Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: We are live.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Actually, no. That's a lot.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: March 19. We're picking up bills. We're gonna pick up s three two three at 03:23, miscellaneous agriculture bill. So we don't have

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: bill sponsor so Where's the chair of the committee?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Maybe we didn't invite him. It's possible we didn't invite him. We have a plethora of alleged councils. Which ledge council council wants to talk about? Ingovers.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Bradley Showman, office of legislative council. And with senate bill three four or excuse me,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: three two three. So number of

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sections, and I could walk through the entire bill or if if we're just interested in the sections that might be related to appropriations or impact of funding, I walk through

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: those sections.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Yeah. Just the sections that deal with appropriations. I mean, if there's other things that are a major change in policy or something, or that could have future impact.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So the first first section is actually a section that Ellen is involved with. It is permitting for accessory on farm bird on farm businesses and would increase an exemption for for an accidently permit for an accessory on farm business. Is that something that the committee I have a personal question about it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Okay. Let's try. Not personal about you or well, I have a constituent. So I have a very specific question more than the bill, which is they think this person, their neighbor is getting exempted from regulations because they're saying they're a farm. But don't, to get these on farm permits, you have to have half of your income from agro. What do you have to be if you can be considered a farm?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To be considered a farm? Right. Because once you're a farm,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: you can have on farm. Oh, okay. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: To be

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: considered a farm, you need to be just engaging in farming practices.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: So if I have a goat tied up to a barn, that's a funk.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So and Ellen, I'm I actually might not know this. Yeah.

[Ellen (Agency of Agriculture representative)]: Yeah. I'll check out the absolute absolute absolute If this question is for you because he's asking about the wraps. So to be governed by wraps and considered a farm as regulated by the agency, there is a long list of things that

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: you can do. It's not half of

[Ellen (Agency of Agriculture representative)]: your income. It's at least $2,000 a year Okay. From things you have raised or grown,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: and then there's More donate. More donate. Donate. Is that a change

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in this bill, the donation? This that would be the change in this bill. And if if you wanna

[Ellen (Agency of Agriculture representative)]: So is it is the are the wraps being amended to include donation?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Ellen (Agency of Agriculture representative)]: You can That sounds eloquent.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Okay. So that so the concern from this constituent is that there was a farm, a single family farm. Somebody bought the farm, changed it into a fantasy farm, and are now renting it out on Airbnb and having 20 guests and doing all sorts of things that are loud and less neighborly than just the quiet farm that was at the end of this dirt road. And so they're saying because they're saying they're a farm and this is on farm activity, there's nothing that can be done permanently.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Don't you just have to meet a minimum?

[Ellen (Agency of Agriculture representative)]: Okay, I'll take it. I'll take it. So under both municipal zoning, we have carve out for etcetera, on farm business. So the municipalities that have zoning can't zone out a business, etcetera, on farm business, which may include farm stays. That is one of the qualifying categories.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Farm what?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Stays. So you could say you're a farm because you donate $2,000 of hay. Mhmm. You're now

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: I don't Even though that's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: the only farming you do or you have some lands and

[Ellen (Agency of Agriculture representative)]: Well, and there's a required number of either livestock that you have or $2,000 So there is a possibility that would be $2,000 that would trigger it. But yes,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: you first, you need to be a farm. It does exempt you from a number

[Ellen (Agency of Agriculture representative)]: of things. It qualifies them then for accessory on farm business at a municipal zoning level, and then also there is a corresponding act two fifty exemption. The exemption does not extend to farm stays currently.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: That's not considered a non farm?

[Ellen (Agency of Agriculture representative)]: It may or may not be. So the Act two fifty district coordinator or enforcement office could potentially answer more specific questions.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: And when these exemptions apply to all permits, not just the active duty permits, like the wastewater Thank you. So I get to my constituents' concern, which is also Senator Watson's. Indeed. Okay. So so let you get halfway into section one.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So because I am, in the interest of time, skipping over the sections about the required agricultural practices rule. And okay. So if the committee wants to hear more about changes to be to the eligibility of the accessory on farm permit exemption, that would be Ellen, and I

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: can switch spots with

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: her. No.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: No. Okay. Okay. Unless somebody pipes up that they want to ask them.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Then I think we're good. Okay. And then the next two sections perhaps I shouldn't have been the one that stood up here first. But the next two sections are section five and six, and they change land use value appraisal eligibility, which could potentially affect revenue in the state. And if the committee wants to hear more about these sections, those are draft sections that Kirby drafted. I can switch seats with him.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And just list in the finance and then that you remove those sections.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That's exactly right. They're they're

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: they did

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: an amendment yesterday. Okay.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: They took them out.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: They took out section five and six.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Wow. That which was about donated crops.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. Said council, generally, concern was opening up current use eligibility in ways that they thought could be gained. But

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: it's still in there for the bonfire.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The donated language is is used

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: for the on farm.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: So the ag committee removed those yesterday? Finance. Finance. Because,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: yeah, they thought it would be yeah. I've done So they would be enrolled in current use.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And yeah. So indirectly decrease that funding or yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Any other questions about that now that they're not there?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Natural Resources did a a walk through of some of this language already.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: So Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: At some point, somebody's gotta take this on as an issue anyways.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so there's a lot of other sections that don't really have anything to do with appropriations or money. Section seven is about milk producers and fixing an error in the statute there. Section eight, you might be interested in, but it is, there's

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a Farm to School Program

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: where the Agency of Agriculture makes grants for the purpose of helping Vermont schools develop a Farm to School Program. And this section will allow them to use contracts in addition to grants. Section nine, Ricketts Pesticide Compact. Section 10, minimal impact. It allows people to take pest control exam, certified license exam as many times as they'd like. Those exams are for $30

