Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senate will come to order. Welcome back. We are, now moving to s three thirteen, an act relating to transforming Vermont's career technical education system, and that is s three thirteen. S three thirteen was passed by the house with proposal of amendment. Question is shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? And I would recognize the senator from Rutland.

[Senator David Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. So I rise to report s three thirteen. The House proposal amendment relating to transforming Vermont's CTE education system. At its core, the House kept the Senate's findings and intent language, but expanded the bill significantly by adding guidance requirements. Agency of education, reporting, rule, review requirements, and additional governance and implementation concepts. I'll briefly walk through, members through what changed and what it means, in practical terms. Section one and two largely retain the senate past findings and legislative intent language regarding career protective education transformation. Section three is new housing is new, new house language. The house requires the agency of education in collaboration with VACTED, which is the Vermont Association of Career and Technical Education Directors, and the Superintendent's Association to issue guidance by 01/15/2027 before upgrades to CTE rules occur. In practical terms, the section attempts to create more clarity and consistency around the current CTE system before new rules are written. It addresses things such as definition, competency pathways, work faceless learning, safety standards, reporting requirements, and flexibility for regional delivery models. There are positives here. Greater clarity can help reduce confusion between ascending school and technical centers and may improve, consistency statewide. At the same time, members should understand that also expands administrative direct direction and may create additional process before implementation. Question becomes whether we're simplifying issues for CT or layering additional guidance and structure into already complicated systems. Section four amends rule making authority entitled 16 that requires CTE rules and procedures to be reviewed at least every five years and updated as necessary. This is probably a reasonable accountability provision. If we're going to maintain statewide CTE system rules, it should not sit untouched indefinitely. Section five is the largest house amendment and probably is most substantive change to the bill. It requires the agency of education to provide recommendations for general assembly regarding education, licensing, flexible pathway, enforcement system, career planning, adult diploma access, and statewide implementation questions. On educator licensing, the host language attempts to strike a balance between maintaining equity while unintentionally creating barriers that keep industry professionals from leading teaching in CTE settings. This is an important conversation, because one of our biggest workforce challenges is getting qualified people in the classrooms who actually possess real world skills and experience. The bill also directs AOE to recommend what it calls a pre enforcement intervention pathway. In plain English, this appears to create an early mediation process between CT centers and sending schools before formal enforcement occurs. Some members may see this as a collaborative problem solving. Others may reasonably ask whether this creates an, yet another administrative layer between identifying a problem and fixing it. Section five also expands discussion around flexible path flexible pathways development and statewide data systems. Member

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: members should ask whether the improved consistency and access or whether it makes further complexity

[Senator David Weeks]: in a system that may many schools already struggle to navigate. There's also language concerning adult, diploma participants and access to programs including CTE opportunities and possible state funding requirements. Section six, maybe one of the most important policy discussion. The house introduced legislation intent around moving forward what it calls comprehensive high schools, means schools that fully integrate career technical education and traditional academics into one school structure and budget. There may be opportunities in this idea, but I would also urge others to think carefully about regional access, rural geography, and our existing CTE center structure. Many Vermont students depend on regional deliveries models and CTE hubs for access. Any future movement toward forward comp toward comprehensive schools must ensure we're not intentionally limiting access for rural students or weakening regional career and technical education opportunities. Section seven strengthens credit affordability. The household adds proficiency language and requires school boards to apply approved CTE credits or proficiencies towards graduation requirements rather than leaving it entirely discretionary. In practical terms, this means students should receive more consistent recognition for work completed in approved CTE programs. Section release the CTE governance legislative working group that's been contemplated as section nine provides for effective date of passage. And that's passage upon it's effective upon passage. So in summary, the house did did not abandon the senate's intent, but it substantially expanded the bill. The bill moves towards transformation goals and into implementation structure reporting, guidance, mediation, credentialing, statewide framework, and future school delivery models. For members, the central question is complete. Does the bill improve access to career technical education and remove barriers for students? I believe it does. And we ask for I'll and I'll be followed by my I'll yield to my colleague from Chittenden and Southeast.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Rutland yields to the senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Thank you, Mr. President. I am actually reporting completely unrelated sections of this bill. You've heard the effective date. We passed a bill out of the Senate, I think without controversy. I and I think on a voice vote, called s two thirty, labeled s two thirty, and that was somewhat of a miscellaneous labor bill. There was one piece of that bill and I would call it small, but very significant to one population of state employees. That was very, certainly very important to them. But that was indicated to be controversial by the executive branch. So what the house chose to do, I think otherwise without significant controversy was to add the rest of that bill to the career technical education bill, I suppose, given that they're both labor matters.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: So

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So we voted on all of this language and all of it remains unchanged. There was a section removed, but what remains of that bill is what some might call some federal codifying language or some alignment language in two sections are Parental and Family Leave Act and our Fair Employment Practices Act. You know, one that ensures we're still aligned with the federal definitions of parental and family leave. And two, to make sure that victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, what is otherwise known as safe leave, there are some provisions that we've updated there. There is another small section, I suppose of value to us that exempts elected and appointed municipal officers from the definition of employee. Folks may remember that one so that we can be paid less. And then finally, this might be the piece that both committees jurisdiction spent the most significant time on, which is non compete agreements in the healthcare industry. While we did not tackle a lot of other sectors and wage thresholds around non compete agreements. It is more of a common practice in States. And there's more examples of language to draw from, to create, non compete to limit, I should say non compete agreements in the healthcare space, because, there's such high demand and, there's, you know, there's a very different sense of what it means to be competitive, and to be able to take your skills elsewhere. So, those, I'm happy to take questions. I do recall those largely being non controversial and moving with a five zero vote originally out of our committee. Mr. President, you know, if I may, as I'm glancing over at my colleague from Windsor, my senior Senator from Windsor, I'm just really glad that she is getting to see us take what I think is a really big step on career technical education. I truly came into this body not really feeling passionate about the word CTE at all. And all she could ever talk about was CTE, CTE. And one day, you know, it just hit me like a lightning bolt. We are not serving a big chunk of our young people well. And I think like anything, whether it's universal pre K or other aspects of these big systems, we're trying to influence. We have financing issues, we have access issues, and we have governance issues. And if I could summarize between, the report on S-three 13 that you just heard and some of what folks may recall in the report from H-nine 55, we are attempting to drive at universal access for career technical education and really align that with the rest of our efforts to envision excellent regional high schools and, you know, just make sure kids have all of the opportunities available to them in a way that they can experience and access. We are trying to provide a lot of clarity and non competition in the financing space. And you also see that represented in trying to figure out a weight and an appropriate path forward for the financing piece in H nine fifty five. But what I also think is answered in S three thirteen is a question that has been, I would say stymieing us for a long time about how we achieve non competitive financing and universal access, which is should the governance be at the state level or should the governance be regional and fit as much in with the districts, you know, in which those students otherwise reside. And it has been really heartening to see that, now we have our CTE directors at the table as we talk about CSAs and larger units of government, governance. And that, I think this marks the legislature really trying to settle the question that we need regional aligned CTE and academic priorities and access for all of our kids. So I just really, it's a day to applaud our retiring senator from Windsor. And aside from housing, you know, this was the other major economic pillar that she has carried the water on for decades. And so I'm glad she gets to see us hopefully pass this bill. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: And the senator from Chittenden Southeast yields to the senator from Roeks.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Do I? Yes.

