalized their Warren budget, they cut education spending increases from 5.8% to 4.2%, a more than 25% reduction to

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: the tune

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: of $26,000,000 plus less coming out of the education payment from the Ed Fund. So this change to our existing law with our existing spending threshold calculation down to 112% would effectively put the same downward pressure on spending as the underlying construct in S two twenty, but in a way that still gives districts control over the amount they ask of their voters, but with effective enforced centralized budget guidance from the state. We heard from 14 witnesses. I'll list them during, any interrogations if you'd like to hear them, but I'd close by saying your senate finance committee voted five two zero to amend this bill as presented, and we encourage this senate to concur. Thank you, President.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, Senator Ruth for the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, Mr. President. The committee on appropriations had a general discussion. There wasn't specific appropriations to be considered. We did talk a bit about the inflator whether to use one inflator or the other. Eventually we decided to leave it as is, but I understand that there is a contemplated discussion about switching one inflator for another as we go forward. But that was it. We proposed no amendment, and the committee voted seven zero to support this.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Orange.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: May I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: Mr. President, as I understand it from what was presented that if a school district spent 118% and continues to spend 118%, There is no penalty to that school district because they're maintained the same rate as they paid previously. If I understood that correctly, Then what my question would be is in the spreadsheet in the terms of the savings does that reflect the fact that schools that were spending over the 112% not changing, is that savings indicated properly in the spreadsheet?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, President. Excellent question. I wanna start with the first part, the assumption in the question that I wanna just reframe a little bit. So it's not the exceptions and carve out carve outs is the wrong term that's just politically loaded. The exceptions are very sensible exceptions Mister president are would be based on the previous not on the 118% which is going to be a 118% of the value to turn next year. But instead on if their education spending amount for that district so put the 118% aside. If a district spent last year $50,000,000 and this coming year, even if their pupils went down or any other circumstance, if they stayed at $50,000,000 or less, their budget did not go of their education spending did not increase. But their level of spending with the calculation with the excess spending threshold would have put them above the excess spending threshold penalty. That's when they would be exempted The exempted because they did not increase their educational spending. Similarly if you took that educational spending and divide it by the long term weighted ABM average daily membership. If that ratio was if that the same or less than their prior year, they then too would avoid the excess spending threshold. I think the real answer to that, and I'll answer the other part next, is if there's a district right now that in current law, and there are some that you can see on here, that is spending above the excess spending threshold and is working to right size and is working to adjust, they are still paying very high property taxes. And as they try to right size and adjust to the pressures on their budgets for that we all are quite familiar with, this would allow them to not be even more penalized as they are keeping their budget under control with a flat increase. So no no percent increase to pay for labor, they would have to keep their spending at or below what they spent previous year, which means, in in my experience budgeting, mister president, you are cutting things because there are generally costs that go up every year. So if they're doing that or simultaneously the pupils are adjusting while they are fluctuating this and their per pupil spend is still at or below, they then too would avoid the excess spending threshold. So reframing the 118%, I would then answer the direct question to the Senator, Mr. President, that yes, in column J, what you could start to follow, if you look at column J, that is effectively the test on these two conditions that the senator was asking you about, Mr. President. And if you see a one there, that means that that district met one of those conditions, what we call the hold harmless conditions, which means their education spending didn't increase or their per pupil spend didn't increase. Now if you go down the list and you look for where any of these ones match up where there's an actual number in the next four columns, you should also notice that those those values were would be exempted. I believe the actual impact of this exemption was to the tune of $600,000 So it wasn't a tremendously, meaningful or consequential to the overall impact of this contemplated policy, Mr. President, but it still seemed important to at least me as one member and what I would reflect on the Senate Finance Committee that there are districts out there that if they need to keep their budget at where it is previously, they're not adjusting for things, they are already struggling to do a lot to to to get their spending in line with what they they their voters can afford. I thank

