 And it is May 6th. We've got a couple of issues that we're going to talk about this morning. The first is the municipal borrowing, the short term borrowing bill that we did some work on yesterday. And I'm hoping that we can finish our work on that. So the plan is, if the, if the committee is in agreement with the draft that we have in front of us, the plan is to take a vote on that. We'll do a roll call vote on that. And then we will send it rather than introduce it as a committee bill will send it to the appropriations committee in the form of a memo. So that they can turn it into a committee bill. It does have an appropriation section. So it would have to go to them anyway. And by doing it this way, we can move it more quickly. Kitty is aware that it's going to come to her. So that, that's the first part of the morning. And then the next piece is to look at the miscellaneous tax bill. We've looked at it a bunch of times, both when we were in Montpelier and now. And really the, in the beginning, it seemed as though we would only be able to do, you know, very few sections of it, it may be possible to do more of it than we anticipated. I've asked Sam if he would sort of take the lead on it and be the reporter on the floor so he's going to, you know, be sort of actively involved in making sure that we've got the pieces that we need to have in that bill. And I don't know that we'll finish that today, but it's, I don't think there are a lot of outstanding issues. So that's the second piece. And then tomorrow, we do meet and we are going to talk about education finance again, but I'm giving us a break today. So, so with that, I think it's Becky Wasserman who's going to present the draft to us. I just need Sorsha to bring up the draft. Thank you, Sorsha. And so Becky Wasserman legislative council so what you have in front of you is a revised draft and I have highlighted in yellow all of the changes that were made. I was able to speak with the treasurer yesterday to go over some of the comments that were raised in committee and some other concerns and so I've incorporated those into this new draft. In section one a highlighted changes in the intent section, and you'll see that the word, the words statewide education have been added in front of property tax deferrals. And this is a change that was made throughout the document. And so with respect to the draft, the draft was not clear as to whether this was specific to just short term costs related to the statewide education property tax or whether it could also be applied to the municipal property tax. She could speak to this more but the, I think the cost for having both of those included would be much higher than just the statewide education property tax and I believe it was the intent of the committee to just focus it on statewide education property tax so I've made that change throughout the document. The next change is on lines 13 to 14. I believe it was Karen Horn raised this yesterday that this intense section references using CARES Act funds to fund this program. However, it's possible that additional federal funds may be available in the future that could be used to support this program so I've added in language that allows for any other funds that may be granted to the state and used to reimburse short term borrowing costs. Then moving on to subsection B. In the previous draft there was just one definition for short term borrowing costs. In the previous draft I just, I highlighted line 15 because I added in a new definition here and had to reorder it a little bit so if we move on to the next page, you'll see that the new definition is a definition of municipality. And there are the definition that was used in the previous draft was pretty broad and included as we discussed school districts, fire districts. There are a number of other definitions of municipality throughout statute. I thought it might be most, it might be simpler to just define it for specifically for this draft in the more narrow way which is just city town or incorporated village rather than trying to fit it in with one of the definitions that are already in statute. So, so throughout the definition of municipality use would just be city town or incorporated village. So, moving down the next change online 16 is again the reference to the statewide education property tax on the next page. I have just highlighted where I had to cross reference the new terms that have been defined. And then, moving down in subsection. There's another E3 online 11 there's another reference to statewide education property tax. So, they're so subdivision for one of the eligibility requirements is that the expenses must be consistent with the use of funds authorized in the cares act, as maybe amended so I've also added in here. A requirement that the expenses must meet any requirements of any other federal funds that may be granted to the state, just in case there's another source of funding available. Subdivision five is not highlighted but one of the questions that was raised in committee yesterday was whether the treasure could go out and seek and negotiate interest rates with banks. So, after speaking with the treasure yesterday, and I'll let her speak to this. This seemed like a very difficult task for her to do. Based on the fact that interest rates are changing daily and that municipalities all have different credit profiles. So she felt that subdivision five was was sort of the best that could be done with respect to interest rates. In the administration section subdivision one there are still blanks there about when the the treasure would be receiving certifications to me for municipalities to make and receiving applications so that would need to be. That's a decision point that needs to be made. So, scrolling down to section to D at the bottom of the page. The treasury guidance that I think you all discussed yesterday. happened to have some additional information on whether the cares act funding could be deposited into interest bearing accounts. Since we are setting up a special fund here, that would be possibly receiving cares act funding. It was made clear in that document that it is it is possible to put those funds in an interest bearing account. But if that happens, that interest has to be used in a specific way that is consistent with the use of cares act funding. So, I added in here in subsection D that all interest earned on fund balances shall be credited back to the fund. If this language is not in there it would otherwise go to the general fund. And then, still highlighted in section three is the some of the appropriation, as well as whether this is just an appropriation FY 20, or whether this would need to be an FY 21. I guess one of the points I would raise with this is that I think this is aimed at the, the June collection date for the statewide education property tax but I, there is, I think that December date at the end of the year, that would be an FY 21 so I don't, I don't know if the intent is to perhaps capture that as well. Let me see if the committee has questions. I don't see anybody. So it seems to me that the outstanding issues are the dates. I'm sorry, Emily, go ahead. Thanks I was a little slow with my mouse there. George way back at the beginning around the definition of short term borrowing costs. I just, including is not next. I want to confirm that including is not an exclusive term. If they were safe fees related to borrowing with those be eligible. That's correct, including is it's not an exclusive list. I don't know if