Download this document in MS Word format


AutoFill Template

Journal of the House

________________

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2007

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

Devotional Exercises

Devotional exercises were conducted by Reverend Robert Butler of the Macedonia Baptist Church, Plainfield.

Senate Bill Referred

S. 143

Senate bill, entitled

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

Was taken up, read the first time and referred to the committee on Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources.

Bill Amended; Third Reading Ordered

H. 78

Rep. Martin of Wolcott, for the committee on Government Operations, to which had been referred House bill, entitled

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

Reported in favor of its passage when amended by striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

     First: 

Sec. 1.  17 V.S.A. § 2661(b) is amended to read:

§ 2661. RECONSIDERATION OR RESCISSION OF VOTE

* * *

(b)  Where a petition signed by not less than five percent of the qualified voters of a municipality If a petition requesting reconsideration or rescission of a question considered or voted on at a previous annual or special meeting is filed with the clerk of the municipality within thirty 30 days following the date of that meeting, the legislative body shall provide for a vote by the municipality in accordance with the petition within sixty 60 days of the submission at an annual or special meeting duly warned for that purpose.  The number of signatures required for a petition for reconsideration or rescission shall be five percent of the registered voters unless the voters of the municipality increase that percentage pursuant to the following:

(1)  At a meeting duly warned for the purpose, the voters of a municipality may require that a petition for reconsideration be signed by not less than up to 20 percent of the registered voters.

(2)  A vote to increase the percentage of voters required to sign a petition for reconsideration or rescission to up to 20 percent shall be in substantially the following form:  “Shall the (name of municipality) increase the percentage of voters required on a petition for reconsideration or rescission from five to (up to 20) percent?” 

(3)  Once the voters of a municipality have voted to require a new percentage, that percentage shall remain in effect until the voters of the municipality vote to change the percentage.

* * *

Second: 

     (e)  A vote in favor of reconsideration or rescission shall not be effective unless the number of votes cast in favor of reconsideration or rescission exceeds two-thirds of the number of votes cast for the prevailing side at the original meeting unless the voters of the municipality approve a different percentage pursuant to the following:

(1)  At a meeting duly warned for the purpose, the voters of a municipality may require that a vote in favor of reconsideration or rescission shall not be effective unless the number of votes cast in favor of reconsideration or rescission exceeds a certain percentage of the number of votes cast for the prevailing side at the original meeting.

(2)  A vote to increase or decrease the percentage shall be in substantially the following form:  “Shall the (name of municipality) change the percentage of votes cast in favor of reconsideration or rescission required for a vote to reconsider or rescind a question considered or voted on at a previous annual or special meeting to be effective to (percentage)?”

(3)  Once the voters of a municipality have voted to require a new percentage, that percentage shall remain in effect until the voters of the municipality vote to change the percentage.

 

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. Martin of Wolcott moved to amend the report of the committee on Government Operations as follows:

In Sec. 1, 17  V.S.A. § 2661(e), in the first sentence, after “A” and before “vote”, by inserting the word “majority”, and after the first instance of the word “rescission” by inserting “of a question voted on by paper or Australian ballot

Which was agreed to.

Thereupon, Rep. Adams of Hartland asked that the question be divided and that the second instance of amendment be voted on first.

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill as recommended by the committee on Government Operations in the second instance? Rep. Morrissey of Bennington 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 the committee on Government Operations in the second instance?  was decided in the affirmative. Yeas, 89.  Nays, 54.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Ainsworth of Royalton

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

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Clarkson of Woodstock

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Davis of Washington

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fisher of Lincoln

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gilbert of Fairfax

Grad of Moretown

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hudson of Lyndon

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Koch of Barre Town

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

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

Orr of Charlotte

Partridge of Windham

Pearson of Burlington

Peterson of Williston

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Valliere of Barre City

Weston of Burlington

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Adams of Hartland

Allard of St. Albans Town

Baker of West Rutland

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Branagan of Georgia

Brennan of Colchester

Canfield of Fair Haven

Clark of Vergennes

Clerkin of Hartford

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Deen of Westminster

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Fallar of Tinmouth

Flory of Pittsford

Gervais of Enosburg

Helm of Castleton

Hube of Londonderry

Johnson of Canaan

Kilmartin of Newport City

Komline of Dorset

Krawczyk of Bennington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

LaVoie of Swanton

Lawrence of Lyndon

Livingston of Manchester

Marcotte of Coventry

Masland of Thetford

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

O'Donnell of Vernon

Ojibway of Hartford

Otterman of Topsham

Oxholm of Vergennes

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pellett of Chester

Perry of Richford

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester


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


Godin of Milton

Hunt of Essex

McAllister of Highgate

Morley of Barton

Peltz of Woodbury

Turner of Milton


 

     Thereupon, the first recommendation of amendment was agreed to and third reading ordered.

