Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Senate, please come to order. Are there any announcements? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. I would move that our rules be suspended in order to message actions taken this morning on h five forty two, an

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: act relating to terminating testing

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: of schools in Vermont for polychlorinated biphenyls, and h seven ten, an act relating to defining electricity generating facilities to the house foreclosed.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to message our actions on h five forty two and h seven ten 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. We will now move to h nine thirty five. We have on the calendar fraction h nine thirty five, which was passed by the house on 05/14/2026. It was referred to the committee on government operations, 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 forty four thirty eight of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the affecting the appropriate 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 government operations with further proposal of amendment as found in your calendar today on page forty four fifty six. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H nine thirty five, an act relating to emergency management.

[Presiding Officer (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. Senators will, no doubt, remember it was in summers just passed that we had some major flooding occur, especially in the Central Vermont area. And at that time, we began work on some emergency management legislation. And this bill, h nine thirty five, in many ways is a substantial refinement of that work that we took a couple of years ago. I'm gonna do the first six session, sections of the bill and then yield to a couple of the other members of the committee. And, mister president, if I could, as we go through it, this is a strike all amendment, by the way, from the committee, which you can find on page forty four thirty eight, and I'd like to outline both the underlying bills that came across and also the changes that

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: we made.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: You may.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you. So section one adds to title 20 and establishes what is called the Ready Response Grant Program. The program is created to authorize the division of emergency management to award an annual grant to an eligible food bank to source, store, and distribute self shelf stable ready to eat foods and bottled water. The amount of a grant shall be sufficient to ensure that the food and raw water is appropriately stored, cycled, staged, and distributed pursuant to an MOU with the division. Food and water shall be redistributed by the grantees through qualifying nonprofits that provide food to individuals in Vermont. There will be, just so you know, later reference made to section 13 a in this bill, which will allow this not to be implemented if the Department of Public Safety does not have the funds available. Section two creates what is going to be called the urban search and rescue team. This would establish in title 20, a new program to issue grants of not more than fifth or $5,000 per grant, totaling not more than 25,000 annually to fire departments, emergency medical service agencies, technical rescue agencies operating within Vermont for purposes of improving operational readiness, investing in specialized equipment and personal protective gear, and providing first responders with technical rescue training. The USAR, which is the acronym for urban search and rescue, program managers granted APA authority to adopt procedures governing applicant review and scoring. The department is also required to collect records and reports from grant recipients concerning the use of those grant funds and provide a consolidated written report to both the house and senate, government operations committee. Again, for section 13 a, this section also does not have to be implemented if the agency of administration does not have funds available. Section two a amends title 20 by adding the administration to the of the program to the USAR team program manager's duties. Section three amends title 20 by adding a new definition in the chapter one emergency management subdivision. Whole community, in quotes, that's w h o l e community, means the collective of residents, emergency management practitioners, organizational and community leaders, and local, state, and federal government officials. Section four amends title 20 so that when the division of emergency management advises municipalities on shelter sites, both the division and the municipality are to work with that whole community as defined in section three. Section five amends title 20, with duties to require all local emergency planning committees to include representatives from organizations serving vulnerable populations and to coordinate with disability led organizations throughout all phases of emergency management planning. Section six is now deleted because that referenced, an earlier definition, but we've changed that with the definition of whole community. So, mister president, I'd like to yield now to the senator from Windsor District, senator White, for, the explanation of the next few seconds.

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

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. It's an honor to present sections seven through 11 to the body, both as the, spouse of a dispatcher and former wildland firefighter. My husband worked for fourteen years in The United States and Canada fighting wildfires, and my sections pertain largely to fighting wildfires. So look, I care too. The second reason I'm so proud to introduce and present this to you is because I'm the co chair of the Climate Solutions Caucus, and to respond to natural disasters that are increasingly caused by global warming and climate change feel very interconnected. So last year, we saw over 84 wild land fires with a drought due to the drought, which was leading to more summer fires than any time in the past twenty five years in our state. We had over one hundred and fifty four days of elevated fire danger in Vermont. In 2023, we saw that in Quebec, over 13,000,000 acres of land was burned. In 2024, we saw over 4,600 acres in Massachusetts burned. We also saw an additional 112 in Connecticut, and that cost millions of dollars to suppress and also caused the fatality of two Wildlands firefighters. So this is a New England problem. We know that the existing forest fire and fire prevention statutes that were created over a hundred and twenty five years ago were designed at a time, that no longer tracks with how we fight fires today. We now know there are very few rural fire departments, and these statues no longer align with how our communities are fighting fire today. The suggested language was developed in concert with fire chiefs and town forest fire wardens to address the deficiencies in that alignment. You'll