you're, I know yesterday there was a discussion of administrative costs to municipalities. So it does not explicitly state that, but, but this list is not an exclusive list. Thanks, George. You're muted. I know, but the screen keeps changing was as the documents come and go so where my unmute is moves. Just a little thing at near the end, the name of the fun. Since we're, it's not for all municipal borrowing it's really about the education property tax. Should that be reflected in the name of the funds so it's not confusing to people. I can certainly make that change. I mean the purpose of the fund is stated so it could only be used for a specific purpose but it might help with confusion. It's not unthinkable to me that we might at some point need to have another emergency borrowing fund for municipalities unrelated to the, you know, to education. So I think I'd be more comfortable if we were a tad more specific with the name. That's fine. Yeah. See other questions at the moment. And we can make those changes, you know, since we're forwarding this as a memo. They're not that not that difficult. I hope any way to make the dates. If we need to need to do George, did you want to jump back in or. Yeah, I'm sorry I had a second piece. Do I assume correctly that on the last page, page five that the dollar amount we will leave blank and leave that to the appropriations committee. Yeah, we'd be guessing. And they're going to have to make a decision about it anyway since it's not a bill. I think it's fine. Yeah. So, dates. And I, I don't know if the treasure has a suggestion about the dates I'm not, I'm happy to put in whatever somebody suggests and if it. My understanding Beth is that you're going to be in house corporations tomorrow. And so if they're whatever issues are that we've left hanging they can deal with at that point. But do you have a recommendation about the dates in here. I think you're muted if you're trying to speak. Okay, you can hear me now. And rather than put a specific date because we're looking at, you know, when this will actually be enacted and sooner obviously the better. The dates be not later than seven days after enactment and begin accepting applications not later than 10 days after enactment so that it leaves a little flexibility. I will tell you that once we are aware that this is moving forward and I think it will based on what I've seen with this committee. We would start working on it in any event, but I think that that might be a way to do it so that depending on if it gets held up someplace, we don't have to go back in and play with the dates again. Okay. Becky, does that make sense to you. Okay. That sounds fine. I can add that in. And the other note I just made to myself is that the memo is going to go to the appropriations committee because they're the committee that's going to actually turn this into a bill or introduce it. But we will also make sure that we copy house government operations because they're going to have an interest in it and I've been talking with Sarah occasionally about what we're doing but I missed a step yesterday so I'll make sure that she has. And Senate finance I think has already started to do some work on this so there is some effort going on in the Senate already to have this move fairly quickly. Any other issues on the bill. George. Yeah, also on the last on the last page. I think we need to include FY 21 to don't we. That's a, that's a policy decision. I tend to agree. But we would only, we wouldn't appropriate for both years and the truth is that we could appropriate money for 20 that would stay in the fund for 21. We don't need to do two separate appropriations I think. So the question is whether they can, whether the borrowing can happen in fiscal 21. I don't know what that says in that respect. I can, I could make it clear that the appropriation is an FY 20 but it could be for use in both 20 and 21. That makes sense to me because it's going to set in the fun so yeah Beth did you want to jump in on that. Please. So I think that where this is located in the statute, the presumption is that this is a fund that carries forward so that the amounts of money that you appropriate in 20 would carry forward to the into 21. Since the application period is through December 30, I, or excuse me, the cost incurred between March 1 and December 30, I think that that's clear that said making it clear with more clarity would be be fine. And the interest does have to stay in the fund as Becky pointed out. Are people comfortable with the way it's structured in terms of dates and timing. Okay. All right. So that the change that you're going to make Becky is on on the, the dates for the start, you know, the applications and the date the name of the fund that are those the two things that we've got. And would you like me to change in the appropriation that it can be used in both years or just leave as is since it will be the balance will be carried forward in the fund. I wouldn't mind if we said both years in the appropriation section. Yeah. Emily. What I want to better understand what are the risks to leaving it a little more open so that we could be say flexible in six months if we see another need that might be easier to sort of use this fund for then another one. What do we gain by sort of narrowing the title of the fund and the dates associated with it. Go ahead. And one thing that comes to mind if cares act funding is used, then that has to be expended by the end of the year. And the fund is open to getting appropriate other appropriations, but if those federal funds are used, I think it does have to be limited to there is a time period that limits the use of the funds. So, so to go back to the two dates that we were talking about, you know, five days before five days after or 10 days after it's exactly how they were structured. Those are just when the treasure has to have the applications available to towns. So that doesn't restrict it to one year or the next. The other day, which is the appropriation language what we're saying is that we're going to appropriate the money now and house appropriations may change this structure because they know more how to appropriate money than we do but that we're going to appropriate the money now and you can use it for both fiscal years that that's going to be the way it's set up, but the limits on how it can be used that it's just for education property tax that's embedded in the whole bill at the moment. And then if we decided to make it available for municipal property tax or something, we would have to come back and create a new fund or amend it. I mean, does that make sense at least. Yeah. So, subject to those changes. Does somebody would somebody like to move that we endorse this I'm not sure what the right word is but yeah Becky did you want to ask a question first. No. Yeah, George. I was going to just say that I'll move make that motion to endorse this with the changes we have just discussed. Jim, you're muted. Unless someone has already. No, you're all you're you're right in order there. So, so it's been moved and seconded that we endorse the language with the changes are people comfortable voting without actually seeing the changes at this point, or do you want to wait. People are good. If you've not just raise your hand and tell me and I'll wait. Okay. So, it's been moved and seconded that we endorse this we will put it in memo your motion I'm sure includes the memo that we're going to send house appropriations with a copy to house go box. And Robin, if there's no more