[Unidentified Senator]: Thank you, mister president. Senator Virginia. Just to wrap up the briefing on the house proposal of amendment for s three thirteen. Three witnesses, one was the chair of house committee on commerce and economic development, plus, the office of legislative council representing both education and, consumer rights and labor, and the voting committee was four zero two. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator. Question now is shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The ayes have it, and you have concurred in the house proposal of amendment on s three one three. We now have, h nine three three, and I'm wondering, senator from Chittenden Southeast, if you have a motion.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: I move that the rules be suspended and that h nine thirty three appearing on the calendar for notice be taken up for immediate consideration.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to take up h nine three three, the miscellaneous tax bill pending entry on the notice calendar. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have suspended your rules in order to bring up h nine thirty three. The Committee of Conference has submitted the report as now being passed out. Question is shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference? I'd like to recognize the senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Thank you, mister president. When I get the committee of conference report, I will be probably more focused. September, as you remember, is the miscellaneous tax bill, and it was truly a miscellaneous tax bill. Large portions of it, the first half, and you're gonna be getting a joint fiscal note, and it just does a nice job of listing out what was in there. There were a whole bunch of miscellaneous tax changes, adjustments, updates that come from the state the tax department, and those went through with everyone. Again, more adjustments. They were then the whole series of couplings and uncouplings with federal law in the area of business taxes. This was a result of the big beautiful bill, which did a series of cuts. And if you remember when through corporate taxation laws, series of changes. And it took us a while to actually be able to work through the impact on the state. We thought at first it would be a couple million fairly de minimis. It turned out to be more like 25,000,000, which was not de minimis. And so there were a series of links and unlinks as it came from the house. We made a few technical corrections to that. The house put in a whole section on fish and wildlife suspending their fees and saying they had to come in this year. The senate put those fees in the bill, the present fees, So they're all they're all covered. When it got down to it, this wasn't, g, the housekeeping bill. There were only two sections that were really under contention. Contention. Well, maybe three because they still had a 100,000,000 increase to the downtown tax credit, and we had 500,000. I'm not sure which way it went, but it got settled in the budget. I think it is the 500,000, but it went elsewhere. So the two areas that we worked on, the first was this bill also contained, excuse me, the understanding the need in the transportation fund for more money. You remember the governor's original proposal was that this year, there'd be a $10,000,000 transfer from the general fund into the Ed fund, and that they would take $10,000,000 of purchasing use tax out of the Ed Fund. Next year, there'd be 20,000,000 taken out up to the whole thing, which was in, like, four years, we would have around a $50,000,000 hole in the education fund with no way to recoup that. So what was in this bill as it came to us and as it left us was a there was the percentage of the purchase and use tax that was was decreased, and that money went to transportation on a permanent basis, there was an increase of roughly equal amount in the meet rooms and meals tax that went to education fund. So education was held harmless. And then in all decouplings and decouplings, we actually raised $10,000,000, which went to the general fund. So everybody was held harmless. But that contention and the need for more money in the transportation fund has remained there, and there have been other proposals to permanently take some money out. But somebody's gonna get left with a $10,000,000 hole if we we do that. And I I just wanna remind the body, purchase and use does because it's basically automobiles, goes to the transportation fund. When we did act 60 many years ago, we raised the gas tax, which also goes to the transportation fund. We raised it, I believe, 1¢ in order to cover some cost in act 60. I actually didn't do that. But that was an additional 1¢ of the gas tax that was raised, not taken. It was a new addition, and it was raised for the education fund. Number of years later, separating out the gas tax, we were already getting the sales tax. There was a switch made so that the 1% additional gas tax went to transportation, and we got a a like amount in purchasing use. So it was a trade, but it wasn't theft. We raised the money separately. This year, that money has gone back. But recognizing that and in discussion with the 5th Floor, the solution that we've come to and that is in the bill is that this year stays the way it is, everyone's whole. Next year, we will transfer we will the bill has an adjustment, an increase in the rooms and meals, a decrease in the purchase and use that goes to the Ed Fund. That leaves the Ed Fund hole, and then that $10,000,000 will go to transportation. However, there is no new $10,000,000 this year to fill the hole we will be causing next in next year's budget. So that will be left to whoever is here next year, but it was the best we can do. It does state it was proposed that we state that we we were going to keep reducing that money down until we got to the, yeah, payment system that we are going to, the foundation formula. And said it said we're doing this one year at a time. We this is just not a time to put holes in the education fund when so much else is changing. And nobody yet knows what the foundation formula is going to cost. We have proposals. We know we need to ramp high spending schools down. We know we need to ramp low spending schools up, and that's all some of that aspirational language that we haven't filled out yet. So we stuck with it's our, you know, it's our intention, and I'm forgetting the actual words, but it's a little milder than we plan to transfer more money out. That was one section. The other section was over the SGO scholarship granting organizations. This is in federal law. Anyone can take a $1,700 refundable tax credit and donate that money to a scholarship fund anywhere in the country if the state signs on and says it's gonna be part of this. Lot of concern in in this body and in this building about setting up private scholarship scholarships to private schools. And so the proposal that the house sent the rules haven't been written. They probably won't come out until about July from so we don't know what parameters there are. House said, we're not we're opting out. We're not gonna do anything. And next year, the legislature will decide if we're going to opt in. The senate said, and it was a proposal sent to us by the education committee, Well, why don't we use this money, see if it's possible to use it to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds? And so we wrote it with a lot of guardrails that said, if the rules allow, we will set up. The difference was we had the governor authorizing the scholarship granting organizations, SGO, not this body, because we're not gonna be here in July when the rules come out. So if the rules allow, the governor can appoint some scholarship or one scholarship scholarship granting organization to provide scholarships to students of, you know, disadvantaged backgrounds for after school programs, things like robotics camp, STEM cell programs, tutoring, but those extra educational enhancements or opportunities that kids whose parents don't have the money to pay the extra fees to go to them are missed. And that was was that's what came out of this body. What we've landed on is we will do the senate proposal, and they actually had some better phraseology. Whoever gets the organizations have to have an MOU with a public school or school district, we wanted to make sure that all of this money stayed within the public realm or controlled by the public system. And we agreed on the senate system, and I believe one of the handouts you received has the numbers for how the ups and downs in the purchase and use tax and the and the, yeah, the rooms and meals. How that will work, it and it's only for the next year. We have to be back here next year. I personally am concerned that right now the education fund, other than property taxes, is are funded on consumer taxes. And the more we raise rooms and meals, given the kind of instability at the federal economic level, you know, you hear both ways. We're gonna keep getting better or we're gonna crash and burn, but the potential to have a negative impact on the Ed Fund, plus we have no numbers yet on what it will cost to fund the foundation formula because it has been set, or what it will cost to pay for transportation and special ed. So those are still part of the whole education system that are being worked out. I believe that is it. It is pretty much a noncontroversial bill. There are only about two areas of of contest, and we've just been waiting to settle till we finish the yield bill. So we hope this body will concur.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator from Washington. Question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on h nine thirty three? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed signify by saying nay. The ayes have it, and you have accepted and adopted the report of the committee of conference on h nine thirty three. Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Mister president, I move the rules to be suspended and that h nine fifty five and act relating to next steps in the transformation of Vermont's education system appearing on the calendar for notice be taken up for immediate consideration.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to bring up h nine fifty five, an act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont's education system, for immediate action pending entry on the action calendar. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have suspended your rules in order to bring up h nine fifty five for immediate action. Question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference? And I would recognize the senator from Bennington.

