Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To Shimas. Hi, everybody. You are joining the House Senate Conference Committee on S-one 127, the omnibus housing bill, today is still early March. Even that's still. Right. And on our agenda, Madam Chair

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What essence? Oh, we didn't, gay customs.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. On our agenda are several things, actually. One is whatever you want to tell us about your latest offer back to us. The second is I do have, and everyone who's joined us, I do have a graph of a housing appeals section.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Sorry. We're just trying to all get on the same page.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. That's would you like us to wait a minute?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, maybe

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: what we should do is ask Chris Kristen to print it because John can't be here. Oh. And you don't have the newest one printed.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. But it's up to you. I hadn't even

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Would you like a five minute recess?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We have a list from John Gray, which is what we're trying to all get on the same page with.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Just four year changes?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Windsor-1)]: Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Great.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And is that what you're wanting to hear?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Mhmm. It is helpful.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. And with his chip proposal. Okay. So do you want to forward that to Kristen?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're working on posting it now. Oh, great.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So John has sent it to?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My supervisor, Megan, Jess, having it posted.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Great. Terrific. We could you can either wait to see it or we can start talking through it. Whichever you'd like, or I can

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we can talk briefly about appeals, or should we do that at the end?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We can talk about appeals. Whichever you prefer. We can talk about appeals. I'm

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: going to be brief. Ellen is here if there are questions, but I think you will recognize this. Essentially, what we've done is if you turn to page two, you'll recognize paragraph one, and everything else is just informed. Right. And what it's doing is it's basically saying that people who are appealing municipal decisions have to be either a person agreed, they have to be a person agreed, and they have to own property in the immediate neighborhood. And everything else conforming. There was one change at the very last page. You can see we added three because three was remember that section on interested person. I'll tell you what, Ellen, you just wanna explain that one, Shane.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: LTWC Office of Legislative Council. So this was the language that Center Economic Development had looked at. Number three, under the interested person definition, is the person owning or occupying property in the immediate neighborhood. And so with this change on the last page, it is saying that, number three, the immediate neighborhood or the anypointed persons are now excluded from the definition of indigent persons, so they therefore cannot appeal. But because you have added to the definition of aggrieved person, the immediate neighborhood, it sort

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: of covers what was grieved. In other words,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we didn't want two different languages of the same thing. And three was sort of in the immediate neighborhood, we liked your language in the bill, which is on page two. And so there are, I will say, I have to say, we have some concerns about possibility of the success of the challenge to this. If someone can demonstrate they are aggrieved and not in the immediate neighborhood, but this is what we're proposing.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So we appreciate your proposal. We appreciate you having looked at our language from the Senate, from the Senate and Economic Development. We worked hard on it. There were constitutional issues raised at the very end. It then went to Senate Natural Resources and Energy. And in SNRE, they heard testimony very strongly supporting the constitutional concerns that were And they really feel very strongly and have convinced the rest of the Senate to support LERB actions. If we want to do this work, seeing what LERB will be reporting to us and recommending to us in the fall, that then we would add this if we felt this was important if the municipal appeals hadn't been taken up. But our SNRE right now is firmly dug in and the Senate is now pretty strongly supportive of going to starting with LERB and seeing what LERB recommends in November, and then adding this if we need it, depending on what happens with what they recommend.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: At this point then, I'd say we aren't in agreement on this. We may reach agreement.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. Okay. But that position was you know,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that that support grew over the course. Now in terms of so I just I that's where we're at. Okay. Deepak?

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: Did we talk about the constitutional question?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Con don't we know the constitutional

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We know what to do.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: We all know them.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. We all I think we all have agreed that there may be constitutional issues with this, and I I think that that and I've stated the sentence. A sec.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I Second question is the question of universal design. I'm only going to take this up now if a I'm

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: right there, she's right there.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Have you had any conversations? I have. Okay. We are prepared to talk about that now. If you would like, we can wait until after your presentation.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think that there have been a number of conversations that have gone on about Universal Design with Elizabeth, with Acacia, Mike, and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Just talk to Mike? Yeah. Great. I think Elizabeth, why don't you identify yourself? Yeah, you can sort of. And I get a witness. And state your name