[Senator John Benson (Orange)]: you, presenter. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Mister president President. I keep saying president. It's president. Okay. Mr. President, I am planning to vote yes on this bill today, which is a shock to myself, but it's interesting to see how our thinking changes as days go by. The reason that I plan to vote yes is I want to acknowledge the stress of property taxes on Vermonters. I think we all need to be acting in the spirit of collaboration right now. It's what's best for Vermonters, and we have a lot of problems to solve. I also, just want to express my gratitude to my colleague in Senate Finance who worked really hard to thread the needle and, come up with a bill that, is less harmful than it could have been and I really appreciate the work that he did. School spending has been increasing as we know. The question is why? I think that's a question we have to keep asking. Why is, school spending increasing? I know you've all heard it before about inflation, health care costs, operations and maintenance costs, maintenance costs are very old buildings, exacerbated by tariffs and by inflation. Incomplete and poor implementation of the very mandates that we place on school districts here in this body. Extraordinary special ed costs, increasing mental health costs. These are all driving spending, and we can't keep cutting. This morning, we had a fabulous presentation in health and welfare around prevention, and we talked about the importance of the SAPs in our school who educate kids about substance abuse, about drugs, alcohol, nicotine, how incredibly important they are, and how their work is so impactful because children and children's brains are so affected by these substances. When we start removing those SAPs out of our schools, because we will if we keep cutting. That costs us money down down the road. The amount of money that we save with prevention is is powerful. So I'm concerned about all of this. I am concerned that as we cap spending, wealthier districts will continue to be able to fundraise. They'll be able to fundraise their way out of holes and our less wealthy districts will struggle to do that. They won't be able to. So these are issues that I have, and I I want us all to be thinking about these things as we move forward. Another issue that I have with this bill, and I brought it up in committee, so it won't be a surprise to my my committee members in finance. There's nothing in this amendment that will limit how much a public school or an approved independent school can charge for tuition. So schools that pay tuition might see their spending increase beyond their control. What will they be able to do in that instance? And lastly, I am concerned about the grievance process. I don't feel incredibly comfortable with that that that process will be, necessarily appropriate or objective, so I have issues there. But, again, I wanna thank my colleague, and I do plan to vote yes on this bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Fromm Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Since this is the first time, and this is a very informative spreadsheet that some of the senators have had a chance to look at it, can I ask for a five minute recess, please, and the, GOP senators

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Grand Isle-Chittenden)]: to We will take a five minute recess?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senate, please come to order.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: For pue 41.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Yeah. Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you for the extra time. We're all set.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. First, I wanna commend the senator from Chittenden South on his floor report. As someone who stood on the floor multiple times, many times and tried to explain really complicated school finance things, I thought that senator did a great job. And I'd love this ginormous spreadsheet also making it readable. I have similar things to say as the senator from Chittenden Central. She and I were the two nos on this bill in Senate Finance. But I do plan to vote yes on the floor. And one of the reasons that I was a no in committee is because well, first let me back up. This bill has come a long way. When it was introduced, was a hard, hard no. Just like it was a hard, hard cap. And it would have had really detrimental impacts on many, many, many of our school districts. The the sort of soft cap as the senator from Chittenden, South, too many Chittendens, Chittenden South, mentioned, I think is a better approach. I still have the similar concerns to the senator from Chittenden Central about the the the appeals process and, some of the impacts it will have on school districts in many parts of our state. And I also am uncomfortable with a 112%. I think that is a big drop down, and I hope that we will continue to look at that and negotiate as we move forward with this. I I also was the senator in our in finance committee that was the most adamant that we don't make this decision without looking at data. We we cannot make decisions about our school districts or our environment or our correctional facilities or anything in this chamber without looking at data I think and especially when it comes to financing our schools it's complicated and I insisted multiple times that we look at data and JFO really came through for us and provided a lot of great data. I also think it's a much better, mechanism, as the senator from Chittenden South said, to use something that's already in existence. The excess spending threshold, as as he mentioned, is is familiar to our districts. They understand how it works. They, as a former school board member, I can tell you they care a