Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: Thank Are there any announcements? Seeing none, Thursday.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you Mr. President. I was hoping as I tried to lay out yesterday that we would finish our work on the budget with the third reading then move to the yield bill and then proceed to the top of the calendar.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: So we will start with third reading on page nine fifty one. Are there any amendments prior to your reading?

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: Senator Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Yes. The senate, well, actually, the members of the senate appropriations committee have have a technical amendment for instances that we would like the Senate to consider. I have a version that's slightly different page numbers and things, but I'll so I'm gonna wait till I get the handout, see if I can align them. But while we're doing here, the main thing that we're doing is, I think, three of the four amendments in here take language from the t bill or take language that's basically from the t bill for about how we're dealing with the pilot funds, puts it into the budget because they really deal with the the pilot funds, which is an appropriation issue about how these pilot funds are getting spent. This would be something that's in the budget and worked on with the proper committee of the of the appropriation of budget committees. So we're gonna take these sections out of the t bill or we're putting them into the budget, and that's where they will will rest and be dealt with. So that's the first instance of amendment dealing with the pilot funds. You'll hear about this, in the t bill, but basically, it takes 3,000,003 million dollars out of the pilot fund that's that's some of the surplus and puts it through the state highway program. So this has money going out to the towns. The towns have issues around making the their budgets for just basic road maintenance, let alone bigger projects like bridges. But this will take 3,000,000 and distribute along the current formula for town highway to to all the towns. That's that's the second amendment is a correction. So the second amendment doesn't have to do with that that t bill. This this is just was a cut and paste error from the list in the in the capital bill. There was one issue, the $500,000, which was o in the list for renovations of the Chittenden Regional Correction Facility was listed twice. And k, the 500,000 for the agency of human services for the Newport Northern State Correction Facility facility sprinkler system upgrades wasn't there. So we added in the sprinkler system upgrades for the new Newport correction facility, and we took out the double, line, the 500,000 for the for the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility. So the number is still equal, but but it's just making that that that correction. The third instance of amendment is adding language to the budget around the continuing care for homelessness so that this can be discussed in the budget conference committees. This deals with the in the budget, we had this full $21,100,000 had to set aside for discussions around h nine thirty eight, I think the bill number is, because that's the bill that's spending all the money that we have for homelessness and emergency shelters. Instead of having that only half half an h 38, we wanna make sure that all those discussions can happen to budget, so we need this language in here so that it could be germane and discussed in the budget conference committee. And then the fourth, which is the last, the rest of the pages here are just the remaining key bill language around the pilot fund being added to the budget. I know you haven't you haven't really talked about these parts of the T bill yet, unless you're, maybe in appropriations or the transportation committee, but we're taking those items and placing them in the budget because they're budget items. Happy to answer the question in places as president. The

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: question is, shall the senate's proposal of amendment be amended as offered by the senator from Washington and others. Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you. May I inquire of the reporter of the amendment?

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: I am looking at the third instance of amendment and related to this, the homelessness bill. I believe this is a bill that's in some health and welfare right now. Is are the amounts that are in here the same as what was proposed in or is any of this in the budget at all?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: The $21,000,001.83 on on line well, line line 18. Let me know the the first part line of this amendment is the the number that's we had in the spreadsheet. Okay. I don't remember the $61,000,000 number, but I have a strong feeling that that is the right number. Okay. That is the number that's in the budget.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Okay. And is this in the house version of the budget?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: The house version has the same totals, but has they don't I don't think this language is in the house budget because they were the the timing of the budget in h September were we're traveling different. So September spends the same dollar amount to twenty one one eighty three Okay. But different ways. Right now, the senate budget just puts that total in and just kinda leaving it up to health and welfare committee to decide how it gets done.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: I see. Okay. So the bill will come out of that committee and and rather than have potentially a conference committee on that bill it would be dealt with in the budget. Is that the intention?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: That's the intention to make sure that these items can be germane to the budget conference committees as their budget questions. We So want to make sure that that was where the discussion would would happen. It will also happen in the committee and I don't know how the conference committee of the September will go, but the budget will also have that discussion.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Okay. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Perchlik and others? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The question is, Sheldon, are there any other amendments? Senator for Madison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. I have another small amendment that you'll get to see, and it's offered by myself and the chair of government operations and the chair of appropriations committee. This is an amendment related to the salaries of state's attorneys. And so those of you who are here a few years ago may recall that we passed a provision for the salaries of sheriffs and created a three tier system for sheriffs who do not have law certification they don't have a law enforcement certification so that for sheriffs there are three levels there's level one, two, and three of law enforcement certification so if they're only at level one, if they're fully certified they get a 100% of their salary if they're at level and that would be a level three certification. If they lose level three and go down to level two or have never achieved level two then they would get a 10% knock and then a 20% knock if they're at level one and not having achieved level two or three or if they have no law enforcement certification then they would have a 30% salary reduction and that could mean that they never achieved that level they never did the training and and achieved the certification or it could mean that they've lost their law enforcement certification through the Criminal Justice Council they've they've done something that would mean they'd lost their law enforcement certification that is relevant right now in our state that is true so when when we did that two years ago we asked the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs for a recommendation on whether or not we should do the same for state's attorneys who may lose their law license or not have a law license. As you might know, these these positions are elected and there are no requirements, excuse me, for their their election in terms of their qualifications. But if you're not a law enforcement certified, it's hard for you to do the duties of a sheriff. If you don't have a law license, it's nearly impossible for you to do the duties of a state's attorneys. So they recommended Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. They recommended a similar construct. There's not levels of law licenses. You're either licensed or you're not. But their recommendation was a 30%, salary reduction if a state's attorney does not have a law license whether they never achieved one or whether they had their law license revoked. This is relevant right now in our state as well and so this amendment would just implement the recommendations of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. This went through both the Appropriations Committee and the Governor Ops Committee and that's why those two chairs signed on as well and so I'm asking the body for

