 Good afternoon and welcome to the House Environment and Energy Committee. This afternoon we are going to begin at H657 and act relating to the modernization of Vermont's communications, taxes and fees. First witness is Representative Sims, who is the bill's sponsor and I think also reporter. Thanks Madam Chair committee Kevin Sims, Crosbury, appreciate the opportunity to maybe provide a high level overview about the thinking behind H657 and act relating to modernizing Vermont's telecommunications, taxes and fees. Knowing that you have a bunch of other witnesses after who can walk through the legislative language and answer all the fiscal questions. We had a working group this summer that crafted this bill with our core focus being about modernizing telecommunications, taxes and fees, something that hadn't been looked at by the legislature in a number of years, and to try to be more competitively neutral in our taxes and fees and ensure adequate revenue to support public benefits related to our telecommunications infrastructure. And there were there are kind of three big issues that were highlighted in recent legislative reports that we were seeking to address. The first declining revenue and the universal service fund, which has been leading to insufficient funds to sustain E911, declining revenue in the outdated telephone personal property tax. And the third piece of VTrans not being in compliance with statute to execute lease agreements with broadband and wireless providers using state owned right of ways. And so at a high level I can just kind of walk you through each of those pieces. So as you may be familiar, folks pay a universal service charge on your phone bills. And that raises just under 6 million a year and its revenues have been declining for several years and the universal service fund supports five programs in order of priority. This is a waterfall where the program at the top gets funded and then over to the next program. The Vermont community broadband board is at the top and then lifeline telephone relay. E911 and the connectivity fund and current revenues have been insufficient to sustain E911's program costs for several years and we've been back filling that shortfall with general funds. And part of the reason for the decline in revenue is because of changes in the market. So the universal service charge has been 2.4% on retail voice telecommunication services. And so if you have a landline, you're paying 2.4% on the cost of your landline, but as more folks shift to wireless companies consider a smaller and smaller portion of your bill, the voice service. So you're paying 2.4% but only on a portion of that fee of the bill amount. So even though consumers like spend about the same on telecommunication services and we have a stable number of lines that revenue generated from that has been declining. And so in 2022, the agency of administration recommended in a memo changes to ensure the long term sustainability of E911. And the bill implements 1 of those recommendations, which is to move from the percent charge to a per line fee, which is something a number of other states have done. And given that the number of lines in Vermont is relatively stable and growing a little bit should stabilize the revenue to support the universal service fund program beneficiaries. So that's section 1 of or bucket 1, we have sort of 3 all related under the umbrella of telecommunications, but kind of distinct shifts. So universal service fund is 1 piece of the bill. The second is the telephone personal property tax. So that was put in place in 1947. And the tax applies to people who own or operate a telephone line or business. We're getting a 2.37% charge on the net book value of the assets. In 2021, the Vermont tax structure commission report recommended repealing the telephone personal property tax, given that its revenues have been declining year after year as folks net book value declines, and that it's, you know, somewhat outdated, given the focus on telephones, which were our primary communications tool in 1947, but technology has changed a little bit since then we have more wires coming into our houses. And so our report or our bill advances that recommendation of repealing the telephone personal property tax, which is 1 of like 36 small special type taxes. And replaces that by putting telecommunications property on the grand list as real property. So we're moving away from net book value on only telephone to all telecommunications providers on the grand list at fair market value. Again, it modeled after what we do with electric utilities. PVR would provide the technical expertise to provide the assessment of the telecommunications infrastructure that would be provided to local listers, and that value would be added to the grand list. Again, we see this as sort of more competitively neutral help reduce the administrative burden at tax and provide more, more steady revenue. The third piece is the state right of way lease agreement. So vitreans has a statutory requirement to attain some form of compensation from broadband and wireless providers using state owned right of ways. This has been on the books since 2007, but we have had multiple memos from the auditor, including one in 2022 that's called to the legislators attention that despite being on the books for 17 years. The trans is not currently assessing the lease agreement and charges with broadband and wireless providers using the state right of way. So this bill adds some specificity about the charge that the chance should be providing has a report back to report on the progress making implementing that and one of the things that we heard from the trans testimony was that they part of part of the challenge and assessing the process of doing what's on our state owned right of ways. And so the bill would ask incumbent providers to provide an inventory of all of the things that are on state owned right of ways, so that it's likely be easier for the trans move forward with that assessment So at the request of the trans includes a temporary person and one ongoing position to support the administration of the fees. We expect that the revenue generated should cover that cost on an ongoing basis. But as Jeff will tell you it's hard to estimate the revenue potential not knowing how many miles of wires we're talking about. The other thing that that section does and again we heard in testimony from the trans maybe part of the rationale for not fulfilling their statutory obligation to assess the fee is that we also have a goal around building out broadband to underserved communities. And we sought to kind of reconcile this by clarifying that the entities that are doing that work of deploying broadband to our more underserved areas are communication union districts the private providers for partnering with broadband providers to fulfill the universal service plan and our small telephone companies would be exempt from that state right of way fee so that we can honor the work that folks are doing to build out broadband to underserved areas. But also ask that income and providers who are using state lands pay a reasonable fee that we set by looking at what other states are doing in this area. So those are the three kind of big buckets of trying to take a high level look at telecommunications taxes and fees be more competitively neutral solve some declining revenue issues. And happy to answer any questions. Thank you for the overview. What is competitively neutral mean. So I think the example of that is the telephone personal property tax. So right now we have a special tax type that asks telephone companies to pay personal property tax based on the net book value of their assets but we do not charge a similar tax for cable providers or broadband providers. And so we're repealing that and we're asking all telecommunications providers to have their assets on the grand list as real property. So if you have stuff that has high value that's great. And let's pay an appropriate amount to support all the public benefits that government provides. Do members have questions? We will hear from legislative council more in-depth review of the bill. Representative Smith then. 2.37% is the tax proposal increase. No. Okay. Explain that to me then please. Now on the books is the telephone personal property tax but in place in 1947. It applies to persons that own or operate a telephone line or business. And they pay 2.3% charge on the net book of value of their assets. And we would be repealing that. So that would go away. Okay. In lieu of that things would be listed on the grand list as real property. There are additional fees in this bill though. Right there. The other fee pieces are we currently have the universal service charge which is 2.4% of your voice services and we would be replacing the percent charge with a per line fee of 72 cents. It's not a big impact on anybody paying any additional monies for services rendered. No, so we're trying to stabilize revenue and move to a more stable base. The number of lines and I imagine many folks in your district are like mine that still retain landlines. And in most cases the 72 cents per line would be less than the 2.4% being paid now. So it's a more equitable distribution of raising revenue to support and the other beneficiaries. And the third piece is the state right of way lease agreement for folks who have broadband telecommunications infrastructure and state right of way. That's something that has been on the books for 17 years and we're just trying to help make that happen. All right, thanks. And so the universal charge of 72 cents for lines would be monthly. Yes. Representative Clifford. Thank you very much. I think my question was already answered by representative Smith's question actually. As far as, you know, the fee structure is and how the