Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we have Ted coming in to do the Yes. Great. Welcome, everybody, to Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs. Thursdays are our Labor and Consumer Protection Days, And today, we are turning we're done with labor. Thank you to Thomas and David for excellent clear reports yesterday on our two labor bills. Know you both did a great job. And and the committee is very great. Now we are turning to consumer protection and to the preventing, to help, working to prevent further addiction to nicotine for our young people, which is growing at an alarming rate. And so we had thoughtful work on this last week. Jen Carvey, our legislative council, has incorporated all the work that we suggested and plan was agreed to. And we now have a bill that I'm hoping we'll be able to vote out by the end of our time with Jen this morning. So we're going to

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Jen, welcome. Thank you. Good morning. Jen Harvey from the office of the legislative council. I will share my screen. This draft is on your committee page. This is S-one 198, enacting relating to the regulation and taxation, although I'm gonna propose a name change at the end, as tobacco products and tobacco subsidies. This is a strike all amendment, and so everything that is proposed as new language should be highlighted and in bold. Everything that is proposed to be struck out should be highlighted and struck. We went off talking through it. So even though it's 36 pages, a good portion of the middle is proposed. Is we start out in section one, which is a long section because it's amending all of seven BSA chapter 40. And so one of the threshold issues so I haven't made any changes in most of the definitions other than to add new ones. One of the big issues that this draft does is it moves the licensure and regulation of wholesale dealers from the Department of Taxes to the Department of Liquor and Lottery. So a lot of what I'm doing is just moving definitions, some cases taking them out of Title 32 and just putting them in Title seven, and in some cases keeping them in both places because there's still a role for the wholesale dealers in the tax jaggers that are just not getting licensed there anymore. So we have new definitions taken from the tax statutes for a licensed wholesale dealer, wholesale dealer, wholesale dealer's license, wholesale outlet, and wholesale price. Again, other than some very minor revisions for things like referring to this chapter instead of references in the tax chapter to a sub chapter, the language is the same. Section on page three, one thousand and two, I've just added in retail sale to the existing licensure section so it's clear we go to the wholesalers in the next section that we're talking about something different. The license required for retail sales, I think otherwise the content is the same. This does still decouple the liquor license from the tobacco license. I wasn't able to be with you in committee, but I did go back and watch your committee recordings, so I heard the conversation around that, and it didn't sound like you were interested in taking that provision out of the bill, at least at that point.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that's on page four.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's on page four, Lars, I guess. Yep. So I didn't change anything about the decoupling or the increased fees, or the increased penalties for selling in violation of the sections on the title license. We did, on page six, take out the reference to the definition of licensing sole self dealer, cross referencing Title 32 because now we have a definition in this chapter as well. Then we have new Section 1,002 B, the version of the 1,002 A, but it seemed important to keep the licensure pieces fairly close together in the statutes. And this is taking the language from, there's five separate sections in a sub chapter in title 32 that goes through all the wholesaler licensing provisions. I've combined them all into one section here instead of creating five new sections in this title. And I used most of the title of each of those sections and used it as a subsection heading here so that in the statute books it would be in bold. It'd be a little bit easier maybe to follow. So this would remove the provisions requiring wholesale dealers to secure a license. Now it would be from the Division of Riffer Control as opposed to from the Department of Taxes before engaging in the business of selling cigarettes, rolling around tobacco, little scar snuff, new smokeless tobacco, or other tobacco products in this state, and licensed wholesale dealers sell them only to other Vermont licensed wholesale dealers or through retailers licensed for Section 1,002 of this chapter. Whereas now as

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm reading this out loud, think we need to make

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: sure that with the definition of other tobacco products in Title 32 that we are accurately capturing everybody because I think we specifically refer to things like tobacco substitutes. So that's something for me to go back and look after and just drag, make sure we're covering all people who are currently required to get a wholesale dealer license. There's separate application and license required for each wholesale outlet. Again, this is just moving existing law into Title VII from Title 32 and repealing these provisions from Title 32. The wholesale license is issued under existing law without charge, so I've included that here as well. There's no charge for the license. And I'm having the Division of Liquor Control doing the issuing and prescribing the forms the way the tax department does in Title 32 now. Carries over the penalties for sales without a license. So if somebody, licensed wholesale dealer sells offers for sale or possesses within pentasale without having first obtained a license, The existing penalties are $25 for first offense and not more than $200 or less than $25 for each subsequent offense. You may wanna look at aligning these with the increased penalties you have just done in the retailer statute, so that you would have similar penalties for thousand the whole sale.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Three or four.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: To roll back up, yeah. So this just changed under existing law from $200 to $2,000 and $500 to $5,000 for retail violation. You may want to look at a similar increase.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, so these are still pretty modest. I wish we'd caught that earlier. To make them consistent, it would be one passive for the first offense and two for the second. Is that right?

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, the first offense is already lower in existing law, think. Right. So it's $25 for wholesalers and $200 for retailers under current law. So you could decide if you wanted to keep them different or you could go from fairly significant increase Well, think we did the 1,000

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to 2,000, isn't that what's Different panels. Just introduce yourself.

[Rose Kennedy, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Page five? Rose Kennedy from the Attorney General's Office, I think five.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Page five? Yeah, bottom of page five is where a person who sells an existing law, sells tobacco products that are out obtaining a tobacco license, endorsement, be subject to civil penalty and in current law for retailers it's $200 and it would go up $2,000 in the bill where first offense cannot more than $500 in existing law, going up to $5,000 for subsequent offenses.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would be open to aligning those if that's what we're trying to do with is prevention. I mean, this bill is about prevention. I would look to the AG's office. I think the committee might look to the AG's office recommendation on that, but I hope we could have a recommendation soon because I'm really hoping we can We would support that. To align them to the same Okay. What would they what

[Rose Kennedy, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: The 2,000 for the first offense and 5,000 for the second.