Bill Amended; Third Reading Ordered

H. 91

Rep. Donovan of Burlington, for the committee on Education, to which had been referred House bill, entitled

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

Reported in favor of its passage when amended by striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 1.  FINDINGS AND INTENT

(a)  Representative Rosemary “Rozo” McLaughlin was a dedicated, hardworking legislator who devoted herself to improving the health and welfare of Vermont’s children.  She was instrumental in developing the ideas for and details of the local foods mini‑grant program.  Thanks largely to her persistent shepherding of the bill through the legislative process, the program was enacted into law in 2006.

(b)  Therefore, it is the intent of this act to honor Representative McLaughlin’s hard work and dedication by establishing the local foods
mini-grant program as a permanent program and by renaming it the Rozo McLaughlin farm‑to‑school program.

Sec. 2.  6 V.S.A. chapter 211 is added to read:

Chapter 211.  THE ROZO MCLAUGHLIN

FARM‑TO‑SCHOOL PROGRAM

§ 4721.  LOCAL FOODS GRANT PROGRAM 

(a)  There is created in the agency of agriculture, food and markets the Rozo McLaughlin farm‑to‑school program to award local grants for the purpose of helping Vermont schools develop relationships with local farmers and producers.

(b)  A school, a school district, a consortium of schools, or a consortium of school districts may apply to the secretary of agriculture, food and markets for a grant award to:

(1)  fund equipment, resources, training, and materials that will help to increase use of local foods in the school food service program;

(2)  fund items, including local farm products, that will help teachers to use hands-on educational techniques to teach children about nutrition and farm‑to‑school connections; and

(3)  provide professional development and technical assistance to help teachers educate students about nutrition and farm‑to‑school connections.

(c)  The secretary and the commissioner of education, in consultation with farmers, food service workers, and educators, shall jointly adopt rules relating to the content of the grant application and the criteria for making awards.  

(d)  The secretary shall determine that there is significant interest in the school community before making an award and shall give priority consideration to schools and school districts that are developing farm‑to‑school connections and education and that are making progress toward the implementation of the Vermont nutrition and fitness policy guidelines developed by the agency of agriculture, food and markets, the department of education, and the department of health, dated November 2005 or of the successor of these guidelines. 

(e)  No award shall be greater than $15,000.00.

Sec. 3.  APPROPRIATION

The amount of $200,000.00 is appropriated to the secretary of agriculture, food and markets in fiscal year 2008 for the purpose of awarding grants under the Rozo McLaughlin farm-to-school program established in 6 V.S.A. chapter 211.

Rep. Johnson of South Hero, for the committee on Appropriations, recommends the bill ought to pass when amended as recommended by the committee on Education and when further amended as follows:

First:  In Sec. 2, after 6 V.S.A. § 4721, by adding new sections 4722 and 4723 to read as follows:

§ 4722.  FARM ASSISTANCE; SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD

              AND MARKETS

The secretary of agriculture, food and markets shall work with existing programs and organizations to develop and implement educational opportunities for farmers to help them to increase their markets through selling their products to schools and state government agencies and participating in the federal food commodities program, including the federal Department of Defense Fresh program, and selling to regulated child care programs participating in the adult and child food program.  

§ 4723.  PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR FOOD SERVICE
              PERSONNEL

(a)  The commissioner of education shall offer expanded regional training sessions for public school food service personnel and child care resource development specialists as funds are made available.  Training shall include information about strategies for purchasing, processing, and serving locally grown foods, as well as information about nutrition, obesity prevention, coping with severe food allergies, and food service operations.  The commissioner may use a portion of the funds appropriated for this training session to pay a portion of or all expenses for attendees and to develop manuals or other materials to help in the training.

(b)  The commissioner of education shall train people as funds are made available to provide technical assistance to school food service personnel and use a portion of the funds appropriated for this purpose to enable the trained people to provide technical assistance at the school and school district levels.

(c)  Training provided under this section shall promote the policies established in the Vermont nutrition and fitness policy guidelines developed by the agency of agriculture, food and markets, the department of education, and the department of health, dated November 2005, or the guidelines’ successor.

Second:  By striking Sec. 3 in its entirety

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

Bill Amended; Third Reading Ordered

H. 229

Rep. Leriche of Hardwick spoke for the committee on Health Care.

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

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

Reported in favor of its passage when amended as follows:

     First:  In Sec. 27, in 21 V.S.A. § 2002, by adding a new subdivision (6) to read:

"(6)  “Part-time employee” shall mean an employee who works for an employer for fewer than 25 hours a week."

and by striking subdivision (3) and inserting a new subdivision (3) to read:

"(3)  “Full‑time equivalent” or “FTE” means the number of employees expressed as the number of employee hours worked during a calendar quarter divided by 520.  “Full‑time equivalent” shall not include any employee hours attributable to a seasonal employee or part-time employee of an employer who offers health care coverage to all of its regular full‑time employees, provided that the seasonal employee or part-time employee has health care coverage under either a private or a public plan."

     Second:  By inserting a new Sec. 27a to read:

Sec. 27a.  EFFECTIVE DATE

     The provisions of Sec. 27 of this act (employer assessments for Catamount Health) shall apply to employer assessments for reporting periods beginning April 1, 2007, or after.

