Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. Welcome, everybody, to the set of economic development, housing, and general affairs. It is Wednesday, May 13, I think. And it's we are turning to some bills that we need to get out. Committee is a boarding committee. We were booked up shut down on Friday last week, and we are functioning because we have actually quite a bit to get out. So today we're gonna be looking at our Laborville S230. Thank you. And as you know, we don't have possession of it. It's on the floor and we are going to be I would entertain this is what I'm gonna propose at the moment. The non competes, two thirty came back to us pretty much as we had sent it out with one modest exception, and I'm hoping we're gonna be okay with that. However, it came back with two, it came back with the non competes. I think the non competes is a big discussion and we sadly, the Senate is in an awkward position of not having the time to really address it. I would suggest that we accept the non compete about the healthcare workers because that was well baked and more fully thought out than the entire, the rest of the non competes. And there are issues with the language, which we understand from counsel and from others that we need to work out before we can do that with the time we have available. The second thing is the last minute issue that was brought to us by the USDA to resolve parking lot solicitations at the Department of Corrections. I appreciate this is an issue. I also appreciate we do not have the time to take it up because it's not as simple an issue as everyone thought. It's in rulemaking. DOC is having a hard time coming to join us with these conversations, and we don't have the time to extend the conversation. So Wanda Minoli, the commissioner of the Department of Buildings and General Services, has offered to facilitate a conversation between the VSEA and the Department of Corrections to resolve this issue with a proposal for and a recommendation for next year. And that I'm gonna ask us to consider this morning as we pass out, hopefully, 02:30. We will the contract between DOC and VFCA was signed this year. It did have two years. It's not like this contract's coming up tomorrow. So we are I think we have time for this conversation, and I really appreciate Wanda picking up the conversation and hopefully moving it forward for that. So with that in mind, we have two amendments to two thirty on the floor now that we have and that we I'm hoping we can go back to 02:30 this morning. We also are gonna be looking at s three twenty seven. There's a lot that's been added to that bill, but I think it's stuff we've already some of it we've already passed, like, like C PACE. And so I'm hoping that we'll be able to move that forward as well. So without further ado, Sophie, would you be kind enough to look at where we are with 02:30? Because it came back to us here. We have no. We made it. With where we are with two thirty, it and with the two proposals of amendment we just discussed, the non competes only for healthcare and the facilitated conversation with one. So

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Sophie But there's a there is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: an issue still in 02:30 that we should resolve.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So so PCDaddy, the office of the legislative council, and do you have

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a preference which one you

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: want to look at first?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, let's do the healthcare first and be in agreement on those two pieces maybe, and then move. Well, let's start with 02:30 as it left this committee and what the changes that they the House has has made.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Do that first. Okay. So the House made a couple of amendments. So one was adding in h five fifty six, which was to do with elected and appointed municipal officers not being within the definitions of an employee for pubs as minimum wage and overtime. So I don't think that was an issue for the committee. That was a new piece. Then there was the second piece that they added, was a prohibition on agreements not to compete for non exempt employees, and then it included the language requested by the medical society regarding healthcare providers, which wasn't limited to non compete, it was, had some other provisions in there. Right. And based on the request I received, the First Amendment is dealing with the healthcare providers, and essentially that takes out what was subdivision A, which dealt with nonexempt employees and non competes, and it just reframed it as being solely a healthcare provider section. So that's the,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: that's the first amendment. But, actually,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: in the body of two thirty, they have added back in self attestation. Oh, correct. Yes. So I just given that that was an issue for some members

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of our committee. They they took out. So what happened in this committee was this committee had added language around self attestation being under penalty of perjury. In the House, they took that additional language this committee had added out and just kept it so that it's the same language, it's consistent with what's in the Parental and Family Leave Act. And they had testimony from the attorney general's office as has this committee did too on that. So that was also a change.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So that's changed one. The nonconvinced we talked about bringing in two zero five. That's a huge conversation. And it was very thorny in the house, as we all know, and it got sent back to committee. I think that given our time frame, non compete is a big subject and not what we have time for. But I think we have time. I think we all are in support of the healthcare edition. So do you wanna talk about that amendment first? Yes. Okay.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So again, this would be

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a floor amendment as the committee doesn't have possession of the bill, I just left open, like, who would be the senator sponsoring this? Oh, wrong one. Sorry. Using so I've got basically the same name. Sure. Okay. So this is language you've already seen. It's just reformatted, so now it's just agreements with health care providers. I didn't call it non compete in the title because it's not limited to non compete agreements, but this is essentially the language that came over from the House dealing with healthcare providers, and again, this was the language you've already seen. There were no changes to this. The only change, and it was something the attorney general's office picked up, which I'm very grateful that in all the changes that happened with the house general, there was just some language missing that's found enforcement provision. So, essentially, anyone that has a claim under this provision, if they're a healthcare provider and they believe their employer has violated it, they would be looking at the same penalty and enforcement provisions that are under the Fair Employment Practices Act. And this amendment would be placed in a new section under the Fair Employment Practices Act.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we discussed this last week, and I think we were all, my understanding is that we were fine with this. Jess, do you want to add anything briefly as we think about this?

[Jessa Barnard (Executive Director, Vermont Medical Society)]: Vermont Medical Society, Jess of Barnard, very appreciative of this language moving forward. This looks fantastic. Thank you for all of your work on it. Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we had more time for chattel than on competes, but this was baked enough for us to go forward. And I think given the language challenges, the other anyway, committee, where are you feeling? Do you want to go over the second one?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I will tell you, in the original version I got good feedback from Rutland Regional Medical Center, Lots of, they weren't 100% supportive, but this, I don't have any feedback because this is like ten minutes old.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, no, no, this is what we saw.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Oh, so this is, okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is what we're pulling for healthcare. We're just doing healthcare, not the whole big non compete for everybody else. Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Again, though, the initial feedback from them, completely supportive, Okay. Because they they cited a bunch of, Supreme Court decisions other than prescient. And they said, some this kind of language is not necessary. We already have precedent. So I'm not so in summary, I'm not 100% supportive of this. I want to read through a little better,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: get a little Okay. Bit of an

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: And I know we're running out of runway, but this is where we are.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, this is the healthcare language they would have looked at.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay, I understand that now. Again, it's only ten minutes old for me. I can I appreciate share it to the original, but they weren't, regardless of the medical society's comments a moment ago, they weren't, Rutland Regional wasn't 100% supportive of this, so I'm still hesitating?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I've not spoken to the Northwestern North Library, or any other hospital, for that matter, any other medical provider. Nobody's contacted me about any of the.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So the non so then that's good. I think that I think that is a good sign.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: So the non contacting us, we don't have any any action.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But the non competes opinion since the house passed. So it's not like it's new language They for have

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: been watching this. For example, what healthcare providers are covered by this? Every from a LNA to an MD.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I believe it covers all healthcare providers and that is, and Jetsa or Sophie, can expand on what that includes. I think it's everybody.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's very broad, but I will let-

[Jessa Barnard (Executive Director, Vermont Medical Society)]: Jessica Barner, Vermont Medical Study. Yes, it is very broad. It's an existing definition in Vermont law and it includes pretty much everyone who provides healthcare services. And we have been in touch with our other partner healthcare associations, and we have not heard any, at least association, concern, opposition. This was really consensus language among a number of healthcare associations, including the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health System. Our understanding is no Vermont hospitals currently use non competes. Though obviously I can't speak for the leadership of every single hospital, but at least when the association reached out their membership, they

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: were also comfortable with But Devin had

[Jessa Barnard (Executive Director, Vermont Medical Society)]: seen this language many times.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Otherwise, we would have Devin in here saying she didn't tell us.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I have the impression that this is much very common in other states. They've been doing this for healthcare providers. It's also just succinctly described, what's the problem that we're solving by effectively banning these non competes for healthcare workers?