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: see

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: for my sections, what are we attempting to address? One of the first issues we're attempting to address is that the FPR commissioner's authority is not clearly defined. The proposed update clarifies the commissioner's authority to take command of any forest fire within the state and the ability to delegate that authority. This authority is needed for FPR wildland fire staff to take charge of a wildfire as incident commander. That request of suppression cost assistance from the FEMA Fire Management Assistance Grant quickly acting, that allows us to utilize nationally certified responders and incident management team members for large incidents. So that's the first issue we're resolving. The next issue is town forest fire wardens are responsible for forest fire suppression with no requirement for them to have an association with a responding fire department. Town forest fire wardens issue permits to kindle fire while the fire department responds if it gets out of hand. So that misalignment has been a problem. So the proposed updates identified the chief engineer, fire chief, of the responding fire department as the town forest fire warden, and it alleviates the additional workload on the fire chief by allowing them to have a designated deputy town forest fire warden, or more than one, to assist in issuing permits to kindle fire. So reducing that overburdened workload while connecting the dots on how fires start and how we respond to them. The next issue is that if statute reform moves forward, the payment provisions from FBR will no longer be needed since would not appoint town forest fire wardens. So the proposed update is the removal of payment from FBR and provisions for towns to pay a salary to town forest fire wardens. An additional issue is that there's a general lack of clarity related to fire suppression costs when FBR reimburses suppression costs on private or municipal lands, and there's no mechanism for ensuring FBR is notified that there is an active fire on ANR lands. That's a problem. So where FPR is responsible for those suppression costs, we have a proposed update. We clarify that suppression costs may be paid on private or municipal lands if funds have been appropriated or available through other sources. We provide timelines for informing of wildland fire suppression efforts, especially as it relates to potential reimbursement of suppression costs on agency of natural resources lands. Another issue is increased wildfire risk requires prompt notification of fire incidents. Currently, the court requirement is to report within two weeks of extinguishment. Putting out the fire. Fire occurrence information is tied directly to FPR fire response team staffing levels and operating costs. Therefore, the proposed update is that town forest fire wardens must inform FPR within twenty four hours of the discovery of all wildfires. So we cannot wait two weeks. We need twenty four hours notice when a fire breaks out. So what does that do within the sections seven through 11? Section 11 amends various sections of title ten and twenty to modernize the statutes related to those state forest fire wardens and town forest fire wardens and special forest fire wardens. Say that three times fast. It allows them to do as I described, to take command over forest fire response in any municipality unorganized counter gore. It allows them to delegate authority to act as incident commander or as a forest of a forest fire to another person, and they also serve on the Northeastern Forest Fire Protection Commission and enter into mutual aid compacts pursuant to the issuance of a ban of kindling fire permits on lands owned by ANOP. That's section seven. Section eight amends title 10 BSA chapter 83 sub chapter four, titled forest fire prevention, in its entirety to update the statutes related to town forest fire wardens. Those changes, as I described with my issues that we are updating, resolve things like amending to allow town forest fire wardens to appoint deputies and to clarify that a municipality does not that a municipality that does not receive services from any fire department, that they may contract to have a neighboring municipality's fire chief serve as the town forest fire ward. So giving options here if your town does not have a direct link there. It also amends to repeal the specific $30 annual pay and $30 training per diem that forest fire wardens receive from the commissioner of FBR. It amends to clarify that municipalities may be reimbursed for the cost of fire suppression services when funds are appropriated or otherwise available for that purpose, and that section also amends to establish and express reporting criteria that must be met by a municipality in order to qualify for reimbursement of fire suppression costs. We continue to amend relating to established reporting requirements, and we also an amend we also amend to have the state have a special forest fire warden that has the authority to issue permits kindle category three fires on lands owned by ANR. I'm gonna give you a description of categories of fires so that you know what we're talking about in the bill and how we amend it. Cat a category one fire means fires 36 inches in diameter or less that are built in stone arches, outdoor fireplaces, or existing fire rings. Sounds a little safe. Category one, lowest category. 30 they have to be or or 36 inches in diameter or less built in a location that's 200 feet or more from any forest land or field containing dry grasses or other flammable plant materials or contiguous to forest land. Category two, fire means it means natural wood fires in piles larger than 36 inches in diameter or 36 inches in diameter or less not built in those stone arches, outdoor fireplaces, or existing fire rings at state recreational areas or other public recreational areas or our private property. And then finally, category three is a fire that is applied to existing vegetation in a predetermined land area in a manner to meet specific or prescribed objectives, including fuel management slash abatement, firefighter training, agricultural field burning, forest management, wildlife habitat management, or the introduction or introduced species management, so think of those like prescribed burns, you're trying to do something positive in that scenario, those are larger fires they're not like in your fireplace when you're at your lean to at the state park. We also amend to clarify natural wood does not mean wood, brush, weeds, grass if they have been altered in any way by surface applications or injections of paint, stains, preservatives, oils, glues, or pesticides. Logically, accelerants, don't want just placed on wood. We make further technical corrections in that section, and I can go into detail about all those specific amendments that we make to define slash for provisions governing slash removal. It means branches, tree tops, other woody debris left on the forest floor after logging, for example. We're just trying to clarify a lot of stuff related to this. Then in section nine, it repeals the subchapter governing the uniform fire prevention ticket. This subchapter allows for the superior court to establish the uniform form to be used for a ticket issued by fire wardens for a fire prevention offense. Tickets are issued by the fire warden for a violation of those subchapters governing forest fire prevention. So all that stuff we just talked about, if you're not following the law, we're gonna have a uniform ticket so that everyone knows when they're not following the law. Section 10 oh, section 10 amends title 20 BSA two six seven three to conform that sections to the updates of the town forest fire warden amendments, and then section 11 amends a a section slightly further down to eliminate references to the uniform fire prevention ticket subchapter that is repealed in section nine of the

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden)]: bill that I just told

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: you about. There's a few more things I could tell you about the definitions of slash, but I'm gonna hold back, and I'm gonna yield to the senator from Orleans to finalize the rest of this bill for you.

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

[Senator John Morley III (Orleans)]: Thank you, mister president. I'll be speaking from sections 12 through 14. Session 12 is session law. It's the Department of Public Safety Public Safety Communication Task Force authorization for ongoing expenditure of funds. This section authorizes the Department of Public Safety to use monies appropriated or held in reserve to procure and implement a multidisciplinary computer aided dispatch system for public safety communications. Specifically, $12,250,000 for computer aided dispatch system and five years of software licensing fees. $290,000 for cybersecurity, expanded use of rapid SOS and geographic information systems, GIS. Three, four million five hundred thousand dollars, a, to implement and expand the land mobile radio network to include a statewide conceptual design, b, for designs and pilot projects, and c to build out or improve 10 or more land mobile radio sites. Department of Public Safety shall submit three written reports by 05/01/2027, 01/15/2028, and 01/15/2029 to the house senate and senate committees on appropriations in government operations concerning the expenditures of these monies. After three years the Department of Public Safety may request to use request use of any remaining monies from the appropriations appropriated or held in reserve under this section. Section 12 also extends the public safety communication task force to 02/15/2027. Section 13 a, programs contingent on availability of agency funds. It requires the Department of Public Safety and the agency administration to implement the Ready Response Grant program and the Technical Rescue Grant program only if there are available funds as a former as a earlier presenter stated. 13 b will appropriate $500,000 to the Department of Public Safety in fiscal year twenty twenty seven for the Ready Response Grant program administered by the division of emergency management. I have a feeling you might hear about that later. Section 13 c, emergency rule, 13 c amends part of the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act so that in addition to the existing grounds for adopting an emergency rule, the existence of an imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare, an agency may, if an amendment to a federal statute, rule, or policy will materially conflict with or threaten the ability of the agency to implement a statutory or regulatory program required under Vermont law. Section 13 b is session law titled sunset of agency emergency rulemaking authority. That will be repealed, repeal in PSA, and that's section 13 c on 07/01/2028. Section 14 are the effective dates. Section 13 c and 13 d, as I just spoke about, shall take effect on passage and all other sections shall take effect on 07/01/2026. Your committee on government operations heard from, deputy fire chief EMS and deputy emergency management director City Of Barrie, deputy commissioner of Vermont Department of Public Safety, co chair of Public Safety Communications Task Force, fire chief and fire warden of Williston, planner for Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, legislative council, chief from Virginia's Fire Department, State Forest Fire Supervisor Department of Forest Parks and Recreation, director Vermont Emergency Management Department of Public Safety, general counsel for the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Director of Finance Administration, the sponsor of the bill, Fire Chief and Fire Warner of Saint Johnsbury, the Associate Fiscal Officer, and your vote added committee was five zero one. We hope that the Senate concurs. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Recognize senator from Washington, senator Perchlik, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate appropriations committee looked at 09:35 and found that it was more than the minutes. So we have double amendments to deal with this. Our amendment is on page 4,456 of today's calendar, and it's pretty straightforward to its amendment. You just have to go back one page to page 4,454, and you'll see our two what our two amendments are. The first amendment is on page forty four fifty four, the paragraph small d. This is what the senator Morley just reported on. The money that was appropriated from the task forces. This is money that was already appropriated, it's not in this year's budget from budget from 2022, and we've been changed a couple times since. But most of the money gets appropriated as as described, but subsection d just had a three year period where it just is held kind of an escrow, and then after they do the state some of the state's supply work, it might get spent. So it was a little bit even referred to affectionately by folks in public safety as a bit of a slush fund for when they get done and see, like, do they have cost overruns? What what is needed? We were a little worried to having that money sit there and not get spent for its need given other fiscal constraints. So we we appropriate this $2,500,000, which is the remaining money in the budget. So to avoid any confusion with that leftover money, we're proposing to strike this subsection d and then deal with that in the budget. That's the first instance of amendment. The second instance of amendment which has been foreshadowed a couple times in the prior reports is that we're striking the $500,000 appropriation in 13 b. This this leaves the language. There was interest by the parties that the language for the make ready grant program stay there. They could kind of set up the program and have you ready for some money. So we leave the language for the grant program, but we strike the $500,000 appropriation. And there's language in there that says if if there's no appropriation then they don't have to do it, the language is there if they're able to find the money some other way. So those are two instances of amendments that we made to the bill. There are other impacts for de minimis or more negatively de minimis because there were some not paying the $30 fee to the fireworks to save us money. And we have a vote of seven zero zero, pass the bill favorably.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on government operations be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Wonder if I might inquire of the presenter of sections seven through 11.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The presenter

