Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Right. 80% of these sites. Right.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Will the senate please come to order? We'll observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Seeing none. We have h seven seventy two being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31. It is referred to the committee on appropriations. Good morning. Orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you very much, mister president. Apparently, yesterday, in my efforts to clear up confusion, I created greater confusion about the path for the Ed bill, h nine fifty five. What I meant to say clearly yesterday and failed was that we will pass over that today. We will most likely pass over that tomorrow and bring it up Tuesday. With that said, President, I would move that we complete our third readings and then move to not the top of the calendar, but to H902 after that. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We have h five fifty for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five fifty an act relating to gender equity within Vermont's correctional facilities.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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've passed h five fifty in concurrence. We have h eight forty one for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H eight forty one, an act relating to miscellaneous animal welfare procedures.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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. The ayes have it, and we have passed h eight forty one in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h nine thirty two for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine thirty two, an act relating to the regulation of forestry under act two fifty.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the questions, senator from Addison?

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I had some questions both on and off the floor regarding this bill and I wanted to just provide a little more clarity if that's okay. So there were some questions about my report and I just want to clarify some things. The report that we got back recommended the provisions in the bill, the report I mentioned yesterday, and basically is to the report wanted to make sure that forestry had the same exemption language and statute as farming. Farming like logging and forestry is not subject to Act two fifty jurisdiction below elevation of 2,500 feet and these amendments extend benefits already available to farming to logging and forestry and puts into statute existing practice related to existing exemptions for logging and forestry and clarifies that forestry which is exempt from act two fifty below 2,500 feet does not include the conversion of land to a use that would not be exempt from act two fifty. And this is a question I got from the senator from Washington. For example harvesting timber is exempt but cutting down trees solely for the purpose of preparing a site for commercial construction is not exempt. So it's just the practice of forestry itself And when a parcel does not have an Act two fifty. The other section is for when a parcel does not have an Act two fifty permit. That parcel is devoted to logging or forestry and a portion of the parcel is proposed to be used for activity that would require an Act two fifty permit, the Act two fifty jurisdiction is limited to the area for the nonexempt activity. Nor shall The rest of the parcel remains exempt. So the non exempt activity would be subject to I-two 50, the rest would be exempt. The permit shall not impose conditions on the rest of the parcel nor conflict with striking the log and pulp concentration yards is reverting back to the previous law that were considered part of logging enforced. So this is striking them from a list of things that is not exempt so that to make them exempt again. Just going back to prior law and adding language that is nearly identical that already exists for farming and that is existing in practice so just making it consistent with farming so hopefully that clarifies my report from yesterday. The second thing I wanted to address is where did the 2,500 feet come from? So our amazing legislative counsel did a bunch of research. She went back and read read the original Act two fifty law and a lot of the documents related to it, and she reached out to a number of people at the Land Use Review Board to get some information and 2,500 feet is considered to be part of unique or fragile areas and there's a document which I can provide to any of you who are interested in that provides scientific justification for 2,500 foot threshold which describes the environment as fragile and includes mention of climate differences, greater rainfall, lower average temperatures, thinner soils which are easily compacted, larger proportion of steep slopes, susceptibility to erosion, and the challenge of establishing vegetative cover if disturbed in the higher elevation conditions, in addition to mention of rare plants and strong bird habitat. There's a lot more information about it. Ultimately there was no surprise to anyone in this chamber a debate about whether it should be 2,500 feet or 2,000 feet. There were a lot of people who thought 2,000 feet was better because these fragile habitats exist above 2,000 feet. I mean, ultimately, the political and scientific challenges, there was a compromise at 2,500 feet in 1970 and it was a really interesting so I have a lot of information about this debate if anybody wants it I'm happy to forward you the long email that I got about it but needless to say there were scientific and political reasons that in 1970 in the original Act two fifty they they, came to the 2,500 feet as anything above that was not exempt. Thank you Mr. President.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and we passed h nine thirty two in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have h nine thirty seven for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. I have a short amendment that is being handed out now. I contemplated providing this yesterday on second reading, but needed some more time to follow-up with folks just to make sure I knew what I was talking about. So senators may remember, last year we passed a comprehensive ceiling and expungement bill, although it was not quite as comprehensive because there were, there were there was some language that we unintentionally overlooked in which we needed to replace, what became outdated language. So the amendment that is, being handed out right now it replaces the word expungement with the word ceiling, entitled 13 b s a seven five five one. This is a section of law related to limitations on bail for certain misdemeanors under certain conditions. This has been current law for about eight years, and while this amendment is a technical change, it will provide much needed clarification for courts throughout the state. So currently when courts and practitioners are trying to interpret this outdated language, it tends to cause confusion and also different interpretations and different applications of the law in different jurisdictions. The amendment is intended to update the language that should have been included in our sealing and expungement bill, and the purpose is, again, to reduce confusion across the state and, reduce the different applications of the law. The straw poll in committee was five zero zero, and I asked for the senate support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment be amended as offered by the senator from Windham? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Where am I? The question now is