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: your

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: support. Their support. Our support. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Everyone's support. Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate proposal amendment be amended as offered by senator Hardy? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the bill has been amended as offered by senator Hardy. Are there any further amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: I do have an amendment but legislative council is still finishing the perimeter so I would ask for a brief recess

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: to see where the amendment is. Please come to order. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: Thank you, mister president, and thank you to the whole senate for your patience. As I'm sure we all know, legislative council is rushing around doing a lot, and I'm told there was a formatting problem with this amendment that held it up for the past hour or so. That said, I will walk you through the amendment. Hopefully it is making it your way. Exempt salary growth as the chair of appropriations spoke to the other day, has outpaced the growth of non exempt salary growth. This is likely due to step increases being put into the base of the salary. In fiscal year twenty five, we would have spent $5,060,000 less on exempt salaries if this was not happening. There are additional costs associated with these higher salaries that we're paying out in our pension benefits if any of those exempt positions have a defined benefit pension plan. High earners are seeing, in addition, our higher earning Vermonters are seeing on average a $57,000 federal tax refund, putting nearly $60,000 extra dollars in their pockets. While we are struggling to balance a budget that makes sure our most vulnerable Vermonters are fed, housed and have health care, it seems reasonable to ask our higher earning exempt state workers to not take that raise in this year. These high earners would be getting an additional increase of 5.9% in fiscal year one of the Pay Act and 4.9% in fiscal year two. By freezing these salaries, we ask these higher earners to give a little bit to our state to as we grapple with a tight budget and to help those who are less fortunate than them. In doing so, we free up nearly $4,500,000 in fiscal year one and a little over $4,000,000 in fiscal year two. If you think we're overspending, this amendment is for you. It will mean we spend less. The amendments does spend a small portion of that savings, about 450,000 to provide the ethics commission with the staff that they have asked for and the Human Rights Commission with the staff that they have asked for to do their jobs. These two positions are these two entities are critical to government transparency and to protecting the rights of Vermonters. In a year when we are seeing wealthier Vermonters get a windfall from the federal government, it seems perfectly reasonable that we ask that they get a little bit less. Again, this does not take anything away from what they get now. It simply does not move forward the raise that is proposed. And I would agree that we need to continue to look at how we solve the disproportionate growth. Our exempt workers over the past decade have had almost 43 wage growth, whereas our non exempt bargaining staff have had just a little over 30% wage growth. So there's discrepancy. And I think this is one step in solving that and putting forward savings to our budget in a year when we are saying that we can't fully fund feeding elders and people with disabilities and we can't fully fund the basic needs of Vermonters. So I will say that I have I brought the concept forward to the chair of appropriations but I was not able to bring the bill as you are just getting a presentation of it for the first time because I did not have it so I thank the Senate again for their patience and I hope you will consider cutting the spending in our budget.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you Mr. President. Mr. Senator from Chittenden Central did, tell me about this, which I appreciate, but we didn't have time for the committee. So I'd ask the committee to look at us. I'd ask for a short recess. We'll take