lot about it and do their very best to not exceed the excess spending threshold except for in extenuating circumstances. I also, was really advocating for and is included in this bill is an exemption for new capital construction. I know that there are several, school districts for whom that really matters. If we want to re reinvigorate, redefine our school system, we have to be able to fund capital construction. We are going to need new school buildings, and at least this is one small avenue to do it. So, I also, had hoped that we would pass something like this as part of a larger package that included some shifting of costs that we've added to the Education Fund over the last few years, providing a revenue source to pay for those, shifts to the education fund, including, our universal school meals, which is now fairly broad support, and also, the teacher, retirement health, benefits, the OPEB costs, that we've added to the education fund over the last few years but did not provide a revenue source for and therefore increased property taxes. So I was trying to get this to be part of a larger package. I hope that that conversation will continue, and I'm saying this in large part for our friends over in the house, to make sure that we don't just look at capping spending, but we also look at the things that we've added to the education fund, revenue sources for those, and making sure that it's part of a bigger package of, education finance. But overall, this bill has come a long way. I think, it is in a much, much better place, and I think that the finance committee, through several tough and difficult meetings came to a place that is much better and even though I'm not a 100% behind this, I'm I'm I'm willing to vote yes on the floor to move it forward and acknowledge the the cost of education in the state is too high and we need to find mechanisms to lower it. So thank you, President.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you, Mr. President. May I inquire of the presenter of the bill?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Okay. I have two questions and then I have a statement. The first is I'm wondering this discussion is very region specific for Windsor County. As I think we've reiterated on the floor multiple times, our district has never had the opportunity, to either have proposals in finance or education due to our committee makeup, to have those decisions be reviewed by Windsor County elected officials. So we're really focused on how does it impact our districts specifically, and I think that's what drives our votes. So I wanna ask first why and so we're on the last page w's. Under Norwich, it says they're exempt. Could you please explain why the Norwich District is the only exempt district?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I'm pretty sure I have the answer, but I'm gonna continue to look at the legislative council to confirm. I believe that's an interstate district and we can't dictate how much money goes to New Hampshire for that. So it's an interstate district and our finance laws don't apply.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Okay.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator, should you please direct your questions at the president?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Okay. Okay. The reason I ask that is because that means that unlike the other districts in our area, this district Norris has an extremely high per pupil spend. So to have them be exempt while a community just mere miles away with a much lower per pupil spend and a lower poverty, community, to not have them be exempt, it confuses me, and I don't understand why, we wouldn't be able to affect the revenues related to our own state spending. That's a question there. So I'd love to understand by third reading more what law exempts them. Is that a federal law that because it's interstate? Is that I would love to learn more about that. So but I understand that the senator does not have that information at their fingertips.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister president, I appreciate the question, and I will definitely go up for a thorough and thoughtful response for third reading.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you. Okay, and then my second question is, we have the Green Mountain Unified School District a little bit further down, which is below. They recently passed a large bond and I don't next to them. And my understanding is that you had described that to behold harmless for the excess spending cap related to infrastructure investments, you'd have to have a one next to you. So is it because they didn't pass it in March or is it because they yeah.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. Excellent question. There's really two parts to this. For all voter approved debt, this bill contemplates regardless of if it was already prior to 2024, since 2024 or in the future, that voter approved debt would be exempt. This hold harmless column is really on the two other tests we talked about, which the senator from Orange asked about, which they hold harmless has to do with whether or not their education spending stayed level or below their previous year. Nothing to do with debt. So if there is any debt, we had a previous spreadsheet which had voter approved debt. This one does not have that, but at third reading or in the hallway, I can show you another column which can another spreadsheet which shows a voter approved debt and how it would be excluded from this calculation, which I am 99% sure is excluded from this 112% estimation.