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: each. Dollars 25 each.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sections 11 to 16 is about seed law conforming our standard of seed law to national standards. There's some changes in the fees and, but we think about how things are moved. There's not changes in the fees, they're just moved to different places, and so it should be revenue neutral. VITA is taking control of the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program, And so this is essentially renumbering and moving a statute for the Vermont Agriculture Credit Program to be under BETA in under, in 10 BSA chapter 12 to be kind of nestled under BETA in that area in the statute, so it's renumbering. There is one change to a program. I was conferring with our contact at VITA, section 22, page 33. This is a Vermont Jobs Fund, and this was supposed to be a conforming amendment to fix the cross reference. Our VITA told me that there is this program that was in existence, money from this Vermont, the fund, money from a fund, the Jobs Fund, maybe loans to the Vermont Agricultural Credit Credit Program to support its lending operations and establish a line of credit not to exceed more than a $100,000,000. And according to VITA, this program was not operational and not an active program with the Vermont Agriculture Credit Corp in the Vermont Agriculture Credit program. So this is crossed out, but the Vermont Jobs Fund did not actually was not actually loaning the money into this program. It wasn't active. And sections twenty four and twenty five are fees. So these fees are for large and medium farms. Large farms is 24, medium farms is 25. There is a $2,500 annual fee that large farms are required to pay to the secretary that is being removed. And in section 25, there is a 1,500 fee required to be paid to the secretary on an annual basis. I can put with Ted a little bit earlier today, and he can tell you more about this. But I I believe that those funds would be replaced in general funds. As about $230,000 in income.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: So they're very just wondering, other than just eliminating fees is good for the people who are paying, what's the rationale that was put forward in committee?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it was to I'm trying to think of what I'm about to say is anything more than what you just said. I don't think it is. It's just to try to make it easier to do. And so the agency of agriculture might have more in-depth information about this, but I think the idea is just to truly make it easier for farmers to run their farming businesses and to not overwhelm them with these.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: But the fees were going into the water quality special fund? So what's the effect of that?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, the effect of this is, and Ted might be able to tell you more, but the effects of this would be that there's a request for these funds that come from the general fund and how that would affect the program's operation that might require some testimony from the agency.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Well, we can have Ed come up if you're if you're done with the block here.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's only there's a couple of one more section about fees. And so there's sections 26 through 29 of this bill has to deal with transferring the authority of hemp processing or hemp growing processing products from the agency of agriculture to the cannabis control board. This section makes some changes to the number of the fees. In some ways, page 45, at page 45 under subsection eight fifty eight fees. Under current law, those fees are $100 for growing the processors. Yep. A $100 for growers and processors. This statute sets them at $50 for producersgrowers. Terms are interchangeable. Processors are $500 so it's an increase in fee. It's also establishing a fee to license a hemp infused product if it has more than zero point four milligrams of THC in it. It is removing fees from existing law that charge growers per acreage of feed within per acre a fee per acreage of hemp that is grown. So there's a range for less than five acres, it's a $100 fees. For a half acre to 9.9 acres, it's $500 10 to 50 acres, it's 1,000 and 50 acres or more, it's $3,000 And those would be fees that are being removed in the transferring of the authority from the agriculture to the Cannabis Control Board.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Okay.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that is the end of my piece. And I will turn it over to Ted Yeah. Unless

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Go ahead.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: I think just a question about that, just thinking about transferring hemp to the Cannabis Control Board, presumably the rules that would be around the hemp market would be different than the rules for regular cannabis products. I'm thinking about, like, the advertising and the I mean, there's no you know, I guess there you could arguably get some dosage from of THC from hemp, but I'm thinking about, like, the the non THC hemp products. Like, it's okay to advertise rope. You know? I've

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: I see clothing.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Clothing. Yes. Clothing. Furniture.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: I'm just I'm thinking about the ability for them to make rules Yeah. Distinctly that as a separate product.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, there's nothing that's built out to prevent them from making those rules.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Okay. They don't have this. Yeah. But they

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: would have the authority to do that if they Okay. As long as they have the authority. Great. So did the do you

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: know if the Canvas control board testified in

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: They did.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: They did. Okay. And they're okay with it?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, they're they're the ones who proposed this. Yeah. In in in coordination.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: They they were okay with the transfer?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The agency back on the trip? Yeah. I I believe so. Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: And then we'll have Ted come up and go over the fiscal note. We sort of covered it with that. Overdue. My main concern

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: is

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: with the fee, Section twenty four and twenty five.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Chair Bonnet, Joint Fiscal Office. I see you all have printed copies. So I will provide yes. Bradley walked through many of the fiscal provisions of the bill. I will provide some color commentary, certain pieces. Primarily, yes, I will start with the fees for large and medium farm work operations. A little context within the FY '27, the governor's recommended budget. There was a provision that would provide one $231,500 of general funds to the agency of agriculture in exchange for getting rid of those fees. So that was a proposal that came from the governor.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: And then would that continue that informatic?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It would be a question in fiscal year twenty eight of how if if you all decided to adopt that as part of your budget contract as well, not proposals. Yes. You would have to think of fiscal year twenty eight of how to to fill that gap

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: for the The governor's budget base transfer?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Let me see if it was a base for one time. Let me pull this up.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: I'm just thinking we're going from not approving raises and fees to now just getting rid of phase fees and replacing them with Oh.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: General general. It is a bay it is a base contract.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: So I'm sorry.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: You're going slowly what

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I said about it being 50 or 28 problem. It would be It would forever solved.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Two thirty one five hundred going forward. So regardless, we had more or less farms. Because we would no longer be connected to a fee. It would just be part of the government.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: It would just be part of the base. Yep. Yep. Okay. Let's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: question that I have for budget Trump because I didn't ask anybody to do an amendment because we didn't think there

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: was any other And then Sorry. Another question. The growers' needs for cannabis, are they affected by this provision? Not to my it's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: This provision mean the fees? The waiving the fees. The fees are only for large and medium farm.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. And it's

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: was just wondering, could somebody have a medium sized cannabis? I I always think the large farm operator's definition is It's not LFO.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Okay. Yeah. There's about number of animals.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Right. Russ

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: was trying to change it.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: It's also about it's also about having those fees going into the water quality fund is to help protect the environment from

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: But does the money go into the agency of Ag and they put into this the water quality fund, or is it just the agency effect?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It is I it doesn't specify in the line I see in I'd have to follow-up. I would imagine that it would go into the agricultural water quality spec fund, but, yeah, let me just double check rather than misstating.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Counselor, you be able to draft an amendment that strikes this section? Both sections? Yeah. I do. Because this is this is the same as an appropriation of $2.31. That would be a normal strike. So

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: And and I'm just reminding you, large farms can't afford the fee, can anybody afford the fee? It seem like if anybody could pay it, it would be a large farm, but it just seems like a, I don't know, somewhat unfair to get rid of those fees when everybody else is paying the fees including

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Yeah. We have the storm water fees. Right. It's Mhmm. This is the same. This is comparable with that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yeah. Mhmm. I'd be happy.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: We could we could move we could get rid of some DMV fees and then have the general fund pay DMV. Oh, there's an idea. Very good. Okay. So that's the main impact of

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Oh, we keep the general general general. Yes.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And two others, like, to kind of put a final or a little extra comment on the floor. Water quality fees. There is you'll see from the house one of their bills, I'm forgetting which one right now, kicks out some of the deadlines for when ANR, right, there's a question of whether storm water is happening within the confines of a farm or being discharged. And so you'll see more policy around water quality and how it relates to agriculture and farms and the jurisdiction between agriculture and agency of natural Could somebody provide us a list of