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Okay. I apologize for the report of the appropriation report.

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

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, Mr. President. So I noticed that the fire chiefs, municipal fire chiefs are gonna be responsible for controlling wildfires for lands owned by ANR, but they don't have there's no money for it. So I did have a concern from a constituent of mine who was concerned about being responsible for taking taking care of

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: the

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: property that owned by ANR but was no was an unfinanced requirement. Can can you explain that to me, miss Perch?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Appropriations didn't really deal with that section other than that the fact that it was gonna be a 12 to $15,000 savings because they did not pay those. I mean, it's only $30. I and a $10 annual payment if they free fire report. So I I mean, I assume, but I think it's a better question for for the reporter from gov ops about the specifics. I my understanding that this was proposed by the Department of Forest and and Rec Parks and Recreation. I'm assuming just that $30 or $10 per report wasn't sufficient for the work involved in sending them $30 but

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: I think the report is the president. And I will have for for the reporter of seven through eleven.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: The Okay.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: So the question is, shall the recommendation or proposal of amendment of the committee on government operations be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have amended the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on government operations as recommended by the committee on appropriations. Now the question is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on government operations as amended? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I interrogate the presenter sections seven through 11?

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The presenter of sections seven through 11 is interrogated.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I'm concerned about well, I'm curious about where the the phrase lands owned by ANR came from.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: I don't recall. It came over to us from the House. I'm not sure who proposed it. The language in section seven through 11 was largely proposed with the the with FBI. So I would assume that they had proposed that exact wording, but I would have to confirm with legislative counsel.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, President. But with the public trust doctrine, I assume that the land belongs to all the people of Vermont, and that rather than they are owning it, they should manage it for the general public.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Is that a question?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: That's a question.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: I'm not could you mind restating the question?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: I'd like to I'd like to know where the phrase came from.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Believe it's already an existing state statute.

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

[Presiding Officer (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 government operations as amended? 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 have proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on government operations as amended. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. I did wanna rise because I think there's a few competing thoughts that came up with this bill. The first is that we don't wanna overburden our fire wardens or our local municipal fire staff. And I think this bill helps accomplish that in part. I also think that the lack of funding for some of those grant programs is also a loss, but that was not under the control of our committee. So I empathize with the suggestion that there should be more financial support for these programs. However, that was not a part of the discussion ultimately. And I do think that the ability for there to be a specially appointed fire warden to issue permits will reduce a lot of burden on local municipalities for those ANR land permits. Permits.

[Presiding Officer (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 thirty five. We have on the calendar for action h nine forty two, which was passed by the house on 05/05/2026, was referred to the committee on agriculture, 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 forty four fifty 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 agriculture with further proposal of amendment as found in your calendar on page forty four sixty two. Listen to the second reading of the bill. Thank you.

[Senate Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H nine forty two, an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Addison, senator Heffernan, for the report of the committee on agriculture.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I will walk the body through the bill h nine forty two by sections. Starting on page forty four fifty six in today's calendar. We started out in section three unit pricing, convenience stores, and exemptions amending six VSA Chapter 37. Let's weigh into this shall we? First change is in definitions adding the definition of convenience store clarifying that these are sub mall format retail selling limited quick purchases items like fuel snacks and beverages. Explicitly excluding grocery stores, drug stores, dollar stores or any other stores of those manners. It also gives the Secretary of Agriculture discretion to determine the classification. Why does this matter? Recognizing that unit pricing per ounce per pound etc. Is less useful in small limited inventory stores. Prevents confusion and inconsistency in enforcement which was a big topic between the two parties. The second change is exemption rewrites. Rewriting unit price exemptions to be cleared and more particularly and more particular. Key exemption include small stores 7,000 feet or 7,000 square feet with lit with limits for change store operations, convenience stores, items consumed on-site, clearance or limited time sale items, mixed bin items, items where unit price equals total price, seasonal decorations or regulated alcohol beverages. Why does this matter? It simplifies compliance, reduces unnecessary regulation burdens, keeps customer protection where they are most useful. Agency of Ag and the stakeholders helped craft this language and they all agreed on it. Next section, section four, equine farming and current use use value appraisals. That's getting kicked into a study, and finance will let us know about that. But the Act Committee wants to know we have the full support of equine farmers or that we support equine farmers. Section five deals with rural economic development initiative. In an immense 10 BSA state statute 35.5 ms. Let's go over rural Vermont. What does this do? This clarifies and strengthens the rule Vermont economic development initiative, defines rural areas and small towns,