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: appropriations to be met on straw polls with seven zero against this amendment. I just would point out to the body that we did have some discussions along the theme in the appropriations committee, and that's why if you look at your agenda on page 78 e one zero eight, there is a study that kinda tries to look at how we could structure the formula difference so we don't have this discrepancy in in increases to higher higher salaried exempt employees. So with that, the appropriations committee asks for you to vote no on this.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: Thank you, mister president. I'll vote no on this amendment. I wish that that we would have taken a look at the nonprofits. We have 6,400 nonprofits in state. And I was just looking at the salaries on some of them, somewhere around like $2,200,000,400,000, 300,000 and on and on it goes. They, those, that type of pay seems to be really non checked. I realize it's kind of a political football to look at the nonprofits and look at the salaries and stuff like that. But I think our state employees work really, really hard, all of them. And and I and I wanna pay them fairly, especially when we look at what the nonprofits in this state works. I didn't find one of the top 10 of the nonprofits, anywhere within, I didn't see the governor's salary anywhere within 50% of what these nonprofits are getting. So again, I wish we would just we're looking for more revenue. Let's look at some of these nonprofits. I realize it's political football, but I think what we should have looked there. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate senate's proposal of amendment be amended as offered by senator Vyhovsky? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. The nays appear to have it. The nays do have it, and the amendment fails. Are there any further amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: H nine fifty one, an act relating to making appropriations for the support of the government.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. I just want to thank the senator from Orleans for pointing out the mathematical error that we had between the web report and the highlight sheet. We did the highlight sheet was the correct number. People were just ecstatic that somebody actually was looking at all the numbers. They said it was just put in there on purpose. But we I do have a if you want to have your web report have an accurate last page that matches the highlight sheet, I could make you a copy, but we do have that accurate. And then it was just an error of an update. And the online version is the is the correct version, but thanks to senator for our means for paying attention. Here.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Franklin District)]: Yesterday, the, senator from Chittenden Central, asked a question and ironically as, we saw the director of state's attorney and sheriffs walk through the hall where we we both merged on him at the same time. So at that particular point in time, he was concerned about the vacancy savings as far as he had mentioned that they matched our Hennepinny Hennepinny RIF notices and they were already in process of hiring individuals that have to start considering out on July 1 and then quite possibly putting that into effect on August 1. Since then, I rather than to I could give you a walk through 01/2001 on vacancy savings, but I'm sure you don't wanna hear that. But since then, I've had the opportunity to receive advice from certain members, along with meeting with, the Commissioner's Department of Finance and Management, and once again meeting with, the director of the State of Sheriffs again this morning. And he is, at present good with it. He said there is a contingency plan in place. They too have met and talked with the Commissioner Department of Finance and they're well aware now of avenues that are available for them to the Pay Act along with even going through the the Budget Adjustment Act some five or six months down the road here. So right now they're continuing their hiring. There's gonna be no rifts, no layoffs, and there is a plan in place.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: No. No.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we have passed h nine fifty one. I believe we are moving to h nine forty nine. We have on the calendar for action, h nine forty nine, which passed the house 04/21/2026. It was referred to the committee on finance, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate propose to the house that the bill be amended Yeah. As it appears in today's calendar, and that with such proposal amendment, it ought to pass. Affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on finance. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: H nine forty nine, an act relating to homestead property tax yields, the non homestead property tax rate, and technical changes to education finance.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. There are two things in the financial realm we have to do every year. One is connect our tax code with the federal tax code because you've heard about above and below the line. That's where everything flows from. The other thing we need to do is establish the yield, which is a polite way of saying the property tax rate. And I believe the joint fiscal office sent everybody an email earlier in the year, failure to either pass a budget or a yield has some dire consequences. You the yield is really very simple. We take the voted budgets, the expenditures, we take the revenues in the Ed fund, we subtract them from the expenditures, and what's left is the amount we need to raise on the property tax. And we used to set the property tax rate to raise that amount of money, but we got tired at one point of everybody yelling at us for increasing their property taxes. So instead, we set the yield. And the yield is the amount of money that a penny on the tax rate will raise. So you just figure out how many pennies you need to raise your tax rate by the amount of money you need to raise. This year, the yield is set at $9,395 income dollar. That's for the property dollar equivalent. The income dollar equivalent is 12,942 and the non homestead property tax rate is at 1.648 for fiscal year '27. Some years, we have just attached that yield to the miscellaneous tax bill. Sometimes it's gone on the budget. It's couple lines. Last year, I believe the bulk of back 73 came over attached to the yield bill. This year, it's a little more comp not as complicated as last year, but a little more complicated. The house added a few things, and the senate changed a few things that they added. I think it's been agreed upon as last year, there was a $125,000,000 in one time funding that had been set aside for use. At that point, HR one hadn't been passed. We didn't know there was gonna be a shutdown, but there was a lot of talk federally about impacts on food stamps and Medicaid. And so we've had that money, and we set it aside for usage. And we did the emergency board did use, I believe, about 25,000,000 of that for when the snap payments got delayed. But there is a 100,900,000 there, and it has been agreed upon that that money will be used to buy down property tax rates. This is the third or fourth year we have put close to a $100,000,000 in to buy down rates. But there