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: who's eligible for the grants out of the special fund? What special fund?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Water quality special.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Farms get

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: if I may, the other pieces around the hemp fees and regulation and the transition of that and kind of the estimate and revenue that's in

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: the fiscal

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: note. The Agency of Agriculture has not been collecting hemp fees because hemp producers were being regulated federally. Folks were registering with the USDA and with federal changes to make hemp a schedule treated the same as cannabis, part

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: of the emphasis for moving to

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: this control board depending on whether hemp is treated as a schedule one. So our estimate of minimal fee revenue through particularly related to the product fees. You know, we would imagine and this is talking with the control board, I'm trying to channel them a bit. There would be a limited number of products if it was a strictly limited to Vermont market. If for whatever reason there was a federal change and hemp was there was interstate commerce for hemp allowed there. As far as I understand, thousands of products. Pepper noted or Chair Pepper noted that there's Snoop Dogg as a

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: hemp product, Chichi Chong as

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: a product, so there could be thousands of hemp products that would be registered in Vermont. And there would be more, you know, we're imagining $90,000 in annual revenue as opposed to minimal revenue that goes to the campus regulation funds. Whether that's sufficient to regulate the new

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: hemp market, I can't comment

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: on that. I would defer to the control part. But that just wanted

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: to provide that additional information for y'all. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Any other comments or questions? And does the committee have any comments about removing the sections 25, 24? That's a good idea.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Okay. I got a question.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Yes. Are we just voting on to remove it and the

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: appropriations for that or you just wanna remove that?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: We would, well, we could present out the amendment is drafted, but yeah, we could say pending the appropriation. I don't mind stripping that out. I mean, I realize we're talking about the Clean Water Fund here, whatever else. There's a lot of farms in Franklin County that $15 a 100 right now. They're struggling, we're trying to give them a break here

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: as far as this is concerned.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: If the government is proposing to put 232,000 in the general fund at a baseline, then you still are going to

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: lose your money for the clean water pump. Right, but it's going to displace something else to the 230

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Somebody else will be paying for the Water pump. And you do that all the time. You're right. Right. I know. We're all paying for it. Yep. And that is a base appropriation. But I

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: think we should I just

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: If we treat this like everything else Yeah. Strip the money out. Mhmm. Contingent.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Mhmm. Yeah.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: I just don't like that it's piecemeal. It's like we're we're requiring fees of everybody across the board to fund operations and then to just pop out a couple of classes of farms and say, you guys magically don't have to pay a fee. I I I just think it leads to an expansion of that at the expense of the general funds. Right.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Well, I can agree with doctor Westman on just stripping the fees out right now contingent upon upon this. Okay. When would we be able to see a minute? Is the power okay? Yeah. We're gonna be gone by then. You're gonna be on about thirty minutes. Okay. Yeah. Thirty minutes. Okay. So we can maybe because I I think libraries might take us that long. So, like, whenever we're done with the library bill, I can take that up. Oh, we accept $3.28. Yeah. So, you know, it might be that. It might take us an hour, but hopefully, it takes us half an hour. Forty seven minutes. And you could send it to l or okay. Thank you, Tim. So that's what we'll do on 03/23. If library people are out there, we'll. We're out here. Okay. We'll go on mute. Ready to go back? We're back. We already walked

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: through the bill itself.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: We have not walked through the

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: bill. We

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: don't have a list of councilors, so you could give us a walk through. But we were doing a lot of bills today, so we're not getting into the details. Trying to focus on Perfect. And I think there is

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: I can't see.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Did we have a fiscal note on this one?

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Yep. We do. Two.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Just tell me when you're good to go.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Okay. We are ready to go. We're live. This is 23232. We just did 323. It's our Palindrome bill number. Cool. Awesome. The

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: senator to my right arm's desk. It's true. I said it again. This is, like, totally your job. It makes me very happy.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: So, yeah, there's there's a physical note.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Do you want me to start?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I assume You can introduce yourself.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Okay. Hi, everyone. I'm senator Ruth Hardy from the Addison District, also known as the library senator. And this is a bill about libraries, And I can do a quick walk through of the bill. The first part, and this is s two thirty two, it started in the senate ad committee and it's been through finance. The first part is fine. Won't go through all of those, but they're findings about why libraries are super awesome. So there's that. And then the second part section of the bill, creates the Vermont Libraries Day, the third October in the month, the October, to celebrate libraries. The section three is, the the part of the bill where I will have an amendment, the bulk of an amendment. And this is there is a fund that you're probably aware of, the universal after school and summer special fund. I know this fund has been a source of a lot of con conversation and, but it creates grants for summer and after school programs. And as you probably know, libraries do a lot of summer and after school programming. They have summer reading programs. They have after school lots of different kinds of after school programs. And they've tried to apply for this funding, but they've never been successful, in large part from what I've heard because the process is a little not easy. And many of our libraries in our towns are really small operations and don't have staff or they have part time staff or volunteers. And so they have not been successful at getting any funding through that that fund. And so the bill as it comes to you and as a left education would say that 5% of that funding would go to the Department of Libraries to distribute to, after school and summer programs at local libraries. So that's how the Senate Education Committee basically how it how they determined it just to make sure that libraries got

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: some Clarification.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. We shouldn't

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: have left Ted Lee because he was in here right before we started. Because on his fiscal note, he says today no libraries have applied for funding through the program, but maybe he meant have been granted. Oh, wait. Let's do you know that? Do you're saying that libraries have applied?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: My understanding is that they have been too overwhelmed by the process. And so but I'm not on the senate education committee, I didn't hear all the testimony.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: I thought you had your own libraries in your district.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: I I don't know specifically. I know they've never gotten any and my impression is that it's been too much for them.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: But I don't I

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: don't actually know. Okay. I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: don't wanna say something that's wrong.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Okay. I I thought you said that they're apply.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: I I thought they had tried to apply. Maybe it's just they started to and I think the application is quite lengthy. And they just were like, this is not worth it. And, you know, some of them are gonna be applying for like, you know, $1,200 or something and it's a 20 page application or something. That's my what I my understanding of