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: and we added,

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: and if you want to see on page forty four fifty nine, community development initiatives. This confirms programs and administrations through the Vermont Housing and Conservative Board. It expands and clarifies the services such as identifying funding opportunities, grant writing, and technical assistance, strategy planning and protecting, and project coordination. The priority focus is shovel ready projects ready for implementation that this will help move it along a little quicker. Key sectors number one of course is agriculture and dairy followed by outdoor recreation, value added food and forest products, farm technology such as phosphorus reduction, small business infrastructure, co workers and incubator companies start up, compositing, and historic preservation. Excuse me, compost. Why does this matter? This was requested from the rural economic development initiative to help farmers that may be in areas with more than 5,000 people to get the assistance with grants such as the grant writing in that, and I'll use like South Burlington for example, they have some farms there that we're looking to help and rural Vermont could not help them because they have the population of 5,000. Section six, well that was skidded out of here as well that had to do with exemptions for the forest industry. Section seven amends s 60 forest and fireman forest operations security fund. What does this do? It amends six VSA, states act forty six forty three. What it does is it streamlines application and awarding timeline. It requires review board recommendations within fifteen days and final decision by the secretary within fifteen days of the recommendation. Why does this matter? It speeds up financial assistance farmers or foresters after a weather event, improves program responsive during the losses or emergencies. And finally the effective date in Section eight, must have will take effect 07/01/2026. We have for witnesses, we have the board members of the Vermont Retail and Grocers Association, General Counsel of the Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets, Meadow Hill Consultant, Agricultural Weights and Measures Specialty Agents of Agriculture Foods and Markets, Lobbyists of Vermont Equine Industry Advocacy Group, Legislative Finance Manager Joint Fiscal Office, Chief Weights and Measures the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and Food and Markets and the Environmental Advocacy Vermont Public Interest Research Group as well as Champlain Farms, Maple Meadows and I can't think of the name right now, well as a resident from Montpelier stopped in and lobbyist miss Carson group and probably butchered that. I'm sorry. Vote out of committee was five zero zero and we asked for the senate support. Thank you mister president.

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

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

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: The committee of finance, looked at the bill, and although there's no specific dollar amounts contained in the bill as such, there are two sections of the bill that do represent potential threats to income and revenues from the state. The first is section six of the bill, which includes certain retail sales taxes on motor vehicle parts and other items

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: that

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: are used principally in logging. And the second is in section four of the bill which goes into detail regarding the equine farming concept. Equine farming represents essentially farming horses. And the question about farming of horses is, well, what's the product? We know that there's hay that comes from grasses and other things that are grown. We know that cows and pigs produce offspring that represent that and also represent potential foods to eat. But equine farming, the question is what does it produce? It may produce little horses, but what are they worth? And there is no information available, at least to JFO, that gives them a good picture as to how to calculate the economic impact of adding additional little horses. And so these two portions of the bill were stripped in order to allow from some additional analysis to be done to give us an idea as to what is the return on investment from these parts of the bill. With those two parts eliminated or stripped from the bill, which the committee and the amendment that exists on page forty four sixty two recommends that those two pieces, section four and section bill six of the bill be dropped and otherwise, that the bill be passed on with a favorable vote of six zero one. Thank you, president.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on agriculture be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter from the finance committee?

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I maybe partially I'm stalling to try and better understand exactly what was just said. Was paying close attention to the discussion about equine farming because we actually have a lot of horse farms in Chittenden County, and I know that many of our constituents have been in the building to discuss these sections. Can I first clarify with my colleague from Franklin County, if those sections being struck from the bill means that they aren't allowed to participate in the same benefits that other farms are allowed to participate in now in the bill?

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: That's correct, mister president. There is a piece from JFO that goes into detail, and essentially, it's not that the committee is saying that this is not potentially a great idea. It may be or it may not be, but there's insufficient information to tell us what the return on investment for of allowing it to do so would produce. And so what this does is it requires a study to be performed so that we can get the analysis, we can get the numbers we need in order to make an intelligent

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: decision.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Mr. President perhaps I got up to make an inquiry too soon but is did the Finance Committee clear this with the Agriculture Committee that clearly heard enough about horse farming being farming to include them in the bill in the first place?

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: Well we did certainly have discussions with members of and the chair of agriculture that this was coming so that they were aware of it.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Mister president, I I thank the senator, from Franklin. My my final remarks on this would would just be that it it it would potentially be helpful to hear from the your Senate Agriculture Committee because to my knowledge horse farming and equine operations on a farm have long been considered farming in other areas of the law and I'm just not sure exactly. We usually don't measure a farm's full existence or right to receive benefits by how much income they produce or how much of a return on investment they get. So I just like to better understand from the Senate Agriculture Committee how they feel about dropping these sections. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington) — Chair, Finance]: I I will probably see to the agriculture committee for them to say how they feel about this. Agricole equine farming that produces little horses, frequently called foals, and that is a breeding operation, are allowed to join current use, and that happened in the 2013 study by property valuation. The bill as it came to us was very broad. Basically, if you had two ponies in your backyard and you had less than 25 acres and you made $2,000 a year giving riding lessons on those two ponies, you could be calculated as equine farming. The because it was so broad and because the state doesn't have account of how many of these operations they are, The best we could get was it could be a $3,000,000 hit to the education fund or an $11,000,000 hit or more to the education fund. In these times, we didn't feel I've been very clear. I grew up in Kentucky. I rode horses. My grandfather bought and sold western horses in Massachusetts. I have muck stalls in miscellaneous states, and I would love to make equine farming up there. But as chair of finance, I'm have a fiduciary responsibility. So we this was sent to a study, in property valuation so that they could get a better handle on what's out there and therefore what the potential cost could be.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. I, I feel for the, senator Chittenden. I appreciate the concern. I think that we have gotten to a first good step to get equine farming into the program of current use. I certainly was hoping that we get there, but I also understand the chair of finances reservation. I am happy at this point in time that we at least have gotten into a study so that we can get more information for it. And I'm that if we had been able to have more time at the beginning of the session or in the first biennium, then we probably would have gotten to the point of, of including, equine in, current use programs. But, I'm happy that at least we've got it to a study and feel confident that once it's looked at, fully, that we'll gain the confidence of, the chair of finance and all the other committees that may have, some jurisdictional, areas and that we'll get there. So I am thankful at this point in time that we've got to what we got to. Thank you, mister president.