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: That is the question. Are there any further amendments? Listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine thirty seven, an act relating to miscellaneous judiciary procedures.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate proposal of amendment no. No question. 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. The ayes have it and we have passed h nine thirty seven in concurrence with proposal of amendment. We now have nine thirty eight for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Page nine thirty eight, an act relating to establishing the Vermont homelessness response continuum.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we've passed h nine thirty eight in concurrence with proposal of amendment.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Yep.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will be passing over h nine fifty five. And that brings us to h nine zero two, which was introduced on 02/17/2026. It was referred to the committee on government operations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine zero two, an act relating to approval of amendments to the charter of the city of Barrie.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Rutland, senator Caledonia, for the report of the committee on government operations.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. There are three sections to this bill. Section one is boilerplate language that approves the proposed amendments to the city of Barrie's charter. Also indicates the date of voter approval, 05/13/2025. Section two is the lead of the bill, and it contains two substantive changes to the city's charter, both occurring in title 24. First, section three thirteen is amended so that after the city council authorizes the sale or lease of property, that transfer may be executed by not only the mayor, but now also by the city manager or an authorized city councilor. The vote on that section was 522 in favor and 293 against. The second change to the charter has to do with the payment of taxes in Subdivision B in section six zero one. It's amended that if approved by the city council, the city may retain any unexpended budget funds as an undesignated fund balance for future use, but only in an amount up to 10 percent of the last budget. Any amount remaining in excess of that 10% must be used in the subsequent budget to reduce the tax rate. The vote on that was even more indicative of a positive vote. 618 voted in favor, a 174 voted against. And section three sets the bill to take effect on passage. The committee heard from the amendment sponsor, legislative council, and I guess I have to say now former city manager of Perry City. I understand he's accepted a position to the north of Perry. Committee vote was five zero zero. We asked the senate to concur.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: If I might ask a question of the presenter, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The presenter's interrogated.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I'm looking at page two, and my question is about the phrasing. It says any funds retained pursuant to this provision shall be limited to an amount not greater than now 10% of the city and here's my question general fund budget expenses, and I'm wondering if the senator can explain budget expenses.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I will attempt to do that. The current cap is 5%, and the proposed change would double that cap to allow the city council to vote to retain up to 10% of the city's general fund budget. The impetus of the charter change was the aftermath, as you might imagine, of the two thousand twenty three flood. Going into the recovery from that flood, the city of Barrie had retained the full 5% of the available or allowable fund balance, which equated to about $600,000, and they had built up the fund balance like many other communities across the state from vacancy savings from positions that they were struggling to fill. So it was not a fund balance that they wanted or desired. They would much rather prefer to have had those positions filled, but because of the delay with FEMA on occasion, it allowed the city to immediately affect repairs that were caused by the two thousand twenty three flood.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: And that's helpful in another way I guess to try to explain the question a little better if the word on line three expenses were not there if it just said the city's general fund budget I would understand it immediately. I'm wondering is the general fund one thing the general fund budget one thing and then general fund budget expenses another thing? I don't understand, I suppose, mister president, what the word expenses is doing there.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I would like to consult with, our legal counsel, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We'll take a brief recess. Will senate please come to order? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. And I, again, wanna thank the president pro tem for an excellent question and also thank the senior senator from Addison for, part of the answer, but we are gonna have more of that on third reading. In any budget, there is a revenue and an expense side to things, and we believe, and we will have, again, a more clarifying answer on third reading whether the budget expenses are what we're talking about, that the city has already voted to spend this amount of money, and at the end of that year, there's money left over. So, I appreciate the questions, and we'll have clarification on third reading.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question 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. Ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h nine zero two. We have on the calendar for action h five twenty seven, which was passed by the house on 05/19/2026. 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 as it appears starting on page thirty eight sixty five of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H five twenty seven, an act relating to extending the sunset of 30 VSA section two forty eight a.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Chittenden, the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. I remember fondly the previous senator from Grand Isle who always said nothing ever sunsets around here. That's proven true. This, bill, the thrust of what it's gonna do is extend the sunset for the seventh time. But I'm going to talk a little bit about how we got to that place and why it's still useful to continue to extend the sunset. H five twenty seven is an act relating to extending the sunset, also in legislative council parlance, a prospective repeal, as they like to refer to it as, of 30 VSA section two forty eight a. To truly understand the need for this bill, we have to look at the intersection of federal law, our state's regulatory obligations, and the historical intent of this legislature. First, let's talk about the federal reality. Under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, state and local governments are legally required to act on a wireless on wireless facility applications within a reasonable period of time, in quotations. To put teeth to that requirement, the FCC established strict deadlines known as the shock clock rules. For standard cell towers, the clock, shock clock, is ninety days for colocations and one hundred and fifty days for new structures. For small cell infrastructure, these clocks shrink to just sixty and ninety days. Under strict rules that took effect in 2019, if a state or town misses these deadlines, the law presumes the government, us in this case, or the municipality, is illegally prohibiting service, putting the heavy burden on us to defend ourselves in court. This is exactly why section two forty eight a is necessary. Our Public Utility Commission operates under strict procedures designed to ensure Vermont acts within the federal imposed time mandates. When a complete application comes in, the PUC's rules mandate a decision within sixty to one hundred and eighty days depending on the project scope. For minor and undisputed project, decisions happen very fast, often even without hearing. Because the PUC moves so efficiently, Vermont safely and consistently complies with federal law. If we let section, two forty eight a expire on 07/01/2026, just weeks from now, telecommunications citing would default back to local municipal zoning and act two fifty. While well intentioned, those fragmented processes are simply not designed to meet a strict sixty or ninety day federal shock clock. But maybe they should, but that'll be for next time. That was my attempt to small regulatory joke. It didn't land well. Alright. We would be exposing if we did that, we would be exposing our towns and our state to significant legal vulnerability and potential federal lawsuits, not to mention delaying or forwarding critical improvements to our cell telecommunications service coverage in Vermont. Mister president, this legislature has long recognized that section two forty eight a is a dynamic evolving tool. When we created it in 2007, it was meant only for batch multi site applications. Over the last two decades, we have used this sunset mechanism, perspective repeal, not to kill the law, but to systematically improve it. In 2009, we extended the sunset, and we expanded it to allow for individual applications. In 2014, we added robust municipal participation requirements, public guidance documents, and forced the PUC to give substantial deference to our towns. Then in 2015, we extended it again, and extended the local notice period from forty five to sixty days to give towns more breathing room. Then we did it again in 2017 and 2020, and we gave the Department of Public Service more power to investigate noncompliance and demanded reports on how to refine the criteria. And then just in 2023, we tasked the department to find in finding new ways to make it even easier for the public and towns to participate. The history of section two forty eight a proves it is not a static piece of legislation. Every few years, we extend the sunset so we can look under the hood and make sure our communities have a strong voice where infrastructure goes. This year, your senate finance committee continued to improve upon the past work of prior legislatures with the amendment before you. In addition to extending the sunset for another three years to 2029, this amendment will now mandate a public meeting for nondominimous projects. The actual antonym for de minimis is actually material, but we all know what de minimis is. So nonde minimis or better said, material projects in legislative parlance. Under current law, a public meeting between the developer and the town during a sixty day notice window will only happen if the town's legislative body or planning commission explicitly requests one. With this change, the amendment before you, a public meeting would now be mandatory for large projects. The town shall hold it and the developer shall attend it within the sixty day window. Importantly, this amended language that's before you exempts minor projects. To keep the mandatory meeting rule from creating unnecessary gridlock for modest and scale projects, the amendment carves out specific exceptions. A public meeting is not forced if the project is a de minimis modification, minor changes to existing equipment, nor if a facility is of limited size and scope, small scale equipment, and the department is already required to take the community's feedback and information from that meeting and directly use it in the form to form their official recommendations to the Public Utility Commission and to decide if they need to hire extra experts experts to review the project. The big picture takeaway is that this shift would strip away the burden. This this amendment would shift away or strip away the burden from local towns to actively track into so they don't they'll no longer have to actively track request a meeting when a new cell tower telecom project is proposed. Instead, it will force the telecom providers to face the community and answer questions by default under unless the project is minor, and then it will continue. So passing h five twenty seven does two vital things. It keeps Vermont safely compliant with federal laws or connectivity build out doesn't freeze, and it continues the process of continuous improvement integrating as much public participation as possible within our federal regulatory constraints. Your senate finance committee heard from many individuals on this, mister president. Happy to respond if there's questions. And your committee vote was six zero one in support of this bill, and we ask the senate to concur. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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? Senator from Rutland.