rate payers. What's what's their going to impact is going to be, but I think you just answered that question because he repealing one. So it's kind of a wash. Yeah, our goal here was to be as revenue neutral as possible and focus more on modernizing to better capture current technology and stabilize. You get the right base. Not, not trying to raise a lot more revenue, but modernized reflect current technology. Thank you. I'm sure he said it's getting the fight. It's right. This is a super wonky bill. I did not include this in my time meeting up. The purpose of all this is to make sure they're still sufficient revenues to support the nine. Yes, we will. In FY 26 no longer need to backfill. E 911 with general funds. Thank you. Legislative council. Hi. Representative Sims did an excellent job providing an overview. And before I go through kind of a line by line of the bill, one other thing and I'll really just call it to your attention. Because a lot of this reflects what representative Sims just explained kind of the big picture outline of the subjects. And this might just help if you want to go back and kind of get a broad sense of what's covered in the bill. So, as I explained, 3 sections, components of the bill, the 1st part sections 1 through 6 dealing with the universal service fund and changing the contribution method. And again, we'll talk about that in detail a flat per line fee, as opposed to a 2.4 percent. Portional charge on the monthly telephone bill. So, we'll go through some of the definitions there and some of the exemptions. And then changes to property tax and repeal of the telephone personal property tax and then basically treating all communications property. That includes voice telecommunications broadband cable, television facilities. As real estate and put it on the grand list as real estate. And treating it basically very similar to the way electric utility poles and wires are treated now. In terms of property taxes, but again, we'll go through these sections in greater detail. And then finally, the right of way fee that would apply to communications property and state them rights away. So that is there. I'm going to close that and then we'll actually. Walk through the language in the bill as amended. By ways of means so with respect to the, yes, just out to members that the table that Maria just showed us this up under her name on our committee page. Describe my glasses sometimes helps. I can see. Oh, it's so with respect to the universal service fund. How much background what's most helpful to the committee before we kind of dive in on the details. Do you. High level reminder of the I mean Catherine mentioned them that helped, but 1 more mention would be great if. The work goes, okay, so this is a fun that's been around. I think since the early 90s, it funds specific programs 9 1 1. Being the biggest user of those fees. Revenue that's raised, but the other programs that are funded the relay service, which is a service for deaf and hearing impaired. Lifeline Vermont lifeline, which is the state subsidy for voice service. There's a federal lifeline program funded with federal monies. There's also money that's specifically allocated for the Vermont community broadband board. And finally, any remaining funds would go into. Separate fund connectivity fund, which funds. Grant program for broadband build out and subsidizes the incumbent providers also with broadband. So that's. As representative Sims mentioned, it is a waterfall. So to the extent there's not enough money to fully fund everything they're funded in the order priority that's listed in statutes. And very often there isn't any money left over. So there's nothing that gets into the connectivity fund. But do the others get fully funded from it currently? So no, so relay service. The way they're listed now, the fiscal agent who administers the fund gets paid first. There's a percent, it's about 16.6% under current law. This is going to sound more confusing than it is under the proportional charge existing law. Years ago, it was 2%, right? You paid 2% of your telephone bill. I think in 2019, or maybe before then, you increased it to 2.4%. But you specifically said that that money raised from that incremental increase of 0.4% specifically should go. Towards broadband, right? So that comes off the top. No waterfall there. And then relay service, then lifeline, then 911. And that's where it stops. Because for years, you haven't had enough money in this fund to fully fund 911, which as representative Sims mentioned is why the general fund. Has been called upon kind of backfill the 911 budget. So. Part of the impetus here is to provide a sustainable funding source for all of the programs. And not have to every year kind of backfill based on the needs of those programs. So that's very high level in kind of making some of the changes and working on the definitions. We also went through and ways and means and tried to update some of the terminology that some of these terms have been on the books for a very long time. So there is some updating of definitions and I'm just mentioning that there's there maybe some, there may be additional updating that needs to happen in this chapter. But I just wanted you to understand why some of the broad definitions have been changed. And so, for example, telecommunication service, this is really just a clarification and trying to make it sync up with way that terms are used throughout the chapter, just specifying that telecommunication service means a transmission of any real time interactive communications through the public service. Which network so basically voice services. However, it's delivered, whether it's over a fiber line wireless facilities or the proper lines. So. And because so right now, the charge does apply to interconnected voice service. But just wanting to specify that in the general definition section. So that's why on line 8, you'll see now specific reference. To interconnected voice service and then similarly, on line 10, that definition mobile telephone or telecommunication service just citing kind of the way that term is currently used in federal law and citing the federal definition for mobile telecommunication service. So those are really just updating the definitions. So, 2, 1, 2, as where we actually address the charge that's imposed on retail telecommunications. Some updating of the language. So, yeah, I would actually characterize this is more updating. So, some of the terms that came up initially when they came up, they came up in reference to definitions that were in the new section of law. We then went back and looked at, well, there are some existing places that can just be those definitions can change. And so. What you see here in subsection C defining what is a place of primary use when you're looking at interconnected voice service, mobile telecommunication service. You just specifically describe how those how those terms are defined. So, with respect to interconnected voice service. The universal service charge is imposed when the customers place of primary use is in Vermont. As used in the subsection, the term place of primary use means the street address where the customers use of interconnected voice service primarily occurs or reasonable proxy as determined. By the interconnected voice service provider, such as the customers registered location for 911 purposes. So, this is pretty consistent with how the federal law defines. Where you determine the use of the services. So, then section 3 is where the rate is established. So, you'll notice it leads with an exception. Except as provided in subsection 7. 75 21 subsection. Yep, which pertains to prepaid wireless service. So this whole change to a flat fee per line in service applies to everything, but prepaid wireless. Prepaid wireless, you're not it's not postpaid. You're not getting a monthly bill for your service. You might walk into a retail store by a calling card by phone by. Right, you're buying a card that then you can access. Telephone service and it might be for 10 minutes. It might be for whatever, right? So that. Collection method that proportional charge of 2.4% is actually going to stay the same. So retailers will continue doing what they're doing with respect to prepaid wireless phone. And part of the reason for that is 1, they don't have to change what they're doing their software and the retailers have a system in place. And 2, because you can buy services that are in very small increments, very small denominations. $10 $15 and that's a 70 cent charge on top of that. That might be considered disproportionate. And some people also might buy services more than once a month. So, again, just. Trying to be a little bit more equitable. Based on the customers who tend to use those services and how frequently. So that's just the exception I wanted to call out. Then after that exception, the monthly rate of charge. Shall be 72 cents for each retail access line and service. There's a definition for access line and service, which we'll get to, but before getting to that. And that's down. You'll see in subdivision 3, but also what specified here and subdivision 2. Is how you determine the number of access lines that a customer has. So the proposed definition here and I'll just read through it once and then we can talk about it. The number of access lines. The telecom service provider provides a customer. Shall be deemed equal to the number of inbound or outbound, whichever is greater. Two way communications by any technology that the customer can maintain at the same time. As provisioned by the provider service. This is a definition that's very similar to a definition that the California. Public utility commission uses with respect to their line charge. There was a lot of conversation about this definition where it got a little bit