Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Perfect. That one's

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Eleven three

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: on sixty five minutes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Did you bring

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: it to the Yeah.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: We're gonna do that. Yeah.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: For tomorrow.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Will the senate please come to order? Our devotional exercises will be conducted by the reverend Cornelius Bryant of the United Church of Lincoln. Welcome.

[Rev. Cornelius Bryant (United Church of Lincoln)]: Good morning, senators. I'm Reverend Correllis Bryant from Lincoln, and it's an honor to share with you this morning. I've been a Vermonter for two and a half years now. Let me rephrase that. I've survived two winters in Vermont now. I moved here after serving a church in New York City. I think I've adjusted pretty well. My wardrobe features some Carhartt. I can pretend that a creamy is not just soft serve ice cream. And I have somehow come to understand that in some special cases, you can't get there from here. But what has struck me most about living in Vermont is that you take that neighbor thing seriously. Being a good neighbor still matters here. In my tradition, this neighbor thing is also taken quite seriously. Of all the human relationship dynamics that Jesus could have chosen to capture the heart of his message. He chose neighbor, Love thy neighbor as thyself. Think about that. Not your brother or sister, not your friend, but love thy neighbor as thyself. Why neighbor? Could it be that if we were guided to love our brother or sister as ourselves, then anyone who is not related to us is not of our concern. And if friend, well, if we stop being friends, then perhaps the love and kindness flowing in their direction can stop too. But neighbor, what qualifies someone to be a neighbor if they are next to you? That's it. Love and kindness and grace should flow to them because they are simply there. They're on the same dirt road, there in the same state and there in the same country. You have a mutual stake in the quality of life around you because you are neighbors. Your quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness takes place adjacent to one another. Doctor. Martin Luther King Junior reminds us we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all of us indirectly. Friends, you have been sent here, I believe, not by constituents, not by an electorate, not by a voting base, but you've been sent here by your neighbors. That same underlying essence of walking next door and knocking on someone's door to borrow a cup of sugar or in this case, how much maple syrup they can spare. That same underlying essence is at work here, I believe. When you get that knock at the door and you're looking across at a neighbor in need before letting them in, you don't ask who they voted for in the last election. You don't ask them where they stand on key policy differences. When that neighbor comes over in need Vermonters do whatever they can to help. I just want to encourage you to remember it's the same noble calling here. What state resources can be used to lighten the load of your neighbor? What choices can you make here to bring your neighbor in from out of the cold when your fellow Vermonters in the snowy blizzard of their lives or in the dark stormy nights of their lives, when they come knocking on these doors. What kind of neighbor will they find here? Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Would you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are there any announcements? Seeing none. We have a joint resolution to take up at this time. JRS 46, a joint resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 03/27/2026 offered by senator Baruth of Chittenden Central. Listen to the reading of the resolution.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 03/27/2026, it'd be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 03/31/2026.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution. The question is, shall the senate adopt the resolution on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've adopted the resolution. We now have house bills for reference. H one seventy one, an act relating to criminal justice agency protocol for an officer involved shooting introduced by representative Bird it. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H 171 an act relating to criminal justice agency protocols for an officer involved shooting.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on judiciary. H five nineteen, an act relating to Vermont State Employee Retirement System Group g membership introduced by representative Sackowitz. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: Page five nineteen an act relating to Vermont State Employees Retirement System Group G memberships.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill it is referred to the committee on government operations. H five thirty six, an act relating to toxic heavy metals and baby food products introduced by representative Stone and others. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H five thirty six, an act relating to toxic heavy metals in baby food products.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on health and welfare. H five fifty, an act relating to gender equity within Vermont's correctional facilities introduced by representative Hedrick. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H five fifty, an act relating to gender equity within Vermont's correctional facilities.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on institutions. H five eighty five, an act relating to health insurance reforms introduced by representative McCoy. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H five eighty five, an act relating to health insurance reforms.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it is referred to the committee on finance. H six zero six, an act relating to far firearms procedures introduced by representative arsenal. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H six zero six, an act relating to firearms procedures. Now