     Third:  By inserting a new Sec. 27b to read:

Sec. 27b.  ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL FOR SUSTAINABILITY

     In Sec. 27 of this act the general assembly has taken immediate measures to reduce Vermont employers' health fund contributions under the Catamount Health program for employers with seasonal and part-time employees.  In affording this relief to employers, however, Catamount Health revenues are reduced by an approximate $800,000.00 and sustainability of the program is affected.  The Secretary of Administration in conjunction with the Joint Fiscal Committee shall, by December 1, 2007, propose to the general assembly a means of restoring this lost revenue and full sustainability to Catamount Health.  The written proposal, including any proposed legislative amendments, shall be submitted to the House committees on Appropriations, Health, and Ways and Means, and to the Senate committees on Appropriations, Health and Welfare, and Finance.

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

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

     By striking Sec. 28, 21 V.S.A., chapter 5, subchapter 10A, and inserting a new Sec. 28 to read:

Sec. 28.  21 V.S.A. chapter 5, subchapter 12 is added to read:

Subchapter 12.  Health Coverage Status 

§ 561.  HEALTH COVERAGE STATUS DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

(a)  For the purposes of this section:

(1)  “Employee” shall have the same meaning as in section 2002 of this title. 

(2)  “Employer” shall have the same meaning as in section 2002 of this title. 

(b)(1)  No employer or employment agency or agent of either shall inquire about the health coverage status of a job applicant or in any way discriminate among applicants on the basis of health coverage status. 

(2)  Nothing in this section shall prevent:

(A)  an employer, employment agency, or agent from informing an applicant about the employer’s health coverage benefits; or 

(B)  an employer from inquiring about the health coverage status of an employee to enable the employer to determine the number of uncovered employees pursuant to chapter 25 of this title.

(c)  Any person aggrieved by a violation of the provisions of this subchapter may bring an action in superior court seeking compensatory and punitive damages or equitable relief, including restraint of prohibited acts, restitution of wages or other benefits, reinstatement, costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other appropriate relief.

Which was agreed to and third reading was ordered.

Bill Amended, Read Third Time and Passed

H. 534

House bill, entitled

An act relating to prekindergarten registration;

Was taken up and pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Howrigan of Fairfield moved to amend the bill as follows:

By adding a new Sec. 13 a to read:

Sec. 13 a

          This act shall sunset July 1, 2011.

Which was disagreed to.

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Branagan of Georgia  moved to amend the bill as follows:

By adding two new sections to be Sec. 13a and 13b to read:

Sec. 13a.  32 V.S.A. § 5829 is added to read:

§ 5829.  CREDIT FOR HOME CHILD CARE

A taxpayer of this state with federal adjusted gross income less than $40,000.00 (or $50,000.00 for married filing jointly) for the taxable year who cared for a young child at home on a daily basis and who is a parent or legal guardian of the child shall be eligible for a $1,000.00 refundable credit against the tax imposed under section 5822 of this title.  “Young child” in this section means a child who at any time during the taxable year was under the age of six years.  A credit under this section shall be in lieu of any other child or dependent care credit available under this chapter.

Sec. 13b.  EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 13a shall apply to taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2008.

Which was disagreed to. 

Pending the question, Shall the bill pass? Rep. Hube of Londonderry 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 pass? was decided in the affirmative.  Yeas, 102.  Nays, 43.

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

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

Grad of Moretown

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

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

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

Morley of Barton

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

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

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

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

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

Otterman of Topsham

Peaslee of Guildhall

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Sunderland of Rutland Town

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:


Godin of Milton

Hunt of Essex

Potter of Clarendon

Turner of Milton


 

Recess

At twelve o’clock and twenty minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker declared a recess until the fall of the gavel.

Afternoon

At two o’clock and fifty minutes in the afternoon, the Speaker called the House to order.

Message from 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 that on the third day of April, 2007, he approved and signed a till originating in the House of the following title:

H. 72      An act relating to approval of amendments to the charter of                                       the city of Barre

Bill Amended, Read Third Time and Passed

H. 526

House bill, entitled

An act relating to education quality and cost control;

Was taken up and pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Livingston of Manchester moved to amend the bill as follows:

     In Sec. 29, by adding a new subsection to be subsection (e) to read:

(e)  The commissioner of education shall examine the expansion of parental school choice to include all public schools in the state, on a space available basis,  On or before December 1, 2007, the commissioner shall submit a report to the house and senate committees on education outlining the results of the examination, detailing potential fiscal impacts, and making proposals for such expansion. 

Which was disagreed to on a Division Vote.  Yeas, 45.  Nays, 71.

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Komline of Dorset moved to amend the bill as follows:

By adding a new Sec. 24a to read:

Sec. 24a.  MODEL CONTRACT LANGUAGE; APPROPRIATION

On or before July 1, 2007, the commissioner of education shall develop and announce model contract language that would base any reduction in the number of staff members employed by a school district upon performance, rather than seniority.  The model language shall be sent to all school board clerks and principals in the state for potential use in the collective bargaining process.