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

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: May the court of the preserver The reporters interrogated.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: So you mentioned large projects and small projects. Can you differentiate or give me example of each?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: What I would have for a de minimis project would be minor changes to existing equipment. So if you've got one of those boxes up on a telephone pole and you're going in to upgrade it, maybe change out the power supply or maybe the antenna. So I would interpret that. I can get back to you with more specifics at third I could get back to the senator with more specifics at third reading if so needed. A facility of limited size and scope would be small scale equipment. So to me, that would be very minor things, maybe a new UPS, an uninterruptible power supply, or other devices that would be supporting existing telecom infrastructure.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: mister Kelly.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Minor things.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank I think the reporter one more final question is who determines which projects are small or large?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: I will say during that this process, I have a great deal of confidence in the PUC, without mentioning any individual names, but the representatives from there, understand these mechanisms, They have this very clearly articulated through multiple tracks. I think the definitions are already clearly defined and understood by both the telecom providers and, to my understanding, also the communities in which these things are being deployed. So to answer the senator's question, I'd say that PUC has a very well structured, well tuned, system to identify through their application process whether it would qualify as a small scale or de minimis project.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: I take the report, mister president. So my concern, mister president, is that I've got three towns in my district that are taking the time to go into the detail to come up with a communication annex to their town plan. They they go to the regional planning commission. The regional planning commission says that it meets the regional plan, and then they the town has no say in it. So I'm concerned about this bill, and that's why I will be voting no one. Thank you, mister Perchlik.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on finance. 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 have ordered third reading of h five twenty seven. We have on the calendar for action h eight seventeen, which was passed by the house on 05/12/2026. 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 starting on page thirty eight sixty seven of today's calendar. And that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, 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.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H eight seventeen, an act relating to mental health literacy and peer to peer supports in schools.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: And just as a correction, I believe that was expenditures and referred to appropriations. Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Gulick, for the report of the committee on health and welfare.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. I believe we're all aware at this time the, increased need for mental health services for our youth in the state of Vermont. There is a growing concern that the kids are not alright and that we need to help them out. Most recently, you may have seen that the AOE did a school survey and what they learned from that survey of schools is that the number of staff needed in schools to address youth mental health has gone up from 142 in FY22 to seven ninety approaching 800 in FY25. That is a huge increase and it's something that we have to pay close attention to. This bill H eight seventeen is a bill relating to mental health literacy and peer to peer supports in schools. It came to us from the other body, and in its form at that time it was a bill that sought to recognize that student mental health is both an urgent problem and also a very complex one. This work expands on the work of Act 112 from a few years ago that expanded grants for youth mental health. And I was teaching at the time and was able to see the fruits of some of that labor. Was wonderful. H817 is looking to expand student supports in schools using a peer to peer structure. So as we all know, do very well when it comes to interacting with their peers and getting help from them and sharing with them in ways that they don't always feel comfortable with adults. We thought this approach, we being the health and welfare committee thought this approach was interesting and compelling, but we did have some concerns that there was no funding included in the bill. And we are very sensitive to unfunded mandates when it comes to our education system, especially at this juncture that we're in right now. We also had some implications about formalizing a peer to peer structure. We wanted to learn more about it and know more about it. Then we heard great testimony from the AOE who said very thoughtful comments emphasizing their gratitude for the focus on student mental health, but also their concerns around schools already managing multiple and sometimes competing expectations. We've heard that over and over again. They also had concerns about standing up a new program that may operate in parallel with existing efforts. They would like the time to develop a unified statewide framework that aligns education and mental health support systems, clarifies expectations for schools and ensures equitable access to high quality supports. You know, when we think about these extra positions that we've had to add in schools, we know that this is a cost driver, right? This is one of the things that's driving up costs in our schools, ergo increasing our property taxes. So when we think about the system, we've got to be thinking about those mental health costs that are coming from in house, but also contracting outside of our schools. So the health, the Senate Health and Welfare Committee put the focus on statewide guidance, alignment, and capacity building led by the AOE and the Department of Mental Health. We need a unified system guiding how schools access and integrate mental health supports. So if you look at the bill, which, the strike all amendment, I should say, which is on page thirty eight sixty seven of your calendar, you will see in section one, the intent language around mental health literacy and peer support initiatives. You will see in section two as part of the 2028 budgets we ask that the Department of Mental Health and the AOE explore potential funding sources for this unified approach and in section three we ask that on or before 01/15/2027, Department of Mental Health and the AOE and stakeholders submit an inventory of existing mental health programming and services around the state of Vermont that exist in schools to the House Committee on Appropriations and House Healthcare and to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Health and Welfare. And in that that report, they should include a recommendation to integrate that mental health literacy and the peer to peer programming described in section one. The effective date for this will be 07/01/2026. We heard incredible testimony from some students, in the Windham School District who were really in favor of a peer to peer program and they had received some excellent assistance in their school. We heard from the Office of Legislative Counsel, the reporter of the bill, we heard from the Department of Mental Health and the Joint Fiscal Office. Our vote in committee was five zero zero and we ask for the Senate's concurrence or approval. Thank you Mr. President.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden Southeast, Senator Lyons, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Virginia 'Ginny' Lyons (Chittenden Southeast)]: Oh, thank you, mister president. Senate Appropriations Committee is very supportive of the bill as it came from, senate health and welfare and understand the significant work that can happen and is needed in our schools. This bill actually is less than de minimis. Well, there is less than plus something over zero. So zero or below in the bill. We also understand there's opportunity here for funding going forward. And your committee on appropriations voted six zero one to, support the bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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 Washington.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I rise in support, but I do have a question. If so, if I could interrogate the presenter of you

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The presenters interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Yeah. I'm looking at page, thirty eight sixty seven, in section two. It's, starting on the second the end of the second line says, she'll explore potential funding sources for the mental health literary and peer to peer programming. I'm wondering if that was that the Scribner's error should be literacy.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: It is a Scribner's error and we did bring that up in committee. But it is a

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: scribner's error.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: It should be literacy, and thank you. Okay.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I take the report.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: 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? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it and 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 H817. We have on the calendar for action h nine twenty eight, which was passed by the house