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: you've heard the first reading of the bill, and it is referred to the committee on judiciary. H seven thirty three, an act relating to designating a franchise relationship introduced by representative Marcotte and others. It passed the house on March 19 to the first reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H seven thirty three, an act relating to designating a franchise relationship.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on finance. H seven seventy five, an act relating creating tools for housing production introduced by representative Mahali. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H seven seventy five, an act relating to creating tools for housing production.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on economic development. H eight eighty seven, an act relating to crime victim status under the Fair Employment Practices Act introduced by representative Krasnow. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H eight eighty seven, an act relating to crime victim status under the Fair Employment Practices Act.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on economic development. Act nine seventeen, an act relating to military affairs introduced by the government operations committee. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H nine seventeen, an act relating to military affairs.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on government operations. H nine twenty one, an act relating to alcoholic beverages introduced by the committee on government operations and military affairs. It passed the house on 03/19/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: H nine twenty one, an act relating to alcoholic beverages.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on economic development. Orders of the day. We have on the calendar for action s three twenty seven introduced by the Committee on Economic Development on 01/30/2026. The bill was committed to the Committee on Economic Development, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page nine zero nine, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. The bill was then referred to the committee on finance, which reports that it is considered the bill and recommends that the amendment proposed by the committee on economic development be amended as set forth in the calendar today, and that when so amended, it 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 by the committees on economic development and finance. And what and when further amended as set forth in your calendar, listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: S three twenty seven, an act relating to economic development.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Windsor, senator Clarkson, for the report of the committee.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you, mister president. The objective of this year's senate economic development bill is to strengthen and support Vermont's businesses and to promote long term economic growth and vitality in Vermont by further investing in our downtowns and village centers. This bill provides key financial support, technical assistance and incentives for Vermont businesses of all sizes through all stages of development. In a very tight budget year, instead of creating new programs, which we love to do, we chose to invest further in what works already. After robust discussion in our committee, in S-three 27, we chose to invest further in our very successful downtown and village tax credit program in supporting key resources that our businesses rely on for legal, technical, management advice and expertise in continued support of our international trade office in Canada and building a more robust economic relationship with Taiwan. In cleaning up our brownfields, which continue to impede development in Vermont. In a business resource task force, which we're very excited about, and in continued support of our current convention center and major performance venue task force so that they can finish the task ahead of them and recommend a plan for action. Section one outlines the purposes and intent of the bill which I've just tried to summarize. Section two, our downtown and village tax credit program. As many of you know, our downtown and village tax credits program is one of the most effective tools in our economic development toolbox for stimulating private investment, revitalizing our communities by supporting the rehabilitation of our older and historic buildings. Every one of our districts has benefited from the revitalization these tax credits have enabled. Vermont gets a big bang for its buck in this program. It's one of the best return on investments we get, one of the reasons senator Brock loves it so much. And as it has a tremendous return on investment leveraging 17 to one for every $17 for every $1 that's invested. In the last four year alone, over $22,000,000 was awarded in tax credits. We always have a long wait list. We never have enough money for this program as you look at what we're proposing to do. What's awarded in tax credit, it's leveraging over six almost 700,000,000 in private investment enabling over a 180 projects. It's terrific program. We support the $3,000,000 that the governor has budgeted but feel its value to economic development in Vermont justifies our ask of $4,000,000 in this year's budget in the annual tax credits for the Vermont Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit program. Section three. Section three has four parts and its support it is really designed to further support all of our businesses in most stages of development. But it's really it really does focus on small business as small businesses as they get going. This section invest in what works supporting essential resources for economic development in Vermont. Now just to give you remind you, 93% of Vermont businesses are considered small, employing less than twenty twenty people or fewer. There are 20 over 27,000 businesses which fit this profile. These businesses employ over 21,000 people and they support a billion 3 in annual wages. Most of these businesses are the lifeblood of our rural communities. Many of these businesses have benefited from the resources available to them through the Vermont Small Business Development Center, the Vermont Small Business Legal Center, and the Vermont Professionals of Color Network and the micro business development programs. These services help our small businesses succeed, improving their operations, giving them technical assistance, advice, and counsel on a range of essential business practices, legal and succession planning practices, improving business practices helps these small businesses grow and become more profitable thus enabling them to pay their employees better wages and benefits. And of course, in turn supporting the growth of Vermont's economy. There are four subsections to this. We chose to really focus in on key resources that we felt help businesses in in varied stages and in very different ways. 17 community partners funnel small business in need of legal advice, and that is most startups and most businesses. Actually, not even startups, businesses that are having challenges. It the Vermont Small Business Law Center Founded in COVID by a congressionally directed spending grant. This much used legal clinic offers educational consults and in partnership with the Vermont Bar Association offers ten free hours of legal advice and counsel to businesses with a range of needs from contracts, liability, intellectual property, regulatory, employment, entity formation, data privacy to succession planning. The legal clinic has consulted with hundreds of small businesses and made many presentations. But while the legal clinic is federally funded through this June for '26, and it has gotten a new reappropriation, its intakes are exceeding its current capacity. This bill appropriates a $100,000 to help the clinic bridge the gap and meet the demand until the new grant kicks in in December or January. So they have six months that they're looking at with no financial support and we are hoping this will be matched by the law school and they'll find some additional money. And it's a pretty it's a very modest ask. We know it'll be stripped, but it's there nonetheless. That's our job is to advocate for what we believe in and we're doing that in this bill. Section b. Since 1992, the Vermont Small Business Development Center has been an essential pillar of our small business community. It's it's Vermont's most trusted small business resource, helping Vermont entrepreneurs and businesses business owners succeed. They provide no fee one on one expert advice and counsel and individualized resources to these businesses through many stages of development and growth. They enable businesses to start, to grow and thrive, giving them access to market research, educational opportunities, and resources for all stages of development. A recent economist survey determined that clients of the small business development center have greater increases in sales, 16% versus 3%, and employment, 21% over 1% than the average business population in Vermont. Using these resources clearly benefit our businesses. With a program cost of 1,000,000 just over 1,000,002, The outcomes generated by advising over 550 clients were are very impressive. 10,700,000.0 in new capital has been obtained to start grow and operate Vermont businesses, 25 new businesses were started in the in the last two years and 239 jobs were created and at risk jobs were retained. As Vermont's arm of the Federal Small Business Administration, receives a hefty, although not hefty enough, federal appropriation of over almost $800,000 from the Feds and they have a 388,889 appropriation in the big bill from the governor, which is I have to say really is a decline because of course it's the same as last year's, which basically is a hit for everybody as we all know, which is in the governor's budget. However, we feel that the Vermont Small Business Development Center could effectively serve many more Vermont small businesses if they have an additional appropriation of a $150,000. We really reined it in here. Subsection C, the micro business development program provided by our community action partnerships is one of my favorite programs. It supports the dreams of very low and gives that very low income Vermonters and gives them tools to start their own businesses. This is often the hand up to help more move people out of poverty and into prosperity and determining their own futures. It's an incredible program. So we have support for low income Vermonters, support for all businesses and legal support, very focused support areas. The micro business program has helped create more than 2,100 businesses. Switchback, of course, is the poster child from the micro business program. And they these programs have created many of the property management, sewing, health care home health care, house cleaning, and repair businesses that we rely on, that these are services that we now all rely on. This bill supports the governor's recommend of $493,000 for statewide and asks for an additional $100,000 to invest in these life changing businesses, and they are life changing. And the last section in subsection in this is to support professionals of our fabulous Professionals of Color Network. It helps our BIPOC small business owners navigate resources available to them. It's particularly resources they didn't even know existed. It has a proven track record of workforce and business development service for the BIPOC community providing technical assistance, education on basic business practices, and networking support to just over 800 businesses. That's a lot of businesses. $200,000 in one time funds to enable them to increase the number of hours dedicated to supporting small business owners in technical assistance, resource navigation, building connectedness with with in person networking gatherings and recruitment and planning growth is what we're asking for this year. They were in the governor's budget last year. This year, they were not they were excluded. There was a $660,000 grant that is really a grant to another organ to another business, not to them, not for their operation. Okay. Section four, the Vermont Outdoor Business Alliance and Vermont Outdoor Recreation Business. This economy has grown like Topsy. This has grown to be a $2,100,000,000 economic engine with over 16,000 people in its workforce. Its business alliance boasts a 140 businesses and growing. This is a business sector which includes all outdoor recreation from camping to skiing to hiking to mountain biking to manufacturing equipment to hunting and fishing. This year's Vorek at ask that we are asking for in addition to what's already in the budget is for $200,000 to conduct an economic impact study. The outdoor recreation business sector expects that this study to be an instrument tool guide. I'm sorry, not an an investment tool guide identifying where future investments will be most valuable by analyzing the benefits to Vermont's local economies, the risk factors facing this sector, strategic outdoor rec investments that support growth and increased resiliency, stewardship, and deferred maintenance, the value provided by private landowners, a lot of our trails, as you know, are both public and private, and associated economic risks, the value of direct and indirect outdoor rec businesses, and climate risk and mitigation investments. So they they really are feeling that this is an an essential piece of how they move forward and where they choose to invest as an organization. Section five supports Vermont the Vermont International Trade Office and our opportunities with Canada and Taiwan. This bill supports the governor's recommend, and we chose not to ask for more this year. It supports the governor's recommend to continue investing in Vermont's successful trade office in Canada, in Montreal sorry, in Quebec, which has resulted in introducing more Vermont companies and trade into Canada and Canadian investment and company expansion here into Vermont. Additionally, it encourages our international business office to determine the additional supports, which what additional support will be needed for us to build a stronger economic relationship with Vermont and Taiwan. Something we've talked about for a long time, something we've looked at regionally in the New England states as reestablishing a trade office in Taiwan, and we really need to put some gas on that effort. Vermont Taiwan has has has just voted to spend 250,000,000,000 in investment here in America, and we need to be able to put our hand up in some thoughtful directed way, which we're doing, but not in not as organized a fashion as we might like. Section six, this is cleaning up before we can redevelop our brownfields. Again, one of my favorite programs. This allocates $3,000,000 from the Department of Economic Development for brownfield remediation and redevelopment. This critical ongoing cleanup work is an essential first step in building the housing we need and redeveloping the downtowns that we all treasure. It's one of those, you don't see it, but it's essential. Section seven. This is our business resources and growth inventory and study. It charges the commissioner of economic development to consult with stakeholders and report back to the general assembly in December on how the state can better enable and support the growth of Vermont businesses. The objective of this study is to articulate the key stages of business development. Start up early stage maturing and mature. And identify the resources available both in and out of state government, public and private, for each stage of development as we are finding out not enough businesses know what's available to them now. Once they once they inventory what resources are currently available, they will identify what additional resources are still needed and how to better market and promote these resources so that more businesses can take advantage of them. In addition, the department will explore how to improve succession planning for businesses, a real issue at the moment, identify what resources are available to businesses to access capital and the state of capital access, including investment environment in Vermont and New England, and the availability of tax credits to leverage private capital. It's, I think, gonna be very helpful for us. We're we're quite excited about about this study and thrilled that the commissioner of the Department of Economic Development has taken this on, saving us money again. Section eight. We save what we spend in this bill. Section eight amends the convention center and performance venue task force created last year to study the feasibility of constructing a convention center and major performance venue in Vermont. It adds a member to the task force, the president of UVM or designee, and it allows the group to eat and eat eight more times because they we've given them the task through December. So we just basically enable their continuing their work. Section nine repeals the veggie sunset, which we have passed. I don't know. So many times I can't even remember. But, well, four or five times. This section repeals the law that would have prohibited Vermont Economic Progress Council from accepting the new veggie applications after January 27. In other words, this allows the veggie program to continue operations indefinitely, which we support. Again, one of our few tools in our economic development toolbox. And again, it's not for everybody, it's not for every stage of business development, but it's a key piece for the right moment. Section 10 is reestablishing a culinary institute. Vermont lost a significant contribute contributor to its culinary workforce pipeline development when the New England Culinary Institute closed during the COVID pandemic. Reestablishing a new culinary institute is critical for the long term workforce needs in our specialty food, tourism, and hospitality sectors, let alone the Montpelier Foods. Although it may not be here. This bill charges the office of workforce strategy and development to determine in consultation with various stakeholders how to best establish a new culinary institute in Vermont. The study will include the office researching suitable options for the institute, engaging the level of interest from private investment. And mister president, I now yield to Rutland senator Weeks to report on section 11.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The senator from Windsor yields to the senator from Rutland.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you mister president and thank you senator Clarkson. I'll be covering section 11. This section was renamed in the editing process to a study for connecting Vermont to New York. For shock value, I originally titled this section employment corridor, the Interstate 20 2 a study. In this chamber, we don't talk much about our common goals for Vermont, but what I've come to realize is that we all seem to agree that Vermont needs a thriving economy in more of the state. The economic corridor from Perchens, Middlebury, Rutland, Manchester, and Bennington is largely stagnant and has been for eighty plus years. So allow me to lay out the framework. The economies of Regent's, Middlebury, Rutland, Manchester, and Bennington thrive in the railroad era. As the American transport system shifted from rail to road, this corridor was overlooked in the conversation. In the early nineteen hundreds, transportation was 90% rail and 10% road. Now it's 10% rail and 90% road. The roads in our region were laid down in the nineteen thirties when the Model T and the Model A were the most prevalent cars in The US. In 1956, the Eisenhower Interstate Bill considered but rejected linkages between Bennington and Burlington, Bennington and Troy, New York, and Bennington and Brattleboro. What was built to support Burlington I 89 Corridor into prosperity. This effort is to get folks talking about new limited access roads in Vermont and the associated positive impact on our industry, our tourism, and our quality of life. Now back to section 11. The primary goal here is to discuss the additional limited access roads, highways, and their associated railroads in the state to study the economic effect of these roads, how to prioritize them, how to fund them, and their estimated costs. This analysis will be conducted by the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies with, of course, participation from AOT, ANR, Guler, and the Vermont Chamber of Commerce. The report out is due 01/15/2027, and with the permission of the President, I would like to yield the floor back to the chair of the economic development committee.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Rutland yields to the senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you, senator. Thank you, mister president. So this bill takes the final section because the effect the effective dates of the bill takes place on July 1 of it takes effect on in July, but section with section eight taking effect on passage. We heard from a multitude of witnesses longer than my floor report, over 30, all of whom I'm happy to share with you but they're all the obvious players including a whole range of people. Our vote in committee was five zero and I just I would just like to conclude by saying in supporting s three twenty seven, we're investing in what we know works. Investing in growth for our over 27,000 small businesses so that they can produce more, invent more, sell more, employ more, and produce better wages. It invests in cleaning up polluted sites and the redevelopment of our business centers, our downtowns, and village centers. It invests in a vibrant economy, few economic future with reestablishing a culinary institute, planning for a convention center and major performance venue and improving a major economic lifeline. What helps our people and businesses grow and flourish is good for Vermont's economy and good for our tax revenues and, well, good for Vermont. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now recognize the senator from Franklin, senator Brock, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin) – Committee on Finance]: Franklin, mister president. The, committee on finance reviewed, the bill and was generally supporting of every aspect of the bill. However, we did propose one, amendment, which is on the calendar on page eight hundred and nine hundred and sixteen at the top of the page, and that relates to the village and the tax credit system, the town tax credit system,

