 Good morning, everybody. This is House Wednesday. We're having a slightly late start this morning, but we are all here, almost all here on age 556. Representative back is going to join us a little later that he should be in before we finished and want to welcome. I'm going to turn the floor over to you. I introduce yourself for the record and then tell us about the bills. I'm Representative Catherine Sims, and I'm from Baxbury, and I am really grateful for the opportunity to be here with you all to talk about age 56 and as relating to exempting property owned by Vermont recognized tribes from property tax. I introduced this bill and pressure with the tribes and my co-sponsors to recognize that Vermont lands are the historic and current territories of a lot of people and the stewardship of these lands was removed from the avidaki when the Europeans made Vermont a state. 1791 and before a taxing structure existed. So if passed the property tax exemption would apply to property owned by a tribe or an associated nonprofit, provided that the personal was used for tribal purposes, and it wasn't least rented for profit. And the property would be exempt from both municipal property tax and the statewide education property tax. And, you know, while many of the tribes have nonprofit status, they could use to seek exemption. So this bill I think is an important step to recognize the sovereignty of the avidaki. And my understanding is the exemption would currently apply to four parcels in Vermont. And I believe that it would have a diminutive impact. The development of this bill has been a collaboration with the four tribes and the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs and I'm glad that as I've been here and he can speak. So this bill is a good process and the native perspective of this bill. Personally, I see this is a really important next step, following up on the eugenics apology of last year and the free access to hunting and fishing rights of the previous session. So this is the opportunity to talk to you all about it. I'd be happy to answer any questions now. Do you can you tell us where the properties are you say there's four. Right. So there, there are four existing parcels that are either owned by the recognize tribes or nonprofits. So one is in Barton. The other one is down in the broader area. The only parcel of art in one of them. And there's a swatney property owned by Francisco and then Brunswick Springs. Brunswick Springs is the first. Oh, okay. Okay. Where is Brunswick Springs. Thank you for asking. I think in the far corners of the Northeast. Yeah, that's where Brunswick is right. And those four parcels represent the sort of diversity of ownership to our own tribe itself and it's just quite parcel and property is held by Vermont land trust. This is the tribe and the property is held by the nonprofit for the benefit. Okay, another question. Yeah. Acreage numbers at all for these properties. I believe in aggregate it's about 150 acres. They range from very small parcels. Pretty, pretty modest. Yeah. How about the dollar figure. So you don't have a JFO yet, but my understanding is that it's roughly $11,000. Yeah, but so, but we need to know what the municipal impact is as well. So we'll get a fiscal note if we decide to move back on the bill. But they don't, they don't do it until we fast forward. So. Let's say that anyone else. Yeah. Representative Odie had a question. Thank you. So would you welcome, would you also be asking for not to have to pay property and move of tax payments similar taxes on those things. Yeah, so the, the intent or effort of the bill is to recognize the sovereignty of the community tribes and their stewardship of these lands before we had the taxing structure. So the principle here is not taxing land held by our indigenous community. Do you think the indigenous community might decide to buy more land. I think that's a great question for the affected community. Yeah, thanks for coming in. You have and I spoke in a little bit over the phone and also I spoke to Mr. Ben on the phone also. I don't know 10 days ago or something to that effect. And I'm completely comfortable with the concept I think it's a great idea. I'm not sure if the committee would want to put some, some guardrails or something about it I can imagine a tribe obtaining a thousand acres and doing who knows what with it. Not that I suspect that that'll happen anytime soon. But down the road who knows what happens and so. The existing lands are more than that. I think it's fine idea. I'm just wondering generally what this committee does is to look into the limits or the, you know, impact over time of something and so I just raise that for the committee as a something to ponder as we work our way through. And wrestling with those important questions. Thank you for your testimony this morning, representative, the, the four parcels or the four towns that you mentioned are those property that are owned by the tribes in all four cases or since there's also the possibility of just looking at the language here, the nonprofit organization that's organized for the purpose. So, as I mentioned, the swan property is the quarters for the sixth way. And that is. The property, for example, is owned by Abenaki, helping Abenaki and nonprofit. So that represents two different approaches right now. Specifically for the purposes of tribal purposes where the swan property is owned by the tribes. What about the other two. I believe runs with springs is also quite although they're being processed as transferring that to their nonprofit. And the only parcel in Brattleboro I believe is currently held actually by the front land trust on behalf of recognizing that from many of the having funds to cover property taxes is a burden and limits the ability to double