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

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: It would be helpful to know at some point, not voluntary to report this, but when was it set to 200 to 500 just to know how that isn't that easy to get. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: We can

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But Dave brings comfortable Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. No. That way would be that would be. Okay, Doctor. Are we, do you have that, Jen? Yep. Alright,

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: term of the license, we're on page eight. Again, each license as under existing law in Title 32, each license for a wholesaler would be valid as long as the licensee continues to do business at the place name, unless revoked or suspended by the division instead of the Department of Taxes. And if a business that has a license is sold or transferred or the licensee stops doing business at that place, then the license is not paid immediately and returned to, again, it's the Division of Liquor Control rather than Department of Taxes for cancellation.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Is there usually any sort of proration of refund or otherwise?

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No charge for the, So those are penalty amounts, there's no charge for the license. And then this allows the division to revoke or suspend the license of any licensed wholesale dealer, or better to comply with any provision of this chapter, provision of incorporation law, the tax statutes for the tobacco settlement, tobacco manufacturer regulation provisions in Title 33. So that's what took to put the wholesaler licensing in Title VII, and we get

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: into- So that's the end of our sort of basic statutory clean up for this transition. Mostly, and

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: then I repeal and move a piece And later then, no more of a tax statute. So we're done with tobacco statutes, 1,005 is the repeal of the statute on prohibiting purchase use and possession by minors. Section 1,007 is the section that was in the bill as introduced, increasing the penalties for furnishing tobacco to persons under age, and clarifying and increasing the license suspensions and adding penalties for confab refill outlet that fails in a compliance test. Yep. Section 1,009 is contraband and seizure, no changes from the bill as introduced, so this is, uh- Just curious, what happens to 1,008? We just skipped over it, that's what the doctor thoughts are for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the ellipses Okay, got it, thank you. No changes on it.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No changes, no changes in ten ten on internet sales. No changes on ten thirteen, the new provision around deceptive tobacco products and tobacco substitutes. It struck what would have been new Section seven BSA ten fourteen on enforcement because I heard the Commissioner of Labor and Lottery say this was not necessary and they

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: already had a They already have a robust, by whom we get to deal with.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't remember where the addition came from, but it sounded like it was not necessary for DLL. And then I just remembered what was ten and fifteen to be ten and fourteen, the use of funds from licensing fees, settlements, penalties, and settlements. We get into sections two and three are some generally conforming changes around the establishment of that, of this requirement to deposit all of these into the Tobacco Trust Fund. So just highlighting that I changed section number of ten fifteen became ten fourteen, and that's the change that I've carried for here. Section four is a provision unchanged from the bill as introduced that would allow the commissioner of taxes to disclose a tax return or return information to the Department of Liquor and Lottery if it's needed for purposes of investigating potential violations of the tobacco statutes. I've got a lot of the tax provisions, but I think here that this one was concerned, so did not get so private. Section five, now we're in the tax statutes, the tobacco tax statutes generally, and so we have definitions. So the definition changed. The definition of cigarette will align it with the definition in Title 33 from the Master Settlement Agreement with the bag of manufacturers, stays. Some of the references to licensed wholesale dealers and wholesalers, I just added the new reference to where they're being licensed under the new chapter, a new section in chapter seven. And that I'm not deleting the not repealing the definition of manufacturer, but just taking it out of the bill. And you'll see a lot of this coming up because if we're not doing the taxes on tobacco substitutes, like the stamping, like cigarettes We're not writing that bill. It will be hopefully done We're in a future just taking those amendments out of the statute, but changing the underlying statute. And so I also restored some of the existing language, that's why I've highlighted, but not underlined, what have been struck in the Bellas and Troops being the definition of other tobacco products. Wholesale dealer, again, taking out this proposal to talk about thio substitutes. So sometimes. But maybe to relook at that for chapter seven and just some clean up language, and then taking the amended versions of wholesale outlet and wholesale price and tobacco substitute. So this is all Now we're getting into a bunch of language that would come out of the bill. So this were all of the sections in the tobacco tax statutes where we're adding in tobacco substitutes without that change. Those sections don't need to be in the bill, so they would be deleted and you wouldn't see them in the invoice version. Isn't this the whole

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: way of the transference of responsibility to VALR?

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, this is because you're not doing the Oh, is because

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we're not doing the tax, right.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We're striking all of these.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Remember we're turning it into we're too complicated to do in too short

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a period of time. We've coming got a up for reports coming up.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That is coming up. Okay, great.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So section six is a provision that was in the bill as introduced. You no longer need to amend that piece because you're not doing the tobacco substitute part, but there is a conforming reference that is needed with respect to the move of the wholesale dealer licensing and cover to That cover '26. Yeah, cover 26. And then more striking out, more striking out, more striking out from the Then another conforming change here, section seven, so there's a new section in the bill that's really necessary to conform some existing references to what you're doing with the wholesale dealers. There's some provisions around criminal penalties, existing law for anyone who is not complying with or violating the tax provisions and the existing law says that this section doesn't apply to the wholesaler licensing requirements or another section. Because we're about to repeal the wholesaler licensing requirements from this chapter, we don't need to refer them anymore because they wouldn't be, they're not in So the that's what this striking out here is. There's one section that was left in the subchapter on licensed wholesale dealers having to do with their bonding requirement that seemed more connected to the tax piece than the licensure piece so that Section eight redesignates it. Just moves it because the rest of the chapter, the subchapter on licensed wholesale dealers is going away. It would just put it earlier in the tobacco chapter in the tax statutes. So I'm just redesignating it. And then we're repealing the licensure wholesale dealers provisions from Title 32. Again, the standard power moved to Title

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So, is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: clean up stuff. No, I appreciate that, but it's 32 BSA in both, don't we, aren't we redesignating it?