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: which is in the bill

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin) – Committee on Finance]: at allocating $4,000,000 for it, and we reduced that to 3,500,000.0. And there, it was a case of judgment and the judgment being that we thought that that 3.5 was a more realistic number in terms of being able to get the money that we need without overcrowding some of the other issues in that we think also have high priority. And we think it's simply a more reasonable number, the vote of the finance committee on the entire bill as as amended was six zero one. Thank you, president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: I now recognize the senator from Washington, senator Perchlik, the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: Thank you, mister president. I wanna thank the committee, for reporting the bill for the good work. I think this is all great and important economic development work that the state needs to take up, but the appropriations committee did recommend favorably, but wants to make a small amendment or two, which really seven instances of amendment here. And these are made without malice or prejudice against these, but this is just the proper way that the appropriations committee has to build our budget. And we take out the appropriations that we can consider our appropriation mall bills when we look at the full budget, which is now almost ready to pass the house. So we made seven instances of amendment. Like I said, the the first striking out the downtown tax credit, which was a a million dollars. Section two, we appreciate the finance committee lowering them out, but we still deleted that the money that was in that in that section. Section three, there was $200,000 for the outdoor recreation collaborative. We proposed to delete that section. The the fourth instance is striking out section five. There's a $150,000 there. We the fifth instance of amendment striking the Brownfield. We agree with the senator from Windsor of the importance of Brownfields, but we're taking out all the money regardless. We did actually leave in section seven, so we did not delete that. We did delete section eight in this amendment. That's for the convention center task force because there's meeting appropriations in there. It's a it's a small appropriations, but we're trying to be consistent and take out all appropriations, and small. The seventh and last instance of amendment is striking out the effective dates because the effective dates had language in there that affected one of the one of the sections that we're deleting. So this lines up with with our amendment to have the whole bill just take July take effect on 07/01/2026. The committee vote was seven zero zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The question is shall the report of the committee on economic development be amended as recommended by the committee on finance. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Our committee actually hasn't met officially to review this gutting. But I'm I don't think that if we did meet, we would probably come up with an alternative. I do have a question, however, for the chair, for the senator from Washington, if I may for the reporter of the last amendment.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Question is on the finance report.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: I apologize.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you. The question is shall the report of the committee on economic development be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? 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 report of the committee on economic development as recommended by the committee on finance. Now the question is, shall the report of the committee on economic development be amended on economic development as amended be further amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Back to the gutting. I'm I'm not even a fisher woman. I would I'd like to inquire of the reporter of this amendment.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Mister president, we appreciate the support voiced by the chair of appropriations, for our work. And, I am just curious because I haven't had a moment to look at the the language implies that the entire section, none of the words survived. I would have thought that just the money was deleted or the sentence that appropriated the money. But the entire sections are deleted. Is that correct?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: That's correct Mr. President. There are sometimes where we leave some of the language that can be enacted upon without the appropriations but sometimes that gets a little confusing. Here we just deleted the sections. We did keep that the section will say that it's deleted. So other folks that see the bill, other legislators will see that that section was deleted and look back at it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Okay. Well, I thank the chair and if, and we will take up our work in the house. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. I wanna speak to one of the changes proposed by the, committee on, appropriations. So, brownfields. Brownfields are areas of of contamination, usually the legacy of literally hundreds of years of commerce and manufacturing in Vermont. If you have had a mill, a factory, a power plant, or rail yards, you have brownfields in your community. Along the Connecticut River, brownfields are ubiquitous and redevelopment does not happen without the brownfields program. The program provides funding to contain or mitigate the containment, but even more importantly, it limits future liability if the developer follows the procedures. It's much more than the money. Without the liability limit, investors won't even consider a project. Canceling the the Brownfields program will stop development in exactly the areas where we'd say we want development to happen. I urge the body to support continuation of the Brownfields program.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanted to provide a more complete answer to the senator from Windsor's question or comment about striking the whole sections and not just the appropriations. The way this bill was worded is a whole different than other bills and that there is not specific appropriations. Often it says, for example, in section three on page nine ten, it says, of money is appropriated to the Department of Economic Development fiscal year 2027, 100,000 shall be used. So that's the kind of wording often where it doesn't say $100,000 is appropriated. It says, of the money of the Department of Economic Development's budget, they shall use a 100,000 of that. So that makes it more difficult to just strike out the money because it's saying they will have to use the money that they're already being appropriated in the budget. So that's one of the reasons that we just struck out the whole sections.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I I just wanted to expand briefly on what the chair of appropriations has been saying. This is standard practice to remove the money. It has zero judgment on anything we're talking about. So the work that we have done on Brownfields over the last decades has followed the same process. So it's not at all an indicator of programs that the Appropriations Committee supports or does not support. It's just saying that at the end of the day, we will consider everything in one fell swoop rather than what got to us first in the process. Thank you, mister president.

[Assistant Clerk/Parliamentarian]: Are you ready for the question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on economic development as amended be further amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. And the motion carries. The question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs as amended. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I do have one question for the presenter of section 11, the senator from Rutland.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Rutland's interrogated.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I I appreciated the handout, and I think it's instructive. It uses the phrase, mister president, self funding, but in the language in the actual bill I don't see anything relating to that and I'm wondering if the senator can expand on the phrase self funding.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you Mr. President I understand the question originally the language and the proposed bill which got migrated into this economic development bill was more specific and I didn't make an issue of it because I think that on page nine fifteen, section 11, paragraph A, which is getting to the top, the effort shall consider the following study of short and long term solutions, and I consider funding as part of that solution. And I would be quite willing to provide more insight into how a highway is self funded if this effort should mature, and I would welcome that conversation with the chamber. But since it's not in the heart of language of the legislation, mister president, I I simply refer to it in the handout again to create a sense of wonderment and shock simultaneously. Thank you Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I appreciate that if I could just I could just probe one one bit further so does the senator mean by self funding either privatization of roads or toll roads opposed to the current setup of those roads. Yeah, thank

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: you, Mr. President. Really the options are open. This is all about a conversation about how to fund limited access highways and the two recommendations that the Pro Tem offers to the chamber are certainly appropriate for consideration. There's also potentially the E ZPass system where those who use the roads pay for the roads as they do in some of our surrounding states. So I think the question's open. Let's thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I thank the reporter. To be clear, mister president, I was not recommending toll roads or privatization of roads. I wanted to be informed so that, if there was a way to prevent those conversations from going forward, I might do so. Thank you, mister Brisk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Lamoille.