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: on 05/12/2026.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: It was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the Senate propose to the House that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page thirty eight sixty eight of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was referred to the Committee on Finance, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on natural resources with further proposal of amendment as found in your calendar today on page thirty eight seventy one. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine twenty eight, an act relating to technical corrections to fish and wildlife statutes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Rutland, senator Williams, for the report of the committee on natural resources.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. This bill makes a series of technical and administrative updates to Vermont Fish and Wildlife law. The purpose of the bill is to improve clarity, consistency, and implementation within existing statutes. It does not create major new policy initiatives instead of addresses operational and technical issues identified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Agency of Natural Resources. Briefly, this bill does the following. First, it updates portions of Vermont's uniform point system relating to hunting and fishing and wildlife violation. These changes clarify and adjust point values for certain violations to better align the endorsement provisions throughout the statute. Second, the bill authorizes the commissioner of fish and wildlife to allow certain hunting licenses to expire three hundred and sixty five days from the date of issuance rather than strictly on December 31. This provides an additional administrative flexibility and and convenience for the license holder. Third, the bill includes several administrative and technical corrections related to licensing procedures and statutory references to improve consistency in implementation. Fourth, the bill makes clarification, clarifications related to Champion Land's reporting requirements and associated statutory language. Finally, the bill contains technical updates involving PFAS related statutory references and other conforming language, corrections necessary for consistency within Vermont law. This present, these are primarily technical and administrative corrections intended to improve the operation clarity of existing fishing rods. President, point of information.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden, what is your point of information?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: I'm in the calendar on page three eight six nine, and I'm wondering if the sixth instance of amendment is a part of this report.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Well, senator, we'll take a brief recess. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you Mr. President it it seems as though there was a little confusion, between committees and apparently the attorney general's office. So I would, move that we postpone action on this bill and move to the next with the intention of coming back to it tomorrow.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: So we will postpone action on h nine twenty eight. We are passing over s two forty three. That brings us to h six forty eight. Senator from Addison. Okay. Thank you. We're we're not there yet, senator from Addison. We we wondered why everyone was standing up. The house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment on h six forty eight. The house has considered the senate proposal of amendment and has concurred therein with further proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. Okay. I will bring you back a few weeks to my riveting, floor report on this miscellaneous banking and insurance, bill, which had you all on the edge of your seats. This is a further proposal of an amendment from the house that your finance committee has reviewed and has recommended concurrence with the house. But let me just take you through it. It is it is long, but it is basically two two things. One is that you might recall in the bill as a pass out of the senate, we extended the sun the the, hold on what are commonly known as crypto kiosks, saying that we, we're not allowing a moratorium on them, saying we were not allowing more crypto kiosks in the state of Vermont. These have been an issue throughout the country. There are many states that have been taking action on further regulating and banning these types of machines for cryptocurrencies. They're basically cash machines that for cryptocurrency or virtual currency. And the senate extended the moratorium on it. We we had considered actually just banning them, but we didn't have time before before we had to send the bill back. Meanwhile, the house was taking, testimony on it and moving forward with, a full, ban on the crypto kiosks. And this is true for many, many states. I think 26 states have taken action and many or 29 states have taken action. Many adopting full bans, including Minnesota, Tennessee, Indiana. It's not partisan issue. Both red and blue states have taken this because there have been so many concerns with consumers. So essentially, the first three instances of amendment implement that permanent ban on crypto kiosk machines in Vermont. The reason it takes so much language is it does retain some of the protections we have for consumers. There are two crypto kiosks in Vermont right now, so if consumers, have issues with some of their interactions with those, we wanted to retain in statute the mechanisms for which they can, get relief for any fraud that might happen. So that is retained, and there's a sort of period of, transition and then a complete, ban for any new machines, and then the old machines within by 07/01/2026,

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: but retaining some of the

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: legacy language in case there are issues. So that's the first three instances of amendment from the house from the other body. The fourth instance of amendment is about a different issue which are merchant cash advances and merchant cash advances are a sales based financing transaction repaid over a time as a percentage of sales or revenue in which the payment amount may increase or decrease according to the volume of sales or revenue received from the business or they are a factoring transition in the purchase of accounts receivable that includes a claim for payment in exchange for goods or services. Essentially, these are, sort of loans that are provided in many times to businesses saying we're going to give you a lot of cash up front and then you can repay it in addition just to put it plainly often kind of a scam and businesses don't realize it until after the fact and they get into financial trouble. So there have been some concerning issues. The house started working on this. They couldn't get to it by crossover. They continue to take testimony and added it to the bill. So the fourth instance of amendment basically requires these entities that are merchant cash advanced organizations to be licensed by DFR. It doesn't ban these types of transactions, but it requires licensure and regulation by DFR. Right now they're unregulated. This is to prevent issues from these types of predatory loans in Vermont. This was passed by the house committee and the house unanimously and supported unanimously. There was one senator absent, but

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden)]: everyone who was there

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: was unanimous in support of these changes from the house and we recommend concurrence Mr. President. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment on h six forty eight. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the senate has concurred in the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment on h six forty eight. Ingalls. Gotcha. The house has considered senate proposal of amendment to h nine forty one and has concurred therein with further proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment? Oops. Wasn't supposed to get quite that far yet. Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. This sorry for a little bit of a we're not yet to learn this very easily. We're gonna do a whole different thing than what we're doing today. We were actually gonna ask for a conference committee, but meeting with the pro tem and the lieutenant governor, we come up with a different solution, which was to present our proposal amendment back to the house. The house, has took, h nine forty one and anything that we wanted to do, and they and they recommended three, proposals of amendment. Two of them kind of the same. One of them was that they really were wanting to get a restriction on how many chickens could be in, somebody's backyard. And they struck that no, municipality can regulate and say that somebody can't have chickens as long as there's no more than 12. Now the municipality can say that there can be more than that, but at any given time, people, as long as there's no roost roosters, anybody has the right to have at least 12 chickens. And if there's a disagreement and it's 12 chickens or more, it's what the higher amount is. Also in that agreement, is basically the seventh seventh second proposal amendment says that there could be no ratites. Ratites are emus and ostriches. So at any given time, the municipalities can regulate that there could be no emus or ratites. The third purpose of amendment was that they wanna do a study, studying all of what we had done in agriculture all year long and then report back. It found it kinda funny that, the studies that they were proposing didn't include farmers. But nonetheless, I'll tell you where we got to. The Senate Committee of Agriculture reluctantly, went along with the proposal of amendments that would, limit how many chickens could be in a backyard should the municipalities, determine that that's what they wanted to do. Knowing full well that, they couldn't regulate any, 12 or they that anybody has the right to have 12 chickens. But, after that, the municipalities have the right to, to wait in on that. The ratites we were fine with, and, which again is ostriches and, emus. The third, we have said that we could not go along with. So I do have a proposal of amendment that says that Senator Ingalls moves at the Senate concur in the House proposal of amendments to the Senate proposal amendment with further proposal amendment by striking out section five, municipal regulation department study report in its entirety and by renumbering the remaining sections to be numerically correct. The reason why we got to that and we didn't call the committee of conferences because good communications with everyone including the protest, including the Lieutenant Governor and with the other committee and the other body says, hey. Yeah. As long as you can agree to the chickens and the and the restrictions on the emus and off juice. Yeah. Strike that study. They had preferred. We just send it right back to them and get it all set and done, but that's not the way the process works. So therefore, here we are right now at this. So I would ask that the body concur with the work that we've done. Again, that communities have the right to anything over 12 chickens, to regulate and that, they communities have the right to, say no to oxygen and emus and that we're striking out the study that was been proposed. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: So the question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment as offered by the senator from Essex? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and the senator has concurred in the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment with further proposal of amendment as offered by senator Ingalls on h nine forty one. We have on the calendar for action, h nine fifty three, introduced on 04/01/2026. It was referred to the committee on government operations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H nine fifty three, an act relating to approval of an amendment to the charter of the town of Panton.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Orleans, senator Morley, for the report of the committee on government operations.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president. So h nine fifty three, as you just heard, is an accolade approval of amendment