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: One piece on bonding, was keeping in the tax statutes because it seemed more related to the tax rule, the taxation roll of the wholesalers than just the fact of their licensure. So it's keeping it in Title 32, but moving it to Subchapter one of the tobacco tax chapter rather than keeping it as its own standalone section and subchapter that's otherwise revealed.

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

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Section 10 is the investigator position, and I heard some interest in clarifying, so I think in the existing language, it is already kind of dedicated to focusing on direct to consumer sales and delivery of alcohol and tobacco products, which is through online sales, but this makes it more explicit. So this still creates the investigator position at Liquor and Lottery to enforce and investigate potential violations of Vermont laws, and this was now say relating to online sales and other direct to consumer sales and delivery of alcohol and tobacco. And you gave some particular statutes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Just because we'll be debating or financing at this position. Yes. Implying that as well. I just wanna give remind us because we haven't been can have a focusing on this chat, on this work. This is from the testimony we heard, this is where the greatest leakage is. If we have 90% compliance, and as we heard testimony from DLL, the term for retail sales, the real leakage seems to be on the internet sales and so this where there seemed to be more the need for beef doc compliance is in delivery.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that is what you've heard from the attorney general's office and others. That it's harder to enforce the online sales provision.

[Rose Kennedy, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Yeah, not sure I put it, Rose Kennedy again from the AG's office, I'm not sure I put it in terms of the greatest leakage, but definitely a harder system to try to enforce against. That was my whack a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: mole comment, yeah.

[Rose Kennedy, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: A lot of websites that, you know, once we start looking at them, they can close down and resurface somewhere else.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, it's whack a mole? Yeah. No, okay. Thank you, Jen. Just wanted to remind us of that as we.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I know you're gonna be hearing from Ken after me. So this is where this appropriate $160,000 from the Tobacco Litigation Settlement Fund and FY27 to fund the position and expresses legislative intent that that funding from the Tobacco Litigation Settlement Fund would happen for fiscal years '27 and '28, and then beginning in fiscal year twenty nine, the funding would be built into the base funding for the Department of Labor and Lottery's budget, but that they would basically be self funding that position by the violations that they were investigating and finding.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So the objective was that it did not run out of general fund.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right, that's kind of what that means. And then there would be an update provided. So if the revenue generated by the investigators activities are insufficient to cover the position in the future, then it requires DLL to propose eliminating that position as part of its next budget or budget adjustment presentation to the legislature, and it would require by March 15 that the department provide an update to various committees, including this committee on the status of its implementation, and then provide an annual report on the investigators' activities and the impact on compliance with Vermont's laws on Directed Consumer Sales and Culture. Then this strikes the section that was going to direct the Department of Taxes and Department of Liquor and Lottery to look at moving the wholesalers from taxes to liquor and lottery because the bill was doing that. But instead, it has a new report on taxation and tax stamps. So this would direct the Department of Taxes in collaboration with DLL and the Office of the Attorney General and in consultation with wholesale dealers and other interested stakeholders to identify efficient and effective processes by which to impose taxes on tobacco substitutes based on the concentration of nicotine they contain, and evaluate the continued use of tax stamps as evidence of payment of the excise tax on cigarettes, little cigars, can roll your own tobacco in the state, and consider the pros and cons of alternative approaches of certifying tax compliance. And would have them, the tax department, provide its findings and recommendations for both parts, taxing tobacco products based on nicotine concentration and on the continued use of tax stamps, including proposed next steps and legislative needs to various committees, including the Risk Committee and Finance Committee.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, Jen, big thank you for incorporating all our comments and thoughts. I think you've done a terrific job, and this, I think, does everything that we had wanted. I would say that this having seen that video on the stamp production, really, it is so seventeenth century, maybe early eighteenth century.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mean, interestingly, I looked into it and 48 states used tax stamping for their bill. As as of 2024, I think that was the least.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But not on paper, but just on

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Just on Right. I believe just on

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the on the by volume. But I mean, every time I hear a stamp act, you think obviously Boston Harbor. I mean, you think, my God, we've been doing this since the seventeenth.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I do want to just slide on the effective dates as well. So most of the bill would still take effect on 07/01/2026. But the pieces related to moving the wholesale dealer licensure from tax to DLL would happen on 07/01/2027.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Gives them a year

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to work that out. It sounded like they had asked for there to be an additional year.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the study is due back in 2020.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The study is due back in January 2027, so you would have it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: for the next And I think that that was a reasonable date. Okay. Yeah.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I'm noting I just need to make one or change here around taxing tobacco substitutes based on nicotine concentration, not products. I'll do that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that is on line

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And on page 35, it's just the conform, it's the reference back to subdivision A-one.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, I see tobacco substitutes on line eight. Yeah, but

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: on line 15 it says tobacco products. Ah, yes, okay. So that's what I'm gonna fix. And then I proposed changing the title to be an act relating to the regulation, leaving out taxation of tobacco products and tobacco substitutes?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Actually, Bob, Bob, I can't.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: The loose quorum. Can I come find you when I can? No,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it's okay. There's lots to discuss with our only law well, it's not true because not her because

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: of law

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: enforcement. We're thinking about law enforcement this morning after what happened last night. Thank you. This is great. Question for

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Which is depending on how the rest of our conversation goes with Ted,

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: are you able make those changes? I will so I'll be working on them while you're talking to Ted. I know. I thought I have to talk slowly. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Then we'll be good. Know there's,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: like, 10 Ted, would you be kind enough because she's gonna need a desk to work on.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Of course. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we welcome Ted. Do we have,

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: we Are you military students? Do you not have a physical number for what's

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: it called?