discussion, perhaps you could call the wall. Okay. I'm just finishing writing to copy to go box. Okay. Representative Anthony. Yes. Representative back. Yes. Representative Brennan. Yes. Representative Donovan. Yes. Representative corn hyzer. Yes. Representative Masland. Yes. Representative shy is yes representative to. Yes. Representative young. Yes. Representative can feel there's not here. Okay. And representative answer. Yes. 1001. Okay. Nice work. Thank you all. I think this is this will make a difference. And I was, I was glad to hear that the league actually felt that this would actually make a difference for the towns that are in a really tough spot. And, you know, who knows it may be a vehicle for doing more in the future. But I think it's a good question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And your involvement has been really productive and useful. So thank you. My pleasure. And thank you very much. The committee and chair for all your good work on this and so many other issues during this. Very unprecedented time. The number of hours that you must be putting in are extraordinary. But thank you. Yeah. Everybody I think has been doing a lot of that. Yeah. So I'm going to go to miscellaneous tax. And I think it's Abby and. Let's see, who do I have? I have Abby and Graham. And. Is that it? On this. Okay. I don't know. I don't know which is the best place to start. I'm sorry. I should have my, I should have this sitting up in front of me so that I'm. Exactly what I'm talking about. Abby, why don't you start a lot of it? We've seen, we don't need to go through every detail, but if you could tell the committee. Describe the two documents that we've got. And maybe flag any part of it that we need to focus on. We've been through these small sections interminably. I don't think we need to do it again. I don't think we need to do it again. Also, I'll save everybody from that. Everybody wants to stop on any of it. They can, and we'll have a discussion if you've forgotten about it. But the question that I've got for the committee. Is, are, do people think that this is the right time to do basically the whole bill that we had in front of us? Or do they want to focus just on the most critical pieces? Yeah. I mean, we met on this two or three weeks ago. We were looking just at the most critical pieces because we didn't even know if we were going to be able to vote on the floor, let alone. Well, on something complicated. But at this stage. Things seem to be moving. I wouldn't say rapidly on the floor, but they're moving. So, you know, I think, I think it's. How much of this we want to fight off. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I just, let's, we spent a lot of time with the whole thing. Let's send in the whole thing. And if the. The Senate. Says we can't take a bigger bite than they compare it now. Yeah. They're more agile than I am, which is not a word I've ever thought I would use for the Senate, but they are. So I think they're fine. If they get a whole thing. Robin. I was going to agree with Scott. I think we're going to be able to. Get it through unless there's something that's glaringly obvious that we shouldn't. We should go for it. Okay. The other. If there's also a question about whether there's anything that we need to add to it based on what's been happening currently. The one piece that I would love to have included in the bill that we just did. But we don't have the language ready. Is the piece that gets us started on the state collection of the education tax. And it could easily go in here. If we can, if we can see language that we like. And so that, that would be a piece that I'd like to have us at least look at. And there may be some others as well. George. Jim and Emily. Well, there were like eight things on the side by side. There were about eight things listed at the end. That we're going to get put into other bills. And I would need to go through those again, because I don't know what's happening with those other bills. So I kind of would like to go through those and make sure we shouldn't. There are things that need to be included in here. Good. Jim. Yeah. Just back on. The Senate being more flexible for whatever it was. I'd say, I'd say times like this, they're less inhibited. They just, okay, let's do it this way or that way or something, you know, which comes across as flexibility. We've been voting a lot, but we haven't actually introduced a bill yet. Emily. I appreciate what you said about the few extra pieces we might want to put in. And I wonder if we want to go, you know, one step further on our education finance conversations to see if there's. Anything else that we might want to drop in here based on what resolution we might find in the next week or two. I don't know what timeline for that. Yeah. So my thought is that the, the, that this, this bill, which is generally technical, generally non-controversial would sort of go on. But it's long. It's got a lot of stuff in it tends to go on its own. And that we would do an education finance bill that sets the yields and the rates separately. Because that will inevitably be controversial. And it's not going to be. So. At the moment, I was thinking of keeping those separate the state collection issue. Because it's just getting a. Plan in motion is. And the league is supporting it probably wouldn't be controversial. So that's why it would go in this one. It could go on either one. Joey. Yeah. So that's why it's so important to be able to collect that tax. And obviously if they're supporting this change, it's not a significant amount of money. And it's easier for them to do the statewide collection. That's the discussion that. At some point we would definitely would have, we've had in the past, they. Some towns get make more money off it than others. But I think at this stage, they're seeing all the downside of it. They're, they're, it's sort of like a trust tax. You know, if you're, if you have a retail operation and you're collecting sales tax and you get to use that money for a month or so for cash flow, but suddenly you're at a place where you've got to hand it over and you don't have it anymore. Then it, you'd be better off not collecting it in the first place or not. Not being the middle man. So what I'm hearing from them is that they're ready to step forward and get to the next level as, as middle men, because it has been hugely problematic for them. But that would, that would be a, just if we get to a point of actually making the change, that would be a discussion we'd have to have with them. Scott, Sam and Emily. Yeah. I would just, I would echo what you said, Janet, and just saying everybody keep in mind that. Not only is it a trust tax, but it's a trust tax that dwarfs their municipal budget in a way that they can manage. I was just going to say that they didn't exactly say that they support it. They said they support exploring it. So it's not like we're doing it. We're just like, we're just like going to start the process. So, you know, Burlington shouldn't get too concerned just yet. Just, it's not a, it's not happening. It's just like, how would we do this logistically? It's just the exploring the questions. Emily. This is another way I'm just stumbling forward as a new person on the committee without context of either time or physicality. But mentioning trust taxes, I've just, and technicalities and the other trust taxes that we have and sort of the challenges that we've experienced with them over the last month and how they're held and how they're