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

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president, and I thank

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: the chair of finance. We found that her discussions of growing up on a farm and mucking mucking out stalls was extremely helpful

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: to us. And it's a rep perspective

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: that we needed in order to evaluate this bill.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: The key point though of the bill in terms of the actual recommendations was that the more land that you add to the current use program, depending upon where it produces, means that it's gonna have a potentially negative impact on school funding and at a time when we are very concerned about the amount of money going to and being available for school funding. That's why this degree of care that we are suggesting in this particular amendment is particularly important.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on agriculture be amended as recommended by the committee on finance? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. At the risk of I was gonna say beating a dead horse. That would mean on page forty four fifty nine, just to the point of the the chair of finance, we define equine farming,

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: the

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: raising, feeding, or management of four or more equines owned or boarded by the farmer, including training, showing, and providing instruction and lessons in riding, training, and the management of equine. So it is a little bit more of a tightened up definition, but as the chair of agriculture mentioned, we do appreciate the work that the finance committee did on this. And we realized at the time that we pushed this through, we were potentially opening a door where we needed to go back and get some more information. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. And you have amended the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the Committee on Agriculture as recommended by the Committee on finance. The question now is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on agriculture 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've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on agriculture as amended. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h nine forty two. Mister president? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Given where we are and given our attempts to interact with the house, they have a clean calendar at this point. So our intention is to be sending them more to work on. So with that said I would ask that our rules be suspended in order to take H935 and act relating to emergency management through all remaining stages of passage. If I can in one motion I would add the same for h nine forty two.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: That's h nine thirty five and h nine thirty two.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orange)]: Forty nine forty two.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Nine forty two. Senator from Chittenden has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to put h nine thirty five and h nine forty two through all remaining stages of passage. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. The motion carries. Okay. Let me find that script. It is the third and in concurrence. Propo with in concurrence with proposal of amendment. Okay.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Yep.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Are there any amendments prior to third reading?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Seeing

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H nine thirty five, an act relating to emergency management.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: And 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. Ayes have it. We've passed h nine thirty five. We now have h nine forty two for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H nine forty two, an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects.

[Presiding Officer (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, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We've passed h nine forty two. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Mister president, I did overlook h five six seven, an aggravated unclaimed property. I would move that our rules be suspended in order to take that through all remaining stages.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: It when

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: finance withdrew their amendment.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. If I might amend my motion to suspend the rules to include h two ninety four.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Okay. So the senator from Chinon Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to move h five sixty seven and h two ninety four through all remaining stages of passage. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and the motion carries. Okay. In concurrence. We have h two ninety four for third reading. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator Vyhovsky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden)]: Yes. I don't have it in hand because I was supposed to meet with the committee tomorrow morning to go through it, but I can get it and provide it. It is striking one line of text, and that is the line that includes core civic in the I I don't know what to do. Like I said, I have the amendment drafted. I was taking it to the committee in the morning.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Maybe a brief recess? Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: We will take

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: a brief recess. Will senate please come to order? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. I do have an amendment which is now being passed out. I appreciate the brief recess. It is a very simple amendment. As I said this morning, I am concerned about setting the precedent of including for profit private prisons in consultation on working groups around our correctional facility, which is run entirely by our state. I do appreciate that we do have some people who are incarcerated that are out of state that may be in a poor civic facility, and I believe that our Department of Corrections can ensure that all of their, the people they are in the custody of have access to the very important things that are included in the study group. So what the amendment does is it strikes course of it from the list of stakeholders. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill be amended at senator from Chittenden Central?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. I will be supporting this amendment. I think it's it's a very small change in a large group of stakeholders that are gonna be consulted. I would point out that while CoreCivic will not be, it won't be mandated that they be consulted, nothing in the bill as it stands would prevent them from being consulted by folks in Vermont. And we do have inmates there, so that sort of consultation might might well occur. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orange)]: Are you

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: I'm sorry, mister president. Thank you. There was a question as far as the amount of wages that the inmates receive, they receive between $0.25 and a dollar 25 depending on the job that they are doing.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: And

