Download this document in MS Word format


AutoFill Template

Journal of the House

________________

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2007

At ten o'clock in the forenoon the Speaker called the House to order.

Devotional Exercises

Devotional exercises were conducted by Representative Carolyn Branagan of Georgia.

Pledge of Allegiance

Page Ryan Pembroke of Pownal. led the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Communication from Governor

“The Honorable Gaye R. Symington

115 State Street  Drawer 33

Montpelier, VT  05633

Dear Speaker Symington,

     I have the honor to inform you that I have appointed Jon Anderson to serve in House District Washington 5.

                                                                      Sincerely,

                                                                      /s/James H. Douglas

                                                                      Governor

JHD/ms

cc:     Deborah Markowitz, Secretary of State of Vermont

          Donald Milne, Clerk of the House”

House Bill Introduced

H. 536

Reps. Howard of Rutland City, Andrews of Rutland City, Courcelle of Rutland City, Edwards of Brattleboro and McCormack of Rutland City introduced a bill, entitled

An act relating to payment of return postage for absentee ballots;

Which was read the first time and referred to the committee on Government Operations.

Committee Bill Introduced

H. 537

Rep. Heath of Westford, for the committee on Appropriations, introduced a bill, entitled

An act relating to making appropriations for the support of government;

Which was read the first time and, under the rule, placed on the Calendar for notice tomorrow.

Third Reading; Bills Passed

House bills of the following titles were severally taken up, read the third time and passed:

H. 156

House bill, entitled

An act relating to approval of an amendment to the charter of the town of Brattleboro;

H. 403

House bill, entitled

An act relating to postretirement cost of living adjustments for state employees;

H. 529

House bill, entitled

An act relating to establishing the town line between Burke and Kirby.

Third Reading; Bill Passed in Concurrence

With Proposals of Amendment

S. 37

Senate bill, entitled

An act relating to mosquito control;

Was taken up, read the third time and passed in concurrence with proposal of amendment.

Favorable Report; Bill Read Second Time;

Consideration Interrupted; Recess

H. 534

Rep. Kilmartin of Newport spoke for the committee on Education.

Rep. Miller of Shaftsbury, for the committee on Appropriations, to which had been referred House bill, entitled

An act relating to prekindergarten registration;

Reported in favor of its passage.  The bill, having appeared on the Calendar one day for notice, was taken up and read the second time.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Kitzmiller of Montpelier moved to interrupt the Orders of the Day to seat the member from District Washington- 5, which was agreed to.

New Member Seated

Rep. Anderson of Montpelier, the newly appointed member, having taken and subscribed the oath administered by the Clerk, as required by the Constitution and laws of the State, was conducted to his seat by Sergeant at Arms, Francis K. Brooks.

Recess

At eleven o’clock and ten minutes in the forenoon, the Speaker declared a recess until one o’clock in the afternoon.

Afternoon

At one o’clock in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

Consideration Resumed; Third Reading Ordered

H. 534

Consideration resumed on House bill, entitled

An act relating to prekindergarten registration;

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Branagan of Georgia moved to amend the bill as follows:

     By inserting a new section to be Sec. 13a to read:

Sec. 13a.  EDUCATION FUND; EFFECT OF ACT

Notwithstanding any provision of this act to the contrary, the annual amount of funds withdrawn from the education fund and allocated to prekindergarten education pursuant to this act shall not exceed the amount of funds withdrawn from the education fund for that purpose in fiscal year 2007.

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill as recommended by Rep. Branagan of Colchester? Rep. Adams of Hartland demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the House amend the bill as recommended by Rep. Branagan of Colchester?  was decided in the negative.  Yeas, 54.  Nays, 84.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Allard of St. Albans Town

Baker of West Rutland

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Branagan of Georgia

Brennan of Colchester

Canfield of Fair Haven

Chen of Mendon

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Clark of Vergennes

Clarkson of Woodstock

Clerkin of Hartford

Condon of Colchester

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Flory of Pittsford

Gervais of Enosburg

Helm of Castleton

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Johnson of Canaan

Koch of Barre Town

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

LaVoie of Swanton

Lawrence of Lyndon

Livingston of Manchester

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

McFaun of Barre Town

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

O'Donnell of Vernon

Otterman of Topsham

Peaslee of Guildhall

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Botzow of Pownal

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Cheney of Norwich

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kilmartin of Newport City

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

McDonald of Berlin

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Mrowicki of Putney

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Oxholm of Vergennes

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Sweaney of Windsor

Weston of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Grad of Moretown

Monti of Barre City

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Stevens of Shoreham

Trombley of Grand Isle

Westman of Cambridge


 

     Rep. Donahue of Northfield explained her vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     We must be able to pay for the services we want to offer in our state.  Increased taxes are not ever a source for generating increased sources of tax revenues.”