[Jessa Barnard (Executive Director, Vermont Medical Society)]: Yeah, good question because again in Vermont we typically don't see them with Vermont employers. Really one of the issues we are trying to address is actually out of state staffing companies. So traveling nurses, locum tenant physicians who come for a short period of time, and the local Vermont healthcare provider that actually wants to then keep them. So that person visiting may have a non compete from that staffing agency, and if the local entity wants to keep them as a permanent Vermont employee, they wanna stay, it's been a great relationship, they may be prevented from doing so from a non compete. So what's in existence in Vermont is actually more that situation than Vermont employers using them from our from the feedback we have heard working on this language and a number of committees in the house.

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

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my full support, Dan?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Mine as well. And I've heard for me, it's a good sign that, you know, when there's an issue, I we tend to hear from you. Then this was passed by the house. It was been, as far as I can tell, supported by the hospitals and by the medical society.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Except that non compete is from a contract from another state. It still supplies that they are applying to Vermont, and you just wouldn't honor that non compete.

[Jessa Barnard (Executive Director, Vermont Medical Society)]: Exactly, that was, yes, very intentional language that we proposed, and actually then the House refined it a bit to be clear that a provision of that contract has to follow Vermont law to try to prevent that provision from being drafted in an out of state, you know, being subject to the jurisdiction of the out of state language so that it would still be allowed even though they're providing services here in Vermont.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So help Vermont poach talent all for it.

[Jessa Barnard (Executive Director, Vermont Medical Society)]: Yeah, it really is partly a, it's really a workforce development attempt to keep people here globally.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, on the surface, have no issues with supervision. However, I'd like I'd to I get more

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: don't have time.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Mean, is today.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know. I'm contacts beforehand.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I'm not gonna vote without having we divested some.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. We're just gonna have to battle this out.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Let me just comment. I thought the protons comment about the amendments being ready because they're on the agenda.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, it's been on the agenda now though sadly for a long time.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay, this is, here we are, it's now fifteen minutes into it. Thought that was not an appropriate comment to make. Sometimes we need a few minutes. Pause is okay, meet in the morning before the session. Thought it was really inappropriate. I appreciate it. I know that adds pressure to you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's fine. I'm used to pressure. We're okay. We need to take time to digest it, but I would like to vote it out as soon as we can. So that will mean tomorrow morning first thing, and we have had possible vote on the agenda for a while, so it's not, I'm not trying to surprise anybody. This is simply trying to move the calendar and move our work along. We've already taken out the big, big conversation, which is the uncommitted. So, this is the First Amendment. So, I'd like to have you then think about the Second Amendment that we are looking at. We're trying to resolve the issue that the BSEA has brought to us, which I appreciate, but don't have time for a full discussion that I know they would like us to have. So, Sophie, would you be just behind the

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this would be adding a new section to be section 3C and it would be session rule. And this would provide that on or before January, the Commissioner of Corrections will designate with the representatives of the VSEA to develop a proposal governing permissible and impermissible solicitation and parking lots at the Department of Corrections facilities. The consideration by the Secretary of Administration and the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services shall coordinate the meetings and provide assistance as appropriate. So the current facilities policies, both the state facilities, is under the agency of administration. The Commissioner of Buildings and General Services is in charge primarily, but there was a carve out in the current facilities rules for Department of Corrections, so that's why those are the entities that are named in that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And it's so it's was done by rule. There was a carve out when this rule was made. We don't even know when it was.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It was 1999 to January 2000.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: Can I ask a question?

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

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I'm not against this language. It seems to be threatening the middle. Do you know if right now the commissioner of corrections has the authority to change and set policy over the parking lots and what can be done?

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. They

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: do have that?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: They do. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that and they are not they have not so far been willing to come and testify. We don't set we're running, as David says, out of runway. So this was Wanda offered to facilitate this conversation, and I thought this is a great way to move this forward. I'm we are appreciative of the SCA's interest and concern in this matter, and I just want I would like very much to help them resolve it, and this was the most productive way I thought we could do this at this moment because it will involve more it's not just a simple little thing. So like a soft glove

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: approach rather than a big

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, in a productive approach, I hope it I hope it will resolve the issues.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: That's I'm I'm sorry.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This piece I would ask you also to consider. So I think and the self attestation in all just as we're being fully transparent here, the last piece that we just need to land is the change back to the original language of self attestation for the

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: victims of

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Plastic violence. Mental illness, actually. Right.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It's a written self attestation, is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that correct? Right, right. So I would hope we would be, that we would be okay with that. And we will come back, if you guys would check with whoever you need to check with, appreciate that. And then we will vote on this first thing tomorrow morning at 08:30. Is that okay?

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

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. Thank you, everybody. I'm very grateful. Okay. So, Sophie, thank you. And we will Rick, would you be kind enough to join us? Hi, Ellen.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, Ellen, that's good. She can start, or I can probably get through everything in five, ten minutes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Why don't you why don't you start on three? And Thomas doesn't have to leave, which is great, so he's here for the C based conversation. Know that they have been a supporter of this effort. We and and as rep will remind us that we voted on this as it

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: went through the senate.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Jamie, there is a chair. Yeah. No problem. It locked some. Okay.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: Yeah. Yeah. You're so kind. Thanks, John.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. So 327. I think on your desk, you have side by side, and I think we also have a new copy of it. Is that correct?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Of 03/27? Yes. Yeah. The house proposal amendments. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have a house proposal amendment, which is in the calendar again because we don't have possession of it. We can make amendments to it, and we can concur. Yep. She's just posting it.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna join the Zoom here. Great. So there

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: are quite a few additions and I just want us all to appreciate them before we vote one way or another. So, thanks.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. I'm Rick Segal with the Office of Legislative Council.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Would it

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be easier to share my side by side or the house proposal? Yes. I'll usually do the side by side.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Let's do the side by side. And if people have concerns, we can go back to the language. How about that? Does that make sense? You all have the side by side?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Got two psychics. It's got a 138 versus 327, and it's 327 versus 327. They took 138

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: and just attached it to it, and that 138 we passed out.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So I have the stop by side of three twenty seven. This is the economic development bill that you started in this committee back in January. The left side is the ask passed by incentive. The right side is ask passed by the house. The purpose section was deleted because the purpose, at some point, didn't really reflect. Oh, right. I see what you're talking about.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Got it. We should be walking through the one that has it looked like this. We have two others that look like