[Hannah Jobe, Department of Liquor and Lottery (DLL)]: What?

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: You do not have a physical number for this. No longer produce my words, but you do have a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We love that. Your words are fine in our pen. Great. I record You were not you were military, not law enforcement.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Well, there are some law enforcement in the military, but there

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: are Yeah. No. Not you. No. Heck.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Sure. I am carelessly well with that. Promise, which you

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: would kinda be able to hook Ted up.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yep. Thanks very much. Absolutely.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: No. We have not takes a village here.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. See.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: It. Tat Barnett joined fiscal office. I will talk more slowly than I normally do.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To give you down all that time Exactly.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: So, yes, there are two pieces that I looked at in evaluating fiscal impacts on f one ninety eight. There are two pieces. One is the change in licensure for folks who are selling tobacco products. So in these are data from DLL, and they perform analysis on how this new structure might impact store their fee revenue. Hi, Kenneth. And so, yes, I I appreciate

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: their love on this front. It's stepping in for the DLL.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Exactly. So according to information from them, Kirk, only 50 people are paying for a separate tobacco license under current law. And when you add the substitute endorsement, the amount of current law revenue generated by those fees is about $31,000. In the proposed setup in s one ninety eight with by decoupling and requiring folks to pay for a tobacco a license to sell tobacco products. And by increasing those fees to $1,000 for both tobacco product license and for the substitute endorsement, Their analysis indicates that could generate $1,300,000 that would go into the enterprise fund. And as you know, in the enterprise fund, there's surplus revenue in the enterprise fund. It gets transferred into the project.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: The the general funds.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Into the general fund. Yeah. So that's the general landscape there. I'd be happy to provide a nice table for y'all to reference so you don't have to jot down numbers, but we were working on this late yesterday.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. We we appreciate our we apologize for our time crunch, but it's at least predictable.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: It is the nature of the time of year we are in, so that is totally understood.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it's the current revenue on that is only $31,000?

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: That is what it appears to be based on initial analysis, because so many folks are they have a liquor license in their joint, so they're paying their fees on the liquor license portion, so they're not paying it for the back office. And so the total

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And remember what our objective is here. Our objective is to really have consequences for for selling tobacco, these products and the consequences, that is a big consequence. Is selling it farther? Yeah, that's what So you might be

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: it's a legal product, just like we spend days talking about marijuana. It's another legal product that we're not challenging. I just need to push back or not.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I don't know if this is for the JFO, I'm sorry, but, you know, think the argument you might be making is that you want them to spend a thousand dollars to have the right to do this so they're much more protective of it and they abide by the laws, they don't lose that investment. Right?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it doesn't just happen.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Your Thank you. This is why we have a team.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Exactly. And, yes, this is, I will note that this analysis assumes that everyone who currently has a license would carry forward and continue having license. Some folks may decide a new license is too expensive for them or they don't wanna put us at a greater risk. Right? So that's just taking the current world as it is and porting it into the new regulatory structures.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Apologies for misrepresenting. Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So that's your math. It is a thousand dollars times how many stores we'd anticipate based on current landscape? Let me pull this. I thought I had seven zero four stores sell, and so if you where's your 1,300,000.0 is what I was just trying to figure out.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: It's it's approximately in that universe. So it look there's about 700 licensees who have the tobacco piece, and then another 700 and change who have the would have the substitute endorsement, and so those two

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: combined Okay. Qualify.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yep. So it's a revenue goal? I it's just

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't think it's a goal. I think it's a consequence of up decoupling.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: For me, I I know. I personally am not motivated on revenue.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I I'm not even

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: any health objectives and make it so that less stores wanna sell. That's where I I don't think They're illegal.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: They're so That's why the grocers push against them. Yeah. No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I agree. Rose, do you have a want to because this came from your crowd?

[Rose Kennedy, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: I think what Senator Chittenden said is correct. I mean, dollars 50 endorsement fee doesn't really capture the magnitude of what these products can do, especially to Vermont youth. So increasing the fee I think will make some retailers even more vigilant in how they sell it and how they make sure they're collecting IDs and all that. Plus I just think the $50 is pretty outdated when each vape is somewhere between $15 and $25 They're making a lot of money off of these products and I know you keep saying they're legal products but they actually aren't FDA authorized, the vast majority of them. So, you know, I think the fees make sense and just because it generates more revenue, that wasn't That's a a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: consequence, that's not the reason to. Correct.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I'd be just as happy if half of them opted to continue to sell cigarettes, but I also am a realist and I want this to actually get passed into law. So if a thousand dollars, I think I heard the administration say that was so I'm wondering if they came in with a more inflation adjusted, rational with other states. Now there's a thousand is unpalatable. I'm fine with a thousand, but if there's something else that get us to a better place, I'm

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: playing with. It's based on the on the alcohol fee, isn't it?