delivered to the state has struck me as confusing just as a newbie that how folks seem to feel an ownership over them, even though they are trust taxes and wondering if there's space for a step forward on that here or not. What does that mean? Like with the restaurants seem to like, you know, collect. I don't, you know, I know I'm stumbling into like probably a huge fire here with talking about restaurants and meals and rooms taxes, you know, all of that. But that it seems like a lot of restaurants think of that as part of their income and like what they're sitting on as a bank account and, you know, what they might use for payroll right now and further shifting it to when in fact they're collecting it on behalf of the state. And that just strikes me as a confusing situation that's we're really sitting with in a substantial way right now. Yeah, one of the ideas that somebody mentioned over the last couple of three weeks is that they should be required to hold them separately. I don't, I'd like to know if any other state requires that before I, before I endorse it, but is that what you're talking about that kind of thing. It is and I know that, especially, you know, in the very small micro business environment of Vermont, asking anyone to do any extra administration, which is what holding something separately would be is a big lift. But it is sort of what I'm moving towards or lightly suggesting and I think Scott said something slightly to that effect yesterday or at some point in the recent past. Yeah, I mean, I think the, what you have to get at with this whole conversation is basically what businesses are doing with these rooms and meals and sales taxes are they're using them as cash flow. And as long as cash flow turns out the way you think it's going to turn out down the road, you're fine. You pay your trust taxes and you move on. What's not clear right now is if there's, I mean, businesses have lots of strategies for that. You can go get a line of credit, you can go to the bank, you can do a variety of different things. The question is just that does the state want to get involved in all those little individual strategies that every business has? I'm not sure I know what the answer. I'd be interested to know what other states do. Peter. I agree on having raised this issue in the past. The more I think about it, the more I would think it useful to make a difference between those folks who file a report. Quarterly as opposed to monthly. That is to say it usually reflects the size of the cash flow. And Emily's probably correct. Why would you want to add administrative burdens to a small operation? So if there were a way to essentially leave the situation alone for small operators, but nevertheless make sure that the collections amongst the high cash flow. And that the amount of money that a large number of operators and businesses came in, timely manner, that might be a way to do it. Since we're all just waiting on this one. I just want to think about it like logistically for a second. Like. Let's just say you're a restaurant and you get your credit card deposit every day from, does that mean that every day you need to go in. And you get a certain amount of money over to a separate bank account, like on a daily basis. Is that what we mean by segregating it? Cause. I mean. I don't know. It seems like a lot of extra work. Yeah, that's the conundrum that Sam speaks to. I mean, they're the, if cash flows, the problem, the way you solve that is by making the submission more complicated. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Daily, weekly. But the other side of that is, of course, is that now you're increasing the administration on the, the business to make that happen on a daily or weekly basis. So that's the. That's the conundrum to find yourself in. Well, so. This is speaking from my old experience as a tax commissioner. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. The way it needs to be treated, which is that it doesn't belong to the business that belongs to the state is that you have significant penalties if they don't do it. And that's why the 8% is there. What happened this year? Normally it works more or less. You know, there are businesses that are on the edge. That. Start using it for. Payroll typically. And they get themselves in trouble. And they're like, well, I don't know how many of them are in the business. I don't know how many of them are in the business. But I think that's probably what they're struggling anyway. What happened this year is the department said, well, we're going to waive the penalties and in the interest. And so suddenly we're having a conversation about whose money it is. But if that hadn't happened, I think we'd be. In the world that we've always been in is that businesses are. Understandably very cautious about incurring those penalties. They percent was a lot of money. They tend it's to their benefit to keep it. Separated and be able to make that payment on the 25th of the month. Because the consequences of not doing that are pretty significant. This year, the department just said. Well, you know, we'll get rid of those penalties for some extended period of time. We don't know exactly when that ends either. Peter. I agree with you, but then the fix to that would be to. Enjoying in some way. That parent ability of the executive branch. To simply say, don't bother. And then the 8% would remain and could not be removed as you've pointed out. Anyone else want to weigh in on this particular issue. So, so. It's a continuing problem. And I don't know whether. Same. Good. Save me. In terms of this bill. That we're talking about that I've said, I would be happy to report. I would. I would not like to have this in this bill. You mean a separate account. Yeah. I am the 8%, the 8% does the thing. You know, people are required to keep their records. Not. You know, not to mention that, you know, the business is pay all the credit card fees for the tax tax collection. There's. Just not interested in going there. In this bill. That's all. Thanks. I agree about not going there in this bill, but I would like to talk to some small businesses in town and just find out. How that would work and what would be the problems and. You know, so something to think about for next year, I think that that's too much to be, to be adding into now and maybe it'll never happen, but I guess for myself, I'm going to see if I can find out more from some local businesses. Well, and one of the things if I'm back next year and if I'm chairing the committee, I'm going to be back next year and I'm going to be back next year. I'm going to be back next year and I'm going to be back next year and I'm going to be back next year and the committee. One of the things that I'd like to have the committee spend some time on is. The authority of the commissioner with respect to sort of blanket waivers. Because I felt that that was problematic. I'm not. I even have some questions about whether the statute really allows that. But. You know, I think it's a little bit difficult to get up in the air and too difficult, particularly for these small businesses to engage in that discussion right now. So I'd prefer to wait till January to have it. But if people want to discuss it now, we, we can. That's a slightly different issue, Sam, than what we were talking about earlier. This is really the question about whether you can do a blanket waiver of penalties for an entire tax for a period of time. So I think that's a good question. I think that's a good discussion. That is probably worth having. Anyone else on this. Sort of general area. So. Abby, I think I'm back to you. I'm a bill. Sure. So good morning. Abby separate office of legislative council. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good one of your questions about what other states do. I see that. New York. Does recommend that sales tax vendors. Or sorry, vendors who are collecting sales tax, do establish a separate bank account and they have the authority to require certain vendors to, to segregate funds. If those vendors have failed to collect and remit sales tax or the money to apply. If that, would be a little bit of a 10-minute search. I would want to do more sort of looking through Vermont statutes. I don't think there's a similar requirement in Vermont statute, but just to put it out there, there are other states that have looked at this. So I would want to do more research first, but just so you know it is out there. So, Yeah, I think that's fine. Sure. So the two. Remittance deadlines that were waived by the commissioner of taxes were for March and April. So those are her collections in February and March. So they're always remitted a month later. So as of May 25th. I think that's fine. I think that's fine. Sales and use tax and meals and rooms tax should be remitted again. And. Penalties would apply if they miss the May 25th deadline. To remit for. Certainly for April, what's not what the. Deferral announcement is silent on is whether. I'm sorry for February and March. It's not clear that penalties and interests will apply. If they never remit those. Two months. So that I just wanted to point that out that it's. No end date. That was, that was part of the concern that I had. Part of it was the authority and part of it was the fact that there was no end date. Yeah. Right. So yeah, that was all I had on those two. Discussions. What I think that where that idea of segregating had come from was the requirement in the miscellaneous tax bill right now to segregate funds received from the state. So I can pull the. In terms of property tax. I'm sorry. Let me just. It's in section three. So when the state is providing. The funds that are needed to segregate funds. So that's one of the. Meeting the cost to prepare the grand, the education property tax grand list. This new language would require towns to segregate. So that's I think what it's sort of sparked that question about what do we do for trust taxes. So that's in the current bill. That's one of the. It's also one of the sections that. We're going to talk about, but how many towns are receiving some funds currently. For collecting and administering the education property tax. Yeah. I can't remember the amount. Is it like five dollars? It's quite, I think it's $1 per parcel. I thought it was. I think, well, so I also want to do some more research to get back to you. I think there are other, there's another provision where towns receive. Funds from the state for the administration, but in this particular section, it's one. Just a dollar. Okay. Yeah. Yes. One dollar per grand less parcel in the municipality. Thank you. Yeah. I had to do, go ahead. Sorry, I'm going to just, can you hear me? Okay. It's very cool. I can. I don't know about everyone else. People. Good. Yeah. So the, the few sections that we, the committee had discussed, I think I was last in March 31st on this bill are the first two sections in particular, having to do with property tax. And the first. Extends the deadlines for towns to make corrections to the grand list. Right now it says before December 31st, it gives towns one extra day. So that could be helpful in the current environment. There's also in the second section of the bill, there's also in the second section of the bill, there's also in the third section of the bill, the recording requirements towns are currently required when they make an extension for filing the grand list with the Department of Taxes, PVNR. They have to record it in the town records. This removes that requirement, which also would make sense. Removing one of the administrative burdens on towns. And then the third. And then the fourth section of the bill, which is the first section of the bill, there are some changes that are proposed in this bill. It's a slightly different proposal than what the administration had initially proposed, but it decreases the amount that individuals have to pay. When you talk about third year, you're reading from a list that we created two or three weeks ago when we were thinking we needed to focus just on the most important pieces. Correct. That's section seven of the bill. And that's okay. I appreciate that. So. Abby or has given us the entire section by section. I think somebody was asking about the items at the end here. Do you want to touch on those briefly so that we know what we didn't do. So the final page of the section by section lists. All of the proposals that the administration had made that the committee removed either. That went into another bill or that did not. Were not taken. Yeah. And it's the last three. And I've noted the bills that they were moved into. These three are all technical changes. And I'm not going to go into the technical changes. I'm not going to go into the technical changes. Mostly. So the first is to. It's purely technical. I'm looking at 32 VSA 92 71. This is the third from last change. It amends which to that. It went into the technical corrections bill. That I don't know if you'd want to add back in here or. No, that could wait. I'm not going to go into the technical changes. I'm not going to go into the technical changes. I'm saying with the next change under that in section 9202, it has been in statute for a very long time. It's an incorrect reference to federal statute that can, can wait. However, the final change on this list. That amends. Last year's. Market based sourcing effective date. That was the first of this year. So this might be a change that you want to include to add the on or after talking about the taxable years that the change applies to. Well, that ended up in. Budget adjustment. Oh, I'm sorry. I was thinking that's a budget. Oh, let me check that then. I can check that to see if that. To do it twice. Cause that'll make things. I don't know if it is elsewhere. It is an important one to do. So if it's not elsewhere, we'll put it in here. Great. And okay. I don't know if we had a chance to look at any of this, but other questions about any of the other. Sections here or concerns about anything, anything you want more information on. I'm looking to see if anybody is jumping in. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sam, you had, um, you were going to. You had some additional information for us, which is, I guess related to, um, to this or to, um, sort of timing questions and. Performance with federal law. Do you want to talk about those now or. I can. Um, it's whatever you like. It's not, it's not. It's not. It's not. It's not. It's not. It's not. I think just thinking about the. The link ups and I think things to put on the committee's radar for. So let's wait on that. Let's, let's finish with miscellaneous tax. And then if we have time, we'll, we'll shift to that. Um, I just had one thing on the. Yeah. Just to give the community a sense of the section seven of the bill. The use tax table. I had that as a revenue impact. That was the only major revenue piece in the bill. Yeah. Well, it doesn't seem like a time to. Reduce revenue. On the other hand, those use text tables are too high. They don't seem fair to me. So. Bill. Hi. Um, anybody have any thoughts about the use tax table? Yes or no. That's a, that's a big decision. I mean, a million dollars is a million dollars. Sam. I thought. What we. Came up with, which was more than the administration proposed was. Pretty fair. Um, it is a million dollars, but it's a million dollars down because we collected many several million more because of the marketplace facilitator. Yeah. Language from last year. So it makes sense to me. Yeah. It tends to be where I am, but I'm interested in George. I just want to say, I agree. 