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. O’Donnell of Vernon demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill be read the third time?  was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 99.  Nays, 45. 

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Botzow of Pownal

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clark of Vergennes

Clarkson of Woodstock

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Donovan of Burlington

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kilmartin of Newport City

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Koch of Barre Town

Komline of Dorset

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

McDonald of Berlin

McFaun of Barre Town

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Monti of Barre City

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Mrowicki of Putney

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

O'Donnell of Vernon

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Oxholm of Vergennes

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Sweaney of Windsor

Weston of Burlington

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Allard of St. Albans Town

Baker of West Rutland

Branagan of Georgia

Brennan of Colchester

Canfield of Fair Haven

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Clerkin of Hartford

Condon of Colchester

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Flory of Pittsford

Gervais of Enosburg

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Johnson of Canaan

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

LaVoie of Swanton

Lawrence of Lyndon

Livingston of Manchester

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

Otterman of Topsham

Peaslee of Guildhall

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Rodgers of Glover

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Dostis of Waterbury

Grad of Moretown

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Stevens of Shoreham

Trombley of Grand Isle


 

Bill Amended; Third Reading Ordered

H. 526

Rep. Ancel of Calais spoke for the committee on Education.

Rep. Sharpe of Bristol, for the committee on Ways and Means, to which had been referred House bill, entitled

An act relating to education quality and cost control;

Reported in favor of its passage when amended as follows:

By adding a new Sec. 35 and Secs. 36 through 38 to read as follows:

* * * CLA Modification * * *

Sec. 35.  ROLLING REAPPRAISAL STUDY

(a)  The director of the division of property valuation and review of the department of taxes shall study the feasibility of adopting a statewide system of rolling reappraisals on a three- or five-year basis. 

(b)  In the study, the director shall consult with the following:

(1)  Vermont Assessors and Listers Association.

(2)  Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

(3)  International Association of Assessing Officers.

(4)  One lister from a town with a greater number of residents than the average in Vermont, and one lister from a town with a lesser number of residents than the average.

(c)  The director shall analyze and make recommendations regarding:

(1)  mandatory lister and appraiser and board of civil authority training;

(2)  uniform appraisal methods;

(3)  estimated costs of creating such a system;

(4)  options for how the three- or five-year cycle could be implemented (e.g., a new grand list every third year, new one-third of the grand list every year; specified categories of property reappraised every third year; properties in specified regions reappraised every third year; etc.);

(5)  advantages and disadvantages of state-level utility property appraisal, and recommended utility property appraisal methodology;

(6)  timeline for implementation of the system and transition provisions which would be needed;

(7)  whether an equalization study would still be required with such a system, and, if so, how significant the common level of appraisal would be in determining education property tax liabilities;

(8)  any other issues which the director may identify as significant to the analysis.

(d)  The director shall report the findings and recommendations to the house committee on ways and means and the senate committee on finance by November 1, 2007.

* * * Property Tax Adjustment Cap at $6,000.00 * * *

Sec. 36.  32 V.S.A. § 6067 is amended to read:

§ 6067.  CREDIT LIMITATIONS

Only one individual per household per taxable year shall be entitled to a benefit under this chapter.  An individual who received a homestead exemption or adjustment with respect to property taxes assessed by another state for the taxable year shall not be entitled to receive an adjustment under this chapter. No taxpayer shall receive total adjustments under this chapter in excess of $10,000.00 $6,000.00 related to any one property tax year.    

Sec. 37.  EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 36 of this act ($6,000.00 limitation) shall apply to claims filed in 2008 and after.