parcels. So just, I mean I know it's 150 acres and small so small amount to begin with some of it either currently is or could be exempt because of the nonprofit status of the owner of that. So, as mentioned in the direction I think many of the tribes have the ability to potentially seek tax exempt status for the process of backup now. And yet this feels at least to me like an important effort to recognize the sovereignty of Abenaki. I think it's also very exciting that you know it right now, so that's a conversation it's a town by town conversation where one might one town might choose to grant that exemption and I might not, which doesn't in my view lead to sort of equity in terms of treatment of a sovereign. I think I appreciate that point to just out of curiosity are there other states that currently have an exemption like this. I'm happy to ask NCLS look into that for us. Thank you. I'm sorry. Had this land been in the hands of these tribes since before 1791. I don't know the histories of the individual parcels. I know that the parking property which is near me was something recently purchased by the thing that said again, I think, originally all of this land was stewarded by the Abenaki so how do you look at ownership and access the land. Thank you so much. One more. The $11,000 figure I know we're going to get. This is pretty low. So I'm assuming there's probably not a whole lot of development, if any, if there's any building. Again, probably a big question for those. I'm not understanding those parcels now but my understanding is that the Swann property is the headquarters. But in Barton, it's completely undeveloped land at the end of the class four road. That only parcel. I think it's a small sacred site. I'm having trouble hearing it because of the blower so I'm sorry the mask. I think I got it all just it. The building and otherwise either small parcels or undeveloped. Taxing reflects undeveloped use. I follow up. In reading this. In line three hundred twenty one it says, well, the whole thing, or owned by a nonprofit organization that is not organized for the price benefit that is organized for the price. Provide the property is used for purposes and for driving is not least for profit or rent. Okay, I get that so I'm wondering. Any one of these parcels if someone were to erect a casino. And I'm not sure this might not be a question for you is getting into the weeds a little bit but I'm just thinking ahead. I don't know if the like the Connecticut knows our tax. Being on, you know, being owned by tribes run my tribes and they profit from it. I'm wondering if we did that here with with a casino. Obviously rates and millions of dollars. The spill it would be exempt. One of these parcels. I'm going to defer you all around the process of. But I believe that in the process of recognition there were some determinations made about. Development or not. It's a big problem. That's why it's getting worse. It seems like a major. It did. I sort of had similar question that says is not least or rented for profit that doesn't say it can't be used for profit. So I don't I don't sort of understand the question you've got representative tells them waiting so I'm going to go to him. I'm not with with anything critical, but I just wonder, we are going to hear from Mr. Bent. Yes. Yes, yes. Yeah. Did you want to jump in? Are you. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, my understanding. In Connecticut, the casinos are on reservations. Yeah, federally recognized tribes. They have their own federally recognized tribes and able to try to do a lot of things. None of the Vermont tribes are federally recognized. I don't think they qualify at present. It's kind of a long road to hope to get federal recognition. But they also sacred sites, 100% in favor, no undeveloped land 100% in favor, but I'm wondering the job of this committee to look into things like casinos down the road, how they would be affected. And so it's a good question that's all good question. Thank you. Other other questions for representative Sims. I will move to Mr. Ben. Welcome and if you'd identify yourself for the record and offer a few comments and if you're willing to answer questions, there may be a few that come to life. Yes, I'm, I'm here to answer any questions just introduce myself a little bit here. I'm from Braintree, Vermont. With the Kawasaki the cause tribe, which is in the central part of Vermont. We currently don't have any land owned by the tribe. We have a tribal garden that is on my property in Braintree where we're raising abenaki food and crops, the original corn squash and beans. And we don't have money coming in. We, we don't have a anyway, raising money at this point, other than grants, which we've been very fortunate in the last year to receive a number of grants. And so if we did get property. It would be helpful that it be tax exempt so we wouldn't be burdened with that expense. I, I had some of your questions about, you know, the casinos and that and I believe if you look at the one different all the tribes will recognize back in 2011 and 12 that that was put in there that they wouldn't be any casinos. And that would be illegal for the tribes to do. And so I don't think that's a concern myself down the road but I suppose you could put it in there in this bill if you'd like I guess. We're mainly the calisthenic tribe is about growing food and preserving the old ways. We currently there's past year we got a couple of sheds one is a teaching shed, which is 12 by 16 and the others are cooking shed, which we do preserve the food, cook the food. Can it we teach people how to preserve food and stuff. And, and so we're, we're trying to trying to enlighten the Abonneke and the Vermont community on the Abonneke culture and things that the Abonneke used to do. And so