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this. Mine has my name on it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But Ellen's okay. Now I appreciate. Ellen's is Ellen Chittenden. Rick's in for sake. I'm Nathanonymous. It's anonymous. I'm gonna out him. It's fine.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But alright. So section section one, the purpose section deleted because the purpose section did reflect what was in the house version. So no purpose section. Sections two through six, were deleted by senate appropriations after this committee passed out, you may remember, various allocations for brownfields, small business supports. Those were not brought back in by the house. However, some of those did get into the budget. And if you go to the JFO webpage, you can see in the budget, which I don't have that for you, but JFO can provide that information. If you're wondering if a certain Wait.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Legal just to quickly refresh, I think the legal clinic, our support of the legal clinic for small businesses made it through. Our support of the Vermont additional support for the Vermont Vermont Small Business Development Standards made it through. I supposedly and micro business made it through in the project, but I'm not sure our addition made it through. We'd have

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to check. And I'm always hesitant because the budget's not done there. I think there can happen at the last second.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So appropriate to keep this Yes.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section section seven is the business study that was born in this committee with Steve L. Jensen, Department of Economic Development study. The House made just a few non substantive changes to the language. The main change was adding the stakeholders. The Senate version didn't have the stakeholders listed, so here you

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have the Those dead stakeholders.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, they were just mentioned, but they were not written out. So now you have several stakeholders.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And so that's on the third page, on page three.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I don't have page numbers either, so

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You don't? I've just why.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page three is correct. On page four.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. And the stakeholders, we are are are the obvious players, although

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: yeah. What's what you called?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. We'd hope they ask any ask. Anyway so

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could expand. They they could expand. Right. The same way. Exactly. The legislature recommended stakeholders. Yeah. Exactly. Section eight was actually, in this committee, reported out, but then appropriations removed. This is the Convention Center Task Force, the addition of the two members Right. To the brought back by House Commerce. The only, I think, difference between what you all recommended and what the House recommended was extending the deadline of the task force into July 2027 instead of December 2026, and allowing them to meet unlimited times, however, reimbursed to 14 times only. That number 14 didn't change from what you've all recommended.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay. Where does the funding sit down? So it was pulled, and Rates and Means tried to put it back, but

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the authority could still influence. Oh, I think we're fine on the task force. I think we're fine on task force unless How

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the corporations approved it, so I'm I'm not sure if they have something sure we're okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But we'll obviously, we'll follow, but I don't think it was a source of of major debate. It was ours.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section nine, the veggie sunset, has, again, remained repealed, no change. So veggie will continue to be able to accept applications, or VEPSI will be able to accept

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: The Veggie

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: one addition to Veggie is that section 9A, which was not in the Senate version. Section 9A amends the annual program cap of Veggie. So currently, they can accept, Subdivision two is the important number there, $10,000,000 per year for final approval. So that number would decrease to 5,000,000. My understanding is they rarely hit that 5,000,000, typically are under five, especially since COVID.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I Jessica ified, and I may be wrong, Jessica. Sorry if I'm wrong, but I remember being sort of around two two to three. If they hit above a 5,000,000 pack, we can revisit it next year.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But I think this is reasonable.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: JFC, the Joint Business Committee can increase it to five as well if they get a request from the governor. So they increase it to 10. So who can increase it?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So the governor requests

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: joint fiscal, that's probably increase. Katie, I'm sorry I moved you fast because we're kind trying strange here. Section 10A is the Culinary Institute, which in this committee was specific to the creation or the viability of a culinary institute. House of Commerce, changed it up a little bit from culinary institute to culinary and hospitality, post secondary education is the focus, which And from the Office of Woolford Strategy and Development to Department of Labor, they took on the task.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Switching I'll of the explain that briefly. They lost the person at that office who was really gonna take it on, Drake Turner, have seen him here. And I think at this point, without Drake to really drive it, we had to find other owners of it as it were, And Department of Labor, Campbell Smith, who's been pretty invested in some of this piece, very kindly and generously along in collaboration, with the chamber. Yes. There it is. In collaboration with the chamber is going to lead this important work. And Megan's in the room, and I would thank the chamber for agreeing to step up because it's these are all additional tasks with no additional staff. Although you will have a a retired a retiring senator who's gonna be hopefully very involved who wants to help support this so you can count on her as extra labor on this. It's too long.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and few other addition of a few stakeholders that the Senate version didn't have. We can just kind of inform you the Senate version to adding hospitality as well, and then focus on postsecondary and not just a civic culinary history. Correction. Although that might be part of the thing. It could be. Okay, section 10B is new, and this is a separate but related task. This is going to be a hospitality and culinary apprenticeship pilot conducted by the same Department of Labor. They, talked to Congress about this. I think it was their idea, in fact, to set this up, to determine if this type of apprenticeship program is worthy of their resources. So it's a two year pilot. They will, this is all new language because it didn't exist in the senate. It'll be implemented in a hospitality based regional economy and include multiple employers, including at least one large employer within that same regional economy. So after the two years, they will report back to this committee in House of Commerce as to whether this is something that should be permanently created and whether they need more support to stand with them.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think this is a great idea. I mean, this is a huge piece of our sector, of our most important one of our most important economic sectors. So anything creating an apprenticeship in it,

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: think is a terrific idea, and we'll see how it works. The pilot details indicates we implemented a hospitality based regional economy, include multiple employers located within the same regional economy, does the draft of this have anything specific in mind? This looks like it's written or some maybe that somebody has in mind, but hasn't stated. So can't speak to

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the intent behind the language, but I think we're all reading the same words, and I'm guessing there's some type of because this is labor's idea, and I have to assume that they have something in place.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I feel the word that is. Megan, you have any

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Does anyone in the room shed light on this? Who's behind me? Oh, shields in my back.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Who drafted this?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Labor's language, and we work together on the language. I think this is giving them a little flexibility, but also my guess is they do have something. My guess I don't know what that was.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: My guess is they have some employers in mind who are willing to host the apprenticeship as a pilot. That's what I was looking to do. Megan, do you have a phone? Yeah, Megan Sullivan with the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, forgetting my titles, but I'm texting Jay as we

[Megan Sullivan (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Yeah, I think the idea here is just looking at other opportunities in which to help professionalize potential employees for these jobs and using what has worked well in other industries with apprenticeships to pilot this work in hospitality as well. Think we're likely to see it. There are a lot of smaller employees in this sector, so having sort of multi employees be able to team together, you can see an important reflection of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: industry needs

[Megan Sullivan (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: and the seasonality of it, so that there's an opportunity to help people professionalize in this industry in

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a way that helps them find

[Megan Sullivan (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: that sort of full time.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, it's like they know what they're talking about.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That I like to know who they're talking about, remember where they're talking about. Right, I

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: just asked Which has the impression of a hidden behind the scenes deal that somebody has made, and trying to put in the legislation without our being aware of the discussions.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know of any deal. I think

[Megan Sullivan (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: this was Department of Labor trying to come up with some innovative ways to address the workforce needs here. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I think this is all very exciting, actually, and I've asked Jay to weigh in if he can. And if not, he'll have an email for you later.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, share more coffee, Alison. Well,