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: I thank the junior senator from Franklin for that question. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the senator from Chittenden Central? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And the motion carries and we have approved the amendment. Are there any further amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H two ninety four, an act relating to telecommunications services and wages in correctional facilities.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We've passed h two ninety four. In concurrence, no problem. We now have h five sixty seven for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Senate Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: H five sixty seven, an act relating to unclaimed property, state retirement systems, and capital debt.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. There is a handout related to this bill to respond to senator the senator from Rutland's question. This is the pink and green chart I referenced earlier that has the different amounts of money to reach sustainability. So hopefully that helps address it, and there's a copy available for everyone. And there's other information on the backside related to the fund as well that was not asked in the question, but I thought would be relevant if you had constituent questions.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: There's two there.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The 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 passed h five sixty seven. Senator from Chittenden. Well, I didn't know where he was going. All together at the end. Okay. And where would you like to continue?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: S three twenty five, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: We have s three twenty five. The committee of conference has submitted the report as found in today's calendar. And the question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee at conference? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. The other body made several changes to s three twenty five, and the committee of conference made some further changes to their to the other body's changes. You can find out our committee of conference report on page four four sixty three, and it's just instances of amendment, but I'm gonna be telling you about both the changes that appear in the previous conference report as well as the changes that the other body made, in roughly chronological order as they appear in the bill. So here we go. So probably most notably the other body removed what was referred to as tier three and the road rule That includes all of the implementation deadlines and associated rulemaking. Since there was no tier three or road rule, then there is effectively no tier two any longer. Tier one and the interim exemptions remain, though the exemptions have been somewhat altered since the bill left the senate, and, we agreed with all of, those changes. Specifically, the interim exemptions have been brought, to, 2028, which aligns with the implementation of the tier one process. They are now a year after the regional planning maps are updated. They also removed some language that we had included regarding priority housing projects remaining in tier one b eligible areas. The reason being that there are no processes currently established for, for determining tier one b eligible areas. There are future land use maps and then a municipality can apply for tier one b, showing that they have the necessary zoning or subdivision bylaws, but no entity is predetermining tier one b eligible areas, though that is where it could conceivably take on in the future. In section six, there was an amendment that create in the, other body's version, that created broad exemptions from act two fifty for events related to accessory on farm businesses. The committee of conference spent most of their time on this section trying to determine what made the most sense. There was a reason that events associated with accessory on farm businesses have been problematic, in law, and that's because the what ifs are seemingly endless. It's a particularly thorny issue, and the committee felt that the language in this amendment was too broad and unclear. So the committee of conference made two important changes to the section on accessory on farm business business events. The first was that we tried to add some, level of specificity and guardrails. The language that you'll see here was taken directly from h one twenty eight from 2024, which was a previous attempt at adding clarity to accessory on farm business events. Again, this is not a new issue. That particular bill did not make it all the way through the process, but it did get passed out of house agriculture, and so it did have some level of bedding. The language includes that the events, that the exempt events may, include concerts, but they can't go past 10PM, and they can't be louder than 70 decibels at the boundaries of the property, which is roughly the sound of a dishwasher or a normal conversation or a moderate freeway traffic, etcetera. And it can also include farm stays, but they must have five or fewer dwelling units. And the events, the events must feature I'm I'm sorry, must substantially feature agricultural practices or qualifying products. However, there is a lot more that we could have discussed. Even in the short conversation that we had, it became clear that there were many rabbit holes we could go down and we just didn't have time for them, which leads me to the second major change we made in this section. We recognize that whatever we have here is not likely to be right or the best it could be, So we have, we had some conversation about whether we should have this language be effective now but sunset or whether we should just forward date the, the effective date. Either way, we acknowledge that the legislature will need to revisit this language again next session. It ultimately made sense to us to make the language effective one year out so that we could get more feedback on it over the next year that could inform the conversation that happens next session, especially as, that one of the themes that we felt we heard from the conversation on Act 181 was a desire to have more opportunity for feedback and input. So that's why we landed on an effective date that's one year out for the exemptions for accessory on farm business events. So that's that section. Okay. Moving on to other parts. The other body had a re envisioning of the language that we adopted as a result of the amendment from, the senator from Chittenden North. They kept our strike through language that removed tracks of land on 10 acres or less, and added that the project itself, including any land incidental to the use of housing projects such as lawns, parking lots, driveways, or leach fields, etcetera, could be on 10 acres or less and or had to be on 10 acres or less in order to qualify for the exemption. So we appreciated that, it was kept and and clarified, a little bit further. As to the language that we incorporated as a result of the amendment from the senator from Orange, that language was removed as it created a situation in which it was possible to have no regulatory oversight over housing projects as they created act two fifty exemptions in areas that potentially also had no zoning or subdivision bylaws. We had a section that removed the word rare from the list of set of types of species that municipality had to plan for. The other body removed this section as the land use review board has already created guidelines for municipalities and the database and a database already exists that municipalities can use to create their plans. One of the notable sections that was new coming over from the other body was a public engagement plan. One of the things we heard from Vermonters was a desire to have more public engagement on land use planning issues, and so instead of presuming any outcome and getting feedback on that presumed outcome, the language in section nine charges the Natural Resources Conservation Council and the Vermont Council on Rural Development to come up with a plan to engage people on the risks to losing working lands and equitable and efficient and effective regulatory and non regulatory tools for protecting working lands and critical natural resources. The committee of conference modified their language slightly to include, looking at barriers to land stewardship and that the process had to be nonpartisan and not presume policy outcomes. The other body also came up, with a new section that creates a joint legislative environmental oversight committee, which would have three members from the senate and three members from the house, that was part of the the conversation that we had in the conference, and they would meet with the land use review board to ensure strong communication and coordination regarding the interpretation and implementation of the statutes related to act 21. This joint oversight committee, is set to sunset in 2029 so we can evaluate whether or not they have been effective. They are necessary to keep. Their new section 11 creates a new report that includes recommendations for accessory unformed businesses to come from the Land Use Review Board, sprawl prevention and stripper development to come from the Land Use Review Board, and it asks the community as separate report, it asked the Community Investment Board to generate an annual report regarding designations, and steps awarded to different municipalities. And to, the municipal report that, ACCD was already doing that was in our version of the bill, they included an ask on looking at the type, price and location of housing that's created through the interim exemption. We thought that would be useful data to see what the exemptions are generating. And the bill is now effective on July 1 as opposed to on passage. The committee of conference unanimously supported this result. We ask for the senate, to also support it, and I, in addition, would ask that when the vote on this is taken, that it'd be taken by roll. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: It has been requested that when the vote is taken, it'd be taken by roll. Senator from Orange.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Orange)]: If I could, I just want to correct the record with my proposed amendment. The indication was there would be no review. There is review. There are multiple per permits that would be required for the project. They would all be technical permits, but there is a review process.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: Thank you.

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

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

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: I'm just trying to get a little bit of clarity in my mind about the 70 d b level. The reporter, I think, mentioned that the sound of a dishwasher was about that level, but I'm wondering how far away one would have to be from the dishwasher. Like, is it in the same room and you could hear it? Or I'm trying to get a sense of the property lines, which I believe, mister president, is where someone would stand and try to measure 70 d b, how far would something 50 yards away or a 100 yards away be able to be heard at that level or not?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I appreciate that question, and I I think we answered it a couple of different ways, but I would start with that it is supposed to be at 70 decibels at the boundary of the property or, at the property line. To be clear though, I think the senator's question may also be related to, if we're talking about a dishwasher, how close to the dishwasher would one need to be in order to, for it to be 70 decibels? I don't have an answer to that. This was, for what it was worth, this was, relative to some, relatively quick, searching on what a 70 decibel level would be. Another measure that I thought was useful was, that in a casual business setting, it would be the level of sound of a normal conversation. So in in case that, is useful to you. The 70 decibels was a level that was identified in age 128 of twenty twenty four, as a part of their their recommendations, and so that's really where this comes from, though I will admit that that that may not be the right level and should it not be the right level we have all of next session to take more testimony and get it right and I appreciate that as a as a place where there could be more conversation or specificity and and get more testimony and we did acknowledge one of the this is this was not the senator's question one of the things that came up was if there are weddings that are allowed, what about fireworks does that count, and how do we account for that kind of, noise and, we did not we did not have time to to that as I said we we did not have time to go down all those rabbit holes, but I appreciate I appreciate the question that I probably said more than is, useful.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Well, I don't know about that, mister president. I thank the report. Are

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Mister president, might I interrogate the presenter?