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: to the charter of the town of Canton.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: There are three sections in this bill. The first one is the typical section that you hear with all charters, and the general assembly approves the amendment of the charter of the town of Kent as set forth in this act. The voters of the town approve the proposal amendment on 05/15/2025. Section two is the recall of elected town officers. An elected town officer may be removed from office subject to the following conditions procedures. A one, a written petition signed by not less than 15 of the registered voters of the town seeking the removal of

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: a

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: town officer requesting a vote of the town at a regular or special town meeting called for the purpose shall be filed with the select board and the town clerk. Two, the petition is filed not more than sixty days, not less than forty seven days before the next regular town meeting, the select board shall place the question of whether the elected officer shall be removed of the warning for the next regular town meeting. Otherwise, the select board shall call a special town meeting to be held within forty five days after receiving the petition to vote on whether the elected officer shall be removed. In either case, the recall vote shall be held by Australian ballot. Three, when the petition removal is approved by majority of the votes cast at the regular or special town meeting, town officer named in the petition shall cease to hold office. Four, the officer shall be removed only if at least as many registered voters of the town vote to approve the petition as voted to elect said officer in the most recent election written wherein the officer was elected or at least one third of the registered voters of the town vote, whichever is fewer. Subsection b, a vacancy resulting from the recall of an officer shall be filled in the manner prescribed by law. And c, a recall petition shall not be brought against any individual more than once within a twelve month period. I just wanna say that, there were currently 16 municipalities, that have this recall provision in their charter. To name a few of them, they are Stowe, Hardwick, Essex, Bennington, Linden, and Saint Johnsbury. So this isn't something new. We've done this before on charter changes. And at the special town meeting, there were a 103 voters for the charter change or voted in the charter change. 56 voters said yes, 39 voters said no, and there were eight more whamings. Also, we heard from the sponsor of the bill. We heard from legislative council. We heard from director of future governmental affairs, the law, police, the cities and towns, and the town clerk treasurer of Hampton. All, all said being, mister president, we ask for the senate to concur. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: And the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire if the reporter?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter's interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you. Mister president, the you said the reporter said that that that this is in the case in multiple towns and you gave a like, reporter gave a few examples. Is this the provision of not more than sixty days and less than forty seven days included in those other charters?

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Mister president, I I don't believe so. I think they're all a little bit different. What what I meant by saying, mister president, about that was there there's a recall of elected town officers in those other

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I see. Municipalities. Did you get any, indication from your witnesses about the why does this not more than 60 or less than forty seven? That's very specific and only leaves, like, fourteen days. Is that is that they wanted the petitions to be filed with during this two week time period. Is that the logic?

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Are you talking

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: about I'm sorry. On, line 19.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Okay. So if the petition is filed not more than sixty days and not less than forty seven days before the next regular town meeting, the select board shall place the question on whether

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I'm sorry. I I understand. So it's within two weeks of a a town meeting that has the I see. I I get it. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of h nine fifty three. We have on the calendar for action h

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: which one are we on?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Oh, yes. Right. I believe we're passing over h seven ten. Yes. We have on the calendar for action h seven fifty seven, which was passed by the house on 05/12/2026. It was referred to the committee on economic development, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposed to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page thirty nine zero six of today's calendar. And that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on economic development. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

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

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Chittenden, for the report of the committee on economic development.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: This could be a long one. Alright. Mister president, to address the housing crisis, this bill modernizes our regulatory approach to manufactured housing, a critical part of the solution to build the homes Vermont needs. While we used to refer to manufactured houses as mobile homes, that term is now inaccurate. The vast majority of these houses are not mobile at all. Instead, they are permanently secured to foundations. They can be found both as standalone residences on individual lots and within manufactured home communities, the neighborhoods we once called mobile home parks. Today's manufactured homes bear little resemblance to the outdated trailers you might be imagining. Modern units are constructed according to a rigorous standardized national building code established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, commonly known as the HUD code. They are sturdy, long lasting, and build equity over time at rates comparable to traditional site built homes. Mister president, Vermont is currently grappling with a severe housing crisis driven by a lack of inventory and skyrocketing prices. Manufactured housing is vital to our state because in today's economic climate, it represents the only type of housing that remains affordable to the average Vermonter without requiring public assistance. Because our state funds for housing subsidies are limited, it is absolutely critical that we streamline the process of buying, selling, financing, and zoning these homes. This is precisely what H seven fifty seven aims to achieve. The people who live in manufactured homes represent a broad cross section of our communities, working class families, seniors, individuals with disabilities, young parents, widows and widowers, retirees looking to downsize, and neighbors living on fixed incomes. The majority of these households fall into low to moderate income brackets, and they achieve homeownership with minimal, if any, reliance on state aid. Furthermore, mister president, many of our modern manufactured home communities are organized as owner occupied limited equity cooperatives or LEC's. Under this structure, residents collectively own the land via a nonprofit or co op entity while maintaining individual ownership of their actual homes. They pay property taxes on their homes and chip in for shared neighborhood upkeep through what is typically called lot rent. Every household owns a share in the cooperative, ensuring everyone has an equal vote in community decisions which are managed democratically by a resident elected board of directors. H seven fifty seven irons out long standing discrepancies in how manufactured homes are bought, titled, zoned, and taxed. By doing so, it establishes a transparent, predictable framework for homeowners, financial institutions, towns, and state agencies alike. Additionally, the bill lowers the financial barrier to entry by cutting back the sales and use taxes that manufactured homes are currently hit with, taxes that traditional site built homes are spared from paying. This legislate this the legislation also reinforces a key principle. Manufactured modular and prefabricated housing must be treated comparably to and fairly to site built homes under local land use regulations. Despite current statutes, certain municipalities continue to erect zoning hurdles that restrict where these homes can be placed, inadvertently blocking access to affordable homeownership. Finally, the bill explicitly defines the legal classification of resident owned manufacture home cooperatives under Vermont law, unlocking greater access to state grants and critical funding streams. Taken together, mister president, these updates build a cohesive, reliable system that treats manufactured housing as permanent indispensable pillar of Vermont's housing solution. Now I'd like to walk through the sections of the bill. Section one, in this section 2,601, the definition of permanently cited is being amended to clarify that not all aspects of the definition are required to be met in order for a mobile home to be permanently cited. This is relevant when an owner goes to finance a mobile home as a home, as the home must be financed as real estate if the home is permanently cited and the owner owns the land on which the mobile home will be located. Second, in section twenty six zero four, the underlying bill is making technical amendments to the section governing when a mobile home must be transferred via a warranty or quick claim deed. The amendments clarify which subsection governs each deed process and would remove the requirement that a mobile homeowner get permission from the landowner if a mobile homeowner owner seeks to sell and move the home off the land owned by someone else. Section two and three are amending the chapter related to limited equity cooperatives. Before going into the underlying language of the bill, you should know that a limited equity cooperative is a type of housing corporation that is designed as a collective home ownership model to serve individuals of low and moderate income. The individuals own a share of the cooperative corporation that owns and leases the housing or land back to the members. In section two, the underlying bill proposes to include the statutory definition of mobile home within the Cooperative Housing Corporation chapter in 11 VSA chapter 14. And then in section three, the underlying bill proposes to do the Mr. President, I'm gonna be speaking to both the amendment and the underlying bill. I hope I don't need permission