[Senator Richard Westman (Lamoille)]: It's a difficult conversation to talk about other sources of money this. And since Section 11 raises this, I would like to remind the body and the public one of the most expensive projects the state's been doing over the last ten years is just North of Rutland on Route 7 Brandon Pittsford. We've spent thus far about $75,000,000 on that section of highway and that is just about our most expensive. This year there's a couple of $1,000,000 that went in in the past year in Virginia along Route 7. The most expensive project in the roadway section of the transportation bill that the governor presented and is coming over from the house has $7,000,000 to extend the brand in Pittsford. So that will take that project well into the over $80,000,000 in cost of that project. Not insignificant amounts of money that we put into particularly Route 7. There are plans going forward next year in the book. The hope is to put another 6,500,000 into Route 7 along that in that same area. The real problem that we're facing is transportation is in trouble and we're in huge trouble. So the idea of considering other revenue sources, I think we're all going to have to do. The budget that came that the governor presented and appears as it's coming from the house in state highways, which is what we're talking about, we have between twenty three and two thousand four hundred miles of state highway in Vermont right now. The budget that's coming to us from the governor and supported it has 55 miles of pavement in it. Our goal is to pave 300 miles of road a year to keep up. And this has 55 miles coming to us. That puts us on a track somewhere between forty five and fifty years between the rollover payment in each road. We are in, really from my point of view, in the testimony that we took in committee last year, we're headed to a place where it will be a disaster for us unless we act. I hadn't planned on getting up. Think it perfectly legitimate to have a conversation about the Western Corridor of where it is. But I have to point out, we don't need to set expectation levels that are too high for anybody in the state right now. We really need to pay attention to our overall system or we're going to see a downgrade of everything. We've taken testimony that has said that by 2030, if we remain on the track that we're on, that well over 50% of our roads in the state will be in poor or very poor condition. And I have to raise that as we talk about a single segment of road in an area and say, for all of us, we need to be concerned now.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I I rise because this is a center of road this is a portion of the road that goes right through my district on the Western Corridor, of Addison County, up from Orwell, up through Addison and. Gends. It has been a major problem for years. It is one of the least safe areas of highway in our state. It has some of the the most deadly car crashes in the state including with school buses and know farm equipment and all types of vehicles going on that road and then truck traffic going right through the middle of historic for that's been a real problem for years and years and that's an area that's been studied and there have been lots of different plans on what to do with regens. But I think most of people who don't live in this area don't realize that this is a major economic corridor of truck traffic going from New York from Route 87 up through Vermont up to Chittenden County. So it is a connector through my district to a lot of the malls and things up in Chittenden County and factories and stuff in Chittenden County. So it's been a huge problem. I hear about this section of road more than any section of road in my district. And I appreciate the senator from Rutland trying to get some more information on what to do. He had a bill that was in more of a a study about a self funded highway, and I wasn't quite comfortable with the wording of that. But I think this is more in the context of economic development, more in the context of of other options, rail and, and highways. And I so appreciate the problems, with our transportation fund

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: and how we

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: can't be building new highways right now and putting more money into what we already have. Appreciate the work that's been done on Route 7 but this is Route 22a which is parallel to Route 7. So I think that in the context of an economic development study having done with the planners rather than AOT this frames it in a a a way that I think is helpful and hopefully can move the conversation forward at least without spending a lot of money but this is a real problem highway for people in my district and so any conversation we can have to approve it would be would be welcome. So thank you Mr. President.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: I just think we need

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: to talk about 22 A as much as possible so I'm gonna say a couple of comments too. I know this road really well, and if you live in Chittenden County, you know 22 A because it's the route to get to New York City in that major market. So it needs some tender love and care. Whether or not it be a divided highway, that's a question to be determined. And when I heard about fund self funded highways, when I was served for four years in the Senate Transportation, was known as Tommy Tolls. So I feel like I I had to stand up and speak to this because we have really intelligent cars, but our roads are still pretty dumb. So what I'm saying is we need to rethink funding sources to not just think about a person sitting in a toll booth or even E ZPass. We have new technologies that could very systematically track the usage in our major congestion points, all of our red, yellow, green lights. And I'm not saying issuing a nickel fee here, a 25¢ fee there, but we would be able to capture usage. And I see economists across the political spectrum see value in use based assessment where you could charge individual vehicle owners based on how much they're using our most congested points. This is not gonna happen overnight, but as we see a decreasing revenue stream from the gas taxes because of more fuel efficient vehicles and alternative fuels, We need to find money to pay, plow and paint our roads. And so I do think over the next ten years, gonna have to look at ways to make our roads more smart to find creative ways to draw revenue in a variety of sources, not necessarily tolls, but use based assessment based on track usage of their roadways. Had to say something. I knew center Ingalls wanted me to. The

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: question remains the same. And it is, shall the report of the committee on economic development as amended be further amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. The motion carries. Question now is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development, housing, and Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I am just wondering. It seemed that we did the appropriations report, and we were on the economic development report.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: We're now on the economic. Oh, yes. K. Well, we were we were just double checking to make sure everybody was serious.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I just wanted to clarify.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Well, we're sure everybody's on the same page now, senator. Thank you. I believe the question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development, housing and general affairs as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have amended the bill. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? So all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s three twenty seven. We now have third readings. We have s 89 for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? I understand the senator from Franklin. Senator Norris has an amendment.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. Last week, I rose with a concern over the time period that could be involved in this over three sixty five days and I was assured by the presenter that state treasurer and the board moved rather quickly which was reassuring to me. But in looking at section two once again, only the board was included in this section two and in order for this amendment to go through, we had to add the e board because what this amendment does is we're also concerned about the monies or lack thereof. During the off season, if the balance of the fund is insufficient to pay the monetary benefits and God forbid we ever have to do that. But if we do, by the board, when the general central when the general assembly is not in session,

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin) – Committee on Finance]: the e board may may be in the keyword here.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Pursuant to 30 under thirty two one thirty three, transfer into the fund additional amounts necessary to pay the monetary benefit. So it doesn't change the bill or the intent of the bill. It simply hopefully would shorten that that period of time that they could, receive survivors could receive monies from this fund. Having said that, I thank you, mister president. President.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. So members of the senate government operations committee took a look at this amendment earlier today. We thank the senator from the Franklin District, and we voted unanimously to recommend approval of the amendment.