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. I am specifically looking on page forty four sixty six, the ninth instance of amendment. And my interpretation, I don't know if it was from the reporter's remarks or what I'm reading here about a new subdivision, but is this new language entirely that, was presented in the conference committee or otherwise, where did this language come from?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I have a further question. I'm on page forty four sixty six and I'm wondering, because this is the instances of amendment and I'm wondering which instance, the senator may be referring to.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: The ninth instance of amendment, the data collection. If it helps to have some preamble of where I'm going with this, these all have very specific definitions or this is data that your housing committee has been chasing for a long time without running afoul of any laws about, protecting people's, identified data. So I'm just trying to understand the genesis of this language.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, Mr. President. The majority of this language in the ninth instance of amendment came over from the other body as something that they added and it is appearing here in the committee conference report because we were they did not include types of units. And, we wanted to know types of units and then that generated some conversation about well what do we mean by types of units and and so that, is where that list of including the number of affordable units, market rate units, second homes, units for short term rentals, units for long term rentals, single unit dwellings, multi unit dwellings, that is the part that is new as coming out of the committee of conference and then I think there was some different the idea of where the units were was in the life from the other body but we I think there was just like a little bit of a couple words added there to get at the same point. Yes.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Thank you. Mr. President where it says the price, that's a pretty broad term in housing law. Did the committee intend to capture the price of a unit for sale, a subsidized unit price, a rental unit price?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you Mr. President. We did have some conversation about what we meant by price and I think there was some conversation about whether or not to be constructed, like, cost per cost per construction, though we ended up not going with that. And so appreciate that the the senator's concern about, you know, what kind of price we were discussing here. I think the intent was market rate, you know, what it was going for.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Mister President, when the senator from Washington says market rate, does that mean market rate for sale or market rate for rental or both?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: I don't think, thank you, mister president. We did not contemplate, we did not discuss the rental, aspects of that. So I think we were mainly considering, the price, for as it as it would be for sale.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Thank you, Mr. President. My final question for definitions like affordable unit, second home, short term rental and long term rental. Your finance committee's heard me say this, these all have different definitions and different areas of stat ute. In fact, someone could have a second home that they also use as a short term rental that they also use as a long term rental. Did the committee contemplate which definitions were going to be used?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: I think, mister president, we did not contemplate which definitions ought to be used there. And, as this is a part of the report, I imagine it would likely be up to the discretion of ACCD.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Mister president, I that was my last question. But just to clarify, the, report is being requested to the Department of Housing and Community Development that is our partner in collecting housing data and where is the report going, Mr. President?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: If I may clarify, do you does the senator mean, who is it being reported to?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Who's the recipient of the report, mister president?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: If you could give me thirty seconds, I can tell you that. This report should be submitted to the house committees on environment and on general and housing and the senate committees on economic development, housing and general affairs, and on natural resources and energy.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Thank you Mr. President, I thank the member. I would just conclude by highlighting that you know this is not a deal breaker for me by any means in the larger considerable body of work that was done in s three twenty five but I hope this underscores for the chamber that it is extremely complicated and involves a lot of confidentiality and a lot of consideration for best data management and collection practices to ask these types of questions. We as the your Housing and Economic Development Committee ask these questions all the time. And it guides our housing policy but we have to be extremely careful about what we're seeking out in these areas and and be much clearer in the future Mr. President because there there is some of this section that is either duplicative or we don't have that information where you're really hard to get that information or it's it's especially unclear what's being asked for and what information would be gathered by collecting it, as well as our your committee on housing and economic development has gone to great lengths to, increase utilization of the landlord certificate, and made all of that information confidential so that we could better understand the overall rental rates in different regions of the state and whether or not they are increasing drastically or coming down. But it was very important that we do a lot of that work confidentially because if you're talking about small tracts of land that were exempt, you can end up relaying otherwise identifying information about taxpayers and the use of their property. So with that, Mr. President, I will support the conference committee report. I just hope we are careful about what data we believe we have or are trying to collect. President.

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: So here we are, mister president. Few years back and some time ago, we had some grand discussions about most of what the conferees ended up at. That at January, we spent millions of dollars, waste a bunch of time, all the while, which we could have been spent doing better and more impactful work in our state. The bill that started out seeking to increase housing has done little of that, but instead has changed the landscape of Vermont in a positive way with hopefully more to come. Rural Vermont has found their voice, has been reinvigorated into a into the political process, crossing party lines, and become ready to engage this August through November. A little rally of 16,000 members are ready to go to work to protect the most cherished parts of their lives, their property rights, protect against government overreach, be involved in education reform, and also be involved in defeating harmful environmental laws driven by out of state Vermont special interests. For me, it can't come soon enough. What bothers me the most is

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: that most of what

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: was predicted about the harmful effects of bills that were overwritten and what they would do to our state have become true. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Yes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Mister

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Mahomes.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Yes. Martin. Yes. Senator Yes.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Senator White.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Yes.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Senator Clarkson. Yes.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Seven three. Got

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: it. Those voting yes, 27. Those voting no, three. And the senate has accepted and adopted the committee conference report on s three twenty five. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Mister president, point of inquiry.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: What is your point of inquiry?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: I'm I'm not sure if it's in order, to ask, which votes were counted in each category. We have a discrepancy in our count over here, and I wasn't sure about a particular member's vote. And I wonder if

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: We'll take a brief recess. Will the senate please come to order?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Yep. You got Senator

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. As to my point of inquiry, we have cleared up the discrepancy. The presiding officer did present the right count and I would just ask as a courtesy with the noise in the room that if someone's using rhyming words to say yes or no, that the first, letter really does matter in enunciation. Thank you, mister Christman.

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

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. In in light of a request from our colleague from Addison to reconsider his vote, I move that the senate suspend its rules in order to allow an immediate reconsideration, of that vote.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to reconsider our vote on h three twenty five. Are you ready for the questions? If so, all in favor say aye.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: It will be a vote.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: It will be a vote. Yes. Okay.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we will reconsider our vote on s three twenty five. The question is Senator, it's been brought to my attention that someone voting in the affirmative has to now request the reconsideration. Absolutely. The senator from Chittenden Central has moved that we reconsider our vote on s three twenty five. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: So just a point of inquiry. Is it was so this motion is coming from the senator from Chittenden Central?

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Yes. Okay. Only affirmative people can ask for reconsideration.

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

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

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: This stuff intrigues me, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: It's a point

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: of clarification. If you ask for it, if you voted in the affirmative, do you now need to reverse your vote?