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: and then an awkward answer.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. Oh, good. So, and also, yes, we can ask Blake.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And then I may do one or two more than one to go to Ellen, so she has time to talk about CPAs. Right. Yes. Section 11 was the Connecting Vermont to New York Study. My understanding is that House Commerce had that language looked at by House Transportation, and they told House Commerce it's not gonna work as you think it is, so they struck out that section.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You wanna fight on that?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. It's sad.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I think we need to do it, but then you tell me

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: if it's the I I don't see any support.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sadly, I think, realistically, there was no support in the house. And as we know, no support from AOT. It's

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Actually, offline.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: They're very similar. Online. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Which is a pain. Exactly. Should

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we switch to Ellen or do this next?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Let's take a break and switch to Ellen, and then we'll come back to 12b. Do want to switch gears? Not necessarily. Okay. That takes time. You're stored on time.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The only thing I was getting asked for legislative from this, did under my name today is the other side by side that has my name on it. It's because it's specific to just CPICS. So CPICS passed out at the Senate. It came out of the National Resources Committee when it was S-one hundred thirty eight. When it went over to the house side, it was sent to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. We took testimony and worked on it, but then passed it to House of Commerce to add to S-three 27. So, there aren't many changes that have been made.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But this committee, you'll remember, did not just discuss it in-depth. Voted on it on the floor. I know, Thomas, I think you sponsored the Did you initially sponsor the bill?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I did. But what I sponsored was, like, one letter change. It's a bunch of different comprehensive bureau bill that I think a lot of you did a lot of great work on. Let's give you credit for it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Fine. So would you like to tell us what it does and why we should be supporting it again? Because I'm in full support again. I think everybody needs to understand.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: CPAs stands for Commercial Property Accessible Energy Project. This is a program that has been adopted by more than 34 states. It's a higher number than that. Vermont already has a residential PACE program. This is a financing mechanism to finance renewable energy projects, but the commercial piece is very different than what has existed in Gerbat for the last fifteen ish years. It was exclusively for residential projects, so this is now about commercial and industrial projects, and it allows a town to vote to become a PACE district. The district covers the whole town, but when they do that, the town serves as a part of a transaction between a commercial property owner and a private financer. Private financing is branded as a loan to a property owner to finance specific type of projects. Under this program, is renewable energy, energy efficiency, water conservation or resiliency improvement for our property. The loan is secured as a lien on the property and is a first and prior lien over other liens on the property. And the payment mechanism, which is why the town is involved, is that it will be paid through a charge on the property tax bill. So, a private lender lends funds to a property owner. The property owner makes an agreement with the town saying that the town will collect the loan payments through the mechanism of property tax billings, encycled. Under this bill, unlike residential PACE, municipalities do not have to be, there, the municipality

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We already have residential PACE.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We do, but no one is using it. No one. Because on the residential pays, the municipality itself is usually issuing the debt or guaranteeing the debt. This system is much more about a private lender of just having the town be the pass through, so the town can be as involved or as not involved as they choose.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But they have to vote, it's the municipal, the select board has to vote.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The select board has to vote because it is still, it is using the municipal property tax mechanism, but the town had hired a program administrator to do that for them under this program. They would like to not be administering the program themselves. So, a couple changes that the House made, they added the definition of what resiliency improvement includes, and that's different from residential case, but also slightly different than what the Senate initially passed. They've gotten rid of that. It starts 01/01/2027, so that can start as soon as this bill They've added a reference to the commercial building energy standards to be more specific about the improvements that had been made to meet those codes. They've also clarified that the combined amount of the loan cannot exceed 90% of the appraised value as stabilized or as complete to make sure that it is not the original appraisal. They also just added a clarification that this does not in any way affect taxpayers of the requirement to pay education property tax. Oh, and I think the last change that they struck a provision that the Senate had added that said the program administrator cannot also be the private lender. They struck that provision, so now a lender could also serve as the program administrator. Overall though, it's pretty similar to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To what we've already supported in the Senate, and I think we still So support just quickly, we have the chair. Just quickly, we're gonna interrupt. Mike, do you have two seconds for Ellen to finish? Could we give Ellen five minutes to finish? Then we're gonna ask you to talk to us about the apprenticeship, which people had questions about. Oh, great, thanks. So Ellen, why don't we finish on seat pace? Because Ellen has to leave. There's a spot right over there, Mike, if you

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: want. Good.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: you. I had a question. Regarding you had mentioned somewhere along the line of this placement of this in line with other debt on the property, does it move ahead of any severe debt?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It does only if there is lender consent. So there is language in your required consent of all other lenders on the property. Thomas, do you want to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: say anything? Because I know you support this. I mean, we all have to support it, but I know you

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I can say what I said on the floor, just to refresh our memories. Do think it's a really good, sensible policy because it's just enabling language, residential PACE has all sorts of issues, I know why it hasn't been taken out, but commercial paces for people that know how to pencil out projects and how to make things work. This just allows for long term benefits to be aligned with the short term interest so that that would carry for the property. So there are projects out here in the wings right now that would take advantage of this and I think will unlock both economic development as well as improvements to properties that let's just sort of clean energy goals. So, I just think it's good policy. It's not forcing it down anybody's throat. It's just giving them a choice.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, terrific. Thank you. If we have no other questions for Ellen, we're gonna liberate Ellen and let Mike just we're gonna go back quickly. Thank you very much, Ellen. You. To the apprenticeship, the culinary and hospitality apprenticeship. Thank you for joining us.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We are looking at s three twenty seven. So do have moment to talk to us about anything in it that you changed and why you did it? But the questions we had, I think Randy and David maybe had a question on the culinary and hospitality apprenticeship. And Randy had a specific question about the regional aspect of it and whether it was already whether there were already businesses that were interested in hosting this apprenticeship. Anyway, you had a concern about the regional language. Yeah. Where are we on top of page? It's not

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: a page number, it's under power details. And that is, it refers to people being a pilot, a hospitality based regional economy includes local report. Major discussions, was there a particular briefing area that folks had in mind behind the civil and fiction?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: Well, for the record, Representative Michael Meyer, the chair of Commerce and Economic Development, We didn't really hear of a specific region. I think when talking about regions, we're looking at could be Killington region, where there's the mountains there, all of the restaurants that surround that, also areas that are closer to CTE center. I think that's the region that were contemplating.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Where there more than one region in the region? That's what I'm really interested in, whether or this is targeted at something specific, does not just all of the detail.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: No. Not that I'm aware of. I know I know they used the example, excuse me, the example of Killampton, but whether or not that's a region that they're looking at, I don't know.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, yeah, it makes sense to look at a region that's served with a CTE program that has culinary already. Yes. And as we know, Stafford has very strong culinary program. Yes. Anything else? Any other questions on the apprenticeship? Great. Jay Ramsey was out of town. So thank you for stepping in. Else you want to add to about three twenty seven?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: Any other questions?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The C PACE, we have just finished discussing C PACE and Yeah,