[Assistant Clerk/Parliamentarian]: Are you ready for

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: the question? Question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the senator from Franklin County? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we have amended the bill as offered by the senator from Franklin. Please listen to the third reading.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: S 89, an act relating to expanding survivor benefits.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: And the question is, shall the bill pass as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we have passed s 89 as amended. We now have s one fifty four prior to third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered? Listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: S one fifty four, an act relating to health insurance coverage for biomarker testing.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the third reading and the question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. We passed s one fifty four. S 20, are there any amendments prior to third reading? Listen to the third reading.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: S two twenty, an act relating to addressing education spending in fiscal years 2028 and 2029.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now you've heard the third reading of the bill and the question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the questions? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. So I I, rise to speak to some questions that were raised on the floor on Friday, and, I wanted to address, some of them, not all of them. First, the ones that seem most appropriate to address. The senator from Washington asked about additional data files and possible methodologies to determine the excess spending threshold using statistical inference. I have since shared the spreadsheets that percolated during this bill's consideration, but what I hope came across in those emails and in the discussion on Friday is that there is nothing preventing next year's legislature adjusting the excess spending threshold to reflect the variance in our district by district per pupil spending next year. If the voters allow me to return to this role next year, I will be but one voice advocating for a calibration of this excess spending threshold in the yield bill almost on an annual basis to align with either the standard deviation of district per pupil spending or the upper quartile threshold using a box plot. Looking back at just the last five years, the variation among districts fluctuates a great deal from year to year. Admittedly, the variance is shrinking as we distance ourselves from the pandemic. The Senator from Windsor asked two questions about the modeled spreadsheet handed out. I believe I answered them correctly, but admittedly not completely. I look at individuals. So the first question had to do with the Norwich School District and why they were marked as exempt from the excess spending threshold penalty, even though their current per pupil spending exceeds the current law threshold. The agency of education, we reached out to variety of individuals. The Agency of Education points to 16 BSA seven eighty three to support its position on exempting interstate school districts from the excess spending penalty. Given the complexity of issues around the interstate school districts, I do believe this does warrant separate discussions and additional clarifications from the AOE to better understand the agency's position on the statute interpretation. That's me personally. And I definitely raised it with the chair of finance, if we'd like to take some more discussion on that, it certainly could happen. The second question raised from the Senator from Windsor had to do with voter approved debt since July 2024. 11 districts have approved bonds since July 2024. Those amounts, those approved amounts since July 2024 were definitely not included or excluded in the figures that were passed out and modeled in that spreadsheet because we don't have them systematically collected by the agency of education. So they were not excluded from the estimates in that spreadsheet because they're not systematically collected, but know that if this were to go forward, the debt repayments would be excluded from those districts that are exceeding the excess spending threshold. So this would lower the amount that would be pushed above the threshold. According to the Vermont Bond Bank is the only information that we've able to gather that they would expect about 11 school districts may be eligible for this exclusion with bonds passed since July 2024. That includes Fairfax, Bellows Falls, Coventry, CBU, Hartford, Bellow two Bellows Falls, Union High School, I have that listed twice for some reason, Windsor Central Unified, Colchester, Milton, and Burlington. Maybe Bellows Falls had two bonds, I I don't know. But my point is, there are some bonds that were not excluded in that the that handout that came out on Friday, and I just thought it'd be important to reference that. Thank you, mister president mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca “Becca” White (Windsor)]: Greatly appreciate the work done to get the answers to those questions specifically from staff. At this point, the Windsor delegation, I believe is still voting no on the bill. We had, an exceptionally well attended and engaging community forum last evening in our district on this topic. And I appreciate that the senator from Chittenden was present, the secretary of education was present, but ultimately what we heard from our constituents was that the goal of property tax reduction does not show up in our area due to double taxation. So we're not getting that benefit that we have been told is the benefit of this bill in our area. And we know that the creation of this algorithm, I'll say, to how you came up with what money counts as things that you can't change as a school district, things that are exempt from this, we heard from our constituents that there are many other aspects of their school budgets that they don't have control over as well. It's not just that they don't have control over the debt. They also don't have control over healthcare costs increases, built in infrastructure costs increases like costs of heating, costs of electricity, costs of funding programs that they are required by the AOE to do. So what we heard from our constituents last night was this bill doesn't meet the equity standard for us due to its specific negative effects to the Windsor region and the communities and districts within it. So I believe we as a delegation will remain a no on this bill, but are greatly appreciative of the work to get answers to our questions and look forward to a continued discussion on the moving forward of this topic.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: Mister president, may I inquire the presenter of the call?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: Thank you. Yesterday, I had a conversation with constituents on a road who no longer are getting bus service. They moved there to get bus they moved there knowing they were hoping to have a family and that their children would be able to ride the bus to school.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: The school

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: has now told them that they will no longer be being serviced by a school bus. Their work schedules make this very difficult to get their kids to school. And one of the answers they got from the superintendent is it's like, well, that's, you know, we're, we're, we're cutting costs. The, the, the bus service, bus company said this would be a, a way to cut costs. So I wondered if there was any discussion in the committee about excluding transportation costs from the formula.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do not recall any such conversation in committee on transportation costs. I will say that reflecting on a comment I made at second reading is I have grown to respect this process where this is halfway through and now I think that this conversation coming to this point will get more attention on these important topics in the other chamber that we have no control over. So I think that's something that could be raised in the continued discussions on this bill.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: Okay, I thank the presenter. Yeah, that is something that I'm particularly interested after the conversation with some of the families on this road that this is something we want to make sure that all children have a way to get to school in an equitable manner. Thank you.