[Rose Kennedy, Vermont Attorney General’s Office]: Well, it got decoupled from the alcohol. I'm not really sure how DOL assesses the fees around

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the alcohol. I'm I'm not sure.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This could be a conversation at finance. I'm just welcome.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. It could be, but, Hannah, you're here, so you're on the hot spot. Is that aligned with alcohol, the license for alcohol? Hannah

[Hannah Jobe, Department of Liquor and Lottery (DLL)]: Joab, DLL. I can give back to the exact numbers that are that's not carried to people we charge. Alcoholic abuse.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: More or less. More. Yeah. You charge a lot more for that. And the consequence I mean, when you think about the impact on the state budget and on state course, alcohol has a huge impact, hundreds of millions of dollars, but so does tobacco. I mean, the the to to Medicaid, to our court system, in particular with alcohol. So the I think that's probably there. Didn't we

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: already didn't we hear a testimony that we already have, it's like a 92% markup for that specific reason? I mean, there's a kind of a limit to how much you punish people for their advice.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: See what I'd say to that Legal quote. Where I am on this is I just think there's it's too easy to find a place to get five packs of cigarettes. I would like it to be more concentrated like liquor stores. Just every gas station down the street gets or sees tobacco. They can buy tobacco. That's a lot more enforcement to make sure they're checking for IDs and with current fee structure. So if I might, having a higher amount might reduce the availability and promotion. But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to more intention, I think that it's, it makes it, that they really then further appreciate.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Perfecting the right

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

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I just wanted to be able to So let's me.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You wanna just finish your fiscal note, and we'll guide into the conversation.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Sure. And I should first correct the record. I'm sorry. There were about seven eighty tobacco licenses and then 518 substitute endorsements issued in fiscal year twenty five. So that's yep. Yep. That's where you go. So I 518 coupled. 518 for the substitute endorsements and then 780 for tobacco licenses. And substitute endorsements operate separately from the coupled

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And only if you have

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: to get one of them, one of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: those regardless. And only 50 pay an extra tobacco, the HSA.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Under current bond.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yep. Okay. Great.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But JFO, no. This is an annual fee. Is that correct?

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: It was an annual Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. And I will, this afternoon, put this together in a table for y'all. Great. Yes. So you have it to reference. So that's that's the piece on licensure piece, if everyone has the information they need there. I will move on to the investigator position.

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

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: We did take a look. I went in and looked at the operating statement for the tobacco settlement fund. And so in fiscal year twenty seven, there's anticipated fee about $5,000,000 in cash balances left over after settlement money is going to the fund. There are various uses, right, substance misuse programs, public health. There's a bunch of global commitment funds that are leveraged from dependent settlement. And so after all the uses, there's there's more expenses than revenue in fiscal year twenty seven, but there's right now a bit of a a balance. And so at the end of that operation, without the investigator position, there would be a cash balance of $5,000,000 at the end of fiscal year twenty seven and then about $300,000 in fiscal year twenty eight. So looking at this, it seems that the settlement fund has the ability to absorb the investigator position for two years. Though I would note that the settlement fund, right, there are the multitude of uses within it. The appropriations committee may have some use that they're considering, so this is where we are currently, notwithstanding anything else happening in the legislative process. But looking at it as it's now, the tobacco settlement fund does have enough It's not balance. For two years, I will say there's a structural issue with the fund where starting this year '29, it would not be a They're more expensive than revenue. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it strikes me that if we're gonna add the investigator and we're we have a very specific intent behind that, at least in my understanding, might it make sense to report and measure the effectiveness of the investigator in terms of reducing sales, online sales, and direct to consumer sales, and really have a a report on that so that we know

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you. That's in the.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, okay. You're glad. Well, let me end this back. Annual report. But is it two years? No, no, good. Thank you. I mean, nice when great minds are already thinking you like them. Just sometimes it's gone.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But there's an annual report on the impact of the, activities on compliance.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes, we already get a compliance report from DLO. No, but

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the impact of that specific investigator's activities on compliance with the direct to the online sales direct Correct. To

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Good, that's important because I think if, particularly if the money is, we're gonna have to rethink the money in two years. It sounds like it's fine. Okay. For the next two years, but it does sound like we would have to rethink the origin.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, does say it's supposed to be sort of self perpetuating after that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: because of the penalties. But what I'm hearing from Ted is it may not be. Oh, because of the penalties. So I think that two years is enough time to get it ramped up on the penalty front.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Don't think they support the amendment.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Would reiterate the Department's position that

[Hannah Jobe, Department of Liquor and Lottery (DLL)]: we do not operate in the state functions in a.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: JFO does not forecast revenue from client penalties. We'd like to assume that everyone's operation could be paid because it's just really hard to forecast what the scope of the black hole is and who I'm trying to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that's good a sized black hole as we're pretty clear on. So I'm I'm I'm more yes. Thank you, Jen, for reminding us we do have a a measurable report to measure our purpose of it because otherwise, this will just keep me.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: In your travels, because I know you do a lot of different research, did you look at what other states have for these types of fees?

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: For these types of fees, no. I could provide that information if it needs help.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That would be helpful, but we need it today.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: No. No. No. I'm saying if it's gonna move forward, I can just do the Yeah. Floor reports

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: and stuff. Finance, you'll have this discussion, so I feel comfortable that this will be fully vetted and fine. But it would be important for us on for our floor report to know the answer.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm gonna Google it too, but

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I trust your numbers better.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yeah. Yeah, I will see if there's something I can pull together this afternoon. Right, that would be helpful. Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that is, those are the two pieces, right?