* * * Farm Land, Agricultural and Forest Lands * * *

Sec. 38.  INDEPENDENT STUDY OF USE VALUE APPRAISAL
          PROGRAM

(a)  Appropriation and duties and powers.  The sum of $50,000.00 is appropriated from the general fund in fiscal year 2008 to the legislative council to hire one or more consultants to conduct a thorough and independent review and analysis of the use value appraisal program.  The consultants shall have the assistance of the joint fiscal office and the legislative council.

(b)  Goals; issues.  The goals of the use value appraisal program are found in 32 V.S.A. § 3751, as follows:

§ 3751.  STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The purpose of this subchapter is to encourage and assist the maintenance of Vermont's productive agricultural and forest land; to encourage and assist in their conservation and preservation for future productive use and for the protection of natural ecological systems; to prevent the accelerated conversion of these lands to more intensive use by the pressure of property taxation at values incompatible with the productive capacity of the land; to achieve more equitable taxation for undeveloped lands; to encourage and assist in the preservation and enhancement of Vermont's scenic natural resources; and to enable the citizens of Vermont to plan its orderly growth in the face of increasing development pressures in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare. (Added 1977, No. 236 (Adj. Sess.), § 1.)

The consultant shall articulate the current statutory goals of the program, and analyze whether the program is achieving those goals.  The consultant shall investigate and make findings regarding the following: 

(1)  Has the current use program achieved its statutory goals?  If not, what were the barriers to achieving any particular goal?  Are there barriers to enrollment?

(2)  Does the administration of the program meet one of the stated goals, viz., of protecting natural ecological systems on enrolled forest land (wetlands,

riparian areas, rare forest conditions, etc.)?  If not, what are the barriers to protection of these ecosystems?

(3)  How are use values determined (in answering this question, the consultant shall confer with the current use advisory board)?  How might use values be affected if parcel location were taken into account?  Would the addition of new categories of eligible land, based for example upon parcel size, public access for outdoor recreation, conservation easements, protection of natural ecological systems, or other criteria, aid in achieving the statutory goals of the program?  Are the goals of the program furthered by allowing enrollment of a parcel that may not legally be subdivided, or otherwise is subject to development limitations?

(4)  What activities does the program require of listers and what changes, if any, would local officials like to see in the program?  Can computer technology reduce the administrative burden on local listers, allow landowners and consulting foresters to file documents and reports electronically, and improve monitoring and compliance? 

(5)  Is there sufficient personnel to administer the program adequately within the department of taxes and the department of forests, parks and recreation?  Is the monitoring of parcels manageable, and are the county foresters able to supervise and provide sufficient technical assistance? 

(6)  How would annual reporting by forest land owners affect the program?

(7)  Are the goals of open land and farmer assistance mutually exclusive or compatible goals for the program?

(8)  If the state imposed a timber severance tax, with the revenues reverting to the source towns, what is the best estimate of anticipated revenue, and how might such a tax affect the use value program?

(9)  Does the land use change tax provide an adequate disincentive for temporary enrollment of land, especially where the landowner intends to develop in the future? 

(10)  To the extent it can be determined, what percentage of enrolled landowners are Vermont residents? 

(11)  What have the costs of the programs been to the general fund and to the education fund since 1997?  Would the addition of a "means" test for enrollment hamper or enhance, or otherwise affect, achievement of the program goals?  How accurate are the fair market valuations of enrolled parcels, and if they are inaccurate, what is the more accurate fair market value?

(12)  In as much detail as is available:  What land preservation programs are available in Vermont?  How many parcels and how many acres in the state are enrolled in or subject to these programs?  Where is this land located, by town?  What are the various categories of land in these programs (such as lakefront, forest land, slope, cultivatable, etc.)?  What is the cost of each of these conservation programs in lost revenue?

(13)  How many parcels are exempt from municipal or education property tax, or both?  What is the cost of these exemptions to the host municipalities and to the education fund?

(c)  The consultant shall report to legislative council and the use value appraisal task force on the findings on or before October 1, 2007.

(d)  Use value appraisal task force.