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: Thank you, mister president. A quick refresher for the body. We, as you know, the week before this, rather than have the two bodies work go into a conference relatively quickly and come up with they come up with and then have then try to negotiate with the governor's office afterwards and perhaps be looking at a veto because the governor's office didn't like what we did. We used last week to have informal discussions between the house, the senate, and the governor's office to get us as much as possible on the same page to reach agreement on some of the larger areas of potential conflicts so that we avoided the train wreck, frankly, and, approach the end game with an element of codify that might not have otherwise been there. And so, by the time we got to the conference committee and that and that's that's where the amendment came from that on top of the work of the, so we started off with with nine fifty five as it came out of the in the way out of the Ed Committee and the and the Finance Committee and then we used that time and that's where the amendment came from as we voted on last week which then sent us to the point of being ready for the conference committee. And so the work of the conference committee is actually you know what I I when we got this after the all the time we spent we got this last night we finally got the draft to do and I want the worst of you know where is it all of this because it was actually not that not that complicated in the end even though it took a while to make sure we had everything right. We had we actually had a really. Lot of discussion very by way of one body seating necessarily to the other begrudgingly. It was more looking at sections and working together at how to take those key sections and make sure we really got the language right in those sections. We worked as a as a the group of us, the me, the senator from Addison, senator from Chittenden North, and, of course, our house counterparts. And so really, there was it's really just working to make sure we we ended up getting this thing right in the end. And a lot of it was a lot of it was focused on language. I have to say they were the way this this works often is that, you know, the house proposed something and then the Senate takes the time or has the ability after the House has done the work that it's done to really be able to look at it carefully and look at things that might have been missed or the word that the T's not crossed and I think a lot of that went on and I have to say the House was very complimentary to the senate and the work that it's doing, that it that it did to, pull this bill together at a at a, you know, just to to the next level up from work got sent over to us. And, so just a handful of changes, and I'll just go through them quickly. And then I get, by the way, before I'm done, I'm gonna cede to the center from Addison for the parts that have a little bit more to do with the Finance Committee. The first the first element of change on on was on section one was just deleting one of our findings because in the end, we really didn't have the documentation for it, and we wanna make sure with findings that it's well documented. Second, the second element of amendment was, adjustments to the seesaw boundaries that actually in part flowed from the the work I'll mention in a minute around changing some of the merger groups. But again, it was really just looking at them thinking thinking through the house suggesting a few changes here and there and, largely, the maps aren't that much different than they left here. And we we had, some language that, frankly, I think the senator from Addison was the one who realized that neither bill had something in it that would say what happens if with the CESA, when the CESAs are formed and each district sends a member up to the CESA board, what happens if one of those members is no longer a school board member? And that's the kind of thing that we spent time on is making sure we had those little provisions thought through. So what happened that's the fifth instance of amendment goes to what happens if frankly, it's simply that district appoints another member. The sixth instance of amendment gets to one of the things that we thought about a lot is that if you're putting together a map and we as much testimony as we took in the House took, it's really gonna be, you know, in the end, very difficult for us to know exactly who would make sense to be working with whom in which, circumstances. So we built in some fluidity to make it easy for a district to go, you know, it really makes more sense for us to be over here and working with these people and they can do that. And so to the extent that we have the groupings that are that are, in this bill, they're also very fluid so that because it doesn't make sense to force a district that really wants to be over here into this group where they're not going want to participate, not going to want to be successful. We want we want to set this thing up for success And so we built in that fluidity that I'm just hitting some highlights here. The seventh instance of amendment was just a little reporting fix that this report from the committees after their form that looked like they want to go forward is sent simultaneously to the Secretary of Education and the State Board of Education. And then simply making clear in the eighth instance of amendment that when those reports are forwarded, the secretary reviews the reports and proposed articles of agreement that the merger and determines that it's advisable and then forwards it to the state board and the state board acts and approves. Just sort of logical logical things. The ninth instance of amendment is is, some realignment of some of the merger, merger committee groupings that we had. We looked at the two maps again, the two maps together out of the two bodies and made a made a handful of changes. But again, doing that is what led us to really make sure that the mapping was a starting point and was a lot of fluidity ability for, districts to move from one to the other. So I won't go into all of those because take a while. It'll take a long while. The next thing after that was in section 24. Is that once the foundation form that goes into effect, this was always what was intended and we just this is kind of clarifying that whether it's an independent school or a public school, the tuition that comes from the foundation formula is the limit of the tuition that can be charged and that will be we really know more about that after the weights determined, but in any event, once the foundation formula goes into effect, the tuition is the the ability to set tuition above is not is no will no no longer adhere. There's a section that was in the House bill that had kind of a prohibition on fees beyond tuition. And that had frankly a lot of implications and a lot of problems, for from our our perspective, just because of the realities of the world and realities of the way that schools across the board, public and independent work. And so we turned that into a study and looked at that and had was having the agency look at do a report, not a study, or report back to the legislature looking at that issue in the context of the foundation for. So just moved that one to a report back to us from the agency That was something the House had in there that we didn't we weren't enamored of. And there's a class size the class size minimum that that was in that was in the last year's bill at 73, but the House bill had some language sort of statutorily defining how some of that worked class size minimums. And we were a little worried about having that in statute because it's the kind of thing that the the agency I'm I'm sorry, the board ought to build a move as circumstances change and we learn more. It's it's not the kind of thing you normally wanna put in statute. You wanna have that be rulemaking so that it can be it can be a little bit fluid as well. So what we did was we accepted what the house did on a temporary basis. So there's we have the temporary definitions, then to the for the for the board to promulgate rules and once that happens, the, the rules will will take over from the statute which which goes away when once the rules are adopted. And we added within the temporary provisions. Recall last year for the average class size, there are