tricky. And I think some of the confusion was for most customers. It's pretty clear how many lines you have. But for business entities calling centers that might have the ability to distribute. Telephone calls to. Hundreds of people, but not all of those people can make a call and outbound call at the same time they're limited in the number of incoming or out. That's where it got a little bit confusing. And that's what's intended to be addressed to you. Yeah. I'm fine if there are no more questions on that section that took up a lot of time and reasons. But if there are concerns about it, it was the best attempt to try to capture what's intended here and also be mindful that there are some businesses that. You know, might not be equitable to charge for the number of lines within a business, especially if they can't all make a call at the same time. So, in terms of what an access line is under this proposal. It means a wire or wireless connection that provides voice. Telecommunication service to or from any device used by a customer. Regardless of technology that is associated with the 10 digit telephone number. Or other unique identifier and with a service location or place of primary use in Vermont that is capable of accessing the 911 system. So pretty much anytime you have a telephone number and you can make voice calls and you can access 911. That's what's going to be covered here, which is what I think most of you. Would expect to be covered for right. There is an exemption customer enrolled in the federal lifeline program or the format lifeline program or both is exempt from the charge. Established by this chapter. The total monies that are collected by the charge under this chapter. 17% so right now, about, you know, that 0.4% that's specifically designated to the board. So that's represents about 16.6% of the money raised. So this is specifying that 17% of the money raised shall go to the Vermont community broadband fund. It will be more and Ted's going to talk a little bit more about the money issues, but it will be more than they're getting now because you're raising more money. So it's 17% of a larger out of my. But I just wanted to clarify that there's still that. Transfer distribution of funds. So then. Section for that is specifying the 2.4% for prepaid wireless. Question from yes. Yes. The flow down the 1st 1 is E 911. Or no, that's the 4th one. So the 1st, it's the 1st that 17% right. Then the fiscal agent. Then relay service for hearing impaired. Then lifeline. Then 911. There is a proposal in here to add an additional program. The Vermont 988. Program. And follow up question. Is there any chance of. I mean, there have been ongoing challenges with. You know, making sure he 911 has. The funds needed. Is there any chance, even though I see that there's, you know, a few million dollar more from this, these proposed changes. Is there any chance that. That flow down will still mean that E 911 doesn't have what it's me. What it needs. That'd be great question confirmed with 911. I believe under this. On the revenue that's anticipated here. It's enough to fully fund them. Whether they're anticipating additional needs in the future that's that program growing and it will outlive this, you know. But as structured the chest structured and yeah, and Ted can speak a little more specifically to exactly how much money goes to each of those programs and. How much has been appropriated through the general fund over the years and that that was taken into consideration and setting this fee. To make sure that there wasn't a shortfall. Thank you. So that that was the intent of the Ways and Means Committee. That was a big part of the intent over the years looking at this fund, knowing that it didn't raise enough money to fully fund the programs. It was designed to fund. That's been an ongoing discussion. That's. Part of why Ways and Means is in updating the fee structures, making sure that. And so you can see actually in here, this is the priority list or the distribution list of the fund. You know, my 17 fiscal agent to relay service 3 lifeline. For 911. After that is the new program. Sorry, what page we on page 7. Oh, was that. Did I never share my screen where you had the table up, but not the bill should have told me that I am sorry. Usually do the screen. You don't. Okay. We look at it ourselves. So it's not a problem for us. I'm so sorry. I, the whole time I assume you're looking right. So, of course. So then it was fine. Okay. No, this is good to know. All right. Sorry. So I'm on page 7. And I'm just reading, you know, down the list of how the money is distributed to the various programs. And so you'll see the new program for Montenegro 98 suiciding crisis lifeline centers. That comes after 911 and at the very bottom is the connectivity fund. Which provides funding for connectivity. The connectivity initiative and the high cost program, basically broadband deployment. And right now the connectivity initiative is administered also. By the Vermont community broadband board. But I don't think there's any money in there and I'm going to quickly look at Ted. I don't know that any money actually trickles down or much money trickles down at this point under the current, but we can. Talk about that a little bit more. So, in terms of, so there's a new section here, specifically defining the Vermont 98 suicide and crisis lifeline. The money goes to the commissioner of mental health to fund the operational and capital costs. Of the lifeline centers, the suicide and crisis lifeline centers. Within annual limits approved in advance by the general assembly. I know Ted is going to talk a little bit more about how much money has been appropriated already. And there is anticipated loss of federal funding. So there'll be some discussion about what they're. Hoping to achieve to be fully funded. I just wanted to call out here that this is all subject to the general assemblies. Approval by appropriation. So that's it for the universal service fund. Are there any questions or things you'd like to go back and review. At this point. So, and I'll ask you, Maria, you know, since it's still there was any discussion about. The ACP replacement in this bill. So. The only new thing that we're adding here is the meeting. Only new program. Yep. You're changing the contribution method and adding 1 new program. ACP. No, actually, I can't, but it's the, it's a federal subsidy that was put in place. During COVID. Fortability that I believe is about $30 a month that is going away. And. It actually is a subject of. Great discussion on our half a billion dollar public bill that's happening right now, both between CUDs and. Vermont community broadband board. Affordable connectivity program. Thanks. Is there any other questions? And if Sims would be helpful to share a little context about the, why the 988. Was added and the address, maybe share other things we're doing about the affordable circuit. So part of the rationale here is. When people need help, one thing to pick up the phone and call the right place, and I think increasingly, I mean, but 98911 is sometimes the appropriate place to call for help, but. Sometimes 988 mental health and suicide crisis hotline is the other number that you might want to call and so given that this is a assessment of lay services people can make calls. I felt that there was a really kind of direct connection here between the fee and then the programs that are providing. Answering the phones and sending the appropriate support to folks into them. We are just in case it's helpful in the context of another bill. We're considering a streaming tax. Looking at. A study of my community broadband board. Study and report back to the legislature about establishing a broadband affordability. Program knowing that the center wants me to disappear and so. We have been having some of those conversations about the broadband affordability subsidy programs and needs in the future, but having a context of that different bill. So, yes, I would love to see our community has jurisdiction. Actually, ask that to sufficient. Any other questions on the universal service fund. Okay. So that brings us to page eight. Starting with section seven. And these are the property tax provisions applicable to communications property. That first section section seven repeals. Telephone personal property tax. And the alternative gross revenue tax, which is an existing alternative to the telephone personal property tax. These are the repeals. And I'm not going to go through this in detail, but it also provides some transition language for the department to prepare for. Next fiscal year when the money will start to be collected. And mostly. You know, I'm looking now it's online 18. So, because the new law does not go into effect until July 1st, 2025. This provision and subsection D would give authority to PBR, the division of property evaluation review. To collect from providers and inventory in the same way that they collect for electric utilities now so it references an existing statute and says in the meantime for next and next spring. You know, submit your inventories of your property. And then we can prepare our valuations. So that it can be put in the grant list so that again, just, I just wanted you to be aware that there were some transitional provisions, but the tax actually doesn't take. Effect until July 1st, 2025. So, page nine section eight. Section nine. These are really just conforming. Amendments to reflect the changes and references to the now repealed law. So I. Won't go into too much detail there. I'm going to now go to section 10. So. On page 10. This is kind of this is the main statute. And we'll go through the terms how they're defined and what the requirements are. So, subsection a all communications property shall be set in the grand list as real