(1)  Membership.  A use value appraisal task force is created to consist of two members of the house of representatives; two members of the senate; the director of the division of property valuation and review or designee; the secretary of the agency of natural resources or designee; the secretary of agriculture, food and markets or designee; a member representing forestry interests; a member representing agricultural interests; a member representing land-use or conservation interests; a member representing assessors and listers; a member representing fish and wildlife interests; a member representing outdoor recreational interests; one owner of enrolled forest land or agricultural land or both; one owner of nonenrolled forest land or agricultural land or both; two members at large.  The speaker of the house and the senate president pro tempore shall appoint members of the use value appraisal task force that are not members ex officio, and the governor shall appoint the two members at large.  Members shall be appointed by June 1, 2007.

(2)  Powers and duties.  The use value appraisal task force shall determine whether the program needs to be modified to accomplish its stated goals, and whether the goals ought to be modified in light of the available resources and all the findings of the task force.  In making these determinations, the task force shall confer with the consultant during the study of the use value appraisal program; review the consultant’s written report; conduct public hearings at convenient times and in convenient places throughout the state, with sufficient notice to the public; and consult with identifiable affected and interested parties. 

(3)  The task force shall provide the house committees on agriculture, natural resources and energy, and ways and means, and the senate committees on agriculture, natural resources and energy, and finance with a copy of the consultant’s study and a report of task force recommendations and legislative proposals by January 15, 2008.

and renumbering the existing Sec. 35 to be Sec. 39

Rep. Miller of Shaftsbury, for the committee on Appropriations, recommended the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means and when further amended as follows:

     In Sec. 38, subsection (d), by adding a new subdivision (4) to read as follows:

(4)  The task force shall meet no more than three times when the general assembly is not in session.  For attendance at a meeting when the general assembly is not in session, legislative members of the task force shall be entitled to per diem compensation and reimbursement of expenses as provided in 2 V.S.A. §406(a).

The bill, having appeared on the Calendar one day for notice, was taken up, read the second time, report of the committees on Ways and Means and Appropriations agreed to.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Clark of Vergennes moved to amend the bill as follows:

First:  Sec. 2a is added to read:

Sec. 2a.  32 V.S.A. § 5401(12)(B) is amended to read:

(B)  in excess of 123 120 percent of the statewide average district education spending per equalized pupil in the prior fiscal year, as determined by the commissioner of education.

Second:  Sec. 4a is added to read:

Sec. 4a.  16 V.S.A. § 4011(h) is amended to read:

(h)  Annually, by October 1, the commissioner shall send to school boards for inclusion in town reports and publish on the department website the following information:

(1)  the statewide average district spending per equalized pupil for the current fiscal year, and 123 120 percent of that average spending; and

* * *

Third:  In Sec. 7, in subsection (a), by striking all after the word “budgets” up to the period, and inserting in lieu thereof “for school years 2008–2009 and after

and by inserting a new subsection (d) to read:

(d)  Secs. 2a and 4a of this act shall take effect on January 1, 2011, and shall apply to budgets for school years 2011–2012 and after.

Which was agreed to.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Oxholm of  Vergennes moved to amend the bill as follows:

     By striking Sec. 9 in its entirety and inserting a new Sec. 9 to read:

Sec. 9.  16 V.S.A. § 2950(a) is amended to read:

(a)  School district reimbursement.  For the costs of educating a state‑placed student, the school district serving the child  The school district responsible for educating a state-placed student under section 1075 of this title shall claim and the commissioner shall reimburse the allowable special education costs other than costs for mainstream services as that term is defined by the commissioner.  In addition, reimbursable costs shall include 100 percent of all special education costs for the student, including costs for mainstream services.  As a condition of receiving this reimbursement, the district shall provide documentation in support of its claim, sufficient to enable the commissioner to determine whether to recommend appropriate cost-saving alternatives.  The commissioner may approve any additional costs approved by the commissioner which are incurred in educating a state‑placed student who is not eligible for special education and that are incurred due to the special needs of the student, and, if approved, the commissioner shall pay those costs.  When a student is placed in a new district, the district may request and department personnel shall provide consultative and technical assistance to the receiving district.