100%. It doesn't feel like a time that we should be giving up money, but it really is about fairness here. Well, anyone else. So for the moment, unless I hear an objection, it's going to, it'll stay in the bill. Um, it's probably the one substantive piece, the most substantive piece that's in the bill. Um, I missed it. I had a phone call. So I missed the conversation here. I'm sorry. Um, I don't know when you came in. So I'll do the best I can to catch you up. Um, the, um, We're talking about the miscellaneous tax bill. And, um, Um, Um, We're going to have some discussion about test taxes and various sort of related things, but nothing that's in here. Um, and then we're looking specifically at the changes in the use tax, safe harbor language, which we all agreed early in the session needed to be adjusted because of all the online. Uh, purchasing that's going on. Um, Um, Um, Um, So we're, I think, I think we're generally in agreement that we should, Um, Right. In the bill. Okay. Thanks. Anything else, anybody wants to. Um, Um, I think a lot of people feel about including, uh, Language on the state collection of the education tax in here. Um, You mean from Rebecca's. Washerman. Well, I don't, I don't know that she, uh, she was working on something. I don't think it, I didn't, I haven't seen it. Um, so, um, So it would be Becky who would, who would work on it. Um, but it wouldn't, it isn't to change the way we administer it is just to get the thing moving. Let's see, George, Robin, Jim, and Sam. Yeah, I would, I would agree with putting it in this. I think it's better sooner than later to, um, Begin that discussion. So I would agree, putting it in here. Okay, Robin. Um, I agree. I think for the same reasons, we need to get started. It's going to be, um, you know, a little bit more than one year to take. To get this done. So start now. Yeah, Jim. Yeah. Um, we've. Gone through this many times over the years and it's time to get it moving. Some of us have found it a bunch of times up a little bloody by it occasionally. Uh, Sam. I think it's fine to include in here. It's just. You know, a little bit of thinking about how to get the ball rolling on it and how to get the ball rolling on it. And, um, you know, what all the logistics would be involved. So certainly not doing it, but it's important to start thinking about it. And we have, we continue to bring it up. And now, um, it's actually this situation that's really kind of brought it to a head. So I think. I think it's worth putting it in. And this would be a good vehicle. Okay. Um, so that means that I guess what I'd like to do is I'd like to get a straw vote on what we have in front of us. Um, I think we're going to hold off a vote on the bill until we get the language on the state administration. Um, so, um, I, I, if we're ready, um, to do a straw vote on this, um, all of the rest of the material that we have in front of us. Um, Which doesn't foreclose adding anything. It just says we're done with all this. So we're going to call it a straw vote. Um, So moved. All right. Uh, second and look like it's seconded by Jim over there. Um, and, um, just because of the awkwardness of the way we vote here, we're going to call the roll, but it is a straw vote. Cause it seems like the easiest way to do it. Um, so. Uh, Robin. So the motion Robin. Um, is to support the, uh, miscellaneous tax bill. And described in the section by section summary, understanding that we may add sections to it. And one of them is going to be the state administration section. Uh, George and Joey. So in, I went briefly through Graham's presentation last night. Um, and there were places in there, at least one place where, um, Um, part of the, I think it was PPP, um, loans could become taxable in Vermont. In his words, depending on how Vermont. Um, links up to the federal system. And I just, I would like to explore that before we close this bill out. I mean, I'm happy to take a straw vote now, but I want to make sure that there aren't other pieces. That have come up to the federal. Right. And that's why it might, we might have more than just the state administration to this, because there may be other pieces. Once we hear from Graham, that this bill includes link up language, but it's to fiscal. I'm sorry, not fiscal calendar. Uh, 2019. So it doesn't include any of the cares that changes. So there is link up language in here, which is the way we normally do it. We look back a year. Um, so, um, I don't know if it's, um, I don't know if it's, um, I don't know if it's, um, but yes, that will, will. We'll close out all of this if the committee agrees. Um, and then we will continue to talk about what we might want to add to it. Uh, Joey. I'm also at Jenna. You're also. Um, so are people clear on the motion? Um, Yeah. I did not write down who I don't know that it matters who it is. I don't know. I'm not. No. Peter and Jim. Okay. Um, so what we're, what we're, um, voting on is. The sections one through. One through 24. Um, In this, in the section by section understanding that we may add sections to the bill. That we're voting to agree with those. Okay. George. As I look at the section by section, um, there's not a check mark in the boxes of 22, 23, and 24. And you just said we're voting on those sections too. Did they have, did they need more discussion or is it just. Abby, you want to explain. Um, so the sections 22 and 23 were the judiciary fees. Um, and I actually hadn't gotten a solid, I think we had discussed this again at the end of March. Um, and I think that there was a general consensus to move forward with these, but I haven't had a solid. Okay. From the committee. Do you want me to. Briefly touch on what they are. Would that be helpful to be sure. Um, So the $10 surcharge is for failure to pay a penalty after healing hearing or default judgment. Um, at the municipal level, the judiciary currently collects this surcharge and transfers the collections to the municipality where. In fraction occurred. It's a very, um, small amount. We were discussing this right before the, um, the, um, the, um, Um, I think it was very small. I think of $1,000 a year. It's something pretty limited. Um, and the judiciary had requested this and the other change. This change is really to. Just do away with what's more, um, More of an administrative burden than the amount that they're actually collecting. That was their recommendation. The second, um, I think. Um, It applies to all filings. Um, And this is what the judiciary has been charging. They just wanted it to be clear in statute. So it's really just a clarifying change. And I can add a check mark on those. Yeah. The judiciary committee did look at these. Um, and. Um, I can't remember. Um, Correct. There was a third recommendation, um, which was to increase, um, The department of taxes. Turn them over if it's offset or collection authority from $47 to 50. Um, because there's a $47 fee that the judiciary charges. So the tax department, I think. Just offered. Um, I