it'd be very beneficial if we could, like I say, have big tax exempt if if we get land in the future and and also for the tribes. And the Mrs. Skoy, the now he can nail new. I believe some of the pastors you're talking about they have them and it would definitely help all of us because we pretty much live off grant money, if you will, to sustain what we do. So I guess, yeah, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you. That's helpful. If anyone has questions on the committee. I'm going to ask one, maybe somebody already asked this. So I apologize, but so you've identified four parcels but so So is the property owned in the name of the tribe and these four instances or is it owned in the name of a nonprofit organization organized for the tribes benefit and I'm trying to think it's sort of what that is but but there are circumstances where the property is actually in the name of the tribe. Is that correct. So I'm just pulling up my spreadsheet details. So, the property on Barton is 46 acres. It is owned. The deed holder is an actually helping Evanaki, which is a 501 C that's a key for the benefit of nonprofit organization. The Brattleboro property is point seven acres. And that is currently held by the Vermont land trust and they are transitioning to the El new Evanaki, which is their 501 C three. And the tribal council building in Swanton is on point five acres. And that is owned by the Evanaki Nation of Mrs. Squire. So the tribe is the owner of our property. Okay, and then the fourth parcel is 100 acres in Brunswick swing Springs, owned by the nonprofit for the benefit of that tribe. So three of them. Could you repeat how many acres again at Brunswick swing? 100. 104. That's the biggest. Yeah. That's the largest and then as I've been to that cost that's not held in person. And the reference to personal property is that can someone tell me what that is intended to include. I think the intent is to focus on physical land on real property. It's a bit of it may just be a drafting thing that says real and personal property that we're really we're talking about. Okay, property taxes. Yeah, right. I think that's a drafting. Yeah. Mr. Ben, if, if we're able to pass this, have you thought about transferring part of your land that you have those buildings on and that you've been using for the benefit of your band to a different ownership structure. Probably my children would appreciate it. We're really looking to find a parcel in the Newberry, Vermont area where the cow suck of the tribe is originally from and that's, let's say the core area where the tribe has always had, you know, when the Jesuits came up the Connecticut River in 1675 and the cow suck. They were gifted them corn at Indian corn and so then we'd like to get back into that area. And brain free is, is, you know, not all that far but it's probably an hour and 1520 minutes from there so most of the tribe members are in that area. Yeah, answered question. Yeah, we really like to find property over that way. If we could. Anyone else. Question. Yeah. Catherine. I missed the acreage in Brownboro you were just wondering if it would be helpful for me to send the spreadsheet that I have. Just point seven points. That when we get a fiscal note I assume it will spell out what these are. I don't know if you've shared your information with John fiscal. Anything else. Thank you very much for joining us and for giving us this puzzle to solve. Thank you. I think the next step that the committee wants to pursue this is to pass joint fiscal for the school mode and then we can look at that and look at the language we do. You're welcome to say Abby Shepherd is here. She did the drafting on it. Why don't we take a couple minutes and just have Abby or Anna's to the bill and any issues that might be in there. So for the record Abby Shepherd office of legislative council. I just want to respond before I walk through the bill to your question about why it uses both real and personal property. So that language is used in almost all of the exemptions that are set out under this section 3802. The only personal property isn't subject to property tax. Other than the business personal property which towns have to opt out of imposing, but that's included there as really just following the typical drafting standard for these exemptions. Going back to walk you through the bill the first. The first section is a findings as section setting out a statement of purpose. I don't have much to add there in terms of tax policy so I'll go on to the second section. Unless there are any questions there are any concerns. In section two inserts a statutory purpose so as I'm sure you're all aware there is a requirement for new tax expenditures to be if they are enacted to include a statutory purpose so it sets out a statutory language explaining why the expenditure has been enacted. Otherwise the expenditure within a year will not be able to be implemented and enforced so that's sort of true of language there. In the third section which starts on page one but the language really is all on or sorry page to the language is mainly on page three. So this is sub division 21 and it is real and personal property as these exemptions all exempt both real and personal property owned by Native American tribe that has been recognized pursuant to title one VSA chapter 23. And that's the state recognition by the Vermont Commission. As was mentioned by the witness Mr bent there that recognition does not there is explicit language and statute that says recognition by the Commission shall not be construed to create extend or form the basis of any right or claim to land a real estate in Vermont or right to conduct any gambling activities prohibited by law. So just to clarify that that was the reference that was made there so that does not extend