Which was agreed to.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Ancel of Calais moved to amend the bill as follows:

     By adding a new section to be Sec. 34a to read:

Sec. 34a.  16 V.S.A. § 4015(e) is amended to read:

(e)  In the event that a school or schools which have received a grant under this section merge in any year following receipt of a grant, and the consolidated school is not eligible for a grant under this section or the small school grant for the consolidated school is less than the total amount of grant aid the schools would have received if they had not combined, the consolidated school shall continue to receive a grant for three years following consolidation.  The amount of the annual grant shall be:

(1)  In the first year following consolidation, an amount equal to the amount received by the school or schools in the last year of eligibility.

(2)  In the second year following consolidation, an amount equal to two‑thirds of the amount received in the previous year.

(3)  In the third year following consolidation, an amount equal to

one-third of the amount received in the first year following consolidation.

Which was agreed to.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? Rep. Scheuermann of Stowe demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.

Pending the call of the roll, Rep. Komline of Dorset moved to recommit the bill to the committee on Education.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be recommitted to the committee on Education? Rep. Komline of Dorset demanded the Yeas and Nays, which demand was sustained by the Constitutional number.  The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill be recommitted to the committee on Education?  was decided in the negative.  Yeas, 40.  Yeas, 101.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Baker of West Rutland

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Brennan of Colchester

Canfield of Fair Haven

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Clark of Vergennes

Clerkin of Hartford

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Johnson of Canaan

Koch of Barre Town

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

LaVoie of Swanton

Lawrence of Lyndon

Livingston of Manchester

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

McDonald of Berlin

Morrissey of Bennington

O'Donnell of Vernon

Oxholm of Vergennes

Peaslee of Guildhall

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Botzow of Pownal

Branagan of Georgia

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clarkson of Woodstock

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Donaghy of Poultney

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hunt of Essex

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kilmartin of Newport City

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

McFaun of Barre Town

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Monti of Barre City

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Morley of Barton

Mrowicki of Putney

Myers of Essex

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Otterman of Topsham

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Potter of Clarendon

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Sweaney of Windsor

Weston of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Allard of St. Albans Town

Aswad of Burlington

Grad of Moretown

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Pugh of S. Burlington

Stevens of Shoreham

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Trombley of Grand Isle


 

The Clerk proceeded to call the roll and the question, Shall the bill be read the third time? was decided in the affirmative.  Yeas, 84.  Nays, 57.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Botzow of Pownal

Branagan of Georgia

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Chen of Mendon

Clark of Vergennes

Clarkson of Woodstock

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Emmons of Springfield

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fisher of Lincoln

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Godin of Milton

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hutchinson of Randolph

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larson of Burlington

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Lorber of Burlington

Maier of Middlebury

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

McDonald of Berlin

McFaun of Barre Town

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Monti of Barre City

Mook of Bennington

Morley of Barton

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Otterman of Topsham

Oxholm of Vergennes

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Sweaney of Windsor

Turner of Milton

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Baker of West Rutland

Brennan of Colchester

Canfield of Fair Haven

Cheney of Norwich

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Clerkin of Hartford

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Edwards of Brattleboro

Errecart of Shelburne

Evans of Essex

Flory of Pittsford

Haas of Rochester

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Hunt of Essex

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Johnson of Canaan

Kilmartin of Newport City

Koch of Barre Town

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

LaVoie of Swanton

Lawrence of Lyndon

Livingston of Manchester

Malcolm of Pawlet

Manwaring of Wilmington

Marcotte of Coventry

Marek of Newfane

Masland of Thetford

McAllister of Highgate

Milkey of Brattleboro

Moran of Wardsboro

Morrissey of Bennington

Mrowicki of Putney

Myers of Essex

O'Donnell of Vernon

Peaslee of Guildhall

Potter of Clarendon

Randall of Troy

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Spengler of Colchester

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester


Those members absent with leave of the House and not voting are:


Allard of St. Albans Town

Aswad of Burlington

Grad of Moretown

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Pugh of S. Burlington

Stevens of Shoreham

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Trombley of Grand Isle


 

Senate Proposal of Amendment Concurred in

H. 357

     The Senate proposed to the House to amend House bill, entitled

     An act relating to registration of lobbyists;

First:  In Sec. 4, 2 V.S.A. § 264b, in subsection (a), in the first sentence, by striking out “a disclosure report which includes”,

Second:  In Sec. 4, 2  V.S.A. §264b subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking out “Disclosure reports under this section shall be due on the same day as are lobbyist disclosure reports under subsection 264(a) of this title and” and inserting in lieu thereof the following:  Every lobbying firm shall file a disclosure report on the same day as lobbyist disclosure reports are due under subsection 264(a) of this title which

     Which proposal of amendment was considered and concurred in.