like the high school class size average I believe it's 18 students. But exempted from that were things like terminal classes of of and advanced placement courses and others that are typically a little bit smaller. We didn't wanna have the schools not doing those things that make sense. And we added a provision within the within the temporary statute that also we wanted to make sure we weren't forcing schools to just like move everything to general classes as they made sure they had enough And so we added another category that said, specialized or targeted academics, academic opportunities are also exempt from that just to make sure there's a lot of a lot of room for schools to do what really makes sense for kids without running up against the class size minimums. And I am approaching the part about, the tuition and not being able to accept tuition beyond the the foundation amount once the foundation fully goes into effect. It was also partially dependent on the notion that there might be a high school wait. And the provision we there's a second provision related to that that says that if the report that comes to us determines that there should be a high school weight in the legislature hasn't enacted a high school weight by the time the foundation formally goes into effect, that prohibition on tuition would go away. So it kind of forces the legislature to make sure that it follows through and that is it for my sections. Think it's time for me to yield to the member from Addison starting with the fifteenth.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Bennington yields to the senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president, and thank the senator from Bennington. So I'm on, for those of you who may be following in the calendar, for, page forty seven seventy four at the bottom of the page, the fifteenth instance of amendment. This makes a modification to an appropriation that was in this bill related to facilities master plan grant program. In the Senate version of the bill, we appropriated 900,000 to this. We had to move it down to 800,000 because, the Appropriations Committee needed an extra $100,000 So we were happy to help out our friends on the Appropriations Budget Conference Committee. So that's that change and it is reflected in the big bill as well. There are a couple of instances in here where you will see the term Study Committee change to Merger Committee. That's just to make it consistent throughout the bill. That was a change we made earlier this week in the floor amendment that we did. So that sixteenth to seventeenth instance of amendment makes it clear that it's CDAP, which is the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee, would be making the recommendation about how much bonding capacity would be eligible for the school construction fund rather than the treasurer. That's just making that consistent. Next one is another study merger change. The nineteenth instances of amendment is about the legacy debt aid program. You might recall if you were listening earlier this week, the Legacy Debt Aid is for debt that has already been issued by as of 12/31/2024 and works construction has begun on a school construction project. And there's debt that a school district has issued and is paying the debt service back. The foundation formula does not have a mechanism for paying for that debt service. So the legacy debt aid would help pay for service up to 75%. And what this amendment does a number of things is that well, that's the next one I'll explain later, but that's what this program is. And you might recall that there's a determination by the lead facilitator of the Merger Committee Facilitators Group that could make a determination that a school district acted in bad faith during the merger study process. If a school district is determined to act in bad faith, they couldn't be eligible for the legacy debt program. So that's a big decision and potentially extremely financially impactful for a district because the person at the table was not acting in good faith. We wanted to build in an appeals process for that determination. There is an appeals process built in where the school district can appeal to the Secretary of Education, and then the Secretary of Education would make a determination about whether or not they could still qualify for legacy debt aid even though they acted in bad faith. And there's timelines put in that and a requirement that the, Secretary of Education adopt policies for how this will work. The Secretary of Education's determination would be final. So that's just laying that out there. The next instance of amendment is what I started to explain. It's regarding the definition of supplemental district spending. On top of the foundation formula, there's the ability for school districts to spend over the foundation amount for supplemental district spending. In most cases, this would require a vote of the school district If they have a specialized program they want to run or if they just need extra money, they would have to go out to the voters and ask them for it. Or if they're issuing a bond for a building construction project, they would like under current law have to go out and get that bond approved and then pay the debt service or the portion of the local amount of debt service through their supplemental district spending. But for the legacy debt, for those school districts that have already issued bonds prior to the foundation formula, there's already been a vote of the voters that has approved that legacy debt. If they qualify for the legacy debt because they've not been a bad actor, they will get 75% of it paid for by the state, but the other 25% needs to be paid for by Supplemental District spending. So this provision in the twentieth instances of amendment allows them it changes the definition of Supplemental district spending to include the debt service that's already been approved by voters. So there's not another vote for them to approve it because they've already approved it, but we needed to make sure that there was a way for them to pay for this debt service and so we had to make the change to that definition. The twenty first instance of amendment is just a date change, moving from, something from 2031 to 2030. You'll recall we changed the timeline throughout the bill. This was just one of the dates that we missed. And so we are correcting it there. The final instance is just making modifications to the effective dates for some of the provisions unrelated to the provisions in this amendment related to the tuitioning contingency. And that is the final instances of amendment. Mister President, I just want to take this time and I'm hoping I'm not gonna cry. But what a difference a year makes. And, I am super proud and happy to be standing here reporting this and having worked with the senator from Bennington especially, and also the senator from North Chittenden North, on this process. And so many other people, our staff, I first want to say, thanks to John Gray because I missed him last year when I was thanking everybody. But all of the legislative council attorneys and the JFO analysts and staff, are just amazing and it's been great to work with all of them and it's really great to do good education policy. And thank you all for supporting it and I'm just really proud and I hope that our state moves forward in the way that they need to do it. Our communities are going to have a really hard time and we need to be there for them. We need to be encouraging them and helping them and guiding them. And I hope that we all go out and do that and really make sure that this is successful because there's a lot on the line for our kids and, just really we're all on us and our communities now. So thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator. Well well earned tiers. Question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference on h nine fifty five, next steps in transforming Vermont's education system? Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mister president, I rise in full support of this, and I look forward to voting yes. And I'm not offering amendments, and no, we can't do that. But I did want to inquire of the reporter of sections 18 who gave just remarkable comments just now and also earns a lot of credit for getting this to such a successful place.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: So