Which was disagreed to.

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Komline of Dorset moved to amend the bill as follows:

In Sec. 29 by adding a subsection (e) to read:

(e)  The commissioner shall request the following organizations to submit, jointly or independently, recommendations regarding the future governance of school districts:  the Vermont superintendents’ association, the Vermont school boards association, the Vermont principals’ association, and the Vermont national education association.  The commissioner shall include the recommendations in the report to the house and senate committees on education required in subsection (b) of this section.

Which was agreed to.

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Scheuermann of Stowe moved to amend the bill as follows:

     By striking Sec. 8 in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof new Sec. 8 to read:

Sec. 8.  SPECIAL EDUCATION; BEST PRACTICES AND MENTORING PROGRAM

On or before January 1, 2008, the commissioner of education, in consultation with the Vermont superintendents’ association, the Vermont council of special education administrators, and the Vermont parent information center, shall:

(1)  Identify best practices currently used by Vermont school districts in the management and delivery of special education services.

(2)  Create a clearinghouse through which a district wishing to decrease its special education costs could access information concerning the identified best practices.

(3)  Develop and implement a process by which districts currently using best practices could serve as mentors for districts wishing to decrease special education costs.

(4)  Develop and implement a process, or enhance the existing process, by which districts may seek technical assistance from the department to decrease special education costs and receive that assistance in a timely manner.

Which was disagreed to.

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Hube of Londonderry moved to amend the bill as follows:

by adding Secs. 35, 36 and 37 to read:

Sec. 35. 16 V.S.A. § 4032 is added to read:

§   4032.  EDUCATION COST CONTAINMENT GRANTS

     In any year in which a district's education spending per equalized pupil is less than 103 percent of its prior-year education spending per equalized pupil, any municipality which is a member of that school district shall receive a cost containment grant to be used to provide homestead education property tax credits on the municipality's education property tax bills for the current year.  An education cost containment grant shall be equal to 60 percent of the difference between 103 percent of the district's prior-year education spending and its current-year education spending, and the grant shall be distributed by the commissioner of education to the member municipality or pro-rata to the member municipalities, based on each member's portion of the education tax assessment for the current-year school budget.  A homestead tax credit under this section shall be shown on the taxpayer's homestead education property tax bill, and shall be calculated as a percentage of the unadjusted education property tax liability, using the same percentage for all taxpayers. 

Sec. 36.  16 V.S.A. § 4025(b)(4) is added to read:        

     (4) To make payments required under section 4032 of this title for education cost containment.

Sec. 37.  EFFECTIVE DATE

          Secs. 35 and 36 of this act (education cost containment grants and tax credits) shall take effect January 1, 2008.

and by renumbering the current Sec. 35 in the bill to be Sec. 38.

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill as recommended by Rep. Hube of Londonderry?  Rep. Hube of Londonderry 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. Hube of Londonderry?   was decided in the negative.  Yeas, 52.  Nays, 89.

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

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Clark of Vergennes

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Helm of Castleton

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

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

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

McDonald of Berlin

McFaun of Barre Town

Monti of Barre City

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

O'Donnell of Vernon

Oxholm of Vergennes

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Pugh of S. Burlington

Rodgers of Glover

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Stevens of Shoreham

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester


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

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clarkson of Woodstock

Clerkin of Hartford

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Corcoran of Bennington

Courcelle of Rutland City

Davis of Washington

Deen of Westminster

Donahue of Northfield

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Grad of Moretown

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jerman of Essex

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

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

Malcolm of Pawlet

Marek of Newfane

Martin, C. of Springfield

Martin of Wolcott

Masland of Thetford

McCormack of Rutland City

McCullough of Williston

Milkey of Brattleboro

Miller of Shaftsbury

Minter of Waterbury

Mitchell of Barnard

Mook of Bennington

Mrowicki of Putney

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Otterman of Topsham

Pearson of Burlington

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Potter of Clarendon

Randall of Troy

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown

Spengler of Colchester

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Weston of Burlington

Zuckerman of Burlington


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


Aswad of Burlington

Fisher of Lincoln

Godin of Milton

Hunt of Essex

Manwaring of Wilmington

Moran of Wardsboro

Symington of Jericho

Turner of Milton


 

Pending third reading of the bill, Reps. Wright of Burlington, Errecart of Shelburne and McAllister of Highgate  moved to amend the bill as follows:

First:  By inserting three new sections to be Secs. 24a, 24b, and 24c to read:

Sec. 24a.  16 V.S.A. § 2011 is added to read:

§ 2011.  MANDATORY DETERMINATION BY THE VERMONT LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

(a)  If the parties’ dispute remains unresolved as to any issue on the twentieth day after delivery of the fact‑finding commission’s report under section 2007 of this title or if the parties otherwise agree that they have reached an impasse, each party shall submit to the state labor relations board its last best offer on all undisputed issues which shall be reviewed and decided upon as a single package.  The labor relations board may hold hearings and may consider the recommendations of the fact-finding commission, if one has been activated. 