think that's a good point. Um, And then I didn't put a check mark in the effective date section just because those are probably going to change if there are other additions to the bill. So I left it open. Yeah. Is that coming back to everybody? It is to me. Um, Uh, Is there more discussion on the motion? Um, and again, understanding on the effective dates that even though we're endorsing them as they applied of what's in here, but if we add things, obviously we're going to change. We're going to add a effective date if we need it. Um, Okay. Everyone. All right, Robin. Um, people understand the motion. Okay. I'm going to go. Yep. Representative Anthony. Yes. Representative Beck. Yes. Representative Brennan. Yes. Donovan. Yes. Representative cornheiser. Yes. Representative Masland. Yep. Representative shy is yes. Representative till. Yes. Representative young. Yes. Representative Canfield. Yes. Representative Ansel. Yes. 1100. We're back to you. Unanimity. Wonderful. Um, so that's a straw vote. At least that's how I'm characterizing it. Um, if we decide to add sections, we're not, it's not, we're not going to be amending the bill. We're just going to put them in and ultimately we'll have a whole bill. Um, that the committee will vote on formally. Um, and hopefully sooner than later, but we'll. Just keep, you know, We've kept this open partly because it is a place to put. Bits and pieces of things as we, as we come across them. So. Um, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe Sorsha does. Uh, whether, um, Where Becky is on the language on the state collection. Abby, are you working with her as well? Do you have. Yes. So I can weigh in on that. Um, We did find the last proposal was 2011 or. Or 2012. And we're looking at some language that was brought up then. Um, I don't know if you were thinking more along the lines of a study or a working group. It sounds like it's not something that would need absolutely every detail ironed out immediately, but using that language, we could set some sort of parameters of what. Um, and who you'd want to be doing that study committee. I guess are my questions. Right. I think, um, So, um, I don't know if others want to weigh in. Um, but, um, Um, Um, Um, Um, a little, um, A little more weight to it than a study committee, but, um, But less weight than doing it. So, um, I think the idea is to say we'd like, we want this done. Um, but we want to know. You know what it, how it's going to work and what it's going to cost and how long it's going to take and what the, you know, we have a law of another chance to look at it. Um, Um, Um, Like a tax department proposal in collaboration with Vermont League of cities and towns and the clerks and treasures association or something like that. That's great. I can't think of anybody else, particularly. That needs to be involved. Peter. Uh, back to a, uh, A query of scots. Um, it would be good to find out whether or not. Uh, there will be forthcoming. Um, A similar or parallel, uh, Recommendation from the tax structure commission. Uh, not that they need to be included, but it, it, it might be nice if, uh, Uh, Abbey or whoever our staff person on this is going to be. A context of staff person for the structure committee and say, we're, we're probably going to plant the seed for this. And we hope you're in concurrence. Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, Um, It might be something they'd weigh in on it's sort of more administration than, um, You know, the kind of policy that I think they've been looking at, but, um, That's still. We can. Um, I just wouldn't want to slow it down. I mean, they're, they meet monthly, I think, right? Um, I wouldn't, I wouldn't break right now. Yes. I wouldn't, I wouldn't want to have to wait for them to weigh in. Um, To actually get something moving. Um, What's that going to say? Um, Mark, do you have anything you want to, he just popped up on my screen. Um, Yeah. Well, I did this conversation caught my interest because we, we worked quite a bit on this back in 2011 and 2012. So we do have a lot of research that's been done. Yeah. Um, Yeah. I mean, I think I, I think you're right, Sam. I think the idea of asking for a proposal, I think I would include joint fiscal. Um, and, um, Legislative council staff and that discussion. Um, I think one of the things that I think is that it takes an astonishing like long time to implement. Um, and so that's the reason for wanting to start to move on it. But it, it really, because of all the transition issues, maybe some of them are better now than they used to be, or maybe we have ways of working around them that we didn't used to have, but, um, but it really took a long time. Um, I think it's one of the stakeholders that we weren't necessarily, um, thinking about when we did it last time, for example, local banks and things like that had a lot of, uh, a lot to say about it. It wasn't readily apparent. Right. It strikes me that the local delinquent tax collectors. Uh, are, are their own little mafia in some places. And I'm not running again. So you can quote me on that. We have to, I think you're quoted. That is the wonders of, of live stream. I think you're already out there. Um, uh, let's see. Uh, anything else. Um, that's coming up, Graham. We've got a few minutes. We're going to have a quick break before we go on the house floor. Um, do you want to quickly tell us what's in your memo? We can come back to it, but maybe just give us some highlights. Yeah, sure. Um, so what I was going to talk about is somewhat related to the miscellaneous tax bill, but it's essentially looking at some of the federal, um, legislation that's passed related to the coronavirus and some of the tax legislation that's in there that will affect Vermont in some way. Um, and I think at some point, the committee, um, needs to take a look at either through the miscellaneous tax bill next year or you decide to, you know, look at it through a piecemeal approach saying we want to attach to this. We don't want to attach to this. So, um, it's essentially looking over those, those pieces. Um, and the bigger pieces are on the first coronavirus bill. There was the, there was some payroll tax credits that are that could be considered taxable income in Vermont if the community, if Vermont doesn't, or Vermont decides to link up to the 2020 federal language without any changes or doesn't take a whole, doesn't take legislative action. Um, in the CARES Act, there were a number of, there was a couple of big provisions and two or three smaller provisions. The bigger provisions are the payroll protection program, the small business loans that everyone's heard about. Um, those loans can be forgiven for businesses that, that maintain the criteria for receiving the loan and that forgiven income is not considered taxable at the federal level, but could be taxable at the Vermont level. Um, if we decided to sort of link up to the 2020 language, the 2020 federal statute, um, as it is for at the end of December 2020, so the committee, the, the legislature might decide to do something different there or take a piecemeal approach to that. The second big one is the, uh, the economic stimulus checks, the economic impact payments. Um, that's the $1,200 that everyone has received. Um, depending on how much money they make. Um, and that doesn't appear to be taxable in Vermont. Um, so I know I've received a lot of questions about that right now. That's not taxable. And it's my understanding that the legislature doesn't need to take any sort of action on those