[Assistant Clerk/Parliamentarian]: Are you ready for the question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall s two twenty pass? All in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we have passed s two twenty. I understand we are passing over s three twenty eight, which brings senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: If I might, mister president, I would also like to pass over s one ninety three. After discussions, with the chair, I'd like to move that, s one ninety three be postponed to a date certain of Tuesday, March 31, a week from today.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: That's a motion. Senator from Chittenden has moved that s one ninety three put be postponed to date certain of Tuesday, 03/31/2026. Are you ready for the question? So all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. Motion carries. We have on the calendar for action s one ninety seven, an act relating to establishing a primary care payment reform program introduced on 01/06/2026. It was referred to the Committee on Health and Welfare, which recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in the calendar starting on page nine thirty six, 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 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.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: S one ninety seven, an act relating to establishing a primary care payment reform program.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Lyons, for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: Thank you, mister president. S one ninety seven is a critical bill for improving our system of care in the state. Last year, we understand we looked at a health care crisis with respect to hospitals, and we passed act 68, which does include some strategic planning for primary care. S one ninety seven is a step to improve primary care, which currently is important for prevention in the state. And we understand that when we invest in prevention, every dollar saves us $13. Actually, primary care prevention saves us $13. It's greater if we look at all the prevention prevention work that we do. And this includes our basic care that we get when we go to our primary care providers as well as for preventing, in preventing chronic diseases. And we also know that our state has a program called the blueprint, which has now become a national model for primary care primary care, patient homes and our community health teams, which we'll, talk a little bit about as we go closer to bill. Access to primary care is declining in our state, and many practice practices are closing as predicted that by 2030, we'll be short 370 primary care providers in Vermont. Without primary care, patients utilize more expensive emergency departments, urgent care. And in addition, we understand that, our primary care providers are leading leaving because of an unaligned system of care. There's huge administrative burden on our primary care providers. Clinicians report that 50% of their time is on documentation on desk work. So that leads to reduced time for patient care, reduced time for prevention. There are other areas of concerns that we have, but we what this bill is going to do is going to begin to, provide alignment of care, alignment of payers, open transparency, and coordinate care between the blueprint and independent practices and, all our primary care providers. I will like to emphasize the administrative burden part of this because different insurers have different requirements for our primary care providers, so different payment models. And so much of this bill is about developing a payment model that's consistent for all primary care practices and for each payer, so each insurance company, each insurer, whether it's public or private. And those that model that will be developed will be based on data that we look at, that we'll talk about a little bit. There is some, underneath much of the language in the bill is a lot of modeling and a lot of work that will go on to get to the place that we would like to be so that individual payers are paying consistently to our primary care providers so that they can sustain a business model that supports patients rather than, administration. So, I think I'll just go to the bill, mister president. And, as as we know, the National Academy of Medicine, looked at primary care in Vermont and realized that we need more investment, a new way to pay for primary care. So there are three things that the National Academy has, indicated. One is a new way of paying, technological infrastructure improvements, and workforce improvements. This bill really addresses payment model, a little bit of workforce, which is critical. Our technological infrastructure was addressed very much in act 68 and is being worked on separately from this legislation. As I indicated earlier, if you look at section one, section one expresses legislative intent to invest in primary care through streamlined payments that build on the blueprint for health and increase access to primary care. The blueprint for health is a model for primary care wherein the prime the patient has a patient there's a patient centered medical home, a place for each of us to go to receive our primary care, our prevention care, and then should happenstance that you're diagnosed with a chronic illness, the primary care doc can keep an eye on you as well. So there's certain areas of chronic illnesses like rheumatology or cardiovascular disease or diabetes where the primary care doc within the blueprint also oversees your your your care. We also are unique in the country that we have established what's known as the hub and spoke system through the blueprint, which allows for treatment of those with substance use disorder as well as now mental health disorders. So we have a primary care focus for folks on substance use disorder and then chronic care for them through their medical home. The the the neat part about the blueprint is the the community health team aspect. I remember when this was instituted, and that was so valuable in having a team provide care for folks when they go into their primary care, offices. So you'll have a a nutritionist or a physical therapist or someone else who can help you with the specific needs that you have related to your own diagnosis. That's all in legislative intent. So so the blueprint is so important to us, and it's being modeled across the country right now. It's also a part of, some of the work that will be going on with the rural health transformation grant to expand the blueprint. Section two is a pretty significant part of the bill. It amends a subchapter on the blueprint. This this this part is so key. It requires health insurers to submit information to the agency of human services to analyze the total cost of care for primary care practices in our state. So health insurers now one of the frustrations that I've always had about the blueprint is that we've never had sufficient number of patients to do a full analysis of the effectiveness of the blueprint. With this one section of the bill, one of the things we're doing is we are now taking what the payers are doing, what our insurance companies are doing for primary care, and integrating that into our blueprint data. That is so important. And and so as we go forward, we will now have, we'll be able to look at health care capacity, volume, quality, clinical outcomes that are that we can then evaluate for how to pay for our pry pay our primary care providers. Currently, we have we are so stuck in what's known as a fee for service environment. And fee for service, paying for every single thing that, is prescribed or given, every code for any specific treatment, anything that goes fee for service, actually, that altogether adds between twenty five and thirty five 30% of costs to the care that's delivered. The program that the payment model that we're adding into this legislation is what's known as a per patient or per member per month month payment that goes to the primary care practice upfront, and then that supports the work of the practice in helping patients. So that would go to all primary care practices. So the analysis that's included within section two would then be available, that payment per member per month, would then be available to, independent primary care, blueprint primary care, clinically affiliated primary care. So we're putting all primary care, practices together. That will also allow for a a better, ability to do, an assessment of cost, total cost of care, how much it costs for an individual type of of disease or, issue within the practice. And we can use we can look at different types of conditions and weight those conditions and say, okay. So this practice has more of these patients. So this practice can have a slightly higher payment per member per month. All of that work needs to go on before we can really settle on how much each practice will receive. But it is all already going on within the blueprint. So it's not a rocket science, and it's not new modeling. It is extending the modeling to a new group of patients. Section three, blueprint pack payments to practices is a report. This section requires the blueprint director to report to the report to the general assembly by 01/01/2027 on changes to payment amounts or methodologies needed to transition the blueprint's payments to primary care practices in order to pay for routine primary care needs of each practices attributed patients. So the attribution based on degree of need, the risk associated, the capacity, the volume, and and so on. So what's important here, this would be an alignment of payments between payers that will reduce the huge amount of administrative burden that our practitioners now face. So that's the report in '27. In in, another report, I'm sorry there's so many reports, but, you know, before you build a bridge, you gotta design it, And then you gotta get the engineers in, and then you can begin to put the foundation in. That's what we're doing here. And this is this is more of an implementation plan than it is a report, all of these things. Primary care spending, report by the agency of human services by January 27, looking at the baseline spending needed for Vermont residents overall and by payer. So Blue Cross and Blue Shield, MVP, Cigna, all of our QHP plans, all of our, ACA plans. All of those things will know how much payment will go per per member per month paid by each payer. This is terrific. Our our providers will not be left with a computer filled with 17 or 18 different insurers asking for different information and paying different amounts for each code. All the codes will have been evaluated. Be able to look at what's there within our population, our primary care population, and then the the provider will receive the amount necessary to care for those patients. And as I said, there's a whole lot embedded up in section two where all of that evaluation goes. I will stay say that as we took testimony, one of the refreshing things that happened is that our insurers sat in the room, and they all agreed to provide the data that we need to accomplish the goals that are here in this bill. That is new, and it's unique. I remember three or four years ago asking the same question and getting the answer. We don't we can't do it. We have our own blueprint program. Now we'll have one blueprint program, one primary care program for the state of Vermont, not 16 or 17. So, the next section five is the primary care spending targets report, and this is on January 28. By that time, we ought to be able to we should be able to see some changes being made in the budget process for payments for primary care that are in aligned, that are aligned, and that are supportive of our primary care practices. The the neat thing about this report is that will increase the targets for payment over time. So there'll be some kind of, we call it a medic Medicare economic indicator or or inflation value where you can look at what it costs to have an inflationary rate of some type, so that primary care practices, don't get held hostage to a steady state. Section six is a Vermont clinician landscape, a site neutral reimbursements analysis. I can remember back in 2017 talking about how or 2016 before the report came out. We pay we pay providers differently depending on whether they're in the hospital affiliation or whether they're out in the community, and this will look at how to equilibrate the the differences there or at least to help those who are outside of the hospital environment because they we know there's some increase in payment there. We also noticed that there isn't an increase in clinical outcomes, when they're affiliated with a hospital necessarily. So and one of the other things we notice is that when people are out in the community, they don't have primary care and they can't drive they they have to drive somewhere to get there. They don't do it. And so by having primary care docs out in the community, we'll also be, having potential for some home visits that we talked about in committee. We'll have the potential for equal or easier access for folks. So then that's the next section, section seven, is a transitioning care to community settings. This would be January next year, '27. And this is good. This relates to the to the strategic plan that we have in place and trying to sort out, well, you know, after you have acute care, surgery, or whatever it is in the hospital, then some of the care that you're getting when you're in the hospital after that surgery could well be done by through your care care practice through the community health team so that that and that cost will be less. So there will be some cost savings with that. Section eight is, a a report, from the state treasurer who has very willingly agreed to work with, other states. There's a New a England collaborative that's mentioned in one of the sections of our bill could work with that group that looks at clinical outcomes and prevention. Other states like Massachusetts or California and Oregon are all looking at some primary care investment and renewal. So the treasurer has agreed to report back in January about work with Northeastern states. And then section nine is important for our workforce development, and that takes the sunset, on the there's a medical student incentive scholarship fund. It's got about little less than 500,000 in it right now, and, this would this would take the sunset off of that and allow for the use of those funds, to support, the development of primary care, students. And and this is also important second reason is important because the Rural Health Transformation Grant doesn't allow for, scholarship or loan reimbursement for MDs. So that this compensates somewhat for that, guideline that's with the RHT. Section 10 is something that, I I added in because I heard from a couple constituents about their one of their drugs being dropped by their insurance company, and they didn't know it. And the only way they found out about it was going into the office or going to get a renewal and then having to pay for it. So it's this isn't this isn't over the top here, but it requires the a health insurer to give at least sixty day notice to all covered individuals who fill the prescription for a particular drug within the previous year if the insurer plans to eliminate insurance coverage for that drug. So patients will know if that coverage is being dropped, and, they'll have sixty days to go in and work with their primary care or their other physician and figure out alternatives or, you know, payment process, so on. It could be devastating depending on what the drug is when you think about it, right? They might might be on a specialist specialty drug that's very expensive, might go with generic. That's all those issues in there. The bill takes effect, on passage. Oh, mister president, there are a lot of reports in here, but as I said before, you can't build a bridge until you have the design, and you have to have everybody together with a shovel, and we've done that with this. Now the payers are all together. This is gonna be great. I think it's gonna be great. We will have the information that we need to build a very strong primary care across the state of Vermont. Thank you, mister president. Now our vote in committee was five zero zero. We have an extensive witness list. I'll read some of them. Legislative count council, Vermont Medical Society. We had a Milton family practice doc, associate dean of primary care at the College of Medicine, the director of blueprint for health, a director of health care reform, the former c e CEO current CEO of One Care Vermont. Wayne Altman, the professor of family medicine of Tufts University, Alicia Cooper, Department of Vermont Health Access, Susan Susan Risdon, Health First, she represents independent, primary care docs, Faye Holman, she's the chair of the primary care advisory group, or she's actually a member, and that's the group that was established in the strategic health plan last year. She's also a a family physician at the Little Little River Healthcare in East Corinth. Toby Sadkin, executive chair of Primary Health Care Partners, Saint Albans, and Williston. Will Everett, the Vermont Academy of Family Physicians, also at Grace Cottage. Deb Richter of Family Practice for Substance Use Disorder, Suri Song of Harvard Medical School, Elliot Fisher of Dartmouth Institute, Joanna Gophen Fried of the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. We heard from Blue Cross and Blue Shield, MVPs, Cigna Healthcare. Those are our three principal, payers for the this group. Our health care advocate, the treasurer's office, North County Community Health, Gifford Gifford Healthcare, a fellow from Harvard Law School, and a chief quality and clinical transformation officer from, the Cleveland Clinic, Case Western Reserve. So a mix of folks, and I think everyone on the list is a patient, so we also heard from patients. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: I would just like to bring up that I don't have the greatest hearing, but I just heard someone's phone or computer go off. So I hope that that has been silenced. Senator from Chittenden, I believe you have an appropriations report now.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: Thank you, mister president. Appropriations committee reviewed the bill and, feel that it should pass as passed by the committee on health and welfare.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall the senate amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire the reporter

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you. I did receive an email from a primary care practitioner, and so I wanted to at least investigate a little bit. I understand the administrative requirements will be lessened by a lot with the passage of this bill, and I understand also that the fee for service is going to be replaced basically with a per patient per month payment that's at some point gonna be predetermined. Would the reporter at least admit that there's a likelihood that a primary care provider would see an increase in income as a result of this bill? And I realize it's hard to predict that because as the reporter expertly pointed out, there are a lot of reports yet to be done, in this bill, but I just wanted to be able to, provide somewhat of an answer for the person that emailed me.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: Yeah. Thank you. That's a good question. You know, originally, the bill had a 15% target for increasing our primary care overall in the state to 15%. Right now, our investment in primary care is about a little over 10% of our total cost of care when you compare that with hospitals at 40%. It's huge. So, yes, we will be looking to increase that reimbursement to primary care providers. In fact, if we can do it during the current budget year, that would be exceptional. And then the other piece of this is we'll be increasing the amount as a per member per month or per patient per month. And then we'll also be looking at how to have an inflationary, factor. So we'll that'll it'll go up yearly or however that's recommended every year, every two years, whatever, to keep up with expenses for the business of care.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I thank the senator for the answer, and I'm

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: all set.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you. May I inquire as a reporter?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Reporters interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you. I count six reports in this bill. Is that correct?