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you. So if I'm understanding your answer correctly, the debt that would be accrued regardless of what timing it is, it would be exempt under this and I shouldn't consider the j column deciding on that. Great. Thank you. I thank the presenter. My commentary would be that we are at least I personally feel that the Windsor County District's school districts are going to be disproportionately impacted, and the argument that this will reduce property taxes is not accurate to our district. Because if they move forward with continuing to spend as we can expect they will due to costs outside of their control, like health care or negotiations for contracts, they will be double taxed. So the argument that's being made in the majority of this body that we have to do this to reduce property taxes is inaccurate for the majority of constituents that I believe I represent. And that is why, while I do agree with the idea that we must reduce property taxes, it's not an accurate statement for the individuals that I represent. So I will be voting no today, although I appreciate the work of the committees that reviewed this. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington, the senior senator.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I thought I might give a little background as to why finance worked on this bill. And I would like to say we tried to raise revenue. I think it was about 05:00 last Friday that I declared impasse, and we failed to get the votes to raise revenue. And I know I've done it. I did it. We've all done it. We look at our schools, and we're doing the what's this going to impact our schools? We didn't pass this bill to lower property taxes. We passed this bill as a step towards going to a foundation formula, which the majority of us voted for last year. And last year, there was a spreadsheet that went out and showed what would be the difference in your individual schools if you were getting a foundation formula. For the high spending schools, that foundation formula is you're not gonna you're just plain not gonna have the money, and you're going to have to ramp it down. For the low spending schools, you're gonna have more money than you've ever thought you had to spend, and you're gonna have to ramp up. That's the law as we have voted it. We have been putting roughly a $100,000,000 of general fund in to buy down property taxes. So we know we are moving, at least in theory, towards a foundation formula, and we are not going to have a $100,000,000 to buy down those property taxes. Nobody likes match. That's been our our holdup. And we keep being told schools can do this. Schools can do voluntary mergers. Schools can follow BOCES. Schools can find ways to do that. This bill lets your schools do that. They can buy they can do the communal buying. They can choose to merge. They can start those discussions now because those are the discussions that are going to have to happen in the process of trying to rightsize our schools and trying to get our property taxes to a level where your average working Vermonter can afford to pay for them. And I I think what we're trying to do is move in the direction we, at least last year, said we were going to go, and that's what this bill is is really trying to go to. It's trying to say, schools, this is serious. You you know, it's I don't think anybody feels comfortable with the budget cuts that have been being made, at least not in my district, in my districts. But we haven't seen anything else being done. There's some talks that have been being in you know, been started. But I think this is kind of warning shot across the bow that says, in reality, this is this is what's coming your way, and you need we all need to start talking seriously. We're doing everything we can to bring down health care costs. It's health care is is negotiated. It's a negotiated agreement. That's why it's paid for out of the school funds because the schools negotiate that. And it's not just teachers. It's school personnel. Schools decide how many personnel they hire that are entitled to very good health insurance, and I'm not gonna begrudge anyone that. But schools do control that, and I think we're trying to avoid bedlam when we finally reach the point where a a hard a hard cap, and it will be a hard cap where the foundation formula goes into effect. And that's what we're trying to do here.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Grand Isle-Chittenden)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the presenter?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I have a question about the data, and I also have a suspicion about how school budgets might trend over time. I have a lot of sympathy, particularly for the senators from Windsor because their data doesn't look so good. This analysis, as I'm understanding it, is a is effectively a snapshot of, fiscal year 2027. So we're we're getting one data point a snapshot in time. I'm willing to be wrong about this but, I am wondering, well, so I I I've been wondering and then there's some data that I'm wondering if this senator could get it to exist by third reading because my suspicion is that school budgets ebb and flow in terms of the amounts that they generally increase, but by the amounts that they generally increase. So one hypothesis would be that in fiscal year twenty seven, many of the schools in Windsor County happened to be in a particularly bad spot, and and had a lot of increase, whereas other school districts were in a spot where they were not increasing as much. But they might have, say, in fiscal year twenty six and maybe they didn't have as much catching up to do. And so my the question that I have, I guess I have a couple of questions. Did the committee look at any data that was across, multiple years?