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: we found that interesting when it came to us. It came to us, there was a question about the administrators and how to figure that out. I think the program itself is gonna figure out who the administrators are gonna be, and so we removed some of that language that came over to us. Otherwise than that, we think it can do some good.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I think that is the one that and the apprenticeship were the two big additions.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The Whirl program, which I'll go to next.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the Whirl program. You like to say a little bit about the Rural, just before Bridge launches into 12, which is the Rural Industry Development Grant program? Sure.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: So a few years ago, we started that program with the RDC in mind. They all, some of them have industrial parks. They were having a hard time putting buildings up, selling, and So we've found, instituted this, we used $5,000,000 where it would be, they would have to find 80% of the funding, we would provide 20%, which didn't have to be paid back unless they sold the property. So it was kind of a revolving loan fund and kind of not a revolving fund. So about $2,500,000 that, those dollars have been spent or encumbered. The Department of Economic Development came to me and spoke with me about changing the program and making it 50% and turning it into a grant. So we had discussions, and so that's what you'll see in the proposal. And that's only that's for the 2 and a half. I believe in senate's proposal, the budget proposal, that there's also $2,000,000 in there to continue to finance the written program as well.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is money that we have already that has There's 2,000,000. The $25,000,000 at ACCD. Correct. And from what I understand, this is allowing money to go to federally impacted properties, Newport being one of them, Montpelier, the post office being

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: That's one of another piece. Yeah. So also develop language that if there's a project, any projects that are in a designated downtown or village center, and if, one is in a REIT zone, if they're in a REIT zone or they're in a federally impacted or federally declared disaster area for the last five years, that they can access a 100% of the funding, up to $2,000,000. And I think Newport and Montpelier are two examples of who could access those 100% of the funds. Right. Newport, the EB-five. Impact, it's EB-five, still have a hole sitting in the middle of Main Street trying to get that developed, and this would help them, or help NVDA, which is our RDC purchase the property and help that development happen. I know that there's others in Bombay that are trying to figure out the post office and that could help with their I'm

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: saying it's all fine. Yeah. Right. Any We were about to walk through that section. So given that you have added that. So that's the other section that

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you have. That's great. Any questions for mine?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thanks. Good. Thank you for your work on this. Thank you. Yeah. Much appreciated. Sounds good. Thank you for taking time. You're welcome. Any time. Yeah. Well, maybe not. Anyway, but thank you.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Treat you out.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I know. Thank you.

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Once again, Briggs Cycle with the Office of Legislative Counsel. It says 12 b. So, yeah, twelve, well, I would start with 12 a because there's just structured language there. The program was created, this rate of rural industry development grant program, was put in the budget in 2023, which is kind of interesting. My my belief is that if this program is gonna be maintained, and especially with the new appropriation, it should be in statute. That way people can find it and see what it is, learn about it, and it applies the amendment. So 12 a is a striker of the budget language. 12 b is basically copying and pasting, to some extent, that budget language and putting it into title 10 in the statute. As chair Marbach said, there are a few changes from the budget language, importantly, allowing a, presidential application if it's if it's federally impacted. That's the the limitation there. Otherwise, it's still gonna have to be commercial. The other change, major change, if you go to, I don't have page numbers, but subsection E and F, the awards and the amount of the awards, Currently, it's up to $1,000,000 or 20% of your total project cost. That's the lesser of those two. So this bill keeps the 1,000,000, but increases it to 50%. So your award will be either 1,000,000 the lesser of 1,000,000 or 50% of your total project cost. However, if you have, as chair Morocco said, one of these downtown development district properties or REIT zones for a federally declared disaster area, you can get up to 2,000,000 for your award. It's up to the Secretary of ACCD to make that determination. The other change, 12c, is explaining to everybody what this bill is doing by striking through the session law, the budget language. It's not deleting the program, it is recreating it. People who have applied and gotten the award, their award still lives on, even though the program is being

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: shifted to this option.

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's a very quick summary of what 12A, 12B, and 12C. Questions? So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I think it looks like this money could actually now roll out and help Newport and or and or places, major areas that are in need and projects that are in need, but where we've had that money locked up. Right? This, I think, will hopefully enable them to use this in their productive which will benefit both of you.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Those are great. I'm generally fine with s three twenty seven. I don't know if there's any hang ups left. I think the hang ups are on till s two thirty. If wanna fight for '22 a, I'm ready to, straw pull this thing.

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There are a couple more seconds after the world's just finished. I would love I would love to be but I do wanna make

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: sure you all know it's in the Yeah.

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hidden bill where you straw pull. 13 a is I wish Mike had left, but this is the nickel routing.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, jeez. Yeah. That's exactly right.

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can explain it. This was a a house bill that got put into this economic dwelling bill. So high level, this is a it's a May. A retailer for the state is allowed to use this method of rounding.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is in the wake of our losing pennies.

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So with pennies going out of circulation

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And not being reproduced. So it'll still circulate, but then This is

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a a combination of consumer protection, also retailer protection. So they can put the sign that says, if the final total ends in a one, two, or six, or seven, it's rounded down, to the nearest five. If it's 3¢, 4¢, 8¢, 5¢, it's rounded up to the nearest five. So, it is

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: up by five. Make make sure

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's clear. And that's to ensure that a business doesn't always have an end in a certain number, like above five so it goes up, or below five so it goes down. That's why kind of a random those numbers are random. It's a again, it's a vague, does not affect taxes. It's I didn't draft the original bill. Cameron did, but it's pretty straightforward. And if you have questions, I can try to get into it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, and it's something we probably need to address.

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Retailers are already doing this. Retailers are And that just provides them a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: clear and, you know, state approved method to produce. We have the chamber in the room, so I'm just gonna defer to the chamber if there's any comment.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was gonna rang you last

[Representative, Vermont Retail & Grocers Association]: with the Walmart retailers. Just a Ah, yes. And the big priority of ours, and this is a method called Swedish rounding. Sometimes they treat it in Canada for years. They're implementing this in other states and CSL and similar legislation that's very encouraging. So this is a really important proposal for our provision for our members.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So if they're already doing it, this sort of just gives them basically It clear there's a vest around so it gives them exactly. It gives

[Representative, Vermont Retail & Grocers Association]: them security clarity. You know, I think I'm not gonna speak for if did testify. They were saying that this was, I think, one of the most fair ways to do it, is this symmetrical rounding. I think from the consumer side and the retailer side, this is the most fair way to do it, give security and clarity.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It's very interesting in the study of this, after a period of time, a mathematical study, looking at final bills for people in grocery stores and whether or not there's a disproportionate number of bills that end in a number greater than point five. I bet you they will be Well, I

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: believe that's what the bill tries to address by making it not just above five. It's a bit it's one, two, six, or seven. That's what I'm yeah.

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

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it's random enough to be fair. Is that what I you're

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think yeah. Maggie, there's there's a

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: term for it. Swedish rounding?

[Representative, Vermont Retail & Grocers Association]: Oh, Swedish rounding. It's a metrical rounding.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It's like Bedford's Law. It is. Has to be audited validity.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it's only on cash,

[Megan Sullivan (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: to be prepared. Right. If you're using a credit card or a debit card or any other type of card,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's it's just because of loss of pay. So using a card, you're not rounding. Correct. Of course. Oh, that's right.