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator senator from Addison will be interrogated.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: So, the question, though, is somewhat technical in nature, and it's because I'm hearing since this is fast moving from a variety of different stakeholders, again, not asking for an amendment, but I just was hoping for some clarity in your interpretation of these sections. And it's not just the district in my constituency, but across the state. It really has to do with the districts out there that have been queuing up since the 2023 facilities conditions assessment for possible bond votes for deferred maintenance or otherwise. I know some districts are queued and ready to ask voters in this coming year, and so they're they're just wondering for some clarity and as am I so I can respond back to them. I understand the Senate version that we sent over added new language requiring that districts shall not issue a bond for school construction until the Secretary of Education notifies the district of its state bonding support, and the House version didn't. And so I'm just kind of curious, in your interpretations of these sections, do you think what where the language finally landed, if there is a district that's planning to do a bond vote, can they still proceed with that bond vote in the next year or so and they would just have to apply for additional state aid? Or is it now before they can even do that bond vote and take on that debt, will they still need permission from the Agency of Education?

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you for that question, mister president. We all discussed this actually last night because we also, got those emails. The sections related to the school construction program that requires that they get permission from the Secretary does not go into effect until the foundation formula goes into effect. So if there's a district that wants to go out for a bond vote now, they can go out for a bond vote now. They don't need the secretary's permission. And even in the future, if they don't want state aid, they can do it without state aid. It's only if they want state aid and want to apply for state aid that they need to first, notify the secretary and go through the application process and make sure that they're following all the rules of the state aid program. Of course, the state aid program, if you want the money, you got to follow the rules. If you don't want the state money, you you know, you still have to follow the rules on the local level, you can go out and bond, a district can go out and bond without permission from the state if they're doing it on their own.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I thank the senator very