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. So two things. One, the, Pupil Act oh, re waiting adjustment act that, I believe passed into law in 2022, 2023 changed a lot of these calculations. So our longitudinal data and looking at the effect using LTW LTW ADM is somewhat limited, and we only reinstituted the excess spending threshold penalty in 2024. So we only have, I think, two years of data to actually look at behavior and if school districts actually came underneath it. To that point I'm happy as an exercise depending on the availability of our extremely talented and very non partisan JFO staff. If they would have any way to provide or to generate the school budget data to overlay this going back many years I just might question some of the legitimacy of it because if the spending threshold wasn't in place, you're not gonna necessarily see how it could have impacted decision making. But I I would wanna if I could, before I can stop talking to the Senator's question, Mr. President, you raise a very important point that I did speak to in the floor report that the offsetting revenues for districts fluctuate a great deal, and that's very volatile. I mean, not out of control, but it is something that they have no control over whether or there's a local impact fee a lawsuit that gets settled special education like two or three different time types of block grants federal funds when F Sir the Essex cliff hit that's what we all felt. So the offsetting revenues were more impactful with the allowable spending growth cap construct. What I personally like about the excess spending threshold is you're not looking at a specific district's year to year spending, but instead how much are they spending per pupil relative to the aggregate spending of the whole state, which I think is a more fair assessment of determining this threshold.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm appreciating that, and I think it would be I'm I'm also appreciating, that since the excess spending threshold was set in place into in 2024 that there's limited data relative to the effect of that. I I would be interested in seeing if you if there's this level

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: of

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: detail, great. It might also well, yeah, no, I I guess I think that would be ideal if we could see for a couple of years, what that data looks like. Alternatively, if it's just like what percentage of school districts would have been affected, that would be interesting. Another thing that comes to mind, because of, I mean, appreciating the volatility, knowing what the the relative volatility looks like. I mean, I'm being nerdy here and saying like, oh, like a box plot would be really helpful. But, the aside from that, thinking about even before the excess spending thresholds went into place in 2024, even, like, having both of those data points, would be helpful. So, you know, over the past five to ten years, what would be normal? I realize I am asking for a lot of data. Any, version of that would be welcome just so we have a more complete picture rather than just the snapshot.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister President, the Senator is talking my language. I did a couple of box blocks and I also did a standard deviation of education spending across district to get a better idea to justify the percentages we were looking at. I'd be happy to go over that. But if we wanna do it here in the Senate, I really wanna push for that screen or the projection. If Mister President, if the senator would comfortable with it, I'd be happy to connect with the senator over the weekend. Otherwise, I'll also come back at third reading this some more data from a very nonpartisan JFO staff.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I, I'm happy to also just chat, offline, about this as well. So, I I thank the the presenter.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The senator will be holding a class over the evening.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the presenter?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The presenters interrogated.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I am gonna ask about that witness list. I'm wondering if you heard from the school board's association or any of the districts that look like they could be impacted by this path.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. We did early on here from, I believe they are colloquially referred to as the V's. So Sue Sublowski, also Jeff Brennan, Jeff Francis, as well as Jay Nichols and others and I can go through the whole list but to I think really to the thrust of the question Mr. President. Crossover week was when a lot of the realization and the shift and pivot towards the excess spending threshold happened and so a lot of them testified on the underlying bills construct of an allowable spending growth cap. What I have learned in my five years in this role now that I actually have a lot of confidence in this process that the way this is going to work is we're going to send this over the House and that's where I hope this policy as well as all the others we're contemplating gets better. And so I certainly do want to hear from them, but due to the constraints of crossover, did not come back and reflect on this.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I thank the Senator. That is, I certainly understand that as well. Am done asking you questions. I do have a statement, and that is, you know, having worked in our schools, it is unrealistic to ask them to just keep cutting when so many of these costs are entirely out of their control. I have worked in many different schools, some of which are higher spending schools, some of which are lower spending schools, not a single one of them did I experience that they were excessively spending, that they had more services and supports that they needed, that they had more space to educate children. And when I look at the very clear language, you know, in some of this, that programming reduction is one way to cut spending. That really concerns me. I'm concerned about the needs of our students. I'm concerned that, you know, yeah, I guess we could cut janitors and have the teachers clean the floors, but we already ask our teachers and our school staff to do so much. And And so I really appreciate the work to move away from a hard cap. This it I can't come to a yes when what we are asking is our schools to once again make more cuts. So I I do want to commend the committee for their work and it just I'm not quite there so thank you.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Are you