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Those are the two pieces in 01/1998.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We made it much simpler for you by sending this all into a study.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Quite a bit, I did. It did free up some

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: of my tummy, so I wish about for Algonquin. Let's see how

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we use it to really. Cannot confirm. Good. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Quick Google says zero to 500 and New York's at 300, so

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: maybe I'll never see something else. Sorry.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: A quick Google search says zero to 500 is the range for these types of things, New York's $300 but I'm gonna trust 10 numbers better. So we're at a thousand dollars right now. Heard my policy intent, but I'm just wondering if there's another number that's more palatable, rational, and so forth.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: The other thing that I may if I may offer, JFO in people often don't runs inflation calculations. So if that would be helpful for the committee to just take a look at those fees, see what according to if you usually run it for two inflation metrics, see what that would be, and if that would be helpful for anybody's consideration to do this one. And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: and, Hannah, if you could kind enough to get us the current fee, fees in these areas that from GLL, that would be great. Great. Okay. And we just lock the promise. Okay? Thank you. Any questions for Ted? Okay. And Jen has been madly working away. Any thoughts, committee, on this? Because we I think Jen did good work. Ted has certainly helped further inform us. And I the investigator piece, it's always nice to have something predicted to be self perpetuate being able to be self funded and being covered for two the first two years so it can get up and running.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Thoughts? The only option is on the two year period, put some sort of thing, put the sunset on it, make sure that A, you have the reporting that you pass for, one, and two, results of it are significant, that people don't do what we typically do to create positions that last forever.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So it does have language in it that in the section that says if it is not going to be self funding after two years then DLL is supposed to propose, well no, it's supposed to propose eliminating the position in its next budget or budget adjustment notice.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But we could easily add, subject to could we add I'm trying to get us back to the page. There's so much profit. The creation of this is in second. Page 33.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: 33.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the language, abbreviated. How about if we made the position? Well, that's

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I'm a classified physician.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Where does it say that it will eliminate it if it's not?

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So if you look at subsection c on

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: page 33. Yeah. I might add, if the revenue or the results with that, the the because I think what we're really looking for results and producing it in Right.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, I mean, you are getting the annual report Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: On the impact of the investigators' expectations on compliance. So that means that's more For that's fine. Is that okay with you? Okay. Great.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I think I am ready for you. Okay. We have to get back on this soon. We start back in key drivers.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we'd be draft 1.3. Maybe two point maybe 2.1. Wish I ever, after all these years, understood that. Maybe that's why I don't understand it. David and Randy, any other thoughts as we look to try and go to this bill out?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Sure. Some minor changes have changed. One, increasing any the legal product 20 times fundamentally by the stress and second, moving any new consequences I think it's wrong. It sends all of our investors. You need to understand that. So for those who Well, Which it's what's been removed. Now it's remains. The whole section about Youth penalties are zero five. Person's under trouble under Whole thing's been removed. I just think that's wrong. It's completely wrong, guys. It's what they

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: call the pup laws. Who would like to speak to the pup laws? I'm not sure you're gonna make David feel better.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I don't think so. Mean, we've been up and down the flagpole on this already for a while. I just as a as a as a citizen, as a father, etcetera, it's just completely long perspective if you're trying to guide behavior. I don't want make a federal case out of it. I'm just going to vote no. I won't know on that specific. Those are the two.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Those are your two cases. Yes.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: That's principally one zero zero five is where your reaction was. Question is, is there any incentive for people under one 21 not to do this for many?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Well, does everyone around him get spielized? But

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: he does it. What's the incentive for the person 21 not just to be asthmatic?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Forward tobacco substitute, which is what we're really trying to get at.

[Jill Sudhoff-Guerin, Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Vermont and Vermont Medical Society]: Jill. Jill Sotkoff, Karen speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Tobacco Free in Vermont, Pediatrics and Medical Society, just saying that we've looked at this and big tobacco is done in targeting these kids with the products that this film would pan the sales of and with the flavors. And then they are, as Senator Chittenden said, they are, in every store front, you're seeing bright colors, you're seeing all of these lights, things that attract kids, right? And so what we are trying to do with this law, and there's a lot of data that supports this, is to take away the penalty on youths because they are actually using these products because they're getting marketed to, and then they are getting addicted, and then they are less likely to come forward because they're afraid of getting in trouble, and they're not gonna come forward and get the sensation and the help that they need from people. You've heard from the coach that was here.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: He was very compelling.

[Jill Sudhoff-Guerin, Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Vermont and Vermont Medical Society]: Matt Bune took time out of his work at the school. He's a school assistance professional, so he works with you, and then he's also a baseball coach at St. Mike's. He said, These kids are not using this to be rebellious. They're using these as coping mechanisms. They're surrounded by it with their friends. And so we are trying to remove the barriers to getting help. And that is a primary Has that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: been shown in other states, Jill?

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. And I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have data Well, that I think would I'm not sure it will will help.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: But looking at the data would be helpful to me.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. And you'll get to see it. Again, this is a fine you'll finance will get a second bite at this apple, which is any other concerns or questions? So, David, you're pretty straight now because of the fee increases and the and TriNet and, again, finance will look at that. So we're waiting for Thomas. Thomas has stepped out. Again, last night was very disturbing, and there was lots of discussions going on. And Yeah. So as the South Burlington senators, we they've been very busy this morning and last night working now with their police department, but It's just changed it. School officials. Not the outtimes. It's too too. Social workers. Thank you for being there last night. And we had lots of house members there as well. Mhmm. So we're just waiting for Thomas. And I

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: need to Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Jen, you wanted us to run through your Yes. Wanted us to run through your changes. Pretty minimal. She did a great new draft.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So again, Carvey, Auschwitz, Counsel. And I did just send this to Kara as well. This is draft 2.1. I took out everything that was proposed to be taken out. I forgot all the highlighting that enrolled that was for everything new, so you only see highlighted the new, new provisions. So the first is in the wholesaler, wholesale dealer licensure piece. The language, I realized that you were doing a walk through that the language that I put in was using the terminology from the tax statute. So instead of, and so that it did not accurately capture tobacco substitutes. So instead, I have used the definitions from Title VII. So before someone has to get a license before engaging in the business of selling tobacco products, which includes all of these items that are struck through in the definitions of Title VII, or tobacco substitutes. I did not include tobacco paraphernalia because I don't believe under the existing tax statutes that wholesalers are required to get a wholesale license for selling paraphernalia. I'm happy to be corrected on that and make the change as this goes forward. I'm sorry, I wasn't here for this.