to make, to make, um, to leave those as not taxable in Vermont. Um, some of the smaller provisions in the cares act. Um, the, in the cares act, there was a, a provision that allowed people to take up to $100,000 out of their, their IRAs 401ks deferred comp without having to pay the federal penalty set up till December 31st, 2020. And so, um, there's no, uh, federal penalty on any of those withdrawals. Um, which means that I think, um, absent any sort of changes about legislature, we would also pick them up sort of indirectly because our penalty is 24% of the federal. So 24% of zero penalty is zero penalty. So, um, we would not be taxing, we would not be applying our penalty of those withdrawals. Um, however, the withdrawals themselves will be considered taxable income. The, the next one I had there was in the cares act, there was a new $300 quote unquote above the line charitable deduction. So recall the federal level. Um, you can itemize your charitable, um, giving, um, only a few itemized to get that deduction. This created a one year tax year 20 above the line charitable deduction of $300. Um, and so this would flow through to Vermont because our starting place for personal income taxes is adjusted gross income. So when you hear the words above the line, that means is that it happens before the calculation of justice grossing. If you start with gross income, then you take your above the line options, which are things like student loan interest, um, educator expenses and another one. And this will be another $300. So what this is somewhat important, I guess, or for consideration for this committee is, um, if no legislative action was taken or we linked up completely to the federal statute of 2020, you'd have people who would be essentially double dipping on their charitable deductions. Um, so they'd get $300 deduction worth, um, at the federal level, which would flow through to Vermont and then they would get our 5% charitable tax credit on top. So let's say someone gave $300 to charity, they would get deduct that from their income. Plus they would get 5% on top of that. Um, so that's another piece of action. Kind of thank you with the other ones. Another one that's a little bit more minute, but actually it was a pretty big federal, um, revenue impact was the, the ductibility of a business interest. So prior to the tax cuts and jobs act, um, businesses and tax cuts and jobs, that being the federal tax reform in 2017, um, and that affects us because the starting place for Vermont corporate income tax is federal corporate taxable income. Um, and so that change would affect us. Um, if we, there was no legislative action, however, I don't know what the side of the magnitude of that revenue impact was. And we don't know when they changed the tax, but we don't know. Um, what the side of the magnitude of that revenue impact was. And we don't know when they changed the law back in 2017. We did not estimate what the impact was there, but that's another, um, peace. And then I think the final piece is the deduction that, um, individuals can take if an employer pays for their student loans. So right now, if an employer pays your student loans as considered taxable income for you. Um, and what this did was for up until December 31st, 2020, an employer pays your student loan than that is considered. You get a deduction, um, from your, it's not considered taxable income. Um, and so if it's not considered taxable income, it doesn't calculate as part of gross income. So that would flow into Vermont. So I think largely those are the pieces that, um, I guess the committee is going to have to consider whether they want to take all of those or whether you want to just take some of them. Um, and then one more thing I just want to quickly add is on the payroll protection act, there's some on the payroll protection program. There's still some debate over whether a business can deduct the payroll expenses related to the actual program itself. So in normal times, a business will be able to deduct the wages they paid and the rent that they paid. However, if the IRS has said, if you take the payroll protection loan and use that money for those reasons, you are unable to deduct those expenses. And in Congress, they're sort of lobbying to get that changed. You'll also be able to deduct those things. So it's another potential area that the state might want to consider whether they want to, um, allow that sort of deductibility for payroll protection expenses. So that's sort of the quick overview of what I was going to talk about. A lot of super complicated things. Um, so, um, I'm not going to reset it all back because I don't think I put it all in completely. Um, but one thought I have, um, is that normally we do the link up looking back a year. Um, things are changing really rapidly. Um, and, uh, in Congress and a whole bunch of areas, including these tax code changes. And it, it feels to me risky to do any kind of link up for fiscal 20. Now, um, without knowing what we're going to end up linking up to. Um, I realize that we can link up to a specific provision, but it sounds like even some of those are changing, you know, the underlying elements are changing. Um, so that I've my own preferences to wait, but, um, I'm hoping to hearing others view Sam and Scott. Um, I realized that, uh, we just approved. Uh, in this, in the miscellaneous, this bill that we were going to do the annual link up. We're lost. 19. Cause we didn't do it last year. We always do it. Yeah. It's a little bit, I guess, but you link up the miscellaneous tax bill for the tax year previous. So it's just essentially covering last year's tax year. Yeah. So let's say if you wanted to cover, if you wanted to loop all these changes under Vermont, that code, or you want them to flow through, then, you know, next year you could pass the miscellaneous tax bill and just say, as of the federal statute of December 30. Um, And, um, you know, I think that would be helpful to you. That our times December 31st, 2020. And you would capture the mall. One of the things that we typically do in January and it usually doesn't make any some, some years it's, it's hugely impactful, but most times it doesn't make much difference at all is that we go through what the changes are that we're looking up to. Looking back the year. Um, And, um, You know, I think Abby helped us with that this year and. or it was Peter who would do that and just go through and say these are the, this is what, when you link up, this is what you're incorporating and this is, you know, these are where the decision points are and once in a while there's something we don't link up to, you know, we'll look at it and we say, no, we don't want to do it. Scott. Yeah, I would just echo what Janet said. I think we should be very, very cautious about linking up to any of this stuff. The feds have a printing press and the ability to borrow trillions of dollars. We don't have any of that. So we're going to adjourn because we need to go on the floor and I don't want to get people a momentary break. But this, what Graham has just gone through is complicated enough that we're going to listen to it again and have a chance to ask questions as we go through it a little more slowly. Tomorrow we're looking at ed finance, I believe, and so be prepared with your good ideas about what we can do, understanding that it doesn't look like we can use CARES Act money. So just be thinking about how to approach the problem, but I will see you all a little bit later, okay? I'm ending the live stream now.