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister President first I'm very grateful to my district mate and seat mate for taking his keys out of his pocket so I could actually hear this one. But that said, I'd like to commend my seat mate and a lot of my colleagues for what I think is some of the best of what we can accomplish when we feel various pressures to do so. And so in that regard, I'd first like to commend my colleague from Chittenden Central, the Pro Tem, who I would not have commended at the beginning of session for what felt like a very, severe and potentially inelegant solution, but one that needed to be discussed because our constituents are saying in no uncertain terms that they cannot afford uncertainty any longer. And in that regard, Mr. President, I really wanna commend, my colleagues on senate finance for spending so much time on this, to our our joint fiscal office and our legislative council, because I think what we have constructed here is a new path forward that really uses the excess spending threshold to force difficult but necessary conversations to happen in our communities and across different districts that are considering how they find efficiencies. I want to remind people that there is a deep cost to doing nothing with this excess spending threshold. The status quo is not working for a lot of our communities. It creates a moving target of budgets for our districts where they cut in advance or worry that their budgets will get voted down based on some sense of the political will in their community, not on a fixed figure that helps them understand where they are in relation to the average. The status quo, I should say, President, is also hurting a lot of our rural communities that previously fell under the construct or would continue to fall under the construct of existing excess spending threshold, where they have nowhere to move. Our existing system has punished districts like Canaan, which your Senate Education Committee visited. They are the definition of geographically isolated unless they have the political power to get an interstate district, which they have been asking for. And those districts where there are ones, they tell a story. They tell a story of communities that have actually been harmed by the excess spending threshold until now who have nowhere to go, no efficiencies to gain. They might be losing students, they might be geographically isolated, but those costs were truly out of their control and they have been paying the excess spending penalty until now. So I want us to remember that if we do nothing, there are also winners and losers here. And I think the elegance of this is that while, you know, our colleagues in Windsor County may be feeling like they're on the losing end of this current debate, we have time to create conversations that make sure everyone can look at the same facts and figures and figure out what's really going on here. And my colleagues are correct. You know, when we sit in education or finance, we talk about debt and we talk about, capital investments and things that have been held harmless and what I think is very elegant solutions about what districts need to spend. We may go to Windsor County and find more of those things and make sure those voices are included because we have the time to do so. We have the time to have this conversation through next year. So I understand that people, you know, may be voting yes or no, you know, for lots of reasons. But I think what we've landed on is something so elegant that whether or not it becomes a path to the foundation formula, it gives our communities much more agency in the discussion as we get to equity on taxes and as we get to education reform. So I don't know if I sound extremely nerdy, but I think this is one of the best, most elegant pieces of legislation we've passed, in a long time. And the spreadsheet does what it can to tell that story. But people have to look beyond the spreadsheet to the conversations this forces to happen. And Mr. President, I believe those are finally the right conversations. Thank you.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia)]: Thank you, mister president. I will be voting yes for this bill, and we're talking about applying $21,000,000 of spending pressure on education spending of $2,100,000,000 1%. And that education spending has been growing at about double the rate of inflation for a number of years. For the districts that find themselves caught up in this, and I have some, all they need to do to get out of it, whether they're above one twelve or not, is they just have to change their spending trajectory, and then they're exempted. And that's all we're asking here because it's that's where the the change is gonna have to start. It's gonna have to start at the top and come down. And so I'll be voting yes for this bill.