(b)  In reaching a decision, the labor relations board shall give weight to all relevant evidence presented by the parties, including:

(1)  The lawful authority of the school board.

(2)  Stipulations of the parties.

(3)  The interest and welfare of the public and the financial ability of the school board to pay for increased costs of public services, including the cost of labor.

(4)  Comparisons of the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of the employees involved in the dispute with the wages, hours, and conditions of employment of other employees performing similar services in public schools in comparable communities or in private employment in comparable communities.

(5)  The average consumer prices for goods and services commonly known as the cost of living.

(6)  The overall compensation currently received by the employees, including direct wages, fringe benefits, and continuity conditions and stability of employment, and all other benefits received.

(7)  Prior negotiations and existing conditions of other school and municipal employees.

(c)  Within 30 days of receiving the last best offers of the parties, the labor relations board shall select between these offers, considered in their entirety without amendment, and shall determine the cost of the selected offer.  The labor relations board shall not issue an order under this subsection that is in conflict with any law or rule or that relates to an issue that is not bargainable.  The labor relations board shall file one copy of the decision with each city or town clerk in the school district involved, the school board, and the recognized organization.  Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the decision of the labor relations board shall be final and binding on the parties.

(d)  If the contract selected by the labor relations board in subsection (c) of this section includes a dollar amount, which represents the salary plus individual benefits for any step and column on the pay scale, that exceeds the dollar amount for the salary plus individual benefits for that step and column in the parties’ most recently approved contract by more than the state of Vermont’s most recent total rate of salary adjustment available to classified employees under the collective bargaining agreement, then the selected contract shall be presented to the voters of the district at a meeting warned and held in the same manner in which the district budget meeting is warned and held, and the selected contract may be rejected by a majority vote.  If rejected by the voters, the other party’s last best offer, as submitted to the labor relations board pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, shall be final and binding on the parties. 

(e)  The parties shall share equally all mutually incurred costs incidental to this section.

(f)  Upon application of a party, a superior court shall vacate an award on the same grounds as set forth in 21 V.S.A. § 1733(d) and according to the same procedures as set forth in 21 V.S.A. § 1733(e).

Sec. 24b.  3 V.S.A. § 924(e) is amended to read:

(e)  In addition to its responsibilities under this chapter, the board shall carry out the responsibilities given to it under chapter 57 of Title 16, chapters 19 and 22 of Title 21, and chapter 28 of this title and when so doing shall exercise the powers and follow the procedures set out in that the appropriate chapter.

Sec. 24c.  REPEAL

The following sections of Title 16 are repealed:

(1)  § 2008 (finality of school board decisions).

(2)  § 2010 (injunctions granted only if action poses clear and present danger).

(3)  § 2021 (negotiated binding interest arbitration).

(4)  § 2022 (selection and decision of arbitrator).

(5)  § 2023 (jurisdiction of arbitrator).

(6)  § 2024 (judicial appeal).

(7)  § 2025 (factors to be considered by the arbitrator).

(8)  § 2026 (notice of award).

(9)  § 2027 (fees and expenses of arbitration). 

Second:  By striking Sec. 21 (proposed amendment to negotiated binding interest arbitration; repealed above) in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof:

Sec. 21.  [Deleted.]

Third:  In Sec. 20, § 2009, in the last sentence, by striking the words:  “unless the school board has agreed to binding interest arbitration pursuant to subchapter 4 of this chapter” and inserting in lieu thereof the following:  “except as provided in section 2011 of this chapter

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill as recommended by Reps. Wright of Burlington, et al? Rep. Wright of Burlington 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 Reps. Wright of Burlington, et al?  was decided in the negative.  Yeas, 50.  Nays, 91.

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

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Clark of Vergennes

Clerkin of Hartford

Condon of Colchester

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Helm of Castleton

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

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

Marcotte of Coventry

McAllister of Highgate

McDonald of Berlin

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Myers of Essex

O'Donnell of Vernon

Otterman of Topsham

Oxholm of Vergennes

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester


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

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

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

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Grad of Moretown

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

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

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

Mrowicki of Putney

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Pearson of Burlington

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Sharpe of Bristol

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

Zuckerman of Burlington


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


Aswad of Burlington

Fisher of Lincoln

Godin of Milton

Hunt of Essex

Jerman of Essex

Smith of Morristown

Symington of Jericho

Westman of Cambridge


 

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. LaVoie of Swanton moved to amend the bill as follows:

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

Sec. 34b.  SPECIAL EDUCATION; REGIONAL OR STATEWIDE RESPONSIBILITIES; STUDY

(a)  There is created a committee, identified in subsection (b) of this section, to evaluate the advisability of moving some or all aspects of special education services to a regional or state level.  At a minimum, the committee’s consideration shall include:

(1)  Whether and the extent to which the delivery of special education services should be provided at a regional or state level.