the right to necessarily create any sort of casino or any sort of gambling activities that would otherwise be illegal under the government of Vermont law and as was pointed out there are a few conditions created under this this new exemption. So it has to be owned by the tribe or owned by a nonprofit organization organized for the tribes benefit provided the properties used for purposes of the tribe and is not leased or rented for profit. There is very similar language to an existing exemption for property owned by a veteran's organization post. That also requires the property not to be leased or rented for profit. This does take effect on July 1 of 2022. So it would affect this upcoming property tax year. So through tax shoes here to just point out to explain the consequences of the way this is drafted and what it applies to, as was mentioned it does create an exemption from both state and municipal property taxes. So that means there will be no requirement for a local vote, it will apply automatically once enacted it will apply uniformly across the state. But a taxpayer will not have to pay municipal or state education property taxes. It also means that towns will not be required to make up any foregone revenue to the state. And that does mean that both municipal and the education grand list will be affected. Those are all of the main points that I wanted to make to highlight. I didn't know if there are any other questions or particularly from the test when we've already taken that you would like me to look into more. I think we've got one question. When you mentioned the gambling piece. I think you said as prohibited by law. Yes. That's correct. Is there any chance ever legalized gambling in the state with that then open the road for that. I think that's a correct. I believe so yes. Because it's only gambling activities prohibited by law there are some. This is not my area but break open tickets for example are are allowed under Vermont law. But it's fairly limited currently. Yeah. Talking. Obviously. So if we did legalize gambling and seals were allowed. And one was erected this is all hypothetical but just so I understand that in the future. It would be exempt from all taxes. Just pull in. Education. I'm sorry madam chair. Unless it's least least or rented. So it does have to be used for the purposes of the tribe. And the language then the for profit limitation does apply to lease or rent. So if you wanted to make it broader and say it could never be used for profit that would low language would need to change. And there's also if long after I'm gone we legalize casinos. And it will be long after I'm gone then. Then it's also possible that the statute that the recognition statute to be amended to say no. I don't know why it would be but that is certainly a possibility there's not it's not a constitutional provision it's something statutory so we could rewrite it. Okay. Just to be clear. I'm not saying I'm against that. You know, when I'm thinking with the casino comes a lot of other added costs for municipality law enforcement crime. Not that there's a lot of crap but you do need additional law enforcement infrastructure so that's the only point. All the reasons why we shouldn't do it so. Okay. Yeah, okay. Yeah, okay. Let's see. Yes, thank you madam chair you know it may not be that a long time after you're gone it might be a short time. But my question is Mr. Bent uses his personal property his personal land for for tribal activities with the that he described to us. Would he be affected by this ruling when I look at the, the purpose it's not obvious to me that it can't be an individual's property. So it would have to be owned by the Native American tribe, or the nonprofit. So personal property means, you know, movable tangible property not real estate but that's the distinction made there. And the ownership has to be the tribe itself or a nonprofit organized for it, so would not apply to an individual like their homestead, it would not be available to an individual's homestead. I'm sorry you're muted representative. You believe that's in the statement of the purpose believe that's that part is clear. I'm not sure I understand your question that the limitation to the tribe where that's found in the language is that your question. No, my question is when you state the purpose. I'm trying to prevent a suit later on, when the purpose of the tax of the, the tax expenditure could be challenged, because the purpose does not match necessarily the, the understanding that it has to be tribal. That's, that's from what I'm asking. Sure, are you, so there are two purpose statement there's the statement of purpose which is session law, which is sort of setting out the context. Then there's the statutory purpose which refers to property owned by Native American tribes. Is it the finding statement that you find to be to not specific enough as to the tribe. So, so I'm going to put this. I'm going to put this aside because we have people coming in at 1115 we need a break because it's We've all been in the room for a bit and what we need to open it up. And but if we continue to work on this bill we will be working with legislative council on all those issues so flag the question about whether these things are consistent. But I don't think we're going to sort them out right here at the moment. Does anybody else have a question for our two witnesses. Thank you, again, both very much for coming in and I, I based on the questions my senses the committee would like to do more work on this so what I'm going to do if it's okay is I'll initiate the conversation with joint fiscal they get a fiscal vote and so on and then we'll when we come back to it we can look through some of the language questions that we have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ben.