[Senator David Weeks]: much for that answer and for all of her work on this.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I just wanna say I I didn't quite know the answer to that question. I lose god for the clarity, and it did just happen last night. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Again, the question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference? Are you ready for that question? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. I also wanted to thank, the senators who worked on this monumental bill. It was a monumental task, and I so appreciate all of the many, many hours that you spent on this as well as our great staff. I just wanna take a moment to, you know, refocus as much as fixing potholes and roads and bridges is very important. Education is also a huge piece of what state government does. But when we talk about education policy, I think a lot of times our eyes glaze over similar to health care policy. It's very difficult and very complicated. But I would like to echo something that, my colleague from Addison said, you know, this summer when we're out doing what we're doing on the campaign trail or not, check-in with your schools, check-in with your superintendents. I know rural Vermont is feeling like they have a win in this bill, but I'm worried about rural Vermont. I'm worried about our small schools, our schools in the rural parts of the state. Some of them are gonna close. And what is the plan for those kids? What are we doing with those children? The seesaws, I'm hoping will, once they're up and running, will give our superintendents the opportunity to focus on curriculum and learning because right now they, in the interim, I would say, they've got a lot of other work to do. So do our school boards. There's a lot of work to be done before we get to this future state, as we like to call it. So, you know, have some grace with these administrators, with these teachers, with these folks who are running our schools. This is going to be hard. And I think anything that we can do to support them is going to be deeply felt and incredibly important. So again, I just want to say thank you. I'm excited about the possibilities, and I'm also concerned about, the daunting task ahead of us. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Again, the question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on h nine fifty five? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have accepted and adopted the report of the Committee of Conference on H95, next steps in transforming Vermont's education system. Next on the calendar, senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. I move that rules be suspended and that h nine fifty one, an act relating to supporting appropriations for the government conference committee report appearing on the calendar for notice be taken up for immediate consideration.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to take up h nine fifty one, an act relating to making appropriations for the support of government for immediate action pending entry on the notice calendar or on the action calendar. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and you have suspended your rules. We have now H nine fifty one. The committee of conference has submitted their report as will momentarily be passed out to you. Question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference? And I would recognize the senator from Washington, senator Perchlik.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Thank you, mister president. The conference committee on nine fifty one, I think, meant 20 times. Maybe it 21 times. Our last time was at 11:00 last night. So I have not a lot of time to go through the changes. The highlight sheet that's being passed out is based on the total bill, not just the changes in the conference committee. But I will highlight my highlights of the highlights. So the one thing we talked about when we passed this senate version was the percentage increase. I remember the senator from Caledonia, being pleased that we had kept the overall growth of general fund, total funds under 2%. We did increase from 1.95 total funds to 2.1 increase from f y twenty six, but that is just because we we found about $13,000,000 more. We'll talk about it later, but there was $10,000,000 more nonclaimed property that was sent over from the treasurer's office to the general fund that we spent. Then we had 3,000,000 in reserves that we unreserved for a payment. We didn't raise any new revenue, but we had new revenue to spend. And that's why the total percentage went from 1.95 to 2.1% increase from fiscal year twenty six to fiscal year twenty seven. On the high on the base appropriations, remember we have base and one time appropriations. On base appropriations, I just wanted to highlight the positions in ANR that we added. We we had a position for Saltville, but that was vetoed. So we're able to create two positions at ANR that fully implemented the Flood Safety Act of 2024. I know people were concerned that those were important positions as we prepare and try to mitigate our dangers of flooding. So those are those were new new positions that we added at ANR. On the highlights for the one time under health care and food service, there's a bunch of changes that were around all the food programs or hunger programs. So I'll just say kind of what the changes were. One of the senate positions that we made that was championed from the senator for Lamoille was that we provided money directly to our local food banks. We had a we had moved money from other food programs to make sure the local food banks got a direct aid. We negotiated down a 145 from that. Still get $550,000 distributed from those, like, 200 food shelves. So it's not a lot of money per shelf, but it can help them directly. So we went down 145 k there for OEOAE, agency of education, child and adult care feeding program, which I called Summer Feeding Program, but that was we increased 7,000 to 157,000. The Vermont feeding Vermonters program, we increased from the Senate position $140,000 to a total of $250 the NOFA programs the crop cash and crop cash plus and farm share we increased $225,000 up to a full 350,000. We also were able to increase meals on wheels program funding. Down at the bottom on other on this highlight sheet, all the final bullet points are kind of major changes. We were able to fund the $700,000 for the AOE's read Vermont program. This was a program that we had started by direction of the work from the education committee on literacy. They had basically through some miscommunication and missteps, I would say, by the agency of education and the Department of Finance and Management wasn't in the governor's budget, but wasn't the governor's kind of ask after we started. But because of the confusion around that and the educations committee working on education transformation, that didn't get in there. But the on the education conference committee, part of the part of that whole deal was that we would fund that. So we were able to find that money in the budget or we made sure that money was in the budget. That's so that's $700,000 for that free Vermont program. It also funds other parts of the whole transformation initiative in h nine fifty five that we just voted on. So here's one the biggest sticking point I'd say was the between the house and senate or spent the most time on was our differences on the UVMs multipurpose complex. If you remember the governor and the Senate position was that we would fund that with $12,000,000 We were gonna fund that from the higher trust fund, and the house positions felt very strongly that the higher trust fund should not be used for such a large, you know, reduction of that fund. So that I told you about that $10,000,000 that we had kind of extra money from the treasurer's office for unclaimed property. So we're able to use that $10,000,000 for 10 of the 12,000,000. We do still take 2,000,000 from the higher ed trust fund for the the multipurpose complex at UVM. And then there's some language that we agreed to that gets UVM kind of a time frame and some goals to raise the money. So they need to raise the money to show that the building's gonna be built. And if they don't build it for whatever reason, but the university feels very confident and supportive of the language. But if for something happens, for this institutes of construction projects, then they have to return that money with the interest earned to to the state. There is still in addition to that 2,000,000 we're taking up out of the higher ed trust fund for the UVM building, there's 2.5 I think for the Freedom Immunity grants, which was in the both the house incentive position and the 600,000 for the for out of the higher trust fund for a housing project at Johnson, you know, University of Vermont, the Johnson campus. In on the bullet point, it talks about a transformation project. That was a an error that we have in the senate position, and we called it a specific transformation project. But that transformation project is is already happening into senior housing. So this is a brand new project that's happening on the campus of Johnson State to build a new three story, basically, apartment building on the campus. So those are the highlights. I wanted to also go over some of the other changes that I thought were important to add. We had added positions in the Secretary of State's office for the child care licensure program, but that bill has died in the house. So we didn't need those positions at the Secretary of State. So that was why we're able to have some other money for some of the other things. Yes, two positions at the Secretary of State office. We had removed the mediator position from the Labor Relations Board. We were able to agree to the house and add that back in, which was something that we didn't really oppose, but it was when we were trying to find some money and we thought that they could work without that mediator position. So we were glad to be able to agree to the House position on that. Part of our senate proposal on the UBM Multipurpose Complex was the construct of taking the sales tax of the of the excise tax of the cannabis funds to help refund, pay back the higher interest funds. So since we were able to get that money from the unclaimed property, the cannabis excise tax is untouched and we'll just go keep going to the general fund. The Essex Commission, there was a lot of some interest on trying to find that another position for the Ethics Commission. We did agree to the house. We were able to to provide one position, full time position at the ethics commission, but it came with some language. We want the ethics commission to come back with kind of a a new proposal and how they're gonna be structured. Is is right now, they have a part time executive director. This would be a full time attorney. They could change it around. They could make the executive executive director full time and make this attorney part time. We also wanna make sure that the staff there is licensed to practice law in the state of Vermont as part of the Vermont bar. So and they also gonna come back with some recommendations on possible changes to the ethics commission and kind of rightsizing it with what tasks we've given them. We've clearly given them more responsibilities than they can handle with the staff we've given them. So we asked them to provide us with their opinion on how to right size the both the tasks of the staff because it's gonna be continue to be difficult to provide the staff they need with the responsibilities we've we've given them as we've noticed with the for example, the candidate campaign finance forms. We had reduced the funding by a $100,000 to the domestic and sexual violence special fund, which is something that we didn't do with a lot of, you know, excitement. We wanted to fund that, but we needed we were trying to fund a $100,000 to to fully fund the Center for Crime Victim Services. We were able to fund both of those fully. The the sexual violence special fund is given its whole 250 and the Center for Crime Victim Services was able to have their full $100,000. Something that wasn't in the senate position has passed, but that was advocated by the senior senate conferees was a $50,000 grant to Janice Thomas. They had lost a grant from the Department of Corrections to help women with reentry services that had, substance abuse issues. So they weren't we weren't able to fund the full amount of that grant, which was 85,000, but we're able to do this 50,000 and we're hoping to maybe look at that that budget adjustment because it's a very important program. And we had this language if you remember, we had a lot of the positions that were created. The Senate position was they wouldn't go into effect if there was a downgrade in July from the economists of 1% or more. We thought that was a way to carefully add these positions because if there was going to be a downgrade, we would have to cut a bunch of positions. We didn't want to hire people and then tell them that they weren't hired. When we've kind of went through the calendar events of when the upgrades come and then if there is a 1%, the administration is required to issue a plan on how to deal with the downgrade and if it's going to mean a loss of positions, they present that to joint fiscal. So we felt like the joint fiscal committee, we felt that was already kind of being addressed. So we didn't, we agreed with the house that that 1% language wasn't needed because by the time we did that, we will, those positions won't already be hired. It doesn't go into effect till July 1. By the end of July, they're not already likely to be to be hired. So those were the some of the language highlights. I thought I would also just make sure that other changes that were made on the senate position that I thought you would care about. There was the senate position had reduced the funding for the CDOU dead community resource center. People call it the day shelter in Burlington. We're able to to to fund that with $5,500,000, and that was part of h nine thirty eight, which was a whole construct that the senate was a little different. We already voted that bill out, so we we stayed within the same dollar amount of as the as the governor in in the house. There's a limited service position. This was also part of bill h nine five five that we just voted on. The State Board of Education gets a position. So we were able to fund that for a $130,000. This was something that several members had talked to me that helped that we could, fund back. The senate position had removed $250,000 for the council on rural development for technical assistance for communities, we were able to put that money back in. That technical assistance community will be funded at $250,000 So those were the highlights, at least at the time that I had to go through, of the conference committee. It was signed by all six members of the committee, and I want to thank the staff, JFO, the the the senators, and and house reps on the appropriations committee made the decisions, but really all the work is done by a JFO staff,

[Senator Seth Bongartz]: and we

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: definitely couldn't do without them, do it without them. They stayed up late many nights, especially last night to try to get this $2.56 bill in front of us by today so we could leave. Big shout out of gratitude for Georgia fiscal office staff and our committee assistant that also stayed late into the night last night for all her work. So with that, that's the conference report. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator from Washington. Question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference on h nine fifty one? Senator from Addison.

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: May I acquire the reporter of the

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Reporter will be interrogated.