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then sections 14 a through I mean, are C PACE amendments. The the B through G yeah. It goes G are conforming the R PACE with the addition of C PACE, so that's just technical changes. And the effective date is on passage. We were in all these sections.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: So that's 03/27, pass pass by panels.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I think we were gonna make a moment and further discussion on this because we have we have nickel rounding. We have CPASAD, which we've, you know, started already. So that's really the new things here are nickel rounding and the rural what are we calling it? The rural business Industry development grant program. Industry development grant. Ritter grant. Thank you. And that those are really the new things. And then the budgetary deletions, and we're gonna let everything run with the budget in terms of the programs we supported. And it's the the taking out, sadly, of the '22 a study. I do favorably the straw poll vote s three twenty seven as received from the house. Thank you. It's a. Right. I know that. Struggled. Good. Here you go. I just didn't know how to write them on handwriting. Okay. All those in favor Okay. Of All those opposed. Thank you. Straw poll five zero. Great. Thomas, would you like to just speak to the CPACE part when we get to it? We'll be either do it today or tomorrow. What?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: It's on the calendar first.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know. But 02:30 is on the calendar also, so we could we don't wanna pass over this. Right. So we will concur, and we'll mention, and I was just chat. We go on the floor. Okay. So

[Briggs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I'm done for the day. Yeah. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we have of the last bills, we have from Pawshopper, the sort of last Pawshopper bills before we address our bills that are coming down back. We have two bills left. We're gonna vote on 02:30 tomorrow morning. After David and Randy and the rest of our think about it any further, hospital, the non compete that involves the the health care workers. So we have 02:30 to vote on tomorrow, and we have s h 02/11, the date of birth for Bill, and s seventy one at the and so I would like us What happened to landlord tenant? Oh, and landlord tenant, which we were are discussing tomorrow. Okay. We have a full morning on landlord tenant after we got out at 02:30. So we will have a new draft for us to look at that's incorporated the the discussion so far. Good. And we will be doing that tomorrow and whatever else we need to clean up on Friday. We will also begin to be looking at the additional bills that are coming our way. Just to remind you, we have we're still waiting on cannabis, which looks like it's gonna make its way to us soon. We have s one ninety eight, the nicotine addiction bill. We have cannabis, and we have

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can we put a visual list somewhere?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I have my list. Okay. Well, I mean, it was we have nicotine, we have cannabis, and we have house. So in addition to landlord tenant Okay. Three bills that, as far as I know, are still in the house, so they're coming back.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I do feel like everyday repairing just something a little

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: bit more

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: about which bills we need to get out and which bills.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I won't clarify that. Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm the visual person, so we'll keep changing every day. I'm I'm

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: not We're not picture nothing's changing. We are trying to work through top priority is to work through the bills that came to us after crossover that we have not looked at at all. Then the second priority is to review the bills that are our bills generated in here that went to the house and that come that are coming back to us. So h two eleven was a crossover bill. I guess I would describe them as crossover versus the senate originated bills. These are crossover bills. This is the data broker bill, and there we've had proposals of amendment to change two eleven. I would say I would like to agree on where we are with two eleven before we go into the discussion of s 71. There's a proposal to add 71 s 71 to the date of broker bill with the updates from Connecticut. Fine. But I wanna land February and come into agreement on where we are with two eleven before we move to 71. Right. Because 71 is a big bill, Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: My residual concern is I would just love to see the definitions. So if we could look at the H2 11 definitions, I just want to make sure for consumer and publicly available information that we're not conflicting and that we're still aligned with the safety. So I like what you just said Madam Chair, but I just want I need a refresher on the last document page two eleven, what those definitions are and how they relate to us.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have an existing concern.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Maybe you talked about your discussion with the chair of of commerce on the genetic That's a different bill. Well, it's a different bill, but when I voted for that bill, it was under it was with the understanding that these bills won't all get combined.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That was not part of the deal. Was the deal with commerce that was was not part of the deal. The deal was that if we included the two month cure period, that they would not ask for a committee of conference. They are trying to figure out what they're wanting to do, and they are there. It's with them. They've heard us loud and clear on that. This bill is separate, and this bill, we as we all know, they are working on s 71. I think there are concerns on this committee that s 71 will be changed considerably, and so this is an attempt to sort of call the question on it and send back SW1.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I am I am going to repeat on the record that two years ago, understandings and agreements kept changing on us hour by hour, and I am not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: comfortable voting anything else out without a very clear understanding of where we're going in the last week of failed decisions. Last week, as we all know, is clear as mud. So I have you know, we I you can't not do things because of something we don't know that's I mean, I I can't tell you what's gonna happen. I can't tell you what's gonna happen because it hasn't happened yet. We could certainly have the conversations. But as we all know, the end of session has a life of its own, unfortunately. It's my least favorite time of the year because of that. But we have a bill that is in front of us.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I appreciate that they have confirmed our draft on genetic data privacy, which they should be able to do.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, I don't know what Mike has on the If

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: they heard loud and clear what we're

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: saying

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They have heard loud and clear. Then we should have that bill done today.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's not our I I don't chair that committee.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. But that's the the unknown that should be known today? That is known. Send anything else back to them?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Fine. I can't answer that because I don't chair that committee, and we You chair this committee. I know.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And he does not you want us to be able to have this discussion No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're having the

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: in good faith with house Cox. Fine. We're operating

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: on six thirty nine in good faith with sovereign at the moment.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: To be able to get it out today. That

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I'm sorry. We can't dictate that. We cannot dictate that today. I can't take

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a vote on this bill until we know that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: they're all getting combined. Asking us to come into agreement on where we are with age two to 11. That is what I'm asking. We have made four big compromises. We we have exempted the GLBA, we have exempted the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, we have exempted the Fair Credit Reporting, and we've exempted the Education Clearinghouse piece. The definitions have been aligned by Rick in the kids code, and I believe the definitions are aligned now with our work, Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I have a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: question for And so that is to Rick.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And this is 2.3?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I have 2.4, and I'll explain the differences between 2.4, 2.3. So Rick Saligan, Office of Liveshead Council. Two eleven, Do you wanna speak to the definitions first, or where where should I begin?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can you just explain so where did 2.4 come from?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I sent 2.3, I think, Thursday or Friday. So last week, we all looked at before I gave it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're all supposed to read Saturday one so that we could begin to look it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. This is 2.2,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: so what happened? Two point

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If I could explain I there's a few things I caught that were not in the five of the senate that should've been

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: caught. Okay.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was a very quick process. I made that note to the committee that that was way too quick. So I missed a few things. Okay. Mostly exempt. They're in green. So the changes in dark green are the changes from 2.3 screens.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You have them in green. We don't have it.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You have 2.3. 2.4 is different. We have 2.4 gray.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, okay. If in dark, it's it's not in colors. Yes. So

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 2.3 were I can start with the there's several questions here about the definitions I understand. Maybe I should clarify that. Senator Chittenden has a question about definitions. I think you you want different things, and I think we need to figure out what the committee wants. So currently, H two eleven has passed by the House. The definitions of that two eleven align with what is currently under Vermont law, under kids code, and eventually, if genetic data privacy passes with that law, it does not match the Connecticut 25 definitions of not all of them, but the PAIs, biometric data, those don't align because they don't align.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I think they should align with what we passed in S-seventy one and with Connecticut, kids are always having a different standard. We have a different standard for kids, and I think it's good for the general data protection laws. Regional consistency is really important to me, so I I'd like to revisit that as a committee.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So that's not in dark green somewhere?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: That's not been changed. Yeah. Because that hasn't changed since

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, exactly.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This discussion. Yes. Yes. There's not been a a request from the committee chair to change the definitions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Correct. I feel like we have made four major concessions, and fifth is including s 71. I would I really like to keep the definitions as they are, and I would like us to be able to make those four major concessions, several of which I was not thrilled with. But I am willing to do this because I am supportive of the committee members who were wanting to do that. Am not on it. Let me finish my sentence, please. I I am not supportive of changing the definitions at this point, and I am happy to go either go into conference over that or I mean, we're gonna we're adding 71 with the Connecticut updates. That's, like, the fifth big addition. So I would say we have made I feel like I have made to an industry that is not based here in Vermont. We're talking about not there is not a single broker that is housed as a business here in Vermont.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: I'm not

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sure we're we're not compromising our concessions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. We are.