estate. Subsection B, and there's a definition for communications property and see what we'll get to in a moment communications property owned by a non municipal communications service provider shall be taxed at appraisal value. As defined in statute and that basically means fair market value. Again, this is very similar to how electric utilities electric utility property is taxed. And then so with the definition of communications property. It means tangible personal property used to enable real time to a electromagnetic transmission of information. So, it's not just audio video and data that is so fitted and attached as to be part of a local state national or international communications network. As well as facilities that are part of a cable television system. As defined in statute. So voice and broadband and cable television. Those networks, all of that infrastructure would fall within this definition and be subject to the same property tax laws. So just by way of example, yeah, sorry. Thank you. Thank you. So, will this affect in any way like the local access. Like, I don't know. Maybe I'm not here. Yeah, providers. No. I know they don't know in any. Okay. I was just curious because it mentioned a lot of stuff here. Yeah, for transmission. Yeah. So, yeah. Thank you, Madam chair. I know a select board member and I sit on the board of civil authority and we've looked at how to tax or how to assess equipment such as what is communication towers and such and other equipment that's listed. Yeah. How is, is there some guidance? There is. Yes. And that was a big concern. So. Yeah. So first, and then it's going to come right up in the next couple of subsections, but I did just want to go back so on line 12. I'm still on page 10. You know, just to clarify a little bit more about what type of property is encompassed here, wires, cables, conduit pipes, antennas, poles, wireless powers, machinery, distribution hubs, splitters, switching equipment, routers, servers, power equipment, and any other network equipment. So really trying to as much as possible, specifically identify the type of facilities that would be covered here. So then in subsection D. This specifies that honor before May 1 of each year, division of property evaluation review in the department of taxes to provide the listers in each municipality with the valuation of all taxable communications property. Of any communication service provider situated there in. As reported by the provider to the division. In terms of how that's reported. To the division and subdivision 2. I'm now on page 11 line 3. So before that may deadline. So honor before March 31 of each year. Each communications service provider shall submit to the division. A sworn inventory of all its taxable communications property. In a form that identifies evaluation of its property in each municipality. It goes on to specify that the division shall prescribe the form of the inventory required under subdivision 2. And the officer or officers who shall submit the sworn inventory. And then in subdivision for the valuations provided to the listers pursuant to this section shall be used by the listers in determining and fixing the value of communications property for the purposes property taxation. This is modeled to a great extent again on how electric utility property is taxed. There's an inventory that's submitted to the division. The division comes up with the valuations and provides those valuations to the listers. And I just add in terms of electric and I'm assuming the same in this case. It's standardized costs. They're not looking at both a line of. A line is worth so much more perfect in your town than it is in this time. It's pretty standard. Any other questions on this. Section 10. So, section 11 is just specifying this is the statutory definition of business personal property. So some communications property is taxed currently as business personal property, right? And some towns exempt business personal property from taxation. But this is just clarifying on page 12. That the definition does not include. Communications property taxable under section. The section we just reviewed, right? So there's no opportunity for a municipality to not tax the property. It's all subject to the tax that was identified that we just walked through. It's not considered business personal property. Then you'll recall that in that section 10, it applied to non municipal. Providers with respect to municipalities like CDs, they don't pay tax within their own territorial limits. However, I'm so I'm now at the very bottom of page 12. And actually, before I get to the new language on 21, I'm going to go up to existing law line 18. Which specifies that electric utility polls, lines and poll fixtures owned by a municipal utility. Line beyond its boundaries shall be taxed at appraisal value. Basically, fair market value. So what comes next, the new language again is very similar. So communications property. As it's defined, what we read through owned by municipalities such as a CD. Line beyond its boundaries shall be taxed at their market value. So section 13 is a one time appropriation. In fiscal year 2025 of $150,000 from the general fund to the division of property evaluation and review for the creation of a property evaluation model for communications property. So, an ask by the department to help them develop the model. And that's it for the property tax sections. So that brings us to page 13. Section 14, which starts on line 11. And this is these are amendments to the statute that is representative Sims mentioned statutes. This has been around since 1997, but it was updated in 2007. With respect to broadband and wireless. And that is in subsection B. So if you go down so that and that's where all the changes occur. So on page 14 line for. So this subsection be under current law. Is specific to broadband providers of broadband or wireless communications facilities. So what this says is that the agency shall collect a reasonable charge with respect to leases or licenses for access to or use of state own rights of way within the agencies. Agency of transportation jurisdiction. And this provision, there is a waiver provision in current law, the agency may waive the charge the right of way P and whole or impart. I'm actually just, I just want you to be familiar with existing law before talking about the amendment. So I'm actually looking at line 11, which, which is now shown up shown a stricken language. The agency may waive such charge or payment in whole or impart if the provider offers to provide comparable value to the state. So as to meet the public good as determined by the agency and the department of public service. The purposes of the section the term comparable value to the state shall be construed broadly to further the state's interest in ubiquitous broadband and wireless service availability at reasonable cost. Any waiver of charges or payments for comparable value to the state granted by the agency may not exceed 5 years. There after the agency may extend any waiver granted for an additional period, not to exceed 5 years. If the agency makes affirmative written findings. Demonstrating that the state has received and will continue to receive value that is comparable to the value to the provider. Of the waiver or may revise the terms of the waiver in order to do so. So I just want you to be familiar with current law. And as was explained, the fees have never been collected. And you're probably familiar with the auditor did do some research and there is a memo. That's kind of describes the auditor's attempt to figure out what's been happening what's going on and apparently there were some attempts to come up with comparable value. Anyway, I just wanted to know that that's out there, but so the purpose of the amendments here. Are basically to ask the agency or require the agency to begin collecting the fees. So, going back now to line 4 on page 14. Not withstanding any other provision of law to the contrary. And unless otherwise required by federal law. Beginning on or before October 1st of this year. The agency shall annually assess collect and deposit into the transportation fund. The agency will be able to provide reasonable charge with respect to leases or licenses. For access to or use a state owned rights of way. By communications service providers. For communications property. Has defined in title 32. So the definition of communications property that we reviewed for purposes of the property tax section is the same definition here. If it's in the state owned rights of way. Is subject to and as part of a lease or license. For use of that right of way is now subject to the charge. On page 15, you'll see line 3 subdivision to. There is a definition for what constitutes a reasonable charge under this section. So for wireless communications facilities. These can be antennas, small cell facilities on a telephone pole. For example. The charge is $270 again annually. For each wireless communications facility. And then with respect to communications. Cables or lines or wires DSL fiber or coaxial cable. There's a per linear foot fee. And then you'll see lines 7 through 10. There's a tiered approach and the charge. Starts at 0.02 cents for counties that have. Less than 25,000. People residing in those counties and then it goes up for based on the size of the county. So. You'll see Roman numeral to 0.07 cents in a county that has a population of at least 25,000, but less, but fewer than 100,000. And then. For the largest counties in the state. It's a 13 cent charge for linear foot. There are. Yeah. Um, these fees are in statute. What is the, the process be for making adjustments in the future? So, there are, there are a couple of provisions here. Well, 1, it gives the secretary and we haven't gotten there yet, but there's, there's