is concern. We keep buying down rates, which means we're artificially lowering that. Next year, we're pretty sure we're not gonna have a $100,000,000. We just did the budget. Things are tight, and the odds are things will be tighter next year than they are this year. And so there will be a cliff. There will be a cliff either when we don't have the money to buy those rates down or when the foundation formula goes into effect, there will be a cliff. So in order to kind of slope that cliff, the House voted to their bill came over using 50% of that 100,000,000 this year and 50% next year. That would have led to an average property tax rate of somewhere increase of average 7%, which means some people would have been in double digits. The senate decided not to do that. The voting committee was seven zero zero, which the chair was surprised, but pleased with, we decided that we would use a 100% of that money. That would have gotten us down to a property tax average increase of 3.6%. And section one of the bill sets the yield. We use the 100%. We set the yield. Sections two and two a, we set the yield, but we are concerned about going forward and about school spending and property tax increases. And so what we've done is we've added in here s two twenty, which was the excess spending threshold moving it down to a 112% that this body passed two months ago early in the session. But we wanted to make sure that got in. The house is still working on it. We wanted to make sure they knew we are serious. We can't keep buying down these rates, and we have to get spending down. Let's see. And so we added that, and we used a 100%. And okay. The next two are three pro form a section four. We gave a $150,576 for the education fund to the city of Barrie to compensate for an overpayment to the ed fund from their TIFF District. We increased and these were in both bills. The it's an inflationary grant to the special education census grant that was for 02/2350 for fiscal year. And then section six through nine, when we were setting the rates, it was mentioned, we're doing all of this. We've been doing all of this to buy down property taxes for property owners. But what about renters? We have a renters rebate based on average rent, but we haven't done anything for renters. And so six and seven and it gets pretty technical. But six and seven makes an adjustment to give an equivalent rebate to renters for one year only. So and the impact of that is to raise the average property tax rate increase from 3.6 to 3.8%. So the committee felt that that was an acceptable deviation because we are helping more people. Everyone is struggling. Rents are going up. And I believe that is the bill. Oh, and there is an amendment in your calendar, if I may speak to the amendment. It adjusts the effective dates. So it is a technical correction, mister Perchlik, and if I may address that in the bit. And the vote was seven zero zero, and we ask this body to concur.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: I now recognize the senator from Chittenden District for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you Mr. President. We did have a general discussion about the yield bill as has just been described to you. Most of what we concentrated on was obviously the buy down because that is moving a large sum of money into the Ed Fund for the purpose of buying that rate down and in general we went along with the language that came out of finance and our committee vote was seven zero zero. Thank you, sir.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator from Washington, this would be the appropriate time to report on the amendment that is in the calendar.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Which let's see. Make sure I get the right bill. I keep getting these mixed up. Seven fifteen and seven twenty. Seven fifteen is our amendments to the yield bill. Seven twenty is on page seven twenty is the adjustment to the effective dates to reflect the renter's credit and make it's a technical correction.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, senator. The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on finance be further amended as recommended by senator Cummings. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and we've amended the bill. Now the question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on finance? Are you ready for the questions? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: Thank you, mister president. I wanna thank the committee for their hard work. It didn't make sense to me why the house didn't include all the dollars that you did to buy down the rate when Vermonters are really struggling. I'm hoping that I can imagine there might be a committee of conference and I hope that the Senate will hold hang tough in the areas that I'm in three or 4%, 1% makes a difference to a lot of my budgets of the people that I deal with. And again, I really appreciate what you've done. It's significant, again, in my area, it's a significant, decrease as far as to what the house, sends over and I my wishes that you hang cuff in conference. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanted to give a shout out to the section of the bill about renters. This was something that I worked on, and I was really happy that it got into the bill. If we're buying down the property tax rate for people who own their property, I thought it was very important that we also give the same kind of benefits to people who rent. And so this is just a one year buy down of or increase of the renter credit, but it is sort of equivalent to what we're doing for property tax property owners and really, really helps low income renters in all of our districts be able to stay in their homes and get the same benefits with this buy down that property owners get. So I appreciate the finance committee working with me and getting this into the bill so that I could support the whole package. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. I also wanna thank the committee, and I'd like to thank them for making this a two part bill base, three part with the renters credit. But what I'm thinking about is the buy down and the addition of the language from s two twenty into this bill. I think that was a very necessary addition. We've been to this well before where we're buying property tax rates down and we're doing so at the urging of our constituents. I take us back to last election, it was not ambiguous. People are suffering from their property taxes and they wanted relief. The house as has been reported the other body has put forward a proposal that I think is inadequate and the language of 02/20 I believe is still basically on their wall. They have not acted on that. So putting it into the yield bill makes absolutely certain that the conference will be taking up both short term spending and the buy down of the rates. So I can in good conscience vote to put another 120 or so million dollars into buying the rate down because we've reduced the excess spending penalty in this bill from 118% to 112 and that will give us a head start on next year. So with that said, again, my thanks to the committee, and I am an enthusiastic yes on this bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on finance? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on finance. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time?