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Making houses.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Committee discussion. And so I I would say we're in committee on this point.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I'm I I I'm just sell telling you how I feel. I feel like the definitions are good, and I would like to move to 71. But if the definitions are all something that all of you feel that we need to discuss, I'm not happy to discuss them because I think they're fine as they are. But I if the committee is wanting if that's the will of the committee to discuss, I'm happy to discuss. Well, I would take out happy. I'm willing to discuss.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I am not currently a yes on this bill. If we address these definitions, I could get that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm not picking up s 71 until we're a yes on h two eleven. So that is what it takes for us to discuss it. It's I I don't know how Randy and David

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: That's who we're saying, Mike.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So which, okay. So, David?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm listening. I'm just trying to see where you guys are going.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: So, would like And the issue of the reconciliation of that, one of the major reasons we're looking at passing this individual state of privacy bill was because of trying to align more with what the rest of the union was doing instead of 52 different bills that employers who operate nationally have to comply with. That's the first step along those lines.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is data brokers, not Yeah. And I just wanna make sure we have all the issues on the table with two eleven before we get to 71. So, Kesha, you have another issue with two eleven, or are you okay with 11 other than the definition?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. I'm trying to make sure I understand from senator Chittenden. What we would what he's putting on the table that we're going to vote on is making sure our kids code definitions stay intact. Yep. Yes. That's given. But otherwise, going with Connecticut's model. But that's That's one. I have no idea what you're saying about that because what we talked about was making 02/1171 Yeah. So that we could get it out of here. So in if you're I don't know. I'm gonna go with Thomas. Oh,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you can go with Thomas. Okay. This is what we're dealing with. This is all under H 211. We are talking about adding S 71 to Yeah. H 211.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I'd add But 71 to 211. Yeah. I feel like you're changing the goalposts, and I'm not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: doing a single goalpost. The goalposts are still where they are. Thomas, before we get to S 71, I said I'd like to land H two eleven first before we move to

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: S I don't know what that means. I thought we were putting 71 into 11.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: Bring up the definitions in H two eleven. We

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: are. You have a definition in 02/11 that you would like us to review. On consumers and I'm willing to look at that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That comes from 71, and that's what we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: agreed to with 70 getting to 71 until we finish on 02/11.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So what I would like to do is try to align h eleven's definitions with essentially one.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm only willing to align the one you want to align because I'm not sure they're all the same.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I have no idea what this conversation means. I'm being completely honest. I thought that what we were doing is moving 71 into two eleven and then looking from there at conflicts with other policy areas that we've had discussion about.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We don't have time to do that, probably.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought that's what we do.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have time to add S71 with the Connecticut updates, which is what we talked about.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Don't To two eleven.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Adding it to two eleven. Correct.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's what we're talking about.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It doesn't necessarily mean integrating the whole bill into two eleven. Then I can't. I I just don't even understand. I our legislative counsel, Rick, help me here, because my understanding is there are two separate bills that we are adding something to. I am not sure that we're going to go changing all H to 11 other than perhaps one definition to I I mean

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This makes zero sense. I'm sorry. I I don't know how much more clear I could be. I thought I thought what we were doing was looking at a draft of whichever bill is the vehicle, but it was 71 with the updates and maybe some policy discussions about kids code. No. But I had agreed to do whole different conversation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. It's not. It's the same conversation. We had agreed to do to do two h two eleven and add s 71 to it. This is the the I that is adding it to it. It's not integrating 71 into twenty two eleven. That was not my understanding.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That was my intention and request. Because I don't like No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's your intention was to add you said I don't know what your intention was, but your request, as as I understood it, was to add 71 with the Connecticut updates to 211.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: You an email. I'm gonna see what stuff can you do? Okay.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We have five minutes.

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

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So we should either take a vote on these things because it sounds like Thomas is following very closely and the I'm gonna vote with Thomas on where there's conflict between

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: two eleven and seventy one. Yes.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: That is, in the event that we do not integrate it, do we run a risk of having what's in two eleven to 171 have a conflicting definition somewhere along the line of having reconciliation?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that concludes Yes. Two eleven, as passed by the House, is a data broker that and data broker security breaches. It is not necessarily a congregant of data privacy bills. The world of data brokers is this world, right, that's kind of separate from data privacy. The definitions may not always align with Connecticut twenty twenty five or Kids Code because they can't always, right? There are some things that we can't look at. Publicly available information, vaguely can align with us.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. Are you saying that Connecticut doesn't have a data broker?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They are working they do. It's not what we have done or California They has don't have the same, to my knowledge, level of data broker, registration or deletions that Vermont is suggesting.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. And are we trying to align with California's of biometric data, etcetera?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes and no. So, I would ask, are we talking about the Data Broker Bill or the Comprehensive Data Promise? Because they are different bills, right?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They're different bills. I appreciate Yes.

[Megan Sullivan (Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: And that's and that's think we're trying

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I think the principle that we use with genetic data privacy was that I am not trying to go out and be the first in the nation on anything. I'm trying to use sound reciprocal law from other states that's working and getting that a broker's registry. So unless we're harmonizing with another state that has passed something that has set a standard that is becoming common practice, then I have no idea honestly what we're doing and I can't listen to concessions or not concessions. We have to discuss the merit of what we're talking about and understand it to have a real conversation. And I need to know that whatever definitions we're talking about or discrepancies align with something that exists on paper in another state or that we're making a conscious decision to go beyond that definition.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So my email on May 1 regarding this specifically says, I'm asking Rick to draft h two eleven components integrated into s 71 language to achieve better definitional consistency and readability for those abiding by the statute with a focus on the line of two eleven approaches for that, that's 71. That's that's I'm super Right. I agree. About.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I had not appreciated the integration. I thought you meant adding it to 71. I mean, to two eleven. You have to integrate But integrating it is a different thing.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. It is a different thing altogether, and that's a lot.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That's the line of my questions here, and that's where I wanted to achieve consistency on consumer and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, I thank you. Thank you for clarifying that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And and it my understand is what we're saying then that we're not dealing with a data privacy bill this year, that we're just dealing with a data broker bill.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: Wait. Look, we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: had this I my objective my objective was to deal with what the house sent us, the data broker bill. The request was, as we now fully understand it, was to integrate, which I had not appreciated. I thought we were adding 71. And I think counsel well, I think we were under the impression of adding it rather than integrating.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So the the h two eleven you're looking at is adding at 71, which I believe they can coexist. You have two separate bills. You have S71 that's in the house now. You have H two eleven here that are able to coexist as long as I'm aware of what's going on. Like I told you guys from the beginning, part of my job is to ensure we don't have conflicts. Right?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So you've grafted them to not have complex.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So integrating seventy one and two eleven