a provision that says this secretary can adjust the fees based on changes in inflation. Up or down based on the CPI consumer price. And then there's also language that says. That authorizes the secretary to propose for approval by the general assembly standards and procedures for waiving the fees required by this subsection. So, it would have to come back to the legislature in form of recommendation. There's no other that typically end up being in the fee bill on an ongoing basis. Typically, yeah, it would be, it would be in the fee bill, but it could be through any legislative enactment. But I did, I just do want to go back because there are some exemptions. And I think representative Sims talked about that in her presentation. So I'm on page 15. Line 11. So the charge required by this subsection shall not apply to communications property owned by. CD. A small communications carrier as defined in title 30. That's the definition. That's used with respect to broadband grants, but it's not communications broadband board. Those are eligible entities. Those smaller providers are eligible to get grants to build out broadband. So those small communications carriers. Are not subject to the right of way to be here. In addition. And this is also similar to language. And I think representative Sims talked about this. Any internet service provider. So any private provider. That qualifies as an eligible provider. Under the broadband grant programs. And so those would be any providers that are working with a CD to build out broadband as part of a universal service plan. Right. If you established the marketing broadband board. You established a grant program. You defined who's eligible to apply for that grant money. And with respect to larger internet service providers, they're eligible. If they're working with a CD. To build out in unserved and underserved locations. And that all has to be overseen and certified by the board. And so a license to access the right of way. Is part of a universal service plan that. For that portion of the right of way would not be subject to the charge here. Does that make sense. And you, you'll probably hear more about this section in terms of. I would imagine there are leases that cover both unserved and serve areas and how that maybe should be further defined or clarified in those situations. It's. Anyway, I wanted you to understand kind of what the. Intent was with the understanding there might be some. Nuances are tweaking. Yeah, ma'am chair. What was. So with line 13 on page 15, a communication union district would be except. Why would they single out at privates would or not. So it's really a policy choice. They're municipalities. And just like municipal, I mean, municipalities get, you know, they don't. I'll pay taxes. They don't pay taxes. They don't pay. You know, so it's a, it's really a policy choice. And it's, you know, looking at their status as nonprofits. You know, basically building on areas that are underserved, that's the reason for their existence in many cases. And so. Just trying to facilitate. The work that they're doing in underserved and unserved areas, but it's, it's a policy choice. Thank you. Yeah, I forgotten that their municipalities. So there is 1 more exception. I'm on page 16 line 1 subdivision D. A cable television service provider provided the properties part of a cable television system subject. So, to a certificate of public good issued by the PUC. So part of the reason why they are exempted from this right away fee is. Cable television providers right now pay a franchise fee of 5% of their. Cable television gross revenue. This is something that's been going on for many, many decades. That franchise fee. Is intended to cover several things, but. Use of the right away is 1 of them. So it's kind of folded into this. You want to provide service. You need to pay a franchise fee. It can be up to 5% under federal law. And that will cover you can't be charged right away fee in addition to that or above the 5%. So, in Vermont. That 5 the revenue that's raised by that 5% of. Television cable television revenue. Is all all those to the peg access companies. Right so, but it doesn't do the right of access to right away. So that was the intent here. To exempt them from this right away charge. With the understanding they're paying a franchise fee of 5% of their gross. So subdivision floor. I've talked about this already. This is the provision that allows the secretary to adjust the fees to account for inflationary changes as measured by the CPI. And then 5 we talked about. If the secretary has a proposal for. Waving the fees to bring that back for legislative approval. Julia under the. Exemptions. Is there some reason Velco is not exempted here. What that didn't come up for committee. Discussion generally I know there are some concerns so that's really a policy choice. Velco is a transmission utility statewide transmission utility. They have a large fiber network that they use for grid management. The distribution utilities also. Have fiber networks in some cases wireless facilities that relate primarily to management of the grid. So, I would say that's a policy question. If you would like to specifically exempt their communications. Property. Do you know if there was testimony taken from the utilities or go on. I don't think that they tested. And I did. Electric companies electric utilities don't pay right away fees recurring right away fees for their electric. Infrastructure their poles and wires that are part of the power grid. They're not paying that now. They're not required to do that now. So your question is should they pay for their communications. Facilities. Because under this definition. It's true to be a communications provider. So the question is, do you want them to be exempt. Because I don't think it's actually clear, but I understand that that's. Yeah, I don't think it's. Yeah. Yeah. And it's a big part of our energy transition. So then I do. And I have heard from Velco. This about the exemption, but because there was no testimony, you know, I'm also curious about the. Utilities as well. So, then I am now on page 16 at the very bottom of the page representative. Sorry, I need to. All right. Thanks. So actually as a follow up, and this might not be for you. This might be for. Like fiscal, the estimated revenue changes. Did that incorporate what. Like those additions, does it incorporate what would be. Obtained from distribution utilities and Velco. That is a great question, but yeah, you do want to talk about that now, or do you want to talk about some of the issues related to the fiscal. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. On this piece, we weren't able to forecast the revenue. The revenue impact of this provision simply because there are. So many exemptions and it's unclear currently who is. In the right of way, how many providers are utilizing each. Right away and. Yeah, so that we just simply don't have enough information to get a number and wouldn't be able to get to the specific. Subsection. Subsection. Subsection. Subsection. Subsection. Subsection. Subsection. It will raise money. We know that. So we know it will go. It will raise money. But, but related to that. Trying to get a better understanding and inventory of what's out there. So subsection E. On line 18. Yeah. Sebelia. To that end. So that's why we might want to have a better idea of what's out there, but what is the reason that. Certainly less. Well, specifically with respect to implementing this. Section of law. You know, I think the agency said that they're not really, they don't have a good grasp. On the infrastructure that's out there where it is. So. I think that's part of the issue of. You know, trying to enable them. To understand better who's using their right of way. What's their. And for their own management of the right of way and for collection of the feet once they start collecting it. So. So, you know, I know that there's a study a little further down on this, but I think it's on the same kind of it's on the same topic. So over the years. There's been. I've heard a number of folks express desire to understand. You know, what. Our fiber is where Velcos fiber is where other. State agencies fiber is particularly in the rights of way. And. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but one of the big concerns. That I have also heard. And I share is around security. And especially since, you know, I'm hearing. We. You just have transportation doesn't know what's in there right away. You know, we're asking for an inventory. So, you know, as you're going through this. I'm really interested in what. What privacy or confidentiality. Aspects are have been envisioned in terms of what is found. In the right of way or. What is possible. Yep. So that, that's a great point. So let's kind of address them in order. If we can, let's just. Because we'll talk first about the inventory that the providers need to. Provide to the department of the agency. And then the next subsection is the report back to the legislature. The information that's provided to you. So in subsection beginning January 1st of next year. And annually thereafter, the holder of a lease or license pursuant to subsection B. Of this section shall provide a detailed inventory of all the property in the state right of way. Pursuant to such lease or license. The inventory shall include the regulatory status of the lease or license folder. In the right of way. And the description of the service or services enabled. By such property as applicable. So it's voice. Broadband. Table television. So that's what will be submitted annually to. To the agency of transportation. Yes. And if it doesn't say that. It should. And I don't think it does say that now that you asked that question. So yeah. We have access to that