(2)  Whether and the extent to which the delivery of special education services should be managed at a regional or state level.

(3)  Whether and the extent to which decisions regarding the special education services provided to an individual student can and should be made at a regional or state level.

(4)  Ways in which to formalize best practices for the management and delivery of special education services and to strengthen the mediation process.

(5)  Whether and the extent to which disagreements among members of an individualized education plan team can and should be decided at a regional or state level, without resort to the judicial process.

(6)  The impact that the results of the study required in Sec. 32 of this act has on these issues.

(7)  Ways in which other states have lowered special education costs while providing a high level of services.

(b)  The members of the committee shall be as follows:

(1)  The attorney general or the attorney general’s designee.

(2)  The commissioner of education or the commissioner’s designee.

(3)  The secretary of human services or the secretary’s designee.

(4)  The president of the Vermont council of special education administrators or the president’s designee.

(5)  The executive director of the Vermont superintendents’ association or the executive director’s designee.

(c)  On or before January 15, 2008, the committee shall submit a report detailing its analysis and recommendations to the house and senate committees on education, the house committee on human services, and the senate committee on health and welfare.  The report shall also include a fiscal analysis of any recommendations and related proposals for legislative amendments, if any.

     Thereupon, Rep. LaVoie of Swanton asked and was granted leave of the House to withdraw her amendment.

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. LaVoie of Swanton moved to amend the bill as follows:

In Sec. 29, subsection (c), by adding a new subdivision to be subdivision (6) to read:

(6)  Whether and the extent to which the delivery of special education services could be managed and provided at a regional level.

     Which was agreed to.

Pending third reading of the bill, Reps. Milkey of Brattleboro, Browning of Arlington, Deen of Westminster, Edwards of Brattleboro, Manwaring of Wilmington, Moran of Wardsboro and Mrowicki of Putney moved to amend the bill as follows:

     By inserting a new section to be Sec. 6a to read:

Sec. 6a.  SCHOOL DISTRICTS; ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING HIGH SPENDING

(a)  The commissioner of education shall explore and analyze the reasons school districts exceed the excess spending threshold defined in 32 V.S.A.
§ 5401(12) and develop recommendations for exempting school districts from the consequences of exceeding the excess spending threshold in the following circumstances:

(1)  The district has high costs for special education services, the department has recommended ways to lower the costs, the district has followed the recommendations, and the district still exceeds the threshold; or

(2)  The district has high costs for special education services, the department has been unable to identify ways to lower the costs, and the district still exceeds the threshold; or

(3)  The district pays tuition for all or most of its students to attend one or more schools outside of the district and the commissioner determines that it is not possible for the district to make alternative arrangements that would enable it to stay beneath the high spending threshold.

(b)  On or before January 15, 2008, the commissioner shall file a report with the house and senate committees on education and on appropriations regarding the recommendations required by this section.  The report shall include a detailed fiscal analysis of the recommendations and related draft legislation.  It shall also include an analysis of the effectiveness of 16 V.S.A. § 4028(c), which permits high spending districts to hire a budget consultant with money paid as a consequence of exceeding the threshold.

     Which was agreed to.

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Donahue of Northfield moved to amend the bill as follows:

     On page 6, following line 6, by inserting a new Sec. 7a to read:

Sec. 7a.  16  V.S.A. §2973a is added to read:

§2973a SPECIAL EDUCATION; BEST PRACTICES; POLICY

It is the public policy of the state that integrated special education services are recognized as an essential responsibility of the educational system that benefit all students and contribute to the good of the state.  This section and section 2974 of this title recognize that best practices in delivery of such services promote this policy.

     Which was agreed to.

Pending third reading of the bill, Rep. Ancel of Calais moved to amend the bill as follows:

     By deleting Secs. 10 and 11 (extraordinary expenses review team) in their entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

Sec. 10.  [Deleted.]

Sec. 11.  [Deleted.]

     Which was agreed to.

Pending the question, Shall the bill pass? Rep. Deen of Westminster 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 pass? was decided in the affirmative.  Yeas, 87.  Nays, 54.

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

Deen of Westminster

Donahue of Northfield

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Emmons of Springfield

Fallar of Tinmouth

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Grad of Moretown

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

LaVoie of Swanton

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

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

Stevens of Shoreham

Sweaney of Windsor

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

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

Canfield of Fair Haven

Cheney of Norwich

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Clerkin of Hartford

Davis of Washington

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Edwards of Brattleboro

Errecart of Shelburne

Evans of Essex

Flory of Pittsford

Haas of Rochester

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

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

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

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shaw of Derby

Spengler of Colchester

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Trombley of Grand Isle

Westman of Cambridge

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington


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


Aswad of Burlington

Brennan of Colchester

Fisher of Lincoln

Godin of Milton

Hunt of Essex

Jerman of Essex

Otterman of Topsham

Smith of Morristown


 

     Rep. Mrowicki of Putney explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     I appreciate all the work done by the many members and the committees and those who offered and considered the many amendments to this bill, including the amendment I offered.