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: Roll call.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? If so, secretary shall call the roll. Yes.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: Senator Hashim. Yes. Senator Heffernan. Yay. Senator Ingalls.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Yes.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Senator Lyons. Yes.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Major. Yes. Senator Mattos. Yes. Senator Morley. Yes.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Senator North. Yes. Senator Perschlik. Yes.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Senator Hinsdale. Yes. Senator Bahoski. No.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Senator Watson. No.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Senator Weeks. Yes. Senator Westman.

[Senator Richard Westman]: Yes.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Senator White? Yes.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Senator Williams?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Those voting yes, 28. Those voting no, two. The ayes have it, and you've voted third reading of h nine forty nine. I believe we are now going to h nine thirty three. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: I was hoping we might go to the top of the calendar, mister.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: We will go to the top of the calendar, which brings us to h nine forty for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: H nine forty, an act relating to miscellaneous public utility subjects.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence? 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 h nine forty in concurrence. We have on the calendar for action, h 46, which was passed by the house on 04/22/2026. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposed to the house that the bill be amended as it appears in today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on health and welfare. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: H 46, an act relating to the Rare Disease Advisory Council.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Recognize the senator from Orleans District for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: Thank you, mister president. Act 46, rare diseases impact on average one in ten Americans. So approximately sixty four thousand are Vermonters. The law department of health currently produces data. What it can't do is translate that information into coordinated policy action. The Rare Disease Advisory Council or I call it RDAG, which is created by this legislation will look to identify gaps elevating the patient's voice and giving lawmakers a trusted expert body. Currently there are gaps in Vermont's rare disease care. There's a lack of provider awareness. Parents are forced to advocate for basic care. There's no centralized expertise. The care is fragmented. Inconsistent surveillance. Emotional emotional and administrative burden on families. No mechanism for lived experience input whatsoever currently. Mister president, may I read some brief testimony from an individual that testified before

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: our committee?

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: You may. I became a medical professional because of what this system did to my daughter. In her journey, I saw firsthand how the system fails when it's confronted with the rare or the complex. I saw the silence that happens when doctors don't have the answers. I saw a mother myself being ignored while my children suffered. I decided then that I would never let that happen to another child if I could help. I am training to be the voice that I know another child in Vermont will need when they are facing a terrifying diagnosis. But as much as I can do as one nurse or one assistant, I cannot fix a broken system alone. That is why we need h forty six. My fight isn't just in the past. It is my everyday reality. Two of my children live with Beckwith Weidmann syndrome or BWS. Our lives are dictated by the scan. Every three months, we are in a clinic for ultrasounds, chest x rays, urine cultures, blood work to check for tumors. As someone who is studying for the nursing field, I understand the clinical high stakes of the BWS, but as a mother, I see the gaps in Vermont's care. We are often the ones teaching the providers about the protocols. We are the ones coordinating between specialists who don't talk to each other. Age 46 is the bridge between a parent's intuition and a child's survival. A rare disease advisory council ensures that the lived experience of families like mine is finally used to build a better road map

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

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: Now going through the section by section of the bill, there's two findings. Lack of awareness contributes to common harmful obstacles, and it's also on page 11, sixteen sixty three in your calendar today. Also, number two, with support of the National Organization for Rare Disorders, various patient organizations, stakeholders, rare disease community, rare disease advisory councils are enabling states to strategically identify and address barriers. Section two is new.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: It