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The question is shall a bill be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I want to as I've done several times in this chamber before, I wanna take us back to election night last time. And I've said before it was an uncomfortable night for me. It was more than uncomfortable. It was, was soul deadening for a couple of hours because as I've said before, I lost friends in this chamber but we lost the ability for instance to override on bills. We lost the ability to work primarily with our own caucus on legislation. As a result of the changes of that night, we are a much more evenly divided chain. And there was one issue that made that change and that was the property tax in my own opinion. So that being the case, at at the victory party, in quotation marks, I was left to go on stage, and account to the audience and to Vermont for what had happened. And so what I said was, we heard, and what I meant was, we will act on your desire to have your property taxes come down. And so one of the things that I said last year in January, and I repeated this year in January, was that we needed in addition to the foundation formula, which under any circumstance will not come into play for three or four years. We needed some containment on short term spending. If we don't do that, I don't think that I with a straight face can vote later in this session to buy down the property tax rate at the levels we've been talking about, which as has been mentioned before, are more than 100,000,000 per year and could conceivably rise to 200,000,000 per year over the next couple of years if we do nothing. What that means to me as a member of appropriations is that all of the available money for all of the projects that all of the senators in this chamber want would shrink by $200,000,000 from the get go. So I put in a bill and I said at the time it was a blunt instrument and it was. It was a blunt instrument, cap, but it would have saved on the order of one biennium, it would have saved a $130,000,000, about 60,000,000 or $65,000,000 per year. It would have also created great dislocation and pain in school districts. I knew that when it was drafted, I knew that when I put it in, and I intended all along to drive a conversation to save as much as we could through more elegant means to take my colleagues' characterization. So I have great gratitude for what the Finance Committee did. It is the case that even saving a modest amount, this is $20,000,000 perhaps, it could be 5, it could be 10, depending on the behavior of school districts, depending on whether or not the Secretary of Education exempts more rather than less requests for an exemption. So it is going to be a modest savings, but even suggesting modest education savings is to put yourself out for slings and errors. And we should all be aware of that. We'll be talking about trying to save money on education, not just this year, but next year, the year after, the year after. So we are going to have to answer to our constituents, how are you making those savings harmonize with the other needs of our school districts, our teachers, and our kids. And I feel like what the finance committee did was to find those savings and to think about how these will land in individual communities and how they will continue to support quality education for our kids. So I am very happy with the product out of committee, but I don't want anybody to leave the chamber patting their backs too much. And the reason for that is that what we have done is we've used an existing provision in law, so consider it tightening a belt that already exists. The amount of belt tightening that we're going to do is one notch perhaps, not two, not three. It's not gonna be on the scale of the problem, and I think that was my colleague, Senator Beck's point, is that this may save $20,000,000 but in the context of our education budget and the growth that we've seen, that is an extremely modest amount. So we are going to need to do more, not necessarily on short term spending, but certainly to bring the foundation formula into play as quickly as possible. So with that said, mister president, I will just end by saying that I am greatly heartened by this process and by the speeches from my colleagues from Addison and Chittenden Central, people who worked very diligently on the bill but ultimately voted no in committee. They have now told us they will reconsider their vote and vote yes. To me, that is the best of legislating, and I commend them and the body and hope that they will pass this forward. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The question now is shall the bill be read a third time?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Are you

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've ordered third reading of s two twenty. That completes the orders today. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I would move that the senate stand and adjournment until 09:30AM, Tuesday, March. And if I might lead off.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: You may. Could we quiet down in the chamber, please?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Just wanted to say that today marks the end of money cross over this week. I have successfully yearly moved through the cross over phase. That means we will return to our normal schedule for for the senate session week. So that's Tuesday at 09:30. Thank you, mister president.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senator appropriations will meet at 01:00. We have our last two bills to make this deadline.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will not meet. We wiped our board clean yesterday.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Government operations will be at 01:00.

[Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until a love until 09:30AM, Tuesday, 03/24/2026. Are you ready for the the call. Be in the morning.