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: On the addendum page 72, section b 1,100 of the one time appropriations, my question is, we're giving two point almost 2,500,000 for immediate available to the Department of Public Safety for a grant created to implement the regional communication system upgrade and this will enable the capital fire stimuli cast to dispatch cell as shown in the Vermont Public Safety Commission system on and on. My question is why there's other regions out there that would have probably would have liked to been a part of this and how did the committee come to determination for just the capital region?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President for that question. And the the the conference report has a lot of new language on this appropriation. The senate approp senate has passed. The bill has senate passed by the senate did have this appropriation in it, but it was pretty I think it was just, like, a few sentences long. We worked for the house. I'm putting a lot of conditions on this. The the reason that this specific region was was called out such directly is that they are ready to go. They're a shovel ready projects. They had already engineered their project, had already hired the same contractor that's working with the statewide system to design their project to make sure it was aligned with the statewide system. They thought they were gonna get one of the grants. Two years ago, the legislature had passed legislation that say that 4 and a half million dollars of the communicate emergency communication funding would be used for pilot projects. So they were moving ahead. The Central Vermont region or Central Fire and Rescue includes Washington County, Orange parts of Orange County, think of town in Caledonia County. It's it's bigger than just the county. And they they're they're a a well governed, structured, long standing, communications district. And so they had moved forward and had all the engineering and had already done an RFP and had a cost estimate ready to go. The concern was that this money has been sitting in Department of Public Safety since 2002, where none of the legislative goals for that money had really been met. We've changed it a couple of times. The last change required them to have a task force and the task force to have a final plan and recommendations. Age nine thirty five, which we already passed, spends all but 2,500,000 of that. The 2.5 that they did spend was just set aside and was going to sit there for three years. The concern was that money sitting sitting somewhere was likely to be taken. And I even heard from folks in the administration that like, had this not got spent, it's likely this would have been taken for for other needs in future years. So since we had a shovel ready project, the money was there, not planned for anything. It seemed to make sense like if it could be done to be aligned with the statewide system, we're going to build the statewide backbone. This would be the initial district and I think it'll help other districts. But I did talk to, some fire chiefs in Addison County about their concerns about about picking one over another. And I think for other districts that feel like, well, why didn't we get picked? Having one district go ahead kinda helps their argument. They're like, hey, you got this project. We learned from that first initial project. Let's now find funding for Addison County or Grand Isle County, whatever county's next and and has done the work. So that's the long answer to that question.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you for that very detailed answer. I think the senator so one other question. There they were shuttle ready. There was no other region that was as ready as the capital region. Correct?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: That's our interpretation.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I thank the president and I thank you, Mr. President.

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: Thank you mister president. I know after all these years you'd think I could figure out how to read the amendments, but, I can't because there's still no, index And I really want to follow-up on a comment the chair of finance made about the downtown and village tax credits. And so I would like to clarify what the final number is with if I could inquire of the reporter of the appropriations

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Reporter of the bill will be in I

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: would like to a find out what was actually finally appropriated for the Downtown and Village Tax Credit program and the economic development programs, have been back and forth. I'm thrilled about the Ethics Commission, and I think you're asking them to come back with very appropriate recommendations and work in rethinking how they can possibly do all that we ask them. But I would really love to know where economic development landed because you didn't mention them as one of your priorities except for the venue at UVM, which we're in part delighted by and in part wish there had been more money liberated for other things. But anyway, that being said I'd truly love to have an update on economic development issues and pieces that

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: were Thank you, Vice President. The reason it wasn't mentioned is I think everything in the Senate position didn't change on the economic development projects. I there was the downtown tax credit in there and I think that might have been something we had increased from the house position now. So I don't have those numbers, tip of my, but there's, I think everything that we had funded in the Senate position on economic VHIP, all those things were were funded the the law school, small business development, all the ones that we had in the Senate position, remained as they were as from the past by

[Unidentified Senator]: the Senate.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: That makes me a happier chair. Thank you.

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

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: Mister president, I just

[Senator David Weeks]: wanna say that this senator is absolutely delighted about the importance of the multi

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: purpose center. And I just wanna say that if we agree that Chittenden County is is an economic engine of the state, I just see the University of Vermont as the head gasket of that engine. And this is exactly what the state needs, and I'm really glad and excited that this happened. And so I look forward to all of us going to see some great shows at the University of Vermont Multipurpose Center and being proud of the investment that we're putting into in this budget. So thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: I will be voting yes on this bill, and I appreciate the hard work of the conference committee and especially the late night hours that it took, to get this done. I do wanna rise to say that I am not happy with the $12,000,000 and especially disappointed by the new arrangement of how the money is being allocated, not from the Higher Ed Trust Fund, although I had disagreements with that as well. The reason I'm not supportive of it isn't because I don't want to see Chittenden County be successful. I've never been in the camp as someone saying boo Chittenden County. I've never aligned with that vision or that style of communication about other districts. But it is extremely difficult for Vermonters across the state who are seeing their local municipal parks and recreation departments be gutted due to lack of ability to afford basic parks and recreation staff or maintenance of facilities due to declining ability to afford them. In our own communities, we can barely maintain our local ice skating rink. So it feels so disingenuous at this time when we're seeing small schools not be able to maintain sports facilities and local governments not be able to afford parks and recreation facilities and to be demanding that we have this athletic star in another part of the state when we can barely afford to have our own children practice the sport that we're gaining so much of a reputation for. It's very disheartening. It's also disheartening to build something new when we do not have the ability to maintain what we own currently. When we have roads that are crumbling, when we have bridges that are closed, when we have the inability to afford necessities, like maintaining those basic pieces of infrastructure, I think it's extremely problematic for us to prioritize building anything new regardless of how important or cool it would be to go to a concert or a game with fellow people. So I will be voting for this. And I do hope that UVM ultimately chooses to find and fund the full extent of the program and project with their own funds, because I don't think that it's appropriate for the state of Vermont to do so. And I will not be changing my vote based on that because I find that the work is so much outweighed with good work than this one small difficult choice that was made.