Action on Bills Postponed

Pending reading of the committee reports of the following bills, Rep. Partridge of Windham moved to postpone action until the next legislative day.  Which was agreed to.

H. 78

House bill, entitled

An act relating to reconsideration and rescission of votes in local elections;

H. 91

House bill, entitled

An act relating to the Rozo McLaughlin Farm-to-School Program;

H. 229

House bill, entitled

An act relating to corrections and clarifications to the Health Care Affordability Act of 2006 and related legislation;

H. 520

House bill, entitled

An act relating to the conservation of energy and increasing the generation of electricity within the state by use of renewable resources;

Committee Appointments Announced

     The Speaker appointed Rep. McCormack of Rutland City  to the committee on General, Housing and Military Affairs, Rep. Zenie of Colchester to the committee on Health Care and Rep. Anderson of Montpelier to the committee on Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources.

 

Message from the Senate No. 43

     A message was received from the Senate by Mr. Marshall, its Assistant Secretary, as follows:

Madam Speaker:

I am directed to inform the House that the Senate has on its part passed Senate bill of the following title:

S. 143.  An act relating to authorizing the use of racing fuel containing the additive MTBE or other gasoline ethers.

In the passage of which the concurrence of the House is requested.

Message from the Governor

A message was received from His Excellency, the Governor, by Ms. Kiersten Bourgeois, Secretary of Civil and Military Affairs, as follows:

Madam Speaker:

I am directed by the Governor to inform the House of Representatives that on the third day of April, 2007, he returned without signature and vetoed a bill originating in the House of Representatives of the following title:

     H. 302    An act relating to fiscal year 2007 budget adjustment

Communication from Governor

“April 3, 2007

 

The Honorable Donald G. Milne Clerk of the House of Representatives State House

Montpelier, VT 05633-5401

Dear Mr. Milne:

     Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I am returning H.302, An Act Relating to Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Adjustments, without my signature because of objections described herein.

     Achieving the prosperity and peace of mind we desire for every generation of Vermonters requires that we take steps now to moderate the cost of living in Vermont—including the cost of higher education.

     Scholarships are immensely important to Vermont families, Vermont's institutions of higher learning, and Vermont's continued economic growth. Accordingly, for some time I insisted that funding for scholarships be included in the Budget Adjustment bill – which is the most appropriate and most timely vehicle for this initiative.

     The reluctance of the controlling majority of this General Assembly to embrace scholarships has been both astonishing and disappointing. After more than a year of discussion, their unwillingness to pass scholarships expeditiously is equally astounding. Such intransigence reflects a fundamental, and widening, divide between the priorities of this majority and working families.

     Scholarships are an important investment in the future of our state, and Vermonters have embraced this initiative. They make college more affordable and accessible for more working families and help address the enormous demographic challenges facing our state, by enticing college-bound students to stay in Vermont after college graduation.

     Legislative leaders knowingly abandoned an opportunity to include funding for scholarships in the Budget Adjustment bill and ensure that scholarships are available to Vermont students who are now making their decisions about which college to attend this fall, or whether they can afford to attend college at all.

     In order to ensure the economic security, prosperity and peace of mind we desire for every new generation of Vermonters, we must take more aggressive steps—like providing scholarships that make Vermont more affordable.

     I respectfully request that the General Assembly immediately pass a new budget adjustment bill that provides scholarships for Vermont students. If you do so, I am confident that those students, their parents, and all who care about the security and prosperity of this great state will thank you.

                                                           Sincerely,

                                                           /s/James H. Douglas

                                                           Governor”

Adjournment

At six o’clock and fifteen minutes in the evening, on motion of Rep. Adams of Hartland, the House adjourned until tomorrow at nine o’clock in the forenoon.

 

 



Published by:

The Vermont General Assembly
115 State Street
Montpelier, Vermont


www.leg.state.vt.us