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: for the record.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Windsor-1)]: My name is representative Elizabeth Burrows. I represent Windsor One. She's Heartland, West Windsor, Windsor. And I'm here to talk about the universal design study. Oops.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sorry.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Windsor-1)]: So I just got off the phone with Mike Derocher. Derocher? Derocha. And so, there are a couple of things to just be clear about. I also got the, list of the Vermont Access Board, members, and that actually confirms to me that the study committee is a a more appropriate venue for this because the Vermont Access Board, it seems to me, looking at the membership, is really composed of corrections and institutions committee members and BGS members and then the Vermont Center for Independent Living, is now totally defunct and their office is closed. So they're defunct.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: I mean, that the know how to speak with the Vermont Center for Independent Living is defunct.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Windsor-1)]: Their office is emptied out and why not? There's no one there. If if that's what we were relying on for people with lived experience, I feel comfortable asserting that we can no longer rely on that as people with lived experience. And my, you know, top layer, these decisions should be made, including people who are going to have to live with the decision as their residences. It's not even these aren't we're not even talking about BGS and public accommodations. We're talking about where people are going to live. Secondly, just to reiterate the statistic that I keep throwing around, but we have our current housing stock for accessibility is 0.04% of our residential housing stock available is accessible. And at the same time, our homeless population is more than eighty percent, has a physical disability. So how forgetting the fact that we live in an aging state. So how are we going to, in any way, address that paradox? There are a couple of purposes of the study committee. They are not so that a study could or a task force. They're not so that it could just happen and then go out into the It's actually backwards designing, definitions for programs that we set into motion last biennium, including a grant from VHIP, which would create accessibility. When I at the housing conference in October, November, whenever it was, I asked Sean Gilpin what the uptake was for that program. And he said zero because we had not defined what we meant by that one. Visibility. Visibility and and or versus accessibility versus universal design. And so that's the first purpose. But the second purpose is, and I think also important, is that every time accessibility, visibility, universal design gets brought up, there are some developers, including legislators, who come and say, this is far too expensive. What are they talking about when what do they think they're talking about when they say it's too expensive? I'm not sure that they know exactly what they're talking about when they say it's too expensive. And so part of the reason to have all of the membership of this, task force is to just like with the little kids, not that they're little kids, but to bring everybody in and have them be part of the actual decision making process so that they can see firsthand that it is not a cost center. It is actually a benefit add for, when you're you're doing design, when you're when you're these features, defining whatever the features specifically are. The next purpose is I'm pointing to Chad because

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: VHFA what's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: conveniently locate

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's like

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Windsor-1)]: this right here. But Chad Simmons and and Mara and I at last biennium had talked about codifying what what BHFA already requires. And there are some other agencies that already require it, but they mirror the HUD requirements using HUD funding. And my concern was that it's a practice, but it's not codified. And so the secondary original purpose was to codify what they already do. Now that we're in this new regime, we don't know where HUD requirements are going to go. So we want to make sure you know, one of the purpose purposes ultimately is to make sure that at least at the very least, the HUD requirements are codified in our state law so that so that they remain. My personal goal is not to have it be a at this moment, have it be a full on, building code requirement, but to actually have it be a requirement only for, new residences that are, built using state funding, regardless of how that funding is rated since we no longer are entirely sure. We could at least be sure that using state funding, universal design was part of the process.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: Can we pause here? I I think it's really important that we take seriously our responsibility to not make people think an organization might not exist anymore that they rely on. So I have a social media post from Vermont Center for Independent Living on April 2, saying, we have put our building on the market. It's in the heart of Montpelier. Check out the listing. And then they later say, it was wonderful being where we were. We found an accessible rental, and hopefully, we'll be ready to announce in the next few weeks. We're hoping to move to another location soon. We decided months ago to sell the building and are reposting the listing. We'll be renting in another location in Montpelier. The revenue will become part of the budget, and we'll continue to offer the same programs and services. That's extremely important that we not spread misinformation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Elizabeth Thank you. Yeah. I see that the print has arrived. Is there anything else you wanna add? Let's see. So Did you and Mike agree to disagree, or do you agree?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Windsor-1)]: He was driving in his car, and he ran out of connectivity while we were talking.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Windsor-1)]: Mhmm. So we we did not agree to disagree. He totally understood why educating the tangential stakeholders is important, why not just, a, quote, unquote, offering education, but actually requiring them to be in the seat is is important. We just did not come to a conclusion because he ran out

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it. What I think we're gonna do thank you so much. What we're gonna do is move on and then come back to this. Yeah. Is that alright?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. And I would just I I I also think we had reaffirming email from Chad today.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Yes. Chad is yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: I do hope you all read the list of current members of the access committee because it is a house appointee. It is a senate appointee. It is architects. It is people with lived experience. It is VCIL. I I don't personally think it's wise to go around a permanent subcommittee of division and fire safety at this point.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Windsor-1)]: I I would I would say that it would be really important to have them be part of the ongoing conversation, but that it is important to do it at this specific bill at this juncture because we are hoping to have an explosion of housing and to not have, to to make sure that it gets done in a in a finite period so that it can be applied immediately. My my thought was to have just three or four meetings and then and then have it go into effect.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So Is which I would appreciate if you do have a chance to reconnect with my to finish that conversation. Yeah. Okay? Will do. Thank you.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: Alright. I don't know how long we have Susan Aronoff, but did you hear her testimony on the universal design Study Group?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. Well, that's not she hear testimony from her, but not on that issue.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: Okay.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We did. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. So we have here I think we have here what looks like the bill itself, right, with changes highlighted in the yellow foot. John, go ahead and just do it. Oh, alright. Don, you wanna move back up to the front of the hot seat?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You don't want that. Especially, but I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: don't want to get either way. This is the housing. Yeah. I'm just trying to consolidate, that's all the good stuff.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And it even though it has yesterday's date, I this is a date, October, I think, is John's.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Looks very kind