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

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. And I really thank the senator from Windsor for her comments. I could not agree more. It is a travesty that our small towns are not able to open their pools and their tennis courts this summer because they don't have the staff or the funding to do so, but we're funding a fancy recreation facility at UVM. However, I also I voted against the budget when it left this chamber, but I will be voting for it now. I do sincerely appreciate the work of the two chairs of the Appropriations Committee for finding a different funding source. I was really, really upset with $12,000,000 coming from the Higher Education Trust Fund, raiding money for college scholarships to pay for a recreation facility. I realize there's still $2,000,000 coming from that fund. I'm not happy about that, but I'm much happier than I was before. Two is smaller than 12, so I can live with it. But I I really do hope that the new president of this university will, step up her fundraising efforts and actually fundraise to support this facility that, they committed to before they had enough money to pay for it, which is a really bad financial decision in the past. I realize she was shouldered with it, but they really need to do a better job. And also, if they're going to come in and ask for funding for facilities in the future, they do it through the capital budget. That's why we have a capital budget. So I and I also appreciate the fact that you found some money for the ethics commission. So thank you, Senator, for that. I will vote for the budget. I think it's a better position that we're in. I'm still not happy about it. And the senator from Chittenden who's so excited about it better be inviting us all and buying us snacks for the first day. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Let the record show there was a thumbs up after that. Question is, shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee on conference on h nine fifty one, senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenter of the, budget, the bill?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Presenter will be interrogated.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. I was wondering, if the senator could explain to me, the a 150,000 going general fund that could potentially go to the language justice project, Vermont language justice project, it says in the event of a disease outbreak, natural disaster, other public health emergency, could you explain to me how that mechanism will work to distribute those funds?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik]: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. That is more of a description of the work of the language project, not a condition of the funding. The funding will be, perverted from other funds that are set aside in the Office of Racial Equity that were for interpretation and other similar services and then appropriated to the Language Justice Project. That that isn't meant to be a condition of like that there has to be an emergency for them to get the money if that's the question.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Okay that's wonderful thank you Mr. President I appreciate the answer and I appreciate the reporter of the bill answering my question.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Question again. Shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on h nine fifty one? Senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Thank you, mister president. Originally, I was actually gonna get up and say, I thought this was such a remarkably unremarkable budget. So I'm questioning my own judgment here, but the sentiment still stands that this is an incredibly difficult year. I want I hope folks can remember this, start of this session, the the budget address. We started this biennium in an economic free fall from Washington freezing millions and millions of dollars that were supposed to go to our communities, our school districts, our nonprofits. To me, it is actually remarkable how unremarkable this budget is, how much this keeps the lights on, how much this keeps our family's house and our kids fed. And I mean that as the highest compliment. I think it says a lot about the very chill appropriations committee that we have in full. It says a lot about the diligence of the staff. It even speaks well of the governor and the administration. And I particularly want to attribute some gratitude to the two leaders of our House and Senate Appropriations Committees. I was new to the house, feeling quite long in the tooth right now, especially with some senators retiring. When I was new to the house, it was, the start of the great recession and, a very illustrious speaker of the time, Shap Smith said, I don't put people on appropriations to grandstand. I put people on appropriations to keep food in the mouths of kids, to keep the environment protected, to make sure that government still works and still runs. And Mr. President, this was a year when a lot of people could have done grandstanding. There was grandstanding happening. Where we didn't see any grandstanding was from our appropriations committees. They were humming along in the background, getting the work done. Ways and Means and Finance must be where the grandstanding happened because I could never really be on appropriations with the calm and collection, that exists there. No offense to the senior senator from Washington. It was a me thing. I can't help but say Mr. President and as I was walking down memory lane to 2008 and the start of the Great Recession, I certainly don't want to be ominous about where we are in the country, the world and our state right now. On a lighter note perhaps, that was also a year we were trying to fund the UVM Multipurpose Center two decades ago. The same plan and know that that project at the time got shuttered because of the recession. We hope that the three year marker is a good challenge and that we can get that multipurpose center built and you will not only have snacks, but I think you will have some of the senators from Chittenden County and some of the senators, who are so passionate about UBM finally having NCAA level facilities helping to fundraise those dollars. But I think this is an incredibly well rounded budget. I went to the senator from Washington privately about various concerns I had heard. I think every single one was addressed in this final budget. I hope she's not listening. I'm pretty sure she's not listening. I think she's somewhere warm not listening to us, but I think the former senator from Caledonia would be very proud. And I just want to thank and congratulate everyone who worked on this budget. Again, we have hard times ahead of us, and, it's not the time to grandstand and our appropriations committees really modeled that. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator. Question again. Shall the senate accept and adopt the report of the committee of conference on h nine fifty one? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

[Unidentified Senator]: Aye.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: All those opposed nay.

[Senator David Weeks]: Nay.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you have accepted and adopted the report of the committee of conference on h nine five one, an act relating to making appropriations for the support of government. Senior senator from Chittenden Southeast.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. I move that we suspend the rules and message our actions just taken on h nine thirty three, an act relating to miscellaneous administrative and policy changes to the tax laws. H nine fifty five, an act relating to next steps in transforming Vermont's education system conference report to the house forthwith.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to message the actions just taken on h nine thirty three and h nine fifty five to the house forthwith. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and you have suspended your rules and messaged your actions on h nine thirty three and h nine fifty five. Do you have a further motion, sir?

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: I do, mister president. I would like to, move that we suspend the rules and message the action just taken on s three thirteen, an act relating to transforming Vermont's career technical education system to the governor governor forthwith.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senior senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate suspend its rules and message the actions just taken on s three thirteen to the governor forthwith. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have suspended your rules and messaged s three thirteen to the governor forthwith. Call on the senator from Rutland.

[Senator David Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to, continue with our confirmation. So I move that the rules be suspended to permit consideration of gubernatorial candidates whose appointments and names do not appear in today's calendar The taken up together and without debate and that they be confirmed by the senate. You're being passed out. Three additional potential confirmations. And for the record, I'd like to read them. John Benoit, as a master electrician and a member of the Electrician's Licensing Board, Debbie Winters, member of the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank, and Sarah Furman, a member of the Vermont Economic Development Authority. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Rutland has moved that the senate take up three appointments not appearing in the calendar. Those would be for John Bongartz to the electricians licensing board from 07/01/2026 to 06/30/2029. Debbie Winters to the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank for a term beginning 04/15/2026 to 01/31/2028. And Sarah Furman to Vida, 07/01/2026 to 06/30/2032. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have appointed John Benoit, Debbie Winters, and Sarah Furman, or confirm those appointments. With that said, I would look for a motion of adjournment. Is that correct, mister Smith? A motion of recess.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. Pending, announcements, I move that the senate stand in recess until, 04:30PM.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senior senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the senate stand in recess until 04:30PM. I believe that was pending announcements, senator.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: Did say that.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Pending announcements. Are you ready for that question? Oh, are there any announcements? Senator from four weeks.

[Senator David Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. I just want to, being my first year here in the senate, I want to thank everyone when I first came in here. It's kind of overwhelming, and, there's only 30 of us, and, you guys welcome me, and I really enjoyed working with you all. It's a real pleasure to treat. There's nothing like the senate here in the state of Vermont, and I just wanna say that. That's number one. Number two is when I came in after the president gavel in at 01:00 this afternoon, I came in, and I was surprised and a little scared and wasn't exactly sure what to think of it. But somehow, someway, I don't know if the president did this, but he put his pen in front of me. And I don't know if that's a

[Senator David Weeks]: curse what what what you're driving at, mister

[Senator David Weeks]: Kesha? President.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: A passing of the torch.

[Senator David Weeks]: And, again, I'd like to thank mister president for his leadership, and I really enjoyed serving you.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale]: I wish

[Senator David Weeks]: you could serve me along here, but it was a wonderful one year. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator. We have all noticed the great difficulty you're having finding your feet. Are there any other announcements? Seeing none, senior senator from Chittenden Southeast has moved that the Senate stand in adjournment until 04:30PM. Recess. Recess. Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and we will stand in recess until 04:30PM.