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: adds chapter 19, the rare disease rare disease advisory council. There was quite a bit of discussion on this. The has created the the Rare Disease Advisory Council within the Department of Health to provide guidance and recommendations to the public, general assembly, and other government agencies and departments as necessary regarding the needs of individuals living with rare diseases in Vermont. And b, the membership and the way it came over to us or there was discussion within the bill, dealt with a lot of them were the committee on committees and the senate would make appointments and the speaker of the house would make appointments and there's a lot of changes here. We we want to refer to the experts in these fields, and you're gonna see a lot of department of health, individuals, commissioners, and such. They shall be composed of two individuals living with a rare disease. At least the one is an of an older Vermonter appointed by commissioner of health, a parent or guardian of a person living with a rare disease, appointed by the commissioner of health, commissioner of health or designee, commissioner Dale or designee, a representative of the health equity advisory commission, had to look that one up. Didn't know exactly what it was, but I do now. An academic researcher who conducts the rare disease research appointed by the commissioner of health, physician practicing in Vermont with experience treating a rare disease by appointed by Vermont Medical Society, Nurse practicing in Vermont with experience treating rare diseases appointed by the Vermont chapter of the American Nurses Association. Pharmacist, which is important, practicing in Vermont appointed by the Vermont Pharmacist Association. A geneticist or genetic counselor appointed by the commissioner of health, and any other persons deemed necessary by the commissioner of health.

[Senator John Benson (Orange District)]: So the

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: the Department of Health is taking a pretty strong role in this advisory council. And then it goes through and talks about the members of advisory council shall be appointed for staggered five year terms. Three, the advisory council may collaborate with any other relevant stakeholders it deems appropriate, including the National Organization for Rare Disorders. So I I envision them not just working in the state of Vermont but nationally with national organizations. Powers and duties, advisory council may conduct the following activities for the benefit of individuals impacted by rare diseases in Vermont. They may convene public hearings.

[Senator John Benson (Orange District)]: Two, they

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: can provide testimony comments on pending legislation and rules impact from most rare disease communities before this body in the house, general assembly and other state agencies. Three, in consultation of experts or rare diseases develop and provide policy recommendations that identify conditions for the Department of Health to consider as part of appropriate screening guidance and recommendations. They can support timely patient access to diagnostic services and treatment enhanced quality of services provided by rare disease specialists. Subsection four, any other activities identified by a major majority of the advisory council. Then there's assistance in Department of Health is going to help some. They're not gonna be doing the whole thing. Department of Health shall maintain a web page on its website that contains notices of upcoming meetings, meeting minutes, public comments, and reports. Reports as needed, the advisory council may submit any recommendations for legislative action to the House Committee on Healthcare and on Human Services to the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare. The meetings, the Commissioner of Health shall call the first meeting of the advisory council. The advisory council shall elect a member to serve as the chair. There's gonna be quarterly meetings held in person or remotely. Electronic platform records would model the meeting law. Majority of membership shall be a quorum compensation. I think this is where you'll have someone from a corporation discussing the per diem. And then section three so section two is all about setting up the advice council base. Section three is long COVID resources for primary care providers and patients. The Department of shall collaborate with the University of Vermont Medical Center, Vermont Medical Society, and patients with lived experience of long COVID. We received some testimony from individuals with long COVID which I knew nothing about and it's pretty scary to say the least on what can happen to those individuals and what is happening to those individuals here in the state of Vermont. They can identify existing evidence, informed standards, best practices and training for primary care providers regarding long COVID and distribute these resources through the department's website and to primary care providers. So there's been a disconnect that's been going on with this too with long COVID and and I think this will help straighten things out. In collaborate number two, in collaboration with the department of with Dale, identify support services or other resources for long COVID that include a range of peer community based programs such as long COVID support groups. And we heard that from some testifiers that that was really important and critical because you kind of get stuck to your home and you kind of lose sight of interaction with other folks and so it was really impactful to those individuals. Such long COVID support groups at the University of Vermont Medical Center, the Vermont Center for Independent Living or another and strategies to support patients who are homebound or at risk of becoming homebound. B, on or before 02/01/2027 the Department of Health in collaboration with the Department of Disabilities and Independent Living shall present recommendations to the House Committee on Human Services and the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare providing long term disability supports to individuals experiencing long COVID. And the effective date is this act shall take effect on 07/01/2026. And some of the individuals that we heard testimony from, we had two that had experiences with, lived experiences with, rare diseases. We also had, four individuals from the Department of Health give testimony. We had the National Organization for Rare Diseases give testimony. We had the pediatric cancer advocate give testimony on that. And with that, mister president, the, voting committee was five zero. I didn't get it wrong this time. I didn't give you the house vote. Thank you. We we hope

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: the senate concludes. Good work, senator. I recognize the senator from Chittenden District, Center Alliance for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden District)]: Thank you, mister president. Appropriations reviewed the, possible expenditures in the bill and found that they have a de minimis effect both for the per diems and also for the work through the Department of Health that we they will be accomplishing through their current budget. So the committee voted seven zero zero in support of the proposal. Thank you, mister Patrick.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Senator from Chittenden Central.