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: to that. Please do.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: All right,

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: great. So the underlying In section three of the underlying bill proposes to do the following for a mobile home park that is registered as a liquid limited equity cooperative. The underlying bill would prohibit the subleasing of units within a mobile home park that is a limited equity cooperative, unless the member can demonstrate a hardship to the board overseeing the cooperative. In addition, the member would be limited to subleasing to an individual that meets the definition of low or moderate income and would only be authorized to sublease for the actual cost of the unit to the member who owns the mobile home, including mortgage and utility tax. In addition, this section adds into statute that a mobile home park organized as a limited equity cooperative shall be treated for the purposes of state funding and grants as if it were registered as a nonprofit for public purpose and for public benefit. This will not alter specific funding requirements in any program funding or grant source. The language also specifies that nothing is intended to alter the tax treatment of these entities. Section four amends municipal zoning statutes. This will require that any municipality that authorizes year round residential development must also authorize the placement of mobile homes in the same locations as other houses. Sections five and six amends the sales tax treatment of mobile homes. This section will change tax treatment of mobile homes sold as personal property to match the tax treatment of mobile homes sold as real property by, one, increasing the sales tax and exemption for manufactured homes to approximately the property transfer tax that traditional site built housing houses pay, which is less. Talk more about that in the fiscal note. It also, secondly, creates a sales and use tax exemption for energy efficient manufactured homes to match the same that we have in the property transfer tax exemption provided to energy efficient homes. Seven is a little bit of session law related to the secretary of state. The session law provision would authorize, just making clear, that the secretary of state can update their, update the business organization status for limited equity cooperatives registered with the secretary of state to ensure the registration accurately reflect reflects the correct business organization type. Section eight is a statutory revision changes. This section authorizes the office legislative council to make changes to statutory language during the statutory revision process to change wording from mobile home to manufactured home where appropriate. This is in alignment with how the federal HUD programs label what would what used to be called mobile homes but are now referred to in federal regulations as manufactured homes. Section nine is the effective date upon passage, except the sales and use tax, sections are currently set to take effect on 01/01/2027, but it is very likely you will be seeing an amendment on that effective date at third reading to push that out a year for reasons we will elaborate at that point. Now I'm gonna speak to the amendment before you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: As the senator from finance?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: No. Still the Oh.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Sec okay. Sorry.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Almost there, mister president. Alright. So the I was just speaking to the underlying bill, and now I'm speaking to the amendment that comes from from the senate economic development housing and general affairs committee. So this amendment is first, it has a new section three a that the Senate Economic Development Committee is proposing to sunset the language of perspective repeal, in the underlying bill that would specify that a mobile home park registered as a limited equity cooperative shall be treated as a nonprofit for state funding for grant purposes. This sunset will be one year from now. So this isn't in my script, so to speak, but I'll try to elaborate to this. It is unclear when this happened, but at some point over the past twenty or thirty years, the secretary of state's office stopped classifying, mobile home parks, manufactured home parks as nonprofits. They used to be nonprofits, and it's still unclear to me, though I have sent multiple emails, as to when this was changed, but there was just an interpretation by a Secretary of State's office. Probably what I'm hearing when they transitioned from one system to the next, and they really truly aren't nonprofits. So they do have the board and they aren't they they do have low and moderate income as their statute, but the problem is that the ones that were originally classified in statute as nonprofits are at gaining access to grants and and state funds and some federal funds that are really critical for sewer, stormwater upgrades, but other ones that since that system change don't have access to those same services. This is we're sunsetting this language because it's unclear how we're what we're trying to best to accomplish fairness in all of the different parks of the same type, addressing the discrepancy in treatment by the by administrative office. Since it's unclear perfectly how this will materialize, your Senate Economic Development Committee felt most comfortable sunsetting this treatment one year from now and simultaneously with the second part of your amendment asking for is we're asking for a report from the Department of Housing and Community Development to come back to the General Assembly next year with information that we don't currently have identifying all state funding grant and loan programs available to mobile home parks for infrastructure improvements with an analysis on the eligibility and regulatory barriers prohibiting access to the funds for mobile home parks registered as limited equity cooperatives under 11 BSA Chapter 14. That will allow next year's legislature to be more precise in how we treat these entities while this legislate while this language will allow for greater fairness between now and then for these, limited equity cooperatives to have equal access to the state and state and local grants, that are are critically important to many of these, entities. So lastly, the proposed amendment from the committee is to update the effective date to make the sunset section effective on 07/01/2027. Your Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs Committee voted five o o in support of this bill. We heard from many individuals. Happy to elaborate in q and a if necessary, and I'll be standing up in a minute to speak to it from a finance perspective.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden for the committee on finance, and it is quite fine for you to remain standings unless you like doing the deep knee bends. I do.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: Alright. Thank you, mister president. So your senate finance committee did review this bill, and we did identify that it would increase the sales tax exemption for sales of all manufactured homes from 40% to 90% and provide a sales tax exemption for energy efficient manufactured homes. That would reduce sales tax revenues to the Ed Fund by approximately $200,000 in fiscal year 'twenty seven through the increase of the exemption on manufactured home sales receipts from the sales tax increase from 40 to 90%. That piece would reduce by approximately $500,000 annually afterwards. Absent other changes in policy, statewide homestead property yield and or statewide non homestead property tax rate may need to be adjusted to account for this foregone revenue from this exemption. So that will be addressed in a coming amendment to which we will be pushing that out a year or two just to make this year a little bit more straightforward as all the balls are moving in the air. So you will be seeing a floor amendment, to put to push to move that out at least a year, if not two. More to come at third reading. Alright. So, sections five through 11 have some tax revisions. Currently manufactured homes can either be subject to the sales and use tax or the property transfer tax, depending on whether the manufactured home is considered tangible personal property or real property. I didn't say this in the previous reports on the elaborating on the finance piece here. Homes sold as tangible personal property are subject to the statewide 6% sales tax. Under current law, 40% of that value of a manufactured home is exempt from the sales tax. This exemption is designed to match the value of labor in a traditional construction site built home site build home, which is not subject to the sales tax and results in an effective sales tax rate on the manufactured homes of about 3.6%. Accordingly, the 2025, according to the 2025 tax exemption report, the full 6% sales tax would raise a million dollars a year on manufactured homes, but meaning the current 40% sales tax exemption results in today about a $400,000 law foregone revenue in current practice in the year 2026. Foregone revenue would increase with this change in this bill by approximately 200,000 this year, but, again, we're gonna address that in an amendment. And, with a January 1 for the following year, it will decrease those that will increase the foregone revenue of about half $1,000,000 annually starting in fiscal year twenty twenty eight if the exemption is increased as this bill proposes to 90%. Absent other changes in the policy, the statewide homestead property yield and state and or statewide non homestead property tax rate may need to be adjusted to account for this. But again, this is about equal and fair treatment of manufactured homes to how we treat stick built homes. Right now they're paying 6% sales tax minus the 40% exemption, effectively 3.6%. You buy a stick built home, you're only paying that property transfer tax, which is also varied. So we backed into this calculation to try to get to an equal treatment tax wise between a manufactured home and a site built. Site site or stick built home. Manufactured homes sold as real property are subject to the property transfer track. Two criteria to define a home as real property. It must be affixed to the ground and finances real estate. To finance a manufactured home as real estate, the transfer of property must include a warranty or quick claim deed. Manufactured homes that are transferred as real estate pay PTT and may pay the 0.22% clean water surcharge depending on the value and the use of property. Based on property transfer tax data, the average effective tax rate on manufactured home transactions is approximately 0.7%, including the clean water surcharge and approximately 0.6% for the property transfer tax alone. PTT rates can be explained further with a handout if need be. This is not perfect math. This is a math that was engineered to try to achieve fairness in how we treat a manufactured home and a site built home. It does a pretty good job, but I do expect it will give the future legislatures additional work to clarify and revisit this if, if it doesn't seem that it's it's perfect parity or as regulations continue to change. Your senate finance committee did hear from additional, witnesses, and we voted six zero one in support of this, bill, and we ask the senate to concur. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on economic development? I understand we have an amendment. Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I think this, exemplifies what happens when we are rushing at the end of the session to get bills out, I believe, this week, Finance had to add a comma, but the comma's placement made a big difference in the final bill. This is another one. This would essentially move the effective dates out of the year. We were talking about the 2027 fiscal year. That's what we're about to finalize all the budgets on, and we're too far down that ramp to to make any changes. So this would move all the dates out a year so that the fiscal impact, even though they aren't great, would be dealt with a year or more from now. And I did run this by the committee of finance yesterday. Nobody said no. So I would assume that we have a budget.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: So the question is, shall the proposal of amendment of the committee on economic develop development as amended 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. The ayes have it. The ayes have it, and you have amended the proposal of amendment of the committee on economic development. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? I'm not there yet. As amended. The question now is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on economic development 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 proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on economic development. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of h seven fifty seven. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor, are you offering a report?