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to John.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. No. I'm just wanting to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thanks. Just to let you know, it's Room 35 here in Thank

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you. John Gray,

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: office of legislative council. Did you guys want me to pull something up? Just

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Then

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we have CAMS language to look at on the housing.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: It's the infrastructure.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We've got 10 copies of this. Okay. So let's see if that we can do that.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Morning again. And It's

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: not morning.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is it not morning?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm so sorry. No. Okay.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did not know that. But that's good. Yeah. I think.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I stopped. So

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what you're seeing here is the sine comperee's latest proposal. And don't have a side by side prepared, but what I do have is this document with highlighting that shows changes against the house proposal that you looked at this morning. And I'm happy to walk through all the changes here. So, the first thing that we're gonna see on page one is a change to the durational requirement for the affordability provisions. So in the health proposal this morning, you saw that the affordability provisions that's both for affordable housing development and moderate income housing development that was in perpetuity. Here, you see that is until all indebtedness for that housing infrastructure project has been retired.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: Do you all wanna pause and I'm glad.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I understand. Okay. Thanks. Understand.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This may go very well for me.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And that's okay. Page three?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. On page three, you're gonna see the same change. We have to pick it up in two places. Right? Because you have both affordable housing developments and moderate income housing developments. So same durational requirement till all indemnity retired.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: If I may, John pointed out to us when we were drafting that nothing stops it from continuing to be affordable. That, we understand the spire.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next piece, if we come to the housing infrastructure agreement. So, that's section nineteen oh nine. I'll give you a page number in a second. Page seven. So the point of contention here has been this subdivision 4 that you see on line 14. And this in the house proposal related to bonafide domicile on the senate proposal that we saw yesterday, it was ensuring that no housing unit would be offered as a short term rental for the same duration, that duration of the indebtedness. What you see here is, moving toward the primary residency requirement, but it has different, durational requirements. So if the housing unit is sold for owner occupancy, it needs to be initially offered exclusively as a primary residence. So that first sale will be for the purposes of a primary residence. If, however, it's sold as rental housing, that's to be offered exclusively as primary residence until all indebtedness has been retired for that project, and that could be satisfied by biennially providing a landlord certificate or home set declaration as appropriate. So distinguishing between owner occupancy and that rental housing, in the owner occupancy case, the durational requirement is initial offer. And then for the rental housing piece, it is for the duration of the indebtedness until that indebtedness is retired. But the thing to note, of course, conceptually, is that this is broader than the former Senate proposal related to short term rentals. This is about primary residential. Right?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that is the update to subdivision.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Any more questions there? That's pretty good.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: Okay. It's also the only way we have to enforce something like this at this point.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next we go to the Buckwhore test. And what you see here is a carve out for affordable projects. So those folks that are seeking the affordability criterion, they have to go through the Buckwhore test. Would otherwise exist for your standard flow projects, Betsy, to review each application other than those satisfying the affordability criteria and determine whether they serve the site.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Do you go back to that? Could you explain what the proposal is here?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, I think that we felt that if the project was fulfilling the affordability and moderate criteria under this in this for these projects, that they would not have to be subjected to the test.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: That is the BUT-four test. States we looked at, like Minnesota, which we sent you, so we did look into other states that have a but four test and we often on ways and means looked at Minnesota for their sake of clarity and

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: offering

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: affordable housing is the good. That's the public good that is satisfied with our investment.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's kind of sweetening the pot, move those