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

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: I have a couple questions just about definitions. I'm wondering if there's a statutory definition somewhere that I don't see that defines what a rare disease is.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: Mister president be quite honest with you I really struggled with that definition as well I I talked to my chair about it I went and I looked up all kinds of definitions got AI involved in it even. And there is a definition, but to be quite honest, I I truly didn't like the definition, but there is a definition in there, that people have in a lot of different

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: areas, mister president.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: But no.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: The president don't remember what that definition is?

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: I do not. I I will have to get back to the number on 13.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: That's fine. My other question is if there's a definition somewhere of an older Vermonter. Older than who?

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orleans District)]: Older than me. I would say anyone over 18 or 20 I am would be considered an older Vermonter.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: So not someone under the age of majority is what the Correct. Definition

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: That's right. That's correct. Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: I thank the reporter, and I thank the committee for its work on this bill as someone who lives with what was previously thought to be a rare disease. But as we learn more and more due to work like this, learned it's actually not so rare, though I do still have to go to Boston for treatment. I so appreciate that this is an area where we don't do enough work. We don't acknowledge the real harm of not knowing what's going on and being forced to travel long distance to seek medical care and in the worst case scenarios not being believed that anything is wrong at all and so I want to express my deep gratitude to the committee for moving forward with this bill and I will wait for the definition from the reporter on through greeting.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the Senate propose to the House to amend the bill as recommended by the Committee on Health and Welfare. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. You've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed 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. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h 46. We have on the calendar for action h five eighty two. It was passed by the house on 03/11/2026. It was referred to the committee on health and welfare, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate propose to the house that the bill be amended as it appears in today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: H five eighty two, an act relating to adult protective services.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: I recognize the senator from Orange District, senator Benson, for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator John Benson (Orange District)]: May I present the bill with the amendment?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: You may.

[Senator John Benson (Orange District)]: Thank you. So this bill, h five eighty two, an act related to adult protective services, basically, increases the protections for vulnerable adults. It actually does kind of two things. It it provides a mechanism for reporting, abuse of vulnerable adults, but it also provides some protection for somebody who may be accused of mistreating a vulnerable adult and a process for that individual to express and and their grievance and actually have that waived. So with that, I will present the sections of the bill. Section one is definitions and it provides definitions such as what is neglect, what is a fiduciary, and if you look at page sixteen sixty seven of today's calendar, that's where you will see the amendment that the Health and Welfare Committee proposed to what came over from the House, and that is to deal with a fiduciary. And the health and welfare committee felt that the brave or a advanced directive was not actually a definition of a fiduciary and should be struck out of the definition. So that is the only change that the health and welfare committee made through the bill as it came over from the house. Section two, is a section that talks about the nature and content of report and to whom it should be made. So this section basically defines where if if you believe that a vulnerable adult is being mistreated, where that complaint would be filed. So by example, if the individual is in a licensed facility or being treated by a licensed individual, then that complaint would go to the licensed board that has jurisdiction over that facility or over that individual providing the treatment. And then it it talks about how it would if a licensed entity receives the report of allegation, neglect, or of a vulnerable adult under the new process, this licensee entity would notify Dale's Audit Protection Services program that has received the report and is acting upon its accordingly. If the licensing entity defines neglect alleging, or within a state license facility or program or by a state licensed individual, licensing entity would also report it to the adult protective services program. And then in section three is where it has the, protection for the individual who the allegation may be made against, where that individual has some recourse through the Human Services Board, and essentially, if in fact that individuals, know, that's their their income, And if they were accused, they would lose their their ability to earn an income that they will be heard within a short period of time so that the issue could be resolved. And then section four is the effective date, which is 10/01/2026.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: The

[Senator John Benson (Orange District)]: health and welfare committee heard from the office office of legislative council, department of disabilities, aging, and independent living, the Vermont Healthcare Association, and the Vermont Medical Society. The bill was voted out of committee five zero zero, and we'd ask for the Senate's support.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Franklin District)]: May I interrogate the senate of the bill, please?

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

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Franklin District)]: Thank you, senator, for your presentation on this bill. I just have one quick question and maybe

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: I missed it. I don't know.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Franklin District)]: The the vulnerable adult, that's something that's already in statute, the definition, because I don't see it in the bill here.

[Senator John Benson (Orange District)]: That is. Mister president, the answer is yes. That is in statute, and this amends existing statute.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Franklin District)]: I thank the presenter. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: May I inquire of the presenter of the

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: Hopefully, is a fairly easy question, but October 1 is a fairly unusual effective date. I'm wondering if there is a reason for that effective date.

[Senator John Benson (Orange District)]: I do not recall that there was a specific discussion about that date other than, that was what was requested.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: I don't think it's presented. Are

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on health and welfare? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. And you have proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the Committee on Health and Welfare. Question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h five eighty two. We now have on the calendar for action h seven seventy eight, which was passed by the house on 04/22/2026, which referred to the committee on natural resources and energy, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposed to the house that the bill be amended as it appears in today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: H seven seventy eight, an act relating to dam safety.