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor)]: I'm offering a suggestion. If I might. Might we exchange the order so that I can give my colleague in Southern Economic Development Housing and General Affairs a moment to catch his breath before he does s one ninety eight and instead have me do h six thirty nine first. That's my request.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Your request is granted, senator. The house has considered the senate proposal of amendment on h six thirty nine and has concurred therein with further proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment to the senate proposal of amendment? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca 'Becca' White (Windsor)]: Thank you very much, president. Senate economic development housing and general affairs considered the change and I'll explain it in a second but has requested has agreed to not concur and has requested a committee of conference. This as you may recall is our genetic data privacy bill. We added a two month cure period. The House had thought about a fourteen day cure period before the private right of action could be exercised. We, Senate Economic Development, we added a two month cure period, with then the PRA following. House commerce felt very strongly that, genetic data, once it is breached, once it is sold, cannot be reclaimed. There is no cure, they felt, for genetic data escaping the control of the direct to consumer genetic testing company or the company that was dealing with it. And they they feel this was a catch in in in our work, and they and we we don't agree. And so that is why we were repressing a committee of conference to hear them out and to discuss it further. But your senate is wanting very much to continue its its original proposal. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator senator from Windsor has moved that the senate not concur in the house proposal of amendment and that a committee of conference be appointed. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Committee of conference is as follows, senator Clarkson, Senator Brock, Senator Chittenden. S one ninety eight was passed by the house with proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Senator Chittenden. It's from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: I appreciate the break. I do talk pretty quickly.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: It'll