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: You do not. Okay. You're just reconsidering your Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: If I might for the body's knowledge otherwise we would need to wait twenty four hours we are in a very very accelerated timeframe we may in fact be leaving tomorrow or the next day. So with, input from the minority leader and his caucus, I try to make sure that we're operating with general assent. We we have assent on this. The only thing we need to do is suspend the rules to go back to allow senator from Madison to reconsider.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden)]: Not the first.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: We we are not doing a roll call on this.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: My my apologies.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Is everyone ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. The ayes have it, and we will reconsider our vote on s three twenty five. Now the question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference? This will be a roll call, or does someone have someone needs to ask again?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Roll call.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: A roll call has been asked for, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Mister Ruth? Yes. Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Benson? Yes. Senator Bongartz? Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Brock? Yes. Senator Chittenden. Yes. Senator Clarkson. Yes. Senator Caledonia. Yes. Senator Cummings. Yes. Senator Gulick. No. Senator Hardy. Who's Doctor Harrison?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Yes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Doctor Hashim? Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Doctor Heffernan? Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: Yes.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington) — Chair, Finance]: Senator Lyons. Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Major, yes. Senator Mattos. Senator Morley, yes. Senator Norris. Yes. Senator Pershing.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Yes. Senator

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Plunkett. Yes. Senator Bob Hinsdale.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Bahosky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden)]: No.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington) — Chair, Finance]: Doctor Watson. Yes.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Yes.

[Senator Randy Brock (Franklin)]: We

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: are now presented with another problem that three conforees are missing. Shall we just move on? Oh, they're right here. At least two of them. Good. The question for those who just reentered the room is shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on f three twenty five?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: Senator Bongartz. Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Yes.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Very efficient. Got it. Those voting yes, 28. Those voting no, two. We have accepted and adopted the report of the committee of conference on s three twenty five. We now have the committee of conference report on h seven forty. The committee of conference has submitted the report, and it is found in today's calendar. The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on h seven forty? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. The committee's conference made a relatively small change to language in h 740 pertaining to the greenhouse gas inventory that the state publishes real related to statewide data. The intention here is that the more granular data collection that's contemplated in h seven forty is meant to inform the statewide inventory, and as it currently stands, the statewide inventory is set to sunset in 2028. Given that the senate's version of h seven forty included an appropriation and direction to adopt rules by 2027, that may mean that they may actually miss each other. If more granular data collection starts in July 2027 and the statewide inventory ends in 2028, that, reflects what happened in 2027. There there is not even a full year of overlap. As a result, the other body proposed to push out the sunset for the statewide greenhouse gas inventory to 2030 so that there would be at least a couple of years during which we can compare the two and make adjustments and alignments as necessary. The committee of conference report was supported by two out of three senators, and we asked for senate support and, again, would ask that, this be this vote be taken by roll. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Senator has requested that when the vote is taken, it be by roll. Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on h seven forty? Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Ruth? Yes. Senator Beck?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Rutland)]: No. Senator Benson? No.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Those voting yes, 17. Those voting no, 13. We have accepted and adopted the committee of conference report on h seven forty. We now have committee of conference report on h nine fifty two. The committee of conference has submitted the report as found in today's calendar, and the question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on h nine fifty two? Senator from Windham. Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. The committee conference met multiple times last week, and we agreed to the language that you see on pages starting on pages forty four sixty eight. Both the senate conferees and the other body were concerned with the prison facilities that we a lot of time with that specifically the Wi Fi door controls and a boiler. We agreed to move funding around accordingly. We've been discussing the Wi Fi for the prisons for years and we were able to include ADS the agency for digital service Services in conversations. We ended up with a comprehensive outline of a plan to modernize processes in addition to just providing Wi Fi so we actually improve things. The three entities involved corrections ADS and BGS will report monthly to the joint legislative oversight committee between this and the next session. Our concern with the Vermont cuts contract with the state was resolved through additional language that the commissioner of course parks and rec recreation report to the House and Senate chairs with a status report on the lease provisions prior to exit executing the lease. That language will allow the process to proceed as planned over the summer but with appropriate oversight. The policy language regarding the sale of 110 State Street,

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington)]: we spent a lot

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: of time on this, was opposed by the other body and the administration. We were able to come to an agreement to allow the sale by adding conditions to protect the building. These included a price of at least market value, interior and exterior protective covenants, request for proposal and sale contracts being provided to the chairs, and intent language, that helps. It, says that the historic attributes of the property are to be protected for future generations. The language to protect the town's ability to establish municipal stormwater utilities remains. The last item I want to report, unless anyone has a question, this one is important because it involves other budgetary actions, specifically the T bill and the education bill. We receive a bonding recommendation each year from the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee. The bonding recommendation for this two year cycle was lower than in previous cycles, not because of the state's credit ratings or ability to pay the debt service, but because we were not using the funding we had accumulated in previous years. We have excess capacity, excess bonding capacity, and it didn't make sense to add more funding to that capacity, particularly because BGS could not implement the projects, and it's not their fault. The proposed 50,000,000 bonds each for transportation and for school aid were vetted by the treasurer before they were proposed. So I just wanna say it again. The proposed 50,000,000 bonds each for the transportation, bill and for school aid were vetted by the treasurer before they were proposed and will be again vetted before any issue is considered by a future legislature. I ask the senate to approve the report of the committee of conference. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on h nine fifty two? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and we've accepted and adopted the report of the committee on conference on h nine fifty two. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. At this time, I would move that the senate suspend its rules order to message actions taken on h two nine four and acclimating the telecommunications services and wages and correctional facilities. H five sixty seven and acclimating to unclaimed property. H nine thirty five, an acclimating to emergency management, h nine forty two, an acclimating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects, and h nine fifty two, an acclimating to capital construction and state bonding budget adjustments.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to message our actions on h two ninety four, h five sixty seven, h nine thirty five, h nine forty two, and h nine fifty two 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 (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. I believe that completes our work for the afternoon. Hopefully, when we meet again, it will be a little less hot. With that said, president, I would move that the senate stand in adjournment until Thursday, the twenty second twenty eighth

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: of At 10AM?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) — President Pro Tempore]: At 10AM. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Senator from are there any announcements? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate health and welfare will meet tomorrow morning at 08:30AM.

[Presiding Officer (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you. Have two announcements. Senate economic development housing and general affairs is good. We'll meet at 08:30 tomorrow morning, and the countries for h six thirty nine, our genetic data privacy bill will be meeting at five, and the countries should meet up beforehand. So I'm missing one of them but I see one.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) — Majority Leader]: So we should just huddle after the floor. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (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, Thursday, 05/28/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we'll stand in adjournment until 10AM, Thursday, 05/28/2026.