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

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president. Those who prefer to follow along, it's you can be found on page sixteen sixty seven in the calendar. This bill does three things. It clarifies emergency authority so the governor and emergency management can order evacuations in the event of a dam failure even if local officials have not acted. It launches a pilot program to build real actionable emergency operation plans for high hazard dams, and it provides funding to get that work done and requires a report back to the legislature with a statewide path forward. This is a public safety bill. It closes ambiguity, strengthens preparedness, and ensures we're not reacting to a disaster we're planning for. Section one, emergency authority clarifies that municipal authority does not limit the governor or the emergency management direct, the director of emergency management. It allows immediate evacuation orders when there is a dam failure or imminent risk. Section two, emergency operation planning pilot project that requires the development of emergency operation planning for two high hazard dams in the state. It includes evacuation planning, coordination, and communication system. Requires report back to the legislature by 07/01/2028. Section three appropriations requires $250,000 in emergency management and 12 125,000 to the Department of Environmental Conservation. Section four, the effective date, is effective upon passage. Bill Franklin's emergency authority, preparedness for dam safety, and the Senate Natural Resources Energy Committee will just bill out five zero zero and recommend passage. We received testimony from the reporter, one of one of the sponsors, executive director of the Foundation for Resilient Montpelier, the director of the Vermont Emergency Management, Department of Public Safety, the Dam Safety Program Manager, chief of Rescue Inc, the administrator of the Department of Environmental Conservation Dam Safety Program, and our legislative council. Thank you, miss Bergman.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Senator, that was the best damn report I've heard all day. I recognize the senator from Washington for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, mister president. The senate appropriations committee did take a look at this bill and does have a couple of appropriations in it. 250,000 for emergency management as well as 125 for DC and both of those appropriations are included in the budget and so thought it was appropriate to let it continue on. So this passed out of appropriations on a vote of seven zero zero. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: May I inquire the presenter of the bill?

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Mister president, where are these two damn dams?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District)]: Thank you, mister president, for the question. I believe one of them is a right Wrightsville Dam, and the other one is the Waterbury. But there are more than 800 dams in the state of Vermont, and a lot of them are had been allowed to be to get in disrepair. So and we have a small team with the DC that is working to get this get all of them under control.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: I think we're sending this.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on natural resources and energy? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. 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. You've ordered third reading of h seven seventy eight. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. At this time, I would move that the senate suspend its rules in order to message the actions taken on h nine fifty one, appropriations in support of government, to the house forthwith.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: The senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to message our actions on h nine fifty one to the house forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Confusion, mister president. Have we left the orders of the day?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: No. We have not left the orders of the day, but I assume that you wanted to not carry on in the orders of the day.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Absolutely, thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: That completes the orders today. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thanks to the body as well. That is good work to move the budget along. It is called the last train for a reason. That train, as we all know, may idle for a little while this time around because conditions that you're all familiar with it is connected to our work on the education bill. With that said Mr. President I would move that pending announcements the Senate stand in adjournment until 11AM Thursday, 04/30/2026.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will meet at 01:15, but I'm going to ask them to show up at one and anyone that might have amendments to either the yield or the miscellaneous tax to bring them to us at that time. So we'll have at least a few minutes to know what's out there.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Senator appropriations will meet at 01:00.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: Thank you, mister president. Government operations will meet at 01:30.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington District)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate institutions will meet at 01:45.

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

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington District)]: Mister president, the education committee will meet at 01:45, and I ask people to be there a few minutes early so that we can actually start at 01:45. Are

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex District)]: Mister president, there seems to be some confusion as far as some of the folks that are trying to sign up, to run-in or even the people that are are running for reelection as far as their finance campaign statements. And it seems to be a little bit of a battle between secretary of state's office and the ethics committee. And I know that the answer will be too well, if you want that to be resolved, we'll just hire the position. Well, we were able to get by that for a lot for two hundred years before that is. I would hope that secretary of state's office and the ethics panel can figure out what the delay would be. It's causing consternation. I'm sure with every anybody who wants to, be an elected official or at least sign up to be one. So I'm hoping that they can get through that problem fairly quickly. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central District)]: I would just like to let anyone who's having those difficulties know that I am in conversation with both the ethics commission and the secretary of state's office, if people need that form, I'd be happy to help get it to them as soon as I have the correct one.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Presiding Officer)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central is moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 11AM, Thursday, 04/30/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 11AM, Thursday, 04/30/2026.