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden)]: probably better off if had some I need a drink after that. Alright. So bottom line up front, your Senate Economic Development Committee, did vote to concur with the house without further proposal amendment. So, this is important to recognize. Think I personally think the house made our bill better. So I wanna give him that kudos. So it was a, originally a four zero one, but I've since heard that the person that was not in the room does support this. It was a five zero vote to concur with the house. That being the case, I think it still is useful to, just tell you a little bit about what the house did to make the bill better. So this is the tobacco bill, if you remember. What the house did was, and I will say, admit that a few senators actually raised some concerns as it left the senate, and I said, you know what? They'll fix it in the house, and they did. So, what the house did, as as passed by the senate, this bill would repeal prohibitions on, on and penalties for purchase, use, and possession of tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, and tobacco paraphernalia by a person under 21 years of age. And we did still increase the civil penalty for using fake IDs to purchase these items from $50 to $100 along with existing potential for up to ten hours of community service. So as it left this chamber, this Senate, in fact, somebody joked, you know, a five year old could walk around with pack of cigarettes, it's illegal. So that's effectively what we sent out of here. So the house had concerns with that. They wanted to still make it against the rules for minors to walk around with tobacco products. I concur. The House proposal amendment restores the prohibition of purchase on purchase use and possession by a person under 21 years of age and restores language saying that these items can be immediately confiscated, but maintains the Senate's elimination of the $25 civil penalty for possession. The House proposal also repeals the civil penalty for using a fake ID to purchase these items and replaces them with a choice of between up to ten hours of community service or participation in a tobacco cessation program. Concerns were raised in the Senate Economic Development General Housing Affairs Committee about the shift away from community service except for in restorative practices programs. The court systems can be overloaded with those things, but the recognizing that the participation in tobacco cessation programs as an option leaves this as a viable path to address kids that might have tobacco on them and giving them, better supports and solutions to address that. So, again, your senate committee concurred with that proposal. They also enter the furnishing tobacco products to minors. The house proposes to specify that civil monetary policies can be imposed on the clerk or in other individual, or any other individual who sells or furnishes tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, or tobacco paraphernalia to a person under 21 years of age in addition to administrative monetary penalties and license suspensions for the retailer. Internet sales. So on section ten ten, the house proposes to require annual reporting by the Department of Liquor and Lottery and the office of the Attorney General to the General Assembly regarding enforcement of Vermont laws relating to online sales of tobacco products back to substitutes and tobacco paraphernalia that was raised at various times during this conversation about whack a mole was used as an example in trying to address online sales of these things to get a better idea of how that landscape is evolving and if more resources are necessary in order to track tobacco sources online. The House proposes to proposal also gives the AGO, the attorney general's office, enforcement authority for violations of the prohibitions of deceptive tobacco products and tobacco substitutes, including deeming engaging, in prohibited conduct to be a violation of Vermont's Consumer Protection Act. In section two, the House proposes that a new section that amends certain aspects of DLL's regulatory authority over licenses and its ability to impose limited administrative penalties. And in section five, the House proposal of amendment certain men certain definitions in the tobacco tax chapter to ensure changes. This bill makes the definition seven BSA chapter 40 do not inadvertently affect the Department of Tax's ability to administer and enforce existing tobacco laws. Section 10, the House proposes direct to proposal directs the DLL, Department of Labor and Lottery, in consultation with the AGO, the Attorney General's Office, to report to the general assembly by January fifteenth twenty twenty seventh on their compliance efforts and on whether adding staff would materially improve compliance with and enforcement of the tobacco laws. Lastly, in section 11, the house proposes to put the AGO in collaboration with the Department of Taxes and DLL in charge of the a report due to the general assembly by 01/15/2027 on the taxation of tobacco products and tobacco substance substitutes and alternatives to using tax stamps. The bill is passed the bill has passed by the Senate had the Department of Taxes leading the report in consultation with ELL and AGO. This just broadens that that orientation and responsibility. So again, your Senate Economic Development General and Housing Affairs Committee voted five o on a straw poll to concur with these changes, and we encourage the senate to concur as well.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment on s one ninety eight? Are you ready for the question? So all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and we have concurred in the house proposal of amendment on s one ninety eight. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. Given that we are making good time this morning, I would move that the senate suspended rules in order to take six eighty six and act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements off the notice calendar and bring it up for immediate action.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to take h six eighty six off the notice calendar for immediate action. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. I'll oppose nay. The ayes have it, And we will take h six eighty six up for immediate action. I don't.

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: We'll try it.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Okay. We'll try it. We have on the calendar for action H686, which was passed by the house on 03/17/2026. Referred to the committee on government operations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate proposed to the house that the bill be amended as found in today's calendar and then which with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: H six eighty six, an act relating to expanding identification of certain lobbying advertisements.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Chittenden, senator Vyhovsky, for the report of the committee on government operations.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. This is, I think, an important bill as we think about transparency and money spent in lobbying and influencing policy. The strike all amendment from your senate government operations committee can be found on page 3,922 of today's calendar. This bill does not change the definition of lobbying or lobbyist or advertising. Currently, while the legislature is in session, lobbying activity as is defined must be reported if over a thousand if a thousand dollars or more is spent on that lobbying advertising. However, in the off session, it does not. So what this bill seeks to do is to extend that reporting for the whole year. The other few things that the bill does is that it defines what the description of the advertising needs to be. In current law, there it says that a brief description of the advertisement or advertising campaign needs to occur. However, we were shown some of the brief descriptions of advertising campaigns and some of them were said advertisement. We already know it's an advertisement. It's an advertising disclosure and so we put into we're putting into law a little bit more of an explanation of what we mean by a brief description. So it will include any enacted or introduced bill or issue that's featured in the advertisement or advertisement campaign, any specific person in the advertisement or advertising campaign, and whether the intent for the content in the advertisement campaign is offering an opinion of support, opposition, or neutrality. Really, this was just meant to get at what the current law brief description wanted but wasn't getting, so we thought we'd provide a little bit more explanation of what that means. The other addition from what the so what the House sent us did include changes to what advertising was, and we felt like at this late in the session, we needed a lot more testimonies and struck that from what they sent us, and it no longer changes the definition of an advertisement. We also added, because we're extending this out for the whole year and there was some concern that there might be a possibility where electioneering and lobbying, the Venn diagram, crossed a little, and so we added in here that if the advertisement is electioneering and it is reported in the campaign finance system and might cross over into lobbying. It does not also need to be reported in the lobbying report. Really, this was meant to ensure that people in those rare instances where the Venn diagram might cross, they didn't have to report it twice. That's what the bill does, and the effect will take effect on passage. Your committee on government operations heard from Meadow Hill Consulting, Legislative Council, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, the Secretary of State's Office, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the House sponsor, as well as the Director of Elections from the Secretary of State's office. So we heard from two different people from Secretary of State's office, and the vote in committee was four zero one, and we ask for the senate support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations? Are you ready for the question? So all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on government operations. 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 h six eighty six. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. With that said, I would move that the senate suspend its rules in order to message the actions taken this morning on H550 and act relating to gender equity within Vermont's correctional facilities, H639 and act relating to genetic data privacy. H648, an act relating to banking insurance and securities. H841, an act relating to miscellaneous animal welfare procedures. H932, an act relating to the regulation of forestry under Act two fifty, H937 an act relating to miscellaneous judiciary procedures, H938 an act relating to establishing the Vermont homelessness response continuum, and h nine forty one, an act relating to municipal regulation of agriculture to the house forthwith.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to act, message our actions on h five fifty, h six thirty nine, h six forty eight, h eight forty one, h nine thirty two, h nine thirty seven, h nine thirty eight, and h nine forty one to the house forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. The motion carries. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore, Chittenden Central)]: With that said, mister president, I would move that pending announcements, the senate stand and adjournment until 10AM, Friday, 05/22/2026.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any announcements? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate finance will meet at 02:00. Hopefully, it'll be a very short meeting.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Government operations will be at two. And if I might we normally handle confirmations on Friday. I know in the calendar today, there are five underlying reports. I believe there are two from one of the senators from Chittenden Central, one from Chittenden Southeast, one from Orange, and one from Bennington. And the hope, I believe, is that we get to those reports tomorrow. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 10AM, Friday, 05/22/2026. 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 10AM, Friday, 05/22/2020