     However, I am still not clear that the people I represent in Windham-5 will be helped by this bill.

     My vote recognizes the work done by all and also recognizes the special circumstances of the people I represent – which is why I must vote no.”

     Rep. Wright of Burlington explained his vote as follows:

“Madam Speaker:

     I vote no because with the defeat of the many proposed amendments, H. 526 is a weak bill that delivers little leaving property taxpayers disappointed and disillusioned.  Hopefully, the Education committee will take up the ideas that were rejected today.”

Bill Read Second Time; Amended and

Consideration Interrupted by Adjournment

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;

Appearing on the Calendar one day for notice was taken up.

Thereupon, Rep. Komline of Dorset moved to postpone action for one legislative day, which was disagreed to on a Division Vote.  Yeas, 48.  Nays, 77.

Rep. Dostis of Waterbury spoke for the committee on Natural Resources and Energy.

Rep. Howard, for the committee on Ways and Means, to which the bill had been referred, reported in favor of its passage when amended as follows:

     First:  In Sec. 16, on page 39, on line 18, by striking "$0.003 per kWh" and inserting in lieu thereof "$0.006 per kWh"; and on line 20, by inserting before the period ", but in no case shall the tax imposed for any six month period be less than an amount equal to 15% of the installed capacity of the facility multiplied by the rate per kWh imposed by this subsection. Until a facility is certified under this subsection, it shall remain subject to taxation under section 5402 of this title"

     Second: on page 40, after line 10, by inserting a new subsection (d) to read:

    (d)  Review of rates.  Beginning in 2009, and every three years thereafter, the division of property valuation and review shall review the tax rate and minimum tax in subsection (a) of this section to determine whether the rate and minimum tax are sufficient to raise an amount of revenue equivalent to the education property tax revenue which would otherwise be due under the education property tax provisions of section 5402 of this title upon the buildings and fixtures of the taxpayer.

     Third:  By striking Secs. 18, 19, and 20, and inserting in lieu thereof a new Sec. 18 to read:

Sec.18. 10 V.S.A. § 6523(e)(2) is amended to read:

(2)  The commissioner of public service shall:

* * *

(D) acting jointly with the members of the clean energy development fund investment committee, make decisions with respect to specific grants and investments, after the plans, budget, and program designs have been approved by the clean energy development fund investment committee. This subdivision (D) shall be repealed upon the effective date of rules adopted under subdivision (2) (B) of this subsection.;

(E)  assure that the program includes a component pursuant to which businesses may apply for grants in an amount up to 76% of the business energy credit available for individual taxpayers under the Internal Revenue Code for the taxable year preceding the year of the grant, and in an amount up to 100% of the business energy credit available to corporate taxpayers under the Internal Revenue Code for the taxable year preceding the year of the grant.  During fiscal year 2008, grants under this subdivision shall not be issued to exceed a total of $250,000.

     Fourth:  By inserting a new Sec. 16a to read:

"Sec.16a. STUDY OF EDUCATION TAX ON WIND-POWERED ELECTRIC GENERATING PROPERTY       

     The commissioner of the department of public service and the commissioner of taxes shall consider the possible options for raising education tax revenue from wind-powered electric generating facilities, including the current education property tax, and the advantages and disadvantages of the various options with regard to stability of the revenue source, ability to build inflation into the tax mechanism, how well the tax mechanism will reflect cost of power sold and fluctuations in power production, whether property valuation creates difficulties for application of a property tax, how the tax mechanism will produce revenue during any start-up or construction period, and any other issues which the commissioners may find pertinent to the inquiry; and based upon their findings, shall recommend one or more education tax options for this property.  The commissioners shall report their findings and recommendations, including proposed legislative amendments, to the house committee on ways and means and senate committee on finance by December 1, 2007.

Thereupon, the bill was read the second time.

     Pending the question, Shall the House amend the bill as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means? Rep. Howard of Rutland City moved to amend the recommendation of amendment offered by the committee on Ways and Means, as follows:

     In the First proposal of amendment, by striking "$0.006 per kWh" and inserting in lieu thereof "$0.00525 per kWh"

Pending the question, Shall the House amend the report of the committee on Ways and Means as recommended by Rep. Howard of Rutland City? Rep. Scheuermann of Stowe 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 report of the committee on Ways and Means as recommended by Rep. Howard of Rutland City?  was decided in the affirmative.  Yeas, 123.  Nays, 5.