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: I can't tell you how many are in here.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Okay. I'll count the On the titles of the sections there are six titles that include the word report. So my question Mr. President is, are any of these reports conflicting with we every year ask these same players for lots of reports, AHS, Green Mountain Care Board, you know, entities involved and I'm wondering do any of these conflict with overlap with or overburden any of the organizations or entities that are asked to do these reports? Well, there's certainly a lot of work in the second section,

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: and that leads to the report, I think, that is in section five. So what what these reports are doing, what's happening behind the scene is a lot of modeling work and looking at the money that's necessary to support primary care. Yeah. So some of the work would be looking at our DRGs, looking at our risk value utilization, looking at all of the total cost of care, putting all of that data together, and then coming up with a and I I have a I had a I had a model that was given to me about potentially what we would be seeing of how to equilibrate different, different codes together so that we would get an equal payment for, equal work, so to speak, or e e equal patient risk. So there's a lot of work in the reports that really lead to putting that, first shovel in the ground. Okay. That's why I say that more implementation, information when we ask for a report, of course. We don't want overlap. These are not the biggest report in here from section two and then following section five, those are the that's the biggest that's the meat of the bones, so to speak. And then some of the other reports that, for example I thank

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: the reporter. Thank you, mister president. Thank you. I just I just wanted to make sure that I understood that there were six reports in here. I think a lot of this work has been done in previous reports and we have this whole sort of health care reform kind of experiment with our, a crownable care organization which turned out to be a disaster and one of the things that they did was this kind of payment system. So I'm just concerned that this is sort of leading into a direction where we've already been, and it's it's recreating reports that have already been done in previous years. But if the reporter of the bill is confident that this is going to lead in a different better direction, I am appreciative of that. I'm just disappointed to see yet another health care bill with just a ton of reports in it. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Fromchlik.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: Thank you. I just like to clarify that these reports have not been done before in this way. The ACO report was done on a very narrow patient base. The reports that we have here now we're in a really unique position where payers are now providing data directly about, patient information, not HIPAA protect, but cost information to get to total cost of care for all primary care. This is unique here. The problem with the ACO, and I I will highlight that because there's a lot of criticism for it. Problem with the ACO is very much based on the limitation, population limitation that we had. The the value of the ACO was being able to look at, quality metric analysis. So there's some of that residual that can be utilized, But these are unique reports. The the other one that might be considered to be overlapping was the 2017, site neutral report, but this is an update on that. And right now, our hospitals and other, primary care docs are working, with the Green Mountain Care Board on this. So it's critical to continue to update information we go forward, and and these reports will do that, but also will take us a a huge step forward. Thank you. And, I appreciate the question from the senator from Addison. The the ACO has been it on in the news so much, and it's a lightning rod for effect, and saying payment per member per month is striking, but this will save dollars. Fee for service is more expensive, and it will consolidate. It will align. It will make more transparent, and it will help build our primary care base effectively in Vermont.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you, Mr. President. I I have to say I'm thrilled that I voted for the blueprint for health all those years ago and I am thrilled to see and have experienced how impactful it is. I only hope that by the end of this biennium we actually end up moving the dial on health care costs and health care access as significantly as we did with the blueprint for health by the end of the by the end of the year. I hope that all these efforts actually add up to something that is as impactful as that legislation does.

[Assistant Clerk/Parliamentarian]: Are you ready for the question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Health and Welfare? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have 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? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s one ninety seven. We have on the calendar for action s two thirty two. It was introduced on 01/09/2026. It was referred to the committee on education, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page nine forty three. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the finances of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which reports that the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports that it has considered the bill and recommends that the amendment proposed by the committee on education be amended as set forth in the calendar today, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Senate Clerk (Reading Clerk)]: S two thirty two, an act relating to public libraries and the Department of Libraries.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Rutland, senator Weeks for the committee on education.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I'll be reporting s two three two found in today's calendar on page nine forty three. Think of this as a miscellaneous libraries bill. I'm gonna go right into it and move through it relatively quick. Section one, findings on the value of public libraries as centers of learning and public accommodation. Section two, creating Vermont Library's Day on the third Monday in October. Section three, this is the key section and this is the one I need you to pay a bit of attention to. This amends the current universal after school and summer special fund to split the cannabis sales tax revenue. For the past three years, AOE has been receiving and distributing these after school funds. The individual grants range from a high of 525,000 to a low of 20,000 per grant with demand always exceeding available funding. Currently, 16 DSA 51 reads cannabis sales tax revenue shall be used to support a mixed delivery system for after school and summer program. Eligible recipients can be public, private, or non profit organizations. Why are we looking at a potential carve out for libraries for summer school and after school programs. The AOE grant program the AOE grant program to get these funds is a ten to twenty hour application endeavor due to federal grant application requirements. This is onerous for small school library staffs. While a handful of libraries partner with child care centers, no libraries have applied directly for the cannabis funding due to the application process. New language in S-two 32 directs that 95% of cannabis sales tax be used by the AOE to continue supporting after school and summer reading programs administered by private, public, and non profit organizations. The remaining 5% of the cannabis sales tax will be directed for the use by the Department of Libraries to support after school and summer reading programs. The amount of funding for libraries is estimated to be about $117,000 per year out of the total $2,300,000,000 of cannabis tax revenue. The 5% carve out is equivalent to just one of the average 45 grants that the AOE makes every year, just to put it in perspective. A report back of the 5% Department of Libraries utilization will be included in their annual state library report. There was hesitation in the committee, the Education Committee that this carve out could encourage future carve outs, but we thought that the risk was at least worth the benefit and we gain experience as we move along. Okay. That's section two. Section three, adds the state librarian as a member of the advisory committee for the universal after school and summer special fund. Section four amends early education grants to clarify that public libraries are eligible for the grant program to ensure that grant funds may be used for the purposes of training public library staff. Section five, amends the duties of the Department of Libraries to clarify that these departments collections may be digital or physical formats. The section sadly also eliminated outdated references to services by mail and book wagon as a form of interlibrary loan and delivery. Section six, language is added to clarify that a private library that is open to the public and accepts municipal appropriations does not become subject to the control of the of the municipal legislative body. Additionally, we've repealed the audio visual revolving fund, which has been empty and debunked for years. The effective date of two three two is 07/01/2026. The witness list included Vermont Department of Libraries Commissioner and State Librarian, Vermont Library Association Vice President, Vermont Library Association Chair of Government Relations, Vermont Library Association lobbyists, AOE's Deputy Secretary, AOE's Expanded Learning Opportunities Program Manager, Vermont After Schools Executive Director, Montpelier's Kellogg, covered library director of library services, the sponsor of the bill Senator Hardy, our Office of Legislative Counsel Tucker Anderson, And the vote in the education degree was six zero zero. I'd like to thank Senator Hardy for sponsorship of the bill and welcome the full chamber to support the Senate Education Committee and s two three two. Thank you, mister.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Recognize senator from Washington, senator Perchlik for the committee on Finance. Finance report. How did I miss that? Okay. I understand we have a finance report.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Two three two.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: I recognize senator from Addison, senator Hardy, for the finance report.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. And it is, not surprisingly, you would forget this because it's not a very exciting report. The Committee on Finance did take a look at this bill because it involves the use of a fund but it doesn't really affect the revenues of the state. We knew that the Appropriations Committee was going to work on an amendment so we the finance committee unanimously recommend passage of s three two three as of as recommended by the committee on education. Thank you. President.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Now I recognize the senator from Washington, senator Perchlik, the committee on appropriations. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: I wanna ask the senate's don't know where it is. Basically, I'm telling you that this is an amendment that that needs a dispensation from form. It's not the typical appropriations amendment. When we knew the bill was coming over with a 5% carve out, that was the reason it was coming to the committee and it was something that the committee of those who have been on the committee for a long time that worked on the excess tax going to after school program felt strongly that this kind of carve out regardless of the total dollar amount was something that we didn't want to support carving it out like that. We also felt like it didn't have a lot of wording around it. We were going to just take out that 5% carve out and be at that. But we learned from the sponsor of the bill who has done a great job lifting up libraries when I was on education committee with the Center for Madison. She did a great job of highlighting just our libraries and we even had a state library. I didn't know that before we had an amended committee thanks to the Senator for Madison. But the Senator for Madison was working on an amendment in the Finance Committee. But we had, I think last week, the center appropriations committee had 18 bills that we have passed out in the one week that we passed them all. Things were going fast. If we didn't get it done by Friday, it went a missed crossover chance of the bill not making. So we thought we were speeding things up to work with the Senator Addison's potential amendment for finance and also spoke with the chair of education about some of the difficulties they had with this bill or discouragements they had in in working with the agency of education. So we thought we'd be able to make our appropriations change, but fold in these other changes that other folks were talking about. It caused some confusion, so I apologize for that. But that's just some of the background of why this amendment has a little more in it than just, dollars being taken out. So let me work through the amendment. The the first amendment is just an additional finding that that the senator from Addison, the the main sponsor of the bill, wanted to add into there. Are fine with that. The second amendment strikes section three. The section three was highlighted by the reporter of the bill. This is the section that takes 5% and puts it specifically for libraries. It also requires that the Department of Libraries manage the program with AOE, but without a lot of explanation how they would do that. We thought there could be an added expense there, administration having two different organizations, agencies, entities of the state managing the program. So that second amendment just strikes that section three. But since we are striking section three, which does give 5% to libraries and wanted to support libraries, we worked with the sponsor of the bill on this language to highlight libraries. That's to make sure that libraries are eligible. And I had heard from mentoring organizations that they had a similar situation that the libraries had where the application is very difficult, and some of them were told that they weren't eligible for the program. So we included that libraries and mentoring program programs were eligible. And we felt like the language in the end here helps to encourage the program to look at libraries and also allows this, ability of the agency of education to fund give kind of like a block grant to the Department of Libraries that the Department of Libraries could then fund to libraries without AOE having to look at that. That kind of gets to the the the underlying bill's interest of having agency of libraries together with AOE, but it would be kind of a separate as a block grant. It also requires AOE to create a simple application. You heard from the report of the bill saying that no libraries have applied because the application is based on the federal 21 c after school program, which is a very complex federal application. So this on page nine forty eight is part of our amendment working with other senators. We added this language in here that says, it shall create a simple application and reporting process to reduce the barriers to the grant program participation for small and community based organizations such as rural libraries. So that we put in there as as one counterbalance to taking out the 5%. We also kept in what was in the bill of adding the state librarian or designee to the advisory committee as as another addition. We also, added the language in there at the end about the advisory committee, you know, meetings to the public, getting more information, making sure that the advisory committee is listening to the public, which could include, libraries or other programs. So that's the the amendment and kind of the explanation behind it. The committee's vote to pass the bill favorably with this amendment was seven zero zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the chair of the Senate Education Committee for working with me on this amendment. And once I heard some concerns from the Appropriations Committee, specifically from the chair and also from the administration, it was I got concerned that the bill was on rocky in rocky waters and so wanted to try to figure out a way to save the bill. I really appreciated the work of the Senate Education Committee and thought they were spot on and really appreciated it but also wanted to make sure the bill moved forward so worked with the two chairs of the relevant committees to do this amendment and had a really fun time confusing the heck out of the Appropriations Committee when I went and reported it. But I just again wanted to thank the two chairs and the Education Committee and hope that everyone will support this, support our libraries. We have all have them in our towns. They are so important especially communities but really to all of our communities. So, appreciate all the work on this bill and hope that everyone will support this amendment and of course the final, bill as well. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you, mister president. I'd support this bill more fully if the word, shall was substituted for the word may. And so I'd like to inquire of the reporter of this amendment, please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Reporter of the amendment is interrogated.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you. In your new section three in subsection two, I'm just curious if we have the feelings we all seem to have about the agency. Just curious why we are allowing it saying that the agency may allocate rather than the agency shall allocate. I'd much prefer a shall here.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: Thank you Mr. President I understand that there are senators that wanted this to be shall, but we felt like requiring any money to go to a certain sector, whatever it be, without fully following the the the rules and the programs could lead up to some programs that we don't know if they're getting the full analysis. We haven't had applications from Library of Sense. We know that was mainly because of the difficulty. We knew that the agency felt uncomfortable about the shell. We wanted it, you know, kind of everybody to be on level footing. We thought with the record, with the addition of the Section E that they shall create a simple program that they're likely to get funding. But just to say that they shall do this, we didn't feel like was the best way to run a program. We think it should be a merit based application process. The best programs that are equitably distributed, there's geographic and other considerations that the AOE has for these grants. We want that to still be part of it and not kind of artificially just say there should be a shall. I understand why people feel strongly, about the libraries getting money, but I think with the changes that are being made are much likely to to get funding because of the new simpler application and the emphasis that we have put on in here in this amendment.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: And if I may follow-up, did the committee consider asking for a report back from the agency next year as to how many libraries were funded as a result of the May instead of the shall?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: We did not.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Might you consider entertaining an amendment to that effect?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: I mean I think we can get that information as public information. I remember correctly from my time on the Education Committee and on the After School Task Force that there is a report of all the programs that are funded so I think it'd be pretty easy to get that information. Don't want to I mean possibly could be something that you could you could add in your report but I think it's something that's already available. I don't want to artificially give agency more work than than is needed.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank well thank you. I would then hope given your assurance in this availability of that information, I would hopeful be very hopeful that our education committee next year would actually review that to see if we're accomplishing the goals we set forth in this bill. Thank you.