information. So. That is a good question. I think your point about whether this is critical infrastructure. And whether it should be publicly available as a valid point. I think it's an open question in the state that we haven't really. Nailed down yet at this point. You know, we have some private providers. Yeah. Maybe there that I would consider a critical infrastructure though. The two things. These inventories that go to the agency. And. You're just pointing out that it should say. Very specifically that the inventories go to the agency. They go to the agency. Whether the agency publicly discloses it is another conversation. Of a good. Question, right? But that's, but. There's no reason why the providers can't provide the agency. The information. Even if it's. Kept confidential. Not publicly. So. And my question is around the ability to keep it. Confidential. So we have the public advocates who have been looking for this information for a long time. So is it, you know, is that. It would be subject to the same. You know, the same exemptions or, you know. The public records act. So. However, that information is treated now. Those rules are not. Changed here. So if it was critical infrastructure, is that something that would be able to be kept confidential? You know. On my head. I don't know what, you know. But what is public? What's reported back to you is. An aggregated statewide inventory. So not by provider. Whether it's a detailed map. So. You know, it's kind of left to the agency to determine. In some sense, how best to aggregate. It could be an itemization of a number of facility. You know, I think that's a, it's a good question. How do you want to see that? And maybe a conversation with the agency about. What they feel. Should be publicly. Here. Could help us understand. So I'm specifically concerned about how. The public access to this information. So, you know, appeal to, to have this information. Who could help us understand how to. Think about what is, what should be. Credit flow infrastructure, what should be protected. And is there anything that is, I guess. Actually, I see the departments here. So the department. Maybe has. The agency department. Yeah. Because they do some mapping and information that you see his data. You know. To some extent. Some degree it's a policy choice. And it's also informed by. What are the consequences of sharing information? And there are some federal. Parameters that you can look at, you know, to determine. There's a lot of property that's covered here. So I don't know if there's a broad that applies to each. Provider in each category of property. And so I'm a little hesitant to say. See what's up. Yeah. Yeah. So just with respect to that report back. Just wanted to read through one subsection F. So beginning on January 1st. Of 2026. And annually thereafter, the agency shall submit a written report to the general center. Itemizing all charges and payments collected under this section. As well as an aggregated statewide inventory of the communications property. Described in subsection E. And the statewide inventory shall be shared with the commissioner of taxes. The commissioner of public service and the secretary of administration. One of the things. And again, just. Trying. These are all entities that use this information or parts of this information and trying to. Make sure that it's. Consistent. And shared. As needed. The secretary of administration. Part of why the secretary was referenced here is because in statutes, the secretary oversees leases and licenses licenses to wireless facilities on state lands or state buildings. However, and I actually didn't know this until a week ago. Secretary of digital services. Now it takes over that responsibility. So that might be something to clarify in statute. That might be something to clarify. That statute, because it isn't obvious unless you're looking under the secretary of digital services responsibilities. And anyway, I just wanted to know why secretary of administration was referenced here. And why it might need to be the secretary of digital services instead. I hope that makes sense. But. There's a lot of. Covered here and just trying to make sure all the laws are consistent. And definitions and everything throughout the titles. So the agency did recommend two new positions. To help implement this section. One temporary full-time position and one permanent full-time position. And so that's what you'll see in section 16, which is on page 17. And there's an appropriation. To fund those positions from the general fund. $250,000. This will your 2025. And so I also just wanted to quickly go through the effective dates. So the act takes effect this July. However. The universal service fund and the change in the contribution. Method. Does not occur until July 1st of next year. The. Remember, we talked about the property tax, the transitional pieces. Those would take place right now. And then the actual new property tax, the assessment or the, the application of that new tax would take effect next year. And that's it. So one more, but there's not. Thank you for that. Do you have any more immediate questions? Just. Only because I, Maria, can you stay with us? Sure. Our next witness has a timeline. Sure. Thank you. Hello. For the record, Tabarnett joint fiscal office. I'm going to share my screen so I can. Run through the fiscal note that is also on the committee webpage from what I understand. I'm going to start and talk in very general terms about the three discreet pieces of the bill and their revenue impacts. Starting with the 72 cent monthly per line charge. That would go to the universal service fund. We're estimating that that line charge would generate almost $8 million of which 3 million is additional. Annual revenue compared to the current 2.4%. Retail telecommunications charge. And that goes to the Vermont. Universal service fund. For the next piece, which is the repeal of the telephone personal property tax. And the associated transition mechanism. We're anticipating a 2 million per line charge. We're estimating that that line charge would generate almost 8 million dollars of which 3 million is additional annual revenue loss. We're anticipating a 2 million dollar annual revenue loss from that text type. We'll note that. The general fund is backfilling. The gap in current revenues for and providing appropriations to E 9 1 1. So this revenue loss can be kind of thought of as it's being slightly adjusted by that. So we're estimating that. We're estimating that for general fund dollars. The inclusion of communications property on the grand list. We're forecasting 2.5 to $5 million in annual revenue. From that piece. And that revenue would flow to the education fund as non homestead property taxes. And then finally, as mentioned earlier. Just not able to estimate. So that's a general look from the state right away fee. There's just too many unknowns. Within that. So those are the general, that's a general look in addition to those revenue impacts. There is a 1 time $150,000 appropriation PBR to implement or to build a property valuation model for communications property. And then section 16 also are authorized to positions and appropriation and fiscal year 25 to the agency of transportation. And so this next table shows where these different revenue impacts hit different funds within the state fiscal landscape. The education fund would see 2.5 from $5 million of additional revenue starting in fiscal year 26. The general fund would use $2 million starting in fiscal year 26. The transportation fund would see that's like positive revenue. And the universal service fund starting in fiscal year 26 would see 3 million additional dollars at the current level. Senator Smith. Thank you. I'm all confused. And believe it or not. I understood that from representative Sims. That there were there are going to be no additional fees or expenses to this. And I see that by read by dropping the universal fund, you lose $2 million. But the 72 cent monthly charges is going to generate 7.96 million. So that doesn't sound like a break even point to me. It sounds like there's additional charges being spent by consumers. My right or wrong. So the way I would think about that is first taking the universal service fund piece and currently that revenue type is raising around $5 million. And so the idea is to repeal that because it currently isn't providing enough resources for the available uses in the fund and replacing that with the monthly per line charge. And so this is to keep it to make all the entities within that fund whole with a new revenue type that's more stable and will grow over time is compared to the current 2.4 percent charge that is based on is on a declining base. So somebody out there in the state of Vermont will be paying more money for something aren't that to generate more revenue. So. On net. Wireless providers would see a slight increase in their monthly bills for the monthly charge compared to the current proportional charge in landline consumers would see a slight reduction just because of the way this has to be the way the current proportional charges levied on voice services only. It looks to me like 7.96 million. And 2.5 million is about. Little over 10 million if I'm figuring that right. So that's additional money that's going to be made my correct. Yes. And that has to be weighed. Against repealing. The either the current 2.4 percent charge. And the telephone personal property tax so. Some things are being added some things are being taken away. And so the $10 in additional or the $10 in revenue is balanced by also repealing different sources. Okay. Thank you. To go in a little more detail into the Vermont universal service fund. Did a little analysis between current law and how. The allocations within the new proposed funding structure would work in this is shown in the table. Presented here. In FY 23. The 2.4 percent charge generated just I have $5 million. And that would generate almost $800,000. The fiscal agent. $100,000 TRS $60,000. Lifeline $150,000. And you know, one 3.8 million. By moving to a per line charge on. Postpaid consumers and landline folks and retaining the 2.4 percent of prepaid wireless. That would generate almost 8 million. The VCBB would see a slight increase because they're looking at the amount of revenues within the universal service fund. So their revenue piece would, or their funding would increase to $1.35 million. The fiscal agent would see a little bit more. They're administering a larger fund. And yes. A little couple hundred thousand for TRS or a telephone relay and lifeline. And then E 911 is estimated kind of growing their revenue. The fiscal year. The fiscal year. 25 request. Of 5 million to 5.1 million in fiscal year. 26. And then 988. Would have up to a million dollars within the fund. We did not forecast a specific amount for 988, because their services are growing. They currently have federal grants. And it's unclear by fiscal year 26. In the the waterfall structure, they would have up to a million dollars before the fund funds out of money and the connectivity fund receive any balances that are left over from those uses. So, I am wondering about the. So, the fiscal agents getting an increase and if I'm right, they're getting. 