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: it. Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: And I'm here explaining this too because of the amendment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: The center weeks is the recorder of the bill, so he may have more information on that particular point. But, so this would be the it's the $95.05 split. That's how the bill has come to you. We passed it in finance, while I was working on the amendment with senator Perchlik and senator Baumgartz just so we could keep the bill moving and we wouldn't miss the deadlines. So that that's that section. It also there's an advisory committee that advises the secretary of education on the use of this funding and and these after school programs, And this would add the state librarian to that advisory committee. And then, the rest of the bill, there is there's also, an early education grant program or there's an early education program in the agency of education. And this would just add as a part of that program, including training for public library staff. And then the duties of the live the Department of Libraries has changed slightly, to modify the definition of collection. Right now, collection is meant to be is known is defined as books, like physical books. And This would change it so it's digital or physical collection because there are a lot of digital things and that hasn't been updated and that makes a difference particularly for federal funds to the extent that federal funds exist anymore. And then, so that's just changing that throughout the statutes. And then, there is, clarification, under the language about library trustees that allows There are two different kinds of libraries. There are municipal libraries and publicly chartered libraries, are often non nonprofit organizations. And this just makes it clear that both types of libraries can be part of, the bonding programs as long as it's supported by the municipality. It also repeals an old fund, the audio visual revolving fund that no longer actually is necessary. It used to be funds to help like mail VHS tapes to people around the state. We don't do that anymore, so they're just the legal matter. Effective on July 1. That's the quick overview. Then I have an amendment, which is what why I'm here.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: You're doing triple duty. It's fine. It's fiscal, the council and bills. So for the community's sake, there was I had talked with Senator Hardy and Senator Vanguard about things in the bill. So we're trying to work on a joint amendment that the committee could also consider. Do you want to walk through Sure. Is there a way maybe you could walk through the amendment as you had it drafted? And then agency of education has information we could ask AOE to talk about.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yeah, so as I mentioned to you, the agency was not excited about the 90 five-five split. They didn't want to have to have a specific allocation to the Department of Libraries. I don't want to speak for them for sure. I don't want to speak for the agency of education, but, one, I think some of the issues where they thought it could set a bad precedent and they didn't like the not flexibility of it. So that was a really bottom line for them is they wanted to get rid of that. And I have communicated a little bit with the, chair of the advisory committee who's actually Kendall Smith who's the commissioner of labor.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: I She moved over there.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Oh my god. She's sitting here. Hi. Thank you. And I think Andrew Perchlik has communicated with the a little or the agency a little bit. But so, and just so you know, I did bring this, amendment to education about an hour ago and so I can tell you they tasked me with telling you what they thought. So the first part of this amendment, which I think is on your website, I don't have just full copies of it. I'm sorry. I don't know. Can Do you have a copy? It's also posted on the education committee website. I'm sorry. Absolutely. Are you looking for?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: It's amendment. It's on

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: the 32. It should be on the Senate Education Committee website. I'm sorry. This all happened really fast and it's been a nutty day. The first part of the amendment just adds a finding. So that's really just a finding that public libraries have provided diverse after school and summer programs and literacy opportunities to all children free of charge. These programs often include literacy, arts, technology, or science education, nutritious meals, creative recreation activities, laying it out there. Then in the second part of the amendment, amends section three of the bill, which is the part about the 95.5. And so it's a strike all to that section. So it eliminates the 95.5. So you won't see that in here, but it's just not there because it's a strike all. And it changes some under current law, it says to establish a grant program that supports the expansion of universal after school and summer programs. And this would change it to supports sustaining or expanding. So it could be you're just supporting a program in a library that's been there for a while or a school or a nonprofit that's been there for a while. It doesn't have to be an expansion of something. It could be a sustaining of something. And then, makes clear that, the funding under current law says eligible recipients can be public, private, or non profit organizations, and just adds language, including public libraries, schools, and volunteer mentoring programs. The volunteer mentoring program addition was at the suggestion of the chair, your chair, that guy, because, he's heard similar, I don't want to speak for you, but kind of similar issues with these organizations as libraries that they've had a hard time accessing these funds. The agency may allocate a portion of the funds to the Department of Libraries for the purpose of providing sub grants to public libraries to sustain or create summer and after school programming. So kind of getting a concept of they they could allocate a chunk of money to the Department of Libraries if they could subgrant littler libraries. And a coalition or group of public libraries

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: may also apply for a

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: grant from the agency or department. So like all the libraries in Franklin County could get together and say, we want to apply together and have a county grant for their summer after school programming. So that is that. This part, the next section, there's an administration funding. There's $500,000 of this fund that is set aside for administrating, administering the grants. That's about depending on how much cannabis money that that it it varies in a percentage. But the the amendment would, change that to 250,000 instead of 500,000. This is something that you all should talk about because you're the appropriations committee. But that was just a suggestion because one of the issues that I heard in talking to the agency and the committee was they were concerned about the level of money that's available and if we expand it into libraries. Thank you very much. Is that you? Perfect. Then concerned they but it's in this amendment but it's really up to you all about that one. Then the, agency shall create a simple application and reporting process that reduces barriers to barriers to grant program participation for small community based organizations such as rural libraries, volunteer mentoring programs, similar organizations. That was to address the issue that this is kind of a hard grant program to apply to. And then further on down, it retains the state librarian on that advisory committee, which is in the original bill and also the bill as it came to you. And then annually, the advisory committee shall solicit public input on the grant program and procedures established pursuant to the section. The advisory committee shall hold a meeting to discuss the public input and any plans to implement recommended changes to the grant program. So basically getting out that there's gonna be some public feedback for how it works. This is similar to language that actually the commissioner, had suggested. So that's the amendment. Okay. And now I just wanna report to you what the agent what the education committee tasked me with telling you all because I was just down there and they, first there was a question about what volunteer mentoring programs, if there was a definition or if we could kinda, tighten that up a little bit, and I suggested that I

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: would Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Let you know that. I mean, I think there was some concern about, know, presumably they would have to go through an application process and be determined that they're a legitimate thing. But that was a question. The education committee was fully supportive of the $250,000 cut to the administration, but they also acknowledged that that's an appropriation thing. However, they also were very much in the agency may allocate a portion of the funds to the Department of Libraries. They were strongly in favor of making the May a shall. And if you would like to hear more about that strength, the strength of their feelings about it, would suggest talking to Senator Weeks. Had some things to say about it, but they were all unanimous in wanting that May to be a shall. And they were in favor of the $250,000 reduction. But I told them I would relay I that to stand by the amendment. I was trying to come to some compromise. I think that we all, know, Senator Perchlik and Bonburst and I would like to see the building forward. Hopefully everybody does. So that's it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: So

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: I'll just start by saying I support this. I think there's great need. I'm a little confused by the process. This doesn't seem like an amendment that necessarily we should be putting out. It seems like it would be either the Education Committee would approve it or not, either in their own name or review on the floor. Yeah. So that's one thing. I just wanna make sure that I understand the, what we're talking about. So we're no longer changing the split.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Yep.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: So it's, know, 100 of the excise tax that's being reserved is going to after school programs, but without an explicit carve out.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Correct.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Okay, so that remains status quo.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Correct. There's just the May language that the May algebra