[Assistant Clerk/Parliamentarian]: Are you ready for the question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: Thanks, mister president.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: I wanted to say thank you to the committee on appropriations for adding the language around creating a simple application. It sounds as though the application was very onerous and, difficult for small organizations to, fill out and get in in a timely fashion. I share, my colleague from Windsor's concern about follow through. I'm wondering if there's a method by which the body will be able to review this application, this new form, and if there's a date. I did hear a whisper on the wind that we'll just be able to ask, but I was wondering if there is a process put forward or contemplated.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Are you asking someone a question? Oh,

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: sorry. Yes. Could I please interrogate the reporter of the appropriations The

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: reporter of the amendment is interrogated.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: Would you like me to repeat the would the senator like me to repeat the question?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: I think I understand the question, mister president. I think it might be a good point that there isn't a date that says that they shall create a simple application reporting process. I I understand that to be before the next round of applications. It doesn't specifically say that. If there was an interest to clarify that by third reading, I think that would be welcome.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: Wonderful. Thank you, mister president. Are

[Assistant Clerk/Parliamentarian]: you ready for the question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Mister Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: Just to wrap this up, hopefully. The reality is that as we began to take testimony on this, it became apparent to us that the program was effectively off limits to libraries because we all know there's little libraries all over Vermont and the testimony that we first had was actually that the application was more like twenty hours. And the and when we asked why libraries don't apply, the response was the juice isn't worth the squeeze. And we went, that's not working. And we need to make this program available. Libraries and after school programs are sort of they they go together. And we all know we can all think of small libraries in our districts where two or three thousand dollars for an after school program or a summer program would be a godsend. And to say that, you know, they're effectively off limits just to us, was not tenable. And so we encourage the we we sort of laid it out here for the agency. Come back and tell us that you'll do this application, that's simple and has a simple reporting process. And by the way, that's as important as the application because the reporting process under the current system is just as onerous as the application process. So small libraries just really have been touching this. We said, come and do this, and that didn't happen. They didn't. So we said, okay. 5%. But so I I guess that's a long partially long winded way of saying that wherever we're ending up here with a combination of being able to aggregate, through the association association or have small libraries or and others be able to be able to apply for small grants through a simple process is really what we're looking for in the first place. And we're ending we're ending up in the right place. So I really thank the sponsor of the bill, the corporations committee, and my committee all working together to come up with what I think is actually going to work well. And I have no doubt that next year's education committee is going to be on top of how the system is actually unfolding.

[Assistant Clerk/Parliamentarian]: Are you ready for the question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on education be amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the recommendation of amendment as proposed by the committee on appropriations. The question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on education as amended? 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 bill as recommended by the committee on education 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'd ordered third reading of s two thirty two. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. I've been having running conversations with several chairs, and it seems to me that now is a good time to break off our work for the morning. I hope senators will understand that for the next several days we will have longer calendars so morning committees will be affected as will any plans that you've made to meet during that time with anyone. So just a heads up and with that Mr. President I would move that pending announcements senate stand and adjournment until 1PM Wednesday 03/25/2026.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Windham. Senator from Lamoille.

[Senator Richard Westman (Lamoille)]: Transportation will meet immediately. We've had people waiting since eleven.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you. Set of economic development housing and general affairs will also meet immediately after the fall of the gavel.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: Thank you mister president. Senate health and welfare will meet at the fall of the gavel.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Government operations will meet this afternoon at 01:15.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions will meet at one.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Chittenden) – Chair, Health & Welfare]: This is senate finance will meet at one third.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Bennington)]: President, education students will meet at 01:30.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand under German until 1PM on Wednesday, 03/25/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we'll stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 03/25/2020