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: All we're trying to do is incent a public good, which is incent more affordable permanent hazard.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Understand your proposal. Alright.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next is on the following page, page nine. Project criteria, accepting the two pronged structure, that floor area threshold with the alternative of, you know, the BEPC board determining that it meaningfully addresses the purpose of the sub chapter, but proposing a slightly lower floor area threshold of 51%, so majority dedication to housing. The next piece is probably the follow yes. Very bottom of the next page, page 10. In the latest house proposal that we looked at, we saw that sixty days plus a thirty day in extenuating circumstances. This is just a flat ninety day. So it's same total possible period, but no requirement to make a determination that it's only in extenuating for census. Flat 90 from that site visit. You'll see some conforming changes here in just what requirements have to be met for VAPC approval. So picking up that the BuffBoard test is not a requirement for those affordable projects. Right? But the real substantive difference you're seeing here, difference of opinion is, on line nine. The proposed CHIP, final application date is the 2035. And there's a section later I'll come to where I need to update a date to reflect this. There's something that you don't see here is the removal of the limit. There used to be a subsection h, your $40,000,000 limit. No limit included in the Senate proposal. The next pieces we can jump to are the increment retention percentages, which are all the way down on page 15. And what you're seeing is the house proposal have been 65 for your standards. The the latest proposal have been 65% for your nonaffordable track and then 8080% for your affordable track. The senate proposal is to maintain that 15% gap, but trying to maintain the same incentive to bump up to affordable projects, but doing 75% for your standard projects and 90% for your affordable.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You want okay. Yeah. Right. Good.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next change is relatively minor, and I'm going to pick up the thing that I missed. It's in the information reporting section. Yes, on page 20. You don't see a highlight because I missed this, but Doctor Hartley even hopefully pointed this out to me. For the Senate proposal, this would be on or before 01/15/2035. I just need to pick up the date. Sorry, which page? I'm on page 20. This is just the final evaluative report that assesses how well the program went. I forgot to pick up this final date change in moving the Sunset Per chip to that 2035. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I can see line four. Yes. You're proposing that's 2035.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. That's that's my mistake.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's just in the state. With the expiration of a

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: exactly. Yeah. Exactly.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: When we're talking about stability, we thought it better be consistent.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's that's the report,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: not the expiration. So you're saying there'd be no five year report?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This doesn't include a a a five year check-in. I don't know that I don't think it was an active item of

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We will get annual check ins from epilepsy. This is sort of how we feel. I think that the end and in particular, with the additional information we've asked for in terms of what's working, what's not working, We felt annual reports were insufficient.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. I see you giving them two more weeks.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Rule making guidance moved from that issue guidance by November 1 to November 15 year. Other changes? Any reason why?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can't have a heart. I don't know. I think Sort of why consistency.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You could just explain why?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I'm actually not sure why we changed the date, but I think we felt it gave them us a little bit more time.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: I think we want them to get the rules right. We heard about how often they nuke it. And if those become public on January 1, this should give us sufficient time, you know, with while people are usually finishing things up before the holiday season, a lot of what we do is November 15 for that reason.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's a more standard time that we use for asking for reports. It's not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: rules, it's guidance. I know. I know.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. But also, as we all know, if we want things drafted in the second year, we need things early enough for lunch council to actually draft them. Our deadline is, I believe, December 1. December 1. Our deadline is much earlier.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, it is? Yeah.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: I just wanna point out that none of us discussed this morning the membership of BEPSI on page 25. So it sounds like you were in agreement.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. We we have we we're still very good with that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think oh, right. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But we do that.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: Oh, Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We think it's fair. The

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the last changes here are gonna be on the final page, page 26. Is section 27. So what you don't see is the removal of the houses, section 27, which was the tip district sunset. So that's removed in this proposal. And in its place, although not exceptionally in its place, but just literally in the same place in the bill, You'll note that earlier, and I should have flagged this as we were going through. In section 19 o eight, we talked about the size of the housing development site. Right. You guys didn't wanna include, the the house did not include immediate and contiguous parcels. The senate accepted that, but was asking Pepsi at the end of this year to come back, just considerations for amending that definition of housing development site, including a recommendation on whether appropriate to include a media contiguous parcels.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is the extent of what I have to share. And if I can leave the room, I would love to do that. But let me know if you need me to stay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, I think you have done great job. You were very good.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Can have your time.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. What's your time like for the rest of the day, or do you know?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I mean, the three of

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: us need to sit down and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you guys wanna email me or text I'm assuming this is gonna keep going for some time.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So But well. They wanna I think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, okay. No. What I think we wanna do is recess. I wanna move this along. Mhmm. So I wanna recess now. Yep. Check it again. And go back. That's there. Whatever. Oh, maybe return notes. The messy app. And you have a doctor's appointment. Well, I have to leave And you're that back by 01:30? No, he's seeing me at 01:20, so theoretically, 01:30, I'd be back by we'll have an hour. But no, that's not true.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Our side Back up chair.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: With people. I don't have to be there.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay? You'll be chair. Okay. So I think that what we want to do is reconvene after we've Talked. Talked. So let us talk. So how long do we I've well, I'm good for People need to eat.

[Unidentified legislator (likely House Ways & Means member)]: That's where I would.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right? We didn't get supper last night, so and I'm sure John's hungry as well. So don't I don't know if that he's let's shoot for two. Okay. Shall we just occasionally, I have three. I'm willing to depending

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: on how I can delegate my family.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: When he gets you in trouble.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Leaving later than four will get me in trouble. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: How much trouble?