[Hannah Jobe, Department of Liquor and Lottery (DLL)]: But aren't we like,

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: when I look at these vape cartridges and think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: do

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: they have to be tobacco related at all? Or are just Our definition of tobacco substitute in the water is nicotine. It's e cigarettes. It's products containing It's Yes. It sounds so colloquial to the tobacco substitute. It's just like a liquid nicotine. Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Includes all of them. Okay.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So So I've done that at two places in here where I refer to those types of items using the tax statute language and instead put in tobacco products or tobacco substitutes. I aligned the penalties for sales without license to mirror the, oops, sorry, I didn't actually get

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: in the five thousand years to do that. I'll be watching. It's okay.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that would be mirroring the penalties under the retail licensure. I took out the not more than, not less than, and just won't put this straight. Not more than $5,000 So, more than $2,000 not more than $5,000 for each subsequent offense. And then, the only other change was that one word change in the description of the report about recommendations for taxing tobacco substitutes, not products based on nicotine concentrations. Just parallel the language peer about imposing taxes on tobacco. So that that everything else is now clean

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: incorporated. So I I think this has a journey. This will go to finance. So I think there's a second bag bite at the apple in terms of looking at the

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: at the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: penalties and the fees. And so I feel comfortable that those will be reviewed with a little more time. But I think these are a good start, quite frankly, and I think alignments were was a great was a good catch. I think we're in good enough shape with this bill that's grown and important for me over the course of the discussion of this. So I'm Promotion? I am looking promotion. And do we have sheets, mister

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We do. Clerk. Mister

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Trump. They're a redhead.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We'll make it 2.2. I'm taking out all the high start highlighting stuff and it'll be a clean

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, 2.2.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, you can do 2.2 at 09:22 a. M.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Chair, I would move this bill favorably with amendment using draft 2.2 for the updated 09:22AM, whatever today is.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: March That's well. We're slouching for the of March. Perfect. Yes. Okay.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I just I don't have it. Hinsdale. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You. So Thomas has moved the the bill draft 2.2. Mister Clark, would you be kind of Senator Barr?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Senator Chittenden? Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Senator Weeks. No. Senator Clorch? Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And, Thomas, I know you care a lot about this issue, and you're also on finance. Would you have any interest in reporting? I'm happy to help you.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Sure. I'll toss you some sections.

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

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: if you want some to We'll figure that out later. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Terrific. Thank you very much. Good work, committee. And Jen, thank you very much. I know you have a huge number of bills. David, I'm sorry we couldn't get you a yes, but I understand where you are. And hopefully some of that when we get further discussed in finance. It's piece. It's a little detailed sexualizing. Advocates, thank you. Retail and advocates, yes. Involved, thank you. That was a good discussion, Hannah. You. Rose, thank you very much. Yeah. You're welcome. Thank you. Good work. Okay. Rick is ready to dive right into the economic development bill.

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Because the. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You're fine with it. Okay. Great. I

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: might need to send that again

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: at 09:45, but I've got less than.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: K. Because I'd love to focus out of me because I should risk you.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Crossroads.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Know. It's a crossover.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You just get me asleep.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Do you have enough smoke sheets, David? I need one. Yeah. Need a cup. Yeah. I don't think we're gonna need one more for today. Yeah. Okay. Then we could maybe if we get done, have a little bit of a break before we dive back into cannabis. Rose, thank you very much. Thank you very much for time, and. Yeah. That was good work. Thanks. And you'll send 2.2 to Here. That

[Jennifer Carbee, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Gray. UN senator, Michigan. Thank you. Perfect.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Rick, are you looking for care to pull you up? Of course,

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: you are. Hey, Dex. I'm pulling up

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: my bill on my computer.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thanks, Jen. Good luck. She has seven pills get out of the Pelton pump there today in the next two days. So we stole an hour of her time. I said, I'm sorry. You know, we get here too.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So ophthalmologist bill, it's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the ophthalmologist bill, it's the autonomic bill. But they're not competing, it's supportive. Interesting. Be favorable. I hope it came out favorable. Big fan of that bill. We worked very hard on that bill. Very cost that it is.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Where do you want that, sir?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We are taking I could even finish my breakfast. You know, people say, oh, I wish that having no time to eat meant that I actually lost my weight during session, but it doesn't seem good about that day.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Alright. Rick Sable. Make it a slightly bigger. I can. Perfect. Rick Sable with the Office of Lipsor Council. You have draft 4.1, S three twenty seven, the economics development committee bill. And just a few changes I wanna go over. The purpose statement has been updated slightly to reflect the change in section 11, which was the Route 22A study. It's now been it's still a study, but it's now with the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies. More about that in a second. So updating the language there. On page two, the committee requested the downtown tax credit be produced from 5,000,004 million. That's the line six on page two change from five four. Continuing on to page three, reducing the legal services to the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Directed this right, it was 300, so reducing it to 100,000 for 2027. Down on the business advising through the Vermont Small Business Development Centers, taking it down by a 150,000 so that it was a $6.89, bringing it down to $5.39. This is an increase of one fifty from the governor's request for it was an increase of 300. So just, again, reducing it by 150,000. Okay. Yeah. On page four, there are no changes. On page five, the International Business Office, reducing it from two twenty five to one fifty because we took out the expansion to the Taiwan office. However, my understanding is committee wants that office to look into what they would need to support Yeah. That relationship. So language is added to require them to determine what they need to establish that presence with that relationship between Muhammad and Taiwan.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: I think that's good. And I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think that's appropriate at this point.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. On page six, there are no changes. It's in the business resources study. On page seven, the convention center task force, no changes since the last drafts. Page nine, the Veggie Sunset Repeal, no changes there, still being repealed. On page nine, the Culinary Institute, adding on page 10, the State Refugee Office as a stakeholder.

[Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office]: Yep.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. Right. On page 11, this is new language. The last draft had AOT leading a task force that really looks specifically at Route 22 A and maybe some limited access highway options around that area. This is more about the connecting the economies and the peoples, Vermont and New York, and language has been updated to reflect that. So, again, the task is gonna be managed by the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies in consultation with stakeholders, later described, to consider the following in a study of the short and long term solutions to better connect the persons and economies of Vermont and New York. In regard to Vermont Route 22A, the current and projected usage and condition of the road, the rate and severity of accidents on the road, and options available to improve the integrity of the road and the flow of traffic and safety of the road. Two, a potential roof for a new limited access highway to connect Burlington to Interstate 87 in New York, and estimated costs associated with constructing such a roof, and the feasibility of a rail system that are connecting the two states upon review of the latest versions of the Vermont Rail Plan and the Vermont Freight Plan. Paid stakeholders on Subsection So they shall consult and convene with the Agency of Transportation, the Agency of Natural Resources, the Land Use of Refeat Board, the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, and the Regional Development Corporations. A report is due on or before 01/15/2027, the General Assembly, and no change to the effectiveness. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: David, I think you spoke to Devin?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I did.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, and that's why we have the

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Well, know, everyone's apprehensive about this type of study given the sensitivity and potential pause. But still willing to convene the conversation. The association of planners not necessarily a specific region leading the effort.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah thanks. Well that's good. Thank you for doing that work. Where are you with this language?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: No. I get I understand the language. You know, everything starts every journey starts with the first steps. Least, let's start the conversations. So I appreciate your support. I appreciate your effort in allowing me to implement the elements of the concept and to the goal. So Well, thank

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you for bringing it to us. And, you know, we often forget how important transportation is to our economy, and this was a good reminder, Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I should have disclosed that I have to suffer 22 a, like, twice a month, so that I personally invested in getting approved.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, that's right. Your parents your parents are down there.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Let me give you a different different, scenario when you're driving home tonight. Look to your left and right. When you're driving up the interstate, you will see the old route next to you. Yep. Okay that's how you used to get to in Prominent County. Okay we're still there. Yep. Our economy.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Although you know fair you had a much better rail system that I mean, so Correct. Your economy was fine for many And I wish so you're okay with the language at

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: the moment? I'm fine. This again, it's a good start to to a very important conversation. Good.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And and when we I I mean, I'm hoping that I might be able to report this bill, but I also would love to have you report this section when when we get to it. So I have if you're okay with this language. Yeah.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: One correct. So this is actually dropped by point one. I didn't update the the number at the top of the screen. So I will email Kira a clean copy. No highlights.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No highlights.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's 5.1.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. I just have one Sure. Sorry. One number change, which maybe we could call a Scrivener's error if we felt it that way. I you know me. I love brownfields, and I think they're very important, but I do I'm not sure this committee landed at 3,000,000. I thought we landed at 1.5, Well, I'm happy to keep it at three and advocate for three with the appropriations committee. I think it we will use three in a hard fee. We have 10 we have we have tens of millions of dollars of needed brownfield cleanup at this stage. So it's not like, either number, this is gonna make you huge. And I'd rather make appropriate have appropriations have this discussion than us. So I'd love to keep it at three. Are we okay with that? Okay. And and Kesha said she was okay. She just needs to come in for the so I think with those changes, I would recommend I would be, again, looking for a a and then what I'd like us to do with the remaining time is prioritize the money so that I can talk to Andy about about this as we prepare. So So

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: is it for a motion or

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's an invitation for a motion. Yeah. You could become mister motion. Supposed to be. I have

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: 5.18936, March 12, it's called s three twenty seven. Favorably, that hasn't ended with that.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: That's my point. Great. Good.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. Thank you, Rick and David, for that additional work. You're very helpful. Okay. Thank you for the work you're doing next door because she's working next door on something that we're about to take up. Okay. So we're draft 5.1 for moving it, and David, Mr. Clark, would

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: you be kind enough to hold the role? Senator Brock?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Senator Chittenden? Yes. Senator Robinson? Yes. Senator Weeks? Yes. Senator Clarkson? Yes. Five zero.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're receiving Thank the number right So one

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: thing that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Now we're gonna look great.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yay. That's reading about this bill of how important their commitment is on and to our attention, and it's only 13 pages. I agree. I mean, that's disappointing, my question.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't disagree, and would have been happy to entertain bills that we could have put together and more recommendations. And I think our job next year is to make it beef it up.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: We still have hot session. We do.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They may come back,

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: you know?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, but I we can also entertain things to add to all those house bills we're getting. I invite you to bring further ideas and, the

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: chambers right over there. Funny.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sadly, just like with housing, we can do so much with no money, and then we actually do need money to make new things forward. So and we're in a very tough money year, so I appreciate that. Thank you, Rick. And I think with that, we're gonna let you I think we're gonna take a break because they're working on the cannabis bill next door on all the sections we ask them to work on.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So k.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is that okay? Okay. Great. Thank you for your work, We're gonna go offline. We'll be back at 10:00 with the cannabis bill. Thank you.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We talked yesterday, so you didn't wanna