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But can I sorry? They have s 71.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So they could just add two eleven to s 71.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then we do not

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You don't even have agreement on genetic data. Right. So, yes, I'd I'd actually still support adding all of s 71. So whichever vehicle gets chosen, we're not dealing with, like, being in outer space.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. But but integrating it fully, which it I apologize. I have not fully appreciated it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Still with Thomas.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. Well, fine. I think

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Well,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we just have minute. I think we need to look at what Thomas is happening.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're hearing it, but that's a different word than what we have in front of us. Is that correct?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I We already have existing data broker registration on the books. We have data brokers. Some regulation, not very much. H two eleven is a huge breathing. Right. And now you're bringing in a brand new comprehensive data privacy law. The way California did it is they have they had their comprehensive law There's stuff. Several years ago. Right. Well, but then they brought in data broker, the deletion act a couple years ago that is is integrated into this comprehensive data privacy. Vermont did it the other way around. You started with Data Brokers, now you're gonna add on a comprehensive data privacy bill. It's doable. Mhmm. But we're talking about a major reconstruction of that data broker chapter influence.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I guess but I'm asking you, Rick, like, a human being, maybe it's not doable. Maybe we get agreement from the house that we're just doing a data broker bill so our heads don't all explode.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: so you because if we can't get that agreement from them, then we have to put all of s 71 in. If we get agreement that this year we're doing some version of a delete act and we're focusing on data brokers, that's a reasonable conversation to have.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I agree. But I had a committee member. I had two committee members because you were supportive of Thomas' request

[Sophie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Uh-huh.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To add 71. It does complicate things if we have to do that because I would

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

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: could prove that prefer to pass out age to 11 on its own. But

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm just asking for two definitional things to address. So that's where I mean, maybe this is there, but those are the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: concerns to persist. Integrating the rest of 71 into two eleven, I think, would be a huge piece of work. Yes. Correct. It's So I'm just consistency.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Maybe a lighter lift.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But we haven't passed 70 But that is the question if we cannot get any agreement with the other chamber. We have to unfortunately ask Rick to do more work because if we we should have our chairs having some understanding that we're just doing data broker work in a data broker bill. But if we don't have that agreement that they're not gonna do data broker work or some other work in our bill, then we don't know which vehicle is going to be up for discussion, and we would be putting everyone in a position to fail at actually trying to harmonize our work. I would be happy to to find agreement that we're just focusing on data broker language for the rest of the session.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, I can't control what the house is doing. I can certainly discuss. I can discuss our path forward, which we have been discussing. They're very aware that we had a proposal to add 71. My

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: understanding

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: was we were adding 71, not integrating it. So, that is a different conversation which I need to have with them. I would be delighted to just do the data broker bill and not have to go through integrating this because it's a huge amount of work for Rick who's already doing a huge amount of work for them already with f seventy one as it is. I think what I hear you saying is that I would like all three pieces to move separately. I would like to have agreement on June going forward. I would like to have a data broker bill in an ideal world. I'd love to have a data broker bill build on our first in the nation data broker bill many years ago. Be happy to do that. But then we have to but then we have to be willing to see and weigh what's coming to us in s 71 from the house. So I would say we would be treating that as as a bill that will be coming to us hopefully by the end of this week.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: If I may, maybe integrating is those larger tasks for Aligning definitions is what I'm looking forward to get to yes and h two eleven. So if we could get the h two eleven, definition aligned with what's going next 71, that's what I think is still important to do for regions resistance.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: On the ones that are appropriate because there are some additional definitions that don't have to do with this.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Probably the probably lesson five that would apply to both. Because, again, Databricks' different world, you know, the definition of sale might be different. I can look at it, because right now, they're all in my head. But, I could email the committee a chart of the applicable definitions between 02/11 as passed by the House, Connecticut 01/25, then you can look at that, and then tomorrow

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Could we do that and then look at for

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: a step, but it's also, though, there's gonna be a need to know, do the definitions have any implications about how our new Bill of Protective Accountant Brokers is in fact working? Yes. And that, again, is something that has to be done before we pass anything.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know I'm gonna talk about it some day more. So I'm very concerned like, about what's happened here. And this is the same thing happened in institutions last year. I warned the committee. You're doing it for the last second. I had not explained what's in the bill. You all have no idea what is in Connecticut 2025. So it's, to me, very, very treacherous rounds, what we're doing. I agree. So And

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I think hasn't actually been fully tested, so we don't really have anything

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to judge whether or not it's working as intended. There there are several you you can look up several resources to determine what Connecticut did, and you can learn it. I don't have time to explain to you all what you all are doing. Yeah. So to me to me, it's a little bit never tell. Deja vu.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yeah. In defense of the senate, we passed this bill as well. The first bill is last year, and it has been sitting over there until now.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: So I don't we did

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't disagree. What is doable? That's right. Right. What is doable for you right now? So what I can say is

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: showing you the definitions of age two eleven has passed by the house, s 71 Connecticut, the applicable ones. Right? Like The applicable Yeah. Right. Yeah. That would

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be applicable for 02/11. Something

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sale data. Yeah. The ones that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So let's do that on Friday.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In conflict. That could actually matter.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Let's align let's look at aligning those, and that's doable for you. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce and Economic Development Committee)]: Got it. I mean, you conflict. You can't be the.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: All morning? Yeah. But you could maybe see zones ahead of time. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So let's finish this the grade. So we'll that is doable for you without Rick?

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. Sorry. Okay. Then I will chat with the chair of congress, and we will discuss 71 whether we keep it here or whether we have time so that we can actually review what they've done in the house here in our committee. Because if we don't have time to do that

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So just to be clear, to Rick's point, if the house sends over something with a lot of crazy other definitions far misaligned with Connecticut, I, as one senator, am not gonna vote. Right? So I'll just put that out there now. So I support adopting regionally consistent approach with the Connecticut model that the senate passed unanimously a year and a half ago. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So let's look at

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: with nothing or something like that, and I think that is a heck of a lot better to start from next year than

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't disagree. I don't disagree. So let's look at those Friday, and we will Right. Keep them at the moment. Try and keep two eleven on its own, and we'll discuss '71, with the chair and the path forward.

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So let me hold on. So the the you wanna keep two eleven

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think

[Rick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the definition alignment and keep data privacy. Think 71 away from Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I I don't know if I'm there.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I'm gonna suggest we put two eleven back on the wall until we know what is even happening in house coverage.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm hesitant to move two eleven until that's an agreement.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. But we are dealing with it's the last bill we've gotta deal. I mean, it's this is We

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: don't have do anything. We already set

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think Well, then you're gonna have it attached elsewhere, and you're gonna end up with the cluster mess that you are trying to avoid. So just if we control two eleven, it will be better than

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think we have other bills to get out before we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: touch We're working on getting those out as well. Thank you, everybody. We're being called to the floor.