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: In the amendment, not in the Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Yeah. And then the other things that we're doing are relatively small scale changes to the existing program. It's just making it easier for libraries, allowing them to apply, etcetera. So we're not setting up a new structure or a new fund. No. And we're also not changing the splits.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Correct.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yeah. I mean, I know the process has been a little funky. I'm I'm not sure that I I'm I'm fine with whatever process. I just wanted to and the bill is here,

[Sean Kusno (Deputy CFO, Agency of Education)]: so that's why I'm here.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: It's underlined.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: No. No. I think your intentions are good. And Drafted. Understood. And it's interesting because I have been talking with our chief prevention officer and others about getting our arms around the cannabis fund. It's a huge amount of money and how it how it might be used going forward. So to me, this is a new it it redefined a little bit, and I know I'm looking at Kendall over there for the after school program. But so I'm I'm wondering if this is more than what the appropriations committee ordinarily did does, though you made it sound like it's not. So Well, I mean,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: I will say I mean, part of the strong feelings down in education was that they were like, this is Even on the money part of it, they were like, this is education stuff. The education committee should get to decide. So I'm happy to have them do the amendment. I don't know. I'm just

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: No. I think you've done a you're taking categorically picking out that 5% at this point doesn't make sense. I think the the negotiation discussion that's happened is a good is a good one.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: No. The process is which I'll explain later. I'm involved in it. Have to try share part of the phone. Don't

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: know whether who's just if it's an amendment coming to the floor,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: how

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: we strip we strip money out of everybody's bill. Yeah. And we do that in conjunction of when you get to the end product. I have no idea what AOE is spending now to administer this and whether $2.50 makes sense or not in relation to that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: So That's a good segue because I'm hoping that folks from the agency of education that

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are here will answer that question.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Well, I would say to you, I'm not in favor of in isolation, letting a $250,000 appropriation when every committee that sent us a bill, we stripped their money out.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yeah. The weird thing in this is that it's not actually an appropriation. It's just a it's actually a carve out from the grant money that so you would not even see this, I think, unless except for that it's in the bill.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: It's not a it's not a new appropriation. Yeah. It's they they're just efforts It's not.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: But I think you're if I'm understanding right, your idea is that all the decisions Yes. Should be made at

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Well, and they are.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: And there are lots of people that would like cannabis money for all sorts of reasons. And

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Let me have AOE do some explaining. I think it'll it'll be more clear later. So you're done?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: You're I mean, unless you have more question. I just wanna know what I'm supposed to do with it, but I'll stick around unless

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Yeah, can stick around or not. Somebody from Agency of Education wants to talk about the expenditures on the program, the administrative expenditure.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: It's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: up to you. You can all three come up or two of you or So the main thing I wanted to there's this proposal to cut the spending they allocated the authority to spend up 500,000 to 250,000. So we wanted to hear how much you are spending on the program.

[Sean Kusno (Deputy CFO, Agency of Education)]: Yeah. So I'm Sean Kusno, the Deputy CFO at the Agency of Education. Happy to be here. I'll just get right to the numbers. Last year we spent 172,994 on the admin portion, and that was made up mainly of the two positions that were given us for this program in the initial bill, Act 78 of 2023. So we hired those two positions in 2025, so that's a kind of a partial cost. We also charge typical operating costs for those positions. This year, we're estimating spending 364,500, and that's again those two positions, plus we're paying for a portion of the after school director position, which is Johannes. And then we've also been approved for two more positions from the pool. One for the financial monitoring of the money out in the field, and that one, we're in the hiring process for that, we hope to fill it by, in a couple months. We're unable to fill the other, which would be another program position because of the cap being currently 500,000. And our budget request was for 505,000. And that's again those four positions that we talked about and the operating costs for those. And it's a little more than the 500,000 because we, I think there was a request to change the flat $500,000 amount to a percentage, which I think went through as 5% based on the estimated receipts expected next year. The time of the budget, we were told 10,100,000

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: That's about what that size raises every year.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: So again, slight confusion about the cut from 500 to $2.50 was in the bill and the amendment?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: No, just in the amendment. So here's more

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: And I'm wondering what the thinking was. I don't know who proposed it, but what the thinking was, because it sounds like you're at 500,000 in spending.

[Sean Kusno (Deputy CFO, Agency of Education)]: Right, where you're at, yeah.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: So I'm not sure what the genesis of that was.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Right, well, here's the more information. So when I saw the bill with the 5% carve out, I thought that was something that appropriations should support because it's appropriating that money without the kind of legislative 5% will go and that the appropriations committee would be interested in that. And I talked to the sponsor of the bill and to the head of their education where the bill went through, where they had made other change they made that or supportive of that carve out for libraries. So I said, I didn't support that and wanted to make an amendment to take that out. So we're working with the chair of education and the sponsor of the bill on an amendment that we could do in Senate appropriations that we could agree with and that they could agree with. As just doing all at once instead of doing it as one in finance, one in education and one in appropriations. That amendment, we are agreeing on parts, the part that I didn't agree on was the reduction for 500,000 to 250,000 without any information or testimony. So I had some communication with the agency of education saying like, no, are spending or going to be spending the full $500,000 that's in the governor's budget and it is around 5%, which seemed to be to me a reasonable admin percentage wise of the total appropriation of the program. So they're willing to come in and provide evidence on that.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: So now the $250,000 cut is out of the amendment? So I

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: have proposed amendment. So this all happened a lot faster. Senator Hardy and I didn't have a lot of time to like orchestrate this or anything. I have an amendment for the committee to consider that's basically identical to what Senator Hardy and basically the education committee wanted minus the cut to the 500,000.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Okay, so the cut to 500 from 500 to two fifty is gone. The ninety five five split is gone. And the only thing we're left with is some language about eligibility and the simple form for libraries to

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: are we actually appropriating any money here?