 

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

Atkins of Winooski

Audette of S. Burlington

Baker of West Rutland

Barnard of Richmond

Bissonnette of Winooski

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Botzow of Pownal

Branagan of Georgia

Bray of New Haven

Browning of Arlington

Canfield of Fair Haven

Chen of Mendon

Cheney of Norwich

Clark of Vergennes

Clarkson of Woodstock

Clerkin of Hartford

Condon of Colchester

Consejo of Sheldon

Corcoran of Bennington

Deen of Westminster

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Edwards of Brattleboro

Emmons of Springfield

Errecart of Shelburne

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Flory of Pittsford

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Haas of Rochester

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Helm of Castleton

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Hube of Londonderry

Hudson of Lyndon

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Koch of Barre Town

Krawczyk of Bennington

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larocque of Barnet

Larrabee of Danville

Larson of Burlington

LaVoie of Swanton

Lawrence of Lyndon

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Livingston of Manchester

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

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Morley of Barton

Morrissey of Bennington

Mrowicki of Putney

Myers of Essex

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

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Scheuermann of Stowe

Shand of Weathersfield

Shaw of Derby

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Weston of Burlington

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester

Zuckerman of Burlington


Those who voted in the negative are:


Johnson of Canaan

Kilmartin of Newport City

Komline of Dorset

McAllister of Highgate

Rodgers of Glover


 

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


Allard of St. Albans Town

Aswad of Burlington

Brennan of Colchester

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Courcelle of Rutland City

Davis of Washington

Fisher of Lincoln

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Godin of Milton

Grad of Moretown

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hunt of Essex

Jerman of Essex

Marcotte of Coventry

Monti of Barre City

Otterman of Topsham

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown


 

     Pending the recurring question, Shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means, as amended? Rep. Sunderland of Rutland Town asked that the question be divided and that the vote be taken on the First instance first.

Pending the question, Shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means in the First instance? Rep. Sunderland of Rutland Town 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 amended as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means in the First instance?  was decided in the affirmative.  Yeas, 95.  Nays, 28.

Those who voted in the affirmative are:


Ancel of Calais

Anderson of Montpelier

Andrews of Rutland City

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

Corcoran of Bennington

Deen of Westminster

Donovan of Burlington

Dostis of Waterbury

Emmons of Springfield

Evans of Essex

Fallar of Tinmouth

Frank of Underhill

French of Randolph

Gervais of Enosburg

Gilbert of Fairfax

Head of S. Burlington

Heath of Westford

Hosford of Waitsfield

Howard of Rutland City

Hube of Londonderry

Hutchinson of Randolph

Jewett of Ripton

Johnson of South Hero

Johnson of Canaan

Kilmartin of Newport City

Kitzmiller of Montpelier

Klein of East Montpelier

Koch of Barre Town

Krawczyk of Bennington

Kupersmith of S. Burlington

Larrabee of Danville

Larson of Burlington

Lawrence of Lyndon

Lenes of Shelburne

Leriche of Hardwick

Lippert of Hinesburg

Livingston of Manchester

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

Mook of Bennington

Moran of Wardsboro

Mrowicki of Putney

Myers of Essex

Nease of Johnson

Nuovo of Middlebury

Obuchowski of Rockingham

O'Donnell of Vernon

Ojibway of Hartford

Orr of Charlotte

Partridge of Windham

Pellett of Chester

Peltz of Woodbury

Perry of Richford

Peterson of Williston

Potter of Clarendon

Pugh of S. Burlington

Randall of Troy

Rodgers of Glover

Shand of Weathersfield

Shaw of Derby

Spengler of Colchester

Stevens of Shoreham

Sweaney of Windsor

Trombley of Grand Isle

Turner of Milton

Valliere of Barre City

Westman of Cambridge

Wheeler of Derby

Winters of Williamstown

Wright of Burlington

Zenie of Colchester


Those who voted in the negative are:


Acinapura of Brandon

Adams of Hartland

Ainsworth of Royalton

Baker of West Rutland

Bostic of St. Johnsbury

Canfield of Fair Haven

Clark of Vergennes

Clerkin of Hartford

Davis of Washington

Devereux of Mount Holly

Donaghy of Poultney

Donahue of Northfield

Edwards of Brattleboro

Errecart of Shelburne

Flory of Pittsford

Haas of Rochester

Helm of Castleton

Komline of Dorset

LaVoie of Swanton

Lorber of Burlington

McAllister of Highgate

Morrissey of Bennington

Oxholm of Vergennes

Pearson of Burlington

Scheuermann of Stowe

Sunderland of Rutland Town

Weston of Burlington

Zuckerman of Burlington


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


Allard of St. Albans Town

Aswad of Burlington

Atkins of Winooski

Brennan of Colchester

Clark of St. Johnsbury

Copeland-Hanzas of Bradford

Courcelle of Rutland City

Fisher of Lincoln

Fitzgerald of St. Albans City

Godin of Milton

Grad of Moretown

Howrigan of Fairfield

Hudson of Lyndon

Hunt of Essex

Jerman of Essex

Keenan of St. Albans City

Keogh of Burlington

Larocque of Barnet

Marcotte of Coventry

Monti of Barre City

Morley of Barton

Otterman of Topsham

Peaslee of Guildhall

Pillsbury of Brattleboro

Sharpe of Bristol

Smith of Morristown


 

Message from the Senate No. 44

     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. 196.  An act relating to failure to insure for workers’ compensation coverage by employers and contractors.

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

 

Adjournment

At seven o’clock and thirty 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