10% of. 10 million dollars, they are getting closer to 1. 1, 3, 0.1, 30. Yes, so that's 130,000 and that's just a forecast based on, I believe the fiscal agent services are contracted through on the department of public service. And so these numbers are presented kind of for guidance as an estimate of what the fund might look like. The money goes to the department of public service. Does it go to a private entity? So, the fiscal agent is Solix and they're the 1 to collect and then. We met funds and the amount they retain for administrative expenses depends on that contract. Representative Sims, this is a double check with the department, whether this current fiscal construct is a preference or whether they would want to take this and have some feedback that received from the department was that. They're happy with this arrangement that might be more expensive to the house. And is it along lines of 100,000 dollars right now? Yes, I'm sorry. Yeah, absolutely. Perhaps my math is. As great as it should be, but it appears everyone is going up except the lifeline. Yes, and again, these are estimates. These are not. Appropriations, the reason lifeline is forecasted decrease is. It's based on the amount of people who apply for lifeline credits and that's a $4 and 25 cent per month. Discount on voice services and so as the base of folks who are. Getting support for their landline services decreases. There are fewer people who receive support for those. I wonder if there's actually just had someone contact me who has. Tonight us and voice over IP and. So, a really problematic for them. Interesting, so I wonder if they would qualify for lifeline is. He's going to understand. I'm just, I think, an important thing to know you've said this a couple of times, but it's sort of. Not integrated right here that 3.8 for 911 is not sufficiently met the demands for that program. And so we have been back selling that with general fund. And so, yeah, there's a sort of savings of general funds. It's a misdirection to stabilize. Base so moving. Along so the rest of the fiscal note is detail around the various fiscal estimates that are included. I will note that particularly for taxing communications properties, real estate, the estimate of 2.5 to 5 million. Is is based on the amount of communications property that is currently shown in states that centrally assess this this equipment. And so, and we're scaled down to Vermont. So, we don't have a currently, we don't have an inventory of this type of property. So, it is based on the experiences of other states. Yes, and I did want to present this table in. For that would provide some background for right away fees. This is showing that the amount of miles of state right away that are contained in different the different tiers. Of charge per foot of usage of the state right away. The amount of mileage in counties with population that's less than 25,000 people. Is is fairly limited. It's only 166 miles the bulk of that mileage occurs in this middle tier that's 7 cents per foot. And that's for in counties with population greater than 25,000 and less than 100,000 and that's 2,367 miles. And then the counties with population more than 100,000 that's in county and it has a hundred and 74 and a half miles of state right away. But what I wanted to provide that is as context, but again, there's not enough information to really understand how much of that right away within each tier is being utilized and and by how many different. So, that brings me to the end of the fiscal note. I'm happy to answer. Any questions. First, I have questions. I'm a fiscal note. Yeah. I don't think the fiscal note deals with the security issues that I was saying earlier. So. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Let's go to the next witnesses and then bring it back. So, um, Dylan's wiki. Thank you very much Dylan's wiki with Lee and I'm public affairs here today on behalf of New England connectivity and telecommunications association and that is the regional. Trade group representing predominantly the private telecommunications providers cable companies. Here in Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island. And Massachusetts. Happy to talk to you about each 657. There are a number of provisions in the bill that you might imagine do impact a number of companies and their customers. We did have the opportunity to weigh in with the ways the means committee and our appreciate of a number of the changes that they made to the bill that we think. Help relative to the bill is introduced in terms of operate operationalizing some of the. Proposed changes in age 657. The bill would have a cost both the companies and our customers here in Vermont. So, just take the opportunity to kind of highlight how that will play out for them. With respect to the change to a property tax mechanism that would change how property taxes are assessed and paid by cable operators. And other communications providers in the state are member companies currently pay property taxes to municipalities on real property. So. Buildings and land and business personal property on cable fiber and other facilities in municipalities that assess business person property. The property tax rates do vary as they're set by different cities and towns in terms of where that infrastructure is located. This bill creates a new definition of communications property and will now treat all communications property. Telecom wireless cable so on and so forth as real property instead of first business personal property and the valuation will be done centrally and a state level. So, we're neutral on the shift to a statewide assessment and believe the ways means committee did some good work in terms of ensuring clarity. There and ensuring competitive neutrality across different types of providers to be clear. This will represent an increase in the cost of. Deploying and operating broadband networks in Vermont, but because it is done in a, and if I think a competitively neutral way, we don't feel strongly about that shift. Uh, second, the change made to moving to a per line assessment will. Result in an increase to customer bills that is at the end of the day, a charge that is paid by customers. Um, but we appreciate some of the technical changes that the ways it means committee made in terms of providing a very clear definition of line. As you heard from council. It's really important to. Determine which, you know, there are larger businesses that may have multiple lines, not all of which are capable of accessing 911 or or down simultaneously. So that definition of. Line is really important and think it's in pretty good shape coming out of ways and means committee. With respect to the right of way fee, we appreciate the ways and means committee's recognition that. Cable operators currently pay that 5% franchise fee as represents and your council noted all that money currently goes to Vermont's public access stations. It's somewhere in the order of 6 to 7 million dollars annually that goes to fund a variety of different operations. And finally earlier versions of the bill did include some what we would consider to be very problematic provisions. Thankfully, the committee was receptive to testimony from that and other stakeholders and feel like. By striking some of those provisions, the bill is in is a much better place. So, in summary, the changes included in 657 will results in increased costs to both table operators, communications providers, and their customers in Vermont. But because of the work that the ways and means committee did do in terms of some of that technical aspects and feel that it is easier for us to operationalize some of the changes that would not go into effect if if 657 were to be enacted into law. Questions. Now, on this aspect. I have other questions for the witness, if that's possible. I think it's fine if the witness is okay with that. So, I believe that you have another client. Actually, is it appropriate to ask you. About GMP. Yeah, let me take this hat on. Put the other hat on. Sure. So, just related to the question or the discussion we were having around what is in and in the right of way in terms of fiber and. Inventory and we've heard from Velco, the electric utilities, the fiber. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate that there is some level of ambiguity there and also that. We don't understand that the intent of the ways and means committee is to assess. Electric utilities distribution or transmission or otherwise. And so, if it would provide the committee and other stakeholders with some additional comfort to to the list of exemptions electric distribution and transmission utilities. I think that would be the clearest. Possible path. There's 2 things. There's 2 things that are going on here. 1 is fees. And the other is collection of information and the thing to be really clear that I'm most concerned about is the 2nd. Collection and then access to that information and I appreciate and I'm very sensitive to the utilities on the 1st. Part, so I think if that was not the intent of the ways means committee, it would be good to have intent language there, but around. Security issue, I would definitely be interested hearing more from the utilities about and the department about how widely that information is currently shared. If there are any concerns, we're sharing that information. If it's already information that's known. If we're creating a new. Yeah, I just think it'd be good to understand what the current status is in terms of public access to that knowledge where it's well, since we're proposing to collect more specifically with utilities. Yep, happy to follow up with more information there. I do know that there are a variety of different federal agencies that govern, govern. Kind of what information is shared that might be. Subject to potential public threats, I know we deal with that on a regular basis and so. Um, certainly would want would not want to be in a position of being required by state statute to share information that could put some of that critical infrastructure at risk. And so that it sounds like perhaps it will be an easy answer to the rest of there's federal. In which that prevents that from being shared just understood that it would be good to understand. I think we need to understand. I can follow up with more information to the department probably. Thank you. Thank you. Finding us on zoom. Jeremy Crandall. Yes, good afternoon. Can you hear me okay? Again. Great chair, Sheldon vice chair, civilian members of the committee. My name is Jeremy Crandall. I'm testifying today on behalf of CTI a trade association for the wireless industry in opposition to the house bill 657 before you. I did testify before your committee last year as well. So it's good to be talking to you all. I appreciate the opportunity, especially to present remotely here today. I'm going to separate my testimony into 2 parts and also keep it relatively brief here. First, on the issue of taxes by virtue of the name of this bill, it is of course focused heavily and centrally on the communications industry. We do encourage you to weigh the potential impacts of the tax components related to universal service fund change. We do feel this change will shift more of the burden to low and moderate income families with family share wireless plans because of how wireless pricing plans are structured. And so we would very much encourage you to think about that element related to taxing the personal property of wireless providers as real property. Like all businesses, wireless providers pay property taxes on any real property that they own. We think that approach should continue. I will just I'm going to I'm going to stop there on taxes. More specific details about the impacts of these changes are in my written testimony that you all have. My colleague Scott Mackey who does a lot of work in your state. I know he has spoken on the tax elements as well. The 2nd piece that I really want to encourage this committee to take a closer look at before taking action and you all have had a discussion about it here today. Is this provision in the bill requiring our providers to quote to provide quote a detailed inventory of all property in the state right of way. This is as the council noted this is on section 14. This is section 14 on pages 16 and 17 1st we feel this is redundant with already existing state government processes required under Vermont state law in the manner in which the state of collection is outlined is substantially vague and unclear to our members. It is our understanding and again the council did reference this, but it is our understanding the current state law already designates the secretary of administration as the exclusive licensing and leasing agent for wireless facilities on state property including state roads and that's under section 227. B and so as such the secretary should already have all the leasing and licensing licensing information necessary for this information collection we're talking about. This also includes for any small sites authorized under the state's 248 a siting process the department and the PUC should have this information as well. So beyond who is collecting or already has collected that information. The bill is also vague in general about the data collection itself. And so, for example, how do you we define a type of if and I mean us on the provider side. How do we define a type of communications property or a description of service. I will just say going even further leaving to the side what our members are already doing related to Vermont section 227 be the bill is drafted and I just want to walk through this or describe this. It would require members to collect information on wires cables conduit pipes and tennis. Wireless towers machinery distribution hubs splitters switching equipment routers servers power equipment and any other network equipment. That is a pretty substantial list. And so, given that there is a construct that already exists in state law around this issue. In the ambiguity around the data collection under under 220 between 227 be and what the bill is prescribing. We would oppose this provision is currently drafted and so I will pause there. Happy to answer any questions. Sure. Thanks for joining us on short notice. Can you just Edify us a little further about your members are Yes, I'd be happy to. So again, we represent the wireless industry. Our core members in Vermont include a TNT T mobile US cellular Verizon dish American tower and then we also represent around 200 or so other Important players or industry, excuse me, entities within the wireless industry. So Apple and Samsung or examples of non carriers, if you will, that we represent as well, but I'd be happy to share the larger list with you all. Thanks. That gives us a good idea. And I'm curious that it sounds like a long list of things you'd inventory, but I would assume those businesses would know their assets and that it wouldn't be that cumbersome for them to Share those. Yeah, so that's a that's a very fair question. The key here what I really want to emphasize and and I will be extremely candid with you all this, you know, this bill, you know, was in the other committee as well, this change in Section 14 specifically this data collection came along a bit more quickly. And so we have been, you know, trying to analyze this quickly as we can. What I really want to emphasize the concern is that if there is already a construct in state law that let's not create a entirely separate one that very well may be different. And so I'm in the process of collecting more information about your question. How much data do we have as it relates to that list that I described. But the key here is let's let's not do two things when one already exists. Do you members have questions? All right. Thank you for your testimony today. Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate you having me. You want to have Maria? Uh, I mean, I could. It's um, That's a little hard actually about how we're currently Oh, Maria is still here. Yeah Representative Pat. I just uh Trying I would like a little bit of a sense of what our committee's role is in this as opposed to the other committee. Yeah, I mean, I think we're kind of finding our way. So we're the policy committee and they're the money committee in this bill is um between us, it's You know, both and I think Representative Sibilius identified a policy area that she's interested in And you have some that you're concerned about No, no, I mean, I'm just I mean, there's there's a The other committee did a lot of work obviously on the rev on the revenue side without Getting into whether we I like one thing or another in it And uh, so I'm just I'm just wondering my my gut sense is We should define what are we should understand what our role is here and what their purview was, you know So we're not Sort of getting wires crossed I guess So to speak if I if I can make that was intended as a fund Well, they're the money committee and we're the policy committee and it's not always clear So We're getting the overview today and if members have policy concerns, we should bring them forward Representative Sibilius. Yes, just to um Representative Pat's question. I think what this bill largely is is Changing the usf without making a lot of policy changes With things but but the right of way I think is um, not that So that is different and that is Somebody I think we need to understand her See how strongly they feel about keeping it in. Yep Okay With that the bell is about to ring or is ringing So ma'am chair, can we I I would like to hear at least from the department. I think I believe Maria and it sounds like it may be that this is Possibility this is not a big issue, but I don't think there's a lot of testimony taking so there's also a possibility that I would say a talk about I need to go to the manual I don't know if everybody heard you Got it we will so the floor may be short and if the floor is short We will be you can come back to committee and see if we can finish this up and get the department in So adds up for that and If it's ambiguous, I'll make an announcement If that were adjourned