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: No. So we're

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: just giving AOE the blessing to go ahead and just shall give Right. The They would have the existing legislative authority to spend money on the program as they have in the past. They would just carry it forward. If we wanted to, we could look at that in the budget about changing it, but I didn't want to propose it in

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: So they put the $500,000

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: 500,000 would be money is up. Right, but the 500 never was kind of really in because it's just underlying stat ute that allows the edge agency of education to spend up to $500,000 administrating the program.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: That would basically treat them like you would treat anybody else.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Yeah. So

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Now my question is, what is s two thirty two? Because we don't have the bill on our page.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: We do. Let's see then.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: I don't see it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Two thirty two is a library bill.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Yep. I know. I see fiscal note, but I don't see 232. There it is.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Yeah. It's a list of them.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Take it back. Yeah. Take it back.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yeah. Good job. So so

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: what I'm So

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: this amends this bill. So you've taken let me ask this question. You've taken out the money from this bill, but you've also amended the bill with senator Hardee's recommendation.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: And and educate

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: And the education committee has agreed to that proposed amendment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Yeah, so these other small changes like the Trust finding

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: we have a pathway.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Adding, making it specific to public libraries are eligible.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: They

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: use the word volunteer mentoring program, meant maybe like, change that like, but like part of the Mentoring Vermont program. But I think we can deal with that. So did you on page two, Andy, you change on page two line four? Did you change it back to May or says the agency may allocate or is that gonna be a shall now? No, this is still May because this is like, I think in the original bill, there was some shall language. This is changing it. And it's this part about the 5% cutout isn't as Senator Hardy mentioned, it's not in here because that whole section is delayed. Senator Brennan. Senator Hardy was talking about the Education Committee feeling strongly about the word shall, but I'm assuming that's in line 10 in Section E, where they shall create a simple application. Is that the shall she was talking about? Well, we could ask her. Yeah. No. I think they but they do feel strongly about that shell as well.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: They they feel strongly about that shell. The shell that they want in that's not in is on line two Yeah. On page two. They'd rather have that may be a shell.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: On line two or line four? Line one?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Line four.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Line four. Got it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: The one I just shell. One I just

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: of It's line four. Version. Yes. Line four. That's the one they would prefer to have as a shell. They felt very strongly about that. I would just say that the reason this should cannot be an education committee amendment is they wouldn't this is not what they want. They want the bill as it came to you. They're willing the the chair and your chair and I worked on this compromise to get the bill to move forward because it seemed like your chair may not want it to move forward with the 95% thing. Okay,

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: here's my problem. My problem is, so the Chair of Natural Resources will tell you, we spend a lot of time trying to avoid fights between committees and chairs. And if that committee wants a version of this that's different from ours, I don't understand what we're putting out has no money in it. And we're the Appropriations Committee. So I don't understand why

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: We're taking out the 95%. Understood, but it's basically

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: non monetary language that we would be proposing on the floor. So I guess what I don't understand is why this doesn't go through the normal process. Why So we we pull out the money stuff. And then these changes come in a in an amendment from somebody who's, in this case, not on the Education Committee, goes to the floor. That way we're not fighting with the Education Committee about an education bill that doesn't ultimately include money. It should, seems to me, should come from the sponsoring senator. It should go through there. They vote on it. They report their vote. We can all weigh in on the floor. But as the Appropriations Committee, it's odd that we would get into a fight with them. Well, don't consider it

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: a fight. Okay. Since I was working with chair of that committee.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Right. But as I what the senator was saying, the committee doesn't a majority of the committee doesn't want this version.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Is that right?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: I would say that the majority of the committee is fine with this version. They would prefer that may to be a shall. I feel a little uncomfortable because I don't know exactly how to report what they said, but that was what I gleaned from them was that they are okay with this because they want the bill to go forward. They prefer the may to be a shall. I'm happy to do this as a floor amendment with the two chairs too, if that's better.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: And then my cycle was to make it smoother. Obviously that failed. My goal is like, so there's controversy about this carve out of the 5%. So go to be like, so let's make a deal on, if I take out the 5%, what would you need in exchange basically? So that was the discussion. So we could have done it on the floor where appropriations just took out the 5% and then let them deal with it on the floor. I thought, why have that fight on the floor? I'm just deal with am appropriation. And

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: totally fine with this. I think it's great compromise. It was the senator saying that they don't want That leads me to believe that there is a

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: What I was, because like what I thought I heard you suggest was that this should be the Senate Education Committee doing this amendment. So what was trying to say was that they wouldn't do this amendment because they want the bill as

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: a pass.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: So is it fair to say they're okay with this?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yes. I think it's fair to say that. I'm sorry. That's alright. It's a it's a confusing situation.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: I think okay. I mean, mine it was because it was a compromise. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: And and as as long as that's the case, I I'm fine personally voting it out of here, and I support what's in here. It's a it might be potentially confusing for people on the floor.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: We'll make it clear. Yes. In our mind.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Well, thank you. If this is the path, then that is fine. I guess I because I I was having a hard time wrapping my head around, you know, that we the same thing. Right?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: That we would put out

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: an amendment that had content, significant policy content in it. And if it is, you know, agreed with the committee, then that's one thing. Because otherwise, I would say it it ought to be a floor amendment, and we, as the appropriations committee, I mean, grateful to see it ahead of time, ought to have an amendment ready to go for that, for that potential amendment if there is still money in it or a potential amendment if it if this amendment, let's say, failed for some reason. Like just being prepared for both contingencies. But again, if this is the path and everybody is okay with it, then that's fine. I guess I would say my preference is to for it to be a floor amendment and then just be prepared to amend that. If it's a floor amendment,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: the policy committee will review the amendment and they will vote and make a recommendation. If we send it out of here, the education committee doesn't make a recommendation. And I would rather the education committee make a recommendation. The place that I whether it's 500, two fifty in that, that to me really becomes an appropriation. And that this committee, I think, given the way we've treated every other committee and every other bill that has come through here, need to make sure that that's out. And I don't it it becomes a little awkward when it's a floor amendment for us to take that out, but we should treat that as as an appropriation like we treat every other appropriation.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: That's why I asked the question about what is two thirty two. But now two thirty two we have. We take the money out. That's our usual practice. Mhmm. There are this is a legitimate proposal that apparently education supports, and it make it does make it cleaner. Even though it sounds unclean to have an amendment on the floor, it's a cleaner process for us in here. And it will also allow for the Ed Committee to weigh in, and they can say we want Shell. Is that a May?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Senator Norris? Yes. In my other committee, we let words like May and Shell have big meanings.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: I bet. They

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: So I just need clarity on this one. When the the May versus the Shell, were were did you say that AOE wanted the shell or the education committee wanted the shell?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: The education committee wanted the shell.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because I

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: They wanted the ability they wanted to be sure that libraries would get a portion of this fund. And if it's a May, they were concerned that they might not because May, as you know, means they don't have to. The agency could say, no. We don't.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Because I can't see the agency lining up to push for a shell in this particular

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: No. I'm sure the agency wouldn't want

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: a shell. I mean So

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's the that's the clarity I needed. Yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: The intention of the three of us was just to try to get this as smooth as possible. It may get even bumpier if we try to do a floor amendment, but I cannot I tried to text senator Bongers to see if he could come down, but they're in the middle of stuff down there.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: So Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: But I'm happy to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: do whatever the committee wants.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Okay. Well, I will entertain this motion for help so we can move this bill out with this language that's in this draft number 1.2.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: I will second that motion on the now my understanding of what it is. But I do second the Senator from Lamoille's point that the cannabis money being cut here that will go elsewhere, and I think we're gonna need more discussion ultimately about that.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: But So so but we are doing it. If we pass this, we are saying well, it says May in it, so that's a good thing. Yeah. But having a shell in there, some concerns. So this is on who's applying and how to what.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Any questions on this? One last question. If

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: we move the successfully, will there be a floor amendment to change the may you wish? I don't know. Because if there

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: I assume there whole thing should be I assumed there wouldn't be, But the committee might have a different view than the chair.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Yeah. I can't make any guarantees on the committee, but I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: don't think they want to do that. Okay. I'm not really sure.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Because otherwise, I mean, if they are going to do that, then this whole thing should just come from them. Right. But I'm I'm willing to, you know, believe that the future will be a smoother rather than a rough

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: ride. Okay. Instead of renting it. Yeah. Well, I was just gonna ask if was there

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: a straw poll on the?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. The straw poll Or was it May shelf?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Was a straw poll on the whole amendment. They all supported it, and they wanted me to relay that their preference is that the May be a

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: shell. Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: So I that's what that was the message I was supposed to deliver, And so that's what I've delivered to you. And my impression was that they were not gonna offer another amendment on the floor, but I can't guarantee what anybody else is gonna do.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: So we're passing the amendment as

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of May.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Well, we're gonna vote on it. We're gonna vote on it as of May. Vote yes or no on it.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As of May.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: As it as it's written Okay. Thank you. 1.2

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: words of say, I don't vote no on this because I I honestly just go ahead, but I would like reported on the floor with some is that the Education Committee who said that they were in favor of this and it doesn't feel like they got cut out

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the process. Yeah. Our reporter could do that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Our and I hopefully, the chair of education will stand up and say they were they were part of the negotiation on what the language

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: is. And and that's all good with me. I that's fine. But I am I continue to be concerned about the process. And so when we have a proposal in our committee and someone comes in with an amendment, we let the amendment come forward, and we we vote straw poll yes or no. And then come what may, it goes up on the floor. Having a process where we're so I understand. We are not cutting out the education committee, but it is a different process and a different set of testimony. We haven't heard from half the people who would weigh in on this because we are affecting the fund and changing the way the fund is organized. And when it was originally put in place, there was a strong we worked very hard first to get money, not the money, but secondly, to make sure that it was being used for prevention purposes. And so as long as the long as the intent of the fund isn't being spoiled, which it shouldn't be, you know, we we can go ahead with it. I'm I'm resistant to the word shall simply because then you can be providing money for things that don't relate to the fund itself and and the intent of the fund. So I don't like the process. That's what I'm saying. But I can't argue against the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: The advocate, we can argue the process.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: I can't

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: I can always argue the process, but I can't you know, this is this is our after school fund. We've had it in place, and I think it's a good decision to include libraries.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Okay. I just second

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: all of that. Got

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: to Perchlik on the roll. Beautiful. Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Lyons? Yes. Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Westman? Yes. Senator Perchlik? Yes.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How about a reporter? I will report it.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Thank you, guys. Sorry for the confusion, but I think it's Andy's fault. Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's clear as mine.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Okay, sorry to have you come in and not get a chance to talk. We just don't have the time. We're now going to move to 328, Housing and common interest communities. 3 28. So we have a fiscal note. Did we print that? No. That was their That's online. Yep. Yeah. It's kind of a longer one. Maybe. I still have a draft

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: on page two of the. Is

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: that the way it is? Yep. But page one doesn't have draft.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Missouri. Yes.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Good afternoon. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Council. Mr. Chair, would you like to do a walk through? I know you heard from the reporter and the chair of the Senate Economic Development Committee, I believe earlier this week.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: I think only the Only the the high notes, the financial Okay. Sections. So that the title of the bill is the first question is this housing common interest communities. Yes, sir. But my quick read through it, I didn't see the parts that dealt with the common interest community.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the bill as it initially came out of the committee had multiple sections dealing with common interest communities. That's the formal title of them. They're governed by homeowners associations. You may all just refer to them as HOAs, but in statute common interest communities, there were multiple sections dealing with prohibitions on leasing within common interest communities, requiring individuals to be able to run a family childcare home out of a common interest community. There was a section about accessory dwelling units, and then another full section on the installation of electric vehicle supply equipment. So there were multiple sections addressing common interest communities. Ultimately, those were all struck in place. In section four, there's a report from our office November outlining the legal issues associated with including each of those provisions. There's a lot of tangled web of legal issues when you're dealing with common interest communities in particular with some of those issues that were in the bill, like leasing, there are certain underwriting and financial mortgage related requirements regarding leasing of units. And there was a lot of legal questions that were brought up there. There were some legal questions brought up about how to apply them retroactively to We don't need to use that. So they pulled that out and there was a report. There was a question from the committee itself about whether that title was appropriate. And I said, the bill currently has those sections in it, you're recommending the amendment. So it wouldn't really be appropriate to change

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: the title of the bill at

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this point unless those provisions are agreed to by the body. And I'm gonna reach out to the secretary's office and find out what would their recommended process of amending the title.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Okay. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I do have an amendment that I'll draft it up for your request from when the reporter walked through the bill. And so if it would be helpful,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: I just focus on those sections. Yeah. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So here's a draft amendment from the committee. It's just a draft 1.1. I just zoomed in and lost everything, not

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: quite sure how or why that's.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it's really just striking out all of the sections that have a form of money or appropriation. So first instance of amendment is striking out section two in its entirety and inserting a deleted section. What is section two? Pardon me, I'm gonna skip back to the bill. Section two is related to tax credits for the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. As you all know, there's multiple different programs through BHFA, where they raise money through tax credits, and then are able to use that money to help in different housing programs that they have. Down payment assistance program, which is what's addressed here. They also have the first generation home buyer program, among others. What this section does in the bill as it came out of the committee for these down payment assistance program here in sub H. Currently, the BHFA has the authority in the sub two to issue tax credits up to $250,000 per year through fiscal year twenty six. So the bill on the top of page four would extend those tax credits for another five years through 2031, increase the annual authorizations of $350,000 And so that section has been removed in its entirety in the amendment here. Then the second instance of amendments is in section six, three VSA thirty ninety eight by striking out a particular subsection. Section six creates an advisory council within Dale, the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living. And the advisory council is a continuation of a working group or study group that was created last year and met over the summer, trying to come up with a state plan for the development of housing for individuals with developmental disabilities. So what this language is intended to do is kind of take that working group and make it permanent, put it within the agency of human services, and have it continue to do additional work and report back annually on these items here in the sub D. So administrative and program reforms carried out to better align service supported and housing development programs and policies. Housing needs assessment for individuals served by the developmental disabilities service system of care. Activities undertaken to the section, recommendations for future legislative action, including recommendations on changing obstacles to create housing for these individuals. So that section has appropriate, or excuse me, has per diems for individuals who are not otherwise compensated. And because this would be a permanent counsel, it would be per diems for every year going into the future. And so the second instance of amendment just strikes that subsection related to per diems, but doesn't make any other changes. The third instance of amendment and the fourth instance of amendment are simply striking the sections of the bill at the bottom, which have positions and then appropriations. There were three positions for the Department of Housing and Community Development in the bill. And then there was, I believe it is 250,000 for municipal and regional planning resilience funds to provide planning grants for municipalities looking to meet their housing targets. And then a recommendation of $5,000,000 into DHCD's base budget for the BIP program. And so those final two instances of amendment are just striking those sections in the entirety. Here. Statement? Yes. Relax.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Is there any other other is there are there any other funds in the VHIP program? Just the total amount.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My understanding is they request funds every year or or have over the past few years. It it is in some sense, could be a revolving fund, they could be issuing out grants instead of loans, but the loans that they do issue out can be forgiven. You all as a body added some language last year to allow them any funds that come back to them for the program to then reinvest back out through the program. But my understanding is I think they typically come and they the beneficiary comes in and ask for a set amount every year to fund through. My understanding I believe it was $3,000,000 this year.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: No, $4,000,000 in the governor's budget for them this year.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: And this is on top of that this is one of those it's one of the two that is on top of the governor's budget. This

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: is not It's increasing the governor's budget by From four

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: to five.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: That's what I mean. Yeah. Okay. On top of

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: that. Yep. But now it's not like the governor's plus business. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: hate to raise it, but section nine, which is about the designated downtowns and village centers because this is about a grant program. I I am very supportive of this language. I was just curious as to, like, why not pull that section out as it does affect potentially who is eligible for grants.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Understood. I was not aware of that and it's not my portfolio area, so I didn't remove it. So that is entirely on me. If you feel that it impacts revenues, I'm happy to the amendment and take it

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: out.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: It's it would affect potentially who is eligible for it I I mean, I could make the case that it is a clarification. Perhaps more so than just than a change, really. It's recognizing that, the the new town center as a designation is is going away. And so, you know, saying the portion of, the center the interest received as funds for these one of the different steps is, listed or eligible for listing the National Register of Historic Places unless it's recognized by the program as a preexisting designated new town center, presumably because the new town center designation is evaporating. So, arguably, just a clarification.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: But you're saying that there I thought there was less that would

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: be eligible for the is it the historic preservation at Wolfgang Amo?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Not historic preservation. It's about there are there are stepped benefits for I'm, like, really, like, the wrong person to be describing this particularly, but, there are stepped benefits for municipalities or or downtowns, I suppose, that have that meet different, qualifications. And so there's step one, two, and three. And, I think the higher the number, though it's like the more dense or the the bigger the town. And, so this had some interaction with, three twenty five. We ended up leaving out this section, so we were glad to see it here. But knowing that this had to do with the community investment board's, funding structure, for their stepped program. And have I captured that

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: more or less?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Temporary, joint fiscal office, yes. Okay. And additional context that I heard when the bill was in Senate Economic Development, General and Housing Affairs, is that this provision is under current practice, it seems like Newtown Centers. Right? The problem is that Newtown Center doesn't have anything historic in it. And so the center designations

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: outside of Newtown Center,

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: quite, are really designed to have a a historical component. There are three Newtown centers in

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: the state. There's

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Berlin, Colchester, and South Burlington. It wouldn't impact Berlin and Colchester so much. The South Burlington will meet the step three criteria for everything else. So this language would allow them to be a new town center that qualifies for step three. And the idea is that if Berlin and Colchester are future new town centers, met all the rest of the qualification that would allow them to be a step three center, they would be able to participate as well. It is true right there is a whole set of benefits that come with being a step three designated center. And so theoretically, this language in the future will allow future new town centers to participate at that step three level.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: It includes, you know,

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: grant funding, the sales tax reallocation program, etcetera. I will say that's that's about the knowledge I have.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Right. Because you did include it in your fiscal note, but it's hard to hard to determine what the impact

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: would be. Exactly. It's kind of a so my understanding has been that in the current framework, it's really would potentially allow South Burlington's Newtown Center per project in in that area to participate in sales tax reallocation program or grant funding. So it's kind of a marginal thing, but it would be it would impact money and if you all felt strongly

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: And the sales tax reallocation, is

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it permanent? It's a permanent program.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: There's Like, but the reallocation of the the sales tax dollars in the new tax centers.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: It's a temporary.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It is a program where the developer can receive essentially the sales tax revenue or sales tax amount they would have paid for materials that was in the construction. So it's kind of a so it's you connect with a specific project.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Once that is paid, then the sales tax would go to the state. Then no no normal they would go where they normally go.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: What if That project is done, yes, then any additional sales tax for the project. It's not in perpetuity.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Right. Yep. Okay. I mean, I'm if you people wanna take it out, you can do that, but I'm I'm okay leaving.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: I'm leaving you then

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: also. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: So we have an amendment I'm

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: moving you then. For sure. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: The bill has been moved favorably by the senior senator from a while.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Is that just because I'm old? Yeah. Senior senator

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Junior. From Yeah. From Grand Isle.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Junior. Also in Midland.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: It looks like waiting on you. All set? Yes. We were gonna talk about the treasures and probably needed to move along. Okay. Thanks for being here, everybody. Have a

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: good day. Mhmm.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Senator Baruth? Birthdays. Yes. Would that change it?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: Well, is it really?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Lyons.

[Sen. Virginia “Ginny” Lyons (Member)]: Yeah. Yes. Happy birthday, I was gonna say. Yes.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Senator Norris? Yes. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Westman?

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Clerk)]: Yep.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Senator Perchlik? Yes.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Reporter.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: I'm happy to do it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Great. I'm happy you're happy to do it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Member)]: So I'm glad you passed

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is that it for us Well,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: I was hoping that councilor show me would show himself back.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: He did send us.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Oh, he did send it. Can we print it out? This is on

[Sen. Richard Westman (Member)]: Oh, can't vote out.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Oh, three twenty three, don't have. Alright. Oh. Refinance. Oh, we're done. No. We can't vote out. We're done. So we can adjourn for the day.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Addison District)]: Cool. Oh, amazing.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Chair, Senate Appropriations)]: Alright. But I will Let me